The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Jim Hague]

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".

Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice, it's fascism - which is plenty lawful...lawful evil.

IMO, death in a campaign should never be treated as 'cheap' - down that road lies petty excuses used to justify the 'kill them and take their stuff' mentality. I'm in the camp that says smack the paladin down, and hard - but not overtly.

For the brightest lights (like paladins), the murder in a fit of rage of a prisoner is going to leave a mark, and anything that's got the ability to see such a stain on the spirit is likely going to want to take advantage. Given the statements on what the paladin's done before in the campaign, I'd say he's a prime candidate for not a fall, but getting tripped by Evil.

 

[Numion]

Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice, it's fascism - which is plenty lawful...lawful evil.

Proof is just another level of suspicion. Any proof of guilt the Paladin obtained from whatever source could also be false. Shouldn't let that keep him from Smiting.

IMO, death in a campaign should never be treated as 'cheap' - down that road lies petty excuses used to justify the 'kill them and take their stuff' mentality.

Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about killing things and taking their stuff. Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.

Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city? Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.

 

[Jim Hague]

Proof is just another level of suspicion. Any proof of guilt the Paladin obtained from whatever source could also be false. Shouldn't let that keep him from Smiting.

Excuse me? Proof is what a Lawful Good character must go on, not suspicion, which exists in the absence of proof. If said paladin killed based solely on suspicion, then that's neighter righteous nor justice, but simple murder, neither of which fits even the loosest interpretation of LG. Sorry, but no.

Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about killing things and taking their stuff. Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.

That may be what you're talking about, but it seems like the rest of us are speaking about roleplaying. Please leave the hack and slash mindset out of this, because it simply doesn't apply.

Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city? Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.

Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder. You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand. Killing someone because they were possibly an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment. But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.

 

[Shining Dragon]

Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder. You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand. Killing someone because they were possibly an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment. But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.

I think it is extreme in saying that it is murder in a game where a typical days work for a character involves going down into a subterranean structure, killing its inhabitants and taking their stuff.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

But the game clearly sets up a dichotomy between the dungeon and the city — the dungeon's like the old American frontier before it was completely settled, and, in that case, there's a certain amount of Darwinism/fascism/whatever that's part and parcel of the whole thing — the strongest swordarm rules the day. But the same rules don't apply in the city, where there is presumably a governing authority, relative peace and stability, and a set of rules and codes of conduct agreed on by the people somehow in order to ensure that the settlement survives and prospers.

Edit: And the city has to exist for the adventurers to go down into the dungeon to begin with. Otherwise, where do they cash in their loot/what value does it have?

Nick

 

[Jim Hague]

I think it is extreme in saying that it is murder in a game where a typical days work for a character involves going down into a subterranean structure, killing its inhabitants and taking their stuff.

And again - that doesn't apply here. This wasn't combat. False analogy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My belief stems from the fact that the Paladin must make the Lawful Good choice in every single situation. If he does not, he becomes an unplayable character.

I don't agree with your statement.

The paladin sits down at a table in the inn. The serving wench comes to tell him what's on the menu.

"We've got mutton pie, or roast chicken. They're both 2 silvers, but if you have the pie, four coppers goes to the local charity for widows and orphans."

The paladin loves roast chicken, and isn't that keen on mutton.

If we had to rank the two choices on an alignment scale, there is Good attached to the mutton choice, while the chicken choice is Neutral.

Would you consider that the paladin is obliged to choose mutton? Would you strip him of his class abilities if he chose chicken?

-Hyp.

 

[Numion]

Excuse me? Proof is what a Lawful Good character must go on, not suspicion, which exists in the absence of proof. If said paladin killed based solely on suspicion, then that's neighter righteous nor justice, but simple murder, neither of which fits even the loosest interpretation of LG. Sorry, but no.

With the abundance of magic in D&D definitive proof does not even exist. There are endless ways to tamper with evidence magically. At which point do you think the Paladin has acquired definite proof, that simply can't be anything else than what it seems?

So sorry, but yes. It is down to a certain level of suspicion because you can't be sure.

That may be what you're talking about, but it seems like the rest of us are speaking about roleplaying. Please leave the hack and slash mindset out of this, because it simply doesn't apply.

I wasn't talking about hack'n'slash, I was talking about the usual adventures D&D comprises of in the official sources, and the Paladins role therein. AFAIK it's quite ok for the Paladin to participate in the usual Dungeon adventures. Taken in that context, killing a Halfling committing evil is quite ok. It's only when you 'roleplayers' take the Paladin from that context into the context of Perry Mason that things get iffy. So maybe the Paladins actions wouldn't hold water in 21st century court, you have proof of guilt, motive etc. to ponder. But in the situation and setting provided, it's just one more evil guy Smitten down.

Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder. You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand. Killing someone because they were possibly an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment. But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.

You keep bringing up things that have no bearing on the situation. Paladins Code is silent on both justice and mercy. It however does require punishing those who harm innocents. Thats what happened; he punished the evil halfling for his evil actions. The Paladin isn't beholden to your notifications of crime and worldly court justice. He fights [Evil], not crime. Heck, some nation could've made it crime to be a Paladin in the first place. Is that place off-limits to Paladins?

 

[Demmero]

Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about killing things and taking their stuff. Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.

Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city?

How about because the MM entry for halflings says "usually Neutral" and the paladin doesn't have a cool ability called "Smite Neutrality?" The again, Neutral is only one step away from Evil (*Smite!*) and halflings' favored class is Rogue, which you can argue is only new-fangled semantics for Thief (*Smite!*).

Why a paladin with an apparently evil halfling captive can't take a few seconds to use his Detect Evil ability to make certain the act isn't grossly out of character for the little guy is beyond me.

Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.

At least not until that higher, non-worldly authority stops granting you cool paladin powers...but then it's a little late.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

You keep bringing up things that have no bearing on the situation. Paladins Code is silent on both justice and mercy. It however does require punishing those who harm innocents. Thats what happened; he punished the evil halfling for his evil actions. The Paladin isn't beholden to your notifications of crime and worldly court justice. He fights [Evil], not crime. Heck, some nation could've made it crime to be a Paladin in the first place. Is that place off-limits to Paladins?

Emphasis mine. Of course, the halfling's not evil that we know about (and, yes, I am busting your chops a bit here).