|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is the crux of why you are 100% wrong. The legal system is the lowercase L, not the Alignment capital L.1) Capital L lawful *does* refer to a legal system within the confines of civilization.
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.
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.No he doesn't.
My example of buying the slaves and freeing them would be just one example of countering slavery in lands where slavery is legal.One example, not the only example.
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.No it isn't. Paladin's aren't bound by corrupt laws, or any man made law for that matter.
Outside of civilization, there is no legal requirement to follow other than his own code, ergo, smiting is well within one of his options.There's not a legal requirement to any of their code, regardless of where they are.
What is and is not lawful, for a paladin, is very much dependent upon where he is. Call it "when in Rome
This is not only asinine, but outright insane.
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.
I'm pretty sure most people could describe killing everyone on the planet (or was it everyone in the solar system?) as a mass slaughter.
The issue with purchasing and releasing slaves, is that it actively supports the system of slavery. The slaver doesn't care what you do with the slaves after you buy them, they aren't his problem anymore. All he cares about is that he now has money, with which to acquire and sell more slaves. That's how any business works.
Granted, there is a monetary reward. However, the plan of action in this scenario would be to have the paladin quest to cut the supply lines of the slavers.
Slaver nations don't exist in a vacuum. They have to get their stock from somewhere and that somewhere is almost always outside the nation in question.
If the paladin's nation (or church -- aka a lawful authority) grants him a letter of mark to counter slavery where ever he finds it, he's golden. He has to have that permission ahead of time, though. He does not have that authority intrinsically just because he is a paladin.
That particular example is one where there is another alternative, yes. Not every situation works that way.
Agreed. But there are usually all kinds of alternatives to various scenarios each of them with their own consequences. Blindly smiting is not usually a good alternative in any scenario.
I'm pretty sure most people could describe killing everyone on the planet (or was it everyone in the solar system?) as a mass slaughter.
A mass slaughter is a mass killing without reason. What I was arguing was very much within reason given the circumstances. Ergo, not a slaughter.
Source?
You are punishing someone for acting according to the law. Ergo, a chaotic act. Albeit a good one.
No one is saying that doing the smiting is ultimately a good act. It is also not a lawful one if you are smiting the slaver where slavery is legal.
Lawful *AND* Good. Not Lawful *OR* Good.
The smiting in this case would best be described as neutral good.
Doesnt need it.
Yes, he does. Paladin!= King/Queen or President/Govenor, or any other sort of legal authority.
Soemthing you made up.
No, it's just an example of legally binding permission to perform certain acts. This was used by our own President at the beginning of our nation to counter piracy. It is a contract that says that the actor is a representative of a government to act in a manner that is legally permissible. It is not made up.
|
|
If the paladin's nation (or church -- aka a lawful authority) grants himDoesnt need it.
a letter of markSoemthing you made up.
to counter slavery where ever he finds it, he's golden.He already can. He has to have that permission ahead of time, though.No he doesn't.
He does not have that authority intrinsically just because he is a paladin.
Yes he does.
|
|
Source?You are punishing someone for acting according to the law. Ergo, a chaotic act. Albeit a good one.
No one is saying that doing the smiting is ultimately a good act. It is also not a lawful one if you are smiting the slaver where slavery is legal.
Lawful *AND* Good. Not Lawful *OR* Good.
The smiting in this case would best be described as neutral good.
Not what I asked, I asked the source for requiring a Paladin to atone for smiting a slaver.
It's not even permission from a deity - Paladins aren't obligated to worship one. XD They can use all of their class powers just by being righteous - their stuff basically runs on the general power(s) of good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin does not NEED to act within local governing legal systems to carry out his divine authority. Being Lawful-aligned, he likely would attempt to if he can, but there is no requirement.
Like I said, paladin powers are essentially a "letter of *marque*" (check your spelling) from their chosen deity. They enforce the will of said deity, and if (as is the case with most gods followed by paladins) the deity opposes slavery, that is more than enough reason to treat slavers as smite-worthy evil-doers.
If that is how you play the paladin, that's fine. I don't see that anywhere in the Paladin code.
The paladin code is enforceable on the paladin himself. It does not give the paladin the authority to enforce it on others.
The paladin code:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, *act with honor* (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The Paladin code does not say that she gets to enforce the paladin code on others.
