You do realize that Paladins are more beholden to divine law than mortal law, right? It's the Gods that grant them their powers. And the gods can take it away. if you are not pursuing the agenda of your god because their agenda conflicts with the mortal laws of the region, then you're on the fast track to fall town. They'll give you a chance to correct your path. But if you don't, then you lose favour with them.
Actually, in pathfinder, the code of a deity is tacked onto the paladin code. Paladins get their power from "Law and Good", not from Deities.
That *is* canon.
Note "Law *AND* Good*.
Having free will is Anrachy to you?
By definition, free will without overarching obedience to a legal authority is *the definition* of anarchy, Rysky.
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.
There is no such thing as an "illegitimate law". This is a contradiction. A law, legally enacted, is always legitimate. Otherwise, it isn't a law. It's just something someone is trying to enforce through illegitimate means.
If the law is from a legitimate authority (King/Queen, etc), it is automatically legitimate.
Legitimate is not equivalent to Good.
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.
It is as important because the Paladin code says "respect legitimate authority" -- which means follow the law of the land as passed down by it's ruler. It's in the code, as well as the alignment restrictions of the paladin, as well as their natural inclination as lawful and good characters.
One could argue that it is the most important one because it comes first in the list.
|
That is not what I am saying.
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 EXACTLY what you are saying.
You would be "good" to smite in either case. If you smite in the evil lands, you would be performing a chaotic actNo, you wouldn't, that is completely asinine.
-- you have no jurisdiction.Paladins aren't cops or FBI agents, they don't need a jurisdiction.
If you smite in uncontrolled lands, you are doing what you are supposed to do.
?
Paladin's aren't settlers or frontiersmen, barring Paladins of Erastil, they Smite wherever Smites are needed.
No issues. If you do it in your lands, you are upholding the law.
You are assuming Paladins only come from Lawful Good lands and Governments. They don't. Paladins can form and act EVERYWHERE, regardless the alignment or the laws of whatever country they find themselves in.
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.
Paladins obey the laws they view as legitimate. Not all laws are legitimate. Being a law doesn't make it a legitimate law. Being in charge does not make you a legitimate authority. Paladins are not restrained by evil laws or rulers.
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.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.
Fall, no. Get your neck stretched in the gallows, oh yeah. And other lawful good people will turn out in the public square to watch it and nod that a murderer has just been executed by the legitimate authority.
But the question remains whether that paladin who's operating in the slavery-legal nation should show a little more discretion. As Quintain points out, they're both lawful and good and lawful implies a characteristic respect for authority (check the Law vs Chaos section in the core rulebook). Differences between the legal authority and the paladin's duty to good should unsettle the paladin and make the decision to cross that authority difficult and could easily constrain his or her actions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note "Law *AND* Good*.Yes, Law and Good, NOT laws and Good.
By definition, free will without overarching obedience to a legal authority is *the definition* of anarchy, Rysky.Go get a dictionary.
There is no such thing as an "illegitimate law". This is a contradiction. A law, legally enacted, is always legitimate. Otherwise, it isn't a law. It's just something someone is trying to enforce through illegitimate means.
If the law is from a legitimate authority (King/Queen, etc), it is automatically legitimate.
Legitimate is not equivalent to Good.
Yes there is, otherwise why would they specially call out "legitimate" authority in the Code.
A law may be legal but that does not mean it is legitimate.
"'It's just something someone is trying to enforce through illegitimate means." You don't say?
And if the King/Queen are Evil then to a Paladin they are not legitimate, and neither are any laws they put forth.
Hell, one of the reasons I fell is because my GM believes I violated IOMEDAE'S law, not the law of the land. He's fine with me working to oppose any corrupt government I come across.
I think it's important to note that both exist - the expectations of the deity and of laws of the legal ruler. And lawful characters are expected to incline toward both since both are authorities when they can.
|
|
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.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.
Fall, no. Get your neck stretched in the gallows, oh yeah. And other lawful good people will turn out in the public square to watch it and nod that a murderer has just been executed by the legitimate authority.
But the question remains whether that paladin who's operating in the slavery-legal nation should show a little more discretion. As Quintain points out, they're both lawful and good and lawful implies a characteristic respect for authority (check the Law vs Chaos section in the core rulebook). Differences between the legal authority and the paladin's duty to good should unsettle the paladin and make the decision to cross that authority difficult and could easily constrain his or her actions.
I'm not saying they shouldn't.
I'm arguing against Quintain's logic that they would be completely unable to act against such things in the slightest just because "it's the law."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It is as important because the Paladin code says "respect legitimate authority" -- which means follow the law of the land as passed down by it's ruler. It's in the code, as well as the alignment restrictions of the paladin, as well as their natural inclination as lawful and good characters.
One could argue that it is the most important one because it comes first in the list.
Law of the Land by no means automatically equals Legitimate Authority.
|
|
Hell, one of the reasons I fell is because my GM believes I violated IOMEDAE'S law, not the law of the land. He's fine with me working to oppose any corrupt government I come across.I think it's important to note that both exist - the expectations of the deity and of laws of the legal ruler. And lawful characters are expected to incline toward both since both are authorities when they can.
... and how would that play out in CotCT?
I'm not saying they shouldn't.I'm arguing against Quintain's logic that they would be completely unable to act against such things in the slightest just because "it's the law."
I don't think he's saying they'd be completely unable to act, but generally not feeling free to unleash the same whoop ass as they would against a marauding dragon.
... and how would that play out in CotCT?Hell, one of the reasons I fell is because my GM believes I violated IOMEDAE'S law, not the law of the land. He's fine with me working to oppose any corrupt government I come across.I think it's important to note that both exist - the expectations of the deity and of laws of the legal ruler. And lawful characters are expected to incline toward both since both are authorities when they can.
That would be telling now, wouldn't it... ; )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he's saying they'd be completely unable to act, but generally not feeling free to unleash the same whoop ass as they would against a marauding dragon.
I'm not saying they shouldn't.I'm arguing against Quintain's logic that they would be completely unable to act against such things in the slightest just because "it's the law."
No, that's exactly what he's saying. Smite a slaver in a land where slavery is legal and you fall for being "chaotic".
| 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.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.
Fall, no. Get your neck stretched in the gallows, oh yeah. And other lawful good people will turn out in the public square to watch it and nod that a murderer has just been executed by the legitimate authority.
But the question remains whether that paladin who's operating in the slavery-legal nation should show a little more discretion. As Quintain points out, they're both lawful and good and lawful implies a characteristic respect for authority (check the Law vs Chaos section in the core rulebook). Differences between the legal authority and the paladin's duty to good should unsettle the paladin and make the decision to cross that authority difficult and could easily constrain his or her actions.
The problem is that Quintain is arguing that all this is a hard-coded, no-choice-about-it-or-you-fall, no room for interpretation or context, obsessive-compulsive fact that bends the planar substance of Law and Chaos and the will of literal gods around it. Immediately smiting the slaver is probably not the best course of action, nor is it the first solution the Paladin should think of, but it's not entirely off the table simply because the country allows slavery. You don't need some literally arbitrary writ he made up to do things in an area where your goals conflict with the legal code. There certainly are consequences to not following local laws, just as with any character, but the Paladin will not fall just because of it. Even though they often interact, there is a separation between alignment-based Lawful and legal-based lawful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of insane stuff
So, let's say a Paladin enters a city. This city has laws. One law says that by no means anyone who enters the city shall leave it.
So if the Paladin leaves the city, she's gonna fall? I mean, she's BREAKING THE LAW, BEING A PURE FORCE OF CHAOS.Who knows what could happen if others leave behind him? That means an entire city on its knees because of the actions of such Paladin!
Or are you telling me that the Paladin would stop doing anything she was doing and started a revolution (which is Chaotic by the way) to change the law?
This is a direct quote from the book:
Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and
lives to the battle against evil.
...paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but
to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
Lawful good characters regard law as necessary for the welfare of society. They fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust, and they always aid those in need.These characters sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust. Instead of disobeying or protesting against such laws, they work within the provided structure or system to change those laws, and they implore others to do so as well.
Problems, not impossible. Yes, they do not feel ok by defying laws, but as you can read:
1- Paladins battle to fight evil. They mere existence is against evil
2- They seek to spread DIVINE justice, not man justice
3- The fight to abolish laws that are unjust, and they ALWAYS aid those in need
4- They might not feel comfortable defying the law, a paladin priority is fighting evil. Buying slaves is not fighting evil. Buying slaves would be an act to feel better about yourself, like when you give money to a homeless. But it doesn't fight nor solves the core issue, which is Slavery is legal.
We're not even going to get into the fact that Slavery is legal in the city, but those Slaves were acquired by ILLEGAL means.
So, let me get this straight:
Illegal act (getting slaves) > Law that makes Slavery Legal > Paladin must respect it, because the floor she's touching says it's legal.
A Paladin would accept doing an Evil act if the benefit of the act is enough to justify it. She would sacrifice her powers, her life for the greater good.
She would fall and lose everything. But in the edge, Paladins are the most fearsome warriors, because they would give up anything to fight for those in need.
I just got back from doing something else and have been reading the posts to catch up. It seems to me that Quintain espouses the opinion that "My Lawful Good is superior to all others. And any who do not believe as I do is wrong, and must be punished." Unless I'm mistaken.
You are mistaken.
I want to give a real world example of this behavior, but I want everyone to get an understanding of what I am talking about first.
