You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin

[KenderKin]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

Jurisdiction another modern concept....

Great steaming piles of onions, no. Jurisdiction and arguments about who , even when they were nominally fellow vassals of the same overlord

Quote:

And as can be seen by the CRB in the paladin description they are categorized as "crusaders" by definition someone working outside of an areas governance, and "law-bringers" bringing law and order to places without it.....

... which, in turn, mean that if you wander into the Duke of Arglebargle's lands "bringing law and order" without you're likely to be killed as a peacebreaker, because he and only he has the rights of "high, middle, and low justice" on those lands. (Look up those terms if you like.)

Even the term "common law" reflects this. The term originated in England when Henry II established a set of laws overriding the traditional powers and privileges of the feudal barons, "common" because it was common across all of England (unlike, e.g., the Danelaw). He did this precisely to eliminate the kind of jurisdictional squabbles between petty barons that had plagued England since time immemorial (and that were particularly problematic in the wake of his somewhat controversial assension).

Or, in other words, "jurisdiction" has been an important concept in English common law since.....

An interesting legal history lesson, which proves nothing related to a fantasy game....

Crusaders by definition are operating outside of their recognized jurisdiction (geographically, politically, both?).... Look it up if you like..

Likewise law-bringers by definition is bringing law with them into a location where it is lacking.

[Hitdice]

I just with the OP had said "legal authority" instead of "actual authority."

[Ventnor]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Or that there's an investigator class...

Investigators don't actually have to investigate anything. There's no Investigator code of conduct that requires this.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Or that there's an investigator class...

There's a class named investigator, but that also doesn't grant police authority.

Which, again, is accurate. The detective literature is filled with amateur detectives getting the brush-off from the actual police in charge of an investigation, and the real world is similarly filled (usually with more justification). In most states, even the professional (licensed) private investigators have no more authority than any ordinary person. If I show up at a crime scene and flash my PI license at the local flatfoot,.... well, that and a few bucks gets me a latte.

At the Starbucks on the other side of the street, well outside the investigation zone.

You'll note that Sherlock Holmes -- who, by the standards of later detectives, enjoyed a very good relationship with the local police -- was very scrupulous to get an actual person from Scotland Yard in when he was about to confront the criminal and needed an arrest to be made.

[Orfamay Quest]

KenderKin wrote:

Crusaders by definition are operating outside of their recognized jurisdiction (geographically, politically, both?).... Look it up if you like..

Which doesn't mean that the local law enforcement is going to recognize the validity of their "crusade."

[QUOITE]
Likewise law-bringers by definition is bringing law with them into a location where it is lacking.

And again, the local law enforcement will not appreciate the implication that they don't exist or have no authority.

You do know what happened to "crusaders" when they were captured by the Islamic authorities, don't you?

[Ventnor]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

KenderKin wrote:

Crusaders by definition are operating outside of their recognized jurisdiction (geographically, politically, both?).... Look it up if you like..

Which doesn't mean that the local law enforcement is going to recognize the validity of their "crusade."

[QUOITE]
Likewise law-bringers by definition is bringing law with them into a location where it is lacking.

And again, the local law enforcement will not appreciate the implication that they don't exist or have no authority.

You do know what happened to "crusaders" when they were captured by the Islamic authorities, don't you?

Exactly what said "law-bringers" did to the Orthodox Christians they encountered, I reckon.

[David knott 242]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Now if they're high-born kids or otherwise connected, it might be a different story.

Though at that point, how likely are they going to be stealing bread anyway?

Hollywood seems to have a fair number of multi-millionaire actor types who have been caught shoplifting, so it is likelier than you might think.

[BackHandOfFate]

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

[Palinurus]

The heart of this discussion is, I think, I really interesting topic and (although I think I mostly disagree with the original poster) I'm glad they set out their position. Ultimately the correct answer depends on how you want to run your game.

When I run games set in fantasy worlds like Golarion I draw on my understanding of real world (European) history as an inspiration. Although I'm not a historian my reading is that religious and secular authorities had a complex and intriguing relationship. Members of the clergy had authority that derived from temporal, political, moral and in many case legal power. Canon law is the most obvious example, but even without a separate legal system being invoked there is no reason to think that an established church could not have huge latitude in how it conducted its affairs and how it interacted with the rest of the world.

So in my games a cleric or paladin could most definitely have legal authority in some situations - certainly when dealing with church matters (provided that the church in question was recognised or respected in that region). Several churches (Abadar, Sarenrae etc.) in Golarion would - in my view - have powers in relation to civil or criminal law within their remit - especially outside major cities. Exercising that authority is a little different from real history because there will often be more than one 'church' and because of the risk of divine intervention if a paladin or cleric doesn't behave appropriately.

Real history is a lot weirder in this regard than you might think. The poet Ben Jonson once killed someone in a duel, was charged with manslaughter, having sufficient scholarship to recite a bible verse managed to get tried under a form of canon law and escaped serious punishment (well, he was branded, but only on the thumb).