It says what *she* must do. She *must respect legitimate authority*. It does not say that she gets to determine what is legitimate.
So... if a deity the Paladin worships says X, and a local town says Y, and the two are incompatible, which one should the Paladin listen to?
The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
Yes, that is correct. However, harming and threatening innocents is seriously subjective. And subjective interpretation of actions is chaos, not lawful.
So... if a deity the Paladin worships says X, and a local town says Y, and the two are incompatible, which one should the Paladin listen to?
The paladin is required to obey the law of the land in which he visits. If the law of the land is contrary to the paladin code, he has a couple options -- get a letter of marque (thanks for the spelling correction) which grants her the authority to wage war (aka blindly smite), or work to end slavery within the legal system of the country -- such as convincing that freed men work harder than slaves -- which would grant a greater profit to the town.
Any number of different ways other than simply blindly smiting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will just point out that it is entirely possible to respect a legitimate authority, while simultaneously smiting the ever-loving hell out of it.
|
|
Uh, no it's not.Yes, that is correct. However, harming and threatening innocents is seriously subjective.
The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
And subjective interpretation of actions is chaos, not lawful.
What?! No. What... what?
So... if a deity the Paladin worships says X, and a local town says Y, and the two are incompatible, which one should the Paladin listen to?
The paladin is required to obey the law of the land in which he visits.No they don't
If the law of the land is contrary to the paladin code, he has a couple options -- get a letter of marque (thanks for the spelling correction) which grants her the authority to wage war (aka blindly smite),The more and more you try to push this Marque business the more bizarre it gets.
or work to end slavery within the legal system of the country -- such as convincing that freed men work harder than slaves -- which would grant a greater profit to the town.We're talking about PALADINS, not lawyers or lawmakers.
Any number of different ways other than simply blindly smiting.
Smiting a slaver for being a slaver is anything other than "blindly", it's precision smiting.
That's... probably because such letters aren't an actual thing in the rules. The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
Legal systems aren't within the rules either. But in the context of a campaign world, they certainly are.
If you are in a dungeon where there is no law. Smite away.
In the context of a town with a legal system, your options are more limited.
I will just point out that it is entirely possible to respect a legitimate authority, while simultaneously smiting the ever-loving hell out of it.
Respecting an authority is understanding that it is a legitimate authority and when what you want and what they say is legal, then you do what is within the law, as long as it is within the confines of it's jurisdiction.
Respecting an authority is not simply understanding how powerful it is. (that has to be a joke).
You can smite the living hell out of it as long as you are representing a legitimate authority that is at war with it.
Now, that may be Iomedae's church, and they may give Paladin's in your game such authority. Paladins do not have said authority just because.
Even the Code of Iomedae says that paladins do not automatically have the authority you guys assume:
3. Until I am in a position of authority or rulership, then I am just the arm of justice not the executioner. Should one ask for mercy I will grant it to them, but they must still answer for any crimes.
No. A Paladin is beholden to no laws other than their Code. A Paladin of Torag, for example, in an Evil, Hobgoblin run nation, would be fully empowered by his god and his code to go on a spree of smiting the likes of which we can only dream about. It wouldn't matter whether or not the law of the land said 'Paladins of Torag and/or Dwarves are illegal in this nation, punishable by death," the Paladin doesn't give a toss about them.
Paladins respect legitimate authority, which generally means the authorities that they themselves recognize in their view as legitimate. This is WHY you have Paladins leading wars against kings and nations when things are going wrong.
|
|
That's... probably because such letters aren't an actual thing in the rules. The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
Legal systems aren't within the rules either. But in the context of a campaign world, they certainly are.
If you are in a dungeon where there is no law. Smite away.
In the context of a town with a legal system, your options are more limited.
This is just silly.
aladins repect [i]legitimate authority[i/], which generally means the authorities that they themselves recognize in their view as legitimate. This is WHY you have Paladins leading wars against kings and nations when things are going wrong.
Sorry, but a rule of a nation is it's legitimate authority, regardless of whether your code agrees with it's laws or not.
A real world example: Saddam Hussein was the legitimate authority in Iraq just as much as Obama is the legitimate authority (in his role as President) in the U.S.
If there is a conflict between legitimate authorities, then the Paladin can go hog wild. The Paladin, in an of himself, is no such authority.
