WhimsyTheFae
Explorer
Truth Seeker said:And also, the title of the subject thread is misleading...should be changed to almost killed
Good point...
The Paladin killed someone...what to do?
- Thread starter Galfridus
- Start date
Good point...
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
A setting that has modern sensibilities about due process and presumption of innocence would not, I think, have paladins. A setting where violence is a last resort and good and evil are shades of gray would not have paladins. Such a setting would have no role for people who roam the countryside acting as judge, jury and executioner. And that is what I think the paladin's role is. Paladins are divinely empowered to right wrongs, defend the innocent and punish the wicked. They are not subtle. Their role quite usually involves lots of violence, and that is often righteous wrath. Wrath which is appropriately directed at anyone complicit in putting someone at risk who is under the paladin's protection. Which is obviously true in this case. And unless your setting deviates quite a bit from the default D&D setting, the paladin's behavior is perfectly appropriate.
So I don't think that the paladin deserves any sanction at all. In fact I think that sanctions due to moral dilemmas shouldn't happen against the player's wishes. If a lapse in paladinhood explores an aspect of the character that the player wants to get into, then fine. Or if the player is playing the paladin in a cruel, selfish, greedy or cowardly way, then it might be a signal that the paladin has to be more upright and noble.
But if the player thinks the paladin is doing the right thing, I think the DM should go along with it. He doesn't have to overthink it either; a gut feeling, spur of the moment kind of choice, one consistent with the paladin's character is sufficient. It is perfectly consistent, imo, with the role of a paladin and with the lawful good alignment for the character to slay the halfling. He could show mercy (and that would also be a good thing- killing the halfling is not obligatory) but the halfling's life is forfeit for the role he played in the attack on the paladin's wife, and the paladin would be justified in killing the halfling then and there. It's the paladin's choice, and he shouldn't be punished either way.
You might not buy all of this, but I hope that at the very least you see that it is doubtful that the paladin did anything wrong. And so I hope you give the character the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise it will seem as if you are messing with the paladin.
Not that messing with the paladin is always a bad idea. I mess with paladins in my campaigns too. The last time I did it was with a paladin of Helm- an enemy used a spell to make him fall asleep when he was on duty. I decided that for a paladin of Helm (the watcher) this was a bad thing- equivalent to a paladin being enchanted to perform evil deeds. So he lost his paladin status for a session or too until he could atone. I don't think there was any quest or special penance- just the spell. But I wouldn't use a moral dilemma to mess with a paladin unless the player wanted to go along with it.
So I don't think that the paladin deserves any sanction at all. In fact I think that sanctions due to moral dilemmas shouldn't happen against the player's wishes. If a lapse in paladinhood explores an aspect of the character that the player wants to get into, then fine. Or if the player is playing the paladin in a cruel, selfish, greedy or cowardly way, then it might be a signal that the paladin has to be more upright and noble.
But if the player thinks the paladin is doing the right thing, I think the DM should go along with it. He doesn't have to overthink it either; a gut feeling, spur of the moment kind of choice, one consistent with the paladin's character is sufficient. It is perfectly consistent, imo, with the role of a paladin and with the lawful good alignment for the character to slay the halfling. He could show mercy (and that would also be a good thing- killing the halfling is not obligatory) but the halfling's life is forfeit for the role he played in the attack on the paladin's wife, and the paladin would be justified in killing the halfling then and there. It's the paladin's choice, and he shouldn't be punished either way.
You might not buy all of this, but I hope that at the very least you see that it is doubtful that the paladin did anything wrong. And so I hope you give the character the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise it will seem as if you are messing with the paladin.
Not that messing with the paladin is always a bad idea. I mess with paladins in my campaigns too. The last time I did it was with a paladin of Helm- an enemy used a spell to make him fall asleep when he was on duty. I decided that for a paladin of Helm (the watcher) this was a bad thing- equivalent to a paladin being enchanted to perform evil deeds. So he lost his paladin status for a session or too until he could atone. I don't think there was any quest or special penance- just the spell. But I wouldn't use a moral dilemma to mess with a paladin unless the player wanted to go along with it.
When you work in the service of a god you accept his right to punish. At the same time, others must accept his right to forgive. Things happen in the heat of passion, this does not render the person unfit for a special status. Be it something that occurred spontaneously, that is one thing. Be it part of a pattern of behavior, that is another. As far as I can tell the paladin's behavior was unique, and sparked by circumstances. I can see Hieronemous giving said paladin a chiding and the chance at redemption. We are, after all, speaking of one of Hieronemous' servants, and how he handles the matter is his affair. (Or the DM's acting as Hieronemous.)
From Memory: And God said unto Jonah, "You show concern for the gourd, though you had nothing to do with its existence, its growth and its death. Have I then no right to show concern for the Assyrians, a people for who I am responsible, and who turned their back upon evil when my word was presented to them?"
You show concern for what was done to the halfling in the heat of anger and fear. Has the DM no right to show concern for the paladin when he shows contrition for what he did?
From Memory: And God said unto Jonah, "You show concern for the gourd, though you had nothing to do with its existence, its growth and its death. Have I then no right to show concern for the Assyrians, a people for who I am responsible, and who turned their back upon evil when my word was presented to them?"
You show concern for what was done to the halfling in the heat of anger and fear. Has the DM no right to show concern for the paladin when he shows contrition for what he did?
WhimsyTheFae
Explorer
Cheiromancer said:
Only if the halfling was a willing participant. If the main bad guy had the halfling's family hostage (or some other form of blackmail or intimidation or magical compulsion), then the halfling's only fault would be that he isn't able to stand against the bad guy.
If the halfling's willingness had not been determined, then the DM should probably talk to the player before just deciding that the paladin had killed an innocent person.
WhimsyTheFae
Explorer
So, do you think that the moderators' eyes start itching when they read a thread that has Paladin and a question mark in the title?
Paladin threads are so fun to read, due to the range of opinions (unfortunately, unlike some volatile topics, "Paladin-type" threads can easily cross certain lines - sort of like alignment threads).
Paladin threads are so fun to read, due to the range of opinions (unfortunately, unlike some volatile topics, "Paladin-type" threads can easily cross certain lines - sort of like alignment threads).
Dinkeldog said:
With that in mind, I would give the paladin the benefit of the doubt. I may not even punish him, for I would know why he acted as he did. Understanding can make it hard to be punitive. At the same time, understanding can make it easy to be punitive. Which applies depends upon understanding the exact situation.
Trust not in the judgement of people who are ignorant of what they're talking about.
