The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Herremann the Wise]

Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.

However, the local authorities don't determine whether a Paladin loses his powers, in this case Heironeous does. I'll be interested to read how the DM in question interprets Heironeous's actions; [rolls sense motive] it would seem that Galfridus is looking at taking the "atonement required" path.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Just remember all you paladins out there, don't choose chicken! That path can only lead to pain and eternal damnation.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Is a 'ping' on a detect evil always justification for an immediate smite?

-Hyp.

Good points and to answer your question, no a 'ping' on detect evil does not always justify an immediate smiting. In this case though, it would have been a step in the right direction.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Is a 'ping' on a detect evil always justification for an immediate smite?

Wow — that's a complete list of possibilties there. All I said was that it was a "handy tool," not the end all be all of smitability testing. So, no, it's not, and I never said it was, but it's a tool at the disposal of the paladin in question that wasn't used at all.

Nick

 

[Voadam]

PS: Just remember all you paladins out there, don't choose chicken! That path can only lead to pain and eternal damnation.

Paladins of a god of valor should not pick chicken. The symbolism is all wrong.

 

[Demmero]

As I've stated before, I believe that in cases of alignment where players might lose abilities or have their alignment changed, the players shoud be given a warning that their actions will do so.

OK, fair enough. I don't fully agree, though. I feel that a player running a paladin should weigh his actions before taking them.

I've seen too many DMs that enjoy pushing the player's buttons rather than the character's and don't see such as good DMing.

I don't like that either, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The raid/attack happened on the paladin's home and wife, not the player's. Unless the player's house had been invaded or his wife assaulted at some time in the past, that's not pushing the player's buttons.

The paladin's buttons seem to have been pushed, and he reacted the way he did. I really can't view this situation as a DM's paladin trap because there's no way he could have known that the halfling would get caught, beaten down, and then had his neck snapped at the paladin's hands. Those are player choices.

 

[ThirdWizard]

On the chicken scenario. I like a third option of ordering what food you like and making a small donation to the fund as well. Options, people, options! Think outside the box!

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the chicken scenario. I like a third option of ordering what food you like and making a small donation to the fund as well. Options, people, options! Think outside the box!

I was going to get to that one eventually

-Hyp.

 

[painandgreed]

I don't like that either, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The raid/attack happened on the paladin's home and wife, not the player's. Unless the player's house had been invaded or his wife assaulted at some time in the past, that's not pushing the player's buttons.

The paladin's buttons seem to have been pushed, and he reacted the way he did. I really can't view this situation as a DM's paladin trap because there's no way he could have known that the halfling would get caught, beaten down, and then had his neck snapped at the paladin's hands. Those are player choices.

It's hard to tell. I've known players who would become frustrated in such a situation especially if the DM wanted to frustrate the player despite how the player may see their character. Might not be the best roleplaying but not everybody is a good role player even if they want to be. Announcing the result of an action allows the player to keep his character in line and consistant to their idea of what the character would do. I don't see it as being metgaming as the character has had a lifetime of study in what his code is and what would violate it while the player doesn't. The character, especially in the case of a paladin, would have the conscience that the player doesn't have.

 

[Numion]

Nope. If you've got a very liberal code of conduct that allows for such a thing, at the very least it has to be reasonable suspicion - which this wasn't.

That's what I've advocated in my previous posts: the Paladin should have reasonable suspicions. Thats what happened in this case, as is clear from the first post:

The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.

'Kill things and take their stuff' is quintessential hack and slash. And again - zero proof, lack of reasonable suspicion. Please stop trying to bring the dungeon/hack and slash attitude into it. It doesn't apply here.

So it's different standards for those guys forced to live in dungeons and clean evil Halflings living in cities? How just and fair, the Paladins be in your world. I'm just saying that if the Paladin pretends to be an equal opportunity Smiter he should direct his divine wrath equally on those scheme murders in cities and poor orcs living in dungeons. This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect all innocents he can, and punish all those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.

*bzzt!* Wrong and how. No reasonable suspicion of guilt - only allegation and suspicion. The paladin clearly acted out of anger, which is against the code of the church he belongs to. And I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing justice, something you seem to be missing. You keep bringing out the same old straw men, and frankly it's a little tiresome.

See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar. What's the straw-man? I just stated what's in the Paladins Code and whats not. Thats as un-strawy as can be. Justice is not in the Paladins Code while punishing those who harm innocents is. It's your argument thats going nowhere, and it is starting to show in your attitude :\

 

[Demmero]

This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect all innocents he can, and punish all those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.

OK, let's play hypothetical here. A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler. What does he do?