The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[kigmatzomat]

As a paladin of Heironymous, he's pretty much SOL. It might be mitigated based on how H. views those who are themselves devoid of chivalry and honor. I mean, what kind of base villian attacks a pregnant woman? Even worse, who knowingly leads her defender away? Still, it's not really a paladish thing to do (yes, I'm making up words!)

I'd probably go with a compromise. The paladin sees H. manifest over the halfling as he makes the killing blow H. states that those without honor should be treated honorably else they succeed in killing honor. The vision fades and the paladin's blade breaks. The paladin's powers fade until the sword is reforged.

The paladin (who worships Hieroneous) is effectively a noble of the kingdom he is in (he is actually a noble from another kingdom who has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities). He has the legal powers of a nobleman -- but he is in the capital city of a kingdom which is (simplifying here of course) Lawful Good. He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances.

IIRC, if a peasant was involved in an assault on a noble the noble could kill the peasant and at worst pay a fairly minor fine. It got a bit hairier with freemen vs. peasants tied to the land but it was still pretty much "Nobles are noble; everyone else is scum." That's why no one IMC has any noble title.

 

[Hunter Simon]

You just contradicted yourself. You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.

How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no way to measure good and evil, then you can't say that we've become more moral as a species due to the relatively uncommon nature of mass slaughter.

Well said.

To quote the great Allan Bloom:

"There is one thing every university professor can be certain of. Every student entering the university believes--or says he believes--that truth is relative. If this assertion is questioned the students will be uncomprehending, as if the questioner was calling into question that 2+2=4. The students, of course, cannot defend their position; it is something with which they have been indoctrinated."

 

[Hunter Simon]

To relieve the fears of those that now seem to think I'm some sort of maniac...
Yes, I have my own set of beliefs as to what is right and wrong.
There, feel better?

Uh, you do realize, of course, that *everyone* has "beliefs as to what is right and wrong." That alone means nothing.

Stalin, Nero, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, the Inquisitors, serial killers . . .

They *all* have "beliefs as to what is right and wrong."

The question isn't "Do you have beliefs as to what is right and wrong?" but rather "What *are* your beliefs as to what is right and wrong?"

If your beliefs are, as I think you admitted earlier, that there *is* no ultimate right and wrong, then I can see why someone might find that a bit troublesome. It means that you would look at horrific acts such as child abuse, rape, and mass murder, and you would say, "It ain't necessarily wrong! There *is* no objective wrong!"

*That*, I think, is why some people were a bit concerned by what you said.

But not me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's stay pleasant about this, folks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[howandwhy99]

You're assuming, of course, that something has to be "proven" to be known as truth.

Do you love your parents?

Prove it.

But will Patryn of Elvenshae accept that answer?

Can we talk about paladins?

 

[billd91]

You just contradicted yourself. You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.

How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?

You can't have it both ways. If there is no way to measure good and evil, then you can't say that we've become more moral as a species due to the relatively uncommon nature of mass slaughter.

I love it when moral relativists contradict themselves. [laughs, puts feet up, munches popcorn]

Don't choke on that popcorn. Notice that I say I think we've made great strides. That's a statement of my personal opinion based on my own personal moral beliefs.

You might want to be certain you've actually got a contradition before you get all smug about it.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Don't choke on that popcorn. Notice that I say I think we've made great strides. That's a statement of my personal opinion based on my own personal moral beliefs.

You might want to be certain you've actually got a contradition before you get all smug about it.

[coughs, spits out popcorn, brushes crumbs off shirt]

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm going to go one step past Hypersmurf.

I've deleted one post here for being rude toward a class of members here at ENWorld. The next deleted post will earn the poster a vacation.

So, "Let's stay pleasant about this, folks. Or else."

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think that some folks are conflating meta-beliefs with beliefs.

I can say that beauty is subjective and cultural and thats a meta-belief. It is almost wholly unrelated to my belief that Antonio Bandaras is the sexists thing on the planet. believing that there is not an objective, fundemental yardstick for something doesn't mean that a person does not or cannot make judgements on that subject or even believe that enforcing those judgements is a good thing for society.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But will Patryn of Elvenshae accept that answer?

I'd believe you if you said it, having no evidence to the contrary nor any reason to believe you were lying.

Can we talk about paladins?

Sure - but the problem is that someone seems to think that moral relativism plays some role in this debate.

It's possible it does, but only so far as it affects how the DM in question wants to rule his in-game alignment system.

Is killing the halfling evil? I don't think it was, in this case.

Non-Good? Certainly. But there's a rather large gulf between non-Good and Evil.