Trial by jury is something that is incredibly new.
Is it? Like in 11th century Iceland and Scandinavia, matters of justice were presided over by a þing which consisted of members of the community, plus one appointed person whose job it was to know all the laws (the Lawspeaker, or Laghman). In theory every member of the community in good standing had a say, but in practice these things tended to be dominated by *influential* members of the community (political corruption is not new.) Based on testimony the þing would decide the facts of the matter as concerns the case, but they had no actual power to enforce their decisions, which were generally "pay a fine we agree upon to the aggrieved party and that's the end of this" or "you are outlawed" (i.e. your stuff is confiscated, nobody around here is going to help you, and if somebody round here kills you we don't care) possibly for a limited time period (i.e. "if you're still alive 3 years from now, you can come back".) Actually enforcing these things were left to the aggrieved party, who had the sanction of the community to do so.
There were hierarchies of these things, so if you're declared outlaw by your district þing you could move to a different district. But if you were outlawed by a higher þing you would have to move further to escape justice.
It's not that far a jump from that (from a people who were ostensibly less socially advanced than our baseline for Golarion) to some sort of "trial by jury" system. The basic idea was, after all, "everybody in the community has a say in deciding your guilt or innocence."
Or simply put: You can't choose to be a paladin, you get chosen, and even being every bit as virtuous as the fighter in your example might not be enough to get chosen.This is how I view it.
A Paladin doesn't behave because they lose their powers if they don't. They do what they do because they would do it even without them. There is an intangible something there. For some reason, in the example...
That is what they should do, just like they should not lie. That is different from them not being able to lie as if it is impossible for them to do wrong. It is certainly possible. That is how they become ex-paladins.
Right is also subjective since two paladins under different deities can disagree on how to handle a situation.Now if your point is that more than likely a paladin is more trustworthy than someone else, and is more likely to be correct that is a different argument.
Neutral good is even more equally good..?
If you are going to argue for any of the goods being the most good, it's neutral good, because it's good without any other consideration, or a balance of all other considerations. The other goods are, by definition, going to have to compromise good at the expense of something else at some point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clever LG paladin :
"Give me a moment and I'll be right with you."
"Right. You guys are free to use my scroll of teleport."
"OK, come on in. You are welcome to conduct your search."
Yep, and that's exactly why the words of a paladin wouldn't being taken at face value without any doubt, just because she's a paladin.
Because paladins aren't necessarily stupid.
|
Those are some high quality slips you're smuggling, if they can use scrolls of teleport.
Either way, I'm in agreement that not telling a lie hardly makes you infallible if you're just going to use other ways to deceive instead. On the spot, should a Paladin's word be trusted? Sure. During inquisitions and legal proceedings? Not a chance.
Because paladins aren't necessarily stupid.
I mean, it's not like they need their INT stat, and they are a pretty MAD class...
Playing a smart paladin is pretty suboptimal.
Lawful Good Paladin tells a lie knowingly? They lose their powers. There is a tangible and immediate effect in most cases. From their auras suddenly going down, to loss of powers.Lies aren't evil.
Chelaxians are at the door with a search warrant looking for escaped halfling slaves
Chaotic good: Lies through their teeth
Neutral good: Lies through their teeth
Lawful good: erm... ahh uhm... faces a quandary here. (non paladins still wind up lying)
Clever LG paladin :
"Give me a moment and I'll be right with you."
"Right. You guys are free to use my scroll of teleport."
"OK, come on in. You are welcome to conduct your search."
Better hope the Paladin had 1125g for that scroll and some place to buy it, that one of the halfling slaves can activate the scroll, that there are only three people who need to escape, and that the authorities don't refuse to give the Paladin that moment. The point of the exercise is that the choice is either to lie, or else something worse happens, and no alternative is a available.
Paladins can kill for a good cause, so why is lying for a good cause suddenly a sticking point?
|
|
Because paladins aren't necessarily stupid.I mean, it's not like they need their INT stat, and they are a pretty MAD class...
Playing a smart paladin is pretty suboptimal.
Technically correct, but you can easily play a Paladin with at least Int 10 (average intelligence), so again, paladins don't need to be stupid.
Better hope the Paladin had 1125g for that scroll and some place to buy it, that one of the halfling slaves can activate the scroll, that there are only three people who need to escape, and that the authorities don't refuse to give the Paladin that moment. The point of the exercise is that the choice is either to lie, or else something worse happens, and no alternative is a available.
It's about the principle. Doesn't need to be that scroll, but a clever paladin will try his best not to put himself into a pidgeonhole. Even if it's only the solution like presented at the beginning of Council of Thieves. No additional cost involved.
Paladins can kill for a good cause, so why is lying for a good cause suddenly a sticking point?Actually, as presented by the rules :
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Which puts certain limits to the killing question. At least in my games where murderhoboism is punishable by TPK.
On a more serious note, I absolutely and heavily disagree with Gary Gygax on that topic as we talked about in this very thread. I mean I wouldn't expect paladins in my game to go all Batman on their enemies. But if they kill without their own or someone other's life being in direct, immediate danger, that can certainly not be simply excused by: "Well, he was evil anyway, so what?".
And I would actually be much more lenient in my games about the Paladin lying to protect innocent lives. It's just that I find it much more interesting if he finds a way to reach his goals without doing so.
Which puts certain limits to the killing question. At least in my games where murderhoboism is punishable by TPK.
Limits yes (and I think we're all aware of how far those limits go, it's measured in parsecs), but the rule against lying is absolute for paladins, it doesn't go ANYwhere.
You're right that one is a lot worse than the other, and that's the point. Paladin is not "just be the absolute best good you can be" if they were they would lie when that was the most good thing to do, use poison if that was a more good way of achieving their goal, act dishonorably if that was the best way to achieve good etc.... and they would be Neutral. Good.
Paladins have morals but they also have ethics. Those can get in each other's way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's about the principle. Doesn't need to be that scroll, but a clever paladin will try his best not to put himself into a pidgeonhole. Even if it's only the solution like presented at the beginning of Council of Thieves. No additional cost involved.
My point is that we're imagining scenarios in which the Paladin is in a pigeonhole. How he got there or what he could have done differently to avoid being placed in that situation aren't relevant to this exercise.
Actually, as presented by the rules :Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.Which puts certain limits to the killing question. At least in my games where murderhoboism is punishable by TPK.
Of course. No one is saying the Paladin has a license to kill, but he can kill, in certain circumstances, in the service of a good cause. Therefore, he can lie in the service of a good cause, and in a broader set of circumstances than that: Not only is lethal force not involved, but the lie can help the Paladin avoid using lethal force against (say) low-level bureaucrats and law enforcers. Same thing with intimidation. I would even extend it to mind control methods like Dominate Person, if the Paladin somehow had access to it. Removing someone's free will for a few minutes is not as bad as killing them.
If you were taken hostage, would you want the negotiator to adhere strictly to the truth, no lying even by omission?
My point is that we're imagining scenarios in which the Paladin is in a pigeonhole
I feel like those situations are pretty artificial, and in reality there's likely to be a way for the Paladin to get out of the pigeonhole via cleverness.
Like when the Cheliaxan inspectors come to your door and you greet them with the equivalent of:
"Bonjour! Parlez-vous français? Je parle français. J'aime bien le pamplemousse. Le singe ne conduit pas la voiture."
(Except in Gnomish or Aklo or Sylvan instead of French, and you give them puzzled looks when they say anything in Common.)
You stand a reasonable chance of deflecting them. Even if the Paladin isn't allowed to say anything that is untrue, they can still say all manner of things that are completely irrelevant. IMO the "no lying" part of the Paladin code should be modified by whatever force invested in you to grant you your Paladin powers identifies as a lie; Shelynite Paladins after all should be granted some amount of artistic license. A Paladin of Erecura (weird, but legal) ought to be allowed to be especially tricky, if they're appropriately careful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without digressing too much, the word of a non-fallen Paladin will at least convince a court or barrister that the paladin believes what they say is true from he paladin's viewpoint, it does not necessarily mean that it is truth.
Don Quixote may believe he is slaying giants, yet all the locals ever see him do is charge at windmills with a lance. Don Quixote believes he is telling the truth, he even acts in noble cause, even if the facts paint a different picture.
The specific situation in which a lawful noble is summoning demons could easily complicate a setting if you dig too deep. Is demon summoning an illegal activity in that region? Did the noble forgo any protection of rank when he attempted to harm a guest? If the morale dilemmas keep piling on, someone in the group better take ranks in profession: barrister and get the plot moving where it should go - stop the social soap boxing and getting on with killing monsters and looting treasure.
Yes, there may be social consequences, yet without a good "face" PC in a group, it's like springing an endless dungeon of traps against the one group without a trapfinder. It goes from lesson to no fun in a short period of time.
|
|
It's actually probably more relevant than anything else. It's actually pretty easy to put a paladin into a no-win situation where she either falls or dies (or worse - fails and lets others die.)
Don't do that.
Exactly. Because when BNW brought up this example, it wasn't about pidgeonholing the paladin but about the difference that everyone else can simply lie but the paladin cannot.
Which is true, but it's only then a pidgeonhole if there are no other options. And that depends
1) on the GM because he's responsible for not putting the paladin in a no-win situation and for presenting options for the paladin to make use of and
2) on the player because he's responsible to have a plan B for situations which could get problematic else.
And if GM and Player work together, as they should, freeing those slaves will be challenging, but it will certainly not be impossible without the paladin lying or doing something else that would make him fall.
Which is true, but it's only then a pidgeonhole if there are no other options.
Not if there are no other options, but if any of the other options are BETTER. You are then by definition doing less good with lawful good (and thus as a paladin) than with a non paladin. A chaotic good freedom fighter has a lot of options available that a paladin really shouldn't be indulging in , such as buying the slaves more time by giving a blatantly false answer or going full on john brown. Occasionally those will be better options.
Likewise as mentioned above, there's going to be a time where curtailing freedom would get you a results, conscripting people to fight an undead army for example.
Lawful good is not more good than chaotic good, chaotic good isn't I do evil for a good cause. Both are different perspectives, methodology and ethics on good that will occasionally compromise how much good you can do.
|
|
Lawful good is not more good than chaotic good, chaotic good isn't I do evil for a good cause. Both are different perspectives, methodology and ethics on good that will occasionally compromise how much good you can do.
Not sure if you think that I think otherwise, but just to be clear, I totally agree with you on that. To me, the appeal of the paladin lies not in the thought of him being more good than anyone else. It lies exactly in the moral quandaries of not being able to do what would be totally ok for any other good character. Even LG characters can lie, as long as they aren't paladins.
So for a paladin to succeed in the same trials might be just that bit harder. That doesn't make him more good than other characters, but it's exactly the reason why I would choose to play a paladin. The aforementioned fighter would be an equally appealing character for me to play, so I certainly don't hold the pally above him.
And just for the record, one of my most favorite paladins is Cimozjen Hellecarnus from Edward Bolmes Bound by Iron (Eberron novel). And most of the time, you wouldn't even recognize him as a paladin at all.
Once again it depends on the settings, place etc. It's very campaign settings dependent and very place setting dependent in this campaign settings...
For example I authorize Paladin of all faiths... That mean Chaotic Neutral Paladin exists in my settings (though they power are not the same than Loyal Good Paladin, they are less powerful) and Anti-Paladin are just Chaotic Evil Pal... And Paladins are just "Champions of the faith"...
In my settings Paladins are part of a church so this is really important...
Plus I use the Unchained Alignments and doing things against your alignment do not change it immediately...
But let's take the Core Paladins...
So in a kingdom where the Pal don't know if the authority are really Evil : If the Pal has done something that might be considered against the law he has to turn himself to the justice, after all there's no issue with this, he knows he's right and Justice will prevail (again, depending on the setting this could not be true, but in a good Kingdom this should not be an issue for the Pal).
Then you have to consider how trial are made in your settings... If there's no justice court the judge will be whoever is officially in charge of the place where the judgement is made... Mayor/Sheriff etc.
And here can come the issue... If the Judge is Evil how will the Pal react ? Well that's another story... But let's say the Judge is not detected as Evil...
First he will have to prove "who he is" some morale testimony or demonstration of his talent can do the trick.. A druid can't lay on hands... But it's true that in some case a good bluff can convince people that you are a Pal, that's not relevant here, we are talking about a real Pal... So let's say he is recognized as such....
A LG Pal testimony is much more highly regarded than any other... his word is gold... Everybody knows they can interrogate him without him lying... And they know they have to carefully choose they're question 'cause a Pal cannot lie but can be clever... So the judgement might depend on the cleverness of the judge... but at least the judgement as a much more chance to be fair in a good environment (again it depend on the judge). And now it's in the hand of the judge...
Remember, in a trial in almost all fantasy settings is not made before a jury... But the judge is Judge and Jury, and if in Loyal environment most of the diverse case can have a law and a sentence already written, in a Chaotic Neutral environment this will certainly depend a lot more on customs in the area and in the kingdoms with a lot more disparity in the sentence than in a Lawful environment the judge in Chaotic environment has more liberty to choose the sentence than in a Lawful environment...
For me that's the greatest difference between a Chaotic Kingdom and a Lawful Kingdom: A Lawful kingdom has a lot more written laws than a Chaotic one, in a Lawful Kingdom laws are practically the same in every corner of the Kingdom... In a Chaotic one you can have ancient custom, non-written law depending on where you are in the kingdom...
A Neutral Good judge can condemn a Pal if this is for the greater good; for example, if not punishing the Pal lead to another Kingdom who is much more powerful to wage war against this kingdom, the judge can condemn the Pal even if the Pal is not guilty...
A Lawful Good judge will 99% of the time release the Pal, they would need a damn good reason to not let him free, end of the world reason for me... :p
A Lawful Neutral judge will consider what the law says... Even if the Pal has done good if it's against the law it's against the law... Good? Bad? Can't deal with that, The Law says it's forbidden to kill a noble and the sentence is x all I have to do is interrogate the Pal and he will tell me he kill him... Then I will sentence him for what the law says he has to be sentenced for...
A Lawful Evil judge? Will sentence in the limit of the law but will be harsh or lenient depending on his best interest, gain etc.
It's true that usually in most adventure the law force are made of incompetent, bribable goons... So the heroes can step in and do their job instead...
Neutral Evil will do almost the same as Lawful Evil except they might bend the laws of the kingdoms if it's in their interest... They are the most bribable of all... :p
A Chaotic Evil judge will not bother with trial... or will do a mock trial...
And that is for base trial without real investigation... Depending on the importance of the trial and who is involved in it it can lead to more investigation like magical Divinations, Anti-Lies Spells, or even Raise Dead...
Killing a Noble in Pathfinder is not necessarily enough to kill him... :p
Players got access to resurrection spells, but so are the NPC... If they are wealthy enough or worthy enough in the realm to spend the money resurrection can be a very likely solution... And yes, Red Mantis Assassin exist for a reason...
I found myself to crack an evil smile whenever my players are giving me a surprised look when I tell them about NPC resurrection :D
Paladins who fell was unfallen once, so maybe, just maybe, that would be the time he will fall.
Paladins who fell was unfallen once, so maybe, just maybe, that would be the time he will fall.
Why ?
We don't know if he really lies in the context... He could be in his right... ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think even if the GM never puts the paladins in a "paladin trap" situation, I think it's important to know how paladins are expected to behave in those situations if you want to know how people react to paladins.
If a paladin is permitted to lie to save lives, then people will not trust a paladin's word when they know lives are at stake.
If a paladin is not permitted to lie to save lives, then people will not trust a paladin in a situation where honesty may cost lives - fugitive slaves and people helping them wouldn't rely on paladins to conceal them and if they did need a paladin's help would share as little information about their circumstances and plans as possible.
If a paladin is expected to lie to save lives but will fall for doing so (and I've seen some suggest this) then you get into a hybrid situation where people won't trust a paladin's word when lives are at stake unless they can verify whether the paladin has fallen or not, people will avoid putting a paladin in a situation where they'd have to lie and therefore fall to save lives (though somewhat less so if they knew a paladin would not lie), and there will be a solid handful of heroic ex-paladins who sacrificed their powers to do the "right thing" and may even die after being left powerless in a bad situation as a result. So, depressing.
Minor side note: Abadar's truth telling is a better option here as it targets an individual while Zone of Truth is an area of effect.
The reason that is relevant is that the caster of a single target spell knows if the target made their save or not, while the caster of an AoE does not.
Also, Abadar's Truthtelling is a first level spell - much easier to get ahold of - and there's even a minor visual effect to confirm the spell is active to people other than the caster.
And that totally works. The person is playing a Paladin that lacks one of the most common traits of the Paladin class. They're going to suffer the penalty for that."Do you have any evidence of this?"
-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae.""I don't feel any more courageous around you. I think you're lying."
"Actually, I am a Tortured Crusader. You see, when I was a child-"
"Yeah, yeah, tell it to someone who believes that bullcrap. Take these lawbreaking scum away!"
So players pick paladins for the flavour, which includes being considered more trustworthy than other classes, but if they pick an archetype with unusual mechanics then they don't get that flavour? That seems... mean.
I mean, a Tortured Crusader comes with a different set of flavour so it might make sense for that archetype, but there are other archetypes that replace the usual auras, such as Divine Hunter and Holy Tactician.
In mine, it's rare for people to claim it and people can see things like divine health (there is a healthy glow about you) feel the auras (there is something I feel about just being around you) and the like.
It certainly would make it easier to identify paladins if all paladin abilities - including those of unusual archetypes - have some sort of distinctive holy feel. I might even use this idea, though only for specific orders of paladins. In my current setting, the sun/valour god would want his paladins to be immediately obvious, but the farming/hearth goddess would prefer that evil-doers have to guess about how painful it would be to confront the brown-robed village priest...
|
As an aside, I generally don't think of Paladin auras as being particularly overt. Under normal circumstances I don't think most people would consciously notice "oh, I feel more resistant to fear right now" or "I feel, like, way more resolute right now." I always kinda pictured it being way more subtle. Granted, that's just my personal interpretation, so it's by no means RAW or anything, but I think it would be hard for a lay person to identify a Paladin by their auras alone.
Obviously the Paladin could just make their sword burst into holy fire if they so chose, so there's still that.
|
|
I want to know why commoners (including some judges/lawmen) have such indepth philosophical player knowledge of paladins?
Oh, they don't. Which is why they may not know that Paladins can't lie and which is why they probably can't say for sure if the "proof" of the Paladin isn't just a magician's parlor trick.
Or they do and simply do not accept your divine authority for a myriad of possible reasons.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of it is situational. Folks are probably going to believe the Paladin if they appear to be working in the best interests of the people (also, wielding a fiery sword probably would give their words some gravity). However, if the Paladin appears to be working in their own best interest (whether they actually are or not), they would likely be more skeptical.
In the end, though, I think leaning on the fact that you are a Paladin, in the absence of all other evidence, isn't a very Paladin thing to do in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, you'd kind of have to be monumentally stupid to pretend to be a Paladin to mislead people, because that's the kind of thing that's going to get a real Paladin to take notice of you.
Pretty sure that's even on the evil overlord list somewhere.
The closest thing I could find to impersonating a paladin was:
151. I will not set myself up as a god. That perilous position is reserved for my trusted lieutenant.
Which suggests there should be sinister folks impersonating holy beings - fanatical followers of evil masterminds in addition to stupid villains who don't know about the evil overlord list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this idea is how do people know who is a paladin and who is not? Take any well-known fictional character and tell me his class. What class is Batman? How about Wolverine or Spiderman? Is Roland a paladin, a cavalier or a fighter? How would you build Belgarion from the David Edding series?
I can think of at least three ways to build a character that would be able to simulate most of what a paladin can do. What cannot be simulated can be faked.
Many paladin archetypes trade away paladin abilities for other things. Would the ordinary person consider a paladin who cannot smite evil to be a paladin? Or would a paladin that does not have smite evil be taken as a fallen paladin. What if the only paladin the locals have encountered had an archetype that traded away a core paladin ability for something else? Would the fact that the player’s paladin does not have this ability be taken as a sign the player is a fallen paladin?