yes and they would realize it instantly
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Paladins, by oath, must enforce Law and Good. They are Law enforcement. The are also Good enforcement. No, a paladin's code does not normally include 'enforcing' the law, that would be more tyrannical. The morals and decisions that others make are theirs, he is only responsible for his own virtue. He can choose not to associate with people who flaunt the law or disregard public safety, he can sermonize, condemn, or cajole them with why they should obey the law (some laws seem arbitrary and stupid but actually have good reason for their existence.) A paladin will respect legitimate authority and they will 'uphold' the law but that's not the same as enforcing it. He will honor the spirit and meaning of it (not trying for a pedantic or loop-hole reading) even if he doesn't agree with it, as long as it's not evil or life-threatening (though the punishment for it could be death, as long as following the law itself isn't.)
This does not apply to acts which are evil or would be threatening; he would stop an arson who was setting fire to a building, he would stop a mugger, he would chase of a thief. The truth is, however, that in the society that most game-worlds exist in, it is the responsibility and duty of all citizens to apprehend, chase, harry, and prevent such actions, not just law-enforcement (who typically just post laws, hold prisoners, or enforce tariffs and taxes at gates and checkpoints. Not every world or city matches this of course, but it is how it typically would work.)
In the case of a kidnapping, he could intervene if he saw someone being bundled into the wagon, but if that person pulled a legitimate wanted poster, citation, or badge of authority (and the person being detained resembled the listed target or description suitably) he either should have a very good reason for interfering (ie. he knows this is not the actual person, a loved one of the person begs him to intervene) or he's actually hindering a good-will attempt at upholding the law (whether you're innocent or not, breaking out of prison is a crime.) He can certainly investigate the situation on his own, catch the real criminal, persuade the bounty-hunter to go away (even by offering to pay the bounty he would have received to turn him over to the paladin's custody.) Though anything he says or promises must be followed through (such as paying what he agreed, not using counterfeit coins, not tossing the coins into a river, not throwing them over someone's head and attacking them (nonlethal or not it's still assault when the person is not threatening you), and not donating it to charity in their name and claiming that's the same as paying them.)
Code of Conduct wrote: 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.
Nowhere is it a paladin's responsibility to enforce the law (they can be law enforcement officers, but that has nothing to do with the discussion.)
A paladin who knows it is a crime to jaywalk, will avoid jaywalking. He will not tackle, arrest, or otherwise accost someone else doing it unless their actions are endangering others (like they have a young child and it's clearly a dangerous through-way, or the person constantly causes accidents when wagons and carts veer to avoid them.) Obviously, if someone is going to be hit by a cart or to prevent an evil or life-threatening situation, they will also intervene, such as interrupting an attack or assault on the other side of a street, this is perfectly acceptable, since jaywalking is not itself an evil act.
A paladin could even capture and kidnap someone, just like the kidnapper above. They could be hunting a legitimate criminal with legitimate authority and accidentally get the wrong person and not know they have them until they get them to prison or court (or even after the person spends weeks incarcerated before someone identifies them or the real criminal is captured.) Obviously everyone is going to claim mistaken identity. That's a mistake, they should strive to correct any losses or damages the person suffered to their business, family, or reputation, but the action wasn't evil (to the point of causing a fall or loss of powers.) The paladin still needs to do the right thing, even if the action wasn't one that cost him his powers ("If it wasn't enough to fall then it wasn't bad," isn't a sufficient reason not to do the right thing.)
If the person were executed, they would have a harder time making things right, but unless the paladin was integral in that outcome, like adding resisting arrest or attempted escape to the crimes and those caused the death (or serious loss of property or body), then they should be okay, as long as they strive to right the wrong.
A paladin is not required to follow all laws of all authority blindly just because they are laws. If an evil lord of an evil king on passes a perfectly legal in their country law that 'all elves are to be executed on sight". In no way whatsoever is he required to follow that law and indeed helping enforce it would be a means of falling. In the good/law diumvirate good takes precedence over law if law is evil every time, end of story.
Now if there is a plausible third option that supports both, sure. But a paladin is lawful good, not lawful neutral.
