Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WhimsyTheFae" data-source="post: 2708456" data-attributes="member: 8964">All posters subsequent to this post, must have missed it.&nbsp; It appears now, after clarification, that the following is true:1) The wife is not in immediate danger from the halfling (and perhaps from the assaulter).2) The halfling was not a direct participant in the assault, but was merely a decoy.3) The halfling has proven to be lying/hemming/hawing (was he afraid, evil, bribed, etc. - we may never know).4) The halfling was not proven to be evil (see above - note: I said proven, I didn't say he wasn't).5) The halfling was subdued and in essence, helpless.6) The paladin did not prove the involvement of the halfling (although it is a bit obvious).7) The paladin not only acted a bit reckless (in my campaign, I would say against code), but also {EDIT: MAY HAVE} killed a potential source of information out of anger and frustration (I would have thought that finding out who the perpetrators were would be important).So, if the halfling had turned out to be intimidated into being a decoy (the bad guy may have had his family hostage) then not only has the paladin acted rashly, but he has also {EDIT: MAY HAVE} killed an innocent (and in need of help) individual in cold blood.I could go on, but I think that Galfridus' latest post sheds a lot of light on the situation.&nbsp; I guess that doesn't solve the &quot;other&quot; debate that this thread has spawned... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WhimsyTheFae, post: 2708456, member: 8964"] All posters subsequent to this post, must have missed it. It appears now, after clarification, that the following is true: 1) The wife is not in immediate danger from the halfling (and perhaps from the assaulter). 2) The halfling was not a direct participant in the assault, but was merely a decoy. 3) The halfling has proven to be lying/hemming/hawing (was he afraid, evil, bribed, etc. - we may never know). 4) The halfling was not proven to be evil (see above - note: I said proven, I didn't say he wasn't). 5) The halfling was subdued and in essence, helpless. 6) The paladin did not prove the involvement of the halfling (although it is a bit obvious). 7) The paladin not only acted a bit reckless (in my campaign, I would say against code), but also {EDIT: MAY HAVE} killed a potential source of information out of anger and frustration (I would have thought that finding out who the perpetrators were would be important). So, if the halfling had turned out to be intimidated into being a decoy (the bad guy may have had his family hostage) then not only has the paladin acted rashly, but he has also {EDIT: MAY HAVE} killed an innocent (and in need of help) individual in cold blood. I could go on, but I think that Galfridus' latest post sheds a lot of light on the situation. I guess that doesn't solve the "other" debate that this thread has spawned... ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification