|
At what point are the laws from a former government no longer considered a "legitimate authority" with regards to the Paladin Code?
For example, if there is a change in leadership (like a coup d'etat) in the local region, and with it, a change in laws, at what point in the govermental change does the paladin's code now adhere to the new leadership? Like does it take effect when the old government is defeated, or when the new one is officially established? Or is the paladin permited to choose which one to follow?
More specifically, is a paladin able to work, within their code, to restore an old government, if doing so means rejection of the current government? Assuming that both governments are non-evil and non-chaotic, so it is a matter of politics, not morality.
Legitimacy is not beholden to any particular political process as much as it is established by precedent and actions.
If the eldest child of a king takes the throne upon the death of the king (due to age, illness, or injury not caused by said heir), then that is a legitimate transfer of authority.
If the eldest child of an elected leader claims the position by right of birth after their father's passing, that is not a legitimate transfer of power, unless that is specifically the established practice of that government to do so.
The legitimacy of a coup government is in doubt by default, and must be earned both by having overthrown a government which had lost legitimacy, and by demonstrating actions that show legitimacy.
Any government can lose legitimacy by it's actions.
It's a bit complex really.
|
|
Legitimacy is not beholden to any particular political process as much as it is established by precedent and actions.
If the eldest child of a king takes the throne upon the death of the king (due to age, illness, or injury not caused by said heir), then that is a legitimate transfer of authority.
If the eldest child of an elected leader claims the position by right of birth after their father's passing, that is not a legitimate transfer of power, unless that is specifically the established practice of that government to do so.
The legitimacy of a coup government is in doubt by default, and must be earned both by having overthrown a government which had lost legitimacy, and by demonstrating actions that show legitimacy.
Any government can lose legitimacy by it's actions.
It's a bit complex really.
It is complex. I guess my main question is if a Paladin is presented with two sets of legitimate authority, is the paladin able to choose which to follow, or does the paladin have to default to the most current version?
Wondering in regard to immortals that are paladins. Can they use the long deceased government's laws instead of the current government? Again, assuming both are good, legitimate governments. Or does the Paladin have to learn the new laws each time one government is replaced by another?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, there's no answer to this question.
Your paladin must roleplay it out and come to their own conclusion. Check with your DM if unsure about OOC aspects of this process.
|
Going to agree that this is complex enough to be widely subject to individual interpretations and should be discussed with a group/table.
That said, my thoughts:
It is complex. I guess my main question is if a Paladin is presented with two sets of legitimate authority, is the paladin able to choose which to follow, or does the paladin have to default to the most current version?
If both are actually legitimate the paladin is required to respect both.
However respecting an authority doesn't mean the paladin has to do everything they say. I tend to read the line more as the paladin respecting the idea of authority and thus providing a certain amount of deference to those invested with authority as long as they don't abuse it.
Thus they get a choice in which government to actually follow. Assuming they actually follow a government, as opposed to merely collaborating with the government.
If one government used illegitimate means to gain power then it's likely the paladin will disapprove of that. They might be able to try to restore the old government, particularly if they swore oaths of loyalty to it. However they're limited in their ability to do so by the rest of the code. I wouldn't generally expect or even allow a paladin to start a civil war to oppose a goodly government even if they did come to power through improper channels - doing so would cause a whole lot of suffering among innocent citizens.
Wondering in regard to immortals that are paladins. Can they use the long deceased government's laws instead of the current government? Again, assuming both are good, legitimate governments. Or does the Paladin have to learn the new laws each time one government is replaced by another?
Laws can change even if governments don't. A paladin should make an effort to stay current. (Unfortunately they don't have Knowledge Local as a class skill, which makes this puzzlingly difficult...)
And, again, they don't necessarily have to follow these laws, though they should generally do so unless there's a compelling moral reason not to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did Paladins start swearing allegiance to a government? They are aligned with a divine power, not temporal.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
They have Knowledge (Religion) and not Knowledge (Local) for good reason.
I have to disagree. A coup is an inherently unlawful act, both in terms of legality and in terms of alignment. Overthrowing a government or leadership structure is not an act of order.
|
|
Tribal challenges for leadership for instance are often/normally law-bound affairs, even in otherwise CN or CE cultures, having traditional trappings around them.
A law-bound challenge for leadership is different from an unlawful coup. If a group of people decide to transfer power in a particular way, and a person or faction uses that established method to gain power, then it is a legitimate change of leadership. That applies whether we're talking about an election, a line of succession, or killing the other guy in a duel.
The question is what happens if a group gains power using a method other than that which is legitimate, traditional, or agreed-on.
When did Paladins start swearing allegiance to a government? They are aligned with a divine power, not temporal.A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act. 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.It does say respect..and not obey, fwiw.
Yes, respect and not obey. I respect my parents, but I don't always obey them.
Paladins are certainly allowed to take on additional allegiances to a government or other mortal organization (there's even a trait that gives them a one time ability to use atonement if they break their code in service to their liege). But it's not required.
