Paladin king, crime and punishment..

[garhkal]

Let's say your realm has a paladin for it's king. As such it is easy to see/assume the land is mostly Lawful, and probably most are also good.. On top of that, he vigorously crushed what existed for a thief guild, and told those who were there "Become the crown scout corp, or leave"..

So what crime you may have in said realm, will likely be minor stuff "petty theft, drunk and disorderly, bar fights" and the like.

Now let's say an adventuring band is wishing to negotiate up a merc contract with the crown, to have criminals sent to them for 'service' in the merc company, instead of jail time or other punishments...

First off, with how potentially deadly service may be in said merc group, wouldn't that amount to making most crimes have a death sentence for punishment? IF so, would a paladin be for or against that?

Would a paladin, more be apt to see 'service instead of jail time' as a good means for Redemption and rehabilitation??

If so, what crime(s) would be needed, for someone to warrant that sort of service?? How long of a duty?

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Damn! I've been so busy I didn't notice we had new threads!

So, tell me if I'm understanding the question correctly. Are you saying that the adventuring party is asking the king to send criminals to serve as retainers/henchmen/servants with the adventuring party, instead of jailing them? If so, I'd say it would depend on a few things.

1. What is the alignment of the adventuring company? If it's mainly evil, I doubt the king would allow it. Even if it were mainly neutral, I doubt he would. If the party is generally of good alignment, I could understand the paladin king seeing this as an opportunity for criminals to "do good deeds" in order to "serve out" their sentence. Would a good paladin king prefer that a couple of minor criminals make up for their crimes by helping the adventurers clear out a nest of evil orcs or some such thing, as opposed to sitting in jail doing nothing? I'd say definitely, especially because paladins are big on redemption and doing service to regain honor.

2. How reputable/disreputable is the party when it comes to losing henchmen and hirelings? If the party is infamous for using their henchmen or hirelings as cannon fodder or as dungeon trap probes, I'd say the paladin king would consider them both cowardly and evil (despite their actual or professed alignment) and deny the request. No way would a good aligned paladin king (or any king who wishes to remain in power!) tell criminals - "You've broken a minor law. Instead of serving 30 days in prison, I am sending you on a deadly mission with this adventuring party. Put your affairs in order, because it is doubtful you'll be coming back!". On the other hand, if the party is known for treating its hirelings fairly as partners and not cannon fodder, then I'd say the king would be ok with it.

3. In any case, I'd say the paladin would probably (at least in most cases) let the decision be up to the criminal. However, if the criminal's crime was relatively hefty, and if the adventuring party was serving the forces of good to the satisfaction of the king (especially if it would help empower or protect his kingdom), he might order the criminal to service.

I think it would best be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances within the campaign.

[garhkal]

Damn! I've been so busy I didn't notice we had new threads!

So, tell me if I'm understanding the question correctly. Are you saying that the adventuring party is asking the king to send criminals to serve as retainers/henchmen/servants with the adventuring party, instead of jailing them? If so, I'd say it would depend on a few things.

That's roughly the gist.. Though they've not gotten back to the mainland, to ask..

1. What is the alignment of the adventuring company? If it's mainly evil, I doubt the king would allow it. Even if it were mainly neutral, I doubt he would. If the party is generally of good alignment, I could understand the paladin king seeing this as an opportunity for criminals to "do good deeds" in order to "serve out" their sentence. Would a good paladin king prefer that a couple of minor criminals make up for their crimes by helping the adventurers clear out a nest of evil orcs or some such thing, as opposed to sitting in jail doing nothing? I'd say definitely, especially because paladins are big on redemption and doing service to regain honor.

Let's see. Anastasius the psionicist is LN, Eugene (formerly Ogg) and Betty are CN. Focht, Jerry and Brand are CG, Brother Joth is TN, and Gabriel, Narrilla and Alarian are all NG...

