The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[TheAuldGrump]

First off, in my own games this would not be breaking the paladin's code of conduct. Dealing with the halfling would not only be the paladin's right it would be his duty.

There would be a penalty of course - the paladin's player is the one who pays for the pizza*.

The Auld Grump

*But he also gets to choose the toppings.*

*As long as there are no anchovies.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Well, I will look at it this way...it was roleplayed, roleplayed from a much angry and hurt man, whose pride was wounded. For all the protections and possible strengths of arms that was in that house...someone got to his wife.

I do not look at the situation from a paladin view, that was the DM and writer of this thread that marked it so.

What happened there, he puts himself in a corner, cause the scene became too powerful, emotional charged. Was the player asked, after the game was over, was he okay with it?

As you can see from my next to latest post...it was viewed from an individual who was heavily distraught.

Don't deal with the paladin, deal with the man, deal with the frightened husband.

And also, no one, one here, and even me, cannot predict on what the outcome should be, if the outline was for the "paladin" was detain and question the halfing, who was already (the man) was upset in several degrees.

Sorry, but all of this, this scene belongs to the DM and the player only. What comes out of it, will be again, should be dealt with the forementioned two.

What happened here, a scene got too big too handle, and the player was channeling, pretty well, the emotions of a person whose home was broken into, whose love one was threaten, and everyone here, almost one here keeps forgetting that character is upset, is livid, that the attempt was done in his home, on his own grounds.

And aftermath should be what?

He gets punished, cause he didn't check his anger right away, after all that happened, in that house.

You know what, I will go to the player's side, cause...one reason, I don't see a paladin, religion, or god being involved in that situation.

What I see from a roleplayed point of view, is a person who was wounded mentally and spiritually.

To resolve this, besides the character being sidelined as mentioned, roleplay that scene out...cause the DM has a hit a nerve with his player, on a very touchy situation, that involved family.

You indirectly trigger a response, and it was 'thrown' back at you, in roleplay, well roleplay back, and when finished...sit down and talk about it. No book, no guideline or rule or advise is going to help in this situation.

From this, this is how, you can become a better DM and he, a better player.

Learn from the experience.

And that is truth of the matter.

Truthseeker, an interesting viewpoint well expressed.
Now allow me to retort.

What is a paladin? What do they represent?
This is the crux of what these paladin threads always come down to. People will always differ in their perspectives on these two simple but incredibly deep and rich questions.

For me, (the classic hardline paladin enthusiast), your ideas of how a "man" and "frightened husband" would react damn the paladin immediately. This IS how an ordinary man would react. However, for those that look at the Paladin class like I, a Paladin is above that. They are chosen by their deity to represent that deity. In short, they are a paladin, not just a man. They are a paladin, not just a "frightened husband". I mean it's in the class at 3rd level - they are immune to fear. Would Heironeous in this case, a deity who promotes justice, valorm, chivalry and honor, wish His Paladins to be acting in this way? The simple answer is no. Are the actions forgiveable? Of course. However, a Paladin never clocks off and whether in his own home, the nine planes of hell or anywhere, they will be a constant. As such, the paladin in question in being just a man and frightened husband, erred and would need to atone for his actions.

For those that prefer a more progressive view of Paladins, I suppose their thoughts like yours would vary. Such is the fun of this class - and also these Paladin threads that they spawn every other month.

Best Regards and Enjoy Your Paladins
Herremann the Wise

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You know what, I will go to the player's side, cause...one reason, I don't see a paladin, religion, or god being involved in that situation.

I don't think there is a single time when the paladinhood and the code and commitement to Heironeous doesn't come into play. It's the core of his being and should be the main focus in his life. Even above his wife and family.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think there is a single time when the paladinhood and the code and commitement to Heironeous doesn't come into play. It's the core of his being and should be the main focus in his life. Even above his wife and family.

I happen to think that paladins shouldn't marry. They're in a stupidly dangerous business and it's selfish to marry someone just to widow them, they have no time for a home life, and a family is a good way to make sure that your enemies have hostages or vengeance.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

"As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law [that] is unfair or capricious."

Which relates to this situation how?

The quote was offered in response to this claim...

