The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can't argue with logic like that. Waste 3 rounds (18 seconds) to make sure I'm not killing a coerced, non-evil being <snip> or brighten my day now with the crisp, clean sound of bones breaking?

I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.

If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.

Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?" He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).

and

Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment). If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.

and

The paladin's action was almost certainly in contravention of the local laws, so the first definition checks.

"Legitimate authority" would most likely allow a homeowner to kill someone engaged in or aiding someone commit a violent felony within that homeowner's abode, especially at night, especially accounting for a society in which "legitimate authority" response times would typically be measured in hours rather than minutes.

Once again, killing a neutralized captive who committed a crime in a jurisdiction and time period in which the death penalty was probably allowable by law for that offense.

AND, as I pointed out, a homeowner's killing of those involved in a night-time invasion of his home was something that was permissible by most secular and religious laws of the time period this game is patterned after- even if they were fleeing or neutralized.

 

[Jim Hague]

I'm sorry; the temporary nature of your proposed punishment was not clear from your initial post:

I suppose you could consider 'awhile' to be ambiguous....?

Yes. I'm also pretty sure that it would be a particularly crappy thing to have to roleplay through. It'd probably be better to just skip to the pillar of salt stage and roll up a new character.

You're mixing parables again - the pillar of salt was Lot's wife. Job's the bet between Yahweh and the Adversary to test Job's faith. Which is exactly what I'm proposing.

Also, is what you are proposing really a test of faith? Is the PC (and, more importantly, the player) likely to see it that way? I wouldn't.

Given that he's quite possibly metagaming and certainly playing a paladin poorly, I continue to advise the gloves on approach. My suggestion surely isn't the only one out there.

Furthermore, we're talking about a wife and unborn child who have already been "assaulted." How much are you willing to bet that whatever shadowy presence invaded her room in the middle of the night dropped by just to say "Hi"? I'd give even odds, at best, that the unborn child is already in a heap of trouble, regardless of what the Paladin does from here on out. How does this tie in with your ideas on testing the Paladin's faith?

Immaterial, actually. I've gotten the impression it was a gang of thugs, not supernatural evil.

Again, this just seems to be further proof that backstories and in-character relationships are there so that the DM can hose you with them. Can it be a great hook to have what you love directly threatened? Absolutely. Can it motivate you to go out and save the world? Certainly. Am I tired of it being overused? You betcha.

So tired that you're seeing abuse where there is none. There's no hosing going on here, no matter how much you want to crow otherwise - I'm proposing that the character face real consequences for a very, very serious action. Your 'proof' is simply your own filtering of that through whatever experiences you've gone through. given the vehemence and wrongheadedness of your reaction, you've got my apologies for whatever GM thought that using NPCs only in that manner was a good idea.

If you want to give the Paladin a mandate from on high, give him a prophetic dream of what will happen to his grown son should the Paladin fall: enemies the Paladin would have dispatched or routed gain enough power to take over this section of the world, the child grows up under the influence of some resulting dark cult, and becomes a powerful blackguard in his own right, using the anger he inherited from his father.

See, that's another proposal, but it doesn't address consequences right now at all, nor really within the scope of the campaign. IME, consequences have to have real and immediate effect for them to be effective. YMMV, of course.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.

If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.

Taking the time to determine the guilt or innocence of non-combatants is entirely different than determining the guilt or innocence of enemies who are you are engaged in combat with.

The paladin even admitted to doing it because he was angry.

 

[Jim Hague]

I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.

Except that the paladin didn't know about the invasion until after the fact...it looks a lot like he metagamed and now expects to get off scot free.

If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.

There's a world of difference between acting decisively in combat and acting out of anger on the street. It's the difference between righteous battle and out and out murder.

"Legitimate authority" would most likely allow a homeowner to kill someone engaged in or aiding someone commit a violent felony within that homeowner's abode, especially at night, especially accounting for a society in which "legitimate authority" response times would typically be measured in hours rather than minutes.

Except that the paladin found out after the fact, and the halfling wasn't involved in the assault. No attempt to discern innocence or guilt was made; he just 'got angry' and murdered someone on assumption.

Once again, killing a neutralized captive who committed a crime in a jurisdiction and time period in which the death penalty was probably allowable by law for that offense.

Sorry, but no, this doesn't wash, Danny. Perhaps you're proposing that the paladin assumed the halfling was a witch or some equally flimsy excuse? We've already established that he acted out of anger, which violated both the law and his paladinic code.

AND, as I pointed out, a homeowner's killing of those involved in a night-time invasion of his home was something that was permissible by most secular and religious laws of the time period this game is patterned after- even if they were fleeing or neutralized.