How familiar are all of you regarding the legal concept of reciprocity?
And if the King/Queen are Evil then to a Paladin they are not legitimate, and neither are any laws they put forth.
Again, no. Legitimacy does not require the agreement of the Paladin. This is nothing more than anarchy.
link for adabar's code?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got back from doing something else and have been reading the posts to catch up. It seems to me that Quintain espouses the opinion that "My Lawful Good is superior to all others. And any who do not believe as I do is wrong, and must be punished." Unless I'm mistaken.You are mistaken.
I want to give a real world example of this behavior, but I want everyone to get an understanding of what I am talking about first.
How familiar are all of you regarding the legal concept of reciprocity?
Again, no. Legitimacy does not require the agreement of the Paladin. This is nothing more than anarchy.
And if the King/Queen are Evil then to a Paladin they are not legitimate, and neither are any laws they put forth.
A Dictator is legitimate. Anything in power is legitimate.
legitimate
1.
conforming to the law or to rules.
2.
able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
It's legitimate that the NSA spies in everyone on the world. It's legitimate that women are inferior to men in certain religions.
Legitimacy is imposed by those in powers. It's nothing special, nor divine.
A Paladin doesn't care who rules. There could be a demon ruling for all she cares, as long as the laws are fair and it's in the benefit of the society.
Fairness is what gives legitimacy for a Paladin, not that someone wrote a rule.
link for adabar's code?
A Dictator is legitimate. Anything in power is legitimate.legitimate
1.
conforming to the law or to rules.2.
able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.It's legitimate that the NSA spies in everyone on the world. It's legitimate that women are inferior to men in certain religions.
Legitimacy is imposed by those in powers. It's nothing special, nor divine.
Absolutely correct.
A Paladin doesn't care who rules. There could be a demon ruling for all she cares, as long as the laws are fair and it's in the benefit of the society.Fairness is what gives legitimacy for a Paladin, not that someone wrote a rule.
Absolutely wrong. This is contrary to what "respecting legitimate authority" means. Respecting authority means you acknowledge that the dictates of the rulers of the land hold sway regardless of whether you agree or not.
Now, this doesn't mean you are completely hamstrung. If your church (aka authority) is at war with said ruler, you are under no compunction to obey said laws -- smite away.
There is no such thing as "fairness". That is so subjective as to be meaningless.
I am not a lawyer, so I can only give the definition found in my dictionary. reciprocity: give in return. Do you advocate t*t-for-t*t revenge?
Ok, so that answer is no, you aren't familiar with it. I'll explain when others give their answer.
Ok, the one part of Adabar's Code that I want to point out that reinforces what I am talking about:
... and if a system is fundamentally flawed, I will work to aid citizens by reforming or replacing it.
It is probably pretty obvious that everyone thinks that legalized slavery falls under the heading of "fundamentally flawed".
Now, if a paladin respects legitimate authority, and at the same time recognizes that it is fundamentally flawed, he must work to aid it's citizens by reforming or replacing it.
Note that it does not give cart blanche authority to take what is opposite of the law into his hands and smite all who cross his path.
There are limitations to his actions based on the code.
Is community service slavery?
State takes over your life and forces you to work for it for no pay.
Quite so. I have never studied Law. I am a former soldier, a current Security Guard, and a student of Computer Science. If you expect me to understand legal definitions, you'll have to use plain English. Thank you in advance.
Ok, since you are the only one responding. Do you have a concealed carry permit for your state (commercial or individual)?
Is community service slavery?
State takes over your life and forces you to work for it for no pay.
If it is in recompense for some criminal behavior, it is technically not slavery, but restitution. You are paying back to the community the equivalent in value of which you damaged/destroyed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as "fairness". That is so subjective as to be meaningless.
Additionally, lawful good characters are adept at deciding which actions are lawful and benefit society rather than the individual.
Actions are lawful, not laws. Laws are just words. Yes, Paladin could feel irky when defying laws, doesn't mean that they can't do it or they will fall.
You can't CHANGE a system that is lead by chaotic evil people, it will never be just (fair).
Lawful good characters regard law as necessary for the welfare of society. They fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust, and they always aid those in need
Fight to abolish laws THEY deem unjust. In case you don't know unjust is not fair. So fairness DOES matter, and there is such a thing called fairness.
Ok, the one part of Adabar's Code that I want to point out that reinforces what I am talking about:
... and if a system is fundamentally flawed, I will work to aid citizens by reforming or replacing it.It is probably pretty obvious that everyone thinks that legalized slavery falls under the heading of "fundamentally flawed".
Now, if a paladin respects legitimate authority, and at the same time recognizes that it is fundamentally flawed, he must work to aid it's citizens by reforming or replacing it.
