The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Hypersmurf]

I've always figured that a paladin's code is something the DM and player need to hammer out, at least roughly, before play begins.

Important to cover off right away:
1. Is the paladin obliged to attack anything that shows up as Evil on his radar?
2. What are the 'rules' regarding unconscious/sleeping/surrendered opponents, particularly when there is no way to safely confine them?
3. What are the 'rules' regarding noncombatants of traditionally evil races?
4. Is it okay for the paladin to 'turn a blind eye' to things like torture of prisoners for information if it's in a good cause?
5. Is it 'dishonourable' to use stealth or disguises, attack without warning, lie as a 'ruse of war', etc?
6. Can a minor evil be ignored in pursuit of a greater evil? (Is it okay to let the mugging in the dark alley continue, if intervening would mean letting the demon lord escape?)

Other things that might be worth addressing are attitudes to sex and alcohol, tolerance for other religions, tithing, and the like.

These can be fleshed out further if unexpected situations arise in game, but having at least those initial contentious points fleshed out in advance will help to avoid unpleasant surprises where expectations don't mesh.

I could see a very simple Paladin's code boiled down to 'What would Benton do?'

-Hyp.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar.

Ok, I'm going to nitpick again. I'll do this via example (overblown as it may be, I've seen a similar situation in High School some 16 years ago):

Paladin: "What do you know about this?"

Halfling: "Uh...nothing...I mean it, nothing."

Paladin: "Stop holding back, you had something to do with this." *punch, punch, kick*

Halfling: "Ok, ok, I had something to do with it, if that will make you stop hitting me."

Paladin: "Who is behind this?"

Halfling: "Awe man, I really don't know."

Paladin: *snap*

I knew a person that admitted to stealing a fellow students backpack in order to get him to stop hitting him. The backpack was later found to have been misplaced and had nothing to do with the *evil* student who *obviously* stole it due to the *better than magic* method of beating the *truth* out of someone.

Forgive me if I am a bit dubious of your logic.

 

[Numion]

OK, let's play hypothetical here. A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler. What does he do?

Depends .. how evil is the toddler? Kidding aside, PHB states that beings incapable of moral action neither good or evil. I'd think that a 6-year old could still fall in this category. However, if he pings evil, the Paladin is by the RAW required to punish him, or risk losing his powers. Oh, scrap that, by the RAW his Code requires him to punish the boy in any case. He's harming innocents, you see.

Thems the breaks.

 

[Jim Hague]

That's what I've advocated in my previous posts: the Paladin should have reasonable suspicions. Thats what happened in this case, as is clear from the first post:

And then he snapped his neck. Neither just nor fair, I'd say.

So it's different standards for those guys forced to live in dungeons and clean evil Halflings living in cities? How just and fair, the Paladins be in your world. I'm just saying that if the Paladin pretends to be an equal opportunity Smiter he should direct his divine wrath equally on those scheme murders in cities and poor orcs living in dungeons. This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect all innocents he can, and punish all those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.

Spare me your sarcasm, Numion. If you can't defend your position and have to resort to ad hominem, then this has passed the point of debate and becomes a matter for the mods. The difference philosophically between actions in combat and in peacetime are debated elsewhere and offer some interesting insights. I suggest you read up before wading into these waters.

See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar. What's the straw-man? I just stated what's in the Paladins Code and whats not. Thats as un-strawy as can be. Justice is not in the Paladins Code while punishing those who harm innocents is. It's your argument thats going nowhere, and it is starting to show in your attitude :\

You're arguing semantics and putting up strawmen to support your own argument. And no, sorry, beating a confession out of someone isn't 'better' than the relatively objective detect evil...and even that's been shown to not be a decent yardstick at all. But since you're resorting, again, to ad hominem, then any discussion with you is now over.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

OK, let's play hypothetical here. A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler. What does he do?

He protects the toddler and punishes the 6 year-old.

Wow! That was easy!

 

[Dinkeldog]

Actually, it's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be saying, "How would you know what paladins should be when you're evil yourself?" See, you switch the attack from the argument to the credibility of the arguer. I didn't see Numion doing that this time.

He is putting up strawmen, though. Creating his own exaggeration of your argument that is easily refutable and then equating the exaggeration with the value of the original argument. While one can legitimately carry an argument to its logical extreme and show how ludicrous it is, that isn't what is happening here.

Try http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html for some clarification.

 

[Shining Dragon]

You're arguing semantics and putting up strawmen to support your own argument. And no, sorry, beating a confession out of someone isn't 'better' than the relatively objective detect evil...and even that's been shown to not be a decent yardstick at all. But since you're resorting, again, to ad hominem, then any discussion with you is now over.

If a Paladin cannot use his god-given gift of detect evil to decide whether he can smite someone or not, then what's the point of being a Paladin? Best be a Fighter with a large stick then you don't have to even seek justification for beating up on the wife-beating halfling.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

If a Paladin cannot use his god-given gift of detect evil to decide whether he can smite someone or not, then what's the point of being a Paladin? Best be a Fighter with a large stick then you don't have to even seek justification for beating up on the wife-beating halfling.

Are you asking meta-game or in-game, Shining Dragon? In-game, I highly doubt that most paladins become paladins simply to beat the living hell out of people (and, remember, the halfling in the OP's post wasn't actually assaulting the wife — he's some sort of accessory, although we don't know if he was willingly or not), and, if that's the reason on a meta-game level, then, yeah, I agree — I think people would be better off being fighters.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

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.

OK, fair enough. I don't fully agree, though. I feel that a player running a paladin should weigh his actions before taking them.

The problem with that is--as this thread has clearly demonstrated--people use totally different "scales" to "weigh" those actions. I believe that I have an extremely good handle on the official alignment rules, and yet anytime an issue like this one comes up, there are dozens of people (if not more) who come to the exact opposite conclusion that I do!

Thus, the problem--and painandgreed's eminently sensible solution to it: rather than sit back and let the paladin's player "weigh his actions," then slam him with the penalties for "breaking his code," and then arguing with him for the next two weeks about whether what he did was Evil or not...why not just say, "Um, you do know that I (the DM) will rule that to be a violation of your paladin's code, right?" I'll bet that most people who try this will be surprised how many times the answer is: "No, I didn't realize that. How is it a violation of my code?"

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Thus, the problem--and painandgreed's eminently sensible solution to it: rather than sit back and let the paladin's player "weigh his actions," then slam him with the penalties for "breaking his code," and then arguing with him for the next two weeks about whether what he did was Evil or not...why not just say, "Um, you do know that I (the DM) will rule that to be a violation of your paladin's code, right?" I'll bet that most people who try this will be surprised how many times the answer is: "No, I didn't realize that. How is it a violation of my code?"

That's a brilliant idea Peter, why didn't anyone come up with this before (just kidding painandgreed)...

Actually, all joking aside, that was probably the best advice of the thread (not as fun as debating, but good advice).