DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[haakon1]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[haakon1]

I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.

No, but she is the Head of State. And in time of constitutional crisis, she would be in charge. In the 1960s, the British had a plan for military/royal takeover from the elected leaders, much like the recent coup in Thailand, if the 1968 disturbances led to a communist takeover.

I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil. I'll have to read about Liechtenstein! If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.

Also, there's a difference between absolute monarchies (from the Reformation onwards) and traditional medieval monarchies. Absolutism ("what I say goes because God says so") is a product of early modern times.

 

[haakon1]

Define 'legitimate authority'. The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice. The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority. In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and de facto abdication of authority on his part. Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.

So if a cop wants custody of his kid, you shouldn't give it to him, because that's an abuse of his authority?

Oh, and the other comment from another poster than the cop is above the law, who said?

Also, in 3.XE, paladins do not serve gods or churches. They serve Goodness, full-stop.

Say what? I thought that was an option (a lame one, IMHO), not required or default. And I thought that was for clerics.

In D&D, Good is an actual, tangible, quasi-sentient force in the universe

The default world in 3.* is Greyhawk, not Star Wars. There's is no Force in Greyhawk.

 

[Andor]

And as I pointed out, even a monarch not limited by a parliament or a constitution can be good. Bhutan is an excellent example of this, though in the last few weeks he recently decided that his people should have democracy and required them to form two parties to have an election.

Ahh yes. I saw an article about that. All the people interviewed said "We have a good and wise King, why would I want democracy? Still, he's the King, so we have no choice."

 

[NilesB]

So if a cop wants custody of his kid, you shouldn't give it to him, because that's an abuse of his authority?

Let's say that you are fostering an infant for child protective services, when you are awoken in the night by a banging on your door. Answering it you find the child's father a police officer. Fingering his gun in it's holster the man demands his son, refusing all inquires about the boys safety and his authorization.

That's what the situation looked like to the PC's

 

[billd91]

Let's say that you are fostering an infant for child protective services, when you are awoken in the night by a banging on your door. Answering it you find the child's father a police officer. Fingering his gun in it's holster the man demands his son, refusing all inquires about the boys safety and his authorization.

That's what the situation looked like to the PC's

That's a lot of projecting your assumptions on the situation. We know of no such thing. From the original post, it looks just as likely that the PCs were just being uppity punks who won't take any guff, no matter what the social situation is.

 

[billd91]

Define 'legitimate authority'. The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice. The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority. In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and de facto abdication of authority on his part. Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.

Depends on the campaign world, doesn't it? If the king rules by divine right, equality doesn't enter into it. In fact, equality becomes a very dubious justification whenever you have hierarchical societies... like aristocracies and monarchies. There's no out-of-campaign argument you can make to say the Arbiter overstepped or stepped outside of his authority.
But if, for example, protection of family units and inheritance comes under the authority of the state (as it pretty much always does), then he most certainly did not and could not step outside his authority by demanding the custody of his heir.

 

[Fenes]

I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil. I'll have to read about Liechtenstein! If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.

And you haven't yet. I said the system was evil.

 

[Fenes]

Depends on the campaign world, doesn't it? If the king rules by divine right, equality doesn't enter into it. In fact, equality becomes a very dubious justification whenever you have hierarchical societies... like aristocracies and monarchies. There's no out-of-campaign argument you can make to say the Arbiter overstepped or stepped outside of his authority.
But if, for example, protection of family units and inheritance comes under the authority of the state (as it pretty much always does), then he most certainly did not and could not step outside his authority by demanding the custody of his heir.

But if we leave modern values, then killing a rude man could be completely good and in line with any divine mandate for a paladin in the campaign world.

 

[billd91]

But if we leave modern values, then killing a rude man could be completely good and in line with any divine mandate for a paladin in the campaign world.

And how likely do you think it is that rudeness warrants death in the paladin's mandate, particularly when said rude individual is the representative of the king? What paladin code of conduct would make sense to include respect for the legit authorities save when they offend the paladin's tender sensibilities?

Suffice to say, the DM's dismay in the OP rather suggests that your supposition is not the case.