[Ventnor]

BackHandOfFate wrote:

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

[thejeff]

Palinurus wrote:

The heart of this discussion is, I think, I really interesting topic and (although I think I mostly disagree with the original poster) I'm glad they set out their position. Ultimately the correct answer depends on how you want to run your game.

When I run games set in fantasy worlds like Golarion I draw on my understanding of real world (European) history as an inspiration. Although I'm not a historian my reading is that religious and secular authorities had a complex and intriguing relationship. Members of the clergy had authority that derived from temporal, political, moral and in many case legal power. Canon law is the most obvious example, but even without a separate legal system being invoked there is no reason to think that an established church could not have huge latitude in how it conducted its affairs and how it interacted with the rest of the world.

So in my games a cleric or paladin could most definitely have legal authority in some situations - certainly when dealing with church matters (provided that the church in question was recognised or respected in that region). Several churches (Abadar, Sarenrae etc.) in Golarion would - in my view - have powers in relation to civil or criminal law within their remit - especially outside major cities. Exercising that authority is a little different from real history because there will often be more than one 'church' and because of the risk of divine intervention if a paladin or cleric doesn't behave appropriately.

Real history is a lot weirder in this regard than you might think. The poet Ben Jonson once killed someone in a duel, was charged with manslaughter, having sufficient scholarship to recite a bible verse managed to get tried under a form of canon law and escaped serious punishment (well, he was branded, but only on the thumb).

Of course, it's far more complicated when there isn't a single monotheistic religion, closely linked the state authorities.

Even the various Gods in PF/D&D aren't usually linked together in the same way that real world pantheons usually were.

[thejeff]

Ventnor wrote:

BackHandOfFate wrote:

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

But paladins aren't. Because they're still paladins.

You're certainly right in the real world, but this is a fantasy games with a hard control on corruption, at least among paladins. It's not that they always say they're "noble, altruistic, and HONEST", it's that they actually are "noble, altruistic, and HONEST." No excuses. No qualifiers.

[RigaMortus]

So just because I am a "Fighter" class, doesn't that mean I am limited to fighting and only fighting?

If I was a Cleric or Rogue, could I not fight? Do I have to dip 1 level into Fighter in order to "fight"?

lol this is a silly thread/topic...

[KenderKin]

Back to the player and DM must get on the same page and understanding from the beginning.

[BackHandOfFate]

Ventnor wrote:

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

While what you say is true, that assumes the Paladin is boastful about who he is. That may be how some choose to play the class, and it is decidedly pompous to do so. Paladins embody not only what it means to be lawful. They also embody what it means to be GOOD in a much heavier sense. That includes displaying an appropriate amount of humility, which is implied when a class is dedicated to putting others before themselves. True, a paladin may not shy away from the spotlight when it is shined on them. But, they do not seek that spotlight at the expense of others.

A paladin can say "I'm a Paladin." and easily prove it in some way without having to resort to being boastful and arrogant. Using lay on hand to heal the wounded, for example..

[Ventnor]

BackHandOfFate wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

While what you say is true, that assumes the Paladin is boastful about who he is. That may be how some choose to play the class, and it is decidedly pompous to do so. Paladins embody not only what it means to be lawful. They also embody what it means to be GOOD in a much heavier sense. That includes displaying an appropriate amount of humility, which is implied when a class is dedicated to putting others before themselves. True, a paladin may not shy away from the spotlight when it is shined on them. But, they do not seek that spotlight at the expense of others.

A paladin can say "I'm a Paladin." and easily prove it in some way without having to resort to being boastful and arrogant. Using lay on hand to heal the wounded, for example..

And if the Paladin has taken an archetype that trades away lay on hands?

[Charon's Little Helper]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I don't actually see anything about authority in there. I see a lot about restrictions about the paladin's behavior, but nothing --- literally nothing --- about either authority or public recognition. I see someone trying to be a boy scout, but not anything that suggests anyone else gives a hamster turd about it.

I never said that they had actual authority. I've said the opposite multiple times in this thread.

I just said that using basic logic, it's pretty obvious that a town guard would take that they were a paladin into account on the matter of whether or not to trust them.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Ventnor wrote:

BackHandOfFate wrote:

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

Which is great in the real world, but in Pathfinder, gods observably exist and bestow powers upon the noble-hearted that cannot in ANY WAY be accessed by the corrupt. The paladin doesn't think that they are a champion of goodness, they know they are, because a god of good (or a lawful one) bestowed power upon them in response to their purity of heart and oaths of altruism, justice, and so on. Some paladins are literally empowered by the IDEA OF GOOD ITSELF, which is utterly beyond reproach even if you're going to turn up your nose at the gods.

It's lawful EVIL individuals who boast about their own righteousness, because contrary to what you might have been taught, Lawful Evil is the alignment of the hypocritical bigot hiding corruption behind a pure appearance even if they sincerely believe themselves to be Lawful Good.

You cannot be good-aligned and not be a good person. Paladins are good aligned, and therefore have to remain good people or not be paladins at all anymore. That is the long and the short of it. People can be DELUDED about their alignment, but the paladin oath doesn't care what alignment you THINK you are. You only have your powers as long as you are Good.

