One thing to consider about the whole respect legitimate authority is that it does not specifically state a paladin has to obey the legitimate authority. To me this gives the paladin a little more wiggle room then most people think. If they code requires a paladin to obey any order from a legitimate authority it would say obey, not respect.
If obeying the legitimate authority does not break any other parts of the paladin’s code then they would be bound to obey it. If obeying the legitimate authority would cause the paladin to break the code, including any alignment restrictions they are free to disobey that authority. Depending on the circumstance the paladin may have limits to what he can do, but they don’t need to blindly follow orders just because someone is the ruler of a kingdom.
One example would be if a king orders a paladin who is sworn loyalty to him to lie in court. In this case the paladin could disobey the king and tell the truth. He would not start cussing out the king and calling him a lying bastard (even if he is), but would tell the truth.
I actually really like the second edition code.
If they haven't changed it since last I checked, the code lists several virtues in order of importance. So obeying authority is always secondary to protecting the innocent.
dezfine "legitimate" plz?
I bet no paladin worth his salt will deem the Chelaxian or Galtian power structures legitimate, even though they are deeply lawful ... as to whether chaotic 'power structures' will be respected, I'm not sure they would either, then again, chaotic means that the people in power only got the authority warranted by the respect they personally command, so a paladin would have to decide about that on a personal basis.
I would say they are more good that lawful in general (they are defined as champions of virtue i.e goodness not champions of lawfulness)
I would think that paladins should try to emulate archons' way of thinking:
While a cruel dictatorship might be a legitimate enemy of the archon, rebellion and riot is not the proper way to address such an inequality. Justice and law must not be abandoned in the constant struggle for peace and good, for in such anarchic actions one often promotes further harm and mayhem, even if unintentionally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are not archons. Archons are equally disposed toward law and good. Paladins are disposed to good first, then law.
No they are not, to an LG paladin, they are abusing the power of Law to settle themselves in power... they are not legitimate.
The thread is not about determining if any particular authority is legitimate. There are probably dozen of threads about that. What this thread is about is what does Respecting mean. Assuming that the paladin does recognize the authority as legitimate what is he required by the code to do?
As I pointed out the code does not state the paladin is required to obey legitimate authority, but simply to respect it. It seems to me that if a legitimate authority were to order a paladin to commit an evil act, or otherwise break the code the paladin is free to disobey the order. On the other hand if the legitimate authority is giving an order that would be considered good, the paladin is probably required to obey that order.
But what about situations where the order is neither good, nor evil? Let’s say the authority gives the paladin and order that conflicts with the paladins interests? For example could a ruler of a neutral country order a paladin that is not in his service to fight in his war? Said paladin was already doing something else that was important to him.
respect (rɪˈspɛkt)
n
1. an attitude of deference, admiration, or esteem; regard
2. the state of being honoured or esteemed
3. a detail, point, or characteristic; particular: he differs in some respects from his son.
4. reference or relation (esp in the phrases in respect of, with respect to)
5. polite or kind regard; consideration: respect for people's feelings.
vb (tr)
6. to have an attitude of esteem towards; show or have respect for: to respect one's elders.
7. to pay proper attention to; not violate: to respect Swiss neutrality.
8. to show consideration for; treat courteously or kindly
9. archaic to concern or refer to
"(...) a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority (...)" - we're talking about a verb then.
The paladin definitely wouldn't have LE goverment in high esteem (6.), so that meaning is out.
The meanings 7. and 8. are still possible though.
Even if the paladins don't like the particular goverment, they may be required to accept the authority of LE goverment over their subjects, and they may be forbidden by their code to act against it, even if that would be Good (7.).
They may even be required to treat the government's officials courteously, even if they are scheming bastards (8.).
I don't see in what meaning you can respect someone's authority and at the same time act to undermine it.
To find the way out of it, we may have to analyze what "legitimate authority" means after all. As far as I understand, the meaning of this may vary depending on a culture, but it can by generally understood as "right to rule". In some societies, personal might, or the collective might of the supporters, is enough to give one the right to rule. In others, the right to rule is hereditary. In some other (like pre-modern China) the right to rule came from the support of the divine. In others, it is granted in the elections.
In the paladins case, the sistuation may depend on whether in judging the goverments they are supposed to use the regional criterion of legitimacy, or are they supposed to apply one specific criterion of legitimacy no matter where they go.
If it is the former, the paladin is allowed to disrespect the local goverment only if it was established in a way that is locally not acceptable, for example if someone cheated in a test meant to choose the right ruler, or it turned out he was born out of wedlock, or the divine stopped supporting them etc. That could have force them to respect an Evil ruler even though someone else would be Better.
