# The Paladin killed someone...what to do?



## Galfridus (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm looking for advice / opinions on a paladin-related issue.

The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault. The paladin then attempted to kill the halfling (and may have succeeded; I ended the session at that point, as it was a good cliffhanger). 

Obviously this is not on the list of Approved Paladin Activities. What would you do to the paladin in question?


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Obviously this is not on the list of Approved Paladin Activities. What would you do to the paladin in question?




Depends, really - what god does the Paladin serve? If it isn't one that condones vengeance, I'd strip him of his Paladin status as the act would likely be an affront to his god. Sure, it took place in a moment of passion, but one of the Paladin's duties (typically) is to remain true to the tenets of his faith in such circumstances - that's what seperates him from the normal guy on the street. If murder runs contrary to the established tenets of his god's will, then I'd strip him of his status and not restore it until he serves pennance for his crime (be that pennance a quest, punishment, or otherwise) and wins favor with his god again.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2005)

give him his first level in Blackguard. he gave into the Dark Side of the Force.


subdual damage on the halfling would've been kosher. but killing him  ain't kewl.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 8, 2005)

I'd ask the player what he thinks should happen to his character.

If he doesn't think anything bad should happen, and you do, and you enforce some kind of nerfing of his abilities, get ready for a pissed-off player.

If he does think something bad should happen, let him decide what it is.

If he consistently does things you consider Evil (or just not LG) and doesn't want anything bad to happen to him, ask him why he chose to play a Paladin.  If it's because of the kewl powers, whatever, just ignore the Paladin flavour.  If it's because he wants to be a holy avenger, go with that and let him dispense Justice however he wants.  His actions become holy writ.

Unless the two of you really hashed out what a Paladin can do, and what he can't, you have to be careful.  Deciding that the Paladin did something you thought was wrong and nerfing his abilities for it means (to me) that the Paladin has to do whatever you think he should do.  At which point his choices become limited by what you think, and he's not really playing his character how he wants.


In the specific example, since the halfing was part of the assault, he's fair game in my book.


----------



## StupidSmurf (Nov 8, 2005)

If, on the other hand, his god condones, even encourages, the destruction of evil, then I'd say no penalties need be levied. If that little SOB was in on it, he's evil, pure and simple.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Obviously this is not on the list of Approved Paladin Activities. What would you do to the paladin in question?



I must have missed something "obvious."  How exactly does this violate the paladin's code?


----------



## wuyanei (Nov 8, 2005)

It is a paladin's duty to smite down evil. It is NOT his duty to redeem all evil, although if evil can be redeemed then then would be even better. I fail to see how destroying an obvious accomplice to assault against a pregnant lady violates the paladin's code.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> I must have missed something "obvious."  How exactly does this violate the paladin's code?




Because, in most instances, cold-blooded murder circumvents law. Note that Paladins aren't typically supposed to serve as judge, jury, and executioner in instances where an established legal code and court system exist. If Paladin's run willy-nilly around the law whenever it suits them, it makes them criminals (specifically vigilantes).

Which reminds me... OP, if a penalty exists for murder in the city where this took place, I think that there'a good chance the Paladin will be arrested (or at least sought out by local authorities) and forced to stand trial.


----------



## Stormborn (Nov 8, 2005)

The fact that the Paladin asked questions and then decided to kill the halfling mitigates any potential violation of his oath (if there is one at all).  He didn't just lash out becuase he suspected the halfling, he determined that the messanger was an accesory to the assualt.  In modern terms that seems a bit rash, but in the standard DnD world I would think that it would be justified.

So, if it is determined that he overstepped his bounds a little - then he goes on probation I think and does some penance but doesn't loose his abilities.

And I agree, if he is a paladin of a god like Cuthbert then what he did was not only just it was to be expected.


----------



## wuyanei (Nov 8, 2005)

Well, then you interpretation for a paladin differs from mine, *jdrakeh*.

IMO, a paladin is not a glorified police officer. A paladin is invested by church and god with the aurthority to destroy the enemies of Good. If in his judgment an evil must be smote, then it is his right AND duty to smite that evil. Now, he must be careful in excercising his judgement, for if he judges wrongly his god will punish him by removing his abilities, at the least. However, that is not so the case here.


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 8, 2005)

wuyanei said:
			
		

> It is a paladin's duty to smite down evil. It is NOT his duty to redeem all evil, although if evil can be redeemed then then would be even better. I fail to see how destroying an obvious accomplice to assault against a pregnant lady violates the paladin's code.



A paladin has a duty to uphold the law. Furthermore, evil's most dangerous lure is the abandonment of mercy. If, in his rage and grief at the assault upon his wife, the paladin struck down the halfling accomplice, he might not be acting within the dictates of society's law, which might require the murderers to answer for their crimes at court. Worse, he would be killing not out of righteousness but in a fit of rage. Great drama and a very human reaction, certainly, but not very paladin-like. 

Walking the exalted path is no easy thing, and this is just the sort of extreme situation that tests a paladin's resolve to remain loyal to the ideals of justice, law, and virtue. It is a heart-wrenching situation, and my sympathies go out to any paladin forced to choose between upholding his ideals and avenging his wife. Either way, the character will struggle with guilt, sorrow, and grief. It's high drama.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> A paladin has a duty to uphold the law. Furthermore, evil's most dangerous lure is the abandonment of mercy. If, in his rage and grief at the assault upon his wife, the paladin struck down the halfling accomplice, he might not be acting within the dictates of society's law, which might require the murderers to answer for their crimes at court. Worse, he would be killing not out of righteousness but in a fit of rage. Great drama and a very human reaction, certainly, but not very paladin-like.




That's pretty much what I was getting at, but you said it much more eloquently.


----------



## tonym (Nov 8, 2005)

Sounds to me like the paladin's player is roleplaying love and passion for his wife.  No penalty would come from me for that.

It sounds like you wanted the following response:

PALADIN: "Oh, my wife has been assaulted?  (stifles yawn)  Okay, you are in trouble.  Participating in an assault is a crime.  I'm taking you to the city jail."

What's the fun in that?

I'd go the opposite route.  I'd make the paladin glow with holy light, giving him 20 extra hit points and +3 to hit and damage until his wife is rescued.  You don't mess with a paladin's family in my world. And if you do, the gods will be on the paladin's side, not cackle with glee over the opportunity to screw him over in his moment of anxiety.

My 2 cp.

Tony M


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 8, 2005)

Personally if I was playing that character, I'ld accept to losing my paladin abilities in then to go on a vengeful rampage against the fiends that attack my pregnant wife. After which I would ethier attempt to atone or go Blackguard depending on what the DM would allow and what suited the character better. Great opportunity to roleplay if you ask me.


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 8, 2005)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Personally if I was playing that character, I'ld accept to losing my paladin abilities in then to go on a vengeful rampage against the fiends that attack my pregnant wife. After which I would ethier attempt to atone or go Blackguard depending on what the DM would allow and what suited the character better. Great opportunity to roleplay if you ask me.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

The padadin will need to atone, in my opinion. A paladin must act honorably. Killing even a criminal in cold blood when there was no immediate threat from him isn't honorable. A paladin is lawful as well as good and respects legitamate lawful authority. He had a criminal 'in custody' in a city where he apparently maintains a residence (so if he doesn't respect the civil authority there we have a different problem) and he chooses to kill him out of hand rather than turn him over to the authorities. And while I like a good revenge fantasy as much as the next guy, killing the guy who acted as a distraction may or may not be justice, depending on the law.

Since you have the game on hold, I would suggest talking to the player, and ask for clarification on if he is trying to kill the guy. Make it clear that killing a helpless target in a situation where he can be dealt with by city authorities would be a violation of his code, and if he wants to do that and deal with the consequences thats fine, but if he didn't think of it that way give him a chance to subdual the guy's head into a wall and go from there.


----------



## Andor (Nov 8, 2005)

The answer to this actually hinges enteirely on information we don't have.

What are the Paladins legal powers in this setting? Is he a full knight with the High Justice and the Low? An agent of the Church? If so the simple fact that this is an assault on his wife could make this a church matter and once again within his perview. Is he in his own country or a foreign one and which set of laws is primary? Modern jurisdictional disputes are childs play compared to the kind of stuff that crops up under the feudal system.

What does the relevant legal system say is the appropriate punishment for accessory to assault? What are the guidelines the Paladins order has for dealing with evil prisoners when you can't afford to be slowed down by them?

It's not at all clear yet if the paladin has actually done something wrong.

In any event mechanically I'd say the worst punishment would be to count it as a chaotic act and allow atonement.

RPwise there are a thousand things you can do. Legal battles. An investigation by his order. Holy dreams of warning. Evil dreams of temptation into the dark side...

Under no circumstances would I count that single act as evil and revoke his paladinhood however.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like the paladin's player is roleplaying love and passion for his wife.  No penalty would come from me for that.
> 
> It sounds like you wanted the following response:
> 
> ...



wow, I had no idea that clinging to your code even in a moment of personal anguish was the equivelent of yawning at your wife's pain. Or that paladin's got to turn into vengful vigilante's whenever they want.

What did Vimes say in Night Watch? Something like "Yes, I am hurting, but I'm still doing my job. And I'll make sure you get a private cell and a fair trial and when you go to the hangsman a tight knot that won't slip and leave you to suffer and choke." Yeah, holding to what you believe in even when its personal or painful sure is boring.  :\


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 8, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> If Paladin's run willy-nilly around the law whenever it suits them, it makes them criminals (specifically vigilantes).




... which has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are Lawful, Good, or still a Paladin.

People really need to get "Lawful = Legal" out of their heads.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... which has nothing at all to do with whether or not they are Lawful, Good, or still a Paladin.




As others in this thread have pointed out, depending upon the setting, this may have a _lot_ to do with whether a Paladin is Lawful.



			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, *obedience to authority*, and reliability.




If the setting has laws that govern the punsihment of criminals and a Paladin does an end run around those laws to take matters into his own hands, he's not obeying authority.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 8, 2005)

That Halfling just took part in a murder attempt on the paladin's family. Death is a fair punishment for the halfling.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 8, 2005)

Ok, first of all, any DM that puts the paladin in this position and then _afterwards_ has to come wringing his hands for advice, isn't doing his job. What the hell did you _expect_ to happen?

Now for paladin players, here's a safe analogy to use as a rule of thumb:

1) If you're clearly more powerful than your enemy, ask yourself, "What would Superman do?"

2) If you're NOT clearly more powerful than your enemy, go with, "What would Batman do?"


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> People really need to get "Lawful = Legal" out of their heads.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> People really need to get "Lawful = Legal" out of their heads.




Quote for truth. There are ways in which killing the halfing could be seen as legal (Paladins are like Judge's in Megacity one) but not lawful (personal vengence) and other ways it could be illegal (Paladin's are not officals of the law) and yet still lawful (since killing the halfing protects society from a dangerous individual, and he didn't have time to detain him and run upstairs to protect his family).


----------



## Joonaibug (Nov 8, 2005)

It probably comes from watching too much _Law and Order_ on television, but I'd review the extenuating circumstances before coming to any hoard decision.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, such as:

 - How severe of an Assault was perpetrated upon the wife?  Was it a severe but non-life-threating attack, or would it be better classified as "Attempted Murder"?  

 - What was the halfling's exact role in the assault?  Did he (or she) participate directly in the attack, or were they only a minor player?

 - What's the backdrop of the whole situation -- that is, does this scenario take place in a fairly "civilized" setting such as a large city with a well-developed justice system?  Or is the locale more of a backwater, "Wild-West" type of area?  

 - What are the circumstances of the paladin's act of retribution?  Is it an passionate lashing-out at the forces which hurt his loved ones, or is it a cold "You answered all my questions, now you die" method of execution?

 - Finally, is this the Paladin's first "transgression" (depending on how the DM interpret's the Paladin's Code)?  Or is it merely a continuation of similar offenses in the past?


I'd personally rely on the answers to these questions to guide my decision.  If the paladin is acting out of instictual rage at the harming of his loved ones. . .well, that's why the "Temporary Insanity" plea was created.  

Ultimately, I probably wouldn't penalize the Paladin in terms of class abilities (unless he was making a hobit of actions such as these), but I wouldn't reward him, either.  Although we can sympathize with him for acting the way he did, the fact remains that he may have killed a halfling who (currently) offers no direct threat to him or anyone else.

When all is said and done, I'd probably come up with a set of in-character reprimands for the paladin in question, such as an elder of the faith suspending the character's "Churchly Duties" until the paladin (and the rest of the party) bring to justice the remainder of the group who assaulted the wife.  I'd probably also make it a requirement that the remaining criminals be brought in alive.   

EDIT:


> People really need to get "Lawful = Legal" out of their heads.



Waitaminute; I thought that was *exactly* what "Lawful" meant, seeing as _Legal_ means "of or relating to the Law".


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like the paladin's player is roleplaying love and passion for his wife. No penalty would come from me for that.




Most murders, are crimes of passion. I've heard of many hineous and cruel crimes based on love and passion... someone catching their spouse in an affair, or taking cruel and horrible revenge for perceived crimes against a loved one, etc. That passion clouds reason, and the innocent are often hurt or killed because of it.

A paladin attempts to be above such things. His calling is not to earthly passions, but to something mightier. Falling victim to such things would, if grivious enough, cause his fall.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

Under the RAW 

The paladin defeated the halfling. I would figure out how much xp he earned.

I would not judge his attack an evil action or a gross violation of the code, therefore I would not take away his paladin powers.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

From the SRD:

_*"Good"* implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

*"Law"* implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability._

How do the paladin's actions fall into either category?


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> A paladin has a duty to uphold the law.




A paladin must be lawful good. A bit different IMO.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> A paladin has a duty to uphold the law.



No, he doesn't.  You will not find that commandment anywhere in the paladin class description, and all it would take from me is an example of an unjust law (slavery, for example) to have you hastily backpedaling on _that_ claim.

You will, however, find _this_ in the paladin's code: "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."  Now, there's no question that mercy is a Good virtue, but that doesn't mean that all non-merciful actions are Evil.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> From the SRD:
> 
> _*"Good"* implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> ...



First, you're asking the wrong question.  A paladin is not required to be Lawful and Good with every action.  How does eating her dinner fall into either category?

The question is: how do the paladin's action fall into the Evil or Chaotic categories?

Furthermore, consider this (from the PHB): "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.  Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."

Hmmm.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> From the SRD:
> 
> _*"Good"* implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> 
> ...




They don't have to.

From the srd:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

He only needs to avoid doing an evil act.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 8, 2005)

Joonaibug said:
			
		

> Waitaminute; I thought that was *exactly* what "Lawful" meant, seeing as _Legal_ means "of or relating to the Law".




Because, in D&D, the alignment "Law" really means "Order" - stability, control, direct cause and effect, logic, etc.

Living creatures create "laws" which are specific to a given society.  Their "laws" are not necessarily Lawful - though they can be.

A Paladin is required to be both Lawful and Good.  Consider a Paladin who travels to a land where the "law" states that every third day you must sacrifice a baby to Yeenoghu.  While there, the Paladin does not sacrifice that child.  Has he committed a Chaotic act?


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

It's not an issue of it being "evil", but not "lawful good".

Lawful, does imply some measure of actual following of laws, as stated in the SRD _"obedience to authority"_. I agree that Lawful does not mean following laws without regard to morality (ie good), but that is a double sided blade.

I think many are interperting this as an issue of justice. Justice though is not good, nor is it evil. It is neutral. Justice is simply the administration of law... impartial to either good or bad, simply to the law itself. If a paladin followed justice alone, he would not be a good character for very long, much less a paladin.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 8, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Because, in most instances, cold-blooded murder circumvents law. Note that Paladins aren't typically supposed to serve as judge, jury, and executioner in instances where an established legal code and court system exist. If Paladin's run willy-nilly around the law whenever it suits them, it makes them criminals (specifically vigilantes).
> 
> Which reminds me... OP, if a penalty exists for murder in the city where this took place, I think that there'a good chance the Paladin will be arrested (or at least sought out by local authorities) and forced to stand trial.




How about Shadowbane Inquisitors from Complete Adventurer? They're trained in stealth and masters of sneaking around and even get additional backstab damage. If they're not supposed to be an exmaple of judge, jury and executioner, I must be reading their intent wrong.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> It's not an issue of it being "evil", but not "lawful good".




Not being a LG action is irrelevant unless it pushes his alignment to not be LG.

If it was an evil action then he would immediately lose his paladin powers.

Unless you are house ruling paladins to be different than RAW.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> The question is: how do the paladin's action fall into the Evil or Chaotic categories?





			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> He only needs to avoid doing an evil act.



If all a paladin does is simply "not do evil", he's not a good character. He's neutral. The absence of evil or "sin" does not make someone good, it simply makes them not evil. Good is an action, it's an aggressive task that the individual must embark on.

If all you do is punish law-breakers, that is not a "good" action. It's a neutral one. That's Judge Dread. Good, as stated above from the SRD, is something completely different.

Additionally, actions like eating dinner, are not "moral" decisions. Eating dinner is neither good nor evil, nor neutral. The entire concept behind the paladin is that when presented with a moral decision, the paladin will choose the good and lawful moral decision.

Alignment is not a straightjacket... unless you happen to choose a class whose existance is based on alignment. Even then, there is quite a bit of room for interpertation, but it does set limitations.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> If it was an evil action then he would immediately lose his paladin powers.



Enough of those neutral actions and the alignment of the paladin changes to neutral, and thus he looses his paladinhood.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

"And in righteous vengeance he did smite the halfling for his evil."


Sounds biblical to me.    

Now, are we talking about some halfling villager who was forced into doing this against his will, or are we talking about some halfling sneak who is involved in a plot to kill the paladins wife?  Lawful Good (and ESPECIALLY paladins) is ALL about righteous vengeance.  If youre looking for ALL GOOD, ALL THE TIME... thats Neutral Good.  Lawful Good and paladins isnt Superman.  Its Heironeous and Moradin and Tyr.  Smite the evil so that it doesnt spread.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here: 

1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting. 
2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned. 

Good cases can and have been made for both views, based on the RAW. In the end, it's a personal choice, not a rules issue, as the rules support both arguments equally well. So, to the OP - do whatever you think is the best thing to do, because that's the only _right_ approach to take to an issue liek this.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 8, 2005)

You save me from saying the same thing...all these little catches will not stand in my book, when a dear member of the family is in danger, especially when a near to be-newborn *cannot defend itself*. Which will include the wife also. 

So, enough of the clap-trap on good vs evil trip...someone comes your home, tricks you, and at the same time, you somehow become aware, that this distraction done, is bringing pain to someone else cannot defend their themselves...

"Coffin man, make me enough, until I tell you when"

Please...alignment has nothing to do that matter...not all at.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like the paladin's player is roleplaying love and passion for his wife.  No penalty would come from me for that.
> 
> It sounds like you wanted the following response:
> 
> ...


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> If all a paladin does is simply "not do evil", he's not a good character.



You make a good point, but you seem to be forgetting that we aren't evaluating _everything_ the paladin in this particular example has ever done.  We're looking at one specific event, and in _that_ context, all that is required is that he "not do evil."

If, on the whole, the paladin is not Lawful and Good...you're right, he's not being Lawful Good.  But we don't have any information about what he's doing on the whole, so we can't make that determination.


----------



## Joonaibug (Nov 8, 2005)

Point taken, PoE, but watch out -- here comes my rebuttal.    



> A Paladin is required to be both Lawful and Good.




Exactly.  And those two alignments (ethical and moral) make up the complete package.  In terms of strict game mechanics, a character isn't simply "Lawful", (or Chaotic), nor are they simply "Good" (or Evil, or Neutral).  

In your example, sacrificing babies may be Lawful in that particular land, but it is certainly not "Lawful *Good*", which is the moral and ethical code paladins (ideally) follow.

I see the point, though, and I was in fact coming up with certain examples myself:

A paladin, for example, travels to a town where the residents were required to tithe to the local lord.  The paladin's order teaches that its holy warriors may only tithe to the Church.  As in PoE's dilemma, is the paladin turning "chaotic" because he refuses to tithe to the nobility?
I personally wouldn't think so, since the Law of the Church, would supercede the Laws of the Locals.


----------



## Hjorimir (Nov 8, 2005)

Let the paladin's god decide.

However, this is almost exactly how an NPC fell into Blackguard in my campaign. The attack on his wife and child was arranged by a Pit Fiend too. The paladin could have subdued the halfling (learned of any other plots and who ordered the attack) and then handed the halfling over to the courts to await hanging or a nice fifty-year stay in the local salt mines.

Now, if the country was a Theocracy and the paladin was awarded judge, jury, and executioner powers AND his god was okay with the action it would be excuseable.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I'm looking for advice / opinions on a paladin-related issue.
> 
> The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault. The paladin then attempted to kill the halfling (and may have succeeded; I ended the session at that point, as it was a good cliffhanger).
> 
> Obviously this is not on the list of Approved Paladin Activities. What would you do to the paladin in question?




Maybe the Paladin deemed that a good butt-whipping or death is a suitable penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman. In any case, clearly the halfling was engaged in [Evil] activity, and use of force is surely justified.


----------



## Stormborn (Nov 8, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here:
> 
> 1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting.
> 2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned.





Actually there is a third:

3 (or possibly 1b.) Lawful infers adherance to the laws of YOUR ORDER, regardless of whether they be the laws of the land or not.

Thats the issue above.  Everyone pointing out "adherance to authority" simply begs the question.  Who is the authority the paladin is beholden to?  His God?  His Order?  Civil Rulers?  Civil Laws?  All of which can be very different and defined by the setting.  

I think ultimatelly the best advice is to work something out with the player based on what he or she thinks should happen next, explain it however you want, and move on.


----------



## Alensande (Nov 8, 2005)

This really gets to the heart of how you and your player understand paladins, and which deity is involved.

I have played paladins on several occasions, and each has come close to breaking strictures/tenets.  Just getting close is a dangerous thing for a paladin; actually breaking a stricture is, as someone noted, high drama  ...and can be lots of fun for player and GM if played correctly.  We had a paladin who got a little bloodthirsty and tried to run down an unarmed opponent with his lance.  Our cleric stepped in and took the lance to protect the unarmed guy, then walked over to the (shocked out of battlefrenzy) paladin and wiped a bloody hand print on his face with an open hand slap, saying, "This blood is on you."  Talk about high emotion...and a great game.

I'd say let there be consequences - legal (since there is law and authority in the land...there must be or a paladin wouldn't have his family there) and divine.  Let the authorities deal with the paladin as they would anyone else in this case - a warning if he doesn't kill the halfling, and maybe a fine, and the full legal process if he does kill the messenger, with mitigating circumstances and all.  Then let the church step in and offer to mitigate the situation by having the paladin perform a quest to pay his debt to society...and have him wear a ring from the halfling on his swordbelt, or something like it, to remind him of his trials.  Make the quest appropriate to the deity, and have fun with it.  Paladins are drama, and situations like this let it flow freely.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Sounds biblical to me.
> Now, are we talking about some halfling villager who was forced into doing this against his will, or are we talking about some halfling sneak who is involved in a plot to kill the paladins wife?  Lawful Good (and ESPECIALLY paladins) is ALL about righteous vengeance.  If youre looking for ALL GOOD, ALL THE TIME... thats Neutral Good.  Lawful Good and paladins isnt Superman.  Its Heironeous and Moradin and Tyr.  Smite the evil so that it doesnt spread.




Biblical doesn't mean it has anything to do with either good or law... there are many specific instances of parts of it having neither. And when did Lawful Good become about "all about" righteous vengence? That's not in the description of good (not even close) nor in the description of the paladin class.

Was the halfling a innocent forced into the situation or was he a guilty collaborator? That's the real question at hand... and one that the paladin had no way of knowing in that moment. He chose to not do good, by not bothering to find out. And bothering about such "boring" details is the very core of paladinhood. It's not meant to be an easy class to play, nor is it meant to be a blood-thirsty avenger who cares little for the details of truth, right or wrong.


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 8, 2005)

I didn't read the entire thread so I dont' know if this point was brought up, but if a Paladin comes from a society in which it is just and okay to have vengeance upon a person who attacked his wife (especially pregnant wife) and therefore this situation was okay.  If this same paladin traveled to a different region, and the laws were different, and he reacted through is passion, you are going to strip him of his paladin abilities because the 'laws' of this society are different than the ones he grew up knowing and believing in?

Now, just cuz we have a lawful good character doesn't mean he's gonna go to each individual society, learn their laws, and uphold ALL of them.  Just not gonna happen.  He's going to treat everything as he knows and understands it, which is usually the society in which he grew up.  

All of this is just example, not saying it happened this way in the game, but just an example of how looking at the class mechanics or the alignment alone can strip away the meat of a character.  A paladin from one society with it's own laws will be different than a paladin from a totally different society.  They are both paladin's, both lawful good, but with two very different methods of upholding the paladin code.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 8, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> What are the Paladins legal powers in this setting? Is he a full knight with the High Justice and the Low? An agent of the Church? If so the simple fact that this is an assault on his wife could make this a church matter and once again within his perview. Is he in his own country or a foreign one and which set of laws is primary? Modern jurisdictional disputes are childs play compared to the kind of stuff that crops up under the feudal system.