[Ventnor]

I guess you could say that it breaks my immersion to have supposedly-good characters use a line of reasoning that inevitably (in my opinion, of course) leads to evil deeds.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Which is great in the real world, but in Pathfinder, gods observably exist and bestow powers upon the noble-hearted that cannot in ANY WAY be accessed by the corrupt.

There's an assumption of competence-of-recognition here that isn't borne out in system or in setting (although it is a valid way to play). If a paladin does some paladin schtick, like lay on hands, how does Susan the Poorly Educated know that that's a "paladin" thing rather than a "many priests do this" thing, or even a "razmiran sorceror" thing?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

If that isn't the biggest beacon of truth, justice, and the Lawful Good way this side of Silver Age Superman, I don't know what is.

Okay, BUT, if the knowledge of class abilities and limits does not exist on an IC cultural level, then the NPCs don't know that class-level paladins can be trusted, because they don't know who or what class-level paladins are.

There might well be IC paladins who are not class-level paladins. And they might be notoriously corrupt and commonly considered evil.

Basically, the "paladins are good so everyone trusts them" thing only works if the class label Paladin exists IC and characters can tell with significant reliability whether the characters they're interacting with are (class level) Paladins or not.

And running like that is totes legit. But running not like that is also totes legit.

[thejeff]

Ventnor wrote:

I guess you could say that it breaks my immersion to have supposedly-good characters use a line of reasoning that inevitably (in my opinion, of course) leads to evil deeds.

Arguably, it's not the paladins using the line of reasoning, but the people deciding to trust them.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Okay, BUT, if the knowledge of class abilities and limits does not exist on an IC cultural level, then the NPCs don't know that class-level paladins can be trusted, because they don't know who or what class-level paladins are.

Due to the code, there is inherent knowledge of it and therefore the existence of paladins who must follow it.

Due to the deity specific paladin codes - which are only for paladins and not other priests - those with Knowledge: Religion would inherently know about paladins as a class.

In addition, due to the existence of Spellcraft, a character with it would know about various spells, including ones which are paladin only. Those paladin only spells are associated only with those who follow said strict code of the paladin.

Possibly every Joe Schmoe doesn't know of paladins (though it seems far more likely that they'd know the gist) but anyone with decent Spellcraft or Knowledge: Religion would.

[Charon's Little Helper]

thejeff wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

I guess you could say that it breaks my immersion to have supposedly-good characters use a line of reasoning that inevitably (in my opinion, of course) leads to evil deeds.

Arguably, it's not the paladins using the line of reasoning, but the people deciding to trust them.

That reminds me of a description of Michael Carpenter from The Dresden Files (possibly the best fleshed out example of a paladin in fiction).

Grave Peril wrote:

"...He's a righteous man."

"He seemed nice enough to me."

"No, not self-righteous. Righteous. The real deal. He's honest, loyal, faithful. He lives his ideals. It gives him power."

Susan frowned. "He looked average enough. I'd have expected ... I'm not sure. Something. A different attitude."

"That's because he's humble too," I said. "If you asked him if he was righteous, he'd laugh at the idea. I guess that's part of it. I've never met anyone like him. He's a good man."

[GM Rednal]

Yeah, Michael Carpenter is a pretty solid example of what a Paladin might look like. ^^ You could do far worse than using him as inspiration.

That said, at least on Golarion, I think the existence of Paladins is relatively well-known. They have a school for (some of) them in Absalom, and they've presumably been fighting demons at the Worldwound for quiiiite some time now. Normal guys who returned home after serving there for awhile probably had plenty of stories to share about holy warriors who could heal injuries, crush demons, and so on. They're probably more well-known than most classes would be.

[Quandary]

Blah, blah... Yeah, so what about Paladins of Asmodeus? >8-)

[The Raven Black]

Quandary wrote:

Blah, blah... Yeah, so what about Paladins of Asmodeus? >8-)

No better than the others I guess

[Qaianna]

Paladins do NOT get to have authority just for class levels. Otherwise anyone would be able to join the nobility just by picking up a level in ARISTOCRAT.

As far as actual in-character reasons? Again ... first, the paladin would need to be granted secular authority. Dame Purity may be all about the LG, never lies, and pretty much inspires all the squires ... but does that mean she's allowed, or even TRAINED, to be a figure of authority? Especially if she was trained in some of these paladin training programmes (read: build guides) I've seen where they come out at first level with Int 7, Wis 7, and one lousy skill point parked hopefully in Knowledge (Religion). Still, she's also been trained that you respect the authority where you go.

She hangs out in Absalom. Pretty multicultural, she wears all her holy symbols. City watch GETS TO KNOW HER, and realises she's allright, if a bit dim. She busts two kids shoplifting, uses reasonable force, and the watch likely takes her word for it. Maybe a rookie on the force just sees her dashing around and questions her but others who can vouch for her would say she's fine. After all, when she's done patrolling the crowd, she's putting on a show for the kids.

(And in this case ... is Purity a paladin or a bard? Mwahahaha.)

