The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

Kahuna Burger said:
actually, the "victim" is, as far as we know, physically unharmed. Its pretty obvious that the facts of this situation aren't getting in anyone's way, here.

I did get carried away a little. I just assumed that she was harmed :o

But if she was, I bet that assault on a pregnant woman would be considered more heinous than most crimes in a D&D world, since miscarried fetus is the one thing you can't resurrect. It'll just come back as a fetus and die again.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Start a cooking fire and make halfling stew. It might have been wrong to kill the halfling, but it would also be a sin to waste all that yummy halfling meat.
 

Numion said:
Now granted the victim was only assaulted and not necessarily murdered, but in those times a fitting punishment for assault would also be execution.

I have to question this as well, because I'm not sure which "times" you are referring to. Would it be the 1500's, when detect evil and teleport were used by some, Heironeous was revered by knights and halfling messengers were used as decoys?

I am poking a bit of fun here, but that statement doesn't really apply in D&D, where magic is available to allow for less deadly reactions (not that your reasoning is off, but the comparison doesn't hold well). Once again, my only real concern is that no attempt at Detect Evil was made {EDIT: to add to this, if Detect Evil was made, then I would have quickly ruled that the halfling was evil in order to allow appropriate action to be taken by the paladin without recourse, or if I felt that the halfling would make a good plot device, I would have made it clear that he was not evil. Using Detect Evil is a good way of avoiding "Paladin Traps" or revealing them for what they are}.

Aside from that, the only two other mitigating factors in this for me are:

a) Was the DM setting up a "Paladin Trap" on purpose, or was he surprised by what happened?

b) Was the player reacting out of frustration at the DM or the character acting out of frustration at the situation?

{EDIT: Galfridus posted while I typed this and took care of my mitigating factors. It appears that this is a paladin who is on the edge already and is getting closer to stepping off of it.}
 
Last edited:

It sounds like you have a grasp of the situation, but more to it. A understanding...that is excellent. :D

Good luck on the resolution. And by the way, the highlighted part, was a beautiful insight.

Thank You. And oh, female paladins are not masochistic :p , they can be a b---h, but they aren't all the time.

Galfridus said:
I'm not the biggest fan of alignments, but this game was set up to be as close to "by the book D&D" as possible (I was new to the area, did not know any gamers, and wanted the campaign to be "common ground"). That said, the game has been running 5 years, so some shades of grey are inevitable.



The player is an excellent roleplayer and a good sport; however, the paladin has definitely exhibited borderline chaotic (not evil) behavior in the past. This will figure into What Happens Next.



It's a campaign where Good and Evil have more or less objective definitions (e.g., slavery = evil), but the campaign has gone on long enough that some greyness has seeped in. Evil people do not see themselves as good, although they may justify their actions using other criteria.



He would probably take it well, but this character has also had a lot to deal with (much not his fault). I will be talking to the player to get a better idea of where he stands on this. Enjoyment of the game is paramount, and while I must remain true to the world, I don't want to ruin the game for anyone.



I haven't yet but I will -- this only happened two days ago and I wanted to give him a bit of time.

My concern is that the player's initial comments were to the effect that he knew he was going outside the bounds of the paladin's code, but he had made the decision to do that when his family was involved. However, this was in the heat of the moment, so I am not sure if that was really his thought process.



No. This was not a "follow the paladin's code or the world suffers" scene. He may well have to make that choice at some point, but not this time.



I trust the player. I don't know how he currently feels about the situation, as I haven't talked to him since the night of the session. I will be speaking with him this evening.



There is an element of that in paladins. I think that paladins are a fairly masochistic class choice, but that can make them uniquely interesting to play.

It's impossible for a paladin to figure out the motivations of all evildoers -- and even a paladin has to balance upholding the law vs. doing what is good. However, in this particular instance, the need to follow the law was perhaps stronger than normal (i.e., they were in the middle of a "good" city rather than fighting for their lives in a dungeon). It seems to me that the chaotic element is stronger than the evil element of the act. Interestingly, I had forgotten that the book paladin code is not so strict about chaotic acts, which gives me something to think about.