The paladin (who worships Hieroneous) is effectively a noble of the kingdom he is in (he is actually a noble from another kingdom who has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities). He has the legal powers of a nobleman -- but he is in the capital city of a kingdom which is (simplifying here of course) Lawful Good. He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances.



> What does the relevant legal system say is the appropriate punishment for accessory to assault? What are the guidelines the Paladins order has for dealing with evil prisoners when you can't afford to be slowed down by them?




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.



> It's not at all clear yet if the paladin has actually done something wrong.




In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. Evil: unnecessary death. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.) Passion due to the personal nature of the attack is both a mitigating factor (clouded judgment) and not an excuse -- if you can't uphold the law for yourself, what kind of example do you set?


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 8, 2005)

Stormborn said:
			
		

> Everyone pointing out "adherance to authority" simply begs the question.  Who is the authority the paladin is beholden to?




Good point. And all the more reason to avoid alignments, IMHO.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here:
> 
> 1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting.
> 2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned.



Um, no.  You are either omitting at least one other "circle of thought" or misstating the position of those you think fall into circle #2.

Perhaps this would be a good time to refer everyone to this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

The part that is most relevant to your #2 is probably: "As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law [that] is unfair or capricious."


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> If, on the whole, the paladin is not Lawful and Good...you're right, he's not being Lawful Good.  But we don't have any information about what he's doing on the whole, so we can't make that determination.



I agree. Personally, I have never had a paladin loose his paladinhood (or turn evil) over one action. It tends to be a series of decisions that lead to the change. I could see some actions that would cause an immediate change, but this would not likely be it.

It is a step though and as a DM I would carefully watch how the character reacts to the situation before I intervened with a heavy-handed removal of paladinhood or change of alignment. Personally, I work slowly on such things... more often than not asking the player at some point "What do you think your character's alignment is? What do you believe should be put down?". I'll see a moment of deep introspection, then a look of understanding as they realize the meaning of their character's actions, and they change their alignment on their own.

I'd rather such things be obvious and clear to the player... they may not realize the path their character is on until they are well down it, but by the time I ask them, it is undeniable.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. Evil: unnecessary death. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.) Passion due to the personal nature of the attack is both a mitigating factor (clouded judgment) and not an excuse -- if you can't uphold the law for yourself, what kind of example do you set?




If you get down to it, most deaths a Paladin causes are unnecessary. He could always strike to subdue (except in cases of Undead or Demons, maybe) and try to reform his enemies. But this isn't the case - since time immemorial Paladins have of their own will descended into dungeons to slaughter sentient, but evil, humanoids and confiscate their stuff. Without divine retribution or Paladin-powers-yoinking.

Why would the gods take exception for an evil Halfling? Because he kinda looks like a short human instead of some scaly monster? 

Maybe there could be legal consequences, but I don't think that a court would sentence for killing assault conspirators, if it's anything like medieval courts. 

*A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks*.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> It's not an issue of it being "evil", but not "lawful good".
> 
> Lawful, does imply some measure of actual following of laws, as stated in the SRD _"obedience to authority"_. I agree that Lawful does not mean following laws without regard to morality (ie good), but that is a double sided blade.
> 
> I think many are interperting this as an issue of justice. Justice though is not good, nor is it evil. It is neutral. Justice is simply the administration of law... impartial to either good or bad, simply to the law itself. If a paladin followed justice alone, he would not be a good character for very long, much less a paladin.




Not everything a paladin does must qualify as lawful good as long as its neither evil nor a gross violation of his code. Killing the accomplice of someone who assaulted his own wife fits neither of those two criteria.
And unless the society is highly legalistic with significant recognition of the rights of the perp, it might even be legal.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Biblical doesn't mean it has anything to do with either good or law... there are many specific instances of parts of it having neither. And when did Lawful Good become about "all about" righteous vengence? That's not in the description of good (not even close) nor in the description of the paladin class.



I guess that depends upon how much weight you ascribe to: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good."  Fighting evil without mercy is pretty close to "righteous vengeance" in _my_ book.



			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> Was the halfling a innocent forced into the situation or was he a guilty collaborator? That's the real question at hand... and one that the paladin had no way of knowing in that moment. He chose to not do good, by not bothering to find out.



Are you sure about that?


			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin *asked a couple more questions*, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.



We don't know exactly what questions the paladin asked or what answers he received, so I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion that he "didn't bother to find out."


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks.



Unfortunately evil doesn't wear a sign announcing itself. The paladin did not bother to find out the circumstances of the halfling and the motivation behind his actions. He hadn't even seen any evidence of wrong-doing:

_"The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife."_

There were only words exchanged. What if the person who informed him was wrong? What if the whole thing was just a bad joke? Who knows... the point is that what sets a paladin apart is the fact that he'll bother to find out the circumstances (making him lawful, by making sure who is right and who is wrong), and then making a good decision based on that (be it mercy, or something else).


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> I'd be careful about jumping to the conclusion that he "didn't bother to find out."



You're correct about that... there isn't enough information to make a clear judgement on that issue. Call it an educated guess.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Enough of those neutral actions and the alignment of the paladin changes to neutral, and thus he looses his paladinhood.




Not if his good and lawfulness otherwise outweighs the neutralness of the character overall.

Character alignment is a description for the character overall, not for his isolated actions.

Paladins are a special case as one evil action (while not necessarily changing his alignment from LG) will strip him of his paladin powers no matter what other good he has done or how good a character he is.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> A Paladin should be so strong in his beliefs that he's willing to face a little jail time for stopping evil dead on its tracks.



A paladin should be strong enough in his beliefs (including honor and respect for legitamate authority) to overcome his personal anger. A husband who loves his wife so much that he will murder a person who acted as the decoy in her assault should be strong enough in that love to give up his godly destiny for her. Choose.

A paladin with a wife and family is on a collision course with tragic destiny in any case. Its too bad he hit the intersection with the decoy instead of someone who objectively deserved death.               

The story of the righteous vigilante has a certain apeal, but its not the paladin's story (though it could be an ex-paladin's story.) Personally I find the story of the servant to duty who does his job and follows his code even through the pain, even when its personal, to be equally apealing and that *is* the paladin's story, even if its not as sexy as the angry vengence.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately evil doesn't wear a sign announcing itself. The paladin did not bother to find out the circumstances of the halfling and the motivation behind his actions. He hadn't even seen any evidence of wrong-doing:
> "The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife."
> There were only words exchanged. What if the person who informed him was wrong? What if the whole thing was just a bad joke? Who knows... the point is that what sets a paladin apart is the fact that he'll bother to find out the circumstances (making him lawful, by making sure who is right and who is wrong), and then making a good decision based on that (be it mercy, or something else).




EDIT: The Paladin _did_ clearly find out the Halfling was involved:


			
				original post said:
			
		

> The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.



/EDIT

Fortunately Paladin is not a defense attorney for the bad guys. There are _always_ possible explanations which would make seemingly evil actions non-evil. What if the 'supposed' assassin trying to kill your wife is really mind controlled? What if your wife was just before exchanged for an evil doppelganger, and the 'supposed' assassin is really another Paladin hot on his tracks? 

The Paladin could always ponder himself ineffective when in most likelihood a swift and decisive action is warranted. The Paladin should always take _reasonable_ actions to make sure he's smiting [Evil], and not [Neutral] or [Stupid], but he can't afford to play defense attorney for [Evil]. Wasting time finding out motivations is _not_, IMHO, reasonable when evil's afoot *right now*.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Character alignment is a description for the character overall, not for his isolated actions.



I never mentioned the character loosing his alignment or even his paladinhood over this one action. Like I had posted earlier, I've never had a character loose either over one single action. I do believe that the act was egregiously neutral, and depending on the circumstances... even evil. I don't have enough information to make a conclusion.


----------



## Supaida (Nov 8, 2005)

*Let the hate flow through you*

I have little experience with paladins, myself. That said, if I were the DM, I'd probably have a corrupting agent, a succubus or a dark priest or somesuch, become aware of this somehow, decide the paladin's rage gave him potential, and try to tempt him into eeeeeeeevil. It's not really a punishment, but it is a consequence, and it both gives you a new plot hook and lets you see how good the player really expects paladins to be. I definitely wouldn't take away his powers, though. At most, I'd remove them temporarily after the threat to his wife and unborn child had passed. Because man, if you attack a pregnant woman, you deserve what you get.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> The Paladin should always take _reasonable_ actions to make sure he's smiting [Evil], and not [Neutral] or [Stupid], but he can't afford to play defense attorney for [Evil]. Wasting time finding out motivations is _not_, IMHO, reasonable when evil's afoot *right now*.



George Orwell wrote about this very thing in his book: 1984.
_"Imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever"_


----------



## Voadam (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and *evil * behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. *Evil: unnecessary death*. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.) Passion due to the personal nature of the attack is both a mitigating factor (clouded judgment) and not an excuse -- if you can't uphold the law for yourself, what kind of example do you set?




Under the RAW this is the relevant factor. Was this an "evil" act. If so he loses his powers.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Under the RAW this is the relevant factor. Was this an "evil" act. If so he loses his powers.




I think there are a lot of us who would consider the paladin's action not only not evil, but just... given a moderately medieval mindframe.


----------



## J-Buzz (Nov 8, 2005)

It really doesn't matter what everyone else says about the act and if it is what a Paladin should do or not.  It is up to you as a DM to decide if the act is outside of the Paladins Code of Conduct, or not a Lawful Good act.  I don't think enough information has been given for myself to form an opionion.

However, if you feel he did do bad, I would not take away abilities without first warning the character/player.   I would have another paladin/cleric discuss what he did and make him attone for the deed, making it very clear what would happen if he continues down that path.   Then the charater can decide if he wants to take revenge or not.  As you can see, everyones ideas differ on this subject.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> George Orwell wrote about this very thing in 1984.




I'm not saying a Paladin should be totalitarian. They should take reasonable steps to ensure righteousness of their actions. They should not let doubt render themselves inefficient. That's why the gods in their wisdom chose to grant Paladins *Detect Evil* and *Smite Evil* as abilities instead of *Detect Motive* and *Read Miranda*.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think there are a lot of us who would consider the paladin's action not only not evil, but just... given a moderately medieval mindframe.



D&D long ago gave up any pretence of having a "medieval" mindset. It bears much more resemblance to our own world than it does to the world of 500 years ago.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's why the gods in their wisdom chose to grant Paladins *Detect Evil* and *Smite Evil* as abilities instead of *Detect Motive* and *Read Miranda*.



As has been stated countless times by WoTC and others, Detect Evil is not a license to kill. Playing a paladin is a bit more difficult and complex then that.

Anyway, I do think J-Buzz is right... both sides have given a good account of their views and it comes down to a DM's decision. I do agree that such a thing needs to be discussed with the player. I've always had good experiences in such instances. You'll be surprised how much they'll work with you, even expecting such (possbile) changes for their actions, etc.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

Let me just add that I think the paladin attempting to kill the halfling was a foolish action, and not a Good act, but neither was it Evil (if killing Evil creatures is bad... then what is the reason for paladins in the first place?  Im speaking completely from an in game standpoint, now!) but by itself is not reason for loss of paladinhood by itself.  Now, as a trend, it would show a lack of self control if he always spoke with his sword and was lead by his anger, and after severa such actions I'd have to do somehting, but this one time he was acting within his god given role of smiter of evil, and the fact that it ws his wife that was the victim of the evil, well... that just makes him that much more enthusiastic.  

Taken as an individual action?  Foolish to attempt to kill him instead of further questioning, rash and hotheaded, but its not going to cost him his wings.  If this happens all the time, however, then something needs to be done.  


Paladins arent police, they arent lawyers, they arent Superman.  They are Charlemagne, Galahad, and Roland; knights that kill monsters and slay evil men.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> D&D long ago gave up any pretence of having a "medieval" mindset.



Untrue.


			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> It bears much more resemblance to our own world than it does to the world of 500 years ago.



True.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

hehe, point for Peter .


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 8, 2005)

What would I do to the Paladin? Probably nothing. Paladins are a derivitive of fighter and they kill. That's their job. Was the halfling killed unjustly? Doesn't sound like it. If such a deliberate action warrented loss of Paladinhood, I would typically warn the player at the time seeing that a lifetime of training as a Paladin would give him that moment of choice even if the player doesn't see it. If the character acted with justified reasoning but it turned out to be bad, such that the halfling was actually trying to help the people in question but never was able to say such, then the paladin might be forced to atone (perhaps immediatly, perhaps upon find out, depending on the magnitude of the mistake). 

In this case, it seems like the paladin did what paladins do, found those that deserved to be killed and killed them. If as a DM I felt that they were doing so for the wrong reason and it was a big enough mistake, I would have warned him so and let him make the choice. Even then, I don't see such an act as great enough to warrent punishement unless part of a trend.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Not everything a paladin does must qualify as lawful good as long as its neither evil nor a gross violation of his code. Killing the accomplice of someone who assaulted his own wife fits neither of those two criteria.
> And unless the society is highly legalistic with significant recognition of the rights of the perp, it might even be legal.



killing some paid stooge. who is probably a 1st lvl Commoner being paid big bucks to him.. the hemming and hawing and running being a dead giveaway is not a good act. 

taking out his frustration and vengence on the 1st lvl Commoner.. again is not a good thing.


he should've knocked the guy out and picked him up later to turn over to the authorities.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Dear lord... Diaglo and I agreeing on something, that's rare. I always thought you were on the "harsher" side of the paladin arguements. Hmm...


----------



## wuyanei (Nov 8, 2005)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> Let the paladin's god decide.
> 
> However, this is almost exactly how an NPC fell into Blackguard in my campaign. The attack on his wife and child was arranged by a Pit Fiend too. The paladin could have subdued the halfling (learned of any other plots and who ordered the attack) and then handed the halfling over to the courts to await hanging or a nice fifty-year stay in the local salt mines.
> 
> Now, if the country was a Theocracy and the paladin was awarded judge, jury, and executioner powers AND his god was okay with the action it would be excuseable.




My take exactly. Utimately, paladins only answer to 1) their god and 2) their conscience. Temporal laws are only a guide, for laws made and enforced by man will always be imperfect. Trusting blindly in the rules of Man is actually an abdiction of ones own responsibility to judge Good from Evil. That, IMO, is an even swifter path moral weakness and ultimately perdition.

Depending on the paladin's god, there could be many different results to the paladin's actions, ranging from lost of paladin status to actually being rewarded. A paladin of abstract Law and Good might need to atone for his actions, expecially if the halfling was basically helpless. A paladin of St. Cuthbert or similar deity would simply kill the halfling and move on. In addition, the paladin must weight the possibility that if he does not neturalize the halfling very, very quickly, he might fail at his duty to protect his wife and child (fail to protect the innocent). That would also cause him to need to atone -- even moreso than for smiting the halfling -- especially if he is a paladin of a 'protection' god such as Pelor. For the paladin in this case, there is NO right choice -- only a choice that the DM approves of (or not).

Now, all theory aside, I suggest that the OP consider very carefully what he wants to do with the situation. As this entire situation was mostly directed by the DM, the DM, not the player, is mostly responsible for the results.

If, as part of the plot, you WANT to engineer the fall-from-grace of the paladin, then you can use the paladin's actions as an excuse to do so. In the computer game Baldure's Gate II there was a similar sub-quest, where the main character manipulated into killing several fellow paladins. The main character would then lose his paladin status until he could atone for his actions by fulfilling a quest. In this case, you could claim that the paladin acted unlawfully and have the paladin lose all or some of his powers, but allow atonement after a quest to deliver the villians to justice. OR, you could cause the paladin to fall with no easy atonement in sight, and stoke the paladin's rage and bitterness at such blatant injustice so as to tempt him towards the path of true Evil (blackguard). You could let the paladin retain his abilities, yet have the town guard launch an enquiry against him. You could go not only allow the paladin to retain his abilities, but actually have his god bless his rightous quest of holy vengeance -- let him act as if under the effects of _bless_ and _aid_ when he hunts for the assaliants of his wife and unborn child. You could have your ruling be a mixture of all above -- for example, the paladin loses his abilities, and must stand before a court to be judged. However, he is acquitted (or otherwise released somehow) and his god shows compassion on him, so while he must atone to regain paladinhood, he acts as is under _bless_ and _aid_ while on the quest.

As DM, you must handle this situation *very* carefully, for your player might resent you if you basically forcing his paladin to fall. Discuss it OOC with your player -- will he accept such a plot with good grace? If so -- if he revels in playing such a wounded, tragic hero -- then by all means go for it. However, if the player does not enjoy such a plot, I suggest that you not force such a plotline on him. A good, tragic plotline in the eyes of the DM -- all filled with deep, philosophical themes of lost and redemption -- might not actually be a *fun* plotline for the player to play.

As for me personally, I would consider it an injustice if the paladin were to lose his paladin-hood. I could accept and even enjoy such a plot if forwarned, but would not likely be happy if a DM sprang it upon me unannounced. I believe that a paladin's first duty is to *destroy* evil and *protect* the innocent, not merely to strive for a nebulous state personal moral perfection. A paladin that lets an innocent come to harm because his is paralyzed by moral uncertainity is *already* a fallen paladin, IMNSHO.

Unless you have talked it over with the player OOC, I strongly advise against causing the paladin to fall. IC consequences, such as trouble with the local law enforcement, are acceptable as long as the paladin has a reasonable chance to defend himself. However, the consequences should not overshadow the more important plotline, which is to deliver swift and merciless justice to the knaves that dare assault a pregnant woman. On that, I would say, there is no moral dilemma.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Dear lord... Diaglo and I agreeing on something, that's rare. I always thought you were on the "harsher" side of the paladin arguements. Hmm...



i am.


check out the 2nd post to this thread.

i said make the guy a blackguard.


----------



## harmyn (Nov 8, 2005)

From what limited info was given here I would strip the Paladin of his powers. He could atone for his actions but it would require a true act of contrition to get them back. Why? Because he killed a man who was an accomplice in an *assault* on his wife and child. Did the family die? Sounds like they did. Did the halfling know that was the plan? Did he even fully understand what his role was supposed to be in this little bit of theatrics? Paladin didn't know and didn't try to find out. That's not a good thing.

Was the hafling fighting back? Was it a simple halfling commoner? Did the paladin even attempt to _Detect Evil_ since he can do it at will and it has been made clear the paladin was detaining the halfling. 

What facts we do have is that the halfling showed up to distract the paladin. The paladin detained the halfling when he deduced something was up. Upon discovering his family had been murdered he slew the halfling. That is a fit of anger. To simply detain someone as a prisoner or hostage, then to turn and kill them, that's wrong. That is also murder. Anger and dispair may have fueled it, but revenge doesn't equal right.

From a metagame point of view it could have been useful to keep the unscrupulous little fellow around at least long enough to find out who he was in cahoots with. Might be useful to learn whose blade was actually responsible and why it was done. There must have been more to it than simply the desire to off a paladin's family.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Wuyanei and I may disagree on some of the finer issues of paladinhood, but he is dead on about the player/DM relationship. I'd follow his advice and carefully speak to the player.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'd ask the player what he thinks should happen to his character.
> 
> If he doesn't think anything bad should happen, and you do, and you enforce some kind of nerfing of his abilities, get ready for a pissed-off player.
> 
> If he does think something bad should happen, let him decide what it is.




Huh???

What's next, "Tell your player to roll to attack, and then ask him to decide if he hits or not"?

Paladins who murder get stripped of their abilities.  If the player gets his nose out of joint, tough.  He can play Monopoly or something.


----------



## Patlin (Nov 8, 2005)

srd said:
			
		

> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities




I don't think the one act is enough to change the character's alignment.  However, killing a helpless prisoner is an evil act.  This Paladin willfully committed an evil act, and loses his Paladin status.

Under these circumstances, a Paladin has a variety of options:

1) Turn the prisoner over to the authorities.  In most settings, this is the best option.
2) Return to the prisoner his weapon and challenge him to a duel so that you might prove his villany upon his body.  (It becomes interesting if the challenge is refused and the prisoner will not take up his weapon, see option 1.)
3) Release the prisoner with suitably dire threats.  "Return to your master dog! When next I see him or you, your villany will end upon my blade!"

You can't just take prisoners and kill them when it becomes convenient to do so if you want to remain a paladin.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> Huh???
> 
> What's next, "Tell your player to roll to attack, and then ask him to decide if he hits or not"?
> 
> Paladins who murder get stripped of their abilities.  If the player gets his nose out of joint, tough.  He can play Monopoly or something.





Next time a paladin storms an orc den and kills them all and takes thier treasure with the rest of the party, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Um, no.  You are either omitting at least one other "circle of thought" or misstating the position of those you think fall into circle #2.
> 
> Perhaps this would be a good time to refer everyone to this:
> 
> ...




I found it interesting until I read that the author is a "committed born-again Christian." That rankles.


----------



## HalWhitewyrm (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I'm looking for advice / opinions on a paladin-related issue.
> <SNIP situation>
> Obviously this is not on the list of Approved Paladin Activities.



I disagree. While not necessarily something that would be applauded by a judge in a public session, it would certainly be well within the realm of the law and of the paladin's code. While most D&D worlds are not necessarily fully medieval in their legal makeups, unless you are playing in a fantasy version of modern-day democracy, I would be hard-pressed to find a legal system that would condemn the paladin for his actions. A public slap on the wrist, maybe, but nothing beyond that, not for killing such a scumbag.

As far as the whole alignment issue, I will only say what I tell any of my players that decides to play a paladin: *Paladins are Lawful Good, not Lawful Idiot*.



> What would you do to the paladin in question?



Give him a medal?  

Seriously, I would, first of all, have the halfling die when returning from the cliffhanger. Scumbag.

Second, I would take the paladin's powers away for a short while. Even if the act was within the paladin's code, it was a borderline act in which he came very close to going against everything a paladin represents. Between the emotional strain of knowing what happened to his wife, the spiritual strain of knowing he hovered on the edge of the abyss, and the social strain of the ensuing investigation into the death of the halfling, the attack on the pregnant wife and whoever might be behind it all, this paladin just won't be himself fully. You can say the situation creates a sort of spiritual barrier that impedes the divine powers from manifesting.

Let the paladin sweat it out a little. Paladin or not, you can't go around doing similar acts all the time, and he should become very much aware of it. Then after a while (decide on the time secretly, I would make it about a month, or a week after there has been some resolution to part of the case, either legal absolution for the death of the halfling, or actual information leading to the discovery of the mastermind behind it all, whichever is more dramatic) he can go and get an _attonement_ spell cast, with the action needed to complete the attonement being one that ties directly into the next part of the investigation/adventure.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> I found it interesting until I read that the author is a "committed born-again Christian." That rankles.



Um...why?


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Um...why?





Glad someone said it.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Um...why?




A few reasons:

1. All Christians, by definition, are "born again."  The idea of being "born again" is central to Christian belief.  When a person says they are a "born again" Christian, they're essentially saying, "I'm not only a Christian, but unlike many *other* Christians, I'm *also* born again! I'm the real deal!" In my experience, the only people who describe themselves as "born again Christians" are evangelical, fundamentalist, Jerry Falwell-Protestant types.

2. He not only describes himself as a "born again" Christian, but also as a "committed" Christian.  So he's saying, "Look how *committed* I am!" It comes across as self-righteous.

3. How is his religious faith relevant to the article? Stating, "I am a committed, born-again Christian" in his bio seems like unnecessary posturing. 

Just for the record, and I'm saying this because it might seem relevant to some folks, I am *not* an atheist or an anti-religious secular type.  I am a Catholic.  I would consider myself to be "born again" and "committed" and certainly a "Christian", but I wouldn't feel the need to proclaim *any* of those things in an article about D&D.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

It rankles because it’s in no way relevant and shouldn’t have been mentioned. Is it an attempt to establish his credibility as a “moral” person? If so, there’s some serious issues with that… are the rest of us not moral? Is the Christian ethos the standard by which D&D good and evil should be measured? Etc… I could go on for a while.

And what Chainsaw Mage said, though I think it is funny that a guy with Leatherface as his icon is discussing christianity...


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> I could go on for a while.




Which is why, as interesting as the topic is, we don't allow discussion of real-world religions on ENworld. 

Back to fantasy religions, please!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

I would say there are degrees of Fallen.  In this particular case, I believe the paladinhood will come under review.  He would lose his divine powers until communing with a priest of his faith and working out the moral crisis.  



			
				wuyanei said:
			
		

> However, the consequences should not overshadow the more important plotline, which is to deliver swift and merciless justice to the knaves that dare assault a pregnant woman. On that, I would say, there is no moral dilemma.



Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 8, 2005)

I think it really depends on the God the Paladin serves, and the total situation.  Was the halfling bound and unable to move?  Did the Paladin detect evil on the halfling?  Was it feasable to hold the halfing for the authorities?  Is the Paladin empowered to dispense summary justice in such a manner?  If it was feasable to hold the halfling and the Paladin doesn't have Judge Dredd style authority then I'd say the Paladin stepped over the line.  If it wasn't feasable to hold the halfling then he probably did the right thing.  If the halfling detected as evil I'd say in any event he did the right thing.  If he just killed for vengence without considering anything else I'd probably let him fall. 