There you have it, all alchemists are evil.
Not all things that are against the code are evil. Otherwise the code could end with "if she ever willingly commits an evil act." (Alternatively, it could read "For example" instead of "Additionally.")
Usually whatever causes the least chaos.
For example overthrowing a tyrannical dictatorship leads to a lot of chaos in the streets that anyone could take advantage of. On the other hand, a slower take over of a more benevolent government is much more controlled, and ensures everything is done the right way.
I have to disagree. A coup is an inherently unlawful act, both in terms of legality and in terms of alignment. Overthrowing a government or leadership structure is not an act of order.
Depends on the government that's getting couped. If you're replacing a Chaotic Evil ruler with a Lawful Good one, I'd be hard-pressed to call that a non-Lawful act. Likewise for tossing out the evil usurper to restore the rightful ruler.
Jurassic, a Paladin doesn't immediately fall for an unlawful act, only an Evil one.
I'm not really familiar with that AP, so I can't say if I'd suggest a Paladin for it or not, but I don't restrict classes if someone really wants to play one.
I have to disagree. A coup is an inherently unlawful act, both in terms of legality and in terms of alignment. Overthrowing a government or leadership structure is not an act of order.Depends on the government that's getting couped. If you're replacing a Chaotic Evil ruler with a Lawful Good one, I'd be hard-pressed to call that a non-Lawful act. Likewise for tossing out the evil usurper to restore the rightful ruler.
Defeating a usurper to restore proper rule isn't something I'd consider a coup. Just my semantics though.
As for conducting a coup to place a LG ruler into power, it's still an unlawful act. It's creating major change, which is chaotic. Even if the ends are meant to serve Law, the means cause Chaos.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think anyone who seriously argues that Paladins can't depose a Chaotic Evil Tyrant because that would be a major change, and is thus against their code to do so, has hit the point of demanding Paladins play as Lawful Stupid.
If Chaotic Evil Tyrant passes a law requiring all Paladins in his territory to immediately murder an innocent, does any Paladin who refuses to follow that law fall? After all, that's breaking the law. And trying to change that law would be a major change, which is apparently chaotic now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think anyone who seriously argues that Paladins can't depose a Chaotic Evil Tyrant because that would be a major change, and is thus against their code to do so, has hit the point of demanding Paladins play as Lawful Stupid.
If Chaotic Evil Tyrant passes a law requiring all Paladins in his territory to immediately murder an innocent, does any Paladin who refuses to follow that law fall? After all, that's breaking the law. And trying to change that law would be a major change, which is apparently chaotic now.
Paladins don't have to follow all laws, they just need to consistently act in an orderly way. Indeed, going against a CE society would be LG. I like the example that Abadar expects followers to follow laws, but not stupid, contradictory, or overall chaotic ones.
Lawful societies makes laws to promote order, and Chaotic ones don't. Paladins just have to help promote order. It helps to rebrand 'Lawful' as 'Orderly'. Indeed, that makes it clearer chaotic laws are bad.
The point is (regardless of what is actually true) Lawful Good believes that overthrowing a tyrant without careful deliberation creates a free-for-all, and another tyrant could take over, or some unforeseen consequence could occur. It takes time to do things right, and spending time ensures the least lives are hurt, and the most lives are saved. Plus, overthrowing the ruler and installing a new one immediately means that ruler could be rejected, and the ways of benevolence and order is ruined.
I suppose I meant more that Law is afraid of randomness, and prefer predictable and uniform concepts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think anyone who seriously argues that Paladins can't depose a Chaotic Evil Tyrant because that would be a major change, and is thus against their code to do so, has hit the point of demanding Paladins play as Lawful Stupid.
If Chaotic Evil Tyrant passes a law requiring all Paladins in his territory to immediately murder an innocent, does any Paladin who refuses to follow that law fall? After all, that's breaking the law. And trying to change that law would be a major change, which is apparently chaotic now.
Well, I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing either of those things.
OP stated that both governments are non-evil and non-chaotic, so while the deposed government might not be perfect it's at least not morally abhorrent.
Also not seeing anyone arguing that the paladin can't accept change. Just that for a paladin - heck, for Lawful characters in general - it's important that the transition is as orderly as possible and ideally done through the right channels as defined by law or custom. Thus a paladin is likely to disapprove of a group taking power in a disorderly or illegitimate fashion. Whether they are inclined or morally required to do anything about it depends on the particulars.
Paladins are beholden unto gods, not governments and different gods will have different idea about how governments should be treated particularly coups and so fourth.
I've never advocated a character's alignment dramatically changing just by walking across a border.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One has to wonder what the point of the OPs question is? Is the OP a GM trying to make a Paladin fall, or been a PC Paladin who has fallen because of a change in Government. In either case if that has happened it is a jerk move by the GM and if the GM really behaves like that then the players should leave.
