Doesn't the church of Abadar have a spell that should have prevented false accusations?Yes. Adabar's Truthtelling. Inner Sea Gods, page 228. I know this because I just recently bought the book and had it on hand. Unless they weren't Abadaran Clerics. Imposters are always a possibility.
...Or the GM doesn't have that resource or know of the spell. Not everything is a conspiracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The punching of a pickpocket is not grounds for punishing the paladin with losing his class features, child or not. Many cultures, even ones the paladin class is envisioned from would not look askance at chopping off a hand of a thief, child or not.And there's many cultures where slavery is perfectly acceptable to most of the populace. And something that may have originally inspired the Paladin class being okay with tht way of dealing with thieves is completely irrelevant to the actual Paladin class itself.
Punching a pickpocket to get your stuff back? Meh.
Chopping a hand off? F@$~ no.
Yes, and if slavery is acceptable, then the lawful paladin has no authority to prevent it. Along that same line if chopping off of a hand is the lawfull punishment for theft, then the lawful paladin is obliged to meet out that punishment to transgressors.
A lawful good paladin, upon encountering unjust laws does not take the law into his own hands, for he does not have that authority, but instead works within the confines of the law to make it more merciful. When encountering slavery, the lawful good paladin buys the slaves and then releases them (as an example).
Punching the miscreant even lethally could have been the most merciful option afforded to him, given the circumstances.
|
The punching of a pickpocket is not grounds for punishing the paladin with losing his class features, child or not. Many cultures, even ones the paladin class is envisioned from would not look askance at chopping off a hand of a thief, child or not.And there's many cultures where slavery is perfectly acceptable to most of the populace. And something that may have originally inspired the Paladin class being okay with tht way of dealing with thieves is completely irrelevant to the actual Paladin class itself.
Punching a pickpocket to get your stuff back? Meh.
Chopping a hand off? F@$~ no.
Yes, and if slavery is acceptable, then the lawful paladin has no authority to prevent it. Along that same line if chopping off of a hand is the lawfull punishment for theft, then the lawful paladin is obliged to meet out that punishment to transgressors.
A lawful good paladin, upon encountering unjust laws does not take the law into his own hands, for he does not have that authority, but instead works within the confines of the law to make it more merciful. When encountering slavery, the lawful good paladin buys the slaves and then releases them (as an example).
Punching the miscreant even lethally could have been the most merciful option afforded to him, given the circumstances.
The f%!+ they do.
Paladins are Lawful GOOD.
If a Paladin encounters a slaver they could buy the slaves and let them go, or smite the slaver and set the slaves free. As with stealing a Paladin is under absolutely no obligation to mutilate people just because it's the law. There's a difference between Law and laws.
A Paladin need only respect what they view as Legimate Authority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The f%%% they do.
Paladins are Lawful GOOD.
If a Paladin encounters a slaver they could buy the slaves and let them go, or smite the slaver and set the slaves free. As with stealing a Paladin is under absolutely no obligation to mutilate people just because it's the law. There's a difference between Law and laws.
A Paladin need only respect what they view as Legimate Authority.
If the law of the land is that slavery is within the law, then the Paladin would be guilty of murder and theft for smiting the slaver.
The law is what a lawful paladin follows. Good is what tempers justice with mercy.
Both are equally important.
What you are describing is chaotic good, not Lawful Good.
If the paladin is the arbiter of what is and is not a legitimate authority, then that is nothing but chaos, as all persons views of legitimacy are different.
Again, chaotic good, vs Lawful good.
Madokar: Exactly. In the war that Paladins are waging vs. evil, incentives matter. If you stop attacking because the perpetrator is a child, then evil will use children to gain a foothold (or the perception of children).
|
|
The f%%% they do.
Paladins are Lawful GOOD.
If a Paladin encounters a slaver they could buy the slaves and let them go, or smite the slaver and set the slaves free. As with stealing a Paladin is under absolutely no obligation to mutilate people just because it's the law. There's a difference between Law and laws.
A Paladin need only respect what they view as Legimate Authority.
If the law of the land is that slavery is within the law, then the Paladin would be guilty of murder and theft for smiting the slaver.
The law is what a lawful paladin follows. Good is what tempers justice with mercy.
Both are equally important.
What you are describing is chaotic good, not Lawful Good.
