The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Demmero]

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.

Technically true, but what then would you say WAS his motivation?
The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are rage at the intrusion and attack against his wife or belief that the halfling was so undeniably evil that Heironeous wouldn't blink at the execution-after-disabling.

Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.

This doesn't make sense to me. Does a player have to state the intent of every action he takes? No. Do players usually state the intent of each of their actions? Not in my games, at least.

Intent is judged after the fact, with as much evidence brought to bear as is possible.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Does Heironeous demand lethal retribution every time one of his paladins witnesses an evil act?

Lethal no. But if the Paladin is ignoring evil before his own eye he is going to fall due to inaction allowing evil to spread.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Would you strip him of his class abilities if he chose chicken?

I gotta say Hypersmurf, you have the best way of expressing things. Now to bastardize your quote, I believe the Paladin definitely chose chicken (or did the pilot have fish?)

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

No, you have to say the character acted out of that - and that being a GM call, that's exactly what I'd advise. DM's word is final.

 

[Voadam]

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.



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.

The stripping of powers is lower down in the class description. Violations don't do it, but GROSS violations do.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

 

[Demmero]

Lethal no. But if the Paladin is ignoring evil before his own eye he is going to fall due to inaction allowing evil to spread.

He didn't ignore evil. He realized the halfling was up to something, nabbed him, roughed him up until the little guy was in no condition to flee. He didn't "ignore evil."

His next (logical) choice was to turn the halfling over to the city authorities, question him some more, or do something else (like, unfortunately, snapping the guy's neck).

If Heironeous doesn't demand lethal retribution, then it's my opinion the execution meted out was the paladin's "sentence," not his god's will.

 

[Shining Dragon]

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.

Those creatures are only hostile because a group of well-armed individuals smashed down the door and started to murder them and take their stuff. Its a home invasion in all but name.

But yes, Powerkill does (seem to) illustrate my point.

Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.

 

[painandgreed]

This doesn't make sense to me. Does a player have to state the intent of every action he takes? No. Do players usually state the intent of each of their actions? Not in my games, at least.

Intent is judged after the fact, with as much evidence brought to bear as is possible.

As I've stated before, I believe that in cases of alignment where players might lose abilities or have their alignment changed, the players shoud be given a warning that their actions will do so. If for no other reason, to prevent hour long "discussions" between the player and DM for such actions (boring the rest of the players in the meantime). I've seen too many DMs that enjoy pushing the player's buttons rather than the character's and don't see such as good DMing. For a DM to declare what the motivations are for a character after the fact without input from the player is just railroading and at that point, why even bother with having players?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Let's say the party sorcerer has just cast Protection from Good on himself. It's a spell with the Evil descriptor; the sorcerer now has an evil aura. Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say someone bought the halfling a 'shot of brandy' that is, in fact, a potion of Protection from Good. The halfling drinks the potion; he now has an evil aura. Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say the paladin runs across Ebeneezer Scrooge. The man is petty, spiteful, unconcerned with the suffering of others. He has an evil alignment, though strictly, he hasn't broken any laws. Is his cruelty a death sentence? Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say we have an Lawful Good Aasimar sorceress who has polymorphed into a succubus temporarily for the purpose of a Mission of Goodness, gaining the Evil subtype and thus an evil aura. Is the paladin correct to smite her?

Let's say we have a reformed succubus, who has devoted herself to good and changed alignment. She retains her Evil subtype, however, and thus possesses an evil aura. Is the paladin correct to smite her?

Let's say we have a good undead creature - a FR baelnorn, for example. As an undead creature, despite having a good alignment, it shows up on Detect Evil. Is the paladin correct to smite it?

Let's say we have an evil man who has recently seen the error of his ways and repented. Is his alignment still evil until he performs sufficient good acts to redeem it? If so, is this someone the paladin should be smiting? If, on the other hand, alignment changes with current state of mind (rather than as a record of past deeds), then someone who has been truly good their entire life who has a change of heart now radiates evil. Is this someone the paladin should be smiting? What if it was only an aberrant spike of evil in an otherwise good spirit?

Is a 'ping' on a detect evil always justification for an immediate smite?

-Hyp.

 

[Jim Hague]

Those creatures are only hostile because a group of well-armed individuals smashed down the door and started to murder them and take their stuff. Its a home invasion in all but name.

But yes, Powerkill does (seem to) illustrate my point.

Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.

You're also comparing apples to oranges again - in a typical D&D campaign, good and evil are not subjective as they are in the real word, they're objective, as terrifying a universe as that might be. As for 'justified' - no. Roughed up/incapacitated is one thing, but lethal retribution is disproportionate to the crime, thus failing definitions of lawful (let the authorities handle it, as this is a LG kingdom) and good (prisoner helpless, paladin killed them anyway). I say still - turn it into an opportunity to trip the paladin up. Test his faith.