I took Wulf's question as rhetorical -- I rarely expect a particular outcome from any roleplaying scene. In a more narrow sense: at the time, during the scene, I did not expect the paladin to attempt to kill the halfling. If I had been guessing, I would have expected him to beat him up, express anger, and question him. I don't consider what the paladin did to be out of character, though it may have serious consequences for the character. I was a bit surprised at his actions, to be sure, and thought that posting the situation would provide new perspectives and inspirations for what to do -- which it definitely has!
 

Truth Seeker said:
And for you Demmero, I never said I was right either. It is a view expressed, and I leave it there as such.

TruthSeeker: Looking back on my earlier post, my wording was harsh. I apologize.

I still think the point I made is valid, though. The paladin had more choices than you portrayed, the biggest of which was whether or not to use Detect Evil on the halfling. He chose not to, and also chose execution over turning him over to the town authorities. He took the easy way out, on the only available target at that moment for his anger. Maybe that's like kicking a dog when you're angry, or maybe it's like kicking the wolf that tried to maul your pregnant wife. He has the tool to differentiate between dog and wolf.

I can understand the human nature to lash out at those who would hurt your family. But summary execution for a potential lackey in a case where there's no visible damage to the wife doesn't sit well with me...especially when this guy's got Detect Evil at his beck and call to help him at least better define justice and evil.

And that's why I think the paladin's reaction to the attack SHOULD BE different from the common man's--he's got these neat tools to help him dispense justice...but they're useless if he doesn't use them.
 


Kahuna Burger said:
YEEAAAARRRRRRGGGHH!!!!!!!

No one is dead (except probably the halfling.)

The halfling was not in the same room as the unspecified, non-deadly "attack" took place.

Where are you guys getting this stuff?

My mistake, "aid to suspected attempted murder" then. It's enough reason. Hell, IMC, aid to breaking and entering into a man's house would probably count as reason to kill the halfling. For that matter, acting upon suspected theft against a friend or ally out of honor is probably enough. Death comes cheap*, even for good** characters to deal out. In a world with proof of just afterlife and where it is possible to be raised, "death" is a completly separate punishment from "death without possiblity of being raised".

*Although the laws take on such things wil vary drastically from country to country. A lawful characters take on such things will also vary widely as some lawful characters care about the letter of the law, some about the spirit, and some about personal honor.

**And reiterate, IMC. Questions of alignment always defer to the DM that is running that game. Some may not follow the RAW and even if they do, they may not all agree on how to follow the RAW especially in every circumstance.
 

painandgreed said:
My mistake, "aid to suspected attempted murder" then. It's enough reason. Hell, IMC, aid to breaking and entering into a man's house would probably count as reason to kill the halfling. For that matter, acting upon suspected theft against a friend or ally out of honor is probably enough. Death comes cheap*, even for good** characters to deal out. In a world with proof of just afterlife and where it is possible to be raised, "death" is a completly separate punishment from "death without possiblity of being raised".

*Although the laws take on such things wil vary drastically from country to country. A lawful characters take on such things will also vary widely as some lawful characters care about the letter of the law, some about the spirit, and some about personal honor.

**And reiterate, IMC. Questions of alignment always defer to the DM that is running that game. Some may not follow the RAW and even if they do, they may not all agree on how to follow the RAW especially in every circumstance.

Good points. I come at the equation from campaigns where death is not as cheap. I guess that's why we pose questions here, so we get the whole range of opinions.
 

jdrakeh said:
If the setting has laws that govern the punsihment of criminals and a Paladin does an end run around those laws to take matters into his own hands, he's not obeying authority.

Or, he is obeying a different, or higher, authority.
 


Remove ads

Top