If it is the latter, the paladin may, for example, believe that one has the right to rule only as long as they look after the good of their subjects, and if they stop doing that they lose their legitimacy. That would let them to act against almost any Evil goverment they encounter.
To me respect is more about how you treat people. Just because I recognize that someone actually has authority does not mean I have to obey it.
I can respect a person’s belief without having to follow them. For example many religions have dietary restrictions. I can respect a person’s belief that pork is unclean, but that does not mean I cannot have bacon. What I cannot do is to deride them for not eating pork or try and trick them into doing so. That would be disrespecting their belief.
I can respect my enemy without having to obey him. As long as I polite to someone and treat them with dignity I am respecting them. I can argue against them and even disobey them and still respect them.
To me respect is more about how you treat people. Just because I recognize that someone actually has authority does not mean I have to obey it.
Every authority is limited. Just because someone has authority, doesn't mean that they have authority over you. So yes, I agree, generally you don't have to obey them, unless you yourself are their subject. But just as you don't interfere with someone religious practice if you respect their religion, you don't interfere with someone's governance if you respect their authority.
I see a difference between "respecting someone" (having someone in high regard), "treating someo with respect" (acting politely towards them), "respecting someone's opinion" (not riduculing it and not making them change it) and "respecting someone's right" (not interfering when someon is exercising that right). As I argued, I believe that "respecting legitimate authority" means "respecting someone's right to rule" which means you don't interfere with how they rule their land.
A paladin doesn't have to obey someone who isn't his sovereign, but he should recognize that a sovereign has the right to rule his subjects. And if a paladin is a subject of a sovereign, he should obey the sovereign, not because of the paladin's code, but because he's a subject.
Let’s say that a paladin is a knight of a kingdom. The king is an immature and selfish person, but is still the legitimate king. The king is not evil, but is more concerned with his own desires than the wellbeing of others. Most of the time the king can be convinced to do the right thing but occasionally acts dishonorably.
There are two candidates for a position at court. Both are qualified, but one is the obvious superior choice. For personal reasons the king has taken a dislike to the better qualified candidate. The other candidate cheated at something and blamed the first candidate for it. If the accusation is found to be true this will utterly ruin the life of the first candidate. If the truth is learned the second candidate will not be affected that much. The paladin saw the whole thing and knows that the first candidate is innocent. He tells the king what he knows, but the king orders the paladin to lie about it and support his favored candidate.
The first scenario is that the paladin searches his soul and when called to testify tells the truth. This angers the king who heaps abuse on the paladin in public. The paladin is polite and does not speak ill of the king. He even acknowledges the kings right to choose whoever he wants for the position. The king goes ahead and installs his favorite, but the first candidates honor is still intact.
The second scenario is that when the king orders the paladin to lie he becomes angry at the king. He argues and swears at the king. He even goes so far as to tell the king he is a sorry excuse for a king and tells him that his is not fit to be king. But in court the next day the paladin does as the king wants and knowingly lies about the incident. Because of his lies the first candidate is sent home in disgrace.
Which if either of these cases would cause the paladin to fall, and why?
A tax paid to the church of Asmodeus, that's where it's really getting tricky.
Is it? Maybe a tax... but Asmodeus has lawful, non-evil portfolios under his control as well. He is the god of contracts. A paladin should feel perfectly fine paying an Asmodean cleric their due legal fees for services rendered in negotiating or drafting a contract.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Render therefore unto Asmodeus the things that are Asmodeus's.
Taxes are just citizenship fees, though.
@Mysteriuos Stranger
Is the king above law? I don't believe the king has the authority to order the paladin to lie in a court of law. As I said evry authority iis limited - first, by the set of subjects it applies to, and second, by the scope of lawful demands it can issue. If the king doesn't have the right to force the paladin to lie, the answer is obvious - the paladin should tell the truth. He has no duty to obey an order the king had no right to issue.
If the king has such right, the situation is more complex. However, this can only be the case if the king's will is considered more important than the fairness of the court of law. For whatever reason, obeying a king's order is considered a greater good than saving an innocent's life. This is difficult to cemprehed, but I can imagine a situation when undermining royal authority would lead to a rebellion by a 3rd party and deaths of many. Of course, the best action would be to avoid this conflict altogether and find a way to save the innocent without underming royal authority; but if the palandin is unable to find a way to do that, he may feel that he should grit his teeth and obey the king. As long as he's doing it for the Good reasons, I don't think he would fall.
It's probably worth remembering that Paladins are allowed to commit chaotic acts, but not evil ones. I feel like that nicely sums up the intended response for "to be lawful or to be good" quandary.
