Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 2898983" data-attributes="member: 23619">From the 3.5 SRD, "...a paladin’s code requires...punish those who harm or threaten...". That says it all right there, and others have said it as well. That does make paladins "judge, jury and executioner" and their alignment supports that statement too. Also frpm the same SRD, "A lawful good character...commitment to oppose evil...fight relentlessly...hates to see the guilty go unpunished."Even the MM describes hobgoblins as having a strong grasp of strategy and tactics and capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans...their discipline can prove a deciding factor. The paladin very likely would know this about hobgoblins and in the face of that, it should be impossible to punish the paladin for executing the enemy. And it was an execution. From the looks of some people on this thread, the DM's game, and possibly the DM himself are viewing the game world as having a code of justice similar to America where all sentient beings have the same access and rights to justice. Human society can barely prosper on its own in a medieval setting, but when it starts giving LE monsters the same rights as themselves, it would grind to a halt. Only citizens had rights and to be a citizen you had to have money or land. In a more generous setting, citizenship could mean any productive member of society, but it definitely would not apply to monsters. A clever, crafty monster might ask for mercy, might surrender, but that doesn't mean it would receive mercy or that it would be wrong to withhold that mercy when it would be expected--rightly so--for that monster to use that mercy to escape justice and do harm at a later time and place.  Some would argue the hobgoblin could have been redeemed. Impossible, because the hobgoblin had never been good to begin with. Convert it then? Become "Good" or die? Faced with that choice, any creature would choose "Good" and then get the hell out at the first opportunity to escape the ever present threat of death if it wasn't "Good" enough. The paladin's own code of conduct gives him the legal and spiritual authority to punish criminals (assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, murder; all of these charges could apply to the hobgoblin) and his alignment gives him the ethical and moral support to justify his position as well. Had the paladin decided to haul the hobgoblin back to the nearest town (putting his current adventure on hold), and put the hobgoblin before a magistrate, the judge would have had the paladin and his (surviving) companions give testimony about the attack, each of them stating that the hobgoblin committed each of the above charges--and possibly more than once per charge if the hobgoblin attacked more than one party member--and would ask the hobgoblin if he committed those crimes. The hobgoblin--compelled by a Geas to answer honestly--would admit to each one. The judge would find the hobgoblin guilty, and since the hobgoblin was not a land owner or a productive member of society, but instead a monster that preys on the members of their society, he would sentence the creature to execution (not prison, as most prisons were just a place to keep criminals until they were executed or died of some disease awaiting execution) to be carried out by a lawfully appointed member of society (the paladin). So, by executing the criminal hobgoblin on the spot, the paladin saved himself and his companions (and anyone else whose welfare depended on a speedy resolution to their adventure) several weeks of unproductive, unnecessary, and expensive travel and court time by judging the hobgoblin guilty of his crimes and executing punishment on the spot. He saved the town they would have taken the hobgoblin to the expense of holding a trial (something society would not deem fit for a monster), the cost of housing and feeding the captive hobgoblin (which likely would have started a riot and one or two lynch mobs) and the cost of bringing a judge in, if one wasn't already there, and holding court. How the DM could be concerned with a monstrous killer's rights and expectation of mercy just to play on the paladin's morals over the welfare of the society the paladin was acting in support of is beyond me. But maybe the DM didn't look that far into it and just made a snap decision. While I don't think this DM should do a "take back", reverse time or any of that, he should have the paladin state his case to the church elder and immediately be reinstated with all paladin powers and abilities and be commended for such a good job with the explanation given that his powers were taken away briefly to test his resolve and mettle in the future when faced with similar choices.</blockquote>

Verification