3. Until I am in a position of authority or rulership, then I am just the arm of justice not the executioner. Should one ask for mercy I will grant it to them, but they must still answer for any crimes.
Rulership defines legitimate authority, not paladinhood in and of itself.
|
|
I will just point out that it is entirely possible to respect a legitimate authority, while simultaneously smiting the ever-loving hell out of it.Respecting an authority is understanding that it is a legitimate authority and when what you want and what they say is legal, then you do what is within the law, as long as it is within the confines of it's jurisdiction.
Respecting an authority is not simply understanding how powerful it is. (that has to be a joke).
You can smite the living hell out of it as long as you are representing a legitimate authority that is at war with it.
Now, that may be Iomedae's church, and they may give Paladin's in your game such authority. Paladins do not have said authority just because.
Even the Code of Iomedae says that paladins do not automatically have the authority you guys assume:
3. Until I am in a position of authority or rulership, then I am just the arm of justice not the executioner. Should one ask for mercy I will grant it to them, but they must still answer for any crimes.
Paladins don't have to granted authority from anything. At all. In the slightest.
1) that code only appplies to Iomedaen Paladins, and 2) means if someone surrenders you take them into custody in order to stand trial, not that you're not allowed to smite something.
EDIT:Yeah, I just checked and this is fan made, not official.
What source is that quote from? It's not in Iomedae's Paladin code from Inner Sea Gods.
It might be something that someone put together for Iomedae's code. I googled it without checking.
It is an example, however, of the difference between what is an legitimate authority and what is not.
Paladins don't have to granted authority from anything. At all. In the slightest.
That may be in your game. Expect table variation.
You also missed this part:
but they must still answer for any crimes.
If they are in a land where slavery is legal, how is being a slaver a crime?
There is a distinction between what is evil and what is lawful.
Lawful *AND* Good, not Lawful *OR* Good.
|
|
What source is that quote from? It's not in Iomedae's Paladin code from Inner Sea Gods.It might be something that someone put together for Iomedae's code. I googled it without checking.
It is an example, however, of the difference between what is an legitimate authority and what is not.
No it's not.
It doesn't mean that they have to act like they have no power to stop him.
He can act (have the power to) stop him, but he must also do it through lawful means.
No-one is claiming that murder should be the first resort of any paladin, only that a paladin may use murder as a last resort, if doing so is necessary to prevent legally-empowered evil
That is exactly what is being argued.
For a Paladin, the ends do not justify the means. -- and this is what you guys are arguing.
No it's not.
What source is that quote from? It's not in Iomedae's Paladin code from Inner Sea Gods.It might be something that someone put together for Iomedae's code. I googled it without checking.
It is an example, however, of the difference between what is an legitimate authority and what is not.
Yes, it is. x1000 (I win).
|
|
Paladins don't have to granted authority from anything. At all. In the slightest.
That may be in your game. Expect table variation.
You also missed this part:
but they must still answer for any crimes.If they are in a land where slavery is legal, how is being a slaver a crime?
There is a distinction between what is evil and what is lawful.
Lawful *AND* Good, not Lawful *OR* Good.
Its like that in any game except yours it seems.
And I didn't "miss" anything from a fanmade houserule that is in no way official.
If you're going to argue the rules about being a Paladin you have to use the ACTUAL RULES.
|
|
It doesn't mean that they have to act like they have no power to stop him.
He can act (have the power to) stop him, but he must also do it through lawful means.
No-one is claiming that murder should be the first resort of any paladin, only that a paladin may use murder as a last resort, if doing so is necessary to prevent legally-empowered evil
That is exactly what is being argued.
For a Paladin, the ends do not justify the means. -- and this is what you guys are arguing.
Noooo, we're arguing that Paladins aren't beholden to manmade laws.
The thing about fanmade content is that it is OPTIONAL. As such, while some would believe that is an appropriate way to act as a paladin of Iomedae, it is not the CANON way.
Nothing about what we are discissing is CANON in any way shape or form. It is an opinion on how to interpret and enact the Paladin code.
It was canon for scry and fry to be able to work, it was also contrary to a strict interpretation of the rules (according to the devs).
What is common interpretation doesn't necessarily lead to the correct interpretation, either.
This is just silly.
That's... probably because such letters aren't an actual thing in the rules. The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
Legal systems aren't within the rules either. But in the context of a campaign world, they certainly are.
