The Paladin killed someone...what to do?

[Jim Hague]

Are you saying a paladin is forbidden from killing a prisoner, and that he can only kill someone when a crime is taking place and there is a threat of danger?

I say a paladin can totally, absolutely kill a prisoner. And he does not need a threat to be present to kill an evildoer. A paladin does not have those restrictions.

What makes you think that? Is there a rule in the PHB you can quote?

For example, if there was an evil priest passed-out drunk on the street, bound with chains, a paladin is permitted to kill him right then and there. A paladin kills evil. Mercy is reserved for the "good" people.

Tony M

That's exactly what I'm saying - it falls under the heading of mercy. A prisoner is by definition unable to defend themselves, so killing them also violates honor. This is pretty cut and dried, especially given the circumstances.

 

[Demmero]

He's a paladin. I think the onus is on his accusers to prove he didn't, which they haven't done.

And there are no accusers if you snap their necks before they can make any accusations to the proper authorites in the city, right? Clever, but this kind of logical kinda goes against the whole Lawful Good alignment thing that paladins have.

Nonetheless, Dannyalactraz already proved the paladin acted within the bounds of his class.

No; not even close.

There was no murder. The paladin provided a legitimate execution of a criminal whose crime the paladin witnessed firsthand. It's not like he attacked a passing halfling selling apples on the street and broke his neck.

I won't argue the definition of murder.

I will state, with 100% conviction, that the paladin did NOT provide a "legitimate execution." The original poster has made it 100% clear that the paladin had no authority to execute anyone within the city limits. (See the recap provided by Herreman the Wise; middle of page 12 of this thread).

This is the way I see it. When you commit a crime and a paladin witnesses it and grabs you, you know he is permitted to kill, and you answer his questions quickly and clearly. And if you play around and hope that he plays nice, well, that's the risk you take.

Tony M

This isn't correct, for the reason I mentioned above: the city has its own set of laws regarding crime and punishment. Again, look at it from a different perspective: as a citizen of this city, I KNOW that I won't get executed for accidentally missing a town watchman's stop signal while operating my coach (a crime)...and I certainly won't get executed by some clown in shiny heavy armor.

Back to the halfling in the example though...we don't know for certain that he even realizes that the angry guy in PJs is a paladin...even if he is supposed to "respect his authoritah!"

 

[Demmero]

You're wrong on this. The Paladin section in PHB says that his Code requires him to punish those that harm or threaten to harm innocents. That is 100% undisputable fact (in 3E, that is ).

You're playing semantics. Yes, that's part of the paladin code of conduct. Part. One small part.

If a paladin uses that to justify killing a captive without making any serious attempt to learn any additional details beyond what he thinks he saw--fine, that's his prerogative.

But then he's ignoring the "respect legitimate authority part of the code, plus the part about "acting with honor," "help those who need help" (he'd rather beat up an execute (unlawfully) a halfling stooge than actually go help his wife, the part about "willingly commits an act of evil" (aggravated murder)...not to mention the whole can of worms about maintaining a Lawful Good alignment.

If the player of the paladin wants to be so narrow-minded in his justification of why this fits "under the paladin code," then the DM has every right to pick any of the reasons I listed for the reason why that paladin's lost his powers.

Being a paladin requires a lot of responsibility; there's no mention in the class description of it having carte blanche.

 

[Joker[ZW]]

I hate Paladin Threads...

No; not even close.

The thread made clear, that the Paladin only broke the code if the DM wants him to have broken the code. Several posters have given lots of reason, why he did not necessarily break it. Which is more than enough for the DM to use any of the two possibilities and still be well within the RAW.

I will state, with 100% conviction, that the paladin did NOT provide a "legitimate execution." The original poster has made it 100% clear that the paladin had no authority to execute anyone within the city limits.

This isn't correct, for the reason I mentioned above: the city has its own set of laws regarding crime and punishment. Again, look at it from a different perspective: as a citizen of this city, I KNOW that I won't get executed for accidentally missing a town watchman's stop signal while operating my coach (a crime)...and I certainly won't get executed by some clown in shiny heavy armor.

