The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Truth Seeker]

You know something...given the fact that this scene happened to one person.

I know for a fact, that everyone here, will react differently, depending on the circumstances.

All this posturing on quoting text from books...again, does not apply.

What comes down to it, is this.

When it happens, what are any of you...going to do, when it happens.

Don't reply.

Keep it yourself.

I have already given a possible solution to the problem, and it is in the DM's best interest to settle it.

Stop looking at it, from a paladin's view, you are not looking from the player's, correction...the character's view.

The DM cannot know, unless they have walked in that character's shoes, so to speak. To see what is going on in that PC's head. I can say something to the matter, cause, it happened to me, in one game. The DM was shocked, on what happened, he stated to me, that he couldn't believe I did that, I replied, "It was not me, you saw the character/persona responding to the scene given." When you are in the moment, channeling the persona literally...you become somewhat, a third person viewer...and you are watching a situation unfold before you.

It can happen, and that is what has happen from the first post, and then the extended explanation by the author.

In the end, how ever it seen, and I have pointed out...it got away, the whole situation did get away...cause it was ended on a cliffhanger *smart call*

It troubled the DM, who in turn, asked for advice. And my advice...the trappings of the paladinhood being used, needs to be dropped.

The bigger issue at hand, with all that transpired, was the owner of the house, was within their right, to give punishment or to deal with the situation as they see fit.

Did the DM in question, realize that at some point, the scene went beyond on what they expected.

It fell into a gray area...buttons were pushed, and what was returned, was a total unexpected feedback.

This is what roleplaying is about...

And by the way, unless it says in the PHB*hmmm, it might, I am not looking at it, for the moment*, that a paladin, male or female should not have a seperate life outside the duties of their deity, life can get boring real quick.

There is a saying by a friend of mine that makes this pretty simple.

What is done for the church, it done on their time.

What is done for family, is also, on their own time.

I think I will end it here...this subject, with like all other subject of dealing with a paladin, are too black & white, too religious, too moral, or too much ethical.

And everyone, or almost everyone forgets...there is a person underneath that mantle...a person with feelings.

Nite, wait...morning.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the case above, I don't believe war outweighs, good and law combined in terms of a deity's perspective on things.

I'm not saying it does, but as a god of war, he is going to be a bit more tolerant of violent solutions.

As for knights being answerable to their peers, <mega-snip> A wiser paladin would have investigated a little further before breaking the halfling's neck.

Remember that when it comes to paladins, I'm real old school and traditional on the matter. <snip>

and

The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.

and

Just because society condones justifiable homicide does not mean that a paladin can engage in it righteously.

I'm even older school.

A person who invaded a home at night to commit a crime was one of the lowest of the low and a great danger to society and civilization. According to laws going back centuries- predating even the feudal era- they were considered without honor, and, in most civilizations, the homeowner could kill them without worrying about consequences. Indeed, the phrase "A man's home is his castle" can be found in cases going back to the 1500's as an example of settled law- used in a way to indicate that within the boundaries of his home, a man was entitled to the much same kind of deference as a king. While he could not do the blatantly illegal, he WAS free to mete out punishment within the bounds of the law- including killing intruders.

Instead of killing the night-stalker immediately (as entitled to by law), he gave the guy a chance to redeem himself by talking. He didn't. An unrepentant home invader would be percieved to be as evil as any Ghoul or Orc by a person of that era's mindset. Or, to put it in game terms- to a follower of Heiroeous, he would be the antithesis of everything that PC stands for: without honor, without chivalry, without valor...and only entitled to swift justice.

And as for modern standards, I suggest you check your local criminal code- home intruders are still a justified target for use of lethal force (details vary- you may have to prove you had no way to retreat from them), and the use of lethal force against kidnappers (in the defense of a kidnap victim) is also justifiable- and a co-conspirator is as guilty of the crime as the one who actually comitted it (that is how getaway car drivers wind up serving 50 years for felony murders). Home intruders who strike at night often find that entering in the PM hours is an aggravating condition that can add as much as 10 years to the time they will actually serve if caught (even accounting for parole)- the fact that the homeowner is more likely to be at home at night has historically been and still is considered to make a crime at a home at night more worthy of punishment than an equivalent crime at high noon.

I do agree, however, that you are all correct in that if he didn't try to ascertain coersion or a similar mitigating factor, there might be problems with his vow- depending on his deity.

Sir John Chandos, founder of the Order of the Garter, was one of the greatest knights to ever live, both in terms of skill at arms and as an exemplar of chivalry- as close to a Paladin as any historical figure you can point to (Jean D'Arc is thought by some to be fictional). Of him it was said "God have mercy on his soul, for never in a hundred years was there in England a man more courteous, neither more full of every virtue and good quality than he."

And yet, as is pointed out elsewhere:

John was a lot closer - "close" meaning "fond of" as well as "similar"- to his opponents than to the ordinary Englishmen who ploughed his land, paid him rent, accepted his justice and died for him in battle. Knights across Christendom shared a common view of the way in which God ordered society; they enjoyed the same lifestyle of hunting, jousting and making war and the leaders of both sides in The Hundred Years' War (in John's lifetime, if not later) even spoke the same language.

Even this "Paladin" was elitist and a law unto himself, answerable only to his superiors and peers.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And everyone, or almost everyone forgets...there is a person underneath that mantle...a person with feelings.

And when his son comes after him, training himself to become a Paladin to kill the slayer of his father, we can get an equally dramatic moment when this "person" (now ex-paladin blackguard) reveals to the young adventurer that he is his father.

Paladins are fully allowed to have emotions, but when those emotions cross the line they are equally allowed to lose their Paladinhood. "I killed the villiagers because they killed my mom" and "I killed those soldiers to save my wife" just don't cut it.

I'm not saying he should become a Blackguard. I'm saying he has to still be held accountable.

 

[Numion]

Let's do a small re-cap, because I missed when mercy entered the Paladins Code. Even PHB acknowledges that Alhandra, the lawful good Paladin, fights evil without mercy. The Code from PHB states that Paladin has to punish evildoers, and is silent on mercy.

So, unless houseruled, Paladins overriding duty is to punish first and grant mercy later, if at all. This quite clearly paints a picture of Paladins as the gods strong fist against evil, which is why the gods grant them Smite Evil and Detect Evil. Granting mercy and thus allowing further evil to be committed would be wavering from ones god-given mission.

 

[diaglo]

Ok. Resolution idea. We all know that Paladins who commit a chotic act or evil act suffer varies consequences, yes?

Nowhere in the rules does it say that this happens immediately, or in a direct intervention by god method. SO: If it does not screw up your stated workings for Paladins, have an Inquisitor show up. Someone with the authority to judge the character and the god granted power to strip him of his paladinhood or send him on an atonement quest.

depends on how much background you have.

the Original Paladin in Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) lost his powers immediately. FOREVER.

the roleplay thereafter would be for the player to try and atone for his afterlife.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There is a saying by a friend of mine that makes this pretty simple.

What is done for the church, it done on their time.

What is done for family, is also, on their own time.

IMO that's half-a**ing it.

We aren't talking about a friar or a village mystic. A Paladin is a Paladin 24/7. You can say that the class doesn't matter or go into how "we don't know" and stuff like that, which has no real bearing since we are talking about a specific class in a RPG that has alignment and action restrictions that have an effect on gameplay. What I or you would do doesn't matter, we aren't divine warriors. If a chivalrous Holy Knight just throws honor out the window as soon as someone he cares about is threatened I don't think he really lives it. If he can turn it off he wouldn't be a Paladin IMO.

My final reccomendation is to have H visit the Paladin with dreams and visions of him living without honor or righteousnes. Something to let the Paladin know he wasn't acting with honor and needs to watch his ways. That is IF he just kills the 1/2 without trying to determine what was really going on and the 1/2 didn't show up on the detect evil scan. That is what I did when a Paladin of H strayed a bit in his zeal to destroy evil. But we had a code of conduct written out before hand. Something I recommend all Paladin players & DM's do. It's fun and it gives a righteous path for the holy warrior to follow. The Code & The Measure are great starting points as are the basic beliefs of the god in question. A Paladin of Pholtus would have a vastly different code than one of Heironeous. Punishing and destorying heretics would have a much greater role than the code of chivalry would.

Anyway an interesting discussion.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I happen to think that paladins shouldn't marry. They're in a stupidly dangerous business and it's selfish to marry someone just to widow them, they have no time for a home life, and a family is a good way to make sure that your enemies have hostages or vengeance.

And most importantly, as this thread brought up, to a true paladin his wife will always come second. Even if he loves her* he must love his code more. This has a huge potential for dramatic roleplay (on both parts if the wife is also a PC) but you combine a code with no room for personal feelings, the love of another fragile mortal, and a very dangerous job and you are cruising for a tragedy. The only choice is which path the tragedy takes.

*I'd note that most of those who are pushing for a "medieval" view of law, justice and mercy are combining it with an anachronisric view of marriage. What noble or even wealthy man married for love? A paladin particularly should have a nice younger wife picked based on her father's church and royal ties who he sees every few months off "crusade" for respectful marital duties. Where is all this love fueled rage coming from?

 

[Voadam]

*I'd note that most of those who are pushing for a "medieval" view of law, justice and mercy are combining it with an anachronisric view of marriage. What noble or even wealthy man married for love? A paladin particularly should have a nice younger wife picked based on her father's church and royal ties who he sees every few months off "crusade" for respectful marital duties. Where is all this love fueled rage coming from?

Chivalric courtly love and the adoration of his lady is not an appropriate idiom for a paladin?

 

[ForceUser]

A person who invaded a home at night to commit a crime was one of the lowest of the low and a great danger to society and civilization. According to laws going back centuries- predating even the feudal era- they were considered without honor, and, in most civilizations, the homeowner could kill them without worrying about consequences.

[snip]

And as for modern standards, I suggest you check your local criminal code-

[snip]

Danny, many of your examples refer to the laws of men. The paladin must adhere to the laws of his god. That is the difference. If it were an easy road to walk, then paladinhood wouldn't mean anything. You are arguing from real-world examples. I am arguing from what the D&D text tells me is how the concepts of goodness and exaltedness are defined within the fictional D&D world. Furthermore, you appear to have assumed the role of defense attorney after all, and I'm not really interested in sparring. I've stated my case as clearly as I feel I can do so. If you feel that the points I've made are without merit, well, I wouldn't suggest that you play an exalted character in my campaign.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Chivalric courtly love and the adoration of his lady is not an appropriate idiom for a paladin?

Exactly as appropriate as an anacronistic dedication to semi-modern sensibilities of justice and mercy, in fact.

(though the latter has the advantage of not having been made up an era after the fact by french romance writers. )