If you are in a dungeon where there is no law. Smite away.
In the context of a town with a legal system, your options are more limited.
Not really. Everyone's options are more limited in an area with a legal system... presuming they want to avoid trouble with the legal system.
|
|
Not really. Everyone's options are more limited in an area with a legal system... presuming they want to avoid trouble with the legal system.This is just silly.
That's... probably because such letters aren't an actual thing in the rules. The paladin code does however require the paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"
Legal systems aren't within the rules either. But in the context of a campaign world, they certainly are.
If you are in a dungeon where there is no law. Smite away.
In the context of a town with a legal system, your options are more limited.
My comment was in response to the notion that I you smite one slaver in one country you're fine but if you 5ft step into the neighboring country and smite an equally evil slaver you would fall just because the man-made laws are different between the two counties.
Yes, it is. x1000 (I win).
Do you realize how childish that makes you sound?
/shrug It is the same response that I was given. I just upped the ante.
Noooo, we're arguing that Paladins aren't beholden to manmade laws.
Which is anarchy, especially if all they have to do to justify their actions is "because I said so".
Not really. Everyone's options are more limited in an area with a legal system... presuming they want to avoid trouble with the legal system.
Correct. And a LAWFUL character would not want to break the legitimate law of the land. Which is what the "smite first" brigade is advocating.
My comment was in response to the notion that I you smite one slaver in one country you're fine but if you 5ft step into the neighboring country and smite an equally evil slaver you would fall just because the man-made laws are different between the two counties.
That is not what I am saying.
You would be "good" to smite in either case. If you smite in the evil lands, you would be performing a chaotic act -- you have no jurisdiction. If you smite in uncontrolled lands, you are doing what you are supposed to do. No issues. If you do it in your lands, you are upholding the law.
That is the difference between Lawful *AND* Good, and lawful *OR* good.
This is what is called "Respecting Legitimate Authority". Which means you will obey the law of the lands in which you reside/travel.
The point is, a Paladin has to put Good over Law in a situation where they come into irreconcilable conflict. The code states this (they can fall for a single Evil act, but not for a single Chaotic act), they smite Evil, not Chaos, and even their associates can be Chaotic but not Evil
A paladin can be part of a group of Chaotic Good companions with little issue (potentially a lot of friction, but the relationship poses no threat to the Code)
While a group of Lawful Evil companions would only be as a complete last resort, and the paladin is required by the Code to abandon them as soon as the greater evil that united them is defeated
Yes, in the case of *irreconcilable conflict*. However, wandering through a land, smiting legal slavers at a whim is not *irreconcilable conflict* by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
/shrug It is the same response that I was given. I just upped the ante.Yes, it is. x1000 (I win).
Do you realize how childish that makes you sound?
-_-
Which is anarchy, especially if all they have to do to justify their actions is "because I said so".
Noooo, we're arguing that Paladins aren't beholden to manmade laws.
Having free will is Anrachy to you? And not one has anyone used "because I said so", as a defense, except, in a roundabout way, you, only it's "because the law says so".
Correct. And a LAWFUL character would not want to break the legitimate law of the land. Which is what the "smite first" brigade is advocating.
Not really. Everyone's options are more limited in an area with a legal system... presuming they want to avoid trouble with the legal system.
Lawful characters would be more than happy to break the law of the land if they view it as illegitimate. Being a law doesn't automatically make it a legitimate law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My comment was in response to the notion that I you smite one slaver in one country you're fine but if you 5ft step into the neighboring country and smite an equally evil slaver you would fall just because the man-made laws are different between the two counties.
That is not what I am saying.
You would be "good" to smite in either case. If you smite in the evil lands, you would be performing a chaotic act -- you have no jurisdiction. If you smite in uncontrolled lands, you are doing what you are supposed to do. No issues. If you do it in your lands, you are upholding the law.
That is the difference between Lawful *AND* Good, and lawful *OR* good.
This is what is called "Respecting Legitimate Authority". Which means you will obey the law of the lands in which you reside/travel.
It is actually what you're arguing. You're saying that the Law-Chaos axis is just as important for Paladins despite there being nothing backing that up, and you're saying that official jurisdiction and local legal codes trump all alignment on that axis and therefore the fabric of the cosmos itself.