The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[howandwhy99]

I would say there are degrees of Fallen. In this particular case, I believe the paladinhood will come under review. He would lose his divine powers until communing with a priest of his faith and working out the moral crisis.

However, the consequences should not overshadow the more important plotline, which is to deliver swift and merciless justice to the knaves that dare assault a pregnant woman. On that, I would say, there is no moral dilemma.

Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think it really depends on the God the Paladin serves, and the total situation. Was the halfling bound and unable to move? Did the Paladin detect evil on the halfling? Was it feasable to hold the halfing for the authorities? Is the Paladin empowered to dispense summary justice in such a manner? If it was feasable to hold the halfling and the Paladin doesn't have Judge Dredd style authority then I'd say the Paladin stepped over the line. If it wasn't feasable to hold the halfling then he probably did the right thing. If the halfling detected as evil I'd say in any event he did the right thing. If he just killed for vengence without considering anything else I'd probably let him fall.

Since I just noticed he was a Paladin of Hieroneous I'd have him fall for that. In our game it is a dishonorable thing to slay a bound or helpless foe according to the code of H. But that's our game. Since H is the god of chivalry and honor, violations of honor are pretty much the same as evil acts since they violate THE CODE.

 

[Aaron L]

Merciless + Paladin don't make sense to me.

Except that Evil things quite often are aware that Good people are merciful, and will take advantage of it to play nasty tricks.

Of course, mercy is Good, but Lawful Good is more than just Good, and has to wiegh Justice and Righteous Vengeance in there too.

I myself much prefer Neutral Good, where mercy is all you really gotta worry about, and helping others.

 

[Aaron L]

A few reasons:

1. All Christians, by definition, are "born again." The idea of being "born again" is central to Christian belief. When a person says they are a "born again" Christian, they're essentially saying, "I'm not only a Christian, but unlike many *other* Christians, I'm *also* born again! I'm the real deal!" In my experience, the only people who describe themselves as "born again Christians" are evangelical, fundamentalist, Jerry Falwell-Protestant types.

2. He not only describes himself as a "born again" Christian, but also as a "committed" Christian. So he's saying, "Look how *committed* I am!" It comes across as self-righteous.

3. How is his religious faith relevant to the article? Stating, "I am a committed, born-again Christian" in his bio seems like unnecessary posturing.

Just for the record, and I'm saying this because it might seem relevant to some folks, I am *not* an atheist or an anti-religious secular type. I am a Catholic. I would consider myself to be "born again" and "committed" and certainly a "Christian", but I wouldn't feel the need to proclaim *any* of those things in an article about D&D.

Points taken. I can see that being real dang annoying myself. I didnt realize he had a statement to that effect on the page with the article.

 

[LordBOB]

ok i didnt read all the posts but from what ive read i DONT think the paladin should be punished by loosing his powers. Your player didnt actually kill the Halfling, he only "Ruffled" him up a little. If the fight would of continued you could of done something like this:

Halfling is almost dead.

Dm: if you continue this you will kill the Hafling this round.
Player: I know, and i plan to cut his head off!!!! ( this might be punishable)

OR

Dm: if you continue this you will kill the Hafling this round.
Player: Ok i wont kill him, but ill due non-lethal damage in order to knock him out this round thus tying him up and sending him to the police. ( no punishment what-so-ever... i would congratulate the Paladin for doing the right thing......only my views)

Also dont forget that each city has different rules.

Also you should ask what the player thinks about the situation and what should done. IF his curch is a little loose on the rules than the paladin might have to incorporate some of his own rules into whats going on. If the player can put up a good argument and stand his ground and give you good solid reasons for doing what he did than i wouldnt punish him

Just because the chirch says one thing they probably arent aware of what it is like out on the road and what happens in the heat of the moment. You and the player should have a good talk and you should both come to an agreement.

Ive had this happen to my paladin multiple times and as long as i was able to justify my action and prove that what i did was either not wrong or for the greater good than my DM allowed it. I dont go around doing this all the time but sometimes you cant advoid this stuff.