Since I just noticed he was a Paladin of Hieroneous I'd have him fall for that.  In our game it is a dishonorable thing to slay a bound or helpless foe according to the code of H.  But that's our game.  Since H is the god of chivalry and honor, violations of honor are pretty much the same as evil acts since they violate THE CODE.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Merciless + Paladin don't make sense to me.





Except that Evil things quite often are aware that Good people are merciful, and will take advantage of it to play nasty tricks.

Of course, mercy is Good, but Lawful Good is more than just Good, and has to wiegh Justice and Righteous Vengeance in there too.

I myself much prefer Neutral Good, where mercy is all you really gotta worry about, and helping others.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> A few reasons:
> 
> 1. All Christians, by definition, are "born again."  The idea of being "born again" is central to Christian belief.  When a person says they are a "born again" Christian, they're essentially saying, "I'm not only a Christian, but unlike many *other* Christians, I'm *also* born again! I'm the real deal!" In my experience, the only people who describe themselves as "born again Christians" are evangelical, fundamentalist, Jerry Falwell-Protestant types.
> 
> ...






Points taken.  I can see that being real dang annoying myself.  I didnt realize he had a statement to that effect on the page with the article.


----------



## LordBOB (Nov 8, 2005)

ok i didnt read all the posts but from what ive read i DONT think the paladin should be punished by loosing his powers.  Your player didnt actually kill the Halfling, he only "Ruffled" him up a little.  If the fight would of continued you could of done something like this:

Halfling is almost dead.

Dm: if you continue this you will kill the Hafling this round.
Player: I know, and i plan to cut his head off!!!!  ( this might be punishable)

       OR

Dm: if you continue this you will kill the Hafling this round.
Player: Ok i wont kill him, but ill due non-lethal damage in order to knock him out this round thus tying him up and sending him to the police.  ( no punishment what-so-ever... i would congratulate the Paladin for doing the right thing......only my views)

Also dont forget that each city has different rules.

Also you should ask what the player thinks about the situation and what should done.  IF his curch is a little loose on the rules than the paladin might have to incorporate some of his own rules into whats going on.  If the player can put up a good argument and stand his ground and give you good solid reasons for doing what he did than i wouldnt punish him

Just because the chirch says one thing they probably arent aware of what it is like out on   the road and what happens in the heat of the moment.  You and the player should have a good talk and you should both come to an agreement.

Ive had this happen to my paladin multiple times and as long as i was able to justify my action and prove that what i did was either not wrong or for the greater good than my DM allowed it.  I dont go around doing this all the time but sometimes you cant advoid this stuff.

Also, what if during a fight in the streets a paladin  attacks his opponent and cause the enemy to fly backwards into an innocent citizen thus killing him....should the pladin be punished?  I say this b/c it was a direct action from the paladin that cause the citizen to be killed.... so technically the paladin killed an innocent person.....so is it the paladins fault and what would happen?


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis, here's another bit from the SRD:


> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.



I would submit that the paladin's wife (and without getting into a possible religious flamefest here, I'll say possibly also the unborn child) are examples of "innocent life."  

She/They has/have been assaulted, and need protection is needed.  

Protection certainly can mean doing what is required to preclude further assaults.  

The halfling was involved in the initial assault and has not indicated he would change his tune (therefore he is by definition not an innocent life, and destroying him is not an evil act), ergo he is a threat to be involved in another assault.

Removing that threat of future assaults by killing the halfling can therefore be easily construed as a *good* act.

As to law vs. chaos, 







> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
> 
> “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
> 
> “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.



Without knowing the circumstances of the local law, it is unclear as to whether the paladin is being obedient to authority.  In some areas, he might be judge, jury, and executioner by virtue of being a paladin.  In other areas, he might be judge, jury, and/or executioner by virtue of being kin to the one who was wronged (e.g., in some cultures, the husband, father, and/or brothers of a woman wronged are legally allowed - and in fact obligated - to execute punishment on those who wronged her).  In yet other areas, he might need to submit to local law enforcement.  As (at least as of the first page of the thread, haven't read the entirety yet) we don't have the social context, it is unclear as to whether the paladin is being disobedient to authority (if punishment is in the hands of local government) or exceptionally obedient to authority (if punishment is in the hands of kin).

One could argue that he was following his conscience, and that is a Chaotic act, but if one's conscience prompts one to follow the law (see above), I'm not sure if you can call it truly chaotic.

I can't see how this attack was evil by the RAW, given the information we have on the halfling (part of the assault).  It is unclear as to whether it is chaotic by the RAW.

--The Sigil


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.




I say that mercy is to given when mercy is deserved. If the halfling had owned up to what he did, repented, and asked forgiveness, then it would be deserved. A halfling that knowingly aided an attempted double murder and then tried to flee the scene does not deserve mercy.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Except that Evil things quite often are aware that Good people are merciful, and will take advantage of it to play nasty tricks.



That's the price for being Lawful Good... it's especially difficult when you see it coming, but you do it anyway.

The Book of Exalted Deeds has an interesting section on this issue. It comes to the conclusion that the "means" are more important than the short-term "ends". They argue (as I recall), that if you do right in all your actions, even if they end up with an immediate unwanted end, that in the long run the ends will work themself out.
There is the additional issue that you could argue what the "ends" all day and never have a good and clear conclusion... so it's better to simply follow the rules of "good" without thought and take action, than debate it endlessly.

Not something I agree with, but I see their point. This is indeed quite a complex subject.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

harmyn said:
			
		

> To simply detain someone as a prisoner or hostage, then to turn and kill them, that's wrong. That is also murder.




Not necessarily. If the Paladin arrests someone, interrogates them and deems them to be a murderer (or horse thief ) or any other type of criminal that deserves the death penalty, it's an execution. Not murder.

Paladins _are_ the judge, jury and executioner in the same. Showing mercy when none is warranted is not honorable. It's even cowardly if done in fear of punishment from mere mortal courts.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 8, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> killing some paid stooge. who is probably a 1st lvl Commoner being paid big bucks to him.. the hemming and hawing and running being a dead giveaway is not a good act.
> 
> taking out his frustration and vengence on the 1st lvl Commoner.. again is not a good thing.



Not to mention the fact that if *I* had planned this attack, that halfling was probably just some street kid promised a shiny gold coin just "to play a prank on an old friend of mine".

Fact is, we don't really know enough about the situation to decide whether the halfling deserved killing. "Involved in the assault" is pretty vague... I would definitely consider a street urchin paid to distract the paladin to be "involved".

Of course, the real question is... did the *paladin* know enough about the degree of involvement to make such a life-or-death decision?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 8, 2005)

There's nothing righteous about vengence.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Protection certainly can mean doing what is required to preclude further assaults. The halfling was involved in the initial assault and has not indicated he would change his tune (therefore he is by definition not an innocent life, and destroying him is not an evil act), ergo he is a threat to be involved in another assault.l



Why is the slaughter of the halfling the only means to protect his family? The halfling is not directly assaulting his family, he is not an immediate threat. Arrest him, turn him in to the local authority or the paladin's own church...
that takes care of the threat quite nicely. That's what jails are for.


----------



## Dancer (Nov 8, 2005)

In the midst of all this "did he do evil or not" controversy don't miss out on a golden role-playing opportunity.  You question should be "does the paladin's god think he did right?"  Answer that question and everything else will fall into line.  It's the god that can strip away the paladin's powers not any temporal authority. 

Now what if the paladin's god supports him but the temporal authority doesn't?

What if his wife, watching from the doorway saw the paladin's work up front and personal for the first time?  Can she deal with being with such a man?

What does the established church have to say about his actions?  Do they differ with the god's interpretation (assuming he still has his powers)?

What do his friends think of his actions?  How will they react to him?  

There is a gold mine of opportunity here, don't pass it up.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Arravis, here's another bit from the SRD:
> 
> I would submit that the paladin's wife (and without getting into a possible religious flamefest here, I'll say possibly also the unborn child) are examples of "innocent life."
> 
> ...




this comes off as nothing more than post hoc justification. Vengance is not protection, no matter how much you dress it up. And he had the halfling in his power in the middle of what we have since been told is a lawful city. Killing him at that point has no protective value over subduing him and handing him over to the police. 

His action in no way shape or form protected his wife.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 8, 2005)

This whole situation reeks of "DM wants to mess with the paladin."  Some DMs will stop at nothing to knock a paladin out of paladinhood.



			
				Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> First, you're asking the wrong question.  A paladin is not required to be Lawful and Good with every action.  How does eating her dinner fall into either category?



No veal or foie gras, no elbows on table, no talking with your mouth full.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 8, 2005)

Was this some commoner stooge, or whas it someone involved in the plot?  I got the impression that the paladin questioned him and realized he was in on it.  It makes a big difference.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Merciless + Paladin doesn't make sense to me.




DM: "The lich blasts you with _Disintegrate_ .. roll for save"
Pally: "A nat 20, I save!"
DM: "Um .. ok .. the lich asks for mercy, you know, um .. you _must_ be merciful"
Pally: "Okay, okay, take a chill pill, I accept his atonement, I Smite his Blackguard servant!"
.
.
DM: "Sucker! The lich blasts you again with Disintegrate!"
Pally: "Dang .. I save"
DM: "The lich asks for mercy .."


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 8, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances.



What was the time frame between the assault and finding out the halfling was involved in the assault?  If he found out the halfling was involved during the assault, it could be construed as "killing to protect others."


> In my opinion, the act was excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior. Chaotic: abandoning the laws one has sworn to uphold for personal vengeance. Evil: unnecessary death. (The intent to kill was clearly stated, no question there.)



Ah, but "unnecessary death" is *not* evil by the RAW.  "Killing (or harming) of *innocents*" is the only criterion.  Was the halfling an innocent?  If not, then by the RAW, killing him is NOT an evil act (which is why mass slaughter of orcs, goblins, trolls, and similar EVIL beings is okay, even if it IS unnecessary).

Given the information provided thus far, I would say it is quite possibly a chaotic act, and is possibly sufficent to bump the character to Neutral Good (and requiring an atonement).  

However, I still have a problem finding any way to definitively pin it as an evil act.

--The Sigil


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> I say that mercy is to given when mercy is deserved.




Then it isn't mercy.


----------



## wuyanei (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> Then it isn't mercy.




Indeed. Sometimes a paladin must obey his duty towards justice.


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Why is the slaughter of the halfling the only means to protect his family? The halfling is not directly assaulting his family, he is not an immediate threat. Arrest him, turn him in to the local authority or the paladin's own church...
> that takes care of the threat quite nicely. That's what jails are for.





			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> this comes off as nothing more than post hoc justification. Vengance is not protection, no matter how much you dress it up. And he had the halfling in his power in the middle of what we have since been told is a lawful city. Killing him at that point has no protective value over subduing him and handing him over to the police.
> 
> His action in no way shape or form protected his wife.



I'm not going to construe it as a "good act" myself, merely pointing out it CAN be construed as such.

However, ultimately, in my opinion, the question at hand is, "was killing the halfling an evil act?"

The SRD states that killing *an innocent* is an evil act (emphasis mine).  It does not say that killing a helpless person is an evil act.  It does not say killing a less powerful person is an evil act.  It specifically says "innocents."

From what I can pick up (with incomplete information of course), the halfling is NOT an innocent - he's an accomplice to the crime.  Therefore, killing him cannot, by definition, be an evil act (I'm not sure it's a good act, but it's certainly not evil either) as he is not an innocent and only slaughter of innocents is "evil killing."

I'm quite concerned that it's a chaotic act, but by the RAW, I cannot find *any* justification for calling it "evil." (The paladin questions the halfling, learns about the assault - presumably from the halfling - and learns the halfling was part of the assault - I can't find anywhere that suggests the halfling is innocent).

--The Sigil


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> Then it isn't mercy.




Then, should a Paladin show mercy towards enemies who he suspects will abuse his weakness, and commit evil again? Should a Paladin let Orcus off the hook if he asks?

Remember that by the PHB Paladins code requires them to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> DM: "The lich blasts you with _Disintegrate_ .. roll for save"
> Pally: "A nat 20, I save!"
> DM: "Um .. ok .. the lich asks for mercy, you know, um .. you _must_ be merciful"
> Pally: "Okay, okay, take a chill pill, I accept his atonement, I Smite his Blackguard servant!"
> ...



I think its fair to say that any example in which the DM yells "sucker!" has extremely limited value for proving a serious point.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's nothing righteous about vengence.



You beat me too it.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

wuyanei said:
			
		

> Indeed. Sometimes a paladin must obey his duty towards justice.




Duty towards justice is not in the Paladins code while punishing evildoers is.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> Then it isn't mercy.




It fits the definitions of mercy that paladins are responsible for IMC.


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 8, 2005)

What would I do to the paladin? Nothing. I let people act out of passion, I let people make mistakes. I don't ask for absolute perfection from people because people are not capable of it.

Besides, some people need killing. The halfling's an accessory to the fact, thus he is as culpable as the actual perpetrators and earns their fate. The paladin is the injured party and as such has earned the right to retribution.

If that does not suffice to you, consider that the responsible parties have brought disorder -that is, chaos- into the world, and it is now the paladin's charge to restore order. That means that should the perpetrators die, the perpetrators die. All deeds have a cost, sometimes that cost is death.

The typical code of conduct is a bit of pretentious twaddle intended for people as they should be. I have yet to read one that has a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving for any length of time in the real world.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Then, should a Paladin show mercy towards enemies who he suspects will abuse his weakness, and commit evil again? Should a Paladin let Orcus off the hook if he asks?
> 
> Remember that by the PHB Paladins code requires them to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.



somehow I think we are acting off of very different definitions of mercy. In this example especially, we have a situation where the evil types can and will be judged and punished appropriately. It is not "kill or let go" and defining mercy that way is a complete strawman.

If a paladin has a way to bind Orcus into the body and (lack of) powers of a fluffy kitten rather than destroying him, he should seriously consider that act of mercy. More to the point, if a lawful good civil authority is sitting right there to judge the halfling for an event which is over, turning him over to them isn't even on the mercy/no mercy scale, its the non-murderous course of action.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> What would I do to the paladin? Nothing. I let people act out of passion, I let people make mistakes. I don't ask for absolute perfection from people because people are not capable of it.
> 
> Besides, some people need killing. The halfling's an accessory to the fact, thus he is as culpable as the actual perpetrators and earns their fate. The paladin is the injured party and as such has earned the right to retribution.
> 
> ...




and yet the rest of us are talking about what to do with a paladin in a game of D&D. Obviously you don't play with anything resembling a paladin, so your comments are somewhat unhelpful on how to deal with one.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> DM: "The lich blasts you with _Disintegrate_ .. roll for save"
> Pally: "A nat 20, I save!"
> DM: "Um .. ok .. the lich asks for mercy, you know, um .. you _must_ be merciful"
> Pally: "Okay, okay, take a chill pill, I accept his atonement, I Smite his Blackguard servant!"
> ...



This is pretty funny, but in real situations the character is not going to ignore the lich.  That's another example of paladin lawful-stupid.  IRL, mercy comes in at the question of life or death after the enemy has been subdued.  Do you kill the lich or set about towards saving him.  (liches may be a special case here like demons, but the point is universal in a paladin's code.)

Choosing to kill a nonthreatening murderer in custody is the same end as someone losing their temper.  The wiser course is debated mercy.  Your example is like a creature of pure evil (demon) who, after a long pitched battle cries "mercy!" just before the final blow comes down.  Hesitating is foolish, if no other course is possible [re: called action to kill the demon unless it disarms, etc.]

Batman is NOT a paladin.  He's a Fallen paladin, but more gray than anything else.


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 8, 2005)

Additional: The paladin's action was human. Humans do things certain parties would much rather they didn't. They get angry, they lash out. They kill people in a rage. No one can strictly adhere to a code of laws, because codes of law are devised by people who let their ideology overrule their good sense.

Any legal system that disregards this will, sooner or later, fail.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 8, 2005)

Killing people in a rage is an evil act in a lot of cases and I doubt a LG diety is going to pay much mind to excuses why it wasn't feasable to act like a Paladin. 

People who lash out today are not let off for it.  There are tons of people who killed someone in such circumstances and have to suffer for it.


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> somehow I think we are acting off of very different definitions of mercy. In this example especially, we have a situation where the evil types can and will be judged and punished appropriately. It is not "kill or let go" and defining mercy that way is a complete strawman.
> 
> If a paladin has a way to bind Orcus into the body and (lack of) powers of a fluffy kitten rather than destroying him, he should seriously consider that act of mercy. More to the point, if a lawful good civil authority is sitting right there to judge the halfling for an event which is over, turning him over to them isn't even on the mercy/no mercy scale, its the non-murderous course of action.




IMHO your argument goas straight out of the window since you'd let Paladin have Orcus be fee. But lets ignore that since I baited that answer with my ridiculous extreme (how [Naughty] of me). My real question, that isn't extreme, is that how can you demand mercy from Paladins who've subdued or are fighting evil, when:

a) Paladins Code of Conduct calls for *punishing* evildoers, and is silent on mercy

b) PHB alignment section describes Alhandra as a Paladin who fights evil *without mercy* 

Going by your suggestion and showing mercy to murdering scum would actually be a breach of the Paladins Code, since then you wouldn't be punishing!


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Additional: The paladin's action was human. Humans do things certain parties would much rather they didn't. They get angry, they lash out. They kill people in a rage. No one can strictly adhere to a code of laws, because codes of law are devised by people who let their ideology overrule their good sense.
> 
> Any legal system that disregards this will, sooner or later, fail.



Unfortunately, paladins don't follow a legal system.  They are not Justiciars, they follow a divine set of laws.  Like priests who must live up to a higher code, paladin's are asked to exemplify this code w/o hiding in the temple.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.



Just for ease of reference.  A paladin CAN gain back their paladinhood, if he or she atones.  LG gods often ask for perfection, but forgive with proper atonement.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Code of Conduct*
> 
> A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> 
> ...


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 8, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Killing people in a rage is an evil act ...




[snip]

It is a human thing to do. It is a human thing to become enraged when harmed, and to lash out against those who harmed you. It is people who declare an act good or evil, people who quite often know nothing of the circumstances surrounding the act.

There is no 'should be'. There is no 'must be' or 'has to be'. There is only 'is'. People are as they are, people do as they do. Sometimes what they do benefits society, that is to be encouraged. Sometimes what they do harms society, that is to be discouraged. And sometimes the effect upon society is not that clear.

And sometimes the righteous thing is the wrong thing.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> *snip*
> There is no 'should be'. There is no 'must be' or 'has to be'. There is only 'is'. People are as they are, people do as they do. Sometimes what they do benefits society, that is to be encouraged. Sometimes what they do harms society, that is to be discouraged. And sometimes the effect upon society is not that clear.
> 
> And sometimes the righteous thing is the wrong thing.



If this is really what you believe, I wouldn't play a paladin.  I've never heard of a paladin that does not believe in Good.  Much less do away with good and evil as descriptors.


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> It is a human thing to do. It is a human thing to become enraged when harmed, and to lash out against those who harmed you.



Except that paladins are held to a higher standard. They are proxies of their gods on earth and exemplars of righteousness. Killing in a rage--what in modern terms is called "manslaughter"--is not an act of virtue.


----------



## tonym (Nov 8, 2005)

double-post--sorry


----------



## tonym (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Why is the slaughter of the halfling the only means to protect his family?




What you call "slaughter of the halfling" I call "handling problem #1 before moving on to problem #2."  The paladin is in a hurry here, remember.  His wife is in 
danger.



			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> ...That's what jails are for.




"That's what jails are for"?  Hey, death *is* a jail.  In a world of _resurrection_, death is not the huge, tragic, cry-in-your-hanky deal so many posters on this thread think it is.  Death is only a temporary condition.  It's like stun, only longer lasting and with a bigger pool of blood in the dirt.  

By killing the halfling, the paladin is making him less of a threat and reducing his chance of escape--that's it.  It isn't like the paladin is destroying his soul with magic soul-destroying eyebeams.  

Tony M


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> IMHO your argument goas straight out of the window since you'd let Paladin have Orcus be fee.



and by claiming you can throw my argument out the window based on it not agreeing with your conclusion you have seriously limited my interest in yours. very symetrical.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 8, 2005)

Remember that there might not be any jails. The modern penal system is relatively new. In the past punishment was generally corporal.  Lashings, mutilation, branding, etc.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> It is a human thing to do. It is a human thing to become enraged when harmed, and to lash out against those who harmed you. It is people who declare an act good or evil, people who quite often know nothing of the circumstances surrounding the act.
> 
> ...




Well in this case it would be a diety calling the act good or evil based if the Paladin falls or not.  As I said before, In my campaign we have a Paladin of Hieroneous.  I wrote up a code that lists the core tenents of the belief system.  Several of them are not the most practical but the goal is to strive to uphold the beliefs in the face of adversity.  It's not easy, and it isn't supposed to be easy.  If the Paladin dies and then as he stands before H in judgement and says, "Well it was human to violate the code, or it wasn't practical to follow the code there..." I don't think that is going to fly.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> His wife is in danger.



Umm... she HAD been assaulted, past tense. There was no current immediate danger.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> In a world of _resurrection_, death is not the huge, tragic, cry-in-your-hanky deal so many posters on this thread think it is.  Death is only a temporary condition.  It's like stun, only longer lasting and with a bigger pool of blood in the dirt.



By that logic, why not simply kill everyone everywhere and let the gods take care of who is good and bad? Why have any consequences at all?
Kill them all and let god sort them out? Yep... very paladin like.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> sometimes the righteous thing is the wrong thing.




[Falls on the floor laughing]   

Hee hee . . . I needed that, bro.  Thanks for the laugh.  [Wipes tears from eyes]


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

TonyM said:
			
		

> "That's what jails are for"? Hey, death is a jail. In a world of resurrection, death is not the huge, tragic, cry-in-your-hanky deal so many posters on this thread think it is. Death is only a temporary condition. It's like stun, only longer lasting and with a bigger pool of blood in the dirt.
> 
> By killing the halfling, the paladin is making him less of a threat and reducing his chance of escape--that's it. It isn't like the paladin is destroying his soul with magic soul-destroying eyebeams.



I can't say I agree with you, but if a paladin were certain and had no other recourse perhaps your explanation might work.  Even if the paladin did not lose his or her powers, a dubious act such as this would likely get reviewed ad nauseam later at the temple.  At least until the paladin had proved himself through a number of other cases.

BTW - I love cubey!!  And IMO you're comic is the best of an increasingly great magazine.


----------



## tonym (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Umm... she HAD been assaulted, past tense. There was no current immediate danger.




GUY #1: Sir, your wife has been in a car crash!
GUY #2: Oh, you said "has been," that's past tense.  Whew.  No hurry to see her then, or find out what happened, thank god.

Sheesh.



			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> By that logic, why not simply kill everyone everywhere and let the gods take care of who is good and bad? Why have any consequences at all?
> Kill them all and let god sort them out? Yep... very paladin like.



[/QUOTE]

Haha.
That would be called a Crusade, a totally different subject.
And, yes, I agree: a Crusade is very paladin-like.

Tony M


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 8, 2005)

I don't think it has anything to do with mercy, justice, lawfulness, or anything at all along those lines. I would condense everything down to a single question and deal with the situation on that before moving on. That question being: If it hadn't been _his_ wife, would he have done the same? If he would have acted differently, then he is acting with passion in the interest of revenge.

Now, if he would have done the same in other given circumstances, it becomes easier to gauge, as you have multiple situations to draw a pattern from, and it becomes simpler to figure out the commonality among his actions to date. If you see a pattern that says "Lawful Good" then he's fine. If you see a pattern that says anything else, now might be the time to start enacting some kind of atonement.

Overall, he's on shakey ground, but he isn't necessarily in any danger of losing any powers.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Comparing D&D archetypes to real world professions and beliefs is useless and futile. The two have nothing to do with one another. The crusaders had their own drives and motivations that have nothing to do with paladins as defined in the players hand book. They were as un-paladin like as you can get.

We are dealing with issues which are considerably less complex than those of real life. The players handbook provides some concrete data on the subject; including a clearly defined "good" and "evil", etc. Real life has none of those things, and it has no bearing on the issue at hand. We're talking about paladins as defined in the PHB, that's it.

As defined therein, a "sense of urgency", or "you hurt my wife", matter little in meeting the clearly stated codes for keeping paladinhood.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 8, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Besides, some people need killing.




Indisputably true.

This is, in fact, the Paladin's raison d'etre-- both in metagame terms, as well as the role of the paladin in the game "world." 

He is uniquely equipped for it.



			
				lukelightning said:
			
		

> This whole situation reeks of "DM wants to mess with the paladin."  Some DMs will stop at nothing to knock a paladin out of paladinhood.




Very true. Every time this thread pops up, I'm convinced it's the DM who needs to be stripped of his powers.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> a dubious act such as this would likely get reviewed ad nauseam later




You mean like in this thread?


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> including a clearly defined "good" and "evil", etc. Real life has none of those things,




Closes eyes, concentrates hard, bites tongue . . . 

