FireLance said:
Thus, it seemed to me that the dispute was whether to take the very small chance that the man might be innocent or the very small chance that the man might escape justice. Those that would rather take the chance that the man is innocent rather than allow a guilty party to escape were in favor of the paladin striking as hard and as quickly as he could. Those that would rather take the chance that the man might escape rather than punish an innocent man were in favor of using non-lethal means to stop him at first so that the due process of law could take place.
I would agree with you FireLance, if I this argument was occuring outside of the context of a game.
Because of an existing relationship with the DM (and by extension the DM's campaign setting), I feel that the player has a pretty good grasp on the odds that 1) the man was innocent, 2) the local justice system would be effective were the paladin to refer the matter, and 3) whether or not the paladin could successfully refer the matter to the local system given his current circumstances. Although it is metagame for me to say it, there is no innocent or guilty party, really. There is a role-playing situation, and a player who has to decide what to do in that situation, knowing what the DM is likely to do in the case of various circumstances.
No one would get to 5th level in my world without knowing how far they can trust their local judiciary. Hell, by the time they ended up visiting the local magistrate at 1st-to-2nd level and got a good glimpse of exactly how it works (in one town at least). They could turn in a criminal and have a very good idea what would happen to him. In some places, it would be a good idea. In others it would not. Similarly, they would know it wasn't a
hat of disguise because magic items IMC are too rare to be squandered in such a way. I'm betting Vindicator was safe in assuming it wasn't a magic act, or a demon, or whatever. What's likely in a campaign world becomes obvious way sooner than that.
Vinidcator was supposed to believe his DM when the DM said, "Dude, it's a lowly commoner!" but not when he said "Dude, it's a rapist." Given what little we know, it seems likely that Vindicator was right to believe both comments. Vindicator knows his DM. He probably knew that his DM wanted the rapist to escape the
NPC controlled justice system so that he could inflict a little paladin angst. It has probably happened before.
These things -- and only these things -- determine the odds that the guy was innocent, and that the guy would escape justice if the paladin didn't administer it.
Raven Crowking