If the paladin is the arbiter of what is and is not a legitimate authority, then that is nothing but chaos, as all persons views of legitimacy are different.
Again, chaotic good, vs Lawful good.
Madokar: Exactly. In the war that Paladins are waging vs. evil, incentives matter. If you stop attacking because the perpetrator is a child, then evil will use children to gain a foothold (or the perception of children).
Guilty by man made laws, the same that support slavery, but not by their Deity's tenants and they certainly wouldn't fall for it.
Paladins only follow what they view as legitimate authority, they do not have to follow laws just because they are laws.
Opposing unjust laws doesn't automatically make you Chaotic, and you don't have to be Chaotic to oppose unjust laws, you very much can be Lawful.
You claim the Good part of the Paladin'a alignment makes them merciful, while also saying they must abide by slavery and mutilation. If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.
A Paladin is perfectly capable of deciding what they view is legimate authority and what isn't, it's called free will, they aren't not slaves to laws and don't blindly follow someone just because they are in charge of some place.
|
|
The punching of a pickpocket is not grounds for punishing the paladin with losing his class features, child or not. Many cultures, even ones the paladin class is envisioned from would not look askance at chopping off a hand of a thief, child or not.And there's many cultures where slavery is perfectly acceptable to most of the populace. And something that may have originally inspired the Paladin class being okay with tht way of dealing with thieves is completely irrelevant to the actual Paladin class itself.
Punching a pickpocket to get your stuff back? Meh.
Chopping a hand off? F@$~ no.
Yes, and if slavery is acceptable, then the lawful paladin has no authority to prevent it. Along that same line if chopping off of a hand is the lawfull punishment for theft, then the lawful paladin is obliged to meet out that punishment to transgressors.
A lawful good paladin, upon encountering unjust laws does not take the law into his own hands, for he does not have that authority, but instead works within the confines of the law to make it more merciful. When encountering slavery, the lawful good paladin buys the slaves and then releases them (as an example).
Punching the miscreant even lethally could have been the most merciful option afforded to him, given the circumstances.
The f!$% they do.
Paladins are Lawful GOOD.
If a Paladin encounters a slaver they could buy the slaves and let them go, or smite the slaver and set the slaves free. As with stealing a Paladin is under absolutely no obligation to mutilate people just because it's the law. There's a difference between Law and laws.
A Paladin need only respect what they view as Legimate Authority.
That's called Chaotic Good.
Paizo doesn't support that type of Paladin.
No, that's called Good.
Guilty by man made laws, the same that support slavery, but not by their Deity's tenants and they certainly wouldn't fall for it.
Unless the Deity's church is the lawful authority in the lands the Paladin travels, doing the Deity's bidding contrary to the laws of the established ruler makes the Paladin the scoundrel, not the slaver.
If the slaver was a declared worshipper of Iomedae or some other lawful and good deity that opposes slavery, then the Paladin would be justified in smiting, as the slaver in question would be not only breaking the law but also performing an evil act. That would be justification enough to smite.
Now, if there was a declared state of war between a kingdom where the deity's church was the authority and the slaver's kingdom, or the Paladin has a Letter of Mark for such activity, then that is another story.
Once again, the Paladin must follow the law. Established rules of conduct. He can't simply go around pinging people with his detect evil and smiting them at will.
Paladins only follow what they view as legitimate authority, they do not have to follow laws just because they are laws.
Yes, they do.
Opposing unjust laws doesn't automatically make you Chaotic, and you don't have to be Chaotic to oppose unjust laws, you very much can be Lawful.
No, opposing unjust laws does not make one chaotic -- chaos is in how you perform that opposition. In a land (see above) where slavery is the established law, the Paladin cannot go around and smite people who are simply following the law, however unjust.
You claim the Good part of the Paladin'a alignment makes them merciful, while also saying they must abide by slavery and mutilation. If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.
No, that is not what I said. I said that they must oppose the law within the confines of the law -- see above.
A Paladin is perfectly capable of deciding what they view is legimate authority and what isn't, it's called free will, they aren't not slaves to laws and don't blindly follow someone just because they are in charge of some place.
They must recognize all legitimate authority and they, as followers, do not have the authority to un-recognize any legitimate authority just because. That simply fosters anarchy.
The law is not tantamount to being right. That's what makes the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. Any paladin worth their salt should choose the GOOD option when forced into a choice to be Lawful or to be Good.
