The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Galfridus]

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.

In my campaign, a paladin promotes Law and Good -- which often, but not always, involves killing Evil. For example, it might better serve The Cause to see that this priest received the appropriate legal process, in order to showcase that the system works, etc. Mercy is applied where appropriate, whether it be to good people or evil people whose evils are minor.

One of the reasons I have mitigated my initial assessment of the "evilness" of the paladin's actions is campaign history. The campaign is high level (17-18), and there are numerous instances of bad guys conducting late-night ambushes via teleport. Being a little paranoid about the latest nighttime incursion is quite understandable. However, that doesn't excuse the act, just reduces its severity somewhat. That, plus the fact that the paladin's past history involves a lot of chaos and not much evil, has me thinking along Law-Chaos lines rather than Good-Evil lines.

(The indoor assailant did indeed escape via powerful magic; the guarding PC, after being distracted for a moment, drove her off and then remained in the room to guard the paladin's wife in case more attacks were forthcoming.)

 

[Demmero]

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.

Tony, I think you're talking more about paladins in general while most of us bashing the particular paladin in this thread are, well, bashing a particular paladin. I know that I've been careful to do so (most of the time).

You don't like the "you've-seen-one-paladin-you've-seen-them-all," generic paladin. Me too. We don't have one in this case: the player gave him a bit more depth by making him a paladin of Heironeous. Heironeous promotes justice, valor, chivalry, and honor. Unless the player picked that church for its sweet benefits (Day care? Could be with the expecting wife....), those four traits should play a fairly important role in his moral code.

I agree...to hell with Galahad. But is it too much to expect the paladin to ask himself, "WWHD? (What Would Heironeous Do?)" Especially when meting out Justice (one of Heironeous' Big Four).

The one thing that I expect of all paladins (and I'm pretty sure it's not in the RAW) is some sense of responsibility for their actions and for the use (or lack thereof) of their special powers. If it's feasible, try to be as certain as possible that the targets of your righteous anger truly deserve it. Things can't always be taken at face value--a person with a "Kick Me" sign taped on his back doesn't actually want to get kicked.

That's why I have a hard time with this particular paladin opting not to bother with using Detect Evil on the halfling. His god's big on justice: so try to at least make an attempt at actually dealing out justice! If the paladin in question was affiliated with the church of St. Cuthbert, god of retribution...well, that puts a whole new spin on his actions, doesn't it?

 

[jdrakeh]

Those three things, IMO, warrant a severe penalty.

I agree. But who is the Paladin to forego the laws of the land, as well as his god, and mete out his own brand of justice?

Where are you getting murder, rape, loot and pillaging?

Well, I'm getting murder specifically from the OP's post - the Paladin murdered the halfling. The other crimes were a logical outgrowth of your argument that it is okay for a Paldin to murder people that he thinks may be evil. I mean, murder is pretty much the most taboo crime, so I reasoned that if you were cool with murder, that other stuff would be thrown in free of charge.

The Paladin can't do any of those things

Yet he did do at least one of them.

That's why he has 'Smite Evil', and last time I checked it doesn't deal subdual damage.

Yes, but in this instance, the Paladin has no idea whether the Halfling was actually Evil - guilty of participating in an evil act, perhaps, but note that in D&D this does not automatically make one evil (alignment shifts in D&D don't generally occur as the result of one act that runs contrary to alignment). More importantly, as the OP mentioned, the Paladin's player acknowldges this.

I never said he could kill evil people 'at will'.

Haven't you been arguing that he can kill anybody that he thinks is evil, regardless of whether he has actual proof or not? That is, by definition, 'at will' - lacking proof, what else could he be basing an accusation of evil upon but his own will?

"punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents"

Certainly. So how does "punish" suddenly become "kill" - there are hundreds of punishments that were more appropriate in this instance than murder.

And you do realize that in the D&D world there really are races and nations that are 'always evil'?

Sure, but that has nothing to do with this incident, so let's stop that strawman right here.

I believe in pro-active vs. reactive Paladins.

As I said earlier, vigilantes vs holy emmisaries. Which is the fundamental divide here. Some of us see Paladins as honorable, chivalrous, knights of old and others of us see them as god-blessed murder machines charged to cut down any potential evil in its tracks. Incidentally, that made me think of something else....

All people are potentially evil, so a vote for authorzing a Paladin to kill potentially evil people is a vote for the Paladin as complete sociopath, killing anything that he so chooses, using the justification 'Well, he may have been evil!'

 

[Thia Halmades]

Which goes back to the basic question:

Because it cons evil, does that make killing it either LAWFUL or GOOD? I'm siding with the 'not all Paladins are the same' argument here; because each character has to make individual choices. However.

All Cops are held to a certain standard of conduct. Failure to follow said Code of Conduct involves swift trial and temporary, if not full revocation of their rights & priviliges involved in being Cops. In order to prosecute a bad cop, you must catch a bad cop. A Paladin has a different problem.