(I won't mention the Holocaust, I won't mention the Holocaust, I won't mention the Holocaust . . . )


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> You mean like in this thread?



The paladin's burden is a heavy one


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Very true. Every time this thread pops up, I'm convinced it's the DM who needs to be stripped of his powers.



No need to be insulting. It doesn't help your point.

I don't think any of these DM's (or myself) is interested in bringing down the paladin, etc. I, like most of the people here probably, am interested in having a good game and following the rules of the game. If the paladins code of behavior was pointless, it wouldn't be in the book. Nowhere does it mention that the paladin is supposed to be a slaughterfest, or a judge-dread-esque character that goes around killing those it deems unworthy.

The PHB  clearly mentions the code required and that if the paladin breaks it, he looses his paladinhood. It's there and I am simply trying to enforce the rules as written. If you don't care for it, then house rule it. But it is in the PHB and since it's there most of us will use it.

It's not some anit-paladin conspiracy. It's an attempt to be good and thoughtful DM's, not directors of an endless bloodfest.


----------



## HalWhitewyrm (Nov 8, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Death is only a temporary condition. It's like stun, only longer lasting and with a bigger pool of blood in the dirt.



Beautiful. This should be a t-shirt.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> I won't mention the Holocaust . . .



To you and me it's evil, but I'm sure someone somewhere will disagree.
Take this point to any philosophy department in any university and see what answers you get about clearly defined good and evil. Every person has a different idea of what right and wrong are; everyone has a different definition of good and evil, sometimes the same person at the same time. I have no idea who is right, but it's not relevant to this discussion.

D&D does have a clearly defined ethos. It has to for a class like the paladin to exist. Otherwise any such restriction is meaningless.


----------



## Vindicator (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> We are dealing with issues which are considerably less complex than those of real life. The players handbook provides some concrete data on the subject; including a clearly defined "good" and "evil", etc. Real life has none of those things,




Every alignment thread ends up the same way.  At some point, someone always makes a statement like the above, essentially saying, "There is no such thing as good and evil."

Hear that, kids? The Holocaust, child pornography, slavery, and serial rape aren't good or evil, because, well, real life is complex and doggonit, there simply are no clearly defined "good" or "evil" in real life.

[Rolls eyes, groans, bangs head into wall in frustration.]


----------



## Numion (Nov 8, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I would condense everything down to a single question and deal with the situation on that before moving on. That question being: If it hadn't been _his_ wife, would he have done the same? If he would have acted differently, then he is acting with passion in the interest of revenge.




I would condence everything to a different question: would we be having this thread if it had been a Kobold instead of a Halfling? 

If not, we're holding the Paladin to a different standard whether the evildoer is from a 'cute' race or not. Paladins should not be racists, but oppose and punish evil in all it's forms.

Because my hunch is that if this sort power-yoinking and hindsight was applied to all Paladin kills accross the board, the class would be unusable. And still, what the gods expect from a Paladin shouldn't be affected by the evildoers race.

Oh, and the subject of mercy: why don't the god show some to the Paladin? Especially if he don't deserve it ..


----------



## Vindicator (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> To you and me it's evil, but I'm sure someone somewhere will disagree.




And if they do, they are *wrong*.  

You see, Arravis, the Holocaust was, like, a *bad* thing.

Oh, never mind.  If I actually have to try to convince you that the Holocaust was an evil thing, then you're probably beyond reason.

Bye.


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 8, 2005)

All real world codes of behavior can be summed up thusly:

1. Do what the boss says.

2. Never betray your friends.

3. Never tolerate disrespect.

All else is busy work and fussbudgetry.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Hear that, kids? The Holocaust, child pornography, slavery, and serial rape aren't good or evil, because, well, real life is complex and doggonit, there simply are no clearly defined "good" or "evil" in real life. [Rolls eyes, groans, bangs head into wall in frustration.]



That's why I'm trying to keep the discussion on D&D, a game. I'm not trying to discuss the crusades, the holocaust, or anything else from real life. The issue at hand has nothing to do with those things, but people insist on bringing them up.

We are talking about D&D, not something else, let's keep this thread on topic.


----------



## Johnnie Freedom! (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> To you and me it's evil, but I'm sure someone somewhere will disagree.
> Take this point to any philosophy department in any university and see what answers you get about clearly defined good and evil. Every person has a different idea of what right and wrong are; everyone has a different definition of good and evil, sometimes the same person at the same time. I have no idea who is right . . . .




dude, you're scary.  Remind me never to hire you as a babysitter.

 :\


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I would condence everything to a different question: would we be having this thread if it had been a Kobold instead of a Halfling?




Remember all those goblin baby threads?

Anyway, I consider it the same. IMC you can't kill a kobold and expect "But he was an evil monster!" to get you anywhere. The game is set in Sigil, though, so that might have something to do with it.

Last time PCs in my game killed a monster "because it was evil" I told them straight out it was an evil act, and it started a war that killed thousands.

EDIT
And as for the debate on what is good and evil in real life, please be careful before a mod comes around and decides you've taken it too far... It's a good thread, no sense in getting it closed.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> There's nothing righteous about vengence.




Tell that to the priests of St. Cuthbert or Trithereon.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 8, 2005)

Ah yes - it devolves into the ol' Moral Relativism fallacy.

I wish people would stop proclaiming it like it's truth when it comes to the interaction between D&D and the real world.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

I just don't see the point of bringing real-world morality into a discussion of D&D.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 8, 2005)

Johnnie Freedom! said:
			
		

> dude, you're scary.  Remind me never to hire you as a babysitter.
> 
> :\




While I agree that the moral relativism of folks like Arravis is indeed a bit frightening, keep in mind that it's all just academic masturbation.  It's the kind of thing they spout off in philosophy classes that have no contact with the real world.  But if you put a dude like Arravis in any situation where a moral choice is involved, he will probably do the right thing, as will most folks.  

So I think he's safe to hire as a babysitter.    

Most of us have been to university (I suspect) and most of us have gone through the "there is no good or evil" phase.  it's something you outgrow as you become more fully human, more fully real.

"Without God, anything is permissable.  Without moral absolutes, anything is likely."

Dostoevsky.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 8, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I would condence everything to a different question: would we be having this thread if it had been a Kobold instead of a Halfling?
> 
> If not, we're holding the Paladin to a different standard whether the evildoer is from a 'cute' race or not. Paladins should not be racists, but oppose and punish evil in all it's forms.
> 
> ...



 Well for me if the halfling detected as evil then the Paladin is justified in killing him, though since it would have been easy to hold him for the local constable that would be preferred.   Since Kobalds are evil...well you know where this leads.


----------



## Dr. Screampunk (Nov 8, 2005)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> While I agree that the moral relativism of folks like Arravis is indeed a bit frightening, keep in mind that it's all just academic masturbation.  It's the kind of thing they spout off in philosophy classes that have no contact with the real world.  . . . Most of us have been to university (I suspect) and most of us have gone through the "there is no good or evil" phase.  it's something you outgrow as you become more fully human, more fully real.




Agreed.  (Did you go to my university or something?   )


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Tell that to the priests of St. Cuthbert or Trithereon.





No doubt.  Nothing like some sweet vengence to a cleric of the cudgel.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> So I think he's safe to hire as a babysitter.



*sigh*
My point was not to bring up moral relativism, or to bring up my own ethical values. It was simply to keep things on target. D&D and the paladin's code within.

To relieve the fears of those that now seem to think I'm some sort of maniac...
Yes, I have my own set of beliefs as to what is right and wrong.
There, feel better?

Now, can we get back to the freakin' subject?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2005)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> While I agree that the moral relativism of folks like Arravis is indeed a bit frightening, keep in mind that it's all just academic masturbation.  It's the kind of thing they spout off in philosophy classes that have no contact with the real world.  But if you put a dude like Arravis in any situation where a moral choice is involved, he will probably do the right thing, as will most folks.
> 
> So I think he's safe to hire as a babysitter.
> 
> ...





It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and that the concept of good and evil is entirely based on subjective social convention and mutable from place to place and time to time. Fortunately, I think we've made great strides in most places around the globe, even compared to 100 years ago much less antiquity where mass slaughter and 'ethnic cleansing' was relatively common and acceptible.

Note that this is unlike D&D when alignment rules are in use and there IS an objective measure of whether something is good or evil within the game. Unfortunately, where the game meets the real world, we still run into differences of opinion and thus help to illustrate the fact that there really is no objective standard of good and evil in real life...


EDIT: That said, whether or not Arravis is safe to hire as a baby sitter hinges more on how well he can change a diaper and keep the baby off the stairs rather than whether or not he thinks about the philosophical nature of morality.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

Billd91, thank you for getting my point.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> Huh???
> 
> What's next, "Tell your player to roll to attack, and then ask him to decide if he hits or not"?
> 
> Paladins who murder get stripped of their abilities.  If the player gets his nose out of joint, tough.  He can play Monopoly or something.




Here's the thing: A Paladin who acts evil isn't an unbalanced class.  He's just as powerful as he is with his moral code acting to restrain him.

So the Paladin's code is just flavour.

I think it's bad if the DM gets to nerf a PC over just flavour.  The DM isn't playing the character, so why should he decide when the Paladin's abilities come into play or not?

Now if both the DM and the player of the paladin decide before what will constitue a breach of code, that's fine.  If they don't, and the DM says, "I don't like how you play your PC, so now you suck,"  that blows.

What's more, the Paladin's code acts to restrict player choices in the game.  Either he is Lawful Good and has a playable character, or he's not and he's got an unplayable character.  That's really restrictive if you want to explore good & evil.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil




Prove it.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 8, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> So the Paladin's code is just flavour.



If it's just flavor, why have in-game effects for breaking the code?
3rd edition when out of its way (for good or bad) to get rid of "flavor" and to put that in the DM's and player's hands.
The paladin's code of ethics IS in the class description, therefor it IS part of the class.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 8, 2005)

Yikes, quite a few responses since lunch. I've kept some details vague because this is a continuing adventure, and some because it's a long-running game and providing full context is pretty much impossible. That said, here's some more grist for the mill:

The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.

At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, they teleport away). 

Another PC, a cleric, roused by the struggle, bursts into the room, sees that the wife is alive but confused, and gets a quick summary of what happened. He runs downstairs.

Meanwhile, the paladin has grown suspicious and begins questioning the halfling, then grabs him. When the halfling refuses to give answers (who sent you, what are you doing here), he gets a little rough. The halfling tells some obvious lies, and the paladin gets a little rougher. 

Then the PC cleric arrives and announces that someone has assaulted the paladin's wife. After a few more questions and non-answers, the player says "I break his neck." I verify that his intent is to kill. Since the halfling is a) pinned and b) already at low HP, I say he is negative HP and dying. (I had foregone rolling damage for the various attacks during the interrogation in order to maintain the flow of the scene.) That's where the session ended.

Game time elapsed between the assault and the end of the session was a minute or so.

(Of course, since there is a cleric standing right there with a Heal spell prepared, the halfling is likely to live.)

===

I didn't intend to have the halfling die and was not trying to bait the paladin into anything. 

It's hard to describe how a particular campaign uses alignments; I would say that this one falls more toward Good and Evil as moral absolutes, but that means different things to different people. 

To simplify things rather a lot: the Paladin was not legally justified to execute the halfling, as no lives were in danger; he did not (and does not) know if the halfling is evil; he has good and sufficient reason to presume that the halfling was involved; he knew his wife was attacked but still alive.

I consider this chaotic as the paladin disregarded laws he had sworn to uphold for no reason other than personal vengeance. The evil part depends a bit more on the nature of the person involved, and the paladin's failure to discover further details about that nature. That does seem a bit weaker than the chaotic bit, on further reflection.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Prove it.



That's the big big problem with real world morality.  It can't be proven or disproven.  If it could, life would be a LOT easier.

Can we talk about paladins?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Now if both the DM and the player of the paladin decide before what will constitue a breach of code, that's fine.  If they don't, and the DM says, "I don't like how you play your PC, so now you suck,"  that blows.




Except that if they don't agree to something before hand the default is to play the class as written, not to play it without the code. If someone wants to play a paladin without a code, or wth a very different code from the default set out, they should bring that up with the DM and negotiate it prior to playing the character. You are suggesting that somehow the default should be to ignore the class as written. Even if your idea of what the paladin should be was superior, its a wholly impractical stance.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's not really a question of going through a phase as much as it is a philosophical recognition that there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and that the concept of good and evil is entirely based on subjective social convention and mutable from place to place and time to time. Fortunately, I think we've made great strides in most places around the globe, even compared to 100 years ago much less antiquity where mass slaughter and 'ethnic cleansing' was relatively common and acceptible.




You just contradicted yourself.  You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.

How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?

You can't have it both ways.  If there is no way to measure good and evil, then you can't say that we've become more moral as a species due to the relatively uncommon nature of mass slaughter.  

I love it when moral relativists contradict themselves.  [laughs, puts feet up, munches popcorn]


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> That's the big big problem with real world morality.  It can't be proven or disproven.  If it could, life would be a LOT easier.




You're assuming, of course, that something has to be "proven" to be known as truth.  

Do you love your parents? 

Prove it.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Nov 8, 2005)

As a paladin of Heironymous, he's pretty much SOL.  It might be mitigated based on how H. views those who are themselves devoid of chivalry and honor.  I mean, what kind of base villian attacks a pregnant woman?  Even worse, who knowingly leads her defender away?  Still, it's not really a paladish thing to do (yes, I'm making up words!)

I'd probably go with a compromise.  The paladin sees H. manifest over the halfling as he makes the killing blow  H. states that those without honor should be treated honorably else they succeed in killing honor.  The vision fades and the paladin's blade breaks.  The paladin's powers fade until the sword is reforged.  





			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> The paladin (who worships Hieroneous) is effectively a noble of the kingdom he is in (he is actually a noble from another kingdom who has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities). He has the legal powers of a nobleman -- but he is in the capital city of a kingdom which is (simplifying here of course) Lawful Good. He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances.




IIRC, if a peasant was involved in an assault on a noble the noble could kill the peasant and at worst pay a fairly minor fine.   It got a bit hairier with freemen vs. peasants tied to the land but it was still pretty much "Nobles are noble; everyone else is scum."  That's why no one IMC has any noble title.


----------



## Hunter Simon (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> You just contradicted yourself.  You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.
> 
> How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  If there is no way to measure good and evil, then you can't say that we've become more moral as a species due to the relatively uncommon nature of mass slaughter.




Well said.  

To quote the great Allan Bloom:

"There is one thing every university professor can be certain of.  Every student entering the university believes--or says he believes--that truth is relative.  If this assertion is questioned the students will be uncomprehending, as if the questioner was calling into question that 2+2=4.  The students, of course, cannot defend their position; it is something with which they have been indoctrinated."


----------



## Hunter Simon (Nov 8, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> To relieve the fears of those that now seem to think I'm some sort of maniac...
> Yes, I have my own set of beliefs as to what is right and wrong.
> There, feel better?




Uh, you do realize, of course, that *everyone* has "beliefs as to what is right and wrong."  That alone means nothing.

Stalin, Nero, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, the Inquisitors, serial killers . . . 

They *all* have "beliefs as to what is right and wrong."

The question isn't "Do you have beliefs as to what is right and wrong?" but rather "What *are* your beliefs as to what is right and wrong?"

If your beliefs are, as I think you admitted earlier, that there *is* no ultimate right and wrong, then I can see why someone might find that a bit troublesome.  It means that you would look at horrific acts such as child abuse, rape, and mass murder, and you would say, "It ain't necessarily wrong! There *is* no objective wrong!"

*That*, I think, is why some people were a bit concerned by what you said.

But not me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 8, 2005)

Let's stay pleasant about this, folks.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> You're assuming, of course, that something has to be "proven" to be known as truth.
> 
> Do you love your parents?
> 
> Prove it.



But will Patryn of Elvenshae accept that answer?  

Can we talk about paladins?


----------



## billd91 (Nov 8, 2005)

Chainsaw Mage said:
			
		

> You just contradicted yourself.  You said (a) there is no such thing as an objective yardstick to determine good and evil and (b) we've made "great strides" in most places around the globe.
> 
> How can you say we've made "great strides" if there is no way to measure good and evil? We've made "great strides" compared to what? Measured by what?
> 
> ...




Don't choke on that popcorn. Notice that I say I think we've made great strides. That's a statement of my personal opinion based on my own personal moral beliefs.

You might want to be certain you've actually got a contradition before you get all smug about it.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Nov 8, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Don't choke on that popcorn. Notice that I say I think we've made great strides. That's a statement of my personal opinion based on my own personal moral beliefs.
> 
> You might want to be certain you've actually got a contradition before you get all smug about it.





[coughs, spits out popcorn, brushes crumbs off shirt]


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 8, 2005)

I'm going to go one step past Hypersmurf.

I've deleted one post here for being rude toward a class of members here at ENWorld.  The next deleted post will earn the poster a vacation.  

So, "Let's stay pleasant about this, folks.  Or else."


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 8, 2005)

I think that some folks are conflating meta-beliefs with beliefs. 

I can say that beauty is subjective and cultural and thats a meta-belief. It is almost wholly unrelated to my belief that Antonio Bandaras is the sexists thing on the planet.   believing that there is not an objective, fundemental yardstick for something doesn't mean that a person does not or cannot make judgements on that subject or even believe that enforcing those judgements is a good thing for society.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 8, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> But will Patryn of Elvenshae accept that answer?




I'd believe you if you said it, having no evidence to the contrary nor any reason to believe you were lying.  



> Can we talk about paladins?




Sure - but the problem is that someone seems to think that moral relativism plays some role in this debate.

It's possible it does, but only so far as it affects how the DM in question wants to rule his in-game alignment system.

Is killing the halfling evil?  I don't think it was, in this case.

Non-Good?  Certainly.  But there's a rather large gulf between non-Good and Evil.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 8, 2005)

Wow, half a page of bitching back and forth about moral relativism, and nobody seems to even have noticed the Original Poster has actually jumped in to give us more information!

Given the fact that the paladin never actually established the halfling was anything more than a hired flunky with no knowledge of the plot beyond "keep so-and-so busy for a few minutes", and given the fact that there was no sense of urgency and no "preventing future atrocities" defense...

... I'd say, yes the paladin did overstep his bounds. And Hieroneous would not be looking too kindly upon this act.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 8, 2005)

Okay, here's my feeble attempt to get the thread back on-topic. A couple of general comments, first.

This doesn't have anything to do with how practical the paladin's code is in the real world, or whether good and evil are absolute or relative. This is D&D, and the paladin's code is practical because the DM sets things up so that it is (there should always be a way around the problem that allows him to follow his code), and there is an absolute (though occasionally poorly defined) standard of good and evil.

To me, the essence of a Lawful character is that he adheres to a code of conduct that is imposed on him by a group he belongs to, whether it is his country, his faith, or his culture. He doesn't come up with his own ideas of what is acceptable and unacceptable (that would be Chaotic). As a Lawful character, a paladin could choose to follow his country's laws, or his faith's tenets, and so on. It doesn't mean he can't break them. It would be a chaotic act, but it wouldn't turn him chaotic immediately.

Finally, to the paladin in question. Someone quoted Vimes early in this thread. I'll now quote Carrot, possibly the most paladin-like of Terry Pratchett's Discworld characters: "Personal isn't the same as important." I believe the paladin acted rashly and unwisely. If it goes against one of the principles he is committed to uphold as a Lawful character, then it was a chaotic act. Given the elaborated scenario, the paladin was probably frustrated that he couldn't get any information out of the obviously-lying halfling, and assumed he was more of a threat than he seemed. Surely an ordinary stooge would have broken down and confessed everything he knew when confronted by a high-charisma paladin in full wrath mode, no?

I wouldn't take away the paladin's powers, but I'd find some in-game way to warn him about the dangers of acting rashly and unwisely in future, and then threaten his wife and child again and again to see if this will push him to increasingly evil acts . Of course, the ultimate cheesy ending would be for him to go on a murderous rampage after someone told him his wife was killed and become a blackguard. Then, the next campaign could be about his twin children (his wife lost the will to live and died in childbirth) with him as an evil NPC.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 8, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Depends, really - what god does the Paladin serve? If it isn't one that condones vengeance, I'd strip him of his Paladin status as the act would likely be an affront to his god. Sure, it took place in a moment of passion, but one of the Paladin's duties (typically) is to remain true to the tenets of his faith in such circumstances - that's what seperates him from the normal guy on the street. If murder runs contrary to the established tenets of his god's will, then I'd strip him of his status and not restore it until he serves pennance for his crime (be that pennance a quest, punishment, or otherwise) and wins favor with his god again.




If it's Cuthbert, for example, he's probably up for sainthood now.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 8, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> jdrakeh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See above. It's a paladin of Hieroneous, god of Chivalry, Honor, Justice, Valor, and all that good stuff...


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Yikes, quite a few responses since lunch. I've kept some details vague because this is a continuing adventure, and some because it's a long-running game and providing full context is pretty much impossible. That said, here's some more grist for the mill:
> 
> The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.
> 
> ...




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...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 9, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Yikes, quite a few responses since lunch. I've kept some details vague because this is a continuing adventure, and some because it's a long-running game and providing full context is pretty much impossible. That said, here's some more grist for the mill:




 Okay now that I've read that...

I would strip him of his powers immediately.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

After reading all of this, two or three warnings, a deleted post, and a few attempts to bring a true face to all this crazed matter.

Something else is still missing.

The player in question, was responding to the scene, as any home owner, husband and expected father would react.

He was home. Not on a mission, not slaying some brute monster. He was home.

Awaken, and asking a trusted friend to lookover his spouse, indicates to me, that there is a personal history as said by the original starter of this theme, too long to get into. He leaves a trusted friend to protect his wife.

Now by the door or by some small interior room, where the messenger starts to get all vaguee, on what the message is.

That now irks the owner of the home, on something is now suspicious, plus keep in mind, this man was awaken from his sleep. Time unknown.

While this is going on, the PC friend, trusted to the nines, fails to see the danger, and trouble starts.

Somehow, the wife becomes alert, and screams a cry. Being pregnant, the danger tickles the sixth sense and knowing too, that being a paladin's wife, does have its dangers also.

Downstairs, the father to be in question, is quiet irrate, ang gets rough, after the questions asked, are getting no where. To his satifacation.

Upstairs, near a adjoining room, a second PC, a cleric, jumps out of the bed, as fast he can get his underpants on, rushes there in time, to be told...that the attempt met with failure, from the intruder. The Cleric ascertains as much they as could, that everything is alirght, leaves to give the husband of the wife, the good news.

Meanwhile downstairs, the roughness goes to a body movement restriction, the distress and growing angry is ever present in the human male dealing with the said suppose to be messenger halfing. At some point, either by  noise or vocal conversation, he learns of the assualt done to his spouse, who is carrying the future of the family line.

The husband, the father to a soon newborn child, and man of the house(if this so), is now truly insense and much anger seeps pass his own reasoning of control.

Said Cleric reaches the room, and confirms, to the much angry man, who is holding in restrainted, the halpless halfing. It was the worst news to confirm his own suspicions.

He declares death, for the indirect assualt and deception done to him, and he is angry at himself for falling for it and it left his wife  and soon to be mother, with babe, unprotected.

His venting cannot go to the escaped other intruder, it can't go his friend, who failed in their duty to safeguard her, first of all, on the first bout.

What is the old saying, "Wrong place, wrong time"....the entire scene was rich with emotional pulls, and every piece said here, just flare the persona's worse fears.

That whoever organized it, wanted to show that the man of the house, the husband, the father to be, and his dear friends, cannot protect the one person, in that family.

His wife, and the babe who is in her womb.

And you said, this man was chaotic??

Please take a look here, and view carefully...all of this is seen from the character's perpective, and not one mention of him, being a paladin.

No God, no SRD, no RAW, nothing else but the emotion rollcaster that went through that man should be the only thing that should matter.

And what matter to that man, that husband, that father to be...someone trepassed on his home, his 'castle', someone else was the trickster, used to detain, distract the man, the lord of the manor? To hurt his charges, his family...please

Folks, what has transpose there in that house, was all legit...and nothing, nothing short of a total confession may not save that halfing.

In the old days, when someone directly or indirectly partakes on a venture to bring harm to someone's else family, and you are caught in the act, guess what, you share what the punishment is.

When it comes to a wife, your lover, your friend, and expecting...to give birth to a child from your blessed union. And someone wants to harm them?

Run or die...

And live with consquences thereafter...

Oh, one more thing, that is what you get, when you wake up a person from a good sleep.   



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> Yikes, quite a few responses since lunch. I've kept some details vague because this is a continuing adventure, and some because it's a long-running game and providing full context is pretty much impossible. That said, here's some more grist for the mill:
> 
> The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 9, 2005)

Hi Everyone,
Based on Galfridus's most recent post, it would seem that the Paladin will be (and should be) spending a little time on the sidelines - but nothing that an atonement won't fix. While a certain level of rashness and stupidity can be expected (and even encouraged by capricious party members) when playing a paladin, this act was also dishonourable - to the point of an act of murder. 

