The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

To what extent?

Absolute proof?
Proof beyond reasonable doubt? What constitutes 'reasonable'?
A confession? A confession within a Zone of Truth? A confession within a Zone of Truth with someone to verify via Greater Arcane Sight if the confessor made his save or not?
Eyewitness testimony? Credible eyewitness testimony? What constitutes 'credible'? A Zone of Truth, again?
A verdict handed down by a fair trial? What constitutes 'fair'?

When can a paladin determine that something has been proven sufficiently to allow smiting?

-Hyp.

 

[painandgreed]

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.

Um, no. Fascism is where the state exerts its control over all aspects of the individual's life. The paladin isn't the state in this case, so it can't be fascism. You could say that it is authortarian rule, which it is because the paladin is an authority as demonstrated by his paladinhood. Since he has become and paladin and still retains the paladin powers, it shows that he has the rightful authority to preform his duties as he sees fit. Should he exert those powers wrongly, he would lose those powers and that authority. This has no bearing on whether the local government or authority recognises that authority or not. A paladin, havign gained that authority is expected to use it and could lose it due to inaction even if following the local laws against his code. Seeing that the paladin has the authority, it can't be murder since murder is just an unlawful killing.

Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the paladin killed because of a fit of rage. He may have been angry, it may have been known to him that the halfling was going to be killed, but it was never, that I read, determined that the sole and motivating factor in the death was his anger. Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

To what extent?

Absolute proof?
Proof beyond reasonable doubt? What constitutes 'reasonable'?
A confession? A confession within a Zone of Truth? A confession within a Zone of Truth with someone to verify via Greater Arcane Sight if the confessor made his save or not?
Eyewitness testimony? Credible eyewitness testimony? What constitutes 'credible'? A Zone of Truth, again?
A verdict handed down by a fair trial? What constitutes 'fair'?

When can a paladin determine that something has been proven sufficiently to allow smiting?

-Hyp.

I think we can reasonably assume that the detect evil ability could be considered a handy tool to determine if something is smitable.

 

[Shining Dragon]

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

When characters attack the inhabitants of those sunterranean structures who are merely defending their homes from intruders, who is in the wrong?

My "analogy", which wasn't meant to be one, was meant to illustrate that a DND setting is completely different from our modern world. A typical adventure in DND would be classified as an illegal and very violent act in our modern world. Same goes with the action of the Paladin.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

Nope. If you've got a very liberal code of conduct that allows for such a thing, at the very least it has to be reasonable suspicion - which this wasn't.

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.

'Kill things and take their stuff' is quintessential hack and slash. And again - zero proof, lack of reasonable suspicion. Please stop trying to bring the dungeon/hack and slash attitude into it. It doesn't apply here.

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?

*bzzt!* Wrong and how. No reasonable suspicion of guilt - only allegation and suspicion. The paladin clearly acted out of anger, which is against the code of the church he belongs to. And I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing justice, something you seem to be missing. You keep bringing out the same old straw men, and frankly it's a little tiresome.

 

[Jim Hague]

Absolute proof?

That's the best way, sure.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt? What constitutes 'reasonable'?
A confession? A confession within a Zone of Truth?

Better, yes.

A confession within a Zone of Truth with someone to verify via Greater Arcane Sight if the confessor made his save or not?

A very good way to go. That's how I handled it in my campaign when it came down to the followers of a god of Law argued with those of a god of Justice.

Eyewitness testimony? Credible eyewitness testimony? What constitutes 'credible'? A Zone of Truth, again?

Yup. Preferrably verified in some fashion.

A verdict handed down by a fair trial? What constitutes 'fair'?

In the case of a Lawful Good diety, a trial where the accused has a chance to defend themselves and explain their actions, where both sides present their case.

When can a paladin determine that something has been proven sufficiently to allow smiting?

-Hyp.

Couple ways - personally witnessing the crime itself, for one. That's the case in a martial situation - when mortal peril is immediate and irrefutable and commission is witnessed. Another is by following the procedure of a trusted system of law.

 

[Jim Hague]

Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the paladin killed because of a fit of rage. He may have been angry, it may have been known to him that the halfling was going to be killed, but it was never, that I read, determined that the sole and motivating factor in the death was his anger. Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.

My reading differs, then. Sorry you don't agree. Dictionary dissembling aside, the GM has said this wasn't the first time the character had acted in this fashion, and that it certainly looked like the character acted in anger again.

 

[LostSoul]

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

-Hyp.

Um... well, he is. What I would or wouldn't do doesn't matter - it comes down to "does he violate his code or not"? This seems like a violation of his code.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Interesting... there's nothing there that says a Paladin will lose his abilities if he violates his code. Am I reading this correctly?

Anyway, the example above is a violation of his code (help those in need). While it's a lame one, that's what RAW states.

So if he chose chicken over mutton often enough to become N, or LN, or whatever, he loses his abilites. If the choice in question is too insignificant to force an alignment change, it isn't a moral choice. (To be clear, I was talking about moral choices when I said "the Paladin must make the Lawful Good choice in every single situation.")


Now this is a lame example, but it illustrates the point well enough. A Paladin must be Lawful Good or get nerfed. So it's difficult to provide the Paladin with deep moral choices, since the "get nerfed" weighs very heavily on the one side of the scale.

 

[Jim Hague]

When characters attack the inhabitants of those sunterranean structures who are merely defending their homes from intruders, who is in the wrong?

My "analogy", which wasn't meant to be one, was meant to illustrate that a DND setting is completely different from our modern world. A typical adventure in DND would be classified as an illegal and very violent act in our modern world. Same goes with the action of the Paladin.

You're comparing apples (attacking a dungeon full of hostile creatures) and oranges (killing a captured and helpless opponent). Ergo, false analogy. On the irony of the dungeon delve and many other roleplaying scenarios, I suggest you read John Tynes' fine Powerkill.

 

[painandgreed]

My reading differs, then. Sorry you don't agree. Dictionary dissembling aside, the GM has said this wasn't the first time the character had acted in this fashion, and that it certainly looked like the character acted in anger again.

Looks can be deceiving, to punish the player for what it looked like is not different than to punish the halfling for what it looked like. You'd have to prove that the player acted due to rage.