Also, what if during a fight in the streets a paladin attacks his opponent and cause the enemy to fly backwards into an innocent citizen thus killing him....should the pladin be punished? I say this b/c it was a direct action from the paladin that cause the citizen to be killed.... so technically the paladin killed an innocent person.....so is it the paladins fault and what would happen?

 

[The Sigil]

Arravis, here's another bit from the SRD:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

I would submit that the paladin's wife (and without getting into a possible religious flamefest here, I'll say possibly also the unborn child) are examples of "innocent life."

She/They has/have been assaulted, and need protection is needed.

Protection certainly can mean doing what is required to preclude further assaults.

The halfling was involved in the initial assault and has not indicated he would change his tune (therefore he is by definition not an innocent life, and destroying him is not an evil act), ergo he is a threat to be involved in another assault.

Removing that threat of future assaults by killing the halfling can therefore be easily construed as a good act.

As to law vs. chaos,

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Without knowing the circumstances of the local law, it is unclear as to whether the paladin is being obedient to authority. In some areas, he might be judge, jury, and executioner by virtue of being a paladin. In other areas, he might be judge, jury, and/or executioner by virtue of being kin to the one who was wronged (e.g., in some cultures, the husband, father, and/or brothers of a woman wronged are legally allowed - and in fact obligated - to execute punishment on those who wronged her). In yet other areas, he might need to submit to local law enforcement. As (at least as of the first page of the thread, haven't read the entirety yet) we don't have the social context, it is unclear as to whether the paladin is being disobedient to authority (if punishment is in the hands of local government) or exceptionally obedient to authority (if punishment is in the hands of kin).

One could argue that he was following his conscience, and that is a Chaotic act, but if one's conscience prompts one to follow the law (see above), I'm not sure if you can call it truly chaotic.

I can't see how this attack was evil by the RAW, given the information we have on the halfling (part of the assault). It is unclear as to whether it is chaotic by the RAW.

--The Sigil

 

[painandgreed]

Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.

I say that mercy is to given when mercy is deserved. If the halfling had owned up to what he did, repented, and asked forgiveness, then it would be deserved. A halfling that knowingly aided an attempted double murder and then tried to flee the scene does not deserve mercy.

 

[Arravis]

Except that Evil things quite often are aware that Good people are merciful, and will take advantage of it to play nasty tricks.

That's the price for being Lawful Good... it's especially difficult when you see it coming, but you do it anyway.

The Book of Exalted Deeds has an interesting section on this issue. It comes to the conclusion that the "means" are more important than the short-term "ends". They argue (as I recall), that if you do right in all your actions, even if they end up with an immediate unwanted end, that in the long run the ends will work themself out.
There is the additional issue that you could argue what the "ends" all day and never have a good and clear conclusion... so it's better to simply follow the rules of "good" without thought and take action, than debate it endlessly.

Not something I agree with, but I see their point. This is indeed quite a complex subject.

 

[Numion]

To simply detain someone as a prisoner or hostage, then to turn and kill them, that's wrong. That is also murder.

Not necessarily. If the Paladin arrests someone, interrogates them and deems them to be a murderer (or horse thief ) or any other type of criminal that deserves the death penalty, it's an execution. Not murder.

Paladins are the judge, jury and executioner in the same. Showing mercy when none is warranted is not honorable. It's even cowardly if done in fear of punishment from mere mortal courts.

 

[Conaill]

killing some paid stooge. who is probably a 1st lvl Commoner being paid big bucks to him.. the hemming and hawing and running being a dead giveaway is not a good act.

taking out his frustration and vengence on the 1st lvl Commoner.. again is not a good thing.

Not to mention the fact that if *I* had planned this attack, that halfling was probably just some street kid promised a shiny gold coin just "to play a prank on an old friend of mine".

Fact is, we don't really know enough about the situation to decide whether the halfling deserved killing. "Involved in the assault" is pretty vague... I would definitely consider a street urchin paid to distract the paladin to be "involved".

Of course, the real question is... did the *paladin* know enough about the degree of involvement to make such a life-or-death decision?