[Lorila Sorita]

I noticed that this is a fairly common for some players to get in trouble in town because of stuff like this. Outside of towns players do have a kind of authority. A might makes right type of authority. This is a real power players have, because they are strong and can overcome a lot of people through might. This is historical and realistic power that people carrying a lot of weapons have.

And I notice that a lot of people do take advantage of these powers. They loot abandoned areas with no regard to actual property rights. If they find a wagon on the side of the road, it's theirs if they want it. They will kill people they come across for many reasons. Not always just out of self defense, and some times even in self defense they will chase people down. What might be legal in self defense may be a grey area if you chase down a bandit over 500 feet to murder him then steal all his equipment.

Some times they have difficulties adjusting when in town, where the laws are more strict though. I have seen many players do something which they would get away with if they were in the wilderness, but in town it causes them a huge amount of problems.

I would say often this is because players are trouble makers, or not thinking. However it is also possible a player could actually not know what is acceptable because the rules change based off their locations. Being high on the authority strength gives them makes them think they are hotshots and so they apply the same attitude while in town. In a way it might even be in character for people to think like that. They are adventurers living the rough life, some guy talks smack at a tavern, well teach him a lesson!

In this case, in regards to paladins, it depends a lot on the setting and the situation. Even if a paladin has no legal authority if their god is well respected in a town they might get extra leeway. Commonly local hero types get a lot of leeway as well. If a specific god or temple rules over an area, just being a paladin might default them authority. However it isn't really assumed.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Due to the code, there is inherent knowledge of it and therefore the existence of paladins who must follow it.

I'm afraid that doesn't actually follow. A person might follow a code and not be a class-levels Paladin. Cavaliers, for example. Or less seriously: Pirates.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

In addition, due to the existence of Spellcraft, a character with it would know about various spells, including ones which are paladin only. Those paladin only spells are associated only with those who follow said strict code of the paladin.

Again, that doesn't necessarily follow. I might know that that spell is only given to the favoured of specific deities, but that doesn't mean I understand the mechanics of falling. It also doesn't mean I know they follow a code.

And even if I understand everything about the class, that doesn't mean there will be general education in a country, especially if that deity is unknown or out of favour.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Possibly every Joe Schmoe doesn't know of paladins (though it seems far more likely that they'd know the gist)

Maybe. But: Cheliax, Razmiran, Rahadoum, or Taldor (for paladins of Sarenrae).

Even outside of that, there's a lot of deities in Golarion. Even if you know class-levels Paladins exist, are you really going to trust that the favoured servant of one that you've never heard of is actually a class-levels Paladin with a code rather than a warpriest or even antipaladin? That seems unwise.

Finally, the more social kudos there is in being a paladin, the more fakers and non-class-levels paladins there will be. And then you're back to asking each and every one of them to prove it using some divine power, and trying to pass a spellcraft check.

(which incidentally gives me an idea for a Razmiran priest Eldritch Knight)

So yeah, I think it totally reasonable to play a game where the concept of paladins as LG and trustworthy exists IC. However, I also think it reasonable not to.

[KenderKin]

Now moving to disagreements

#1 over whether or not such a title or label of paladin even exists in the game world

and

#2 Whether or not the paladin would be known/respected by the common descent folk....(if he exists!)

[The Raven Black]

Lorila Sorita wrote:

I noticed that this is a fairly common for some players to get in trouble in town because of stuff like this. Outside of towns players do have a kind of authority. A might makes right type of authority. This is a real power players have, because they are strong and can overcome a lot of people through might. This is historical and realistic power that people carrying a lot of weapons have.

And I notice that a lot of people do take advantage of these powers. They loot abandoned areas with no regard to actual property rights. If they find a wagon on the side of the road, it's theirs if they want it. They will kill people they come across for many reasons. Not always just out of self defense, and some times even in self defense they will chase people down. What might be legal in self defense may be a grey area if you chase down a bandit over 500 feet to murder him then steal all his equipment.

Some times they have difficulties adjusting when in town, where the laws are more strict though. I have seen many players do something which they would get away with if they were in the wilderness, but in town it causes them a huge amount of problems.

I would say often this is because players are trouble makers, or not thinking. However it is also possible a player could actually not know what is acceptable because the rules change based off their locations. Being high on the authority strength gives them makes them think they are hotshots and so they apply the same attitude while in town. In a way it might even be in character for people to think like that. They are adventurers living the rough life, some guy talks smack at a tavern, well teach him a lesson!

In this case, in regards to paladins, it depends a lot on the setting and the situation. Even if a paladin has no legal authority if their god is well respected in a town they might get extra leeway. Commonly local hero types get a lot of leeway as well. If a specific god or temple rules over an area, just being a paladin might default them authority....

I think there is also a lack of realism from some GMs who do not realize how a VERY powerful character would actually be treated in a settlement. NPCs should not treat 10+-level characters with the same kind of disdain that they give to 1st-level ones. And the GM should treat PCs accordingly.

This might stem from the METEORITIC rise in power that most PCs know during a campaign / AP, that often gives the setting and NPCs very little time to adjust.

