John deOrleans Paladin of the 7th rank, Order of the Sacred Flame, ordained in service to the one god.
An ye find a vile dastard in the midst of his crimes it is your bounden and sacred duty to act. Should it be a crime petty then ye might show mercy, allowing the carlet to make restitution.
An the crime is the violation of an innocent then the punishment must be final.
Be ye to say that should a rapist be found with his trews about his knees it baen the act of valour to do less than strike him down?
Nay, best he be sent to fuel Hell's e'er burning fire.
Innocent of crime and dishonor both do I hold him.
Master Edwinson, given that you feel the paladin in question is indeed guilty of conduct unbecoming, what do you believe would be appropriate penance for our brother, in order for him to regain his good standing?
It seems to me that his condemnation is still in doubt, and it is perhaps improper to speak of the sentence before the verdict lest it sway the jurors in their verdict. But since urgency is so pressing, I will speak.
The question of a sentence is a difficult question, seeing that what is right for a Christian in Durham in the Year of Our Lord one thousand and ninety-two, in a world where there is no god but God, and God is just and merciful, is not necessarily right for a paladin in a strange land where the triumph of Good is not assured. But I will answer as best I can.
If the paladin does not repent then I submit that he reveals himself unfit to wield the powers of God, or in his case Tyr: Law and Goodness however administered. He cannot be trusted with them, for there is a very grave danger that he will misuse them, and bring his god, his lord, the law, paladins, and goodness into further disrepute. So if he does not sincerely repent he ought to be stripped of his paladinhood, as having become no longer Lawful.
This is not really a punishment, of course, since the power always belongs not to us but to God. It is but the authority of an office, which we surrender when we cease to do the office.
If the paladin repents then I submit that no further action is necessary. Through the saving grace of God this paladin managed to escape the grievous sin that might have resulted from such an intemperate act. His act was not willfully evil in its motivation, and was not grossly evil in its consequences. I would rule it a grave, but not a gross, violation of the Code.
Mind you, if he does repent then naturally he will seek to make a restitution.
He must declare his killing if he has not done so already, and abide by the consequences. I am not sure how these things are handled in his land: in mine he ought to pay the wergild of the man he killed for a manslaughter (these days it goes to the King); in other lands I have been in the procedure would be for him to go to the king's court, plead his case frankly, and abide by the verdict. If it should happen that the court of competent jurisdiction is harsh or unjust, he will submit himself nevertheless and pray that his god will deliver him from maiming or death.
He will also naturally make a restitution to the Law, do something to repair the damage to its reputation that he has wrought. I would suggest that he swear himself to the service of a court of high justice either for a term of years or until he has brought just acquittal for three men wrongly accused.
All this, besides the penance that his confessor sets for him.
In any case, I consider it otiose to suspend some of his powers but not all of them, or to suspend them conditionally or temporarily. Either he is fit to trust with the power of God, in which case the more he has the better, for he may need them in his time of penance for the sake of others. Or else he is not fit to trust with it, in which case it is dangerous to entrust him with any.
In short, if the character immediately starts to mend his mistakes, no action. Otherwise, he ought to be ruled no longer Lawful Good, and consequently unqualified to be a paladin.
Lord Khaalis Bloodtear, Paladin of Hoar the Doombringer, LG
Forgive my late entrance. I can see that the counsel chambers are full, but some of us had to ride from afar to arrive at all. Though my voice may not carry much weight at this hour, it is still my duty to make known that voice.
In my view, the Paladin on trial here is innocent.
He has done no evil deed nor has he grossly violated our code of conduct. He helped an innocent in dire need and punished the one who would harm and threaten that innocent, as well I believe, other innocents as well. He has fulfilled his vows and lived by his training to remove evil from this world. His compassion was well placed with the innocent and his honor was fulfilled by rescuing the innocent and destroying another aspect of evil, one of so many that so plague our world. There is no secular law more mighty than divine law, as secular law is fallible, and is not concerned with divine law which dictates that evil shall be fought and eradicated at any possible opportunity. The Paladin in question meted out the punishment dictated by our law and did so with swift mercy and without cruelty. He is a servant of righteousness and should be commended for his actions.
If the charge were 'evil-doing' or 'gross violation of the Code' I should have voted 'not guilty'. But the charge was 'conduct unbecoming in a paladin', and his conduct was that. As we are men of the Word we must speak to the charge made.
This is no corrupt secular court of hidden motives of tricksy wordiness, nor of hasty and vengeful prejudice. We do not hide our meanings in obscure legalism.
If we were asked to judge a charge of willfully evil deed, the charge would be 'willfully evil deed'. If we were asked to judge a charge of 'gross violation of the Code' the charge would be 'gross violation of the Code'. But the charge is one of 'conduct unbecoming'. Therefore we judge whether his conduct was becoming. If we find that it was not, then we decide whether and to what exent unbecoming conduct requires action.
And I reluctantly remind you that the president of the court has asked that those who, for whatever reason, are not empanelled on the jury not confuse and delay proceedings with 'cross-talk'.
Lark Hervot Arden, First Shield of HRM Malia of Tyndall, LG
Forgive me for being as late as Lord Khaalis, but I will try to be as short.
The paladin in question is innocent of murder.
Yet he acted rashly, without honor and in the heat of hate, thus defiling his holy calling and bringing the taint of evil upon himself.
He is still young, so I vote to reconcile him with his teachings by sending him to a secluded monastery in the mountains for 2 months of meditation and self-contemplation.
