The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Demmero]

We're here debating about the Paladin losing his powers. They can be lost three way:

1) Gross violation of the Code

2) Committing an Evil act

3) Ceasing to be Lawful Good

Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?" He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).

Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment). If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.

Ceasing to be Lawful Good: The DM said the paladin in question has been on the edge in terms of his actions several times before; if this is the questionable action that causes an alignment shift, then no more LG. Not my call or your though; that's up to the ruling DM.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't know if killing the halfling on the spot is necessarily evil, after all he was involved in the commission of a crime and in the Greyhawk of my game he would have probably been executed by the constable unless he had some thing to show he was coereced. However for a Paladin of Heironeous I would think that he acted with very little honor in that situation and in our game Paladins and clerics of Heironeous put honor and the tenets of chivalry up there with the belief in law and good. But that is how we play based on the beliefs of that god in question and it is not part of the RAW. We found that treating all Paladins the exact same was weak so creating different codes for each LG god is necessary to add some flavor and depth to the characters.

In any event it's not fall from grace level dishonor, but I think some minor atonement should be necessary.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner, like, um, what happens to murderers who are hanged? Now I'm gonna be called for using straw-men again, but IMO it's no different. Killing helpless prisoners is quite ok if they are receiving the friggin' death penalty. That's what happened here.

They're not the same -- the death penalty is issued by a judge, after someone is found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers (at least that's how the system works in theory). There are checks and balances in the system and how it's built. We're essentially talking about a vigilante here, killing an accomplice to a crime, in a city that presumably has some form of legal system. He's circumventing the law. As to whether he's bound to it, I would presume that a paladin of Heironeous would be, but that's largely up to the OP and how he runs things in his campaign.

Now let me backtrack a bit and admit that you do have a very good point here. Strangling is not actually a very 'Paladinly' method. Too personal, usually a method in personal crimes of passion or rage. While it was justified in this case, it might look to those not 'in the know' that the Paladin is a raging maniac, and tarnish the reputation of the whole lot!

I think even if I were in the know, the paladin would look like a bit of a maniac, particularly if I knew he was a paladin. At least momentarily. Higher standards and all. But, yeah, it could have bad repercussions for his paladin buddies and peers.

 

[Demmero]

Detect Evil doesn't tell you for sure that the creature itself is [Evil]. It tells if the creature is [Evil] or that it has an [Evil] spell on him. So the Paladin cannot be sure even after detecting evil. But I'd say it would be enough for me.

But if he took those 18 seconds and DIDN'T get a Ping! on Detect Evil...does the halfling deserve a reprieve and a bit more investigating as to why he set up the diversion?

 

[Numion]

Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?" He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).

Respect and strict obedience are different things. The Paladin is more beholden to curch or celestial authority. I don't think that a Paladin should abide to every single law when fighting evil. I agree though that handing the Halfling to the city watch would've been a fine alternative; it's only the big fish that the Paladin should make sure to punish personally.

Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment). If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.

If you're arguing it on the law-chaos axis (I assume you do since you mentioned code of crime), it's of no relevance to losing powers, because you can't lose your powers by committing a chaotic act, unless it shifts your alignment from LG. It of course might, if the Paladin is a habitual offender with chaotic acts.

Ceasing to be Lawful Good: The DM said the paladin in question has been on the edge in terms of his actions several times before; if this is the questionable action that causes an alignment shift, then no more LG. Not my call or your though; that's up to the ruling DM.

This I agree with, now that you put it like that. By itself, this act shouldn't make the Paladin lose his powers, but if it's the one that breaks the camels back and makes him non-LG, powers are yoinked.

 

[Demmero]

Respect and strict obedience are different things. The Paladin is more beholden to curch or celestial authority. I don't think that a Paladin should abide to every single law when fighting evil. I agree though that handing the Halfling to the city watch would've been a fine alternative; it's only the big fish that the Paladin should make sure to punish personally.

Hey! We're getting somewhere! As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous! Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?

If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.

 

[Jim Hague]

Hey! We're getting somewhere! As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous! Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?

If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.

In fact, here's a li'l bit on him:

"The Invincible One, the Axe of Justice.
Heironeous is the god of Chivalry, Justice, Honour and Valour."

So, murdering a helpless, defeated prisoner is, according to some, chivalrous, just, honorable and valorous. Riiiight. Pull the other one, why don'tcha?

 

[Voadam]

Alternatively the DM may roleplay the Deity that the Paladin is servant to and find that killing a helpless creature was dishonorable.

Sure, Heironeous can intervene and punish the paladin outside of the paldin class RAW.

But Heironeous can do that to CE halfling rogues who act dishonorably and smite them with deific power as well.

Heironeous can pull a Job and smite the paladin, take away all his powers, and kill his wife to test whether he will stay true and faithful when it appears his god abandons him.

Gods can act however they want.

 

[Demmero]

Sure, Heironeous can intervene and punish the paladin outside of the paldin class RAW.

Yep, and he do it within the RAW as well.

But Heironeous can do that to CE halfling rogues who act dishonorably and smite them with deific power as well.

Yep, but at least the god took the time to discover that the halfling in question was:
1) Chaotic Evil, and
2) A Rogue

 

[Numion]

Hey! We're getting somewhere! As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous! Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?

Well, by the RAW doesn't state that you lose powers when you piss off your god .. excuse me for all these lame attempts at humor I don't recall what the dogma for Capital H is, but there is no good reason the Paladin couldn't have given the Halfling to authorities.

I'm starting to feel like a pain in the ass (which means I probably am ), but I still need to remind that while the facts above are right, it's still nothing to yoink powers over. Who metes out the punishment is not as important as the fact that it is meted out.

If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.

That certainly is a lame excuse, and not something I would advocate. I would neither advocate going too far in the opposite direction where the Paladin is just a glorified policeman. He still is the gods chosen instrument and carries a lot of duties and expectations that transcend mortal laws.