Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sejs" data-source="post: 3136370" data-attributes="member: 4910">Right.&nbsp; Respect, not enforce.&nbsp; And I figure we can just skip the whole 'legitimate' part of the authority clause, as I imagine we're both on the same page there.&nbsp; Unjust authority doesn't need to be respected just because it's codified (Huh.. gotta eat a baby every tuesday, eh? Well.. I suppose if it's the law...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> )That does beg the Boondock Saints question, though.&nbsp; Which is higher? The laws and dictates of your faith, or the laws of man?&nbsp; I agree, certainly.&nbsp; Ultimately the paladin may've just made the kids' situation worse (who do you think the dad's going to take it out on...), but that's neither here nor there.On the other hand, the law may not punish the man for beating his children, but even were that the case the paladin would still be justified in taking the man to task, I figure.&nbsp;It certainly could.&nbsp; As I've said in the past, foolish paladins don't remain paladins for long.&nbsp; As an aside, and I know I've mentioned this before in similar threads, punishment in the sorts of societies that your average D&amp;D game take place in tended to travel in broad strokes: execution, maiming, public humiliation, recompense, etc.&nbsp; A guy beating his kids wouldn't be hanged for it or even lose a hand, but he may spend a few days in the stocks.But that being said, two paladins don't need to handle the situation in the same way.&nbsp; One paladin could walk the road of appropriate force, while another could have a fearsome reputation as a 'hanging judge' type where justice comes at the business end of a Smite Evil.&nbsp; And both would be equal parts a paladin.&nbsp;I guess now we delve into what constitutes proof.&nbsp; The self defense thing we're on the same page with - no disagreement there.&nbsp; But, hypothetical situation: paladin's been warned there are brigands on the road ahead.&nbsp; He travels a good ways on and spots several men, scruffy and hardened, wearing crude leather armor and various weapons (thought not drawn), flanking the road.&nbsp; Several, but not all of them, ping as evil.&nbsp; They're standing there, sizing the paladin up.&nbsp; Would he be justified in thinking that these are the bandits he's been warned about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sejs, post: 3136370, member: 4910"] Right. Respect, not enforce. And I figure we can just skip the whole 'legitimate' part of the authority clause, as I imagine we're both on the same page there. Unjust authority doesn't need to be respected just because it's codified (Huh.. gotta eat a baby every tuesday, eh? Well.. I suppose if it's the law... :p ) That does beg the Boondock Saints question, though. Which is higher? The laws and dictates of your faith, or the laws of man? I agree, certainly. Ultimately the paladin may've just made the kids' situation worse (who do you think the dad's going to take it out on...), but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, the law may not punish the man for beating his children, but even were that the case the paladin would still be justified in taking the man to task, I figure. It certainly could. As I've said in the past, foolish paladins don't remain paladins for long. As an aside, and I know I've mentioned this before in similar threads, punishment in the sorts of societies that your average D&D game take place in tended to travel in broad strokes: execution, maiming, public humiliation, recompense, etc. A guy beating his kids wouldn't be hanged for it or even lose a hand, but he may spend a few days in the stocks. But that being said, two paladins don't need to handle the situation in the same way. One paladin could walk the road of appropriate force, while another could have a fearsome reputation as a 'hanging judge' type where justice comes at the business end of a Smite Evil. And both would be equal parts a paladin. I guess now we delve into what constitutes proof. The self defense thing we're on the same page with - no disagreement there. But, hypothetical situation: paladin's been warned there are brigands on the road ahead. He travels a good ways on and spots several men, scruffy and hardened, wearing crude leather armor and various weapons (thought not drawn), flanking the road. Several, but not all of them, ping as evil. They're standing there, sizing the paladin up. Would he be justified in thinking that these are the bandits he's been warned about? [/QUOTE]

Verification