The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[jdrakeh]

Everyone pointing out "adherance to authority" simply begs the question. Who is the authority the paladin is beholden to?

Good point. And all the more reason to avoid alignments, IMHO.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here:

1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting.
2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned.

Um, no. You are either omitting at least one other "circle of thought" or misstating the position of those you think fall into circle #2.

Perhaps this would be a good time to refer everyone to this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

The part that is most relevant to your #2 is probably: "As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law [that] is unfair or capricious."

 

[Arravis]

If, on the whole, the paladin is not Lawful and Good...you're right, he's not being Lawful Good. But we don't have any information about what he's doing on the whole, so we can't make that determination.

I agree. Personally, I have never had a paladin loose his paladinhood (or turn evil) over one action. It tends to be a series of decisions that lead to the change. I could see some actions that would cause an immediate change, but this would not likely be it.

It is a step though and as a DM I would carefully watch how the character reacts to the situation before I intervened with a heavy-handed removal of paladinhood or change of alignment. Personally, I work slowly on such things... more often than not asking the player at some point "What do you think your character's alignment is? What do you believe should be put down?". I'll see a moment of deep introspection, then a look of understanding as they realize the meaning of their character's actions, and they change their alignment on their own.

I'd rather such things be obvious and clear to the player... they may not realize the path their character is on until they are well down it, but by the time I ask them, it is undeniable.

 

[Numion]

In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. Evil: unnecessary death. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.) Passion due to the personal nature of the attack is both a mitigating factor (clouded judgment) and not an excuse -- if you can't uphold the law for yourself, what kind of example do you set?

If you get down to it, most deaths a Paladin causes are unnecessary. He could always strike to subdue (except in cases of Undead or Demons, maybe) and try to reform his enemies. But this isn't the case - since time immemorial Paladins have of their own will descended into dungeons to slaughter sentient, but evil, humanoids and confiscate their stuff. Without divine retribution or Paladin-powers-yoinking.

Why would the gods take exception for an evil Halfling? Because he kinda looks like a short human instead of some scaly monster?

Maybe there could be legal consequences, but I don't think that a court would sentence for killing assault conspirators, if it's anything like medieval courts.

A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks.

 

[billd91]

It's not an issue of it being "evil", but not "lawful good".

Lawful, does imply some measure of actual following of laws, as stated in the SRD "obedience to authority". I agree that Lawful does not mean following laws without regard to morality (ie good), but that is a double sided blade.

I think many are interperting this as an issue of justice. Justice though is not good, nor is it evil. It is neutral. Justice is simply the administration of law... impartial to either good or bad, simply to the law itself. If a paladin followed justice alone, he would not be a good character for very long, much less a paladin.

Not everything a paladin does must qualify as lawful good as long as its neither evil nor a gross violation of his code. Killing the accomplice of someone who assaulted his own wife fits neither of those two criteria.
And unless the society is highly legalistic with significant recognition of the rights of the perp, it might even be legal.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Biblical doesn't mean it has anything to do with either good or law... there are many specific instances of parts of it having neither. And when did Lawful Good become about "all about" righteous vengence? That's not in the description of good (not even close) nor in the description of the paladin class.

I guess that depends upon how much weight you ascribe to: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." Fighting evil without mercy is pretty close to "righteous vengeance" in my book.

Was the halfling a innocent forced into the situation or was he a guilty collaborator? That's the real question at hand... and one that the paladin had no way of knowing in that moment. He chose to not do good, by not bothering to find out.

Are you sure about that?

The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.

We don't know exactly what questions the paladin asked or what answers he received, so I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion that he "didn't bother to find out."

 

[Arravis]

A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks.

Unfortunately evil doesn't wear a sign announcing itself. The paladin did not bother to find out the circumstances of the halfling and the motivation behind his actions. He hadn't even seen any evidence of wrong-doing:

"The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife."

There were only words exchanged. What if the person who informed him was wrong? What if the whole thing was just a bad joke? Who knows... the point is that what sets a paladin apart is the fact that he'll bother to find out the circumstances (making him lawful, by making sure who is right and who is wrong), and then making a good decision based on that (be it mercy, or something else).

 

[Arravis]

I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion that he "didn't bother to find out."

You're correct about that... there isn't enough information to make a clear judgement on that issue. Call it an educated guess.

 

[Voadam]

Enough of those neutral actions and the alignment of the paladin changes to neutral, and thus he looses his paladinhood.

Not if his good and lawfulness otherwise outweighs the neutralness of the character overall.

Character alignment is a description for the character overall, not for his isolated actions.

Paladins are a special case as one evil action (while not necessarily changing his alignment from LG) will strip him of his paladin powers no matter what other good he has done or how good a character he is.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks.

A paladin should be strong enough in his beliefs (including honor and respect for legitamate authority) to overcome his personal anger. A husband who loves his wife so much that he will murder a person who acted as the decoy in her assault should be strong enough in that love to give up his godly destiny for her. Choose.

A paladin with a wife and family is on a collision course with tragic destiny in any case. Its too bad he hit the intersection with the decoy instead of someone who objectively deserved death.

The story of the righteous vigilante has a certain apeal, but its not the paladin's story (though it could be an ex-paladin's story.) Personally I find the story of the servant to duty who does his job and follows his code even through the pain, even when its personal, to be equally apealing and that is the paladin's story, even if its not as sexy as the angry vengence.