With a little forethought and imagination, there should be no "forcing" to choose between what is lawful and what is Good. See the letters of mark, etc for smiting slavers, etc. As long as there is permission from a legitimate authority to perform said smitings, then you are clear.
If you happen to be in uncontrolled lands (no lawful authority), and you encounter a slaver, then you are free and clear as the tenants of your deity allow you to perform such smitings -- especially if you are questing to bring law and order to said chaotic lands.
Paladins do not fall for Chaotic deeds. If they slide to Neutral Good, yes, they fall. But if you have to commit a Chaotic act because the Law is evil or broken, then it's perfectly acceptable action.
No, you must still atone for them. That is pretty much the definition of not acceptable. Paladins strive for perfection. Chaninging alignment to Neutral Good will remove paladinhood just as fast as sliding to lawful neutral.
The main reasons for a paladin's fall are if they knowingly commit an evil act, perform a gross violation of the paladin code, or if they cease to be Lawful Good. Chaotic acts do not automatically shunt you out of your Lawful Good alignment if you respect and abide by the law and codes most of the time.
"Falling" means losing your paladinhood. (see above on alignment shifting). Falling, in common usage, is pictured as going evil. Changing from Lawful to Neutral Good is just as much "falling" as is going from Lawful Good to chaotic evil. It is just more "acceptible" to the goodly aligned people who look at the situation with less rigor than Lawful and Good deities.
In regards to slavery, that is an evil practice. It's in direct opposition to the concepts of "altruism, respect for life, and the dignity of sentient beings". The core beliefs of any good-aligned being. So if you are in a Lawful Evil land that practices slavery, you have a moral obligation to subvert the practice. You can do it subtlety, or overtly. But you have to fight it. Ignoring it constantly because it's the law is a neutral belief, and would slide you down to Lawful Neutral.
Yes, it is an evil practice, I never said any differently. However, the response the Paladin gives when encountering slavery is dependent upon the situation -- whether he follows the law or not -- is as equally important as actually acting to prevent the evil act.
Lawful *and* Good. Not Lawful *or* Good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the Deity's church is the lawful authority in the lands the Paladin travels, doing the Deity's bidding contrary to the laws of the established ruler makes the Paladin the scoundrel, not the slaver.And? In most evil countries Paladins would definetely be outlaws, doesn't make them Chaotic nor would it make them fall.
Once again, the Paladin must follow the law. Established rules of conduct. He can't simply go around pinging people with his detect evil and smiting them at will.I never suggested as such. But smiting someone who are in the process of committing evil acts is a completely different ballgame.
No, no they do not.Yes, they do.
Paladins only follow what they view as legitimate authority, they do not have to follow laws just because they are laws.
Yes they very much can, just the same as if there was a law that stated 5 people must be ritually sacrificed at the end of every month. The Paladin would be full within their rights to start handing out smites.No, opposing unjust laws does not make one chaotic -- chaos is in how you perform that opposition. In a land (see above) where slavery is the established law, the Paladin cannot go around and smite people who are simply following the law, however unjust.
Opposing unjust laws doesn't automatically make you Chaotic, and you don't have to be Chaotic to oppose unjust laws, you very much can be Lawful.
Again, they do not have to follow a law if its evil.No, that is not what I said. I said that they must oppose the law within the confines of the law -- see above.
You claim the Good part of the Paladin'a alignment makes them merciful, while also saying they must abide by slavery and mutilation. If that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is.
They must recognize all legitimate authority and they, as followers, do not have the authority to un-recognize any legitimate authority just because. That simply fosters anarchyA Paladin is perfectly capable of deciding what they view is legimate authority and what isn't, it's called free will, they aren't not slaves to laws and don't blindly follow someone just because they are in charge of some place.
There's a difference between "someone in charge" and legimate authority. And followers of what? They are fully within their ability and purpose to go against laws they view as unjust,
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The law is not tantamount to being right. That's what makes the difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. Any paladin worth their salt should choose the GOOD option when forced into a choice to be Lawful or to be Good.
With a little forethought and imagination, there should be no "forcing" to choose between what is lawful and what is Good. See the letters of mark, etc for smiting slavers, etc. As long as there is permission from a legitimate authority to perform said smitings, then you are clear.