He's a Cop in the service of a deity. Failure to engage in cop-like behavior can - and often will - result in the revocation of cop-like status. I still fail to see, in any way, why this Paladin's actions shouldn't be immediately and swiftly punished. It's Heironeous' way of saying "Hey, I don't promote this. Justice, sure. That was murder." So when another Paladin approaches him, and gives him 'the look' as one Paladin can recognize another by a certain sixth sense (it's in the PHB), and they realize "HEY, you're not a Paladin!" then they're going to know, immediately, something horrible has happened and action needs taken.

I'm not just talking about the dogma of "WWGD" or "WWSMD" - I'm talking about straight up logic in terms of what it means to be both Lawful, Good, and a defender of society. Does your Paladin defend society, or hunt down and murder bad guys because Detect Evil told him it was okay?

 

[Demmero]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why does the paladin have to make sure that the halfling's not the mastermind if he chooses to turn him over to the authorities, yet he doesn't have to bother making that determination if he instead chooses to take the halfling's life himself??!!

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.

That makes it a deeper shame that the paladin didn't make Detect Evil kick in when he was coming down the stairs to greet his midnight visitor. I'm not a fan of the 'palanoid' in general, but this would've been one of those instances where having Detect Evil up and running would've been a good thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree...to hell with Galahad. But is it too much to expect the paladin to ask himself, "WWHD? (What Would Heironeous Do?)" Especially when meting out Justice (one of Heironeous' Big Four).

It's never as helpful as you'd hope

-Hyp.

 

[Thia Halmades]

By Request, a reposte (not to be confused with a riposte)

Holding the Paladin to the tenets of their Deity is reasonable. I constantly feel like I'm the wrong person to get involved in these discussions, because my view is black & white. I've read the thread on the General Board and contributed to it; it's 505 or something (on page 10) and you can flip to it if you like. Look for the wolf statue. But the answer to your question (if such a question was asked) is simply, what to do in this situation?

Far as I'm concerned, the player handled it perfectly. He failed, he knew he failed, he went full bore and said "Eff it. If I'm going, they're coming with me." He snapped. TOTALLY COOL with the snapping, it's the tragic side of the character. No one can be that good, all the time. And enough stress means eventually you'll freak. I might've allowed a Will Save to avoid it, or allow the PC to be 'aware' of what he was doing in character, but the way you retell it, the character knew full well what was happening.

Bravo.

You chose (or the DM chose) in this campaign to reward that hot RP session with a full blown recovery, intervention by another deity, and an Atonement granted by the Divine Itself. Again, I must say.

Bravo.

This adheres pretty much to what I usually say about Paladins; it isn't "WWGD" or even "WWSMD" - it's "What's right, in your world view, and what is within the bounds of the law?" Lawful. That to me means caring about society, and upholding the standards of society. It means that by doing so, you protect others by living your life to the standard you set. You don't "go around" your code to cut down the BBEG when you can't catch him red-handed. It isn't done. This is one of the great RP conflicts of the Paladin. They have the ability to Smite Evil, but doing the Smiting isn't always Lawful. Shoot, it isn't always Good, either.

Good means keeping the peace, protecting the innocent, etc. It means, generally, your opponent should have a weapon in his hand and see you coming (honor code). I've made (and won) plenty of arguments over what constitutes being both Lawful (upholding the literal law) and Good (murdering evil doers to protect others from their predations). Are these Paladin behaviors? Depends on the Deity, and it depends on the DM. Some will rule "Yes," in a heart beat. I rule "no."

My Paladins live in a black & white world. There's good, there's evil, and there's the Empire. Evil in the Empire is handled as best as possible. Because Paladins are generally part of the military, which is connected to the theocracy, they're assigned to empty raiding camps, hunt down villains (bounty hunting Paladins. Yes.) and bring them to justice. Justice doesn't mean murder. It means 'Justice within the bounds of the law.'

But for every DM, there are multiple answers, and multiple scenarios. Did the Paladin in the former thread kill a Halfling? Yep. Was he evil? We don't know that; he may have been coerced, he may have been charmed, he may have just been the messenger. But he's dead now, and he wasn't the main threat. That act was neither Lawful nor Good, and I would have ruled immediate, lightning bolt style revocation.

But that's me.
__________________
LCpt. Thia Halmades

"A life spent making mistakes is not only more useful, but more honorable than a life spent doing nothing." -- G.B. Shaw

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

...Did the Paladin in the former thread...

Nice post, but I have one small observation...you are in that thread...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm assuming he posted it to an e-mail or other discussion, and was asked by one of the other participants to repost it here.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I'm assuming he posted it to an e-mail or other discussion, and was asked by one of the other participants to repost it here.

Oh, that would explain the first sentence...darn, my attempt at funny has backfired...sorry.