The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[ThirdWizard]

He wasn't even good at his job. The Paladin immediately figured out he was a distraction? Not a very good con-man or fast talker. That furthers the idea that he's just some stooge picked up off the street and told "Hey, we'll give you five gold pieces if you keep the noble in that house busy for a few minutes."

He's also not too bright for taking the job, but hey, neither is the Paladin, so that better not be a Smiting offense.

 

[Demmero]

Hi Everyone,

For what it's worth, I thought I'd put all the actual information in the one place.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Thanks a million! I just noticed another major detail of this situation, thanks to you!

 

[Demmero]

Legal guidelines would involve incarceration followed by trial, with imprisonment as the likely penalty. The situation was not one where the paladin was slowed down (other people were just arriving on the scene); his full attention was directed at the prisoner.

Other people were arriving on the scene??!! There were witnesses to the paladin's actions??!!

OMG...can it get any sweeter than this for the DM?

 

[tonym]

Tony M,
Do you really play paladins that way?
If an individual is "probably" evil in your paladin's opinion, you have the pre-approval to kill them?
If something turns up on the evil radar (if you choose to use it) then you're free to smite away (whether the smite actually works or not?
And then when you go to use your lay on hands and you can't, you accuse the DM of cutting off your PCs powers for their own amusement or ignorance (based on your previous comments).

Have you had a bad experience playing a paladin?
What you describe seems more like a chaotic vigilante than a LG paladin in a LG city.



A paladin of Heironeous would put equal weight in honor, justice and smiting evil as well as valor and courage. He is following what is expected of him; emotion if anything does not come into it. In this thread's case, it seems that the emotion (anger) of the paladin in fact got in the way of his clear and rational judgment. Whether these actions are enough for the paladin to temporarily lose Heironeous's (the DMs) support is up to the DM. As I said before, it looks like the DM's going down the atonement path (and correctly so in my honest opinion).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Herreman the Wise, believe me, despite my belief that paladins should enjoy a lot of leeway when battling evil, I have never run any paladin as a murderous vigilante. My paladins are generally the classic lawful good, knight-in-shining-armor paladin--with a few significant quirks thrown-in to mix things up.

There are two reasons I think paladins should have a lot of leeway in their battle against evil. One: that's how I interpret the rules. And two: to avoid the creation of a boring seen-one-you've-seen-them-all clone of every other paladin.

I've never had a DM tell me: "For situation A one's paladin must do action A. For situation B one's paladin must do Action B." But this is what a lot of people in this thread are saying. Many people in this thread believe the player of the paladin did a bad job by not having his paladin act exactly like Sir Galahad would act in the halfling encounter.

Not me. Me, I think a paladin can have a lot of Free Will and still be a good paladin.

Okay, imagine this: Fifty paladins have been pre-approved to kill anything they think is probably evil. They encounter the exact same halfling situation. What does paladin #44 do?

In the Original Poster's mind, paladin #44 does what they all should do...which is what Sir Galahad would do. They are merciful to the halfling, curious about his motives, patient, etc. A perfect idealized paladin and totally predictable.

I think it should be up to the player how he roleplays his paladin, and he should not have to worry about the DM yoinking his powers over minor stuff. What would this kind of paladin do in the halfling situation? Who knows? Possibly what Sir Galahad would do. Or possibly snap the halfling's neck. Or something else entirely. Player's choice. As long as the PC still fits the paladin stereotype most of the time, and doesn't cross the line into evil.

I'm not advocating a crazy, bloodthirsty interpretation of paladins. I'm saying, if a player wants his paladin to deviate from the Galahad sterotype a bit, especially in matters of violence, what's the harm?

Tony M

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I've never had a DM tell me: "For situation A one's paladin must do action A. For situation B one's paladin must do Action B." But this is what a lot of people in this thread are saying. Many people in this thread believe the player of the paladin did a bad job by not having his paladin act exactly like Sir Galahad would act in the halfling encounter.

Okay, I'll let you know how I would run it, because I do not think that the paladin did a bad job.

I think that he roleplayed a situation in such a way that consequences will result, but that isn't necessarily a bad job.

First, I would empathize with the paladin, for he was put in a tense situation. Second, I would accept that his motives were anger-driven. Third, I would take the opportunity to give the paladin dreams (omens) from the big H about the possibility that the halfling did not deserve death. The paladin may be driven to investigate his victim in order to appease his conscious and/or atone for his actions (depending on what alignment I made the halfling).