This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here:

1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting.
2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned.

...to illustrate the fact that while Lawful does not equal "law-abiding," neither does it embrace a "laws be damned" attitude.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmmm...

1(Intruder in house)(captured*questioned*killed)/X(Invaders in the house) + at night + 1 kidnapped wife(Paladin) + 0(additional information) + Paladin's divine duty to smite evil = probable justified homicide + (aquittal*no loss of paladinhood)

By my equation, the Paladin did nothing wrong.

Heck, I'm sure I could get the guy acquitted, and I make a crappy defense attorney!

Would Heironeous in this case, a deity who promotes justice, valorm, chivalry and honor, wish His Paladins to be acting in this way?

Heironeous: Domains Good, Law, War.
Promotes: Justice, Valor, Chivalry and Honor.
Kidnapper: acessory to a violent crime, didn't talk.
Chivalrous age setting- Knights were answerable only to self, code, peers and superiors- essentially, like Judge Dred, they can say "I am the Law!"

Slaying someone who is an accomplice to an evil act, and who refuses to cooperate, is not evil.

Perhaps this song lyric may clarify:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
he is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
he hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword;
his truth is marching on.

The god you serve may be good...but that doesn't neccessarily mean he is slow to anger!

Besides, if the kidnapping were benign, the accomplice would have been wise to TALK to the man who literally holds his life in his hands!

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Ahem. Wow. I wish I had replied to this thread this morning.

Every time I read a paladin thread, I think the same things. So, it's time to break out the typical paladin questionaire:

Does this player have a history of 'shaky' behavior or 'unpaldinishness'?
Is this a shades of grey campaign, or is it angled more towards killing the evil denziens of the dungeon?
Is your player thick skinned and able to deal with losing his powers fairly well? Would he take it badly?
Have you talked to your player about it? Does he feel that he deserves to lose his powers?


Here's my typical paladin response:
I tend to follow the line of thinking that the paladin is right. I've found that I trust my players well enough to stick to the concept of their characters. So, in situations where we might have a disagreement, I find that there is usually a compelling enough arguement that my players can make that I don't feel the need to argue the point.

In situations where a paladin has crossed the line, I reccomend against removing all of his abilities. I reccomend smaller steps. In a case where a paladin neglects mercy, reduce (or remove) the power of his Lay on Hands ability. It gets the same point across. However it avoids stonewalling the issue, and may help in the case where a player would feel useless after losing his abilities.

With regards to your situation, I have to ask: Did you have any plans of sacrificing his wife, turning his unborn child into an unholy monster, and generally forcing the paladin between choosing between his family and the safety of the world? I just have to ask, because I've read a lot of paladin threads. On a more serious note, do you trust this player? How does he feel about the situation?

My advice is to forget morality, forget plans, and go with what makes the game most fun.However, I urge you greatly to venture cautiously into the land of power loss, as many people don't find it fun.

And, after reading this, I have just one thing to say. If I do get a chance to play the paladin character I have in mind, he's going to be a loner orphan with no friends. Because, really, it seems like having friends or family as a paladin is just asking to be slapped with power-drain.

By the way, I would still like to hear an answer to Wulf's original question. "What did you expect to happen?"

 

[ForceUser]

In the old days, when someone directly or indirectly partakes on a venture to bring harm to someone's else family, and you are caught in the act, guess what, you share what the punishment is.

When it comes to a wife, your lover, your friend, and expecting...to give birth to a child from your blessed union. And someone wants to harm them?

Run or die...

And live with consquences thereafter...

and

Hmmmm...

1(Intruder in house)(captured*questioned*killed)/X(Invaders in the house) + at night + 1 kidnapped wife(Paladin) + 0(additional information) + Paladin's divine duty to smite evil = probable justified homicide + (aquittal*no loss of paladinhood)

By my equation, the Paladin did nothing wrong.

Heck, I'm sure I could get the guy acquitted, and I make a crappy defense attorney!

