The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Jim Hague]

I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.

Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.

"Um...sir...actually, your favored weapon is the longsword...yes, here it is, sir. And I'm not sure what you just called yourself...and it's probably not my place to say...but maybe you should consider cutting back on the drinks a bit during lunch hour, sir."


Eh...it's a living.

And you do such a good job, too. As for the axe, I got that off of Google. So mock my investigative skills as you like.

But that reminds me...I'd also have paladinboy there go back to this room and find the god's favored weapon, his personal instrument, shattered. Subtle hint there, y'know.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Ok, first of all, any DM that puts the paladin in this position and then afterwards has to come wringing his hands for advice, isn't doing his job. What the hell did you expect to happen?

I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.

Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?

My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.

 

[Demmero]

Um, no, it isn't. I said nothing about respecting authority only in word and not in action.



Please tell me, that deciding not to go the official way in this case shows in any way that the Paladin doesn't respect the legitimate authority. Because I don't see it.

The "official" way in many countries is so open to outside interference, blackmail, bad judges, easy to escape from prisons, lazy guards, convuluted bureaucracy, and many other things that it is well within the rights of the Paladin not to trust them in this or any other case.
Which doesn't mean that they won't try judge him for his actions.

For simplicity (and because I have no idea how to quote multiple sources in one reply), allow me to direct you to the compilation of the original poster's posts - Post #462, middle of page 12 of this thread.

Here's some of his responses, ones I think help prove my point.

"The paladin (who worships Hieroneous) is effectively a noble of the kingdom he is in (he is actually a noble from another kingdom who has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities). He has the legal powers of a nobleman -- but he is in the capital city of a kingdom which is (simplifying here of course) Lawful Good. He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances."

A bit later, the OP is asked what the normal punishment for accessory to assault would be.

"Legal guidelines would involve incarceration followed by trial, with imprisonment as the likely penalty. The situation was not one where the paladin was slowed down (other people were just arriving on the scene); his full attention was directed at the prisoner."

So....he has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities, he doesn't have the right to order (let alone perform) execution as punishment, and there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer.

To give more than lip service to 'respecting' legitimate authority, the paladin has these issues to deal with.

 

[Demmero]

I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.

Maybe, or maybe he was simply testing the paladin. And the paladin's not screwed for being a paladin--it didn't come down to a choice of A) Snap a captured halfling's neck and lose your paladin powers, or; B) Don't snap a halfling prisoner's neck and still lose his paladin powers. The DM didn't make him brutally execute a captive instead of turning him over to the authorities.

Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?

My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.

Well, assuming that the main foes in the adventure are the proper EL for a 17th-18th-level party...they have to know what a paladin is. The exact Code of Conduct...that's debateable.

 

[Conaill]

I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.

Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?

My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.

Have you read the posts by the DM in this thread? When you do so, you'll see that he sounds like a very reasonable man, who is *not* out to get his paladin player...

As for Wulf's "what did you expect to happen?"... it's clear that the DM did not expect the paladin to start summarily executing prisoners, going against local law, the tenets of his faith, and common sense. Just like I assume he wouldn't expect the paladin to execute a common cutpurse he has captured in the marketplace. My guess is that he expected the party to capture and interrogate the prisoner, and find out important details about who planned or executed the breakin in the first place...

 

[Joker[ZW]]

To give more than lip service to 'respecting' legitimate authority, the paladin has these issues to deal with.

Your point of view makes a Paladin unplayable in many situations. According to you if the Paladin gets ordered by the legitimate authority to kill an innocent child (for whatever reason) he loeses his powers whatever he does, its a catch 22. If he does kill the child he loses them because he killed an innocent (an [evil] action), if he doesn't kill the child he loses because he didn't "respect" an order from the legitimate authoritiy (using your definition of the word "respect").

Again, look at the definitions and spirit of the four tenets of the god's dogma - Honor (dishonorable to beat a helpless opponent, or one severely overmatched), Justice (beating to extract a confession is hardly just), Valor (see Honor - while he was busy slapping the halfling around, real evil was afoot), Chivalry (again, the actions are pretty unchivalrous). So, no. He didn't act like a lay knight, let alone the direct represenative of a god with those facets.

A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time and the different points you make have already been refutet/others by others so if you don't mind I won't take that time to repeat them to you now.

