Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Nifft]

Your view of a paladin seems to be "a holy warrior who is looking for any excuse to use his Smite power."

Is this a fair assessment?

No. My view is that a Paladin should fight Evil with all the tools at his disposal.

Diplomacy is a great tool -- Paladins get it as a class skill for a reason. (Note that Fiends also use Diplomacy. It's not a "morally better" tool, it's just a less direct tool.)

Strength of arms are another tool, and Paladins get that for a reason too. There are times when Evil stands revealed, and it is a Paladin's sacred duty to Smite the Hell out of it. Insane priests of Evil gods who threaten innocent villages are smite-worthy.

Not all cases are so clear-cut. When the case is clear-cut, the Paladin should not be afraid to lay the smack down.

I'll use some examples:

- Bandits on the Road assault the Paladin's caravan: diplomacy first, offer to duel the leader second (self-sacrifice), then he tries to drive them off by force (killing them if necessary).

- Dispater offers to send some help to a Paladin who's going to fight Demogorgon. The Paladin refuses, and goes it alone (but does not necessarily slay the messenger).

- Dark Bards invade a town, killing and immitating important figures. The Paladin discovers their trickery and slays them one by one, tracking down those who flee.

-- N

PS: IMC, the fact that Paladins cannot lie makes people tend to trust them, so most people cut them a lot of slack. At a trial, a Paladin's word is as good as the invention of videotape.

 

[MerakSpielman]

The "lawful" bit is confusing, I agree. The Code states that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. At first you would say that he should follow the laws of the land, but what if the ruler is a tyrant? What if the mayor of an important town has legally appointed an evil necromancer to be his successor (a problem my halfling paladin recently ran into)? It's sticky.

 

[The Sigil]

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).

You suppose the paladin is authorized to take the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I contend that this is not always the case in all campaigns... and in fact is RARELY the case. Most campaigns, being modeled on 20th century notions of law (not medieval ones), have it as a principle that the authority given to the executioner does not give him the authority to act as judge and jury. A paladin may be authorized to return a person for judgement, and to use lethal force if necessary, but he'll have to explain himself to the satisfaction of the grantor of that authority - in this case, his deity - if he deems lethal force necessary.

In short, the paladin is NOT the judge, jury, and executioner. The paladin is the executioner and his god is the judge and jury. The god HAS to be the judge and jury (else a paladin would never be stripped of his powers for abuse - after all, someone has to judge the paladin and the paladin's god is that someone). And if his god decides that the paladin has overstepped the authority granted him (by the god), woe be unto the paladin.

--The Sigil

 

[Numion]

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.

Exactly. Thats why it's nonsensical to expect the Paladin to be lawful in regards to earthly laws. Paladins are Lawful in regards to their own divine law and code.

IIRC this actually reads in the PHB. Lawful has nothing to do with the laws of the land, but rather with personal outlook on life. There could be a very strict and lawful thieves guild - strong code (like the pirates code in the Pirates of Caribbean) and discipline, but no regard for the law of the land.

This was in reply to your idea that the Paladin needed a permit from the King to do something. A paladin is mostly responsible for his Divine Superior, not some earthly king that might be corrupt anyway.

 

[Nifft]

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).

Again, I think this is campaign-specific.

For example, if Reincarnation exists: "You wish to repent your deeds, grasshopper? Well, in the Great Wheel's next turn, I will pray that you do so. In the mean time, your soul must do its seeking without this body. Good bye."

Finally, I think that fear-of-death based "repentance" is the kind of thing that any Paladin would be trained to ignore as trickery -- repenting requires that you take a risk, not that you merely try to avoid punishment.

Now, if this priest had left the safety of his sanctum, come to the party with hands raised, and begged for Atonement, I'd consider it a breach of Paladinhood to kill him. But if he's diabolically smirking at the thought of innocent party members suffering ... amigo, that's not repentance.

-- N

 

[Hjorimir]

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?