Note that it does not give cart blanche authority to take what is opposite of the law into his hands and smite all who cross his path.
There are limitations to his actions based on the code.
That's... not why we were referring to Abadar's code. There was mention of an order of Paladins of Abadar being bribed into letting criminals go.
Fight to abolish laws THEY deem unjust. In case you don't know unjust is not fair. So fairness DOES matter, and there is such a thing called fairness.
Unjust and unfair are not the same thing. Unjust means you get two different results from the same situation applied to two different people within the confines of the law.
Unfair is a child's concept. It what they cry when they don't get what they want -- it has nothing to do with legalities.
That's only for the Abadaran faith. It's not a tenet in any other paladin code. So all other paladin orders are not beholden to act that way.
Agreed, but it is an example of lawful and good behavior, which is what I am talking about.
No, I do not. My employer prohibits concealed carry on the work site. Furthermore, I was never trained in pistols, and it's very hard to carry concealed a rifle.
Ok, fair enough.
Reciprocity, as it is applied to concealed carry, means that one legal jurisdiction recognizes the permit as issued in another jurisdiction. In the U.S. today, not all states recognize the permit of another state, despite the 2nd amendment. Some feel that this is not fair, some do not. Either way, it is the way the system currently works.
Hypothetically let's say that you have a concealed carry permit -- if you life in State A, and State C recognizes your permit, but State B does not, what does that mean when travelling between State A and State C but crossing State B?
It means if you carry your firearm while in State B, you are now acting criminally (contrary to the law as established in State B, however "unfair"). You can and will be arrested. Even if you use your firearm to protect yourself or another (completely legal and good activity) from someone trying to kill you.
The same concept (in reverse) applies to our Paladin travelling in lands that have legalized slavery. It may be illegal in his lands and the lands that are his ultimate destination, but it is legal there. So, if he tries to act to prevent someone from engaging in completely legal activity, he is usurping the authority of the state.
That is a violation of the Paladin code. He will be required to atone.
Now, as I have said earlier, and this bears repeating -- this does NOT mean that he automatically falls. A single act that is otherwise good (releasing slaves) won't mean much of a punishment -- but it is still a violation of the code, however small, and he will need to atone. If he does not, and continues to violate the code freeing slaves, he will fall...eventually, or at the very least get warnings from "Law" of "Law and Good" to atone before he falls.
Anyway, it's movie night with my daughter. I'll check back in the morning.
Lataz.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the funny thing is, according to Quintain's rather pants-on-head view of Lawful Good Paladins, the greatest thing they could do, to save the souls of everyone in the universe, and starve evil forever, would be to commit mass genocide.
As long as, of course, they could get a warrant for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's only for the Abadaran faith. It's not a tenet in any other paladin code. So all other paladin orders are not beholden to act that way.Agreed, but it is an example of lawful and good behavior, which is what I am talking about.
I'm done, there's no point discussing. You're not discussing in good faith. You're talking legalities in Pathfinder, where that has nothing to do.
And EVERYTHING I've quoted was from Paladin's Description and Lawful Good alignment.NOTHING, not a single piece was from a Code of any deity.
You know, the funny thing is, according to Quintain's rather pants-on-head view of Lawful Good Paladins, the greatest thing they could do, to save the souls of everyone in the universe, and starve evil forever, would be to commit mass genocide.
As long as, of course, they could get a warrant for it.
As I mentioned before, he has literally argued that it would not only be okay, but be a Good act, to kill everyone on the entirely of Golarion and not fall. WITHOUT a warrant! Mostly due to a hypothetical situation that he himself proposed that does not comply with Golarion's canon, and then treated it as canon for every one of his arguments thereafter.
Just gonna say that under Quaintains version of a Paladin the events of hell's Rebels/Hell's vengance could not have happend.
now THAT would be interesting... Hm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got back from doing something else and have been reading the posts to catch up. It seems to me that Quintain espouses the opinion that "My Lawful Good is superior to all others. And any who do not believe as I do is wrong, and must be punished." Unless I'm mistaken.That is very dangerous rhetoric.
one could argue that those who disagree with him are doing the same.
This is why I have changed both paladins and alignment for my campaign setting.
Law of the Land by no means automatically equals Legitimate Authority.
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.
It is as important because the Paladin code says "respect legitimate authority" -- which means follow the law of the land as passed down by it's ruler. It's in the code, as well as the alignment restrictions of the paladin, as well as their natural inclination as lawful and good characters.
One could argue that it is the most important one because it comes first in the list.
it has to, on some level. Otherwise paladins would be legal and cultural hand grenades the instant they step outside their homeland. This gives me a lot of thoughts and ideas. Hm.
Is community service slavery?
State takes over your life and forces you to work for it for no pay.
depends on how far they go with it.