The "model" paladin most likely would have, questioned the halfling further, found out what precisely occured to his wife and then and only then act upon the information garnered. A paladin who only thinks with his sword generally makes for a poor paladin (but an interesting character). Acting on what "seems" to have occurred is the classic way for a paladin to fall. Compared to some, I most probably have a hard line when it comes to paladins. To each their own.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> What is the old saying, "Wrong place, wrong time"....




If the paladin had found out that the halfling was a voluntary participant in said assault, then this may be the case.  The fact remains that the paladin did not wait to find out if the halfling was being forced against his will.  So, regardless of the halfling's true motivation, the paladin was not very thorough in finding out.  I realize that speak with dead can still be used, but what happens if the halfling's corpse says that he was forced against his will ("oops, sorry I lost my temper and killed you in a blind rage")?

{EDIT: WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT AM I THINKING?} "Wrong place, wrong time" never applies to a good situation (if it was a good situation, it wouldn't be called that - it'd be called "The hero was in the right place, at the right time").


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

And also, the title of the subject thread is misleading...should be changed to _almost killed_


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And also, the title of the subject thread is misleading...should be changed to _almost killed_




Good point...


----------



## Cheiromancer (Nov 9, 2005)

A setting that has modern sensibilities about due process and presumption of innocence would not, I think, have paladins.  A setting where violence is a last resort and good and evil are shades of gray would not have paladins.  Such a setting would have no role for people who roam the countryside acting as judge, jury and executioner.  And that is what I think the paladin's role is.  Paladins are divinely empowered to right wrongs, defend the innocent and punish the wicked.  They are not subtle.  Their role quite usually involves lots of violence, and that is often righteous wrath.  Wrath which is appropriately directed at anyone complicit in putting someone at risk who is under the paladin's protection.  Which is obviously true in this case.  And unless your setting deviates quite a bit from the default D&D setting, the paladin's behavior is perfectly appropriate.

So I don't think that the paladin deserves any sanction at all.  In fact I think that sanctions due to moral dilemmas shouldn't happen against the player's wishes.  If a lapse in paladinhood explores an aspect of the character that the player wants to get into, then fine.  Or if the player is playing the paladin in a cruel, selfish, greedy or cowardly way, then it might be a signal that the paladin has to be more upright and noble.

But if the player thinks the paladin is doing the right thing, I think the DM should go along with it.  He doesn't have to overthink it either; a gut feeling, spur of the moment kind of choice, one consistent with the paladin's character is sufficient.  It is perfectly consistent, imo, with the role of a paladin and with the lawful good alignment for the character to slay the halfling.  He could show mercy (and that would also be a good thing- killing the halfling is not obligatory) but the halfling's life is forfeit for the role he played in the attack on the paladin's wife, and the paladin would be justified in killing the halfling then and there.  It's the paladin's choice, and he shouldn't be punished either way.

You might not buy all of this, but I hope that at the very least you see that it is doubtful that the paladin did anything wrong.  And so I hope you give the character the benefit of the doubt.  Otherwise it will seem as if you are messing with the paladin.

Not that messing with the paladin is always a bad idea.  I mess with paladins in my campaigns too.  The last time I did it was with a paladin of Helm- an enemy used a spell to make him fall asleep when he was on duty.  I decided that for a paladin of Helm (the watcher) this was a bad thing- equivalent to a paladin being enchanted to perform evil deeds.  So he lost his paladin status for a session or too until he could atone.  I don't think there was any quest or special penance- just the spell.  But I wouldn't use a moral dilemma to mess with a paladin unless the player wanted to go along with it.


----------



## Kuld (Nov 9, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> If the paladin had found out that the halfling was a voluntary participant in said assault, then this may be the case.  The fact remains that the paladin did not wait to find out if the halfling was being forced against his will.  So, regardless of the halfling's true motivation, the paladin was not very thorough in finding out.  I realize that speak with dead can still be used, but what happens if the halfling's corpse says that he was forced against his will ("oops, sorry I lost my temper and killed you in a blind rage")?
> 
> {EDIT: WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT AM I THINKING?} "Wrong place, wrong time" never applies to a good situation (if it was a good situation, it wouldn't be called that - it'd be called "The hero was in the right place, at the right time").




I agree. How does the Paladin know that the Halflings family wasn't threatened by these people to get him involved?


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 9, 2005)

When you work in the service of a god you accept his right to punish. At the same time, others must accept his right to forgive. Things happen in the heat of passion, this does not render the person unfit for a special status. Be it something that occurred spontaneously, that is one thing. Be it part of a pattern of behavior, that is another. As far as I can tell the paladin's behavior was unique, and sparked by circumstances. I can see Hieronemous giving said paladin a chiding and the chance at redemption. We are, after all, speaking of one of Hieronemous' servants, and how he handles the matter is his affair. (Or the DM's acting as Hieronemous.)

From Memory: And God said unto Jonah, "You show concern for the gourd, though you had nothing to do with its existence, its growth and its death. Have I then no right to show concern for the Assyrians, a people for who I am responsible, and who turned their back upon evil when my word was presented to them?"

You show concern for what was done to the halfling in the heat of anger and fear. Has the DM no right to show concern for the paladin when he shows contrition for what he did?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 9, 2005)

Let me be even more clear.  The next person that attempts to bring the real world to this discussion in any way, shape, or form is going to take a three day vacation.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> ...but the halfling's life is forfeit for the role he played in the attack on the paladin's wife, and the paladin would be justified in killing the halfling then and there.  It's the paladin's choice, and he shouldn't be punished either way...




Only if the halfling was a willing participant.  If the main bad guy had the halfling's family hostage (or some other form of blackmail or intimidation or magical compulsion), then the halfling's only fault would be that he isn't able to stand against the bad guy.

If the halfling's willingness had not been determined, then the DM should probably talk to the player before just deciding that the paladin had killed an innocent person.


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 9, 2005)

double post


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 9, 2005)

Edit:  To answer your question, yes.

Do not play games with this.  --Dinkeldog


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

So, do you think that the moderators' eyes start itching when they read a thread that has Paladin and a question mark in the title?

Paladin threads are so fun to read, due to the range of opinions (unfortunately, unlike some volatile topics, "Paladin-type" threads can easily cross certain lines - sort of like alignment threads).


----------



## mythusmage (Nov 9, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Let me be even more clear.  The next person that attempts to bring the real world to this discussion in any way, shape, or form is going to take a three day vacation.





With that in mind, I would give the paladin the benefit of the doubt. I may not even punish him, for I would know why he acted as he did. Understanding can make it hard to be punitive. At the same time, understanding can make it easy to be punitive. Which applies depends upon understanding the exact situation.

Trust not in the judgement of people who are ignorant of what they're talking about.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law [that] is unfair or capricious."




Which relates to this situation how? One could argue that the Paldin sees due process and a trial as unjust, but it wouldn't be a very compelling agument - the only possible way he could make the argument is that since a loved one was personally harmed, the laws that he usually fights to uplhold need not apply to him. Which is a crappy argument as, again, it makes him a vigilante by definition.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

While I'm still comfortable with my initial pro-power wacking response, I'd say it would be nice to the player to just take the intergame time to say, "So, you know this is n violation of your character's paladin status, right?" The player may well be fine with that, or not like it but decide his character would still do it, but there's a chance that he hadn't realy considered how his character would behave as a paladin as well as a husband.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Nov 9, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Lawful, does imply some measure of actual following of laws, as stated in the SRD _"obedience to authority"_.



Actually, I believe the quote you're looking for is "respect for legitimate authority."  Respect != Obedience.  And not all authority is legitimate.


----------



## coyote6 (Nov 9, 2005)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> the halfling's life is forfeit for the role he played in the attack on the paladin's wife,




What "attack", though? Someone snuck past the guard, was in the room with her, and "did something" -- but she was alive, and appeared unharmed. The someone then teleported away.

So far, the "assault" could've been practically anything, including beneficial things. (A really elaborate way to deliver a baby shower gift?) The wife is "apparently unharmed", though the cleric didn't seem to mention that, nor that the manner of the assault is (apparently) unknown. (Maybe the cleric is a servant of the God of Garbled Messages. If prankster kids in masks threw snowballs at his door, would the cleric report an attempted home invasion by fiends from the Abyss?)

Did the paladin _detect evil_? It wasn't mentioned that he did; "halfling radiating strong aura of evil" would put a whole different spin on the neck snapping. 

(Heck, the friendly cleric could've been a doppleganger -- he hires some halfling who is a firm believer in the Crown/Church/Gods/Food, but not a very good liar; then gives him a fake story about how They need his help; the halfling needs to get the paladin tp his front door for a few minutes, for some very good but but very secret reason, and the halfling is *not* to relate the story to the paladin -- the King/archbishop/gods/Master Chef demands it, and the fate of the kingdom/righteousness/the world/dinner is at stake! So, the paladin gets delayed by a halfling that's clearly hiding something, and can't tell a life to save his neck. Then, the doppleganger walks up and says, "Hey, they just attacked your wife. That little halfling was in on it." And, without a hint of confirmation, or even clarification on what "attacked your wife" means (they threw a pie at her and missed? Death attacked her with a poisoned vorpal sword?), the paladin snaps the halfling's neck. Oops.)


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

Well, I will look at it this way...it was roleplayed, roleplayed from a much angry and hurt man, whose pride was wounded. For all the protections and possible strengths of arms that was in that house...someone got to his wife.

I do not look at the situation from a paladin view, that was the DM and writer of this thread that marked it so.

What happened there, he puts himself in a corner, cause the scene became too powerful, emotional charged. Was the player asked, after the game was over, was he okay with it?

As you can see from my next to latest post...it was viewed from an individual who was heavily distraught.

Don't deal with the paladin, deal with the man, deal with the frightened husband.

And also, no one, one here, and even me, cannot predict on what the outcome should be, if the outline was for the "paladin" was detain and question the halfing, who was already (the man) was upset in several degrees. 

Sorry, but all of this, this scene belongs to the DM and the player only. What comes out of it, will be again, should be dealt with the forementioned two.

What happened here, a scene got too big too handle, and the player was channeling, pretty well, the emotions of a person whose home was broken into, whose love one was threaten, and everyone here, almost one here keeps forgetting that character is upset, is livid, that the attempt was done in his home, on his own grounds.

And aftermath should be what?

He gets punished, cause he didn't check his anger right away, after all that happened, in that house.

You know what, I will go to the player's side, cause...one reason, I don't see a paladin, religion, or god being involved in that situation.

What I see from a roleplayed point of view, is a person who was wounded mentally and spiritually.

To resolve this, besides the character being sidelined as mentioned, roleplay that scene out...cause the DM has a hit a nerve with his player, on a very touchy situation, that involved family.

You indirectly trigger a response, and it was 'thrown' back at you, in roleplay, well roleplay back, and when finished...sit down and talk about it. No book, no guideline or rule or advise is going to help in this situation.

From this, this is how, you can become a better DM and he, a better player.

Learn from the experience.

And that is truth of the matter.




			
				FickleGM said:
			
		

> If the paladin had found out that the halfling was a voluntary participant in said assault, then this may be the case.  The fact remains that the paladin did not wait to find out if the halfling was being forced against his will.  So, regardless of the halfling's true motivation, the paladin was not very thorough in finding out.  I realize that speak with dead can still be used, but what happens if the halfling's corpse says that he was forced against his will ("oops, sorry I lost my temper and killed you in a blind rage")?
> 
> {EDIT: WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT AM I THINKING?} "Wrong place, wrong time" never applies to a good situation (if it was a good situation, it wouldn't be called that - it'd be called "The hero was in the right place, at the right time").


----------



## Andor (Nov 9, 2005)

Ok. Resolution idea. We all know that Paladins who commit a chotic act or evil act suffer varies consequences, yes?

Nowhere in the rules does it say that this happens immediately, or in a direct intervention by god method. SO: If it does not screw up your stated workings for Paladins, have an Inquisitor show up. Someone with the authority to judge the character and the god granted power to strip him of his paladinhood or send him on an atonement quest. 

Everything is fine for now. He retains all his powers and may not even realize there was a problem (although he should.) But a week from now there is a knock on the door and there stands the Inquisitor. Basically what follows in a courts-martial over the incident. Play it out however you want, but the Paladin should be quaking in his boots. Let the other characters act as witnesses if you want to keep them involved, or just the Paladin if you want to keep it short. 

Even if he gets off without penalty, the players should sure as HELL get the message that he was right on the edge there. 

And as a roleplaying bonus sometime later the Paladin may have to pay his debt forward when he recieves a vision and now has to go and act as inquisitor for some other poor shlub.


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 9, 2005)

This kind of thread just re-emphasizes my dislike of alignments.  IF they did away with alignments, and just wrote in a Paladin Code of Honor, or something, in the class description, of what actions fall in the Paladin Code, then many arguments wouldn't happen.  

There are many times the Paladin class is confusing.  I guess it's assumed that in D&D the worlds are typically black and white, there is real evil and real good and not much in between.  Evil is evil, and that is what the Paladin Smites.  If he detects evil, and gets evil, and kills evil, then he is following the tenets of the Paladin as I understand it.  To me, that's how the rules of the game lay it out.

The rules don't go into Behavioral Alignments.  To me, and this is why I don't like them, Alignments cause more arguments than anything else in the game.  Here we have a Paladin that committed an act of killing a halfling he assumes is behind, or part of, the attack on his pregnant wife.  Was he right by killing the halfling?  You bet he is, as I see it according to the rules I am given.  The halfling was evil, therefore smiting this evil falls within the Paladin Code of Behavior.  

Trying to justify his actions, was he passionate, enraged, etc. just complicates the system because this game system does NOT have rules for this.  Passions are not part of the system.  To try and put them into a game system in which they are not designed for is just to cause headaches.

A lot of people say alignments are just guidelines, but so many times people complain that a person is NOT acting his alignment because he did ONE thing that goes against it.  

I hate alignments, worst game mechanic next to THAC0 ever designed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 9, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> See above. It's a paladin of Hieroneous, god of Chivalry, Honor, Justice, Valor, and all that good stuff...



Ohhh...well then, he's screwed.  Cuthbert is a "letter of the law" type, but Hieroneous sometimes lets stuff like fairness and compassion get in the way of a good smiting.



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Ok. Resolution idea. We all know that Paladins who commit a chotic act or evil act suffer varies consequences, yes?




Not chaotic, just evil.  Read the paladin's code again.  No evil acts, but you can perform chaotic acts, just so long as your alignment stays lawful.  So don't make a habit of starting anarchist uprisings or anything.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Arravis said:
			
		

> If it's just flavor, why have in-game effects for breaking the code?
> 3rd edition when out of its way (for good or bad) to get rid of "flavor" and to put that in the DM's and player's hands.
> The paladin's code of ethics IS in the class description, therefor it IS part of the class.




Exactly my point.  Why have in-game effects for breaking the code?  It's just going to cause problems.

It may be part of the class, but that just means that the paladin was poorly designed (in my opinion).


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Except that if they don't agree to something before hand the default is to play the class as written, not to play it without the code. If someone wants to play a paladin without a code, or wth a very different code from the default set out, they should bring that up with the DM and negotiate it prior to playing the character. You are suggesting that somehow the default should be to ignore the class as written. Even if your idea of what the paladin should be was superior, its a wholly impractical stance.




I'm suggesting that the class as written is an example of poor design, and should be ignored if you want to have a good game without talking about the code beforehand.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 9, 2005)

First off, in my own games this would not be breaking the paladin's code of conduct. Dealing with the halfling would not only be the paladin's right it would be his duty.

There would be a penalty of course - the paladin's player is the one who pays for the pizza*.

The Auld Grump

*But he also gets to choose the toppings.*

*As long as there are no anchovies.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Well, I will look at it this way...it was roleplayed, roleplayed from a much angry and hurt man, whose pride was wounded. For all the protections and possible strengths of arms that was in that house...someone got to his wife.
> 
> I do not look at the situation from a paladin view, that was the DM and writer of this thread that marked it so.
> 
> ...




Truthseeker, an interesting viewpoint well expressed.
Now allow me to retort.

What is a paladin? What do they represent?
This is the crux of what these paladin threads always come down to. People will always differ in their perspectives on these two simple but incredibly deep and rich questions.

For me, (the classic hardline paladin enthusiast), your ideas of how a "man" and "frightened husband" would react damn the paladin immediately. This IS how an ordinary man would react. However, for those that look at the Paladin class like I, a Paladin is above that. They are chosen by their deity to represent that deity. In short, they are a paladin, not just a man. They are a paladin, not just a "frightened husband". I mean it's in the class at 3rd level - they are immune to fear. Would Heironeous in this case, a deity who promotes justice, valorm, chivalry and honor, wish His Paladins to be acting in this way? The simple answer is no. Are the actions forgiveable? Of course. However, a Paladin never clocks off and whether in his own home, the nine planes of hell or anywhere, they will be a constant. As such, the paladin in question in being just a man and frightened husband, erred and would need to atone for his actions.

For those that prefer a more progressive view of Paladins, I suppose their thoughts like yours would vary. Such is the fun of this class - and also these Paladin threads that they spawn every other month.

Best Regards and Enjoy Your Paladins
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> You know what, I will go to the player's side, cause...one reason, I don't see a paladin, religion, or god being involved in that situation.




I don't think there is a single time when the paladinhood and the code and commitement to Heironeous doesn't come into play.  It's the core of his being and should be the main focus in his life.  Even above his wife and family.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 9, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't think there is a single time when the paladinhood and the code and commitement to Heironeous doesn't come into play.  It's the core of his being and should be the main focus in his life.  Even above his wife and family.




I happen to think that paladins shouldn't marry.  They're in a stupidly dangerous business and it's selfish to marry someone just to widow them, they have no time for a home life, and a family is a good way to make sure that your enemies have hostages or vengeance.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> "As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter.  In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law [that] is unfair or capricious."





			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Which relates to this situation how?



The quote was offered in response to _this_ claim...



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This thread is an excellent example of why alignments don't get used in my campaigns, incidentally - clearly there are two circles of thought here:
> 
> 1. Lawful infers adherance to the law as it exists in a given setting.
> 2. Lawful infers the duty to do what one personally considers just, laws be damned.



...to illustrate the fact that while Lawful does not equal "law-abiding," neither does it embrace a "laws be damned" attitude.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

Hmmmm...

1(Intruder in house)(captured*questioned*killed)/X(Invaders in the house) + at night + 1 kidnapped wife(Paladin) + 0(additional information) + Paladin's divine duty to smite evil = probable justified homicide + (aquittal*no loss of paladinhood)

By my equation, the Paladin did nothing wrong.

Heck, I'm sure I could get the guy acquitted, and I make a crappy defense attorney!


> Would Heironeous in this case, a deity who promotes justice, valorm, chivalry and honor, wish His Paladins to be acting in this way?




Heironeous: Domains Good, Law, *War*.
Promotes:* Justice*, Valor, Chivalry and Honor.
Kidnapper: acessory to a violent* crime*, didn't talk.
Chivalrous age setting-  Knights were answerable only to self, code, peers and superiors- essentially, like Judge Dred, they can say "I am the Law!"

Slaying someone who is an accomplice to an evil act, and who refuses to cooperate, is not evil.

Perhaps this song lyric may clarify:



> Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
> he is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
> he hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword;
> his truth is marching on.




The god you serve may be good...but that doesn't neccessarily mean he is slow to anger!

Besides, if the kidnapping were benign, the accomplice would have been wise to TALK to the man who literally holds his life in his hands!


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Nov 9, 2005)

Ahem. Wow. I wish I had replied to this thread this morning.

Every time I read a paladin thread, I think the same things. So, it's time to break out the typical paladin questionaire:

Does this player have a history of 'shaky' behavior or 'unpaldinishness'?
Is this a shades of grey campaign, or is it angled more towards killing the evil denziens of the dungeon?
Is your player thick skinned and able to deal with losing his powers fairly well? Would he take it badly?
Have you talked to your player about it? Does he feel that he deserves to lose his powers?


Here's my typical paladin response:
I tend to follow the line of thinking that the paladin is right. I've found that I trust my players well enough to stick to the concept of their characters. So, in situations where we might have a disagreement, I find that there is usually a compelling enough arguement that my players can make that I don't feel the need to argue the point.

In situations where a paladin has crossed the line, I reccomend against removing all of his abilities. I reccomend smaller steps. In a case where a paladin neglects mercy, reduce (or remove) the power of his Lay on Hands ability. It gets the same point across. However it avoids stonewalling the issue, and may help in the case where a player would feel useless after losing his abilities.

With regards to your situation, I have to ask: Did you have any plans of sacrificing his wife, turning his unborn child into an unholy monster, and generally forcing the paladin between choosing between his family and the safety of the world? I just have to ask, because I've read a lot of paladin threads. On a more serious note, do you trust this player? How does he feel about the situation?

My advice is to forget morality, forget plans, and go with what makes the game most fun.However, I urge you greatly to venture cautiously into the land of power loss, as many people don't find it fun.

And, after reading this, I have just one thing to say. If I do get a chance to play the paladin character I have in mind, he's going to be a loner orphan with no friends. Because, really, it seems like having friends or family as a paladin is just asking to be slapped with power-drain.

By the way, I would still like to hear an answer to Wulf's original question. "What did you expect to happen?"


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> In the old days, when someone directly or indirectly partakes on a venture to bring harm to someone's else family, and you are caught in the act, guess what, you share what the punishment is.
> 
> When it comes to a wife, your lover, your friend, and expecting...to give birth to a child from your blessed union. And someone wants to harm them?
> 
> ...




and



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...
> 
> 1(Intruder in house)(captured*questioned*killed)/X(Invaders in the house) + at night + 1 kidnapped wife(Paladin) + 0(additional information) + Paladin's divine duty to smite evil = probable justified homicide + (aquittal*no loss of paladinhood)
> 
> ...




Heck with it. At risk of taking a three day vacation (feh, I need to make more time to study anyway), here is the relevant quote I wanted to post from the _Book of Exalted Deeds_.



			
				Book of Exalted Deeds said:
			
		

> *BEING AHEAD OF YOUR TIME*
> Heroic characters often end up at odds with their culture and society. The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional. It is certainly possible that your campaign world might be a more enlightened place than medieval Europe--a place where men and women are considered equal, slavery is not practiced in any form, torture and capital punishment are shunned, and the various human and humanoid races live together in harmony. In such a case, an exalted character can live in relative peace with her culture, and focus her attention on slaying evil creatures in ruins and dungeons or rival, evil nations.
> 
> On the other hand, your campaign world might more closely reflect the realities of life in Earth's Dark or Middle Ages. Perhaps women are not viewed as men's equals or even sentient beings in their own right, slavery is widespread, testimony from serfs is only acceptable if extracted through torture, and humans of a certain skin tone (let alone nonhumans) are viewed as demonic creatures. It is vitally important to remembers one thing: these factors don't change anything else said in this chapter (or in the Book of Vile Darkness) about what constitutes a good or evil deed. Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil. *That simply means that an exalted character has an even harder road to follow [emphasis mine].* Not only must she worry about external evils like conjured demons and rampaging orc hordes, she must also contend with the evil within her own society.



Just because society condones justifiable homicide does not mean that a paladin can engage in it righteously. For all our sympathy to his situation and all his grief, it remains an evil act. By this standard, the paladin in question erred. As I said before, it is great human drama, but it is not the act of an exalted character who is trying to maintain that virtuous perspective.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Heironeous: Domains Good, Law, *War*.
> Promotes:* Justice*, Valor, Chivalry and Honor.
> Kidnapper: acessory to a violent* crime*, didn't talk.
> Chivalrous age setting-  Knights were answerable only to self, code, peers and superiors- essentially, like Judge Dred, they can say "I am the Law!"
> ...




In terms of domains, I don't see how it is possible to extract one from the general mix. I think someone earlier made the point about Lawful, Good and Lawful Good. Lawful Good is a different concept to it's alignment constituents.

In the case above, I don't believe war outweighs, good and law combined in terms of a deity's perspective on things. As for knights being answerable to their peers, a Paladin is first and foremost answerable to the god who gives him his divine powers. Without knowing full information about a halfling who was at that stage presenting absolutely no threat, the act of executing him (if the DM rules that the halfing actually is dead) is stupid, rash, unwise, dishonorable and not providing of justice - at this stage the paladin has assumed the halflings guilt in the matter, he has not yet confirmed that he was not co-erced, dominated or tricked into the endeavour; all things that could possibly change suitable judgment. To state that the halfling was a kidnapper is presumptuous on the part of the paladin. A wiser paladin would have investigated a little further before breaking the halfling's neck.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Remember that when it comes to paladins, I'm real old school and traditional on the matter. I'm not saying a more progressive point of view is wrong, I'm just stating the hard line case. The thing to remember is that it is a game. If things like this stop the game being fun, then perhaps something of the issues involved need to be discussed further by the group. I know one of the players in our group would do something like this deliberately to liven up the role-playing and depth of the character. Not a path for everyone though.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> ...to illustrate the fact that while Lawful does not equal "law-abiding," neither does it embrace a "laws be damned" attitude.




Perhaps not, but these _are_ the two primary arguments that I've seen made for the definition of 'Lawful' on this thread. 

