Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Macbrea" data-source="post: 306676" data-attributes="member: 1517">Assuming that the Paladin was acting as a leader of his church and going after the members of a criminal mercenary organization that had participated in a war crime. His action were within reason.  He acted Lawful in that he asked each person for a trail by combat.   The nature of a trail by combat determines who is right and who is wrong.   What the gamemaster should have done is have one of the men do the obvious, "I accept your trial by combat but will face you on an open field under the sky of both our lords."   If the Paladin still attacks the man then he has broken both the Laws of trial by combat and has committed murder.   If all men entering the area accept the combat and fight it on the paladins turf they are accepting the tent as a lawful court. Assuming the bandit kingdom is the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth land", then the actions are by far more lawful then the land about it.  The paladin entered the land looking for certian criminals,  stated he was looking for the men that fought at the battle of x,  tested each person with magic to make sure that they were the men that fought at the battle of x, then challenged each man to a trial by combat.  There cannot be a better example of a lawful procedure done in an unlawful land.  Had any of those men accepted the challenge and actually demanded to fight it on the open field outside the tent the paladin would have been screwed.  A duel in front of all the rest of the mercenaries would have ended it in a major fight.  They would have watched the fight then killed the paladin. As to the burial of the men.   You would have to know the burial rights for the lands.  And the burial right for criminals of that church.  By the way this is what a trail by combat meant Trial by combat was an custom with many Germanic tribes and in the chaotic period between the fall of Rome (5th century) and the establishment of formal courts (11th century) using Roman law, trial by combat was used as an effective means of settling disputes between the many well armed, and highly opinionated warriors that ruled Europe. Even as courts came into use, trial by combat was still invoked to test the honesty of witnesses. In many areas, anyone invloved in a courtroom trial could accuse witnesses of perjury and challenge him to a duel to settle the matter. The case was immediatley adjourned until the combat completed (and often the whole case was won or lost). In some areas (Barvaria, for example) up until the 9th century gave the defendant the right to challenge witnesses. This produced the custom of witnesses coming to court armed, and with blessed weapons ready to defend their sworn testimony. If the witness lost the combat, they were fined the amount that their testimony would have cost the defendant.</blockquote>

Verification