But, what if the paladin was not in an evil country? What if he was operating in a respected, good, law-abiding nation? I will concede that a paladin is not required to recognize the authority of an evil dictator. But he must balance his actions with temprance between what is Lawful and what is Good.

Would a paladin be in his right to slay a man who was Evil (note the big E) and assaulted the paladin with nothing more than his fists? What if the man was a boy? Or even a toddler? (All along being Evil.)




Now that you thought of your answer.




What if the toddler was an orc child? Is the paladin in the right to committ genocide on an evil race because what might be? If your answer differs between the two races are you suggesting that a paladin is righteous enough to defy discrimination? Where does it end?

I've heard justifications before of slaying every last member of a humanoid tribe in the name of law and good.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

The "lawful" bit is confusing, I agree. The Code states that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. At first you would say that he should follow the laws of the land, but what if the ruler is a tyrant? What if the mayor of an important town has legally appointed an evil necromancer to be his successor (a problem my halfling paladin recently ran into)? It's sticky.

Like i said its not always easy to tell what evil to fight for a paladin.

Lets take these examples.

A local mayor names his cousin who is a known necromancer to take his place when he dies. The Necromancer takes over after the passing of the brother and while still learning what he can as a Necromancer still manages to keep not only the town and its people safe (and alive) but manages to use his magics to improve the quality of life for the town. Should the paladin slay him for being a necromancer?

A local baron dies and his son who is an evil young man in charge. His son has all of the men his age slaughtered like animals and nightly rapes the madiens that he holds hostage in his home. Every other week he sends his men out to collect "taxes" from the locals. Those that cannot pay are put to a very quick death. Should the paladin slay him?

These two examples are sort of extreame and unrelated but sometimes its not about destroying evil, sometimes its about picking the lesser of two evils to remove from the world.

 

[Numion]

You suppose the paladin is authorized to take the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I contend that this is not always the case in all campaigns... and in fact is RARELY the case. Most campaigns, being modeled on 20th century notions of law (not medieval ones), have it as a principle that the authority given to the executioner does not give him the authority to act as judge and jury. A paladin may be authorized to return a person for judgement, and to use lethal force if necessary, but he'll have to explain himself to the satisfaction of the grantor of that authority - in this case, his deity - if he deems lethal force necessary.

In short, the paladin is NOT the judge, jury, and executioner. The paladin is the executioner and his god is the judge and jury. The god HAS to be the judge and jury (else a paladin would never be stripped of his powers for abuse - after all, someone has to judge the paladin and the paladin's god is that someone). And if his god decides that the paladin has overstepped the authority granted him (by the god), woe be unto the paladin.

Why would the earthly authorities be involved in all this? You wrote that the God is the jusge and jury, and then say that the paladin should take the prisoner to earthly judge and jury.

I would think that the wrongdoer might get a more fitting punishment (from the Gods point of view, anyway) if only the God and the Paladin were involved, rather than if a bunch of people with no affiliation to the god (namely, the judge and jury of an earthly court) were involved.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I suspect that this example reveals a misunderstanding of the place of bandits in medieval and ancient society. Bandits were considered the enemies of all civilized men and the punishment for banditry, like for piracy, was generally summary execution by whoever caught them. I would expect that, faced with bandits, the standard paladin would drive them off by force, track them down if feasible, and accepting surrender would generally mean death by hanging after an opportunity to confess one's crimes and make peace with ones' gods instead of death in combat on the edge of the paladin's sword. The paladin might choose to grant the bandits mercy by allowing them to live (perhaps branded with a Mark of Justice or tasked with a Quest) but that would be the merciful exception rather than the rule.

- Bandits on the Road assault the Paladin's caravan: diplomacy first, offer to duel the leader second (self-sacrifice), then he tries to drive them off by force (killing them if necessary).

 

[Hjorimir]

I would think that the wrongdoer might get a more fitting punishment (from the Gods point of view, anyway) if only the God and the Paladin were involved, rather than if a bunch of people with no affiliation to the god (namely, the judge and jury of an earthly court) were involved.

What about taking the accused to the paladin's church to be judged by the curia (or some ruling body of priests)?