In a world where magic abounds, a guards' patrol should include someone who can Detect Magic as a cantrip, if only to know which strangers are too powerful to deal with and when to call in the local big guns. "This guy has a magic sword" is already a good clue. "This party is brimming with magic" even moreso.

I am now entertaining thoughts of having the local militia periodically reinforced by local powerhouses doing their civic duty :-))

[Tectorman]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Okay, BUT, if the knowledge of class abilities and limits does not exist on an IC cultural level, then the NPCs don't know that class-level paladins can be trusted, because they don't know who or what class-level paladins are.

Due to the code, there is inherent knowledge of it and therefore the existence of paladins who must follow it.

Due to the deity specific paladin codes - which are only for paladins and not other priests - those with Knowledge: Religion would inherently know about paladins as a class.

In addition, due to the existence of Spellcraft, a character with it would know about various spells, including ones which are paladin only. Those paladin only spells are associated only with those who follow said strict code of the paladin.

Possibly every Joe Schmoe doesn't know of paladins (though it seems far more likely that they'd know the gist) but anyone with decent Spellcraft or Knowledge: Religion would.

Regarding the generic code or the deity-specific codes, who is that material written for, the Paladin character or the player of said character? IMO, the character only following the code to avoid the stick of losing his shiny powers isn't behaving goodly for the right reasons. Were there zero benefit for keeping to his code or zero penalty for dropping his code, a true beacon of good will keep to doing the right thing anyway because it's the right thing to do. The code of conduct in this case isn't written for the character (who will behave that way anyway), but for the player, to know what sort of beacon of righteousness his character is supposed to be. I.e., the code is 100% OOC knowledge.

Regarding Spellcraft, it only lets you identify the spell, not whose class list it's on.

[The Sword]

Revan wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

The problem with this is that people have a very "modern" version of how law enforcement works that isn't very compatible with a more Golarion-esque medieval/Renaissance world. The idea of a professional "standing" police force is not super realistic; law enforcement was very DIY in those times - apprehending a criminal and taking them to a judge was indeed your responsibility, and sometimes expected of you (see hue-and-cry laws, tithings, and other real medieval legal enforcement techniques).

So while I understand where you're coming from and the kind of behavior you want to curb and why... I'm afraid history isn't really on your side.

So far as it goes, pretty much every city detailed in Golarion *does* have a standing police force, be they called the Watch, the Guard, the Militia, or the Dottari...

There is a big difference between a town watch and a modern law enforcement agency, be it police or otherwise.

Town watches were made of private individual primarily paid to protect property (of the town elites) there were very inconsistent in range and scope. The most organized was the London metropolitan police but that didn't get going until the 18th C onwards, and then it was only to resolve a very limited reach.

Of course you can run you fantasy town watch like some MI5 elite organization but then I would question why you need adventurers. Much better to play them as fairly underpaid and uninterested guards, who take healthy bribes and would much prefer to be sitting having a cuppa in the watch house. After all, how can a couple of dozen guards successfully patrol a town of 5,000 people and who pays for it?

Private citizens were still responsible for bringing people to justice themselves. If they have a powerful Organisation behind them, even local nobility are unlikely to interfere unless it is in their interests to do so.

[Orfamay Quest]

The Sword wrote:

Revan wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

The problem with this is that people have a very "modern" version of how law enforcement works that isn't very compatible with a more Golarion-esque medieval/Renaissance world. The idea of a professional "standing" police force is not super realistic; law enforcement was very DIY in those times - apprehending a criminal and taking them to a judge was indeed your responsibility, and sometimes expected of you (see hue-and-cry laws, tithings, and other real medieval legal enforcement techniques).

So while I understand where you're coming from and the kind of behavior you want to curb and why... I'm afraid history isn't really on your side.

So far as it goes, pretty much every city detailed in Golarion *does* have a standing police force, be they called the Watch, the Guard, the Militia, or the Dottari...

There is a big difference between a town watch and a modern law enforcement agency, be it police or otherwise.

Town watches were made of private individual primarily paid to protect property (of the town elites) there were very inconsistent in range and scope. The most organized was the London metropolitan police but that didn't get going until the 18th C onwards, and then it was only to resolve a very limited reach.

Of course you can run you fantasy town watch like some MI5 elite organization but then I would question why you need adventurers. Much better to play them as fairly underpaid and uninterested guards, who take healthy bribes and would much prefer to be sitting having a cuppa in the watch house. After all, how can a couple of dozen guards successfully patrol a town of 5,000 people and who pays for it?

Private citizens were still responsible for bringing people to justice themselves. If they have a powerful Organisation behind them, even local nobility are unlikely to interfere unless it is in their interests to do so.

Wrong. This gets back to the This Is My Jurisdiction argument that is as old as society.

[KenderKin]

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace, since in the feudal areas of Japan the commoners knew not to question or interfere with the samurai's authority...

Realistically no commoner is going to disagree very heartily against a person who wields great power.

I got my torch and pitchfork hey that guy is covered in steel and has a huge sword....I like my chances, I need to point out that he is so wrong....nope I think I will head back to the pub.....he killed a dragon, well I can take him....