Was only a matter of time really.
Vidmaster7 wrote: Was only a matter of time really. Until those elves got what was coming to them?
RDM42 wrote: If an evil lord of an evil king on passes a perfectly legal in their country law that 'all elves are to be executed on sight". In no way whatsoever is he required to follow that law and indeed helping enforce it would be a means of falling. Yes, but let's be clear that it's because that law is unfair and evil (assuming there are good elves living in that country) and not because the ruler is evil. Even if a just and good ruler passed that law it would be viewed in the same light, though there could be valid reasons, the country could be at war with elves and elves could be killing people everywhere. No different than a 'kill all drow on sight' law, but if there were good drow living among the people that would be different.
Just because a ruler or kingdom is evil doesn't not invalidate their authority, Asmodeus is a legitimate authority in his kingdom and domain, you don't have to like it, but if he declares murder to be a crime, and punishable by life (which he can make way worse than death) you don't get to ignore or flaunt that law because he's evil. Similarly, an evil council of wizards that passes a law making fire spells illegal (whether because there was a prophecy that said they'd be destroyed by fire or because inexperienced fire mages keep starting fires) is not an evil or life-threatening law, and would still be uphold by a paladin. That is not the same as supporting evil just because you follow laws that aren't evil, whether they were litigated, legislated, dreamed-up, or even enacted purely for selfish reasons (like increasing taxes and fines) as long as the law isn't itself evil or life-threatening.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Until this turned into a paladin morality thread... and the elves got what they had coming.
While apprehending someone fleeing from justice is not an evil act that is not what happened here. When the KIDNAPPER found out that he had the wrong person, but still insisting on collecting a ransom he is performing an evil act. If after he found out he had released the “prisoner’ and did not try to hold him for ransom that would be an entirely different situation. Change the crime to murder and it may become clearer. Let’s say that instead of kidnapping the person was going after a dead or alive bounty. They track down the wrong target and before the kill the target they realize they have the wrong target. But they decided to still kill the innocent target. At this point the target has been straight out murdered. If you find out that the action you thought was justified is not, and continue doing that action you lose all moral and legal authority to perform the action.
Without being at the table and knowing the motivation of the player it is very much a gray area, but at this point I would give the benefit of the doubt to the paladin. The original poster is right that he needs to have a discussion with the player about what it means to be a paladin. A good GM should not be looking for excuses for a paladin to fall because he suspects the player is trying to gain a game advantage. . Tackling a criminal and refusing to pay him for his crime is not something that should cause a paladin to fall. A paladin’s fall should not be due to a technicality it should be something truly willfully done for the wrong reason.
Fun fact when I played that scenario my immediate impression was that the bounty hunter was entirely complicit in murder given the context of the scenario. The op is omitting details that makes the situation seen far less sinister than it really is like who the bounty hunter was delivering the person to.
Yeah given that the kidnapper didn't release the prisoner once they realized mistaken identity. Paladin would be fully within their code to straight up kill the person and if the deal didn't include their safety tough, code doesn't say be nice.
On the deceit part there may be a point, but I would not call that anywhere near bad enough to warrant a fall.(Btw this is why paizos version of the code is beyond stupid because they removed the grosly violate part.)
Wultram wrote: Yeah given that the kidnapper didn't release the prisoner once they realized mistaken identity. Paladin would be fully within their code to straight up kill the person and if the deal didn't include their safety tough, code doesn't say be nice. and where does it point that you have the right to be a murder hobo against evil? the good thing would be to incapacitate him if no deal was struck to deliver him to the legitimate authority to deal with him, not outright kill him.
even law enforcement who are lawful neutral not good, don't go to outright killing of evil or criminal, they will strike deal with them to ensure safety of innocent and if they can't they will strike at those person and at the same time try to keep them alive so they can have their punishment.
killing them without trial is unjust and evil, thus a paladin would not do it unless there is no other choice, if lawful neutral don't do it then a lawful good will certainly not do it
If lethal force is what is needed to ensure the release of the prisoner so be it. The paladin is in no way obliged to give the person money out of their own pocket as alternative. Sure simply demand release verbally, noncompliance is justification enough to resort to violence. Sure if they continue such things once the target is incapacitated that goes into evil territory.