Again, though, this comes back to a fundamental failing of alignments and the Paladin's code as both are worded vaguely and open to multiple interpretations. Seriously, this thread has produced very little objective commentary, yet it's run on far longer than many far more productive threads here do. It's essentially de-evolved into to groups of people with _very different_ interpretations of poorly-written rules trying to convince each other that they're right. 

The bottom line is that there is no written rule that _clearly_ and _concisely_ presents a solution to this situation (if there were, this thread wouldn't exist) - in the end, GM fiat must be applied to resolve the debacle. Which make me wonder... if alignments and the Paladin's code are so poorly worded as to cause this much debate without providing a clear solution, why then, do they exist at all?

Isn't the purpose of rules to convey a point? Where these two rules are concerned, that point seems to have been lost amongst the explanation, as said rules have some people arguing that Paladins are characters charged to _uphold_ the law (so long as it is just) while others are arguing that Paladins _are_ the law (i.e., enforcers vs. vigilantes).


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

You know something...given the fact that this scene happened to one person.

I know for a fact, that everyone here, will react differently, depending on the circumstances.

All this posturing on quoting text from books...again, does not apply.

What comes down to it, is this.

When it happens, what are any of you...going to do, when it happens.

Don't reply.

Keep it yourself.

I have already given a possible solution to the problem, and it is in the DM's best interest to settle it.

Stop looking at it, from a paladin's view, you are not looking from the player's, correction...the character's view.

The DM cannot know, unless they have walked in that character's shoes, so to speak. To see what is going on in that PC's head. I can say something to the matter, cause, it happened to me, in one game. The DM was shocked, on what happened, he stated to me, that he couldn't believe I did that, I replied, "It was not me, you saw the character/persona responding to the scene given." When you are in the moment, channeling the persona literally...you become somewhat, a third person viewer...and you are watching a situation unfold before you.

It can happen, and that is what has happen from the first post, and then the extended explanation by the author.

In the end, how ever it seen, and I have pointed out...it got away, the whole situation did get away...cause it was ended on a cliffhanger *smart call*

It troubled the DM, who in turn, asked for advice. And my advice...the trappings of the paladinhood being used, needs to be dropped.

The bigger issue at hand, with all that transpired, was the owner of the house, was within their right, to give punishment or to deal with the situation as they see fit.

Did the DM in question, realize that at some point, the scene went beyond on what they expected.

It fell into a gray area...buttons were pushed, and what was returned, was a total unexpected feedback.

This is what roleplaying is about...

And by the way, unless it says in the PHB*hmmm, it might, I am not looking at it, for the moment*, that a paladin, male or female should not have a seperate life outside the duties of their deity, life can get boring real quick.  

There is a saying by a friend of mine that makes this pretty simple.

_What is done for the church, it done on their time.

What is done for family, is also, on their own time._

I think I will end it here...this subject, with like all other subject of dealing with a paladin, are too black & white, too religious, too moral, or too much ethical.

And everyone, or almost everyone forgets...there is a person underneath that mantle...*a person* with feelings.

Nite, wait...morning.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

> In the case above, I don't believe war outweighs, good and law combined in terms of a deity's perspective on things.




I'm not saying it does, but as a god of war, he is going to be a bit more tolerant of violent solutions.



> As for knights being answerable to their peers, <mega-snip> A wiser paladin would have investigated a little further before breaking the halfling's neck.
> 
> Remember that when it comes to paladins, I'm real old school and traditional on the matter. <snip>




and



> The standards expected of good characters in D&D, especially those who lay claim to exalted status, bear much more similarity to modern sensibilities about justice, equality, and respect for life than to the actual medieval world that D&D is loosely based on, and that is quite intentional.




and



> Just because society condones justifiable homicide does not mean that a paladin can engage in it righteously.




I'm even older school.

A person who invaded a home at night to commit a crime was one of the lowest of the low and a great danger to society and civilization.  According to laws going back centuries- predating even the feudal era- they were considered without honor, and, in most civilizations, the homeowner could kill them without worrying about consequences.  Indeed, the phrase "A man's home is his castle" can be found in cases going back to the 1500's as an example of settled law- used in a way to indicate that within the boundaries of his home, a man was entitled to the much same kind of deference as a king.  While he could not do the blatantly illegal, he WAS free to mete out punishment within the bounds of the law- including killing intruders.

Instead of killing the night-stalker immediately (as entitled to by law), he gave the guy a chance to redeem himself by talking.  He didn't.  An unrepentant home invader would be percieved to be as evil as any Ghoul or Orc by a person of that era's mindset.  Or, to put it in game terms- to a follower of Heiroeous, he would be the antithesis of everything that PC stands for: * without honor, without chivalry, without valor...and only entitled to swift justice.*

And as for modern standards, I suggest you check your local criminal code- home intruders are still a justified target for use of lethal force (details vary- you may have to prove you had no way to retreat from them), and the use of lethal force against kidnappers (in the defense of a kidnap victim) is also justifiable- and a co-conspirator is as guilty of the crime as the one who actually comitted it (that is how getaway car drivers wind up serving 50 years for felony murders).  Home intruders who strike at night often find that entering in the PM hours is an aggravating condition that can add as much as 10 years to the time they will actually serve if caught (even accounting for parole)- the fact that the homeowner is more likely to be at home at night has historically been and still is considered to make a crime at a home at night more worthy of punishment than an equivalent crime at high noon.

I do agree, however, that you are all correct in that if he didn't try to ascertain coersion or a similar mitigating factor, there _might_ be problems with his vow- depending on his deity.

Sir John Chandos, founder of the Order of the Garter, was one of the greatest knights to ever live, both in terms of skill at arms and as an exemplar of chivalry- as close to a Paladin as any historical figure you can point to (Jean D'Arc is thought by some to be fictional).  Of him it was said "God have mercy on his soul, for never in a hundred years was there in England a man more courteous, neither more full of every virtue and good quality than he."

And yet, as is pointed out elsewhere:


> John was a lot closer - "close" meaning "fond of" as well as "similar"- to his opponents than to the ordinary Englishmen who ploughed his land, paid him rent, accepted his justice and died for him in battle. Knights across Christendom shared a common view of the way in which God ordered society; they enjoyed the same lifestyle of hunting, jousting and making war and the leaders of both sides in The Hundred Years' War (in John's lifetime, if not later) even spoke the same language.




Even this "Paladin" was elitist and a law unto himself, answerable only to his superiors and peers.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And everyone, or almost everyone forgets...there is a person underneath that mantle...*a person* with feelings.




And when his son comes after him, training himself to become a Paladin to kill the slayer of his father, we can get an equally dramatic moment when this "person" (now ex-paladin blackguard) reveals to the young adventurer that he is his father.

Paladins are fully allowed to have emotions, but when those emotions cross the line they are equally allowed to lose their Paladinhood. "I killed the villiagers because they killed my mom" and "I killed those soldiers to save my wife" just don't cut it.

I'm not saying he should become a Blackguard. I'm saying he has to still be held accountable.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Let's do a small re-cap, because I missed when *mercy* entered the Paladins Code. Even PHB acknowledges that Alhandra, the lawful good Paladin, fights evil without mercy. The Code from PHB states that Paladin has to punish evildoers, and is silent on mercy.

So, unless houseruled, Paladins overriding duty is to *punish* first and grant *mercy* later, if at all. This quite clearly paints a picture of Paladins as the gods strong fist against evil, which is why the gods grant them Smite Evil and Detect Evil. Granting mercy and thus allowing further evil to be committed would be wavering from ones god-given mission.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 9, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> Ok. Resolution idea. We all know that Paladins who commit a chotic act or evil act suffer varies consequences, yes?
> 
> Nowhere in the rules does it say that this happens immediately, or in a direct intervention by god method. SO: If it does not screw up your stated workings for Paladins, have an Inquisitor show up. Someone with the authority to judge the character and the god granted power to strip him of his paladinhood or send him on an atonement quest.




depends on how much background you have.

the Original Paladin in Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) lost his powers immediately. FOREVER.

the roleplay thereafter would be for the player to try and atone for his afterlife.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> There is a saying by a friend of mine that makes this pretty simple.
> 
> _What is done for the church, it done on their time.
> 
> What is done for family, is also, on their own time._





IMO that's half-a**ing it. 

We aren't talking about a friar or a village mystic.  A Paladin is a Paladin 24/7.   You can say that the class doesn't matter or go into how "we don't know" and stuff like that, which has no real bearing since we are talking about a specific class in a RPG that has alignment and action restrictions that have an effect on gameplay.  What I or you would do doesn't matter, we aren't divine warriors.   If a chivalrous Holy Knight just throws honor out the window as soon as someone he cares about is threatened I don't think he really lives it.  If he can turn it off he wouldn't be a Paladin IMO.

My final reccomendation is to have H visit the Paladin with dreams and visions of him living without honor or righteousnes.  Something to let the Paladin know he wasn't acting with honor and needs to watch his ways.  That is IF he just kills the 1/2 without trying to determine what was really going on and the 1/2 didn't show up on the detect evil scan.  That is what I did when a Paladin of H strayed a bit in his zeal to destroy evil.  But we had a code of conduct written out before hand.  Something I recommend all Paladin players & DM's do.  It's fun and it gives a righteous path for the holy warrior to follow.  The Code & The Measure are great starting points as are the basic beliefs of the god in question.  A Paladin of Pholtus would have a vastly different code than one of Heironeous.  Punishing and destorying heretics would have a much greater role than the code of chivalry would.

Anyway an interesting discussion.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I happen to think that paladins shouldn't marry.  They're in a stupidly dangerous business and it's selfish to marry someone just to widow them, they have no time for a home life, and a family is a good way to make sure that your enemies have hostages or vengeance.



And most importantly, as this thread brought up, to a true paladin his wife will *always* come second. Even if he loves her* he must love his code more. This has a huge potential for dramatic roleplay (on both parts if the wife is also a PC) but you combine a code with no room for personal feelings, the love of another fragile mortal, and a very dangerous job and you *are* cruising for a tragedy. The only choice is which path the tragedy takes.

*I'd note that most of those who are pushing for a "medieval" view of law, justice and mercy are combining it with an anachronisric view of marriage. What noble or even wealthy man married for love? A paladin particularly should have a nice younger wife picked based on her father's church and royal ties who he sees every few months off "crusade" for respectful marital duties. Where is all this love fueled rage coming from?


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *I'd note that most of those who are pushing for a "medieval" view of law, justice and mercy are combining it with an anachronisric view of marriage. What noble or even wealthy man married for love? A paladin particularly should have a nice younger wife picked based on her father's church and royal ties who he sees every few months off "crusade" for respectful marital duties. Where is all this love fueled rage coming from?




Chivalric courtly love and the adoration of his lady is not an appropriate idiom for a paladin?


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A person who invaded a home at night to commit a crime was one of the lowest of the low and a great danger to society and civilization.  According to laws going back centuries- predating even the feudal era- they were considered without honor, and, in most civilizations, the homeowner could kill them without worrying about consequences.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...



Danny, many of your examples refer to the laws of men. The paladin must adhere to the laws of his god. That is the difference. If it were an easy road to walk, then paladinhood wouldn't mean anything. You are arguing from real-world examples. I am arguing from what the D&D text tells me is how the concepts of goodness and exaltedness are defined within the fictional D&D world. Furthermore, you appear to have assumed the role of defense attorney after all, and I'm not really interested in sparring. I've stated my case as clearly as I feel I can do so. If you feel that the points I've made are without merit, well, I wouldn't suggest that you play an exalted character in my campaign.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Chivalric courtly love and the adoration of his lady is not an appropriate idiom for a paladin?



*Exactly* as appropriate as an anacronistic dedication to semi-modern sensibilities of justice and mercy, in fact.  

(though the latter has the advantage of not having been made up an era after the fact by french romance writers.   )


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Forceuser, you keep saying paladins are exemplars of their gods and their first duties are to their gods and their gods' standards. In 3e they don't need to follow any gods. They need to be LG, not do evil actions, and not grossly violate the code. The rest is optional.


----------



## ForceUser (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> not do evil actions



Killing the halfling under the circumstances outlined by the OP is evil.

Furthermore, regardless of whether they follow a god or an ideal, they must still adhere to the same standards of goodness and righteousness, as defined by the PHB or, if you use it, the BoED.


----------



## Andor (Nov 9, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that there is no written rule that _clearly_ and _concisely_ presents a solution to this situation (if there were, this thread wouldn't exist) - in the end, GM fiat must be applied to resolve the debacle. Which make me wonder... if alignments and the Paladin's code are so poorly worded as to cause this much debate without providing a clear solution, why then, do they exist at all?




You said it yourself. It provides conflict, and that's why we game. Paladins are (ironically) one of the great sources of 'grey areas' and passionate RPing opportunities. 

If you don't want confusion about the code, write up the one for that Paladin and be specific. 



			
				Dr.Awkward said:
			
		

> Not chaotic, just evil. Read the paladin's code again. No evil acts, but you can perform chaotic acts, just so long as your alignment stays lawful. So don't make a habit of starting anarchist uprisings or anything.




But you can't violate your code, and your code is usually assumed to be pretty lawful in nature. And how exactly was this meaningful to the discussion of his situation or to my suggestion to resolve it?



			
				Diaglo said:
			
		

> depends on how much background you have.
> 
> the Original Paladin in Supplement I Greyhawk (1975) lost his powers immediately. FOREVER.




True but irrelevant. The discussion is about the rules as they stand now. And I'm all for anything that let's the action take place in game and gives the opportunity for more roleplaying.  Although I have to admit I was surprised to see a Paladin can atone for even an evil act now. (Although not a Hexblade who turns good, even though it's an arcane class with no supernatural tie-ins. The hell?)

Honestly guys, Mine was one of the very few posts in this 6 page thread to offer advice about the actual in game situation Galfridus asked for help with, but it seems everyone would rather argure generalities and irrelevancies than actually be helpful.


----------



## jasper (Nov 9, 2005)

This breaks down into a couple of reactions but let me sum up correct me if I wrong
A paladin who is a noble in Kingdom x  with  legal powers of High, Middle, and Low justice, (He can be judge jury but can’t give the death penalty) who has a grant from Kingdom y with the same powers . He almost kills a person who involved in an attack on his wife.

0. How black and white is this campaign?
1. What will his god do? From the info given, he will be talking with the main man. Powers lost depends. 
2. What will his order do? Campaign specific I can’t help. 
3. What will his kingdom do? He is a noble causing problems in friendly kingdom. Great rp coming up.  Will he be stripped of his noble powers? Fined? Tossed into jail?
4. What will kingdom he in do?  What laws did the guy break in this city?  See 3.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Killing the halfling under the circumstances outlined by the OP is evil.




I don't think it was evil. In the Paladin Code of Conduct it falls under the 'Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents'. In any case the evil halfling was furthering the cause of evil, and was dealt with accordingly.

You could argue that strangling the Frodo was a bit on the 'cruel and unusual' side of punishments, but in the context it probably wasn't much worse than what's in store for break & enter and murder accomplices anyway in medieval court. (Actually, it's probably better).


----------



## diaglo (Nov 9, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> True but irrelevant. The discussion is about the rules as they stand now.




but to truly understand why the rules are the way they are now you have to know how they came into the system. 






> Honestly guys, Mine was one of the very few posts in this 6 page thread to offer advice about the actual in game situation Galfridus asked for help with, but it seems everyone would rather argure generalities and irrelevancies than actually be helpful.




mine was the 2nd post to this thread and it answered the OP dilemna exactly.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> But you can't violate your code, and your code is usually assumed to be pretty lawful in nature.




The code is about honorable combat, protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked, not about law. And a paladin can violate it. Only gross violations of the code will revoke a paladin's powers.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I don't think it was evil. In the Paladin Code of Conduct it falls under the 'Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents'. In any case the evil halfling was furthering the cause of evil, and was dealt with accordingly.




so you quote the code, then add your own bit to fit it in? I don't see "furthering the cause" or "aiding or abetting" anywhere in there. The halfing was only threatening or harming by a modern legalistic interpretation. We have no proof he is even evil. And punishment for every crime is not death.

And thats leaving aside the respect for legitamate authority issue, in which even if the halfling deserved to die (very iffy for being the disctraction in an unspcified assault where no one was killed) the paladin did not have the right to do it or any need to do it suddenly and without investigation.

"Field justice" is only granted to people in the field. The OP made it clear early on that the paladin had no legal right to kill this person in this situation, and no pressing need to do so, so why do people keep trying to rewrite the scene in their own campaign?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> The code is about honorable combat, protecting the innocent and smiting the wicked, not about law. And a paladin can violate it. Only gross violations of the code will revoke a paladin's powers.



I think killing a helpless prisoner who may or may not be evil, in a situation where there is no threat to the paladin or anyone else in keeping him alive qualifies as a gross violation of the "honor" section. The only questions I see here are how much paladiny goodness to remove, what he has to do to get it back, and if the player should get a warning first.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> In any case the evil halfling was furthering the cause of evil, and was dealt with accordingly.



The OP's already said that the paladin didn't know if the halfling was evil, and, as others have pointed out, there's the chance that the halfling was coerced or somesuch.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> And most importantly, as this thread brought up, to a true paladin his wife will *always* come second. Even if he loves her* he must love his code more. This has a huge potential for dramatic roleplay (on both parts if the wife is also a PC) but you combine a code with no room for personal feelings, the love of another fragile mortal, and a very dangerous job and you *are* cruising for a tragedy. The only choice is which path the tragedy takes.




I think the paladin's code removes the potential for dramatic roleplay, unless you are really out there digging for it.  Precisely because the Paladin has to choose between:  being a Paladin, upholding the code, and _becoming an unplayable character_.

Now if the Paladin's abilities switched to something else after he fell, that would promote dramatic roleplaying.  (Like Blackguard.)  But that's not part of the class.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Upstairs, near a adjoining room, a second PC, a cleric, jumps out of the bed, as fast he can get his underpants on, rushes there in time, to be told...that the attempt met with failure, from the intruder. The Cleric ascertains as much they as could, that everything is alirght, leaves to give the husband of the wife, the good news.
> 
> Meanwhile downstairs, the roughness goes to a body movement restriction, the distress and growing angry is ever present in the human male dealing with the said suppose to be messenger halfing. At some point, either by  noise or vocal conversation, he learns of the assualt done to his spouse, who is carrying the future of the family line.
> 
> ...




Wow.  Where to start?  This is looking so Annakin Skywalker to me.....

The paladin in question has gone beyond all normal reasoning, apparently, so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants, or, more precisely, whatever his rage drives him to.  I disagree.  I mean, look at this example!  There's the cleric friend finding the wife apparently unharmed, the intruders gone...and then bringing this "good news" to the paladin downstairs.  Yet when the cleric relates these good tidings to the paladin, the aggrieved father takes the words as "the worst news to confirm his own suspicions."  Huh?  Where's his mind at?  His wife's apparently fine; the intruders are gone.  A 'worst news" scenario has the wife dead or kidnapped.

The paladin in this case isn't thinking about the welfare of his family at this point; it's become a pride issue.  How dare someone enter my home and try to harm my family!!??  I don't think that behavior's outrageously out-of-line for someone who's just experienced a home invasion...but it seems kind of off for a paladin.



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> His venting cannot go to the escaped other intruder, it can't go his friend, who failed in their duty to safeguard her, first of all, on the first bout.




You're wrong.  He could loose his "righteous anger" on the friend who failed him...but then his anger probably be misplaced (and there would likely be serious consequences, both from his friend and his friend's church).  He could (and should, IMHO) vent on the escaped intruders who actually assaulted his wife...but they're not at hand, so there's no IMMEDIATE venting.  The subdued halfling is the easy target.,,and possibly the wrong one as well.

In my mind, the bad guys are cowards for striking at the paladin's wife and unborn child instead of at the paladin himself; and the paladin's not much better, killing the stooge/distraction to "get back at" the attackers.

And those who says it's a paladin's duty to mete out punishment to the wicked, punishment doesn't have to take the form of killing, especially killing someone who's already been rendered non-threatening.



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Please take a look here, and view carefully...all of this is seen from the character's perpective, and not one mention of him, being a paladin.




Sorry, no can do.  That's part of the equation, and that's why so many posters are against the aggrieved father's actions.  Were he a Fighter, a Rogue, a Barbarian, etc....the reaction would be more understandable.  Hell, a Wizard or Sorcerer would probably LOVE the opportunity to kill an intruder by snapping his neck.  Snapping the neck of a subdued foe (and outside of combat) doesn't seem the least bit paladin-like to me.



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And what matter to that man, that husband, that father to be...someone trepassed on his home, his 'castle', someone else was the trickster, used to detain, distract the man, the lord of the manor? To hurt his charges, his family...please
> 
> Folks, what has transpose there in that house, was all legit...and nothing, nothing short of a total confession may not save that halfing.
> 
> ...




I'm not buying this.  The original poster said this happened in a civilized city, supposedly with its own set of laws and punishments.  The paladin decides to take "justice" into his own hands, ignoring the legitimate authority of the city.  This in itself sounds like it's against the paladin's code to me, but others may disagree.  But look on the other side of the coin: let's say this incident happened to Joe the Candlemaker and not the paladin.  Would his explanation of the halfling with his neck snapped for being a part of an attack on his apparently-unharmed wife fly when the local constable shows up?  Maybe others would disagree, but I think he'd have a hell of a lot more explaining to do than the paladin in the same circumstances?  Is that fair or just?  Aren't paladins supposed to have a thing about injustice?

For me, there are two reasons why I think the paladin in question has broken the code:

1)  The manner of dispensing "justice."  Snapping the necks of subdued prisoners in the middle of a civilized, lawful city seems selfish and wicked; and, more importantly:

2)  The paladin didn't take a few moments to Detect Evil on the halfling.  If you choose to execute an 'evildoer,' doesn't it make sense to make sure that he's evil beforehand, when you have that ability, usable at will?  The paladin's failure to do so show that he acted in a self-serving, reckless manner.

As others have pointed out, the halfling may have been just a hired stooge.  Or maybe he's another victim, and threatening a person's family is the BBEG's MO.  Isn't it the least bit possible that the halfling was told that his family would be harmed if he didn't do this one "small favor" for the BBEG?  Kind of unlikely, I admit, but the paladin had the ability to find out--all in the matter of a few seconds--if the halfling was evil or not, and he didn't.  that reeks to me of choosing personal vengeance over justice.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think the paladin's code removes the potential for dramatic roleplay, unless you are really out there digging for it.  Precisely because the Paladin has to choose between:  being a Paladin, upholding the code, and _becoming an unplayable character_.
> 
> Now if the Paladin's abilities switched to something else after he fell, that would promote dramatic roleplaying.  (Like Blackguard.)  But that's not part of the class.




It _removes_ the potential for dramatic roleplay?  I would say that the code would enhance the potential for dramatic roleplay — it's a built-in hook or tension, something to struggle against and contend with.  The choices a paladin should be making as far as whether or not to uphold his code, when to uphold it, why updholding it is important (or not imporant), could all lead to some very fruitful roleplaying.  Same with a paladin breaking the code and having to atone.

Nick


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 9, 2005)

> Danny, many of your examples refer to the laws of men. The paladin must adhere to the laws of his god.




You can even find exhortations about slaying night-stalkers in religious texts.



> Maybe others would disagree, but I think he'd have a hell of a lot more explaining to do than the paladin in the same circumstances? Is that fair or just?




Nope- like I stated before, a home invader in the night was a valid target for instant justice in many cultures, a standard that is only somewhat softened today.

We just had a case here in Texas where the homeowner shot a guy coming into his window.

In the head.

No charges, just lots of TV interviews.


> As others have pointed out, the halfling may have been just a hired stooge. Or maybe he's another victim, and threatening a person's family is the BBEG's MO. Isn't it the least bit possible that the halfling was told that his family would be harmed if he didn't do this one "small favor" for the BBEG?




Possible?  Yes- but he didn't talk.

Exculpatory?  Depends on what, EXACTLY, his subsequent actions were and how the jurisdiction handles things.  There are places where you can get the death penalty for what he did, regardless of duress.

Had it been the Paladin who was the intruder operating under duress, he'd lose his powers surely as night follows day.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> The OP's already said that the paladin didn't know if the halfling was evil, and, as others have pointed out, there's the chance that the halfling was coerced or somesuch.




Well there is that possibility, yes. There's also the possibility that he was under compulsion spell, or that the Paladins wife was really the evil one, or that the Paladin itself was under a spell that makes him think that the Halfling is doing evil while he's really the Paladins faiths high priest   

The Paladin shouldn't let any of those possibilities hinder his resolve to stop evil. If he sees someone doing evil he's to stop and punish them first play mind games with endless possibilities second. "If it looks like it's doing evil, it probably is".


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think the paladin's code removes the potential for dramatic roleplay, unless you are really out there digging for it.  Precisely because the Paladin has to choose between:  being a Paladin, upholding the code, and _becoming an unplayable character_.
> 
> Now if the Paladin's abilities switched to something else after he fell, that would promote dramatic roleplaying.  (Like Blackguard.)  But that's not part of the class.




Well we had a lot of dramatic roleplaying since the player wasn't all that worried about losing the cool powers.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Well there is that possibility, yes. There's also the possibility that he was under compulsion spell, or that the Paladins wife was really the evil one, or that the Paladin itself was under a spell that makes him think that the Halfling is doing evil while he's really the Paladins faiths high priest



Right.  


			
				Numion said:
			
		

> The Paladin shouldn't let any of those possibilities hinder his resolve to stop evil. If he sees someone doing evil he's to stop and punish them first play mind games with endless possibilities second. "If it looks like it's doing evil, it probably is".



I don't know about this — this is veering too closely into a "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" philosophy.  Finding out if the halfling's actually evil before killing him is a little bit more than a mind game, especially if he's bound and helpless.  I don't know.  I'm going to have to go with the other side of this coin.  I think the paladin, who should be held to a higher standard than most folks, had the opportunity to investigate a slight bit more, and he wasted it, veered into pure wrath.  I think it's a great response, in that it could set off an entire series of scenarios, but I do think that it wasn't very paladin-like. I also think I'm rambling a bit, though...

Nick


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> It _removes_ the potential for dramatic roleplay?  I would say that the code would enhance the potential for dramatic roleplay — it's a built-in hook or tension, something to struggle against and contend with.  The choices a paladin should be making as far as whether or not to uphold his code, when to uphold it, why updholding it is important (or not imporant), could all lead to some very fruitful roleplaying.  Same with a paladin breaking the code and having to atone.




My belief stems from the fact that the Paladin _must_ make the Lawful Good choice in every single situation.  If he does not, he becomes an unplayable character.

That does not leave the player with much choice.

At best, you will get players who are willing to slog through a few sessions with an ineffective character (basically a d10 Warrior NPC class) if the temptation is great enough.  But I'd rather see situations presented all the time where the Paladin has to consider whether or not to do the Lawful Good thing or not.

Ideally, this would mean a Paladin class that recieved other abilities when he Falls.  Using these abilities should make it harder and harder to act Lawful Good, and cause the Paladin to spiral into Blackguard.  (I can't think of any that would do this.)


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well we had a lot of dramatic roleplaying since the player wasn't all that worried about losing the cool powers.



Flexor said this far better than I did.  That was my issue with the implications of the previous post — that dramatic roleplaying somehow was tied into game mechanics.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well we had a lot of dramatic roleplaying since the player wasn't all that worried about losing the cool powers.




That's awesome.  I think it's hard to do, based on how D&D works (with its emphasis on combat and the nature of the CR/XP system).


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Ideally, this would mean a Paladin class that recieved other abilities when he Falls.  Using these abilities should make it harder and harder to act Lawful Good, and cause the Paladin to spiral into Blackguard.  (I can't think of any that would do this.)



Fair enough, although I'm not sure that a paladin that falls should necessarily be granted other abilities (the code's part of the deal of playing a paladin, at least as the class is set up).  

That said, I wouldn't object to a slower, more gradual stripping of abilities — maybe starting with the highest level ability the PC possesses, so a 5th-level paladin that breaks his code would lose access to his mount until he atoned and incur another loss for each transgression until he was nothing more than the Warrior or until he was a Blackguard.  Particularly egregious violations could result in losing two special abilities.  It's still a penalty, but not as harsh as losing everything permanently right away (although I am a bit partial to that, too).


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> Flexor said this far better than I did.  That was my issue with the implications of the previous post — that dramatic roleplaying somehow was tied into game mechanics.




My opinion is that it is not necessarily tied into mechanics; that is, you can have dramatic roleplaying with any system.  But some mechanics _promote_ dramatic roleplaying, and others do the opposite.  I believe that the Paladin class does the latter.

The Star Wars d6 system did this, to an extent.  If you got Dark Side points, and you were a Jedi, your character would suddenly experience a nice boost in power.  So there was a great temptation to go over to the Dark Side, even though there was a chance it would mean retiring the character (as he Falls and becomes and NPC).

The Paladin offers abilities only if you make the Lawful Good choice.  There's not much temptation built into the mechanics there - the obvious answer is to always make the Lawful Good choice.

You can get around this by having a good DM and players, but really, the mechanics could be better.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> That said, I wouldn't object to a slower, more gradual stripping of abilities — maybe starting with the highest level ability the PC possesses, so a 5th-level paladin that breaks his code would lose access to his mount until he atoned and incur another loss for each transgression until he was nothing more than the Warrior or until he was a Blackguard.  Particularly egregious violations could result in losing two special abilities.  It's still a penalty, but not as harsh as losing everything permanently right away (although I am a bit partial to that, too).




I think that is a good solution, because then the Paladin has an obvious choice to make, each with consequences.  He can break the code and get the benefits of doing so, but he also loses an ability - but not so much as to make his character ineffective.  Or he can maintain his adherance to the code and lose the benefit that came with whatever action could break it.

edit: I realize as I type this that some of my earlier post were trollish - saying the Paladin class is poor design, etc.  I guess I wanted to steer the discussion away from opinions on the matter of alignment and towards the game mechanics and the PC/DM dynamic.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> That's awesome.  I think it's hard to do, based on how D&D works (with its emphasis on combat and the nature of the CR/XP system).



 I see your point.  We switched the game back to 1e about halfway through though so I may have avoided most of the major problems.  But a Paladin losing all thier abilites and turning into a regular fighter is not small thing in any event.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> Right.  I don't know about this — this is veering too closely into a "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" philosophy.  Finding out if the halfling's actually evil before killing him is a little bit more than a mind game, especially if he's bound and helpless.  I don't know.  I'm going to have to go with the other side of this coin.  I think the paladin, who should be held to a higher standard than most folks, had the opportunity to investigate a slight bit more, and he wasted it, veered into pure wrath.  I think it's a great response, in that it could set off an entire series of scenarios, but I do think that it wasn't very paladin-like. I also think I'm rambling a bit, though...




I'm not down for "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" either. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect Paladins to sort out the apparent evildoers motive before he can take action. That's not how the PHB protrays Paladins. They don't even have _Sense Motive_ as a friggin' class skill! If someone looks like they are committing heinous crimes, a Paladins foremost duty would be for his Code, and stop the evil.

Only reason I can think for prolonging the Halflings evil ways would be for the purposes of interrogating information on targets for further punishment and Smiting, similar to your thoughts    But thats just different Paladining techniques and outside his code and this whole issue of power-yoinkage.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I think killing a helpless prisoner who may or may not be evil, in a situation where there is no threat to the paladin or anyone else in keeping him alive qualifies as a gross violation of the "honor" section. The only questions I see here are how much paladiny goodness to remove, what he has to do to get it back, and if the player should get a warning first.




Under RAW once the DM determines there is a gross violation then the paladin loses all powers and spells, no warning.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate."

The only question I see under the RAW is whether the action knocks the paladin out of LG, whether it is evil, or a gross violation of the code. If no to all three then no mechanical effect. If yes to any of them then loss of paladin stuff.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> The Paladin offers abilities only if you make the Lawful Good choice.  There's not much temptation built into the mechanics there - the obvious answer is to always make the Lawful Good choice.
> 
> You can get around this by having a good DM and players, but really, the mechanics could be better.



That's fair enough — you might actually even have me halfway convinced that there's a problem with the RAW paladin (not too hard to do, actually, as it's got some legacy issues that bother me).


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'm not down for "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" either. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect Paladins to sort out the apparent evildoers motive before he can take action. That's not how the PHB protrays Paladins. They don't even have _Sense Motive_ as a friggin' class skill! If someone looks like they are committing heinous crimes, a Paladins foremost duty would be for his Code, and stop the evil.
> 
> Only reason I can think for prolonging the Halflings evil ways would be for the purposes of interrogating information on targets for further punishment and Smiting, similar to your thoughts    But thats just different Paladining techniques and outside his code and this whole issue of power-yoinkage.




Ok Numion, I understand which side of this you are coming from, but even you have to agree that it wouldn't take that long to detect evil on a subdued halfling.  It's not like he had to make a snap decision in the middle of a fight.  In this case, even if the halfling was evil, it may have been more prudent to keep him alive for information (unless speak with dead is what the goal was).

Had he detected evil, found the halfling evil and executed him, I would not have an issue.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Only reason I can think for prolonging the Halflings evil ways would be for the purposes of interrogating information on targets for further punishment and Smiting, similar to your thoughts    But thats just different Paladining techniques and outside his code and this whole issue of power-yoinkage.



True enough.  Although I still think the phrase "halfling's evil ways" is probably a bit far along in this scenario — none of us, save the GM, really know what's going on with the halfling as far as his habitual evilitude or lack thereof.  But, yeah, this is about style, and not really the substance of the issue at hand, which is the loss of powers in this particular campaign.

*Edit*: Check that -- as I think about it, I'm not sure the two issues are all that separable here, but it's something to think about as I start a new campaign.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Had he detected evil, found the halfling evil and executed him, I would not have an issue.



I'd agree with this as well.  The action might have been enough for some sort of reprimand from the clergy/his deity, but not enough to lose his powers.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> True enough.  Although I still think the phrase "halfling's evil ways" is probably a bit far along in this scenario — none of us, save the GM, really know what's going on with the halfling as far as his habitual evilitude or lack thereof.



indeed, the constant referances to the halfling's evil is getting to me a bit. At this point, the paladin's sum total of charges against the halfling is : 1) rang my doorbell. 2) acted as a distraction.

There's two ways this can go. Either the halfling was not fully in on the entire plan, in which case murdering him was even more out there than it already is, or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nope- like I stated before, a home invader in the night was a valid target for instant justice in many cultures, a standard that is only somewhat softened today.
> 
> We just had a case here in Texas where the homeowner shot a guy coming into his window.
> 
> ...




Interesting, but your example isn't that similar to the OP's situation.
It sounds like the OP's scenario took place in a major city with its own set of laws; whether "Your home is your castle" is one of those laws is debateable.
Also, the halfling was invited inside; he didn't come through a window.
Lastly, the halfling wasn't killed breaking and entering; he was found to be in league with home invaders, rendered helpless, and *subsequently* executed.

Oh, and Texas Justice and a paladin's Code of Conduct probably aren't all that compatible on a lot of issues


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.



Speak with dead is a pretty viable way to find out info.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> True enough.  Although I still think the phrase "halfling's evil ways" is probably a bit far along in this scenario — none of us, save the GM, really know what's going on with the halfling as far as his habitual evilitude or lack thereof.  But, yeah, this is about style, and not really the substance of the issue at hand, which is the loss of powers in this particular campaign.




You're right, the DM is the only one who has all the 'real' info. But he shouldn't hold the Paladins abilities hostage against that. Just saying that there can always be additional layers of trickery in terms of who's really evil and who's what. And the Paladin can never be sure that he's uncovered the 'real' information. Should he never take action then, because he can never be sure? Of course not. He should investigate some, Smite some more and thats the life of a Paladin in D&D.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Speak with dead is a pretty viable way to find out info.




PC Cleric: "Why did you do it, halfling interloper?"
Body: "Trrruuuuueee Looooovveee."
Paladin: *cough* "He said 'to blave' and we all know, to blave means to bluff! so you were playing cards, and he cheated..."
Wife: "Liar!"

Sorry, couldn't help myself!


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'm not down for "kill them all, let the gods sort it out" either. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect Paladins to sort out the apparent evildoers motive before he can take action. That's not how the PHB protrays Paladins. They don't even have _Sense Motive_ as a friggin' class skill!



Um...actually, they do.

Nevertheless, I agree with your main point.  As I interpret the situation, the paladin was operating under considerable time pressure.  Some kind of an attempt to do evil to his wife had been made, the number and identity of the evil-doers was unknown, and it was entirely possible that another attempt would be made imminently.  Swift and decisive action was called for, and the halfling was causing further delay.

Now, the OP has--since his original post--added details to the account that make it a much closer call, IMO, than it originally seemed.  But I'm frankly suspicious of the OP's elaborations, because in his original post he took the position that the paladin's actions "obviously" were not kosher...and based on the facts as he presented them at _that_ time, I think that was anything _but_ obvious.  I've known many DMs who have "set up" a paladin PC for a "dramatic" fall from grace, and the OP's elaborations smack to me of a "cover-up."    

The question I'd really like to hear an answer to at this point is: what did the OP _expect_ the paladin to do in this situation?  Because I think the answer to that question would shed a lot of light on whether the paladin was unfairly "set up" or not.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> You're right, the DM is the only one who has all the 'real' info. But he shouldn't hold the Paladins abilities hostage against that. Just saying that there can always be additional layers of trickery in terms of who's really evil and who's what. And the Paladin can never be sure that he's uncovered the 'real' information. Should he never take action then, because he can never be sure? Of course not. He should investigate some, Smite some more and thats the life of a Paladin in D&D.




To me, there's a difference between getting information when in a life and death struggle and when you're in no danger, you don't really have any facts at all, and it would be fairly simple to attain said facts without any danger to yourself or others. This seems way too close to Smiting Joe Merchant because he detected as evil while trying to sell me something. How about the Paladin try to find out why Joe Merchant is evil first if he intends to do anything about it?


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> indeed, the constant referances to the halfling's evil is getting to me a bit. At this point, the paladin's sum total of charges against the halfling is : 1) rang my doorbell. 2) acted as a distraction.
> 
> There's two ways this can go. Either the halfling was not fully in on the entire plan, in which case murdering him was even more out there than it already is, or the halfling is in on the plan in which case murdering him before finding out what he knows is stupid as well as evil/dishonorable. I'm not seeing the upside here.




Indeed, the constant references to the execution of the evil Halfling as murder is getting to me a bit. Deliberately preventing people from protecting the innocent is as bad as both harming or threatening to harm innocent, which both beget punishment as per the Paladins Code of Conduct. 

Yes, execution is a bit harsh punishment, but what the hell it's not like death was uncommon in D&D. And killing evil twin of Frodo was stupid unless they relied on Speak with Dead. But there's no int requirement to play a Paladin.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 9, 2005)

OK, after reading the further information from the OP, what the paladin did was WRONG without question.  He didnt detect evil.  He didnt question the halfling to find out anything beyond the fact that he was being used as a distraction.  (hell, the halfling could have had HIS wife threatened with death if he didnt do this, as someone pointed out)  He had the halfling pinned and helpless, he knew his wife was safe, and still he decided to "break his neck"???!!!  Thats personal vengeance on a helpless prisoner who is a possibly coerced innocent.  And an evil action, as it does NOTHING beyond fulfill the paladins need for revenge.

(notice i didnt talk about righteous vengeance like earlier, which i intended to mean high handed eye for an eye justice with godly backing.  revenge, however, is revenge, and nothing but.)


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Killing the halfling under the circumstances outlined by the OP is evil.
> 
> Furthermore, regardless of whether they follow a god or an ideal, they must still adhere to the same standards of goodness and righteousness, as defined by the PHB or, if you use it, the BoED.




My take on the situation is that the OP asked what we would do if the following situation happened. He did not ask "What to do if a paladin commits an evil act, or violates his code." If he meant that, he should have said so. 

In this case, I would not do anything to the paladin for the action itself. This is a matter of DMing style. If I felt the action itself would cause a paladin to violate his code, I would have warned the player of such before hand. If the paladin loses his abilities, I want it to be because the character acted out of frustration, not the player. A similar thing would happen to any player about to commit an act that would change their alignment. I do not think that such a warning was given no do I really think the act itself was evil or outside the code so I would not do anything for the act. The paladin might get a stern dream or something instead but would otherwise slip through.

Now, that wouldn't take into account if the guy actually deserved to die or not. If he was innocent or not. If he wasn't, then the paladin was just doing his job. If the halfling was innocent, then the paladin would have made a mistake and must pay for it in short order. This would probably happen instantly to a few days by loss of paladin powers and maybe a dream telling him what he did wrong and how to attone (without revealing any real infromation on what was going on). I'd probably cut the paladin powers immediatly but the player wouldn't find out till he actually tried to use them again.

So, IMC, the paladin has the right, according to his class, to preform the action he did by killing a suspected murderer and the act itself would not cause any punishment. The paladin is however held responsible for his choices and if he had killed an innocent by mistake, he would have to pay.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Speak with dead is a pretty viable way to find out info.



no, it actually isn't, ime. Amoung other things : "Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive. If the creature’s alignment was different from yours, the corpse gets a Will save to resist the spell as if it were alive. 
If the corpse has been subject to speak with dead within the past week, the new spell fails."

While SwD can be useful when you had no chance to talk to a living being, it is no substitute to a good Zone of Truth/ Discern lies combo not to mention detect thoughts or command thrown in.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Um...actually, they do.




Must be some fancy new-fangled 3.5E thing .. not in my 3.0E they don't


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> So, IMC, the paladin has the right, according to his class, to preform the action he did by killing a suspected murderer and the act itself would not cause any punishment.




YEEAAAARRRRRRGGGHH!!!!!!!

No one is dead (except probably the halfling.)

The halfling was not in the same room as the unspecified, non-deadly "attack" took place. 

Where are you guys getting this stuff?


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Chivalric courtly love and the adoration of his lady is not an appropriate idiom for a paladin?




Ah...that brings back memories of Sir Lancelot in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," running the guests through, kicking the bride in the chest, slashing the boquet of flowers on the wall.  I always looked on that character as a comically-overblown example of an overzealous knight/paladin gone off the deep end.

I'm sort of getting the feeling that some would argue that his actions were consistent with a paladin's Code of Conduct


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> YEEAAAARRRRRRGGGHH!!!!!!!
> 
> No one is dead (except probably the halfling.)
> 
> ...




Um, common sense? The halfling was not merely looking the other way when evil things took place. He enabled evil. He was an accomplice. Can the Paladin only ever go after the trigger men and not those who are accomplices? Hell, by the way you put it anyone who ordered the hit should be left outside the scope of the Paladins smiting, since they "was not in the same room". 

Now granted the victim was only assaulted and not necessarily murdered, but in those times a fitting punishment for assault would also be execution.


----------



## Nyeshet (Nov 9, 2005)

*I may as well enter the fray.*

There is no need for Speak with Dead as a Cleric is nearby with Heal prepared and the Halfling was only in negative hit points and dying (not yet dead). 

This entire situation is a massive can of worms. First off, there is no evidence that 'nothing' was done to the Paladin's wife. Rather, we know that something was done (although perhaps not yet fully accomplished) to her or her unborn babe - then the assaulters left upon their discovery. The cleric recieved only verbal support that she was apparently unharmed. He went downstairs and informed the Paladin that his wife had been assualted but seemed unharmed and the perpetrators had escaped. The Paladin reacted by attempted to slay the final perpetrator in the act. 

It is true that the halfling may have been under compulsion, but his reactions suggest otherwise - either he is a willing accessory who hoped to escape prior to the paladin realizing the assault or he was blackmailed / intimidated into aiding an illegal and possibly evil act. Will the wife now miscarry due to some as yet undiscovered magic? Is the child now bound to the evil subtype due to some spell - perhaps even to be born with a fiendish heritage or merely deformed? The Paladin does not know this - but he is likely well aware that just because his wife is physically unharmed does not mean that she and her unborn babe are truly okay. Something terrible may have been done and not yet discovered. He has plenty of reason to believe it possible. 

Granted, he should have simply made a subdual coup-de-grace against the halfing - knock him out for later interrogation in the royal dugeons while observed by a cleric under the effect of Detect Lies. He should lose his paladin powers for a few days, after which an atonement should be all that's necessary to regain his abilities. His actions - while intending to kill - were not successful. Furthermore, it could be that the halfling (which you have kept alive due to being a source of important information from the DM to the players) would have been worthy of slaying. I'm still scratching my head over why the Paladin did not use Detect Evil upon first laying eyes upon the messenger. Being awoken in the middle of the night during a time dangerous enough to require the paladin to ask a friend to protect his wife for the few minutes he expected to be gone should have rung more than a few suspition bells - causing him to use the ability on almost anyone he met at that time, even for only the briefest of meetings. In any case, he has not broken his code but has skirted the border of it. IMC I would remove his powers for 2d4 days for such an act - a reminder to be wary of sliding so close to the abyss. 

Now, from a non-religious perspective, were the paladin not within the Royal City he would have been within his legal rights to slay the halfling as it was accessory to a significant crime upon his own property. However, due to the location he is technically outside his jurisdiction and should be fined - perhaps 100 gp - for attempted slaying of a freeman in the royal city. From the legal perspective, unless the halfling was a noble, that is the worse that should happen to the paladin. The halfling was, after all, an accessory to a major crime - an assault upon a noble's wife and unborn child - his heir. In the middle ages wars could have been started over something like this. 

If the halfling population is large and important to the city - or the halfing was actually a noble of or visitor to the city - then fine may be increased to as much as 1,000 or even 10,000 gp - paid to the king, not to the halfling or his family. That was the way the medieval society worked. If fines were levied it was as a punishment to the fined, not as recompence to the victim. Recall also that 100 gp is equivalent to several years wages by untrained labor and about a year's wages for trained labor. Tenfold that is thus at least 10 years wages - an excessive amount, really. One hundred fold (ie: 10k gp) should only be used if a war is likely to start over the matter, as it is equivalent to a hundred years wages from a trained laborer or perhaps ten years wages from an extended family of trained laborers. 

So, revoke his paladin powers for a week or so and then allow atonement. The Paladin is still lawful good, he just met a bump along the road. He need a reminder to be wary of the bumps and watch where he is going. Legally, perhaps he should be fined a few hundred gp - as much as 1000 gp if the situation embarresses the king or some other higher noble who would normally be in charge of such matters. 

If you really want to mess with the Paladin, have him sent a dream suggesting dire things soon to occur to his wife - another attack perhaps - and a promise of power to overcome such dangers. Then, when the dire situation occurs (while his powers are still lost) have him seem to hear a voice whispering in his mind, offering him the power to "punish" those attacking his wife. It could make for a dramatic fall from grace to the path of the blackguard. This assumes, of course, that the player wishes to consider such a path. Talk it over with him first, when you send the dream.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> In this case, I would not do anything to the paladin for the action itself. This is a matter of DMing style. If I felt the action itself would cause a paladin to violate his code, I would have warned the player of such before hand. If the paladin loses his abilities, I want it to be because the character acted out of frustration, not the player.



Excellent point, painandgreed.  I think that taking this approach would prevent 99% of the problems that result from paladins violating their codes.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Um, common sense? The halfling was not merely looking the other way when evil things took place. He enabled evil. He was an accomplice. Can the Paladin only ever go after the trigger men and not those who are accomplices? Hell, by the way you put it anyone who ordered the hit should be left outside the scope of the Paladins smiting, since they "was not in the same room".
> 
> Now granted the victim was only assaulted and not necessarily murdered, but in those times a fitting punishment for assault would also be execution.



actually, the "victim" is, as far as we know, physically unharmed. Its pretty obvious that the facts of this situation aren't getting in anyone's way, here.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

I believe on the DM's extended explanation...the near to killing part was held in limbo.

Please look here for the more define detail. Second, the subject title is misleading.

Third, as I said in further posts...to me, the scene got away from the DM and the player involved.

And lastily, as it was said on several occasions here, that the 'paladin' should be held to higher standard than anyone else.

May I ask this question then, if this was a Mage, fighter, rogue, or Barbarian. or ranger, that this indicent happened to...what _standard_ should be held on them as well?

Let us be equal across the board.

And for you Demmero, I never said I was right either. It is a view expressed, and I leave it there as such.

Finally, channeling a Paladin, can be easy for some, and difficult for others. I have been told, by a friend, that is a series of books, that give a illustration on what a paladin can be.

The name of the author might be David Eddings *hope that last name is right*, maybe this will help, but then again, that depends on who wants to educate themselves further.

Me, I draw from life, got 33 years to look back on.

Everything that is written about a paladin, is a attempt by a author's view, the paladin is based on the tales of actual knights from the medival days. Change them around, by adding the power of the divine, and click-click, there you go.

This has been the most trouble profession to be discussed around the table, up the stairs, in a car, on the cell phone and where ever else, a voice or typed text can be seen and  be heard.

There is NO major example ICon of what a paladin is suppose to be, and TSR and WOtc has not provided one, and that needs no explanation.

I just love it, when everyone, just harps on the profession, well for those that did...and forget the person behind the cover.

Please let it be concentrated on what happened in that house, and only that house, bringing up the laws of the city *they weren't respected by the individuals that planned the break in and assualt* at the moment, don't apply there, cause, there is a unspoken law that was broken, the ability to defend one's own property and those who live in it.

This not a black & white issue, the scene opened the box, and usher forth the unexpected.

What is happening here, and I see all the time, the paladin has been put on a pedstal, and is dared at, not to fall off, I see that everytime. If that was true, then no anti-paladin, to blackguard, back to anti-paladin...should not exist.

And honestly, the fault lies with us, each of us, has our own interpertation on what a paladin should be, the DM and player's views are far apart, there is no true standard or pedstal watching to look at *don't quote the PHB, this goes beyond that*

That is our failing, and no matter is said or done, a paladin to us, is what each of us see it to be. Yeah, the guidelines are suppose to give directions, but they are 2D stationary fixed instructions, when it comes to roleplaying, that is a fully 3 active environment. There no rules that can control fully, a problem like this.

