As a counterpoint.....
Khaalis said:
* Did the Paladin “Grossly” Violate the Code of Conduct?
From the SRD:
So to answer if the Paladin Grossly violated the code we have to ask:
1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
2) Did he act with honor?
3) Did he NOT help those in need?
4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
Now to the question…
1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
I am not sure as we do not know WHERE this occurred. However, in most places in the Realms this offense is a death penalty offense. Depending on where this occurred, it may even be that the Paladin knew that any other course would allow the criminal a chance to escape punishment, legal systems being as they are, and it is within the Paladin’s nature to ” hates to see the guilty go unpunished”. The Paladin caught the man in the act. That does NOT mean that a magistrate (court, etc.) is A) Going to believe the Paladin, nor does it B) Prove that the court will find the criminal guilty. The Paladin acted within the boundaries of what was GOOD and RIGHT. He may have avoided the legal system, but we also do not know what acts the Paladin followed up this event with. At the very worst, the Paladin acted as Judge and Jury.
Does this grossly violate the code? No. It may not have followed the local law to the letter but it falls within the LG alignment and within the Paladin code, assuming that the Paladin had ANY reason to be doubtful of the local authority. Remember the Paladin is only required to “Respect” LEGITAMATE authority. At the absolute worst, the Paladin bent this aspect of the Code as a personal sacrifice to do what was the Good and Right thing. Again, as with the Good Vs. Evil argument – doing what is right is sometimes more important than doing what is “Lawful”.
(Example: Just because Slavery is legal somewhere, doesn’t mean a Paladin is going to suffer slavery as a Non-Evil act. To the Paladin, what is right – acting against slavery – is more important than respecting the law.)
I think we all agree that there is a typical manner of dealing with such happenings. Be that calling for the guard or whatever, there was some set of socially determined methods for dealing with this man. What, in detail those are, we don't know as of yet.
The question I'm looking at is this: Why didn't the Paladin use those methods to deal with this issue? Not using that method is not respecting legitimate authority, unless the paladin has already been given that authority by whoever give authority.
It is assumed that the paladin acted against the local authority buy using lethal force when he doesn't have that right because he was concerned with the safty of the child. This isn't true. The man wasn't threatening the life of the girl. As vile as what he was going to do, it isn't the same as if he held her with a knife to her throat. The Paladin had a multitude of non-lethal ways of protecting the innocent,
but he deliberately chose to disrespect the legitimate authority by using lethal force immediatly. He doesn't have that right.
Even if the man had a knife to the girls throat.
If there was a knife, the paladin's disrespect of the local authority's power would be quickly understood. Sometimes one must act quickly, without authority, inorder to further the goals of that very authority one acts against.
This is plainly not the case. The Paladin didn't even announce his presence before killing the man. The Paladin did in no form the "good and right" thing.
2) Did he act with honor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
In my opinion... No.
There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly. It is not a cowardly act to act immediately. If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child. Acting immediately was the best action.
From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.
There was no pressing need to act immediately. The cretin obviously was not intending to kill the child. No matter the vileness of his actions, the man wasn't threatening life and limb. The Paladin acted dishonorably by disregarding the expected annoucnment along the lines of "Stop right there you beast!" and jumped right into sword swinging. Why?
Because he wanted to kill the man and he didn't want to wait for the "law" to do it.
3) Did he NOT help those in need?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.
Agree. He helped those in need.
4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.
As long has he punishes within his given right to punish, yes. I don't think the paladin in this instance has a carte blanc right to kill those who are evil or who have commited evil acts.
To me the Paladin ignored authority, behaved cowardly by not announcing himself in a situation that didn't justify immediate action, and fell pray to the spirit of vengence by not being willing to allow the legal authorities to deal with the matter.
joe b.