In the scenario I put forth the court is the king’s court. There is no judge or jury because the king is sitting in judgement. The king is using the situation as an excuse to do what he wants while appearing to be just an honorable. The king can and will decide to promote his favorite regardless of the outcome.
This is a feudal society where the king is actually the ultimate secular authority. The paladin is a sworn vassal of the king. If he does not act the first candidate will be considered dishonorable and lose not only the position, but will also have no hope of gaining any other positon within the kingdom.
In the scenario I put forth the court is the king’s court. There is no judge or jury because the king is sitting in judgement. The king is using the situation as an excuse to do what he wants while appearing to be just an honorable. The king can and will decide to promote his favorite regardless of the outcome.
This is a feudal society where the king is actually the ultimate secular authority. The paladin is a sworn vassal of the king. If he does not act the first candidate will be considered dishonorable and lose not only the position, but will also have no hope of gaining any other positon within the kingdom.
Ok, so the paladin is order to lie not to deceive the judge (because the king is the judge an he already knows the truth) but so that the king could keep the appearances when he chooses the less favourable candidate for a official position. I assume the order was made in secret - it would make no sense to make the order public if its goal is to keep some facts hidden.
Also, the king is a despot nd it is widely accepted that the king may make such orders to his subjects, and the order to lie is legitimate. Disobeying the king and telling the truth is a crime, while obeying the king and lying in public is not, because there is no law above the will of the king. The Lawful thing is to lie. Let's think what is Good.
From the normative perspective, the paladin needs to decide what is a greater virtue: truthfulness or obedience to a sovereign.
From the consequentialist perspective, the paladin needs to figure out what will be the consequences of his decision and which ones are more favourable.
- Obeying the king and lying causes an innocent to suffer, but keeps the king's authority intact. The kings gets an inferior candidate into the court position.
- Disobeying the king and telling the truth puts the king in a difficult position as he will have the choice to either declare the accused guilty in spite of the paladin's testimony (we've established he's a despot, therefore able to do that), declare him innocent but still give the official position to another (making his favoritism apparent) or declare him innocent and give him the applied position (which he doesn't want to do, because ha favors another). There are these three possible outcomes: the king publicly shows his tyranny, the king publicly shows his corruption, or (in the case the king will be convinced to do the Good thing) the king will actualy get a superior candidate into the court. In all of these outcomes, the king becomes secretly disgruntled with the paladin who disobeyed his orders (which may have further consequences down the line). The paladin can't directly choose which outcome will happen, but may try to affect the king.
Ultimately the paladin needs to decide what is less undesirable. He may try to go for the best possible outcome (tell the truth and try to convince the king to appoint a superior official), but he should also assess the probability of success, and consider the chance of other outcomes.
If the paladin comes to a conclusion that doing the Good thing is the same as doing the Lawful thing, his choice is clear. If he won't be able to reconcile the two, that may be a problem for him personally, and he can start to doubt in the existence of Lawful Good in this situation. This alone may ultimately cause him to fall. But he may as well keep his faith, keep believing that a Lawful Good solution exists even if he's unable to find it, and decide to take an action that is the closest to his Lawful Good ideal. In this case, he wouldn't fall.
I agree that neither case should cause the paladin to fall. Merril’s point is spot on.
The only thing I would add is that the paladin has a responsibility to show people the right way. By blindly obeying the king he is actually harming the king. If the king’s behavior is not checked he will continue in his ways and maybe even slide into evil. The king obviously wants to be seen as good, but does not really understand what it really means. The only way the king is going to learn what good really means is if he is shown the way.
By standing up to the king the paladin not only does the right thing for the accused, he also gives the king an opportunity to learn and grow. By disobeying the king he can teach the king to be a better king. Instead of treating the king as something to be tolerated as a necessary evil, he sees the king as a man that is worth saving. By helping the king become a better person he is showing more respect than if he blindly followed the kings order.
Paladins are not archons. Archons are equally disposed toward law and good. Paladins are disposed to good first, then law.Paladins do not compromise. They represent an ideal. That ideal isn't Good. That ideal isn't Lawful. That ideal is Lawful Good, and even more strictly it is the code they are held to.
A paladin shouldn't cut hairs and try to measure if an action is 'good' enough, or 'lawful' enough. A paladin should act on their instincts and apologize for honest mistakes. Seek atonement if necessary. Caution isn't a virtue, but rather the hesitation that allows evil to act and chaos to spread.
While a paladin can certainly act like that, nothing in the code nor the class's philosophy requires it. A paladin can most certainly have a deliberative, reasoning personality--so long as the act of deliberation itself isn't suspect in a given situation. (That's an important qualifier, as there are certainly situations in which stopping to navel-gaze would clearly be a greater evil.)