alignment question using the proverbian paladin (again)

[delericho]

Using strict adherence to the rules...

It can't happen. Subdual damage never results in death.

If, however, we use a 'real-world' model, where such a thing actually can happen, then the Paladin had no business knocking out the innocent to prevent them from going into danger. There are ways to achieve that goal without the risk of death. Grappling and then restraining the innocent springs to mind as the obvious choice.

Furthermore, there is a huge question over whether the Paladin actually has the right to deny the innocent the option of choosing the danger. Strikes me that the Paladin does not have that right, unless the Paladin knows that the danger is overwhelming and the innocent is not acting rationally.

And yet, despite this, I'm going to say the Paladin remains in good standing. If I believed in giving 'warnings' to Paladins on the edge, then this would call for that... but since I do not, and since this is not sufficient cause for an actual loss of status, no sanction is appropriate.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Its all about the good faith effort - imo, within core rules the paladin did not make a good faith effort to stop the person without killing them.

Found myself thinking about this a bit more when I had some involuntary awake time last night, and I wanted to elaborate...

The paladin to me is like a zoo worker who sees a foolish person trying to enter the "lions and grizzly cage match" cage. He looks in front of him and sees :

1) A net
2) A trank gun
3) A large pipe wrench
4) A gernade

He picks up the pipe wrench and smacks the bloke across the back of the head with it. He later explains to the police that he only wanted to stun the deceased, and if he had wanted to kill him he would have just used the genade. Half an hour later give or take commercials there is a DunDUN sound and a title card and ADA Jack McCoy is talking to a jury using phrases like "reckless endangerment" and "depraved indifference to human life".

When using intent as a allignment guide (which I feel is an important component) it has to be tempered with a Reasonable Humanoid Test. A paladin whose intent is to protect an innocent from themselves but who forgoes tripping, grappling, subdual damage, intimidation and diplomacy in favor of hoping to do just the right amount of lethal damage and stabalize with a heal check fails that test, and his action is judged by its results. The "killing an innocent" result = go looking for a friendly 9th level cleric.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

In order for an act to be a sin, the person must INTEND it to be a sin. Sinning is knowing and willful wrongdoing. If the paladin is trying to do good, and the result is bad, the act wasn't a sin. It was a Bad Idea. Your God cares about what's going on in your shiny paladin heart, not if you make a stupid decision. After all, stupid decisions are what mortals are best at.

Now, Jack MaCoy has a valid point. At some point, a Bad Idea is no longer an accident, but reckless. If the paladin does something that a reasonable person can see is a Bad Idea, he will have to take responsibility for his actions. In this scenario, though, I would suggest that correction would come from mortal authority (town guard, etc), rather than divine. God knows you didn't mean it, judge knows you should have known better.

In my game, the God would have appeared in a dream and basically said "WTF? Bad plan, dude. Bad plan. Repent, and you shall have my forgiveness, and try not to screw up like that again." My opinion for the proper thing for the character to do is go to the authorities, report exactly what he did and why, and accept whatever punishment is meted out to him.

This is of course assuming that the government system is generally just and fair. Since we're looking at blacks and whites here, not much sense in muddying the waters.

It would also be appropriate to seek out the victim's family for forgiveness and whatever reparations mr paladin is able to make. And that's the end of it. No loss of powers, no need for an atonement. Just some roleplaying, and the same consequences as any other character who tried to do good and ended up with a Bad Idea. The difference would all be in the way the paladin reacted to it.

 

[Halivar]

It would also be appropriate to seek out the victim's family for forgiveness and whatever reparations mr paladin is able to make. And that's the end of it. No loss of powers, no need for an atonement. Just some roleplaying, and the same consequences as any other character who tried to do good and ended up with a Bad Idea. The difference would all be in the way the paladin reacted to it.

Agreed. A well role-played paladin will punish himself for the transgression. Now, if he was callous towards the suffering of the dead guy's loved ones, well, that might warrant a visit from a figure of divine authority.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Using strict adherence to the rules and assuming the minimum amount of DM interpretation and given a "generic" fantasy d20 setting:

A paladin attempts to knock someone unconscious to keep that person from going into danger. He accidentally uses too much force and delivers a killing strike that he is powerless to remedy as his spells are all gone for the day and his healing skill fails him.

Given this highly contrived scenario, what happens to his paladin status and alignment?

Trick question (or simply erroneous in it's basis). As others have stated it is a rules impossibility in d20 D&D to "accidentally" inflict lethal damage instead of non-lethal damage. Non-lethal damage cannot kill you, by definition.

If the paladin is using an attack that somehow does both types of damage then he would have to be reckless if that attack were even close to possibly killing the target. The paladin is not doing anything evil, but he certainly is demonstrating clearly that he does NOT have the best interests of his target in mind. "Hmn, let him go into danger - or possibly kill him IN ORDER To keep him safe? Yeah, I'll take the chance on killing him myself..."

Either that or he's colossally ignornant. But, he loses his paladin status until he atones (which inlcudes getting the target raised and kissing his... feet in apology). NOTHING happens to his alignment - unless his behavior was motivated by the genuine desire to potentially HARM the target.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Trick question (or simply erroneous in it's basis). As others have stated it is a rules impossibility in d20 D&D to "accidentally" inflict lethal damage instead of non-lethal damage. Non-lethal damage cannot kill you, by definition.

Erroneous in basis. The question was sincere.


But it looks like everyone is mostly coming down on the side of "remains lawful good, might lose status depending on exact circumstances and intent."

 

[shilsen]

Erroneous in basis. The question was sincere.

Just like the example paladin's attempt was erroneous in basis, though the intention was sincere. It's always nice to get some irony in one's diet

 

[hopeless]

Reg: Paladins

Using strict adherence to the rules and assuming the minimum amount of DM interpretation and given a "generic" fantasy d20 setting:

A paladin attempts to knock someone unconscious to keep that person from going into danger. He accidentally uses too much force and delivers a killing strike that he is powerless to remedy as his spells are all gone for the day and his healing skill fails him.

Given this highly contrived scenario, what happens to his paladin status and alignment?

If the player openly declared they were trying to subdue the target and not kill them it doesn't matter how much damage they've inflicted critical means they've knocked the target out cold not killed them.
No offence but the only way the dm can pull that one is if they're intentionally trying to make that paladin fall and if thats the case no argument can prevent it.

Is there anything else you can tell us about what happened?
Did the target already suffer from damage which left them at 1hp or thereabouts?
Did the paladin use their greatsword instead of a simple punch?
(In the Gamers a trio of adventurers tried to knock their mage comrade out cold but the rogue and the elf failed leaving it to the barbarian who critically hit them mking him take 19 pts of damage from a punch so if you do manage to watch and I do recommend it take heart that this has happened before!)

 

[Crothian]

Given this highly contrived scenario, what happens to his paladin status and alignment?

It is very rare for one action to cost a Paladin status or shift alignment. So, he would be okay after doing this but how he reacts to the situation he caused could cost him.

 

[Wik]

He instantly becomes a blackguard. He starts burning houses, killing children, and ripping off those little tags on pillows that say "do not remove". He becomes the direst of all villains, "accidentally" killing everyone around him.

He cannot atone for all these sins until he ressurects the guy he "accidentally" killed (whatever, we know he did it on purpose) and says "sorry about that. My bad."