The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Kahuna Burger]

True enough. Although I still think the phrase "halfling's evil ways" is probably a bit far along in this scenario — none of us, save the GM, really know what's going on with the halfling as far as his habitual evilitude or lack thereof.

indeed, the constant referances to the halfling's evil is getting to me a bit. At this point, the paladin's sum total of charges against the halfling is : 1) rang my doorbell. 2) acted as a distraction.

There's two ways this can go. Either the halfling was not fully in on the entire plan, in which case murdering him was even more out there than it already is, or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.

 

[Demmero]

Nope- like I stated before, a home invader in the night was a valid target for instant justice in many cultures, a standard that is only somewhat softened today.

We just had a case here in Texas where the homeowner shot a guy coming into his window.

In the head.

No charges, just lots of TV interviews.

Interesting, but your example isn't that similar to the OP's situation.
It sounds like the OP's scenario took place in a major city with its own set of laws; whether "Your home is your castle" is one of those laws is debateable.
Also, the halfling was invited inside; he didn't come through a window.
Lastly, the halfling wasn't killed breaking and entering; he was found to be in league with home invaders, rendered helpless, and subsequently executed.

Oh, and Texas Justice and a paladin's Code of Conduct probably aren't all that compatible on a lot of issues

 

[Voadam]

or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.

Speak with dead is a pretty viable way to find out info.

 

[Numion]

True enough. Although I still think the phrase "halfling's evil ways" is probably a bit far along in this scenario — none of us, save the GM, really know what's going on with the halfling as far as his habitual evilitude or lack thereof. But, yeah, this is about style, and not really the substance of the issue at hand, which is the loss of powers in this particular campaign.

You're right, the DM is the only one who has all the 'real' info. But he shouldn't hold the Paladins abilities hostage against that. Just saying that there can always be additional layers of trickery in terms of who's really evil and who's what. And the Paladin can never be sure that he's uncovered the 'real' information. Should he never take action then, because he can never be sure? Of course not. He should investigate some, Smite some more and thats the life of a Paladin in D&D.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Speak with dead is a pretty viable way to find out info.

PC Cleric: "Why did you do it, halfling interloper?"
Body: "Trrruuuuueee Looooovveee."
Paladin: *cough* "He said 'to blave' and we all know, to blave means to bluff! so you were playing cards, and he cheated..."
Wife: "Liar!"

Sorry, couldn't help myself!

 

[Peter Gibbons]

I'm not down for "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" either. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect Paladins to sort out the apparent evildoers motive before he can take action. That's not how the PHB protrays Paladins. They don't even have Sense Motive as a friggin' class skill!

Um...actually, they do.

Nevertheless, I agree with your main point. As I interpret the situation, the paladin was operating under considerable time pressure. Some kind of an attempt to do evil to his wife had been made, the number and identity of the evil-doers was unknown, and it was entirely possible that another attempt would be made imminently. Swift and decisive action was called for, and the halfling was causing further delay.

Now, the OP has--since his original post--added details to the account that make it a much closer call, IMO, than it originally seemed. But I'm frankly suspicious of the OP's elaborations, because in his original post he took the position that the paladin's actions "obviously" were not kosher...and based on the facts as he presented them at that time, I think that was anything but obvious. I've known many DMs who have "set up" a paladin PC for a "dramatic" fall from grace, and the OP's elaborations smack to me of a "cover-up."

The question I'd really like to hear an answer to at this point is: what did the OP expect the paladin to do in this situation? Because I think the answer to that question would shed a lot of light on whether the paladin was unfairly "set up" or not.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You're right, the DM is the only one who has all the 'real' info. But he shouldn't hold the Paladins abilities hostage against that. Just saying that there can always be additional layers of trickery in terms of who's really evil and who's what. And the Paladin can never be sure that he's uncovered the 'real' information. Should he never take action then, because he can never be sure? Of course not. He should investigate some, Smite some more and thats the life of a Paladin in D&D.

To me, there's a difference between getting information when in a life and death struggle and when you're in no danger, you don't really have any facts at all, and it would be fairly simple to attain said facts without any danger to yourself or others. This seems way too close to Smiting Joe Merchant because he detected as evil while trying to sell me something. How about the Paladin try to find out why Joe Merchant is evil first if he intends to do anything about it?

 

[Numion]

indeed, the constant referances to the halfling's evil is getting to me a bit. At this point, the paladin's sum total of charges against the halfling is : 1) rang my doorbell. 2) acted as a distraction.

There's two ways this can go. Either the halfling was not fully in on the entire plan, in which case murdering him was even more out there than it already is, or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.

Indeed, the constant references to the execution of the evil Halfling as murder is getting to me a bit. Deliberately preventing people from protecting the innocent is as bad as both harming or threatening to harm innocent, which both beget punishment as per the Paladins Code of Conduct.

Yes, execution is a bit harsh punishment, but what the hell it's not like death was uncommon in D&D. And killing evil twin of Frodo was stupid unless they relied on Speak with Dead. But there's no int requirement to play a Paladin.

 

[Aaron L]

OK, after reading the further information from the OP, what the paladin did was WRONG without question. He didnt detect evil. He didnt question the halfling to find out anything beyond the fact that he was being used as a distraction. (hell, the halfling could have had HIS wife threatened with death if he didnt do this, as someone pointed out) He had the halfling pinned and helpless, he knew his wife was safe, and still he decided to "break his neck"???!!! Thats personal vengeance on a helpless prisoner who is a possibly coerced innocent. And an evil action, as it does NOTHING beyond fulfill the paladins need for revenge.

(notice i didnt talk about righteous vengeance like earlier, which i intended to mean high handed eye for an eye justice with godly backing. revenge, however, is revenge, and nothing but.)

 

[painandgreed]

Killing the halfling under the circumstances outlined by the OP is evil.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they follow a god or an ideal, they must still adhere to the same standards of goodness and righteousness, as defined by the PHB or, if you use it, the BoED.

My take on the situation is that the OP asked what we would do if the following situation happened. He did not ask "What to do if a paladin commits an evil act, or violates his code." If he meant that, he should have said so.

In this case, I would not do anything to the paladin for the action itself. This is a matter of DMing style. If I felt the action itself would cause a paladin to violate his code, I would have warned the player of such before hand. If the paladin loses his abilities, I want it to be because the character acted out of frustration, not the player. A similar thing would happen to any player about to commit an act that would change their alignment. I do not think that such a warning was given no do I really think the act itself was evil or outside the code so I would not do anything for the act. The paladin might get a stern dream or something instead but would otherwise slip through.

Now, that wouldn't take into account if the guy actually deserved to die or not. If he was innocent or not. If he wasn't, then the paladin was just doing his job. If the halfling was innocent, then the paladin would have made a mistake and must pay for it in short order. This would probably happen instantly to a few days by loss of paladin powers and maybe a dream telling him what he did wrong and how to attone (without revealing any real infromation on what was going on). I'd probably cut the paladin powers immediatly but the player wouldn't find out till he actually tried to use them again.

So, IMC, the paladin has the right, according to his class, to preform the action he did by killing a suspected murderer and the act itself would not cause any punishment. The paladin is however held responsible for his choices and if he had killed an innocent by mistake, he would have to pay.