2. How reputable/disreputable is the party when it comes to losing henchmen and hirelings? If the party is infamous for using their henchmen or hirelings as cannon fodder or as dungeon trap probes, I'd say the paladin king would consider them both cowardly and evil (despite their actual or professed alignment) and deny the request. No way would a good aligned paladin king (or any king who wishes to remain in power!) tell criminals - "You've broken a minor law. Instead of serving 30 days in prison, I am sending you on a deadly mission with this adventuring party. Put your affairs in order, because it is doubtful you'll be coming back!". On the other hand, if the party is known for treating its hirelings fairly as partners and not cannon fodder, then I'd say the king would be ok with it.

So far, 10 sessions in, they've lost 3 pcsc, though one was recovered (as prisoners of the gnolls), two men-at-arms and one DMNPC (group henchmen assigned by the crown).

3. In any case, I'd say the paladin would probably (at least in most cases) let the decision be up to the criminal. However, if the criminal's crime was relatively hefty, and if the adventuring party was serving the forces of good to the satisfaction of the king (especially if it would help empower or protect his kingdom), he might order the criminal to service.

I think it would best be done on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances within the campaign.

What crimes would yu say would warrant giving that consideration to?? most they come across are drunk and disorderly's, public intoxication, a few bar fights and some petty thefts...

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

What crimes would yu say would warrant giving that consideration to?? most they come across are drunk and disorderly's, public intoxication, a few bar fights and some petty thefts...

It would all depend. Perhaps the king has a blanket policy of allowing criminals to "work off" their crimes. Perhaps he only allows the most minor criminals to go out on adventures, as they are the "least wanted" in terms of need of punishment. In other words, it's more like work release for blue collar crimes. Really heinous criminals such as rapists, murderers, etc. would probably not be let out due to the chances of them fleeing or having comrades misrepresent themselves as adventures in order to "break out" their buddy.

[garhkal]

I can see a "work release" sort of program, but wouldn't sending folks to be mercs, especially in a known deadly frontier area, be essentially making it a potential death sentence?

[Halaster Blackcloak]

It's a complex situation that depends in large part on a great number of factors - the tone of the campaign, the nature of the campaign world (or more accurately, the alignment of the nation in question), the alignment of the king, the alignment of the hiring party, the laws of the land, the particular crime committed, the familiarity of the king with the party, etc. It's impossible to give a blanket answer due to all the variables. For example...

If the wilderness being cleared is (relatively speaking) not very dangerous - say the party wants to hire prisoners to kill off a small infestation of orcs or goblins - then it's not a death sentence. Most likely, even 1st level NPCs (prisoners) would survive. And if the PCs are hiring them more as carriers to haul equipment, cook, tend horses, etc, then it's not a very dangerous situation. Since we're discussing a LG paladin/king, he would probably allow the prisoner to make the decision - did you want to spend the next 60 days in jail, or would you prefer to help these heroes clear out some goblins or what not? Perhaps since there is some risk relative to sitting in a jail cell, the sentence might be commuted to say 30 days serving with the party vs. 60 days in jail. Even though the risk is small, there is an increased risk vs. jail time.

Perhaps for more heinous crimes, the king might force a prisoner to serve with the party. The problem with that approach is whether the paladin king can trust the adventuring party. Unless the paladin king knows the party well, he's unlikely to allow a prisoner to leave custody with group of guys he doesn't know that well. They could be, after all, accomplices using the ruse of hiring a prisoner to break out a buddy.

An evil king might well force prisoners to serve time with a party just in the hopes of killing off political prisoners. Imagine a king who has a couple of political opponents in his dungeons and he wants to be rid of them but doesn't want to execute them due to public backlash. He can simply announce that the prisoners are repentant of their crime and that as part of their "work release" program they are going to accompany some "heroes" on a "mission" on behalf of their beloved country. If they die, well...the king didn't kill them. They were serving their country.

There are so many variations, I think it has to be done on a case by case basis though I suppose there should be some law of the land, in most cases, to deal with the situation.

[garhkal]

The group has done some good for the crown so far, that's why the crown sent troops to reinforce them a few sessions back.. So their reputation is building up nicely.