Heck with it. At risk of taking a three day vacation (feh, I need to make more time to study anyway), here is the relevant quote I wanted to post from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

BEING AHEAD OF YOUR TIME
Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and society. The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional. It is certainly possible that your campaign world might be a more enlightened place than medieval Europe--a place where men and women are considered equal, slavery is not practiced in any form, torture and capital punishment are shunned, and the various human and humanoid races live together in harmony. In such a case, an exalted character can live in relative peace with her culture, and focus her attention on slaying evil creatures in ruins and dungeons or rival, evil nations.

On the other hand, your campaign world might more closely reflect the realities of life in Earth's Dark or Middle Ages. Perhaps women are not viewed as men's equals or even sentient beings in their own right, slavery is widespread, testimony from serfs is only acceptable if extracted through torture, and humans of a certain skin tone (let alone nonhumans) are viewed as demonic creatures. It is vitally important to remembers one thing: these factors don't change anything else said in this chapter (or in the Book of Vile Darkness) about what constitutes a good or evil deed. Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow [emphasis mine]. Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society.

Just because society condones justifiable homicide does not mean that a paladin can engage in it righteously. For all our sympathy to his situation and all his grief, it remains an evil act. By this standard, the paladin in question erred. As I said before, it is great human drama, but it is not the act of an exalted character who is trying to maintain that virtuous perspective.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Heironeous: Domains Good, Law, War.
Promotes: Justice, Valor, Chivalry and Honor.
Kidnapper: acessory to a violent crime, didn't talk.
Chivalrous age setting- Knights were answerable only to self, code, peers and superiors- essentially, like Judge Dred, they can say "I am the Law!"

Slaying someone who is an accomplice to an evil act, and who refuses to cooperate, is not evil.

The god you serve may be good...but that doesn't neccessarily mean he is slow to anger!

Besides, if the kidnapping were benign, the accomplice would have been wise to TALK to the man who literally holds his life in his hands!

In terms of domains, I don't see how it is possible to extract one from the general mix. I think someone earlier made the point about Lawful, Good and Lawful Good. Lawful Good is a different concept to it's alignment constituents.

In the case above, I don't believe war outweighs, good and law combined in terms of a deity's perspective on things. As for knights being answerable to their peers, a Paladin is first and foremost answerable to the god who gives him his divine powers. Without knowing full information about a halfling who was at that stage presenting absolutely no threat, the act of executing him (if the DM rules that the halfing actually is dead) is stupid, rash, unwise, dishonorable and not providing of justice - at this stage the paladin has assumed the halflings guilt in the matter, he has not yet confirmed that he was not co-erced, dominated or tricked into the endeavour; all things that could possibly change suitable judgment. To state that the halfling was a kidnapper is presumptuous on the part of the paladin. A wiser paladin would have investigated a little further before breaking the halfling's neck.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Remember that when it comes to paladins, I'm real old school and traditional on the matter. I'm not saying a more progressive point of view is wrong, I'm just stating the hard line case. The thing to remember is that it is a game. If things like this stop the game being fun, then perhaps something of the issues involved need to be discussed further by the group. I know one of the players in our group would do something like this deliberately to liven up the role-playing and depth of the character. Not a path for everyone though.

 

[jdrakeh]

...to illustrate the fact that while Lawful does not equal "law-abiding," neither does it embrace a "laws be damned" attitude.

Perhaps not, but these are the two primary arguments that I've seen made for the definition of 'Lawful' on this thread.

Again, though, this comes back to a fundamental failing of alignments and the Paladin's code as both are worded vaguely and open to multiple interpretations. Seriously, this thread has produced very little objective commentary, yet it's run on far longer than many far more productive threads here do. It's essentially de-evolved into to groups of people with very different interpretations of poorly-written rules trying to convince each other that they're right.

The bottom line is that there is no written rule that clearly and concisely presents a solution to this situation (if there were, this thread wouldn't exist) - in the end, GM fiat must be applied to resolve the debacle. Which make me wonder... if alignments and the Paladin's code are so poorly worded as to cause this much debate without providing a clear solution, why then, do they exist at all?

Isn't the purpose of rules to convey a point? Where these two rules are concerned, that point seems to have been lost amongst the explanation, as said rules have some people arguing that Paladins are characters charged to uphold the law (so long as it is just) while others are arguing that Paladins are the law (i.e., enforcers vs. vigilantes).