The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Demmero]

The punishment would likely be community service and having to listen to a 12-hour lecture about how torture is wrong.

Tony M

No, no, NO! Anger Management classes taught by a priest of Yondalla

 

[ThirdWizard]

Bad example - in that case, you know the person is lying, which invalidates your point.

What if he isn't lying?

My point being: you can have the best of intentions but that doesn't make you non-evil. That way leads to "ends justify the means." You can't say that you weren't trying to be evil and let that be an excuse to commit acts of murder, torture, and so forth. Intent has nothing to do with it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You, on the other hand, have a more complicated view of the relationship between the paladin and his god. Your view takes the emotional state of the paladin in mind when he is confronting evil, and your view sometimes places more importance on honor and justice than killing evil. And the paladin's pre-approval for killing evil has more restrictions and qualifiers.

In this case, alleged evil. Noone knows if the halfing was good or evil (or most probably neutral).

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

What if he isn't lying?

My point being: you can have the best of intentions but that doesn't make you non-evil. That way leads to "ends justify the means." You can't say that you weren't trying to be evil and let that be an excuse to commit acts of murder, torture, and so forth. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Hey, my goblin hordes are always happy and intent on only doing good as they ravage the land (and smite the evil halflings)...

 

[Godofredo]

that paladin is going to be a very good blackguard

 

[jdrakeh]

Does that sound close to the mark?

I think that's pretty close. Basically, some people see the Paladin solely as an instrument of divine retribution where others see the Paladin as an individual that has a duty to represent all facets of a god, not merely his or her retribution. In the end, it's the difference between viewing the Paladin as a divinely sanctioned hitman and a religious diplomat, I think.

 

[tonym]

In the end, it's the difference between viewing the Paladin as a divinely sanctioned hitman and a religious diplomat, I think.

Good analogy. It sounds like the Original Poster sees paladins as you do, and the player of the paladin sees them as I do.

Here's another analogy...

It's the difference between seeing the paladin as a modern-day police officer authorized to kill people but answerable to one-hundred rules regarding the discharge of his weapon, and seeing him as a soldier in a modern-day army, given only two or three rules about shooting the enemy and provided with lots and lots of bullets.

Tony M

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think paladins are instruments of their god's wrath and have been completely pre-approved to kill anything that is probably evil.

Tony M,
Do you really play paladins that way?
If an individual is "probably" evil in your paladin's opinion, you have the pre-approval to kill them?
If something turns up on the evil radar (if you choose to use it) then you're free to smite away (whether the smite actually works or not?
And then when you go to use your lay on hands and you can't, you accuse the DM of cutting off your PCs powers for their own amusement or ignorance (based on your previous comments).

Have you had a bad experience playing a paladin?
What you describe seems more like a chaotic vigilante than a LG paladin in a LG city.

You, on the other hand, have a more complicated view of the relationship between the paladin and his god. Your view takes the emotional state of the paladin in mind when he is confronting evil, and your view sometimes places more importance on honor and justice than killing evil. And the paladin's pre-approval for killing evil has more restrictions and qualifiers.

Tony M

A paladin of Heironeous would put equal weight in honor, justice and smiting evil as well as valor and courage. He is following what is expected of him; emotion if anything does not come into it. In this thread's case, it seems that the emotion (anger) of the paladin in fact got in the way of his clear and rational judgment. Whether these actions are enough for the paladin to temporarily lose Heironeous's (the DMs) support is up to the DM. As I said before, it looks like the DM's going down the atonement path (and correctly so in my honest opinion).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault. The paladin then attempted to kill the halfling (and may have succeeded; I ended the session at that point, as it was a good cliffhanger).

Except that the paladin didn't know about the invasion until after the fact...it looks a lot like he metagamed and now expects to get off scot free.

The Paladin ascertained the Halfling's complicity. He had been questioned and stopped cooperating.

There's a world of difference between acting decisively in combat and acting out of anger on the street. It's the difference between righteous battle and out and out murder.

Yep...and the Paladin was actively looking for his pregnant wife- he was, in the parlance, "in hot pursuit," facing a co-conspirator who was no longer cooperating with his questioning, even to the point of not letting the Paladin know if his wife was to be killed or merely held hostage.

Months ago, someone proposed a scenario in which a Bandit Lord and his large band of miscreants captured a village an a Paladin therein, demanding that the Paladin kill one villager in order for the others to be set free. If he didn't, all, including the Paladin, would be slain.

The overwhelming consensus in that thread was that the Paladin should either not act (ensuring the death of everyone in the village and himself), or attack the Bandit Lord, consequences be damned, still letting innocents die. (I agreed with neither.)