If you happen to be in uncontrolled lands (no lawful authority), and you encounter a slaver, then you are free and clear as the tenants of your deity allow you to perform such smitings -- especially if you are questing to bring law and order to said chaotic lands.
That is completely and utterly asinine. Paladins are NOT 100% by the law and only situationally Good. They are disciplined forces of Good.
Yes, it is an evil practice, I never said any differently. However, the response the Paladin gives when encountering slavery is dependent upon the situation -- whether he follows the law or not -- is as equally important as actually acting to prevent the evil act.
Lawful *and* Good. Not Lawful *or* Good.
THEY ARE NOT GOOD ONLY WHEN IT IS SITUATIONAL. You are overly focusing on the Lawful part of the alignment to the exclusion of the Good.
|
|
Madokar and Risky are right about how alignments and Paladins work. Being Lawful does not mean obeying all the laws. It means following their code and their deity's tenets. Also, whenever a Paladin is faced with a choice between Law and Good, they have to choose Good, because that's what the class description says. By the way, your alignment doesn't change because of a single action (except maybe in very rare cases); it changes when your behavior becomes better described by the new alignment.
*nods*
A Paladin may fall by changing alignment, but they do not automatically change alignment if they fall. And even if you view their actions as Chaotic for going against slavery they still would not fall until their alignment actually changes, as their Code explicitly states that they fall if the willingly commit an Evil act, not a Chaotic one.
THEY ARE NOT GOOD ONLY WHEN IT IS SITUATIONAL. You are overly focusing on the Lawful part of the alignment to the exclusion of the Good.
No, I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm not overly focusing on the Good part of the alignment to the exclusion of the lawful portion.
Lawful *AND* Good. Not Lawful or Good.
While it might be uneasy territory, it is necessary. For example, when I was in jail for being falsely accused of being the cult leader, there was some talk of me being executed. Now, I was innocent of the accusation. So if I was sentenced to death by a corrupt court, I was under no obligation to let them execute me. I would have to find a way to escape the jail and find a way to overturn the corrupt government.Now, admittedly, that didn't happen. In the end, I got stuck with a Geas to clear a desecrated temple of Pharasma of undead. But I was prepared to fight the law if the law was broken or evil. In the end, I would rather fall to Neutral Good than Lawful Neutral.
In some cases, yes. However, in this situation, you would need to atone for your avoidance of the judgement by a lawful authority. However wrong it may be (if it came down to execution). Now, that may be a pittance type of atonement, but it would still be required.
And? In most evil countries Paladins would definetely be outlaws, doesn't make them Chaotic nor would it make them fall.
It would if they did not get the proper authority to grant them Letters of Mark -- which are essentially granting the paladin the authority to wage war in a mercenary fashion against said evil countries. They can't do it on their own whim. They lack the authority.
Again, they do not have to follow a law if its evil.
There is a difference between you following a law (becoming a slaver yourself) and enforcing a non-law (smiting said slaver who is following the law). A law may be evil, but a lawful *AND* good paladin has to tolerate it's existence until such time as it can be *lawfully* changed.
There's a difference between "someone in charge" and legimate authority. And followers of what? They are fully within their ability and purpose to go against laws they view as unjust,
The paladin has no authority to judge what is and is not a "legitimate authority" and act based on that judgement. That is anarchy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, stop arguing with Quintain. He's been blasting Paladin threads for years with his garbage. He's either an immensely dedicated troll or the Internet Manifestation of the Quintessence of Lawful Stupid. I've seen him argue in favour of a Paladin murdering everyone in the entire world and not falling. You're not going to change his mind.
In regards to those supposed Paladins of Abadar, a quick look at Abadar's Paladin Code says either they're impostors or the GM doesn't do any research.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, what's asinine is Paladins restricted to Lawful Good.
The Lawful component represents the Paladin's absolute dedication of their life to their Code, their deity, and to Good itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some cases, yes. However, in this situation, you would need to atone for your avoidance of the judgement by a lawful authority. However wrong it may be (if it came down to execution). Now, that may be a pittance type of atonement, but it would still be required.
NO THEY DO NOT. Someone having a position of authority does not give them power over a Paladin, moreso if they are Evil. If the law is "being a Paladin is illegal" a Paladin would not fall for going against it.
