Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Numion]

Here we disagree. A paladin is not about KILLING evil, IMO - a paladin is about "ridding the world of evil." Note my post above where I point out that Smiting Evil is good, but Getting Evil To Repent is better... and the reason paladins get divine protection is because they always have to give evil the chance to repent first (and thus give evil the chance at "first blow"). Then their smite, holy avenger, and other abilities kick in to turn them into tactical nukes.

So, I offer you a chance to repent. If you refuse, then you get the business end of my sword.

If that is possible, I guess then. If harm to innocents is at stake, and any kind of 'lawyering' you suggest would increase the risk to them - then no. The Paladin doesn't need proof of wrongdoing. He only needs knowledge of evil.

 

[Nifft]

Here we disagree. A paladin is not about KILLING evil, IMO - a paladin is about "ridding the world of evil." Note my post above where I point out that Smiting Evil is good, but Getting Evil To Repent is better...

This is campaign-specific. Can a Lich repent? Can a Red Dragon repent? Can a Succubus repent? These aren't questions that have universal answers.

If your setting allows universal repentance, then that becomes one of the Paladin's tools. If someone else's world does not allow universal repentance, their Paladins should not be punished for not using that tool against Evil (with a capital "E").

-- N

PS: Even with the "he could repent" thing, I suspect that the insane priest of an evil god would be low on the "likely to repent" scale.

 

[MerakSpielman]

That's why you have a party member cast Silence on the enemies so you can kill 'em before they manage to surrender...

J/K. I'm still in the "paladins act with honor to the point of stupidity" camp. Death before dishonor!

 

[Numion]

What about the paladin's code in regards to honor (not using poison, etc.) in his cause? Cutting down a bound prisoner is about as honorable as poisoning them, I'd imagine.

It's not honorable if the paladin gave his word not to kill the prisoner. If the paladin promised lawful punishment, death might very well be in order.

If the Paladin deems that a punishment of death is what the prisoner deserves - thats what the prisoner will get. Nothing dishonorable there. Paladins are supposed to punish wrongdoers (their code says that), and in pseudo-medieval setting death is a good punishment for quite a number of wrongdoings (from horse theft to worshipping evil).

Paladin doesn't need to play the wrongdoers lawyer, or present evidence. He just needs knowledge of the wrongdoer being just that, after which he can administer punishment. In some cases that punishment should be death.

 

[Hjorimir]

Remember that a Paladin can't be dependent on the earthly authorities in doing his job - they might be non-existant, corrupt or even evil themselves. Paladin can't afford the luxury of falling back to the 'authorities' like we do in year 2003 earth.

Judge - jury - executioner

Doesn't sound very lawful to me....unless, of course, the king has granted him authority to do exactly that.

 

[Mallus]

Bloodthirsty and Paladin mix about as well as oil and water.

Depends on how you view paladins. I think of them in the 12 Peers of Charlegmane/Crusader vein. Fully capable of being merciless towards those who oppose Church, King and Country.

I don't agree that it is meta-gaming for the paladin to recall his god holds him to a higher standard. Rash reactions don't sound like it is a wise way for a paladin to proceed.

Oops. Not what I meant, let me clarify. From the paladin's POV something bad and mind-affecty has happened to his cohorts. A potential threat. The priest smiles. Did the priest just do something nefarious? The paladin doesn't know. His allies might just be under magical attack. What do I do?

I was suggesting that thinking any more that that about the exact mechanics of what happened would constitute an undesirable use of metagame knowledge

Well paladins cast spells...so he can't be totally ignorant. At best you could argue that the paladin decided on a sentence without knowing the facts. Doesn't strike me as Lawful or Good.

They're casters, yes, but they aren't scholars of magic. Can't get enough ranks in the right skills. And if God deemed such knowledge was neccessary for a paladin so as to make informed decisions about who to smack down, He'd of put those skills on the paladin's class list.

I can also argue that this is a combat situation, not a courtroom one. The paladin has every right to believe he is defending himself and his comrades. Case closed.

[No better way to educate than have the deity remind the paladin why he has those abilities in the first place. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (as the saying goes).

I'm talking about dramatic structure here; pacing. It makes a better story if the paladin keeps making thses kinds of mistakes, culminating in a full-blown tradegy that neccessitates a grand atoning adventure.


The rest of my comments were just general musings....

 

[Shard O'Glase]

What about the paladin's code in regards to honor (not using poison, etc.) in his cause? Cutting down a bound prisoner is about as honorable as poisoning them, I'd imagine.

thanks to silent and still spell, being bound means jack in D&D for a spellcaster. Cut the fool down I say. Also unless 3.5 changed it evil clerics are about the evilest of evils, at least according to how the paladin would see it with his detect evil ability. If there is anything in the D&D world that needs smiting virtually on site its the evil cleric.

So thanks to spells since metamagic no longer needing components, the honor thing is moot since the foe isn't necesarily helpless, and the evil thing is moot in D&D becuase its setup so its a good act to smite evil where you find it.

where I find the party being dumb, is that they left the cleric conscious in the 1st place, where he could become a potential problem.

 

[Numion]

Doesn't sound very lawful to me....unless, of course, the king has granted him authority to do exactly that.

I think that the Lawful part of his alignment applies to his own personal code - not to possibly evil or corrupted laws of the land.

What would a paladin do in Thay, for example, if he had to follow the laws of local equivalent of King, the Evil Zulkir of Necromancy? Should he leave the evil wizard alone because the law of the land prohibits that, and he has to follow law?

 

[The Sigil]

This is campaign-specific. Can a Lich repent? Can a Red Dragon repent? Can a Succubus repent? These aren't questions that have universal answers.

If your setting allows universal repentance, then that becomes one of the Paladin's tools. If someone else's world does not allow universal repentance, their Paladins should not be punished for not using that tool against Evil (with a capital "E").

Agree with you there. If demons/devils are "incontrovertibly Evil" then there is and can be no negotiation with the enemy... merely conflict. And as you mentioned, this varies from campaign to campaign.

PS: Even with the "he could repent" thing, I suspect that the insane priest of an evil god would be low on the "likely to repent" scale.

Likelihood is not an issue. So long as there exists *any* chance at all, the chance must be given. (I do agree that in a campaign world where some things are Evil, there *is* no such chance and hence no such chance need be given).

--The Sigil

 

[Cerubus Dark]

I think that the Lawful part of his alignment applies to his own personal code - not to possibly evil or corrupted laws of the land.

What would a paladin do in Thay, for example, if he had to follow the laws of local equivalent of King, the Evil Zulkir of Necromancy? Should he leave the evil wizard alone because the law of the land prohibits that, and he has to follow law?

I belive that the paladin would acutally be seen as a force of chaos in this example. By very definition a Paladin would want to rid the world or at least the city of the Evil Zulkir. Then again thats me.