Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzagi_akimbo" data-source="post: 2017219" data-attributes="member: 15945">Well, kick-start your imagination and head for the history section of the local library.....In most historical societies, unless they were theocratically ruled or theocratical dictatorships/tyarrnies, even high ranking priests/potentates only rarely held the power of worldy justice, and the ability to dish out "fitting" punishment. Unless they were either explicitly empowered to do so by the rulers (as many clerical inquisitors/investigators were during the medieval witch-hunts, and look how a "well-meaning" "lawful" and caring priesthood abused that entitlement - also abbeys/monasteries holding tracts of land with serfs working these had those power of "low-law" judgements for those lands alone. Which would be nowadays felonies and minor crimes, but definitely not crimes carrying the death penalty) or they were actually nobles themselves. Ancient and medieval societies ( and most contemporary ones, as well ) were exceedinly leery to invest priesthoods with worldy power, and especially so, with the right to hold court and decide judical disputes through verdicts. And they were also very leery to enpower other people with the same privilege. The power over life and death (e.g. the right to pardon even a guiltyy and sentenced offender) used to be a tightly held boon.Of course, even minor priests could be nobles - but that is an in-character empowerment, not a general rule. And not every noble had the right to be judge and jury for just anyone he encountered.Unless, say, there was a lawful evil society, which empowered its dignitaries to dispense summary execution to a specific group of people - be they disenfranchised (slaves), foreigners, heretics or a racial minority. But even then some form of formality and acoountability would be included/implemented.And I would very much call into doubt the degree of law-abiding displayed by any lawful priest, or even more so a paladin, slaying a helpless opponent in cold blood, if there was even a remote chance that he could be judged by the cleric's/paladin's superior(s) or a proper court etsablished by the PCs/area's  sovereign(s). Lynching - while an infamous part of American legal history - was never legal nor an accepted method for dealing with crime. In fact, lynching was a crime, punishable by death, under the statutes of murder.....Unless said opponent was already sentenced to summary execution and death by the proper authorities and until now evading execution of said sentence.Or the paladin/cleric being especially charged and authorized to dispense death sentences as "due process" (which has terrific abusie-potential  - both in-game and with regard to metagaming issues, ). Now, that is a "carte blanche" that any GM must choose to apply or deny to such characters. As for the initial rule question about the "Iron Bands"Generally, I would concur with the reading of anyone bound so tight as to become 'immobile' to be equally "disadvantaged" as someone being "helpless" through paralyzation etc. BUT - lets use some common sense - a tightly held psion is still very much NOT helpless, and I would also assume a Beholder being bound by this neither dropping to the floor, nor being helpless enough as say, not to use his anti-magic eye to neutralize the item or simply disintegrate it with an eye-stalk beam.... So, someone who is capable of either escaping or seriously harming you while being physically immobilized (yes that sounds like being "pinned" to me) should not actually be treated as 'helpless'.</blockquote>

Verification