The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Demmero]

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.

How, exactly, does he slip the "respect legitimate authority" part of the noose? So far, I don't recall seeing a good explantion on this point.

 

[Conaill]

*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.

Personally, I'm kinda hoping the halfling does kick the bucket. Just so the paladin can be accosted the next morning by a distraught, sobbing halfling mother, accusing him of mudering her only son. Maybe dragging around the rusty sword her dear departed husband left her when he died in the King's war years ago. Let's see how he deals with *that*!

 

[Numion]

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.

I think it was execution.

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.

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?

Ha! Nevar! I'm advocating that this instance could fall within the Paladins Code, but I never liked the idea of Evil-radar Seek & Destroy. I think that it was ok to kill the halfling since he was participating in evil activity and harming innocents, regardless of his alignment. Since these two are known, I don't even think it would've been necessary to use Detect Evil on the halfling - he got what was coming in any case.

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

Execution is a form of punishment. A tad harsh in this case, but in medieval times harsh was the norm when it came to punishments.

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

Right you are, but someone else brought up the crusades originally, so I just countered that straw-man.

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!'

Now that's a straw-man argument. No-one but you made those claims. I've mostly relied on the PHB Paladins Code on my arguments. I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to this kind of tactics.

 

[Numion]

Personally, I'm kinda hoping the halfling does kick the bucket. Just so the paladin can be accosted the next morning by a distraught, sobbing halfling mother, accusing him of mudering her only son. Maybe dragging around the rusty sword her dear departed husband left her when he died in the King's war years ago. Let's see how he deals with *that*!

Lessee .. brandishing a sword is clearly within "threatening to harm innocents", and that begets PUNISHMENT!!!

Juss kiddin'

 

[Joker[ZW]]

How, exactly, does he slip the "respect legitimate authority" part of the noose? So far, I don't recall seeing a good explantion on this point.

It's respect.
not "slavishly follow", "absolutely and under any circumstance adhere to" or anything else like it.

Respect.

 

[FickleGM]

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

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

Sorry, Jim is the first name that came to mind as I was ferverishly typing so I could get back to work...

 

[Demmero]

It's respect.
not "slavishly follow", "absolutely and under any circumstance adhere to" or anything else like it.

Respect.

That's a Cartman argument.

Wearing a nice sweater doesn't make you nice.

Saying that you respect something doesn't mean that you actually respect it.

Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.

 

[Joker[ZW]]

That's a Cartman argument.

Wearing a nice sweater doesn't make you nice.

Saying that you respect something doesn't mean that you actually respect it.

Um, no, it isn't. I said nothing about respecting authority only in word and not in action.

Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.

Please tell me, that deciding not to go the official way in this case shows in any way that the Paladin doesn't respect the legitimate authority. Because I don't see it.

The "official" way in many countries is so open to outside interference, blackmail, bad judges, easy to escape from prisons, lazy guards, convuluted bureaucracy, and many other things that it is well within the rights of the Paladin not to trust them in this or any other case.
Which doesn't mean that they won't try judge him for his actions.

 

[Numion]

That's a Cartman argument.

Is Cart-man agument anything similar to straw-man?

Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.

It should be respected. Whether killing the halfling really is disrespecting legitimate authority isn't clear. Do the laws allow you to use lethal force to deal with house intruders? EDIT: I presume that if respect means obedience they would've mentioned in the book.

The relevant question though is that is that act, if it was disrespectful in the first place, a gross violation of the Paladins code? I don't think it is. So there are no grounds for losing powers.

 

[Jim Hague]

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.

Again, look at the definitions and spirit of the four tenets of the god's dogma - Honor (dishonorable to beat a helpless opponent, or one severely overmatched), Justice (beating to extract a confession is hardly just), Valor (see Honor - while he was busy slapping the halfling around, real evil was afoot), Chivalry (again, the actions are pretty unchivalrous). So, no. He didn't act like a lay knight, let alone the direct represenative of a god with those facets.