Paladins with powers being deluded/deceived?

[Celebrim]

That is, do we interpret "failing a saving throw" (against Daze) as a weakness of the Paladin, with the Paladin being culpable for the failure?

Thx!

TomB

The civilizations within my game world do exactly that, regardless of whether or not you are a Paladin. You are culpable for anything that you do while charmed, dominated, or possessed under all common legal codes.

This is a practical matter for most. There is simply no way for most societies to prove whether or not someone had been enchanted, so they have no means of evaluating, "But, but.... someone cast a spell on me", as a defence - particularly in cases where the spell has expired. Being able to show that you were enchanted might mitigate your culpability, but its not percieved as eliminating it. So from the standpoint of the societies within my game world, the deity would not be seen as being unusually strict in this regard.

It's also worth noting that casting 'Charm Person' or similar spell on someone is considered the crime of rape, and in generally punished by death - generally a pretty nasty one unless your noble status grants you the right to a beheading. Laws differ over whether it can be justified in cases of self-defence, but law or no law just the accusation that you tried or even just know mind-affecting spells is dangerous. Mind-control of any sort seriously scares people in my game world.

 

[Umbran]

The civilizations within my game world do exactly that, regardless of whether or not you are a Paladin.

Is the civilization in charge of whether the paladin has powers?

 

[Celebrim]

Is the civilization in charge of whether the paladin has powers?

No. I was saying that if a deity interpretted a failed will save as a weakness of the champion, then the diety would be in keeping with normally accepted convention.

Indeed, it would probably be easier to convince a deity to pardon you for having killed someone while dominated, than it would be to convince a mortal judge.

I'm addressing TomB's startlement that you could be held accountable for a failed saving throw. Although, in the particular case of carrying a child to safety and then being dazed by a spell, the culpability would be the same as if the child had slipped from your arms as a failure of strength. I can see a Horror check being in order with strength depending on how emotionally invested the champion was, but I don't see an evil deed on the part of the Paladin in this example. The blood isn't figuratively on the Paladin's hands.

 

[Dandu]

The civilizations within my game world do exactly that, regardless of whether or not you are a Paladin. You are culpable for anything that you do while charmed, dominated, or possessed under all common legal codes.

This is a practical matter for most. There is simply no way for most societies to prove whether or not someone had been enchanted, so they have no means of evaluating, "But, but.... someone cast a spell on me", as a defence - particularly in cases where the spell has expired. Being able to show that you were enchanted might mitigate your culpability, but its not percieved as eliminating it. So from the standpoint of the societies within my game world, the deity would not be seen as being unusually strict in this regard.

It's also worth noting that casting 'Charm Person' or similar spell on someone is considered the crime of rape, and in generally punished by death - generally a pretty nasty one unless your noble status grants you the right to a beheading. Laws differ over whether it can be justified in cases of self-defence, but law or no law just the accusation that you tried or even just know mind-affecting spells is dangerous. Mind-control of any sort seriously scares people in my game world.

So you're responsible for everything you do while enchanted except for sex?

 

[Celebrim]

So you're responsible for everything you do while enchanted except for sex?

One of these days, I just need to ignore you.

Where are you getting that?

I said: "You are culpable for anything that you do while charmed, dominated, or possessed under all common legal codes."

Charm Person is considered legally the same as rape because it deprives the person of free will and control over their person. It doesn't matter what you charm or dominate the person into doing, though certainly the possibility that you'd make free with their person in a sexual way plays into the consideration of the crime.

 

[pemerton]

If you can show you were drugged without your consent, I severely doubt you'll be convicted of a DUI.

The space of actual "criminal law" in which mens rea does not apply seems to be pretty limited. Not nonesxistent, but limited.

there are edge cases which are troublesome. What if your computer were turned into a bot and used as a porn hub, without your knowledge? What if a PDF attachment which a friend sent, which was to be the latest beta rules document for SystemX, was actually porn.

Depending on both the particular offence and the general legal princicples that govern it, there may be a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact available.

 

[tomBitonti]

Which is to say, "Is the GM being a real jerk?"

If we are to be detailed about it, it probably falls to the question, "Did the paladin take reasonable precautions?".

If the paladin failed the save because he or she had been out drinking and was three sheets to the wind, or because they'd made some other foolish choice, then yes, they're culpable.

If the paladin had taken reasonable precautions, had used his or her resources to resist, and so on, I'd not hold them culpable.

We'd as well ask, do we hold the paladin in violation of not punishing the wicked if he or she doesn't hit and kill villains on a single stroke every time? No? Why not? Because some things in the world are simply not possible, and the paladin cannot be held responsible for those.

Now, I could imagine a story in which the paladin is held to a much higher standard - where it isn't so much about intent and breaking rules, and more about purity or worthiness. The failure at the critical moment is indicative of a flaw in their character, and they simply cannot be of this lofty class until they prove themselves worthy. That kind of story usually works far better in fiction (and older fiction at that) than it does in a game, though, so I don't tend to run it that way, myself.

In the end, part of it really depends on what kind of challenges the *player* likes. Would the player like a loss-and-redemption arc?

I agree that some players would be unhappy (at the least), if a GM made this interpretation.