Does the phrase 'imminent danger' mean anything to you? And no, executing someone out of hand is not historically accurate, sorry.

 

[tonym]

...It's not EVIL or Evil, but 'evil', or maybe (evil). Bad, very bad.

You mean because the paladin was angry when he did what he did, his actions are evil?

Anger is evil? Anger? The emotion...anger?
Will you elaborate on this idea. I'm like...huh?

Tony M

 

[jdrakeh]

Anger is evil? Anger? The emotion...anger?
Will you elaborate on this idea. I'm like...huh?

Anger (Wrath) is one of the 7 Deadly Sins and was, throughout the Middle Ages, widely heralded by the Church as an example of the evil that men do and must be held responsible for. Some stern Roman Catholics that I grew up with still view Wrath as a sin that must be atoned for.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You mean because the paladin was angry when he did what he did, his actions are evil?

Anger is evil? Anger? The emotion...anger?
Will you elaborate on this idea. I'm like...huh?

Tony M

Some people have been putting a sense of justice, righting wrongs, or protecting the innocent in his decision to kill the halfing. So, he's poiting out that this was not the case. The reason he killed the halfing is that he was angry. He's not saying being angry is evil. He's saying killing someone because you got mad at them is evil.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You're mixing parables again - the pillar of salt was Lot's wife.

Again?

And, frankly, no "kidding," Sherlock.

Job's the bet between Yahweh and the Adversary to test Job's faith. Which is exactly what I'm proposing.

And I'm proposing that it makes a great story to read, but would be a lousy role-playing experience.

Given that he's quite possibly metagaming

I haven't read any proof of that, yet.*

Immaterial, actually. I've gotten the impression it was a gang of thugs, not supernatural evil.

Whereas I'm pretty sure it wasn't just some low-Gather Info rogue looking for a few quick GPs.

There's no hosing going on here, no matter how much you want to crow otherwise

Really? Then why were the paladin's wife and unborn child targeted for this invasion in the first place?

EDIT:

*: Reread this, and tell me that there's metagaming going on:

The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.

At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, they teleport away).

Another PC, a cleric, roused by the struggle, bursts into the room, sees that the wife is alive but confused, and gets a quick summary of what happened. He runs downstairs.

Meanwhile, the paladin has grown suspicious and begins questioning the halfling, then grabs him. When the halfling refuses to give answers (who sent you, what are you doing here), he gets a little rough. The halfling tells some obvious lies, and the paladin gets a little rougher.

Then the PC cleric arrives and announces that someone has assaulted the paladin's wife. After a few more questions and non-answers, the player says "I break his neck." I verify that his intent is to kill. Since the halfling is a) pinned and b) already at low HP, I say he is negative HP and dying. (I had foregone rolling damage for the various attacks during the interrogation in order to maintain the flow of the scene.) That's where the session ended.

This tells us several things.

1. The paladin called PC 1 into the room to protect his wife as he left.
2. Whatever snuck inside managed to overcome PC 1 long enough to "do something" to the wife and then teleports away.
3. The cleric arrived when he heard "the struggle," and a quick check showed that the wife wasn't physically harmed. No further mention is made of PC 1.
4. The paladin has been "roughing up" the halfling for some time before the cleric arrives, and has received no useful informatio from him.
5. The paladin "kills" the halfling only after the cleric tells the paladin there was an attack on his wife.

"Simple thug" with teleportation and an ability to hold off a high-level PC long enough to "do something" to the wife? I don't think so.

"Metagaming"? Also no.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think the metagaming quandry is why was he roughing up the halfling? Is that normal MO, or was he doing that because the Player knew that stuff was going on upstairs? We really have no idea, I will admit that it looks suspicious unless he normally roughs up people who interupt his sleep.

 

[tonym]

Anger (Wrath) is one of the 7 Deadly Sins and was, throughout the Middle Ages, widely heralded by the Church as an example of the evil that men do and must be held responsible for. Some stern Roman Catholics that I grew up with still view Wrath as a sin that must be atoned for.

Okay, thanks.

I just Googled "anger" and learned a little more. Apparently anger is frowned upon because it can easily lead to evil, amongst other downsides. That makes perfect sense.

However, it seems that "righteous anger" is totally cool. (A passage in the Bible where gambling tables were overturned was one of several examples.)

So, anyhow...I don't see a problem with the paladin being angry. I imagine that most paladins are angry a lot, and that their anger is most often righteous. They are angry at evil, angry at torture, angry at lies, angry at DM's that strip away paladin powers...

Okay, maybe not that last one.

Tony M