Which will make him held accountable by the legal authorities of the city. But that has nothing to do with losing his powers.
The Paladin might even be sentenced to death, but even that does not necessarily mean that Heiroinus will strip him of his powers.

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? [..]

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

"Yes, I can."
The Iconic D&D Cleric.

 

[Thia Halmades]

I haven't read the rest of the posts, so I'll just answer the question as it stands. If he were able to confirm that the Halfling were evil, and involved in an evil act (assault), then he has grounds to kill him. But you're not talking about 'killing a Halfling in combat' - you're talking about murder. The Paladin is driven by two things: Law, and Good. Simply:

- Lawful. The Paladin, despite his desires, must rise past his baser instincts and deal with the problem before him in a lawful fashion. The Halfling is now a criminal and an accessory to assault, possibly murder. That makes him a key witness & a phenomenal source of information. Killing him isn't just illegal, it's foolish (lacks Wisdom & Intelligence, take your pick).

- Good. Good isn't served by - pardon the pun - killing the messenger. It's served by gaining all information possible through legal, non-violent (i.e., non-torturous) means and using said information to hunt down the real villain and exposing the larger plot and using it as a jumping off point for the adventure. ON PAPER, that is. But this is also an RP question.

- Strip him. He's been both Chaotic (killing a runner is Chaotic & Vigiliantism/Vengeance driven) and if not Evil (killing someone involved) was at least, by D&D standards, 'neutral' and certainly 'not good.' Then use his pursuit of the killers as a plotline, and follow whether or not he completes his Fall into evil by wiping them all out, or bringing them to justice. Use it as an RP experience for the rest of the players as well.

My $0.02.

 

[Jim Hague]

[QUOTE='Joker[ZW]'*snip*[/QUOTE]

Please see the definitions of 'honor', 'chivalry', 'valor' and 'justice'. Thanks.

 

[Joker[ZW]]

Please see the definitions of 'honor', 'chivalry', 'mercy' and 'justice'. Thanks.

I have, thank you very much.

 

[Jim Hague]

I have, thank you very much.

Given the argument you're making, it certainly doesn't seem like it. It's clear the paladin violated his code of conduct and the church's dogma. Now it's simply a question of consequences.

 

[painandgreed]

For example, if there was an evil priest passed-out drunk on the street, bound with chains, a paladin is permitted to kill him right then and there. A paladin kills evil. Mercy is reserved for the "good" people.

Whoa. That's a bit sociopathic, don't you think? I'm not sure that the paladin's license to kill (if he has one, and I don't believe he does) would extend that far. That's out-and-out murder.

I say go for it. Why look a gift horse in the mouth. If the cleric is known to be evil and have commited crimes warrenting death, then it does not matter to the paladin if he is standing in combat or executed in chains. The method would matter to the paladin but in both cases he is administering punishment by his sword. The mercy he is offering is one of a quick and painless death rather than the torture, drawing and quartering that an otherwise less good government would deal out to such a fiend.

Not all paladins would choose such an action but I see nothing against it according to the paladin's code. There is no subterfuge or poison involved in the act. Killing an evil cleric that deserves death is not an evil act. Unless his church, king or other who has the respect of the paladin has commanded him to bring back the cleric alive, there is no authority issue. In doing so he'd be punishing those who need it and helping those in need.

 

[Demmero]

The thread made clear, that the Paladin only broke the code if the DM wants him to have broken the code. Several posters have given lots of reason, why he did not necessarily break it. Which is more than enough for the DM to use any of the two possibilities and still be well within the RAW.

Yes, that's the ultimate bottom line. I don't believe I've ever disputed that.

Which will make him held accountable by the legal authorities of the city. But that has nothing to do with losing his powers.

You really can't say that unequivocally, because respecting legitimate authority is part of the code, and gross violations of the code can result in the loss of powers.

The Paladin might even be sentenced to death, but even that does not necessarily mean that Heiroinus will strip him of his powers.

Absolutely. The god's judgment about whether the paladin upheld the code of conduct kinda outweighs the paladin's thoughts on the matter.

Of course, then you have to deal with the debate about how unfair it is for a DM not to strip the paladin's powers but instead have him killed off