The Paladin here was avoiding that kind of ethical whipsaw, eliminating one minion at a time.

...the paladin found out after the fact, and the halfling wasn't involved in the assault.

The OP said the Halfling was involved. Even as only a decoy, he is BY LAW, as guilty as the people who did the actual assault. That is why getaway car drivers get sentenced to all the crimes involved in a bank robbery, including murder, even if all they did was transport the guys in the bank to and from the scene of the crime.

Assault & Nighttime home invasions were potential death-penalty crimes- combine the 2 and the Halfling's neck was in the noose as soon as he knocked on the door seeking to draw the Paladin out.

The Paladin merely acted as the executioner.

In this case, alleged evil. Noone knows if the halfing was good or evil (or most probably neutral).

He was apprehended after acting in furtherance of an evil act. He's guiltier than most mercenaries.

No attempt to discern innocence or guilt was made; he just 'got angry' and murdered someone on assumption.

Already disproved. The OP stated that the Paladin found out the Halfling was involved.

Re: neutralized non-combatants
Sorry, but no, this doesn't wash, Danny. Perhaps you're proposing that the paladin assumed the halfling was a witch or some equally flimsy excuse?

Let me ask you: Do Paladins in your campaigns kill dragon hatchlings? Kobolds in their nests? Coup de Grace opponents? If so, what's your problem here?

The Halfling was complicit in a heinous act and was caught- one that made his life forfeit by law. Unlike a young monster, he ACTED in an EVIL fashion. The Paladin had no way to determine how deeply involved in the plot the Halfling was, and the Halfling wasn't cooperating anymore.

He gambled on the mercy of a Paladin who had been personally violated by an evil act, and he lost.

We've already established that he acted out of anger, which violated both the law and his paladinic code.

No. We're know how he acted. We know some of what the PC did, and that anger (at an evil act) was a motivating force. But we also know that merely acting out of anger is not sufficient to strip a Paladin of his powers.

What we're doing is discussing whether he did so in a way that he actually violated his code. Obviously, minds differ.

Does the phrase 'imminent danger' mean anything to you?

Yep. And here we have a winner.

The Halfling was complicit in a night time invasion of a private domicile- this much the Paladin ascertained.

He then shut up.

The Paladin had no way to figure out where in the scheme the Halfling fit. Mastermind? Mook? But his actions had already damned him- he participated in an evil act.

In the meantime, as he's trying to get a lead on his wife's whereabouts, time is slipping away. The more time that passes, the greater the chance that his wife and unborn son are being further mistreated. She is in "imminent danger."

And the Halfling doesn't care, doesn't alleviate the Paladin's concerns by saying something like "Your wife is unhurt- cooperate with us and she'll stay that way..." NOTHING.

Kid gloves come off. (Note- the OP doesn't say that the Paladin tortured the halfling at any point.)

And no, executing someone out of hand is not historically accurate, sorry.

Yes it is. You can find such laws as old as the Roman 12 tables (450BC), and even the laws of Dracon (somtime between 800-500BC). For certain offenses, a citizen could beat someone to death in the street, without fear of legal action.

Then there is the question of the lex talionis, the age-old expedient of an exact retaliation. In it, you took "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life." And abductions were equated with murder.

Under Judaic Law, there was a person called the "Avenger of Blood," a bounty hunter of sorts, acting for the kindred and carrying out the blood feud or law of self-help. By custom he could kill the offender wherever he finds him. If the offender acted suddenly without malice (our manslaughter) or accidentally, and was not his enemy, nor sought his harm, the people of the city were to deliver the accused out of the hands of the Avenger of Blood and there in the city of refuge he stayed until the death of the high priest. But he must stay in the city of refuge-if he comes out he can be killed. After the death of the high priest, the slayer can return to his own land.

Was instant justice frowned upon? Yes. Was it occasionally permitted? Yes- and it still is.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

...(Note- the OP doesn't say that the Paladin tortured the halfling at any point.)...

The rest of your discussion isn't important to me, as arguing opinion seems fruitless (expressing opinion is fine and has been done more than once in this growing thread). But, this quote bit here, while accurate, was elaborated on in post #166 by the original poster. In his elaboration, he did admit that some roughing up was done (once again, not high level torture by any means, but still coersion by physical force).

So, in closing, if I were playing in your game your ruling would be fine by me. In my game, the ruling would be different. Both cases are completely valid, as long as the DM was clear with the player what his expectations of the paladin are (if the DM varied from the RAW). I only want to make sure that the facts being argued about are expressed correctly.