The Paladin killed someone...what to do?
- Thread starter Galfridus
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Numion said:
Murder was only a bit on the harsh side?!?!? Man, I'd hate to see what your idea of straight-up Evil is... oh, wait. That's right... assisting in a plot to accost somebody is evil so vile that it demands punishment by death! But murder? Eh, that's only 'a bit harsh'.
[Edit: I could be wrong, but this paints a picture of a world where clergy are free to murder, rape, loot and pillage in the name of their good god, and where non-ordained citizens are subject to being murdered, raped, looted, and pillaged merely for not being ordained.
Ironically, this is a pretty accurate description of certain periods in out own history, but I really don't see where the Paladin's Code or Lawful Good alignment in D&D support this scenario at all, despite many arguments made to the contrary on this thread.
People making the 'license to kill' Paladin argument are making the exact same argument that the Church made to justify The Crusades. 'We believe them evil, therefore it is okay to dehumanize/murder/rape/loot them. And we do so in the good name of out Lord, therefore it can only be just!' - an argument that the Church has long since retracted as being in error.]
Last edited:
tonym
First Post
Joker[ZW] said:
Exactly. The paladin did something that isn't exactly what Galahad would do, but his action isn't bad enough for Heironeous to step in and smack him around.
However, the secular authorities are a totally different matter. They can put him on trial, execute him, whatever.
Tony M
tonym
First Post
jdrakeh said:
Well, I know you're being funny, but in a sense you are correct. You are certainly barking up the right tree.
Paladins have a lot of authority to make decisions on-the-spot. So what stops them from raping a woman? Killing an innocent child? Taking whatever equipment the need from anybody they encounter, and then justify it all as necessary in their fight against evil?
They are paladins. They have paladin training, they are LG, and they hate evil. That is why they do not do those things.
So just because a paladin 'can' kill a prisoner, for example, does not mean he will. It is his call. And he does not need a million rules curtailing his behavior.
A lot of posters feel like the answer to every paladin question is WWGD? (What would Galahad do?) For example, if Galahad encounters a helpless evil priest, he 100% must take the priest into custody, treat him as an equal (chivalry), make an effort to convert the priest, find a legal system to judge the priest, be merciful, and feel sad if the priest is put to death.
They want every paladin to act this way, every time.
D&D is about flexibility. If all paladins were meant to act this way, the rules would be crystal clear on the matter. The PHB would say, "Paladins always accepts an offer of surrender. Paladins always treat their enemies with mercy. Paladins always defer to local secular law over their oath to destroy evil. Paladins never kill prisoners." Etc.
But the PHB does not say those things. Instead it offeres every paladin a range of Feats to help make every paladin different.
The answer to every paladin question should not be "WWGD?" It should be, "What would your paladin PC do?"
Tony M
Demmero
Explorer
tonym said:
Very interesting. I come to the exact opposite conclusion: that the paladin's social status may be enough for the authorities to look the other way when it comes to any broken laws in regards to the halfling's death, but Heironeous would know the truth of the matter and probably not take too kindly to killing someone that way in his name.
Numion
First Post
jdrakeh said:Murder was only a bit on the harsh side?!?!? Man, I'd hate to see what your idea of straight-up Evil is... oh, wait. That's right... assisting in a plot to accost somebody is evil so vile that it demands punishment by death! But murder? Eh, that's only 'a bit harsh'.
[Edit: I could be wrong, but this paints a picture of a world where clergy are free to murder, rape, loot and pillage in the name of their good god, and where non-ordained citizens are subject to being murdered, raped, looted, and pillaged merely for not being ordained.
That wasn't the picture I was trying to paint. I've stated before that in this case the Paladin could've also let the authorities punish the halfling, once he's reasonably sure that he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole thing and only an accomplice to breaking and entering, assault and obstructing the Paladins fight against evil. Those three things, IMO, warrant a severe penalty.
Where are you getting murder, rape, loot and pillaging? The Paladin can't do any of those things, except for looting sometimes in the form of confiscating stuff from his enemies. He can't murder anybody, but he can kill and execute targets fitting the justifications in his Code. That's why he has 'Smite Evil', and last time I checked it doesn't deal subdual damage.
I never said he could kill evil people 'at will'. He must follow the Code. It says what his duties at the minimum are. The section which relates to this case is, for the Nth time, "punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents". No provisions are made for the harmee's alignment. The Halfling was fair game becaue he was involved in a plot to harm innocents, regardless of his alignment.