The game world is described by the GM to the players. If the player of a Paladin makes a decision that is likely to break their code then it is the GM's responsibility to advise the player that their character knows that such an action is a contravention of their code. The player should then be able to adjust their actions accordingly. If the player continues with a course of action, having been explicitly advised it will lead them to falling/being closer to falling/breaking their code then it is the player's fault.
Taking the OPs question as a pure thought exercise then it really depends on the specifics of the Paladin's code, the reasons behind the coup, the old government's governance and the new government's governance. If the Paladin's code is just the generic one in the CRB then there is not enough information to give an answer. If the Paladin's code is enhanced with campaign flavour then it depends on the flavour. It may well be that either supporting the old regime or the new regime is legitimate, if both are otherwise Good. If one is not good then in all likelihood the Paladin's order would follow the other.
Getting back to how this affects gameplay; the only sensible answer is that the GM and the Paladin's player discuss how the change in government affects the Paladin's code. If it is done as a collaborative exercise with the player taking the lead in determining how his order would react then the player is likely to feel more engaged in the game world.
|
In Earth's history, people have occasionally gone to great length to write down just why they believe they have a right, maybe even a duty to oppose and displace tyrannical rulers.
You can find examples:
Thee Dutch Act of Abjuration which draws on a centuries-old tradition dating among others to the Charter of Kortenberg;
The United States Declaration of Independence which draws on a tradition of both natural law and Magna Carta;
General pre-modern European thinking about the Right of Revolution and The Right to Resist Authority;
Chinese concepts like the Mandate of Heaven, which could be withdrawn from an unjust ruler.
---
Point is, although history is also full of "messy" revolutions, on many occasions, Revolution has been supported by a body of theory that makes it a very planned, thought-out affair. And a paladin could get behind that. (Doesn't always end well, see "The Terror" in the French Revolution.)
At what point are the laws from a former government no longer considered a "legitimate authority" with regards to the Paladin Code?
If they fail to serve good, they are not legitimate whether it's "former" or "present".
@Scythia - So would you not allow someone to play say a Paladin of Abadar in Hell's Rebels? Overthrowing the martial law declared by House Thrune in Kintargo would not be an action you'd allow a Paladin to take without falling?
When you find out the exact situation though, even the most strictest interpretation of legitimate government, would pretty much demand that the Paladin work against Thrune.
|
|
In Earth's history, people have occasionally gone to great length to write down just why they believe they have a right, maybe even a duty to oppose and displace tyrannical rulers.
Yes, Scythia mentioned earlier that a legal/traditional government can be said to lose legitimacy through its actions. Those are very good examples.
In fact, we've got a Mandate of Heaven situation in the current campaign. As a summary for those not following the link, the gods select the person most suited to rule. If you are able to take power through whatever means, that is a sign that you were favoured by the gods and that your rule is therefore legitimate. Hearing about this philosophy made my LG character feel significantly less conflicted about supporting revolutionaries.
Point is, although history is also full of "messy" revolutions, on many occasions, Revolution has been supported by a body of theory that makes it a very planned, thought-out affair. And a paladin could get behind that.
Agreed. Change may be necessary, but let's make it orderly change.
Paladins are beholden unto gods, not governments and different gods will have different idea about how governments should be treated particularly coups and so fourth.
If this were entirely true, then there wouldn't be a "respect legitimate authority" clause in the code. It may be god's law before man's law, but it's not "though shalt not give a **** about man's law." At most your deity will colour how you interpret "legitimacy" of the government being overthrown or of the transfer of power. I can see Iomedae being more accepting of someone taking up arms against an unsatisfactory government than of someone overthrowing the same government through dishonourable treachery - and more likely to condemn a sitting government for failing to honour its commitments than for curtailing civil liberties.
I've never advocated a character's alignment dramatically changing just by walking across a border.
Again, no one is advocating that. It's a straw man.
|
|
If they fail to serve good, they are not legitimate whether it's "former" or "present".At what point are the laws from a former government no longer considered a "legitimate authority" with regards to the Paladin Code?
That is not what I'm asking.
So you have an area. Say a country. They have a good legitimate government/authority. Then it get's destroyed, maybe it dies of natural causes (maybe the well runs dry), and then, some time later, a new government forms. The new government takes some time to implement, but eventually it is established and is also a good, legitimate authority. If the Paladin was alive for both governments, at what point does the previous government cease to be considered a Legitimate authority?
And a more specific example. Say the paladin is presented with an oppertunity to restore the old goverment to it's former glory (like a quest to retrieve the lost prince). In doing so, this would destroy the current government since they occupy the same place and govern the same people. Both are legitmate, good aligned governments. For the sake of the example, the act of "destroying the current government" would not actually kill anyone or destroy stuctures, just that it would make the government itself unable to function as a government (and the current leadership would need to find new jobs).
Is the Paladin able to act against one legitimate authority in order to restore a previous legitmate authority?
In your first example the old government wouldn't really be an authority anymore (as it doesn't exist).
And in the second.. yeah why not?