The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Numion]

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).

EDIT: The Paladin did clearly find out the Halfling was involved:

The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.

/EDIT

Fortunately Paladin is not a defense attorney for the bad guys. There are always possible explanations which would make seemingly evil actions non-evil. What if the 'supposed' assassin trying to kill your wife is really mind controlled? What if your wife was just before exchanged for an evil doppelganger, and the 'supposed' assassin is really another Paladin hot on his tracks?

The Paladin could always ponder himself ineffective when in most likelihood a swift and decisive action is warranted. The Paladin should always take reasonable actions to make sure he's smiting [Evil], and not [Neutral] or [Stupid], but he can't afford to play defense attorney for [Evil]. Wasting time finding out motivations is not, IMHO, reasonable when evil's afoot right now.

 

[Arravis]

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

I never mentioned the character loosing his alignment or even his paladinhood over this one action. Like I had posted earlier, I've never had a character loose either over one single action. I do believe that the act was egregiously neutral, and depending on the circumstances... even evil. I don't have enough information to make a conclusion.

 

[Supaida]

Let the hate flow through you

I have little experience with paladins, myself. That said, if I were the DM, I'd probably have a corrupting agent, a succubus or a dark priest or somesuch, become aware of this somehow, decide the paladin's rage gave him potential, and try to tempt him into eeeeeeeevil. It's not really a punishment, but it is a consequence, and it both gives you a new plot hook and lets you see how good the player really expects paladins to be. I definitely wouldn't take away his powers, though. At most, I'd remove them temporarily after the threat to his wife and unborn child had passed. Because man, if you attack a pregnant woman, you deserve what you get.

 

[Arravis]

The Paladin should always take reasonable actions to make sure he's smiting [Evil], and not [Neutral] or [Stupid], but he can't afford to play defense attorney for [Evil]. Wasting time finding out motivations is not, IMHO, reasonable when evil's afoot right now.

George Orwell wrote about this very thing in his book: 1984.
"Imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever"

 

[Voadam]

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?

Under the RAW this is the relevant factor. Was this an "evil" act. If so he loses his powers.

 

[billd91]

Under the RAW this is the relevant factor. Was this an "evil" act. If so he loses his powers.

I think there are a lot of us who would consider the paladin's action not only not evil, but just... given a moderately medieval mindframe.

 

[J-Buzz]

It really doesn't matter what everyone else says about the act and if it is what a Paladin should do or not. It is up to you as a DM to decide if the act is outside of the Paladins Code of Conduct, or not a Lawful Good act. I don't think enough information has been given for myself to form an opionion.

However, if you feel he did do bad, I would not take away abilities without first warning the character/player. I would have another paladin/cleric discuss what he did and make him attone for the deed, making it very clear what would happen if he continues down that path. Then the charater can decide if he wants to take revenge or not. As you can see, everyones ideas differ on this subject.

 

[Numion]

George Orwell wrote about this very thing in 1984.

I'm not saying a Paladin should be totalitarian. They should take reasonable steps to ensure righteousness of their actions. They should not let doubt render themselves inefficient. That's why the gods in their wisdom chose to grant Paladins Detect Evil and Smite Evil as abilities instead of Detect Motive and Read Miranda.

 

[Arravis]

I think there are a lot of us who would consider the paladin's action not only not evil, but just... given a moderately medieval mindframe.

D&D long ago gave up any pretence of having a "medieval" mindset. It bears much more resemblance to our own world than it does to the world of 500 years ago.

 

[Arravis]

That's why the gods in their wisdom chose to grant Paladins Detect Evil and Smite Evil as abilities instead of Detect Motive and Read Miranda.

As has been stated countless times by WoTC and others, Detect Evil is not a license to kill. Playing a paladin is a bit more difficult and complex then that.

Anyway, I do think J-Buzz is right... both sides have given a good account of their views and it comes down to a DM's decision. I do agree that such a thing needs to be discussed with the player. I've always had good experiences in such instances. You'll be surprised how much they'll work with you, even expecting such (possbile) changes for their actions, etc.