I guess this is a whole realistic, historic, magic is real, fantasy, quagmire that has no right answer.....

Save one

Spoiler:

The DM and player have to communicate with each other for this game to be successful

[The Sword]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

The Sword wrote:

Revan wrote:

Ernest Mueller wrote:

The problem with this is that people have a very "modern" version of how law enforcement works that isn't very compatible with a more Golarion-esque medieval/Renaissance world. The idea of a professional "standing" police force is not super realistic; law enforcement was very DIY in those times - apprehending a criminal and taking them to a judge was indeed your responsibility, and sometimes expected of you (see hue-and-cry laws, tithings, and other real medieval legal enforcement techniques).

So while I understand where you're coming from and the kind of behavior you want to curb and why... I'm afraid history isn't really on your side.

So far as it goes, pretty much every city detailed in Golarion *does* have a standing police force, be they called the Watch, the Guard, the Militia, or the Dottari...

There is a big difference between a town watch and a modern law enforcement agency, be it police or otherwise.

Town watches were made of private individual primarily paid to protect property (of the town elites) there were very inconsistent in range and scope. The most organized was the London metropolitan police but that didn't get going until the 18th C onwards, and then it was only to resolve a very limited reach.

Of course you can run you fantasy town watch like some MI5 elite organization but then I would question why you need adventurers. Much better to play them as fairly underpaid and uninterested guards, who take healthy bribes and would much prefer to be sitting having a cuppa in the watch house. After all, how can a couple of dozen guards successfully patrol a town of 5,000 people and who pays for it?

Private citizens were still responsible for bringing people to justice themselves. If they have a powerful Organisation behind them, even local nobility are unlikely to interfere unless it is in their interests to do so.

Wrong. This gets back to the This Is My Jurisdiction argument that is as old...

Not wrong, I'm halfway through a masters degree in history and the first third was on the history of policing.

The simple fact is 'justice'as we know it' was not accessible to the majority of common folk through any organised authority in the Middle Ages. I recently spent several days looking through archives of the quarter assizes for our county - essentially the only proper trials common folk received (we had records for 17th C onwards ) time and time again private citizens (unusually the victim and family) had brought the accused to justice. You see the same in the records of the Old Bailey which are available online. Incidentally there was no prosecution service, private individuals brought the prosecutions. One local constable for Stafford in the 1700's was also a cobbler, another was a baker. These were private individuals that made a bit of money on the side by dealing with disputes over borders and property. I recommend reading Crime and Justice by Godfrey and Lawrence 2005 for a concise description of four hundred years of policing. And Clive Emsley for a description of the continental equivalents.

[The Sword]

Incidentally the majority of Golarion that I have seen so far is not feudal Orfamy, far more adventures take place in cities and towns than in rural villages with observant local lords. Most of the lands I have seen also don't fit the feudal model you might see in a traditional fantasy so your description of jurisdictional authority isn't whole applicable to discussion of authorities in this setting.

[Orfamay Quest]

The Sword wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Private citizens were still responsible for bringing people to justice themselves. If they have a powerful Organisation behind them, even local nobility are unlikely to interfere unless it is in their interests to do so.

Wrong. This gets back to the This Is My Jurisdiction argument that is as old as society.

Not wrong, I'm halfway through a masters degree in history and the first third was on the history of policing.

I'm very sorry for you, then.

Quote:

The simple fact is 'justice'as we know it' was not accessible to the majority of common folk through any organised authority in the Middle Ages.

This is true, but not especially relevant, because it's not the population at large that has jurisdictional arguments, but the various authorities that are scrambling for supremacy in order to extend their power. By allowing someone else to come in and enforce justice in your area, you're losing face and appearing weak.

Quote:

Incidentally the majority of Golarion that I have seen so far is not feudal Orfamy, far more adventures take place in cities and towns than in rural villages with observant local lords. Most of the lands I have seen also don't fit the feudal model you might see in a traditional fantasy.

Again, true, but not relevant. The town burghers are not going to like it (and aren't going to happily submit) when a band of wandering adventurers decides to "bring law and order" to their particular town -- which already has all the law and order it wants, thank you very much. They wouldn't like it if it were an organized church, either (town vs. gown jurisdictional disputes also predate the formalization of common law).

Basically, once someone rolls into town and says "All right, I'm a paladin of Arglebargle, and I'm going to enforce the laws here," there's literally nothing more she can say that will repair the damage she's already done to her relations with the existing head of law enforcement, even if the head of law enforcement happened to be another paladin.

[Orfamay Quest]

KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

[citation needed] <roll eyes>

[KenderKin]

We only need to cite history if we believe that history is a credible source of information for a fantasy game. I get that you appeal to history as your authority, but really it has no more validity than any other sources.

Sadly in history magic, mythical beasts, paladins/clerics, magic users and dungeons were vastly less common......so the real life historical records do neither define nor limit the fantasy realm...in other words has as much or as little bearing as individuals want it to have....

rolls eyes back

[The Sword]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the party sets themselves as an alternative law enforcement agency.

