The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Conaill]

So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:

what to do?

Herreman the Wise already posted an excellent recap of the most important facts. Don't even bother posting to this thread unless you've read it...


Let me just summarize the most important points, so we know where we stand (and more importantly, where the DM, his game and his player stands!)

- The DM (and by extention, presumably the paladin's god) is of the opinion that what happened was "Obviously not an Approved Paladin Activity", and "excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior".

- The player himself has said that the act was "moderately evil and chaotic", and "not necessarily appropriate for a paladin".

- The paladin's actions were illegal under the local law, and there may have been witnesses

- The halfling isn't dead yet, and may survive (although that's really up to the "rough and tumble priest of Kord" present, and not necessarily something we can count on).


[Edit: Obviously NOT a Paladin Approved activity. Gah - don't you just hate it when you miss a negative? :\ ]

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:

what to do?

To be perfectly fair, amongst the debate he has been continuously advised what to do?.

The one side (I'll call it SIDE JIM) is for power strippage of some form, while the other side (I'll call it SIDE NUMION) is for no power strippage. The debate is being used to a) justify the advice and to b) sway the other side (or at least explain position).

 

[Jim Hague]

So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:

what to do?

Herreman the Wise already posted an excellent recap of the most important facts. Don't even bother posting to this thread unless you've read it...


Let me just summarize the most important points, so we know where we stand (and more importantly, where the DM, his game and his player stands!)

- The DM (and by extention, presumably the paladin's god) is of the opinion that what happened was "Obviously an Approved Paladin Activity", and "excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior".

- The player himself has said that the act was "moderately evil and chaotic", and "not necessarily appropriate for a paladin".

- The paladin's actions were illegal under the local law, and there may have been witnesses

- The halfling isn't dead yet, and may survive (although that's really up to the "rough and tumble priest of Kord" present, and not necessarily something we can count on).

Possibilities:

*A Job style test of faith - at one extreme of the specturm, the paladin could well be 'up for grabs' after this latest act against his god's edicts. A contest between Powers might ensue.

*Whispering campaign - if there were witnesses, then it's going to almost certainly be talked about, even if the halfling lives. The local chruch will almost assuredly get wind of it...and if the villains are smart, they'll warp it even further...or tell the absolute truth.

*Local authority - even given his low noble status, the paladin clearly broke the law. If he's smart, he'll turn himself in, but given the pattern of behavior, I think the law is going to have to come after him.

*Strip him of his powers - "Congratulations, you're a fighter now." A RAW but also somewhat boring option.

This is just off the top of my head, mind. Certainly there's more.

 

[Jim Hague]

To be perfectly fair, amongst the debate he has been continuously advised what to do?.

The one side (I'll call it SIDE JIM) is for power strippage of some form, while the other side (I'll call it SIDE NUMION) is for no power strippage. The debate is being used to a) justify the advice and to b) sway the other side (or at least explain position).

I'm my own side? Rockin'.

To clarify my position a bit further, I'm pro-consequences, which may include power stripping, but definitely says 'bring the axe of Herionimus down!'. This is far too good an opportunity for roleplay to let pass. Time to make things interesting...and to make tasty rp lemonade out of the sour lemon the paladin's served up.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

...*Whispering campaign - if there were witnesses, then it's going to almost certainly be talked about, even if the halfling lives. The local chruch will almost assuredly get wind of it...and if the villains are smart, they'll warp it even further...or tell the absolute truth...

I like that one the best, as it's subtle yet effective.

 

[tonym]

Galfridus' recent post, which makes him seem like an awesome DM in my eyes, got me thinking in a new direction.

This is my thinking now: The people who want to strip the paladin of his powers are correct...but only in regards to a low-level paladin.

I think a more experienced paladin should have the freedom to kill the halfling, while a 1st level paladin should not. As a DM, I'm sure I would be very unhappy to see a paladin fresh out of the academy snapping the halfling's neck. (I'd be like..."You do what?")

But a higher level paladin, that's a different story. Like Galfridus suggested, the high-level paladin knows what kind of evil is out there, and it is scary stuff. Having more freedom in one's fight against evil at higher level makes sense to me. The contraints that seemed so correct at 1st level may be suicidal at 18th.

One more thing: I was wrong when I said "Mercy is reserved for the good people." I take that part back.

Great thread!

Tony M

 

[Jim Hague]

Galfridus' recent post, which makes him seem like an awesome DM in my eyes, got me thinking in a new direction.

This is my thinking now: The people who want to strip the paladin of his powers are correct...but only in regards to a low-level paladin.

I think a more experienced paladin should have the freedom to kill the halfling, while a 1st level paladin should not. As a DM, I'm sure I would be very unhappy to see a paladin fresh out of the academy snapping the halfling's neck. (I'd be like..."You do what?")

But a higher level paladin, that's a different story. Like Galfridus suggested, the high-level paladin knows what kind of evil is out there, and it is scary stuff. Having more freedom in one's fight against evil at higher level makes sense to me. The contraints that seemed so correct at 1st level may be suicidal at 18th.

One more thing: I was wrong when I said "Mercy is reserved for the good people." I take that part back.

Great thread!

Tony M

Only low-level paladins? The flipside of freedom is responsibility - if anything, IMO, the higher-level paladins should face more serious repercussions, considering they should have better control and judgement. Becoming more like evil to battle evil isn't how a paladin fights. Those constraints are the tradeoff a paladin bears for having divine power.

 

[tonym]

Only low-level paladins? The flipside of freedom is responsibility - if anything, IMO, the higher-level paladins should face more serious repercussions, considering they should have better control and judgement. Becoming more like evil to battle evil isn't how a paladin fights. Those constraints are the tradeoff a paladin bears for having divine power.

Nuh uh.

Tony M

 

[Joker[ZW]]

Given the argument you're making, it certainly doesn't seem like it. It's clear the paladin violated his code of conduct and the church's dogma. Now it's simply a question of consequences.

As has been shown numerous times in this thread, you can show that he violated the Code, but you can show just as well that he didn't.
The code is worded ambiguous enough for that.

 

[Demmero]

I'm my own side? Rockin'.

I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.

Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.

To clarify my position a bit further, I'm pro-consequences, which may include power stripping, but definitely says 'bring the axe of Herionimus down!'

"Um...sir...actually, your favored weapon is the longsword...yes, here it is, sir. And I'm not sure what you just called yourself...and it's probably not my place to say...but maybe you should consider cutting back on the drinks a bit during lunch hour, sir."


Eh...it's a living.