My reasons for this are twofold -

1) Yes, a paladin should be held to a higher standard (clerics should also be held to a higher standard - only their standard would vary depending on alignment and/or deity).

2) A paladin should be reminded of all of his killings, for even righteous smitings should weigh heavy on the mind of the righteous lest the paladin become desensitized to killing (and no good character should be able to kill without later coming to grips with it). Obviously, some killings weigh less than others as they aren't as morally reprehensible (depends on the campaign setting, but may include goblinoids and their ilk).

Beyond that, I would only strip the paladins powers in the case of repeated offenses or if the player wished to roleplay an atonement scenario. If the player was unable to come close to the ideals of a paladin, I would strongly suggest a different character type (which the player could model as closely to a paladin as he is able to portray).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There are two reasons I think paladins should have a lot of leeway in their battle against evil. One: that's how I interpret the rules. And two: to avoid the creation of a boring seen-one-you've-seen-them-all clone of every other paladin.

I've never had a DM tell me: "For situation A one's paladin must do action A. For situation B one's paladin must do Action B." But this is what a lot of people in this thread are saying.

How you interpret the rules is not really up for debate - people interpret different rules differently. My interpretation is obviously different to yours.
However, I disagree with your seen-one-seen-them-all view of paladins. Following the guidelines set down by the RAW is a journey that the Paladin follows, it is not a specific and single path. C'mon, you can use your imagination here without having to go to the extremes that you are suggesting. While a paladin class won't be as varied as most of the other classes, it is still not a straitjacket limiting a character to a single ideal. There's enough variety in there.

As for a Paladin doing action B when confronted with situation B, again you have gone to an extreme. They can act as they see fit, noting that if they cease to be lawful good, willfully commit an evil act or grossly violate their code of conduct, they will lose their paladin powers.

As the information above points to, the paladin's lawful good status has been questioned (this seems not to have been his first occasion treading the fine line), the player himself has admitted his character committed an evil and chaotic act in attempting to kill the halfling (that from the information provided was willfull) and as well, the actions performed by the Paladin in that moment are against most of the tenets and portfolios of Heironeous (justice, valor, chivalry and honor).

On top of this, he has just stupidly/passionately tried to kill a prime lead to the "real" orchestrators of the crime. Understandable in a fit of rage, but as others have said and as I believe, a paladin should be held to a higher standard than a regular fighter or warrior.

Many people in this thread believe the player of the paladin did a bad job by not having his paladin act exactly like Sir Galahad would act in the halfling encounter.
...
I'm not advocating a crazy, bloodthirsty interpretation of paladins. I'm saying, if a player wants his paladin to deviate from the Galahad sterotype a bit, especially in matters of violence, what's the harm?

Tony M

There is no harm in deviating from the stereotype, just so long as the paladin does not perform actions that will lose them their paladin status. This does not automatically mean they have to behave like Sir Galahad. As I said before, it's not difficult to play a different sort of paladin who still stays within the boundaries set down by the class. In playing a Paladin of Heironeous though, I think you're pretty much saying that you will be basing your character on "that" sterotype. If you want to deviate from the stereotype, try a different deity with different ideals. A little imagination is all it takes, regardless of how you interpret the rules.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Sejs]

What is it with abductions?! There was no abduction! We're 12 pages into this thread now, so I forget exactly what the interlopers did to the wife...but I think they just tattooed the unholy symbol of Hextor on her butt.

...great, now I've got the idea of seeing if I can get my wife to get the symbol of Hextor tattooed on her butt floating around in the back of my mind.

 

[Demmero]

Maybe Semi-Relevant, Maybe Not

I happened to be watching "The Fellowship of the Ring" tonight, and Gandalf says these words right after Frodo says that Gollum deserves death:

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Gandalf, "The Fellowship of the Ring," by J.R.R. Tolkien



Just something to think about.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

...great, now I've got the idea of seeing if I can get my wife to get the symbol of Hextor tattooed on her butt floating around in the back of my mind.

Big deal. Now I'm imagining you talking your wife into getting the symbol of Hextor tattooed on her butt. And in my mind, your wife looks like a young Jenna Jameson.

 

[Sejs]

Big deal. Now I'm imagining you talking your wife into getting the symbol of Hextor tattooed on her butt. And in my mind, your wife looks like a young Jenna Jameson.

I like your version and would be interested in subscribing to your newsletter.