The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

That's right, kids.

Remeber: "You're wrong, and you're dumb" is just an insult.

"You're wrong because you're dumb" is an ad hominem attack.

The More You Know!

 

[Demmero]

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

Wow! That was easy!

Oh...I hate you!

And if this evildoer doesn't answer your questions, is it OK to rough him up?

If he tries to escape, is it OK to grab him, whoop him 'til he can't escape, and then snap his neck? Especially if you get him to admit that he did indeed kick that poor innocent toddler?

What if the 6-yr.-old's mother intervenes? Is she eligible for smiting then too?

Especially if you claim to be a paladin of Heironeous?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

What if the 6-yr.-old's mother intervenes? Is she eligible for smiting then too?

As someone who has worked in the juvenile court system, I can say:

Yes. Yes, you absolutely have my permission to smite the bejeezus out of her.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

Point, and mea culpa. And what you're referring to is, of course, ad absurdum.

But moving along to more interesting and insightful conversation with folks like...

Shining Dragon: 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.

In combat, when lives are at stake and every moment counts, then you can make the 'better to ask forgiveness than permission' argument, sure. In this case, though, snap judgement was exactly what wasn't required.

A paladin is expected to use detect evil...responsibly. Presumably, that would be in the ethos of his church. Which is why when I ran a D&D game in my homebrew world, I wrote up exactly that - an ethos for any given church, precisely because the paladin isn't some stick in the mud self-righteous do-gooder with the whack stick. Lawful Good does not, and must not mean 'Lawful Stupid.'

 

[Demmero]

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?"

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. But where does the hand-holding end? If a party of 2nd-level PCs decides to march off to vanquish the ancient red dragon that leveled Waterdeep, do you also call a timeout and ask if the players really want to do that? I see your point but I guess I'm just more of a give-and-take person when it comes to the Player-DM relationship.

I've never played a paladin, I've never played (or even NPCed) a cleric or follower of Heironeous, but when I read the OP's description of the incident, I immediately thought, "Gee, that doesn't sound like something a paladin of Heironeous should do." If I have that reaction, part of me wonders why the player who runs this PC doesn't have similar thoughts.

Snapping a captive's neck isn't exactly something on the white/gray border. Why couldn't the player ask the DM beforehand if the action might affect him paladin status?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

...But where does the hand-holding end?...

I would say that is between the Player and the DM. I have younger players that have told me to let them play the character without guidance and that I should judge them accordingly. If something bad happens, then experience will teach the player.

On the other hand, I have had long time players who want me to remind them of things that their character would know. The person has played for over 15 years and is around 40 years old. He has a fairly demanding job, a wife and two young daughters, so he doesn't want to put much effort into the game.

As the DM, I can decide not to game with someone who needs hand-holding, or I can agree to help him out. So, I don't think that the game has to be a learning experience or a lesson in roleplaying unless all parties want this.

 

[Torm]

I don't think the Paladin did right if he killed the Halfling before finding out as much as he could to prevent evil - which may have required letting the Halfling live a bit longer.

Other than that, the Halfling was party to an attack on an innocent pregnant woman, so I like this Paladin. No trial, no reports to file.

If I were his DM, rather than stripping him of any powers, I might punish the Paladin by making something else bad happen that might have been stopped if the Paladin had been a little more patient and paid a little more attention - if I had provided any inkling that something was there to pay attention to in the first place.

So speaks Torm, The True, The Loyal Fury, God of Paladins. So you know it's right.

(That, btw, is known as an Ad Endum argument - Endum, cause it's all over now. )

(If it isn't over, maybe we need another Paladin trial, hmmmm?)

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I've never played a paladin, I've never played (or even NPCed) a cleric or follower of Heironeous, but when I read the OP's description of the incident, I immediately thought, "Gee, that doesn't sound like something a paladin of Heironeous should do." If I have that reaction, part of me wonders why the player who runs this PC doesn't have similar thoughts.

The only answer I can give to that is: when I read the OP's description of the incident, I immediately thought: "So what's the problem?" And I have played paladins before. (In fact, I'm currently playing one, and the DM has actually intervened a couple of times now to say that I'm taking the paladin's code too seriously by offering mercy to Evil foes and preventing the other PCs from killing captured enemies!)

I can certainly empathize with you about one thing, though: I often (almost constantly, really) wonder why other people don't have similar thoughts about alignment issues as I do. But there's no doubt that they don't, so it's obvious to me that this is one of those areas that people just can't seem to agree about in any detail.

 

[painandgreed]

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. But where does the hand-holding end? f a party of 2nd-level PCs decides to march off to vanquish the ancient red dragon that leveled Waterdeep, do you also call a timeout and ask if the players really want to do that? I see your point but I guess I'm just more of a give-and-take person when it comes to the Player-DM relationship.

I adopt the Common Sense merit approach. I assume everybody has the common sense merit and when they say they're going to try something that their character should know is impossible or unbelievably stupid, I tell them so. As a rule of thumb, if you find yourself no able to beleive that they would actually want to pursue a certain course of action, you should inform them. Again, there are many varying levels of games out there and plenty of players out there that think that if the DM tells them about the dragon that leveled Waterdeep, then the PCs must be able to take it out.

I'm all for letting PC dig their own graves, but there are times when they need to be filled in on things because they do not actually live in the world their characters live in and therfore they do not understand it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

(If it isn't over, maybe we need another Paladin trial, hmmmm?)

Hello Torm,
I was thinking of calling the twelve paladins again once more myself...

Somewhere deep within the infinite layers of the Abyss, waging war upon the demons of the lower planes, a Paladin of Fiarle by the name of Herremann Mallaeforr hear's Torms rumblings once more. As always he is ready to serve in the guidance of his peers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise