The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[ThirdWizard]

There's nothing righteous about vengence.

 

[Arravis]

Protection certainly can mean doing what is required to preclude further assaults. The halfling was involved in the initial assault and has not indicated he would change his tune (therefore he is by definition not an innocent life, and destroying him is not an evil act), ergo he is a threat to be involved in another assault.l

Why is the slaughter of the halfling the only means to protect his family? The halfling is not directly assaulting his family, he is not an immediate threat. Arrest him, turn him in to the local authority or the paladin's own church...
that takes care of the threat quite nicely. That's what jails are for.

 

[Dancer]

In the midst of all this "did he do evil or not" controversy don't miss out on a golden role-playing opportunity. You question should be "does the paladin's god think he did right?" Answer that question and everything else will fall into line. It's the god that can strip away the paladin's powers not any temporal authority.

Now what if the paladin's god supports him but the temporal authority doesn't?

What if his wife, watching from the doorway saw the paladin's work up front and personal for the first time? Can she deal with being with such a man?

What does the established church have to say about his actions? Do they differ with the god's interpretation (assuming he still has his powers)?

What do his friends think of his actions? How will they react to him?

There is a gold mine of opportunity here, don't pass it up.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Arravis, here's another bit from the SRD:

I would submit that the paladin's wife (and without getting into a possible religious flamefest here, I'll say possibly also the unborn child) are examples of "innocent life."

She/They has/have been assaulted, and need protection is needed.

Protection certainly can mean doing what is required to preclude further assaults.

The halfling was involved in the initial assault and has not indicated he would change his tune (therefore he is by definition not an innocent life, and destroying him is not an evil act), ergo he is a threat to be involved in another assault.

Removing that threat of future assaults by killing the halfling can therefore be easily construed as a good act.

this comes off as nothing more than post hoc justification. Vengance is not protection, no matter how much you dress it up. And he had the halfling in his power in the middle of what we have since been told is a lawful city. Killing him at that point has no protective value over subduing him and handing him over to the police.

His action in no way shape or form protected his wife.

 

[lukelightning]

This whole situation reeks of "DM wants to mess with the paladin." Some DMs will stop at nothing to knock a paladin out of paladinhood.

First, you're asking the wrong question. A paladin is not required to be Lawful and Good with every action. How does eating her dinner fall into either category?

No veal or foie gras, no elbows on table, no talking with your mouth full.

 

[Aaron L]

Was this some commoner stooge, or whas it someone involved in the plot? I got the impression that the paladin questioned him and realized he was in on it. It makes a big difference.

 

[Numion]

Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.

DM: "The lich blasts you with Disintegrate .. roll for save"
Pally: "A nat 20, I save!"
DM: "Um .. ok .. the lich asks for mercy, you know, um .. you must be merciful"
Pally: "Okay, okay, take a chill pill, I accept his atonement, I Smite his Blackguard servant!"
.
.
DM: "Sucker! The lich blasts you again with Disintegrate!"
Pally: "Dang .. I save"
DM: "The lich asks for mercy .."

 

[The Sigil]

He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances.

What was the time frame between the assault and finding out the halfling was involved in the assault? If he found out the halfling was involved during the assault, it could be construed as "killing to protect others."

In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. Evil: unnecessary death. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.)

Ah, but "unnecessary death" is not evil by the RAW. "Killing (or harming) of innocents" is the only criterion. Was the halfling an innocent? If not, then by the RAW, killing him is NOT an evil act (which is why mass slaughter of orcs, goblins, trolls, and similar EVIL beings is okay, even if it IS unnecessary).

Given the information provided thus far, I would say it is quite possibly a chaotic act, and is possibly sufficent to bump the character to Neutral Good (and requiring an atonement).

However, I still have a problem finding any way to definitively pin it as an evil act.

--The Sigil

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I say that mercy is to given when mercy is deserved.

Then it isn't mercy.

 

[wuyanei]

Then it isn't mercy.

Indeed. Sometimes a paladin must obey his duty towards justice.