The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Jim Hague]

Again?

And, frankly, no "kidding," Sherlock.

I think you need to step off there, Patryn. I'm not real keen on someone copping an attitude.

And I'm proposing that it makes a great story to read, but would be a lousy role-playing experience.

You're welcome to your opinion. I think you're wrong, but that's me. I've GMed for 20 years, and I've learned a thing or two about the process.

I haven't read any proof of that, yet.*

I said that it looked like he was metagaming - after beating the snot out of the halfling, when the second PC arrived, he unceremoniously snapped the prisoner's neck. Seems pretty pat to me.

Whereas I'm pretty sure it wasn't just some low-Gather Info rogue looking for a few quick GPs.

Likely not - but nothing supernatural was mentioned. You're assuming.

Really? Then why were the paladin's wife and unborn child targeted for this invasion in the first place?

Gosh, I don't know...because evil people who couldn't take the paladin in an up front fight might, just might target him at a weak spot, his family? You really need to get off the 'GM vs. player' kick you're on here.

"Simple thug" with teleportation and an ability to hold off a high-level PC long enough to "do something" to the wife? I don't think so.

"Metagaming"? Also no.

Teleporting? Where're you getting this stuff? Seriously. They may have teleported, but the exact details are unclear. Go back and reread. That there might have been some supernatural agency involved does nothing to support your point - the DM isn't 'screwing' the player or the character, they're using the NPCs to make the story interesting. The villains are doing the smart thing...and has been pointed out, the paladin may well have fallen into their trap with his actions.

 

[Numion]

DMs live to trick PCs, be they paladins or otherwise.

I see where you are coming from. I just see no sport in this. The DM controls all the information the PCs get. So of course he can trick the PCs, if that is his aim. I'm not saying all or even most information given to PCs should be correct, but in any case [Good] Halflings doing evil stuff is pushing it.

Amen. The paladin invoked his personal code, not the code of law in the city, not the code of his god, not even some overgeneralized paladin's code. He acted outside of church and law and should be subject to penalties for his actions.

You're wrong on this. The Paladin section in PHB says that his Code requires him to punish those that harm or threaten to harm innocents. That is 100% undisputable fact (in 3E, that is ).

 

[tonym]

...The paladin invoked his personal code, not the code of law in the city, not the code of his god, not even some overgeneralized paladin's code. He acted outside of church and law and should be subject to penalties for his actions.

...In playing a Paladin of Heironeous though, I think you're pretty much saying that you will be basing your character on "that" sterotype. If you want to deviate from the stereotype, try a different deity with different ideals. A little imagination is all it takes, regardless of how you interpret the rules.

I must disagree. I think the paladin totally acted within the parameters of "an over-generalized paladin's code," as Demmero put it. He may be several steps removed from the Heironeous ideal, and the other paladins of Heironeous may sneer at him for his brutality, but he still seems like he should belong to the Heironeous club.

But I see what you mean. He's probably not going to be Paladin of the Month at the church.

Tony M

 

[Numion]

Teleporting? Where're you getting this stuff? Seriously. Go back, reread and stop trying to interject mistruths to support your already weak point.

Zkt, zkt .. accusing others while you're the one with "mistruths injected"? This is what we were told happened:

At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, they teleport away).

Another PC, a cleric, roused by the struggle, bursts into the room, sees that the wife is alive but confused, and gets a quick summary of what happened. He runs downstairs.

Meanwhile, the paladin has grown suspicious and begins questioning the halfling, then grabs him. When the halfling refuses to give answers (who sent you, what are you doing here), he gets a little rough. The halfling tells some obvious lies, and the paladin gets a little rougher.

Then the PC cleric arrives and announces that someone has assaulted the paladin's wife.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Jim Hague]

Hey, I must disagree. I think the paladin totally acted within the parameters of "an over-generalized paladin's code," as you put it. He may be several steps removed from the Heironeous ideal, and the other paladins of Heironeous may sneer at him for his brutality, but he still seems like he should belong to the Heironeous club.

Tony M

So, explain to everyone again how murdering someone in a fit of anger fits into honor, justice, mercy and chivalry...?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I think Jim Hague's pointing out that Patryn of Elvenshae's assertion that the halfling was able to teleport was incorrect, not that the other guys couldn't.

 

[Jim Hague]

I think Jim Hague's pointing out that Patryn of Elvenshae's assertion that the halfling was able to teleport was incorrect, not that the other guys couldn't.

Went back and edited for clarity. I don't know what Numion said, but given Kajamba's post, I can guess. The bad guys may have teleported away, but that's immaterial to the argument. The paladin killed his prisoner after the fact and after the danger had passed.

 

[tonym]

So, explain to everyone again how murdering someone in a fit of anger fits into honor, justice, mercy and chivalry...?

He's a paladin. I think the onus is on his accusers to prove he didn't, which they haven't done.

Nonetheless, Dannyalactraz already proved the paladin acted within the bounds of his class.

There was no murder. The paladin provided a legitimate execution of a criminal whose crime the paladin witnessed firsthand. It's not like he attacked a passing halfling selling apples on the street and broke his neck.

This is the way I see it. When you commit a crime and a paladin witnesses it and grabs you, you know he is permitted to kill, and you answer his questions quickly and clearly. And if you play around and hope that he plays nice, well, that's the risk you take.

Tony M

 

[tonym]

...The paladin killed his prisoner after the fact and after the danger had passed.

Are you saying a paladin is forbidden from killing a prisoner, and that he can only kill someone when a crime is taking place and there is a threat of danger?

I say a paladin can totally, absolutely kill a prisoner. And he does not need a threat to be present to kill an evildoer. A paladin does not have those restrictions.

What makes you think that? Is there a rule in the PHB you can quote?

For example, if there was an evil priest passed-out drunk on the street, bound with chains, a paladin is permitted to kill him right then and there. A paladin kills evil. Mercy is reserved for the "good" people.

Tony M

 

[Old Fezziwig]

For example, if there was an evil priest passed-out drunk on the street, bound with chains, a paladin is permitted to kill him right then and there. A paladin kills evil. Mercy is reserved for the "good" people.

Whoa. That's a bit sociopathic, don't you think? I'm not sure that the paladin's license to kill (if he has one, and I don't believe he does) would extend that far. That's out-and-out murder.