Karl the baker says his daughter was kidnapped and the adventuring party tracks her down to the cult meeting in the cellars beneath a local inn, killing several of them and rescuing the daughter. The party aren't stepping on anyones jurisdiction because that is not what a Town Watch did.

Local authorities that investigate and 'solve crimes' as we know it did not exist except the rarest cases until the modern police force evolved in the 19th C. The closest widespread example I can think of were the witch hunters that tracked down and investigated those accused how narrow spectrum of criminality this was and they were often funded by religious institutions and private individuals.

As per my post earlier, you CAN design your fantasy to watch to be super efficient and organised. I prefer to save the investigation and heroics for my PCs except for the odd entanglement with the law.

I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes view of policing, where the watch generally get in the way, arrive too late and end up paying the party to deal with the things they can't. In fact Sherlock Holmes is a great example of a private citizen with no authority who still gets stuff done!

[Lorila Sorita]

KenderKin wrote:

Now moving to disagreements

#1 over whether or not such a title or label of paladin even exists in the game world

and

#2 Whether or not the paladin would be known/respected by the common descent folk....(if he exists!)

I would say paladin is a term similar to knight. It is an actual title/position, but if you see a big person in heavy armor you might call them a knight even if they technically are not. So in a way it is a label and a title.

For the second part, I say it depends. There are a lot of gods and different beliefs so people could have widely different views on your religion, or moral code. I would say most people would respect all adventurers to a degree just because they are afraid of them. People are probably afraid of a lot of paladins too.

[thejeff]

The Sword wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the party sets themselves as an alternative law enforcement agency.

Karl the baker says his daughter was kidnapped and the adventuring party tracks her down to the cult meeting in the cellars beneath a local inn, killing several of them and rescuing the daughter. The party aren't stepping on anyones jurisdiction because that is not what a Town Watch did.

Local authorities that investigate and 'solve crimes' as we know it did not exist except the rarest cases until the modern police force evolved in the 19th C. The closest widespread example I can think of were the witch hunters that tracked down and investigated those accused how narrow spectrum of criminality this was and they were often funded by religious institutions and private individuals.

But is that how the fantasy world works? Strict historical simulation this game is not.

Sandpoint, for example, has a Sheriff, who does deal with crimes. And a Mayor, who may well be elected, since it's apparently not a hereditary post. No ruling lord to whom the town owes fealty either.

Even in a more historically accurate setting, while there may well be no authorities that investigate and 'solve crimes', there are authorities who dispense justice. That will at least in some cases involve investigating, though it's mostly ruling on accusations and complaints. Still, when there is some kind of ongoing problem there will be a demand for it to be dealt with and the local authorities will have to deal with it.
They may delegate problems to wandering adventurers, which is a common RPG trope, but they may also not be well disposed to such outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble, even in the name of "justice".

[KenderKin]

thejeff wrote:

"The Sword wrote:

Stuff

But is that how the fantasy world works? Strict historical simulation this game is not.

That's what I said!

[Orfamay Quest]

The Sword wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the party sets themselves as an alternative law enforcement agency.

Goodness, that's exactly what's being suggested. From the OP: Having levels of Inquisitor doesn't give you the ability to walk onto a murder scene and start ordering around NPCs like you're a watch detective, for example. Being a paladin doesn't automatically make you a recognized secular authority like a sheriff.

Quote:

Karl the baker says his daughter was kidnapped and the adventuring party tracks her down to the cult meeting in the cellars beneath a local inn, killing several of them and rescuing the daughter. The party aren't stepping on anyones jurisdiction because that is not what a Town Watch did.

Once again, true, but not relevant. The local authorities may not have "solve[d] crimes," but they did arrest wrongdoers and make decisions about their dispositions. Even that's not quite correct; they did in fact, perform cursory investigations to determine who the criminal was -- this was the function of the coroner in England/Wales, and of the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. Scandinavia and the Germanies had similar systems under a different name, dating back to the 9th century. The basic idea is that when a death occurred-- either witnessed, or a body was found -- people would try and figure out what happened, but there was (and still is) a possibility of an open verdict, either "death by unknown causes" or possibly something like "murder by person or person's unknown," (when you find a body with a knife between its ribs.)

Continuing that example,.... if someone recognizes the knife as belonging to Snug the Joiner, then the coroner would send the reeve around to arrest Mr. Snug and put him on trial. That was, in fact, the primary job of the reeve; enforcing orders of an appropriate authority -- and this authority and responsibility was guarded jealously.

If no one recognized the knife, the coroner would probably return an open verdict, and the matter would be dropped unless someone had lots of time on their hands or new evidence suddenly appeared. (Or unless someone decided to frame someone and send the reeves around to Snug the Joiner anyway.... I won't pretend that Anglo-Saxon justice was administered by angels.)

Quote:

In fact Sherlock Holmes is a great example of a private citizen with no authority who still gets stuff done!

Yes, and I mentioned him earlier. He's a great paladin -- but he has no authority whatsoever and doesn't pretend to have. He never makes arrests, and he rarely even speaks to the actual criminal without a law enforcement officer present. Our hypothetical Sherlock would do what the local authorities hadn't bothered to do -- for example, track down the blacksmith who made the knife and learn who he had sold it to -- and then speak to the coroner and let the actual machinery of justice take its course.

[The Sword]

There have always been magistrates - call they sheriffs, magistrates, reeves, justices of peace whatever. However while they may be able to pass judgement they are only one person. They rely on other people to enforce/investigate/bring to justice the people they seek.

This worked in a rural situation where crime was low and everybody knew every other person in the village and nobody ever moved about. People solved their own problems in most cases. In towns it was different - exponentially more people, constantly changing.

Judgement does not mean investigation and generally eyewitness testimony was the order of the day. Forensics was unheard of and more often than not testimony rather than evidence was used.

In Sandpoint the sheriff is under resourced and under equipped to deal with the problems he faces. That's why he needs the party to do the investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice. Historically local constables would sometimes be appointed against there will and would be fined for not keeping the peace. Sometimes they would need to pay people to help them rather than them be fined.

This fits quite nicely with the adventuring party idea - particularly in a fantasy world where threats could be far more perilous than anything historically accurate.

I take issue with this idea that adventuring parties can't act because they might step on the authority's toes - they may have no more authority than any other citizen - but they are filling a void, not stepping on someone else's toes. If there is a dirty job that needs doing someone's got to do it!

[GM Rednal]

I usually have things on a sliding scale. Large cities (like, say, Absalom) are more likely to have a large, well-organized peacekeeping force that works to keep crime down, investigates trouble, and generally keeps the area safe. Small towns and hamlets might have a respected local farmer who looks into things on the rare occasions there's a problem, by virtue of the town agreeing someone ought to do it. XD And maybe a couple of boys trained as militia, but who usually do other things.

Notably lawful regions are more likely to have guards. Chaotic nations are more likely to have people take justice into their own hands. And so on and so forth. XD

[Orfamay Quest]

The Sword wrote:

There have always been magistrates - call they sheriffs, magistrates, reeves, justices of peace whatever. However while they may be able to pass judgement they are only one person. They rely on other people to enforce/investigate/bring to justice the people they seek.

Actually,.... no, the sheriffs and reeves were not the magistrates. They were the official, authorized, appointed -- did I say official yet? -- people upon whom the actual magistrates relied.

And the reeves got really annoyed when civilians started taking matters into their own hands -- as, of course, is only human.

Quote:

In Sandpoint the sheriff is under resourced and under equipped to deal with the problems he faces. That's why he needs the party to do the investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice. Historically local constables would sometimes be appointed against there will and would be fined for not keeping the peace. Sometimes they would need to pay people to help them rather than them be fined.

Right. It's the sheriff's decision to bring people in and to appoint them to work, under his authority and supervision. That's entirely different from a paladin rolling in and setting himself up as a cop.

Quote:

I take issue with this idea that adventuring parties can't act because they might step on the authority's toes - they may have no more authority than any other citizen - but they are filling a void, not stepping on someone else's toes.

Not when there's an actual reeve or sheriff doing his job.

[thejeff]

The Sword wrote:

There have always been magistrates - call they sheriffs, magistrates, reeves, justices of peace whatever. However while they may be able to pass judgement they are only one person. They rely on other people to enforce/investigate/bring to justice the people they seek.

This worked in a rural situation where crime was low and everybody knew every other person in the village and nobody ever moved about. People solved their own problems in most cases. In towns it was different - exponentially more people, constantly changing.

Judgement does not mean investigation and generally eyewitness testimony was the order of the day. Forensics was unheard of and more often than not testimony rather than evidence was used.

In Sandpoint the sheriff is under resourced and under equipped to deal with the problems he faces. That's why he needs the party to do the investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice. Historically local constables would sometimes be appointed against there will and would be fined for not keeping the peace. Sometimes they would need to pay people to help them rather than them be fined.

This fits quite nicely with the adventuring party idea - particularly in a fantasy world where threats could be far more perilous than anything historically accurate.

I take issue with this idea that adventuring parties have no authority - they don't - at least no more than any other citizen - but they are filling a void, not stepping on someone else's toes. If there is a dirty job that needs doing someone's got to do it!

Yes and no. They may well be stepping on someone's toes, if whoever's responsible in the area doesn't want them mucking about. Quite often, they are hired or otherwise asked to help out, by said authorities. In cases where they're not, they may well be perceived as interlopers - or even threats, if the authority is corrupt, incompetent or just insecure.

Most of those officials you list weren't just law enforcement officials, but rulers or managers. They'd have some authority to pass judgment, but mostly they ran whatever was under their authority, much the same as a lord or a mayor or a king would. That's actually the distinction that makes Sandpoint structured more modernly - the sheriff is separate from the mayor and has a role much more like a modern sheriff (or at least an old West sheriff - handle outlaws and Indian trouble, at least until the cavalry shows up.)

[Tacticslion]

KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:

[citation needed] <roll eyes>

First page, my dude.