But, from a story telling point of view, the interpretation fits. Or could be made to fit.

Let's have the Daze be cast, say, not by a Wizard, but instead by a beguiler: By a town courtesan, who had been rebuffed by the Paladin:

"The Paladin crashed to the doorstep, the babe held close and safe against the encroaching flame. Almost to safety, the Paladin glanced ahead, only to espy before him the voluptuous image of Dreselda, the town's courtesan with whom he had argued the day before. The scandalous image smirked and reached to lasciviously caress the Paladin's face. The Paladin froze, only for a moment, but long enough for the flames to overtake him and the baby. He struggled forward, badly burned but alive. But within his arms lay a charred, nearly unrecognizable mass of flesh, now forever still."

Here the courtesan is clearly the one responsible, having cast a form of Daze. But, the in game narrative could be that the Paladin was also at fault, having showed a moment of weakness when he failed his saving throw.

Similarly, failing a fear save and running from battle could be interpreted as a failure, even though there was no player intent to run away.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dandu]

One of these days, I just need to ignore you.

Never put off for tomorrow what you can do today.

Where are you getting that?

I said: "You are culpable for anything that you do while charmed, dominated, or possessed under all common legal codes."

Charm Person is considered legally the same as rape because it deprives the person of free will and control over their person. It doesn't matter what you charm or dominate the person into doing, though certainly the possibility that you'd make free with their person in a sexual way plays into the consideration of the crime.

What if a woman was Charmed and raped, but sex outside of marriage is a crime, with no exception for rape?

Of course, I doubt any place in your games has laws that are quite that bad (unless you're going for a place with terrible laws, in which case I could offer you some useful real life examples), but if you're not responsible for the sex you had while Charmed, you shouldn't be considered responsible for crimes committed while Charmed either, since in both cases, you have been deprived of free will and control of your body.

Punishing a Charmed person makes about as much sense as Yaweh kicking out Adam and Eve for disobeying him and eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; why would you punish someone who couldn't have possibly known that disobeying you was wrong? (And, if certain interpretation of the Bible are correct, did not have free will in the first place.)

 

[Celebrim]

What if a woman was Charmed and raped, but sex outside of marriage is a crime, with no exception for rape?

Of course, I doubt any place in your games has laws that are quite that bad...

Well, certainly nowhere where I've felt inclined to set a story. I would presume that somewhere in the western interior of Sartha they are every bit that bad, but I've no inclination to investigate that.

but the point is that if you're not responsible for the sex you had while Charmed

How does that follow?

Since you seem to be hung up on gender issues, let's make it simple for you. Suppose you Charm or Dominate a male, so that he's inclined or forced to have sex with a female. Legally, he'd be responsible for any resulting children, and his wife (if any) would have legal recourse to plead for divorce, and his reputation would be ruined. Again, the law doesn't generally accept "I was charmed/bewitched/possessed" as a valid defense. The judge would - justly or unjustly as you see it - rule that had you been truly pure of heart you would have resisted the compulsion, and in any event quite often the victim is incapable of presenting evidence in support of his claim.

you shouldn't be considered responsible for crimes committed while Charmed either, since in both cases, you have been deprived of free will and control of your body.

I'm not trying to argue what you should or shouldn't be responsible for it, or trying to convince you that the code is just. I'm just explaining what law generally prevails throughout my homebrew world. Just or not, it represents what I think is a logical recourse for communities with minimal magical resources facing far more puissant beings, and I think it represents the logical emotional response to feelings of helplessness. It's a harsh world and its citizens respond to things harshly.

Punishing a Charmed person makes about as much sense as Yaweh kicking out Adam and Eve for disobeying him and eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; why would you punish someone who couldn't have possibly known that disobeying you was wrong? (And, if certain interpretation of the Bible are correct, did not have free will in the first place.)

Err... please do go on in elaborate detail about your religious convictions. It will save me the trouble of ignoring you.

 

[Dandu]

How does that follow?

Since you seem to be hung up on gender issues, let's make it simple for you. Suppose you Charm or Dominate a male, so that he's inclined or forced to have sex with a female. Legally, he'd be responsible for any resulting children, and his wife (if any) would have legal recourse to plead for divorce, and his reputation would be ruined. Again, the law doesn't generally accept "I was charmed/bewitched/possessed" as a valid defense. The judge would - justly or unjustly as you see it - rule that had you been truly pure of heart you would have resisted the compulsion, and in any event quite often the victim is incapable of presenting evidence in support of his claim.

Ah, so essentially saying "he didn't fight hard enough"?

I'm not trying to argue what you should or shouldn't be responsible for it, or trying to convince you that the code is just. I'm just explaining what law generally prevails throughout my homebrew world. Just or not, it represents what I think is a logical recourse for communities with minimal magical resources facing far more puissant beings, and I think it represents the logical emotional response to feelings of helplessness. It's a harsh world and its citizens respond to things harshly.

Then my apologies; I thought you were of the opinion that such a law was just, since we were discussing whether a Paladin is held responsible by his god for actions resulting from a failed saving throw. I interpreted your statement of that he would be held responsible for his actions in your world as saying you thought such a stance made sense.