With respect, that is not the issue before the court, nor is it an issue that lies within our competence to judge. We are judging whether his actions were becoming in a paladin. Please do not attempt to confuse the proceedings.
call me away for a while. And so begging the indulgence of the court I will anticipate the emergence of a number of issue that I believe will come to be of concern to the court.
If Sir Vindicator is charged with willfully committing an evil act I will vote Not Guilty. His act was wrong, but unLawful, not Evil, and certainly he did not mean harm by it.
If he is charged with associating with an evil character I will vote Not Guilty with an indignant tone in my voice.
If he is charged with grossly violating the Code of Conduct I will vote Not Guilty, because I believe that his action a grave breach of the code but not a gross one. My argument is that striking down a defenceless man is dishonourable, that such a shabby and surreptitious way of punishing the wicked is disrespectful to authority (though conducting a proper trial on his own authority might not have been), and that this course of action was not needed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty (though it did achieve those ends).
If it is charged that he is not of Lawful Good alignment I will vote Not Proven and thank God for Scottish jurisprudence. I believe we have to see more of his actions to make that judgement. If he recognises the wrongness of his action in its contempt even for his own authority we will be able to tell because he will attempt to repair the harm he did. (For example, he might plead guilty to a manslaughter and pay a wergild, strive to restore the majesty of the law that he defamed, and strive to discover whent the man he killed had any accomplices.) Then we will know that he is still Lawful Good and Not Guilty. But if he acts with insouicance or self-righteousness we will know that he does not understand the wrongness of his action, is not Lawful, and is Guilty.
As for punishments: if he is condemned of any of the charges above he is unfit to hold the office of a Paladin, and may not exercise any of the powers of that office. If he remains in that office, it would be wrong to take away any part of his power to discharge its duties. The powers of a paladin are for the service of others: they are not personal property. Taking them away harms those the paladin serves and protects, not the paladin. The same is true of making the paladin destroy his sword, or forswear the use of any weapon. Besides, I doubt the authority of this court to impose any such penalty.
If the charge were 'evil-doing' or 'gross violation of the Code' I should have voted 'not guilty'. But the charge was 'conduct unbecoming in a paladin', and his conduct was that. As we are men of the Word we must speak to the charge made.
If we were asked to judge a charge of willfully evil deed, the charge would be 'willfully evil deed'. If we were asked to judge a charge of 'gross violation of the Code' the charge would be 'gross violation of the Code'. But the charge is one of 'conduct unbecoming'. Therefore we judge whether his conduct was becoming. If we find that it was not, then we decide whether and to what exent unbecoming conduct requires action.
Where then, good sir, do you see a difference between "Conduct unbecoming a Paladin" and "Violation of our Code"?
The charge is one and the same. The Code IS our definition of the conduct of a Paladin. To conduct oneself in such a way as to be charged with "Conduct unbecoming a Paladin" means one has violate our code. Our code is what defines who we are, and what our purpose in life is. Our behavior is not a seperate entity from our code. If our bahavior is to be besmirched then we have violated our code.
This Paladin has not violated his code, and thus has not acted in a way Unbecoming a Paladin, to use your choice of words.
And I reluctantly remind you that the president of the court has asked that those who, for whatever reason, are not empanelled on the jury not confuse and delay proceedings with 'cross-talk'.
This statement shows that a misjustice is possible in this secular court you have chosen to create to try this Paladin. This is spoken with a "close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability"*. You should not hold an open forum if you refuse to hear open counsel. Refusing to do so promtes injustice. All voices should be heard in this matter, justice demands no less.
OOC: * The possible downsides of Lawfulness some fall into as per the SRD.
Also if you want to truly acquire a verdict based on "Conduct Unbecoming" try looking at Military Law (Article 133 of The Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ). The Paladin Code of Conduct is the same idea as the Military Code. They are one and the same. If you violate the code you are charged with Conduct Unbecoming. You cannot be charged with Conduct Unbecoming if you have NOT violated the Code. The Paladin did not violate the Paladin's Code as presented in the Core Rules, thus he is Not Guilty of Conduct Unbecoming a Paladin.
In the meanings of the words. Wearing clothes with the arse out of the trousers would be unquestionably unbecoming to a paladin, but not a breach of the Code.
OOC:
Also if you want to truly acquire a verdict based on "Conduct Unbecoming" try looking at Military Law (Article 133 of The Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ).
I am posting in character. My character antedates the Uniform Code of Military Justice by at least seven hundred years, and isn't an American. He is also very literal in his speech and understanding. Therefore he takes the phrase 'conduct unbecoming to a paladin' literally and at face value. I am not an American either, and it is unreasonable to expect me to master irrelevant minutiae of US military law for the purposes of this little play (though it would be reasonable if I were playing a US military lawyer). And by the way, this is not an open proceeding: Torm requested that it be treated as closed for a very sound reason. And I have listened are length to arguments for both sides in the other, open, thread. I even reversed my initial decison on the basis of the arguments others made.
This statement shows that a misjustice is possible in this secular court you have chosen to create to try this Paladin. This is spoken with a "close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability"*. You should not hold an open forum if you refuse to hear open counsel. Refusing to do so promtes injustice. All voices should be heard in this matter, justice demands no less.
Are you besmirching the honour of those who have spoken here who were not tardy in arriving at this legitimate and righteous counsel?
I suggest you are walking upon dangerous ground if you wish to continue the tenor of your remarks in such a way.
Please and with all honour good sir, desist from your capricious and inflammatory interjections.