And you do realize that in the D&D world there really are races and nations that are 'always evil'? So they don't "believe them evil", like you said, they know it! That kinda makes the argument for crusades sound good, if it's done without raping or any other evil activity. Or should the Paladins living next to Mordor do nothing, or should they be having some plans for a large military assault (say, named Operation Crusade) to overthrow Sauron?
I believe in pro-active vs. reactive Paladins. They wouldn't police Mordors borders, but actively go looking for the bad guys instead of waiting them to make their move.
Thia Halmades
First Post
Hrm. Always evil because the book says they're always evil, or always evil because of the general interpretation of your 'good' kingdom/empire/democracy? This chains back to the whole Crusade/Saracen argument.
They're not us! They're evil! Whole books were written that proposed that argument. We know they weren't evil - but that didn't stop the righteous smiting at the time. If I have a group of Gnolls (which I do) and they're "evil" (which they are, by alignment) does that make them a threat, and worth smiting?
What if I wrote a module where their "evil" was simply a function of how their society is forced to operate because of the depredations of the Empire, instead of a moral decision? According to them, they're doing fine. They don't eat babies. They aren't marauding villages. You CAN Smite them, and Smite WILL work. But would you be in the right? In other words:
- Would it be Lawful to kill someone, because Detect Evil tells you they're evil?
- Would it be Good to remove a Warchief because of his title, even if he's the one preaching tolerance?
Your question, "Living next to Mordor" is a valid one. Then the Paladin (IMO) isn't going to go in single-handedly and start mowing them down. He'll gather an army, get the blessing of everyone involved, and lead the dramatic charge where he can get gloriously skewered on round one. Pro-Active can get you killed. Policing Mordor's borders while you assemble that army makes far more sense, and to me, is the more Paladin like behavior.
They're not us! They're evil! Whole books were written that proposed that argument. We know they weren't evil - but that didn't stop the righteous smiting at the time. If I have a group of Gnolls (which I do) and they're "evil" (which they are, by alignment) does that make them a threat, and worth smiting?
What if I wrote a module where their "evil" was simply a function of how their society is forced to operate because of the depredations of the Empire, instead of a moral decision? According to them, they're doing fine. They don't eat babies. They aren't marauding villages. You CAN Smite them, and Smite WILL work. But would you be in the right? In other words:
- Would it be Lawful to kill someone, because Detect Evil tells you they're evil?
- Would it be Good to remove a Warchief because of his title, even if he's the one preaching tolerance?
Your question, "Living next to Mordor" is a valid one. Then the Paladin (IMO) isn't going to go in single-handedly and start mowing them down. He'll gather an army, get the blessing of everyone involved, and lead the dramatic charge where he can get gloriously skewered on round one. Pro-Active can get you killed. Policing Mordor's borders while you assemble that army makes far more sense, and to me, is the more Paladin like behavior.
painandgreed
First Post
This is good stuff as Imay hav a paladin in my next campaign it turns out. A rare event. 
I do not think that the paladin in question violated the paladin's code although he may have violated Heironius' code. However, while that may put him on the bad side of Heironius, I don't think that would warrent punishment as a paladin. To be punished because of breaking code more exacting that the regular paladin code, he would have to be held due to special oaths above and beyond that of being a paladin. This would be more than simply saying he follows Heironius but require something like a feat of Paladin of Heironius which would confer additional benefits along with additional restrictions.
So in this case, I don't think he'd lose paladin powers although Heironius may send him a warning in some manner or simply tell him that his services are no longer needed and perhaps he should go be of service of some other LG god*.
*Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of LG and the paladin code and others may differ. Always refer to the DM in the case of any individual game to determine what is suitable.
I do not think that the paladin in question violated the paladin's code although he may have violated Heironius' code. However, while that may put him on the bad side of Heironius, I don't think that would warrent punishment as a paladin. To be punished because of breaking code more exacting that the regular paladin code, he would have to be held due to special oaths above and beyond that of being a paladin. This would be more than simply saying he follows Heironius but require something like a feat of Paladin of Heironius which would confer additional benefits along with additional restrictions.
So in this case, I don't think he'd lose paladin powers although Heironius may send him a warning in some manner or simply tell him that his services are no longer needed and perhaps he should go be of service of some other LG god*.
*Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of LG and the paladin code and others may differ. Always refer to the DM in the case of any individual game to determine what is suitable.