Kidnapping isn't some minor misdemeanor. I at least personally feel that I would be fully morally justified in killing anyone that tried to do so to me. And if someone intervened in this hypothetical scenario with the same result I would thank them.
it is not morally justifiable to kill a kidnapper (unless the kidnapper has kidnap someone to kill them but the kidnap intent is now evil) and it is really unlawful to do so, the paladin is not a vigilante nor is he the judge jury and executioner, he must respect legitimate authority, and if the authority say it is murder he cannot do it unless there was no other choice.
yes he is in no way oblige to give the kidnapper money, but if this is the best course of action to save the person then he must do it, doing else would be foolish and endangering the person in question, and if the kidnapper just want a ransom, the paladin as no right to kill that person, doing so will be cold murder and thus an evil act
You may belive so, but it is nothing more than my statement an opinion. The fellow forfeited their right to be unviolated once they decided to infringe on the right of another in the same fashion.
no, this is false, we have law and the world we play has also law, it is only true in a place were the law say this, that's why criminal still has right.
what you say is an example of an evil (at best neutral evil at worst chaotic evil) person trying to justifies murder, because it is more convenient for him than follow the law and do the good thing.
your opinion is not what dictate what is good or lawful, the force of good are there to try to preserve life and redeem evil so they become good, a lawful person follow what the law say not what his feeling say.
I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis, but I'd say when a Paladin Falls, he usually knows.
When Lancelot woke up naked with naked Gueneviere in his arms, he knew even the first time.
When Sturm Brightblade used a magic item to heal Kitiara Majera, breaking his vow as a Knight of Solamnia to never use magic? Yeah, he knew.
When Buffy the Vampire Slayer was sleeping with the Vampire Spike, she knew she was doing something bad.
Sometimes, it's a little tougher to call. If Buffy were a Paladin when she accepted Spike's help stopping Angelus from destroying the world, she didn't even need atonement for that.
When Sturm fled from the Elves, he knew he was doing the right thing, but that came up in his trial later that he showed cowardice in the face of his enemy.
I heard an interview on the radio once with an ivory poacher. He was asked if he knew that elephants recognize their own dead and seem to engage in funeral behavior when they encounter the bones of another elephant. He answered that whenever he encountered elephant bones, he felt like it was Christmas come early. He would stake out the site, shooting one elephant after another harvesting the ivory in turn until he had all the ivory he wanted. He said he then would go home feeling like he had done a bad thing, but not as bad as coming home to starving children with no money for food.
I had a lawful good character who burned down a village while everyone innocently slept. The reason? She knew that 3 gorgons were coming to massacre the whole town, going house-by-house, petrifying each family in turn. Since no one in town knew her, she had no reason to believe that anyone would believe her warning. The party didn't believe her either. So, she did the only thing she could think of. She started setting fires, and when the fires were going, she raised up a cry that marauders were coming and the town was on fire. The gorgons did come, and some townsfolk were petrified as they fled, but basically, she saved the village by burning it down. After the incident, she surrendered herself to be tried. I think she would not have fallen were she a Paladin. The GM and the party recognized she was acting Lawful Good.
I am not speaking about laws. Slavery was legal, most genocides were legal. Law most certainly does not dictate what is moral. All that you can get from laws is what the people in power like to be the status quo.(combined with what they can get away with.)
Lawful means order inclined not necessarily law abiding. And your opinion doesn't decide that either. If you are the GM then your subjective morality is the objective morality for that campaign but that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than an opinion.
And redeeming evil is just a single way to represent good. I suggest you look at some of the good gods in PF and DND settings and look at their opinions of who deserves even the chance of redemption.
Lanathar wrote: The Paladin was there to make the agreement (one of only three party members in the room). He just decided he didn't want to lose his gold.... That said he hasn't done this for noble means as far as I can tell. He has done it because he wants his 50gp back.
I am not making him Fall for this and will give him chance to justify it. But it in my mind it is marks against his card for the future. And definitely justification for a warning about conduct and the code
Do you know for a fact that that was why the player did it: just to save money? Did he say that? I'd let him defend himself to me if he gave me that impression. "I don't want to give this guy 50gp" might mean he doesn't want to part with his own money, or it could mean he doesn't want to do anything to enrich a kidnapper. But you were there, and I wasn't.
I'd say in general, vis a vis being a Paladin, breaking a deal is bad. Apprehending a kidnapper to bring him to justice is good. Saving the kidnap victim is paramount.
I'd say that if the result and intent of his actions was that the hostage was rescued and the kidnapper was apprehended and brought to justice, I'd forgive a little lying on the part of the rescuer. I might impose some minor penalty, depending on the PFS rules are.
After the fact such as it is, I think it probably would be best to let that particular matter go.
But it is still fun to explore moral issues.
John Murdock wrote: Wultram wrote: Yeah given that the kidnapper didn't release the prisoner once they realized mistaken identity. Paladin would be fully within their code to straight up kill the person and if the deal didn't include their safety tough, code doesn't say be nice. and where does it point that you have the right to be a murder hobo against evil? the good thing would be to incapacitate him if no deal was struck to deliver him to the legitimate authority to deal with him, not outright kill him.
even law enforcement who are lawful neutral not good, don't go to outright killing of evil or criminal, they will strike deal with them to ensure safety of innocent and if they can't they will strike at those person and at the same time try to keep them alive so they can have their punishment.
killing them without trial is unjust and evil, thus a paladin would not do it unless there is no other choice, if lawful neutral don't do it then a lawful good will certainly not do it I think it is an overstatement to say "fully within [the Paladin] code to straight up kill him." I would rather say that the Paladin would be fully within his code to use force, possibly deadly force to secure the safe release of the hostage and attempt to apprehend the suspect. Killing the bad guy in this case doesn't seem right, but it might be forgivable, maybe even easily forgivable.
I think there is a difference between "outright killing a criminal" with no due process, and death of the suspect resulting from the process of rescuing a hostage.
The more details I hear about the situation the more I think the paladin was in the right and should not fall. Even if the paladin is not actually an officer of the law he can still use force to stop a criminal in the act of a crime especially against an innocent victim.
Code of Conduct: 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.
Breaking down the code let’s look at any violations. The bounty hunter is not a legitimate authority in this country so there is not violation there. The victim not the bounty hunter is a person in need of help, so failing to help the victim would be grounds for falling. The bounty hunter is also harming (Kidnapping would count as harming)an innocent person, so failure to punish the bounty hunter would be a violation and the paladin would fall. The only question seems to be did the paladin act dishonorably? So even if the paladin’s actions were to be considered dishonorable, which I do not believe is the case. There is still the fact that failure to protect the victim would be a clear violation of the code.
As I said before I do not know the full circumstances but from what I have seen the paladin did not act dishonorably. The paladin seems to have caught someone in the midst of a crime against an innocent person. Obviously the paladin and his party have put a stop to the crime. The criminal instead of ceasing his criminal behavior is trying to extort money from the paladin’s group to leave the victim of his crime alone. The paladin and his party are reluctant to pay the criminals to stop their criminal act. The paladin negotiated with the criminal to allow them to leave and even offered to return some money they had taken from the criminals. That was not good enough for the criminals who demanded more money to cease their criminal behavior. There is an implicit threat that if they bounty hunter is not paid the innocent victim will be in danger from the bounty hunter. At this point the paladin refuses to pay the bounty hunter to leave the victim alone. In a fit of anger the paladin throws down some cash well away from the bounty hunter. When the bounty hunter went to retrieve the paladin’s money the paladin defended his property. He also specifically uses a non-lethal attack against the bounty hunter.
The above is obviously my own interpretation of the encounter, and whether this is true or not I have no idea. The point is that the encounter is not as cut and dry as the original poster seems to think. This is the reason a GM should be very careful about causing a paladin to fall for code violations.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
