Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 488779" data-attributes="member: 3146">Re: Let 'im walk!Rethinking this, I think that there is the possibility of an error on the player's part (although it seems to be slim given his reactions). The only "immediate EVIL intent" or "True Maniacially Laughing Baby Killing EVIL" show up on detect evil house rules actually would give a holy warrior a viable first strike justifying early warning system. Since the spell used to work that way (in 2E) and still does in a plurality of house-ruled campaigns, I suppose it's possible that this is a misunderstanding compounded by poor social skills. (If he'd said that he thought that's how Detect Evil worked, and that's why he acted as he did, the much of the ugliness of the situation might have been averted. . . but he didn't do that so there's obviously more than simple misunderstanding at work).That said, I should probably come out in full support of the previous paladin who offed the psycho killer wizard. Just because the law of the land is dictates a certain penalty doesn't mean that a paladin is necessarily limited to it. (There's no penalty for the Boneheart killing anyone of lower rank in Iuz's empire but that doesn't mean a paladin would say "Well, Mr. Evil cleric, now that you've surrendered I have to treat you according to the law and, while sacrificing babies to gods other than Iuz is specifically forbidden, there is no statute against murdering people for Iuz so I guess I'll have to let you walk." Heck no. A paladin would probably say something like "Your reign of terror is at an end" and promptly make sure of it with a swing of his Holy Avenger). I would imagine that a paladin who said "the lives of these commoners are worth just as much as the lives of a noble--no matter what the law says--and taking them deserves the same punishment as taking the life of a noble" could still be lawful good. Even if he dishes out the death penalty.</blockquote>

Verification