It would if they did not get the proper authority to grant them Letters of Mark -- which are essentially granting the paladin the authority to wage war in a mercenary fashion against said evil countries. They can't do it on their own whim. They lack the authority.And? In most evil countries Paladins would definetely be outlaws, doesn't make them Chaotic nor would it make them fall.
Where are you getting this? "They lack the authority? They require a 'Mark of Authority'"? These things are things you have entirely made up on your own and are not justified by absolutely anything in the Paladin class.
They are fully within their power "on their own whim". That's the point of being a Paladin.
There is a difference between you following a law (becoming a slaver yourself) and enforcing a non-law (smiting said slaver who is following the law). A law may be evil, but a lawful *AND* good paladin has to tolerate it's existence until such time as it can be *lawfully* changed.This is completely asinine, Paladins are not lawyers, they are not police officers. They are under no obligations to abide by Evil laws.
The paladin has no authority to judge what is and is not a "legitimate authority" and act based on that judgement. That is anarchy.
No, that is free will, which you seem to be under the impression that Paladin's do not possess.
|
|
Guys, stop arguing with Quintain. He's been blasting Paladin threads for years with his garbage. He's either an immensely dedicated troll or the Internet Manifestation of the Quintessence of Lawful Stupid. I've seen him argue in favour of a Paladin murdering everyone in the entire world and not falling. You're not going to change his mind.
In regards to those supposed Paladins of Abadar, a quick look at Abadar's Paladin Code says either they're impostors or the GM doesn't do any research.
Good advice.
No, what's asinine is Paladins restricted to Lawful Good.The Lawful component represents the Paladin's absolute dedication of their life to their Code, their deity, and to Good itself.
On a personal level, yes. But that is not the only component of Lawful.
I say, Paladins cannot be made to follow unjust laws.
That is true. A Paladin would not become a slaver just because he was in lands that made slavery lawful. What he could not do, however, is enforce something that is contrary to the lawful law of the land.
Which is what smiting a slaver would be in lands that had legal slavery. At least without other justification. If he did so, he would have to atone, but it would be a "good act".
In lands that had no lawful authority, he could smite the slaver with no other justification needed other than his code and would not need to atone.
Where are you getting this? "They lack the authority? They require a 'Mark of Authority'"? These things are things you have entirely made up on your own and are not justified by absolutely anything in the Paladin class.They are fully within their power "on their own whim". That's the point of being a Paladin.
Where are you getting this? Simply being a paladin does not entitle the paladin to be the law of the land. That must come from a lawful authority.
You are advocating chaos, not law. Paladins are warriors of their churches, or of law *and* good overall, not arbiters of any sort of authority in general wherever they go.
Guys, stop arguing with Quintain. He's been blasting Paladin threads for years with his garbage. He's either an immensely dedicated troll or the Internet Manifestation of the Quintessence of Lawful Stupid. I've seen him argue in favour of a Paladin murdering everyone in the entire world and not falling. You're not going to change his mind.
In regards to those supposed Paladins of Abadar, a quick look at Abadar's Paladin Code says either they're impostors or the GM doesn't do any research.
The argument in question that you are referring to was not murder, but the salvation of souls that would otherwise feed a manifestation of evil that would destroy the multiverse (which was the scenario given).
So, your simplistic explanation of my argument is nothing more than a strawman.
Murder is a legal term. Killing != murder. Using the two terms interchangeably is invalid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, what's asinine is Paladins restricted to Lawful Good.The Lawful component represents the Paladin's absolute dedication of their life to their Code, their deity, and to Good itself.On a personal level, yes. But that is not the only component of Lawful.
Correct. A Paladin won't openly stir up public trouble just because he disagrees with the law. That would start a panic and get people hurt. If there are other solutions, a Lawful Good character will explore those first.
This does not, however, mean that they just let anything slide simply because of legal documentation. Capital L Lawful does not refer to a legal system. It's a state of mind favouring order, structure, and consistency. Alignments are inclinations, not obsessive-compulsions.|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins do not need a government's, any governments', permission to be a Paladin. They do not require any sort of Mark of Authority, a thing you made up, in order to be a Paladin.
They also absolutely do not have to come from a "lawful authority", a restriction you also have made up.
People in charge of a country do not determine a Paladin's abilities, or their ability to be a Paladin.
This does not, however, mean that they just let anything slide simply because of legal documentation. Capital L Lawful does not refer to a legal system.
1) Capital L lawful *does* refer to a legal system within the confines of civilization.
I've never said that a Paladin would let slavery slide. He would need to, however, act within the law in order to counter it. My example of buying the slaves and freeing them would be just one example of countering slavery in lands where slavery is legal.
Simply encountering a slaver and smiting him would be an act of chaos because he is enforcing something that is contrary to the law of the land.
Outside of civilization, there is no legal requirement to follow other than his own code, ergo, smiting is well within one of his options.
What is and is not lawful, for a paladin, is very much dependent upon where he is.
Call it "when in Rome".
Guys, stop arguing with Quintain. He's been blasting Paladin threads for years with his garbage. He's either an immensely dedicated troll or the Internet Manifestation of the Quintessence of Lawful Stupid. I've seen him argue in favour of a Paladin murdering everyone in the entire world and not falling. You're not going to change his mind.
In regards to those supposed Paladins of Abadar, a quick look at Abadar's Paladin Code says either they're impostors or the GM doesn't do any research.
The argument in question that you are referring to was not murder, but the salvation of souls that would otherwise feed a manifestation of evil that would destroy the multiverse (which was the scenario given).
So, your simplistic explanation of my argument is nothing more than a strawman.
Murder is a legal term. Killing != murder. Using the two terms interchangeably is invalid.
Okay, let's use the word "slaughter" instead. Slaughtering everyone in the world and not falling.
You also have a tendency to inject your own very specific homebrew settings, scenarios, and rules into discussions and using them as the justifications of your arguments.
Paladins do not need a government's, any governments', permission to be a Paladin. They do not require any sort of Mark of Authority, a thing you made up, in order to be a Paladin.
They also absolutely do not have to come from a "lawful authority", a restriction you also have made up.
People in charge of a country do not determine a Paladin's abilities, or their ability to be a Paladin.
No one is saying that they require a government's permission to be a paladin.
What they can do, what actions they can perform, are very much under the auspices of the law, and is very much within the pervue of a government, however.
Simply "being a paladin" does not grant you any legal authority at all whatsoever.
Especially in lands that are not your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins do not need a government's, any governments', permission to be a Paladin. They do not require any sort of Mark of Authority, a thing you made up, in order to be a Paladin.
They also absolutely do not have to come from a "lawful authority", a restriction you also have made up.
People in charge of a country do not determine a Paladin's abilities, or their ability to be a Paladin.
No one is saying that they require a government's permission to be a paladin.
What they can do, what actions they can perform, are very much under the auspices of the law, and is very much within the pervue of a government, however.
Simply "being a paladin" does not grant you any legal authority at all whatsoever.
Especially in lands that are not your own.
That doesn't mean they can't take action anyway in accordance to what they feel is right and just.
Okay, let's use the word "slaughter" instead. Slaughtering everyone in the world and not falling.
You also have a tendency to inject your own very specific homebrew settings, scenarios, and rules into discussions and using them as the justifications of your arguments.
I did not use the word slaughter, either. A merciful killing is not slaughter. You keep using emotionally charged words in place of what I said. This is invalid.
This does not, however, mean that they just let anything slide simply because of legal documentation. Capital L Lawful does not refer to a legal system.
1) Capital L lawful *does* refer to a legal system within the confines of civilization.
I've never said that a Paladin would let slavery slide. He would need to, however, act within the law in order to counter it. My example of buying the slaves and freeing them would be just one example of countering slavery in lands where slavery is legal.
Simply encountering a slaver and smiting him would be an act of chaos because he is enforcing something that is contrary to the law of the land.
Outside of civilization, there is no legal requirement to follow other than his own code, ergo, smiting is well within one of his options.
What is and is not lawful, for a paladin, is very much dependent upon where he is.
Call it "when in Rome".
That particular example is one where there is another alternative, yes. Not every situation works that way.
That doesn't mean they can't take action anyway in accordance to what they feel is right and just.
Agreed. However, despite the fact that smiting the slaver is a good act, it is a non-lawful one, which means that according to the Paladin class, they would need to atone.
Now, that atonement would likely be very minimal, but atonement would be needed, regardless.
Too much of this sort of smiting in the lands for which we are talking) without atonement would result in an alignment change, which would mean no more paladinhood.