As for Wulf's "what did you expect to happen?"... it's clear that the DM did not expect the paladin to start summarily [snip] going against [snip] common sense.

Then the DM doesn't know a lot about the average PC

 

[FickleGM]

My view is that only an evil authority would order the death of an innocent child. In my games, a paladin does not view an evil authority (or sometimes even a neutral authority) as being legitimate. To a paladin, a legitimate authority = a good (and most likely lawful) authority.

 

[Voadam]

I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.

Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.



"Um...sir...actually, your favored weapon is the longsword...yes, here it is, sir. And I'm not sure what you just called yourself...and it's probably not my place to say...but maybe you should consider cutting back on the drinks a bit during lunch hour, sir."


Eh...it's a living.

"Grumble grumble, impertinent third generation squire whipper snappers! In my day Heironeous was known for his axe. And there was never any in the treasure loots, it was always longsword +1 +2 vs giant sized creatures or longsword +1 flametongue. Paladins these days and their preferred weapons. And we could only have five magic items at most and had to tithe as a class requirement. Paladins these days don't even need to earn more xp than fighters or have a 17 charisma."

Heironeous only took up the sword in 3e. In 1e and 2e his holy symbol and personal deific weapon was the battle axe.

 

[Demmero]

Your point of view makes a Paladin unplayable in many situations. According to you if the Paladin gets ordered by the legitimate authority to kill an innocent child (for whatever reason) he loeses his powers whatever he does, its a catch 22. If he does kill the child he loses them because he killed an innocent (an [evil] action), if he doesn't kill the child he loses because he didn't "respect" an order from the legitimate authoritiy (using your definition of the word "respect").

No it doesn't. What you've done is switched your emphasis from respect legitimate authority to respect legitimate authority. An authority that routinely has children killed would not be respected or acknowledged by a LG paladin in the first place, and thus would not be legitimate to him.

The paladin in question accepted his place in the city's nobility/caste structure, and acknowledged that there were folks above him whose wishes/beliefs/power might supercede his own. He was told that there were ways things were handled, and he accepted those conditions (presumably, since it was a Lawful Good city, its tenets were comfortably close enough to those of his own and his church's).

He has accepted the city's laws and rulers as legitimate authority figures and chosen to respect them...up until he shows a callous disregard for that authority by carrying out an unlawful execution.

He did not respect legitimate authority; he's broken the paladin's code of conduct.

A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time

I agree only if you're talking about your god's tenets in relation to the code of conduct, but I'd add that they shouldn't just be tossed aside when they're inconvenient (like when a paladin of Heironeous (who's big on Justice) ignores an authority that he's already deemed legitimate and takes the law (brutally) into his own hands).

A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time

Taking this statement at face value, though, my answer is: Hell yes he does! Or come darn close to it! If any element of the code comes into play in any single encounter, he's got to act in accordance with each and every one of 'em.

According to what you wrote, a LG paladin could use poison (against the code), provided that poison wasn't against a legitimate authority that he recognized (that may be a stretch), to take out a group of baddies who are holding children hostage (help those in need, punish those who threaten innocents). He's acting according to code...except for using poison to get the job done. And that's a code violation in spite of what he did right on the other points of the code.

and the different points you make have already been refutet/others by others so if you don't mind I won't take that time to repeat them to you now.

Meh.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Greg K]

I would strip the paladin of at least some of his abilities if not all of them. Paladins (and clerics) should first and foremost be representatives of their god and should be held to a higher standard that promotes the beliefs/ideals of their deity. In this case, the Paladin put his own emotion and desire ahead of his teachings and the ideals he is supposed to exemplify. Were his actions understandable? Yes, they were a very human response. However, in my opinion, the actions taken out of anger and a desire for vengenance were not appropriate actions for a Paladin of Heironeous as I do not see murder or attempted murder of the halfling as representative of the ideals of Heironeuos. If anything, the Paladin's actions could have people seeing hypocrisy in the of espouting valor, justice, etc. and the paladin's actual behavior and, in turn, have them question the legitimacy of Heironeus's other representatives by association.

Furthermore, I don't see the Paladin's actions as being Lawful Good. For the reasons others have already stated.

So, what we have is the classic tragedy of someone "falling from grace" , because their own human emotions and immediate needs momentarily clouded their judgement and led to transgression.

The fallout should make for great roleplaying as should the attempt at redemption.