That is left to us, and to this day...it still messes with our heads. 

It is a..._Never Ending Battle_.

-When I thought I could leave, they had to drag me back in-  



			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> Interesting, but your example isn't that similar to the OP's situation.
> It sounds like the OP's scenario took place in a major city with its own set of laws; whether "Your home is your castle" is one of those laws is debateable.
> Also, the halfling was invited inside; he didn't come through a window.
> Lastly, the halfling wasn't killed breaking and entering; he was found to be in league with home invaders, rendered helpless, and *subsequently* executed.
> ...


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm not the biggest fan of alignments, but this game was set up to be as close to "by the book D&D" as possible (I was new to the area, did not know any gamers, and wanted the campaign to be "common ground"). That said, the game has been running 5 years, so some shades of grey are inevitable. 



			
				ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Does this player have a history of 'shaky' behavior or 'unpaldinishness'?




The player is an excellent roleplayer and a good sport; however, the paladin has definitely exhibited borderline chaotic (not evil) behavior in the past. This will figure into What Happens Next.



> Is this a shades of grey campaign, or is it angled more towards killing the evil denziens of the dungeon?




It's a campaign where Good and Evil have more or less objective definitions (e.g., slavery = evil), but the campaign has gone on long enough that some greyness has seeped in. Evil people do not see themselves as good, although they may justify their actions using other criteria. 



> Is your player thick skinned and able to deal with losing his powers fairly well? Would he take it badly?




He would probably take it well, but this character has also had a lot to deal with (much not his fault). I will be talking to the player to get a better idea of where he stands on this. Enjoyment of the game is paramount, and while I must remain true to the world, I don't want to ruin the game for anyone.



> Have you talked to your player about it? Does he feel that he deserves to lose his powers?




I haven't yet but I will -- this only happened two days ago and I wanted to give him a bit of time.

My concern is that the player's initial comments were to the effect that he knew he was going outside the bounds of the paladin's code, but he had made the decision to do that when his family was involved. However, this was in the heat of the moment, so I am not sure if that was really his thought process.



> With regards to your situation, I have to ask: Did you have any plans of sacrificing his wife, turning his unborn child into an unholy monster, and generally forcing the paladin between choosing between his family and the safety of the world?




No. This was not a "follow the paladin's code or the world suffers" scene. He may well have to make that choice at some point, but not this time.



> I just have to ask, because I've read a lot of paladin threads. On a more serious note, do you trust this player? How does he feel about the situation?




I trust the player. I don't know how he currently feels about the situation, as I haven't talked to him since the night of the session. I will be speaking with him this evening.



> And, after reading this, I have just one thing to say. If I do get a chance to play the paladin character I have in mind, he's going to be a loner orphan with no friends. Because, really, it seems like having friends or family as a paladin is just asking to be slapped with power-drain.




There is an element of that in paladins. I think that paladins are a fairly masochistic class choice, but that can make them uniquely interesting to play.

It's impossible for a paladin to figure out the motivations of all evildoers -- and even a paladin has to balance upholding the law vs. doing what is good. However, in this particular instance, the need to follow the law was perhaps stronger than normal (i.e., they were in the middle of a "good" city rather than fighting for their lives in a dungeon). It seems to me that the chaotic element is stronger than the evil element of the act. Interestingly, I had forgotten that the book paladin code is not so strict about chaotic acts, which gives me something to think about.



> By the way, I would still like to hear an answer to Wulf's original question. "What did you expect to happen?"




I took Wulf's question as rhetorical -- I rarely expect a particular outcome from any roleplaying scene. In a more narrow sense: at the time, during the scene, I did not expect the paladin to attempt to kill the halfling. If I had been guessing, I would have expected him to beat him up, express anger, and question him. I don't consider what the paladin did to be out of character, though it may have serious consequences for the character. I was a bit surprised at his actions, to be sure, and thought that posting the situation would provide new perspectives and inspirations for what to do -- which it definitely has!


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> actually, the "victim" is, as far as we know, physically unharmed. Its pretty obvious that the facts of this situation aren't getting in anyone's way, here.




I did get carried away a little. I just assumed that she was harmed   

But if she was, I bet that assault on a pregnant woman would be considered more heinous than most crimes in a D&D world, since miscarried fetus is the one thing you can't resurrect. It'll just come back as a fetus and die again.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 9, 2005)

Start a cooking fire and make halfling stew. It might have been wrong to kill the halfling, but it would also be a sin to waste all that yummy halfling meat.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Now granted the victim was only assaulted and not necessarily murdered, but in those times a fitting punishment for assault would also be execution.




I have to question this as well, because I'm not sure which "times" you are referring to.  Would it be the 1500's, when detect evil and teleport were used by some, Heironeous was revered by knights and halfling messengers were used as decoys?

I am poking a bit of fun here, but that statement doesn't really apply in D&D, where magic is available to allow for less deadly reactions (not that your reasoning is off, but the comparison doesn't hold well).  Once again, my only real concern is that no attempt at Detect Evil was made {EDIT: to add to this, if Detect Evil was made, then I would have quickly ruled that the halfling was evil in order to allow appropriate action to be taken by the paladin without recourse, or if I felt that the halfling would make a good plot device, I would have made it clear that he was not evil.  Using Detect Evil is a good way of avoiding "Paladin Traps" or revealing them for what they are}.

Aside from that, the only two other mitigating factors in this for me are:

a) Was the DM setting up a "Paladin Trap" on purpose, or was he surprised by what happened?

b) Was the player reacting out of frustration at the DM or the character acting out of frustration at the situation?

{EDIT: Galfridus posted while I typed this and took care of my mitigating factors.  It appears that this is a paladin who is on the edge already and is getting closer to stepping off of it.}


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

It sounds like you have a grasp of the situation, but more to it. A understanding...that is excellent.  

Good luck on the resolution. And by the way, the highlighted part, was a beautiful insight.

Thank You. And oh, female paladins are not masochistic   , they can be a b---h, but they aren't all the time.



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> I'm not the biggest fan of alignments, but this game was set up to be as close to "by the book D&D" as possible (I was new to the area, did not know any gamers, and wanted the campaign to be "common ground"). That said, the game has been running 5 years, so some shades of grey are inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And for you Demmero, I never said I was right either. It is a view expressed, and I leave it there as such.




TruthSeeker: Looking back on my earlier post, my wording was harsh.  I apologize.

I still think the point I made is valid, though.  The paladin had more choices than you portrayed, the biggest of which was whether or not to use Detect Evil on the halfling.  He chose not to, and also chose execution over turning him over to the town authorities.  He took the easy way out, on the only available target *at that moment* for his anger.  Maybe that's like kicking a dog when you're angry, or maybe it's like kicking the wolf that tried to maul your pregnant wife.  He has the tool to differentiate between dog and wolf.

I can understand the human nature to lash out at those who would hurt your family.  But summary execution for a potential lackey in a case where there's no visible damage to the wife doesn't sit well with me...especially when this guy's got Detect Evil at his beck and call to help him at least better define justice and evil.

And that's why I think the paladin's reaction to the attack SHOULD BE different from the common man's--he's got these neat tools to help him dispense justice...but they're useless if he doesn't use them.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 9, 2005)

Because of this thread I have the song "Video Killed the Radio Star" going through my head, except it's "Paladin Killed the Radio Star."


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> YEEAAAARRRRRRGGGHH!!!!!!!
> 
> No one is dead (except probably the halfling.)
> 
> ...




My mistake, "aid to suspected attempted murder" then. It's enough reason. Hell, IMC, aid to breaking and entering into a man's house would probably count as reason to kill the halfling. For that matter, acting upon suspected theft against a friend or ally out of honor is probably enough. Death comes cheap*, even for good** characters to deal out. In a world with proof of just afterlife and where it is possible to be raised, "death" is a completly separate punishment from "death without possiblity of being raised".

*Although the laws take on such things wil vary drastically from country to country. A lawful characters take on such things will also vary widely as some lawful characters care about the letter of the law, some about the spirit, and some about personal honor.

**And  reiterate, IMC. Questions of alignment always defer to the DM that is running that game. Some may not follow the RAW and even if they do, they may not all agree on how to follow the RAW especially in every circumstance.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> My mistake, "aid to suspected attempted murder" then. It's enough reason. Hell, IMC, aid to breaking and entering into a man's house would probably count as reason to kill the halfling. For that matter, acting upon suspected theft against a friend or ally out of honor is probably enough. Death comes cheap*, even for good** characters to deal out. In a world with proof of just afterlife and where it is possible to be raised, "death" is a completly separate punishment from "death without possiblity of being raised".
> 
> *Although the laws take on such things wil vary drastically from country to country. A lawful characters take on such things will also vary widely as some lawful characters care about the letter of the law, some about the spirit, and some about personal honor.
> 
> **And  reiterate, IMC. Questions of alignment always defer to the DM that is running that game. Some may not follow the RAW and even if they do, they may not all agree on how to follow the RAW especially in every circumstance.




Good points.  I come at the equation from campaigns where death is not as cheap.  I guess that's why we pose questions here, so we get the whole range of opinions.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 9, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> If the setting has laws that govern the punsihment of criminals and a Paladin does an end run around those laws to take matters into his own hands, he's not obeying authority.




Or, he is obeying a different, or higher, authority.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or, he is obeying a different, or higher, authority.




Does Heironeous demand lethal retribution every time one of his paladins witnesses an evil act?


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> My mistake, "aid to suspected attempted murder" then. It's enough reason. Hell, IMC, aid to breaking and entering into a man's house would probably count as reason to kill the halfling. For that matter, acting upon suspected theft against a friend or ally out of honor is probably enough. Death comes cheap*, even for good** characters to deal out. In a world with proof of just afterlife and where it is possible to be raised, "death" is a completly separate punishment from "death without possiblity of being raised".




Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice, it's fascism - which is plenty lawful...lawful evil.

IMO, death in a campaign should _never_ be treated as 'cheap' - down that road lies petty excuses used to justify the 'kill them and take their stuff' mentality.  I'm in the camp that says smack the paladin down, and hard - but not overtly.  

For the brightest lights (like paladins), the murder in a fit of rage of a prisoner is going to leave a mark, and anything that's got the ability to see such a stain on the spirit is likely going to want to take advantage.  Given the statements on what the paladin's done before in the campaign, I'd say he's a _prime_ candidate for not a fall, but getting tripped by Evil.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice, it's fascism - which is plenty lawful...lawful evil.




Proof is just another level of suspicion. Any proof of guilt the Paladin obtained from whatever source could also be false. Shouldn't let that keep him from Smiting.



> IMO, death in a campaign should _never_ be treated as 'cheap' - down that road lies petty excuses used to justify the 'kill them and take their stuff' mentality.




Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about _killing things and taking their stuff._ Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.

Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city? Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Proof is just another level of suspicion. Any proof of guilt the Paladin obtained from whatever source could also be false. Shouldn't let that keep him from Smiting.




Excuse me?  _Proof_ is what a Lawful Good character _must_ go on, not suspicion, which exists in the absence of proof.  If said paladin killed based solely on suspicion, then that's neighter righteous nor justice, but simple murder, neither of which fits even the loosest interpretation of LG.  Sorry, but no.



> Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about _killing things and taking their stuff._ Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.




That may be what _you're_ talking about, but it seems like the rest of us are speaking about roleplaying.  Please leave the hack and slash mindset out of this, because it simply doesn't apply.



> Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city? Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.




Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder.  You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand.  Killing someone because they were _possibly_ an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment.  But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder.  You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand.  Killing someone because they were _possibly_ an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment.  But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.




I think it is extreme in saying that it is murder in a game where a typical days work for a character involves going down into a subterranean structure, killing its inhabitants and taking their stuff.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

But the game clearly sets up a dichotomy between the dungeon and the city — the dungeon's like the old American frontier before it was completely settled, and, in that case, there's a certain amount of Darwinism/fascism/whatever that's part and parcel of the whole thing — the strongest swordarm rules the day.  But the same rules don't apply in the city, where there is presumably a governing authority, relative peace and stability, and a set of rules and codes of conduct agreed on by the people somehow in order to ensure that the settlement survives and prospers.

*Edit*: And the city has to exist for the adventurers to go down into the dungeon to begin with.  Otherwise, where do they cash in their loot/what value does it have?

Nick


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> I think it is extreme in saying that it is murder in a game where a typical days work for a character involves going down into a subterranean structure, killing its inhabitants and taking their stuff.




And again - that doesn't apply here.  This wasn't combat.  False analogy.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> My belief stems from the fact that the Paladin _must_ make the Lawful Good choice in every single situation.  If he does not, he becomes an unplayable character.




I don't agree with your statement.

The paladin sits down at a table in the inn.  The serving wench comes to tell him what's on the menu.

"We've got mutton pie, or roast chicken.  They're both 2 silvers, but if you have the pie, four coppers goes to the local charity for widows and orphans."

The paladin loves roast chicken, and isn't that keen on mutton.

If we had to rank the two choices on an alignment scale, there is Good attached to the mutton choice, while the chicken choice is Neutral.

Would you consider that the paladin is _obliged_ to choose mutton?  Would you strip him of his class abilities if he chose chicken?

-Hyp.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  _Proof_ is what a Lawful Good character _must_ go on, not suspicion, which exists in the absence of proof.  If said paladin killed based solely on suspicion, then that's neighter righteous nor justice, but simple murder, neither of which fits even the loosest interpretation of LG.  Sorry, but no.




With the abundance of magic in D&D definitive proof does not even exist. There are endless ways to tamper with evidence magically. At which point do you think the Paladin has acquired definite proof, that simply can't be anything else than what it seems? 

So sorry, but yes. It _is_ down to a certain level of suspicion because you can't be sure.



> That may be what _you're_ talking about, but it seems like the rest of us are speaking about roleplaying.  Please leave the hack and slash mindset out of this, because it simply doesn't apply.




I wasn't talking about hack'n'slash, I was talking about the usual adventures D&D comprises of in the official sources, and the Paladins role therein. AFAIK it's quite ok for the Paladin to participate in the usual Dungeon adventures. Taken in that context, killing a Halfling committing evil is quite ok. It's only when you 'roleplayers'  take the Paladin from that context into the context of Perry Mason that things get iffy. So maybe the Paladins actions wouldn't hold water in 21st century court, you have proof of guilt, motive etc. to ponder. But in the situation and setting provided, it's just one more evil guy Smitten down. 



> Punishment proportionate to the crime is the hallmark of justice - and this was neither self defense nor defense of innocents; it was murder.  You keep bringing in false analogies that simply don't apply to the situation at hand.  Killing someone because they were _possibly_ an accomplice in a crime that resulted in no deaths is pretty much the definition of disproportionate punishment.  But next, I imagine, you'll be saying that a LG character torturing someone is allowable, I suppose.




You keep bringing up things that have no bearing on the situation. Paladins Code is silent on both justice and mercy. It however does require punishing those who harm innocents. Thats what happened; he punished the evil halfling for his evil actions. The Paladin isn't beholden to your notifications of crime and worldly court justice. He fights [Evil], not crime. Heck, some nation could've made it crime to _be_ a Paladin in the first place. Is that place off-limits to Paladins?


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Funny thing though that were debating a game here that's about _killing things and taking their stuff._ Despite everything plenty Paladins in D&D can take part in the usual enter someones lair, kill them and loot adventures. What's the level of suspicion or proof of guilt for all those evil-looking demihumans who perish at the Paladins sword? Color me surprised if it's anything other than the MM entry that says 'usually evil'.
> 
> Now here we have a Halfling actually committing evil, which is usually more than the Orcs guarding their lair, who're fair game to Paladins. Why the uproar? Because it's a short human? Because it happened in a city?




How about because the MM entry for halflings says "usually Neutral" and the paladin doesn't have a cool ability called "Smite Neutrality?"  The again, Neutral is only one step away from Evil (*Smite!*) and halflings' favored class is Rogue, which you can argue is only new-fangled semantics for Thief (*Smite!*).

Why a paladin with an apparently evil halfling captive can't take a few seconds to use his Detect Evil ability to make certain the act isn't grossly out of character for the little guy is beyond me.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Blech .. those things should matter not to a Paladin answering to a higher, non-worldly authority.




At least not until that higher, non-worldly authority stops granting you cool paladin powers...but then it's a little late.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> You keep bringing up things that have no bearing on the situation. Paladins Code is silent on both justice and mercy. It however does require punishing those who harm innocents. Thats what happened; he punished the *evil halfling* for his *evil actions*. The Paladin isn't beholden to your notifications of crime and worldly court justice. He fights *[Evil]*, not crime. Heck, some nation could've made it crime to _be_ a Paladin in the first place. Is that place off-limits to Paladins?



Emphasis mine.  Of course, the halfling's not evil that we know about (and, yes, I am busting your chops a bit here).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  _Proof_ is what a Lawful Good character _must_ go on, not suspicion, which exists in the absence of proof.  If said paladin killed based solely on suspicion, then that's neighter righteous nor justice, but simple murder, neither of which fits even the loosest interpretation of LG.  Sorry, but no.




To what extent?

Absolute proof?
Proof beyond reasonable doubt?  What constitutes 'reasonable'?
A confession?  A confession within a Zone of Truth?  A confession within a Zone of Truth with someone to verify via Greater Arcane Sight if the confessor made his save or not?
Eyewitness testimony?  Credible eyewitness testimony?  What constitutes 'credible'?  A Zone of Truth, again?
A verdict handed down by a fair trial?  What constitutes 'fair'?

When can a paladin determine that something has been proven sufficiently to allow smiting?

-Hyp.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice, it's fascism - which is plenty lawful...lawful evil.
> 
> IMO, death in a campaign should _never_ be treated as 'cheap' - down that road lies petty excuses used to justify the 'kill them and take their stuff' mentality.  I'm in the camp that says smack the paladin down, and hard - but not overtly.
> 
> For the brightest lights (like paladins), the murder in a fit of rage of a prisoner is going to leave a mark, and anything that's got the ability to see such a stain on the spirit is likely going to want to take advantage.  Given the statements on what the paladin's done before in the campaign, I'd say he's a _prime_ candidate for not a fall, but getting tripped by Evil.




Um, no. Fascism is where the state exerts its control over all aspects of the individual's life. The paladin isn't the state in this case, so it can't be fascism. You could say that it is authortarian rule, which it is because the paladin is an authority as demonstrated by his paladinhood. Since he has become and paladin and still retains the paladin powers, it shows that he has the rightful authority to preform his duties as he sees fit. Should he exert those powers wrongly, he would lose those powers and that authority. This has no bearing on whether the local government or authority recognises that authority or not. A paladin, havign gained that authority is expected to use it and could lose it due to inaction even if following the local laws against his code. Seeing that the paladin has the authority, it can't be murder since murder is just an unlawful killing.

Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the paladin killed because of a fit of rage. He may have been angry, it may have been known to him that the halfling was going to be killed, but it was never, that I read, determined that the sole and motivating factor in the death was his anger. Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> To what extent?
> 
> Absolute proof?
> Proof beyond reasonable doubt?  What constitutes 'reasonable'?
> ...



 I think we can reasonably assume that the _detect evil_ ability could be considered a handy tool to determine if something is smitable.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And again - that doesn't apply here.  This wasn't combat.  False analogy.




When characters attack the inhabitants of those sunterranean structures who are merely defending their homes from intruders, who is in the wrong?

My "analogy", which wasn't meant to be one, was meant to illustrate that a DND setting is completely different from our modern world. A typical adventure in DND would be classified as an illegal and very violent act in our modern world. Same goes with the action of the Paladin.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> With the abundance of magic in D&D definitive proof does not even exist. There are endless ways to tamper with evidence magically. At which point do you think the Paladin has acquired definite proof, that simply can't be anything else than what it seems?
> 
> So sorry, but yes. It _is_ down to a certain level of suspicion because you can't be sure.




Nope.  _If_ you've got a very liberal code of conduct that allows for such a thing, at the very least it has to be _reasonable_ suspicion - which this wasn't.  





> I wasn't talking about hack'n'slash, I was talking about the usual adventures D&D comprises of in the official sources, and the Paladins role therein. AFAIK it's quite ok for the Paladin to participate in the usual Dungeon adventures. Taken in that context, killing a Halfling committing evil is quite ok. It's only when you 'roleplayers'  take the Paladin from that context into the context of Perry Mason that things get iffy. So maybe the Paladins actions wouldn't hold water in 21st century court, you have proof of guilt, motive etc. to ponder. But in the situation and setting provided, it's just one more evil guy Smitten down.




'Kill things and take their stuff' is quintessential hack and slash.  And again - zero proof, lack of reasonable suspicion.  Please stop trying to bring the dungeon/hack and slash attitude into it.  It doesn't apply here. 



> You keep bringing up things that have no bearing on the situation. Paladins Code is silent on both justice and mercy. It however does require punishing those who harm innocents. Thats what happened; he punished the evil halfling for his evil actions. The Paladin isn't beholden to your notifications of crime and worldly court justice. He fights [Evil], not crime. Heck, some nation could've made it crime to _be_ a Paladin in the first place. Is that place off-limits to Paladins?




*bzzt!* Wrong and how.  No reasonable suspicion of guilt - only allegation and suspicion.  The paladin clearly acted out of anger, which is against the code of the church he belongs to.  And I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing justice, something you seem to be missing.  You keep bringing out the same old straw men, and frankly it's a little tiresome.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Absolute proof?




That's the best way, sure.



> Proof beyond reasonable doubt?  What constitutes 'reasonable'?
> A confession?  A confession within a Zone of Truth?




Better, yes.



> A confession within a Zone of Truth with someone to verify via Greater Arcane Sight if the confessor made his save or not?




A very good way to go.  That's how I handled it in my campaign when it came down to the followers of a god of Law argued with those of a god of Justice.



> Eyewitness testimony?  Credible eyewitness testimony?  What constitutes 'credible'?  A Zone of Truth, again?




Yup.  Preferrably verified in some fashion.



> A verdict handed down by a fair trial?  What constitutes 'fair'?




In the case of a Lawful Good diety, a trial where the accused has a chance to defend themselves and explain their actions, where both sides present their case.



> When can a paladin determine that something has been proven sufficiently to allow smiting?
> 
> -Hyp.




Couple ways - personally witnessing the crime itself, for one.  That's the case in a martial situation - when mortal peril is immediate and irrefutable and commission is witnessed.  Another is by following the procedure of a trusted system of law.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the paladin killed because of a fit of rage. He may have been angry, it may have been known to him that the halfling was going to be killed, but it was never, that I read, determined that the sole and motivating factor in the death was his anger. Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.




My reading differs, then.  Sorry you don't agree.  Dictionary dissembling aside, the GM has said this wasn't the first time the character had acted in this fashion, and that it certainly looked like the character acted in anger again.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Would you consider that the paladin is _obliged_ to choose mutton?  Would you strip him of his class abilities if he chose chicken?
> 
> -Hyp.




Um... well, he is.  What I would or wouldn't do doesn't matter - it comes down to "does he violate his code or not"?  This seems like a violation of his code.



> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




Interesting... there's nothing there that says a Paladin will lose his abilities if he violates his code.  Am I reading this correctly?

Anyway, the example above is a violation of his code (help those in need).  While it's a lame one, that's what RAW states.

So if he chose chicken over mutton often enough to become N, or LN, or whatever, he loses his abilites.  If the choice in question is too insignificant to force an alignment change, it isn't a moral choice.  (To be clear, I was talking about moral choices when I said "the Paladin must make the Lawful Good choice in every single situation.")


Now this is a lame example, but it illustrates the point well enough.  A Paladin must be Lawful Good or get nerfed.  So it's difficult to provide the Paladin with deep moral choices, since the "get nerfed" weighs very heavily on the one side of the scale.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> When characters attack the inhabitants of those sunterranean structures who are merely defending their homes from intruders, who is in the wrong?
> 
> My "analogy", which wasn't meant to be one, was meant to illustrate that a DND setting is completely different from our modern world. A typical adventure in DND would be classified as an illegal and very violent act in our modern world. Same goes with the action of the Paladin.




You're comparing apples (attacking a dungeon full of hostile creatures) and oranges (killing a captured and helpless opponent).  Ergo, false analogy.  On the irony of the dungeon delve and many other roleplaying scenarios, I suggest you read John Tynes' fine _Powerkill_.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> My reading differs, then.  Sorry you don't agree.  Dictionary dissembling aside, the GM has said this wasn't the first time the character had acted in this fashion, and that it certainly looked like the character acted in anger again.





Looks can be deceiving, to punish the player for what it looked like is not different than to punish the halfling for what it looked like. You'd have to prove that the player acted due to rage.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it was not demonstrated that the paladin killed because of a fit of rage. He may have been angry, it may have been known to him that the halfling was going to be killed, but it was never, that I read, determined that the sole and motivating factor in the death was his anger.




Technically true, but what then would you say WAS his motivation?
The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are rage at the intrusion and attack against his wife or belief that the halfling was so undeniably evil that Heironeous wouldn't blink at the execution-after-disabling.



			
				painandgreed said:
			
		

> Such a thing would have to be declared by the player.




This doesn't make sense to me.  Does a player have to state the *intent* of every action he takes?  No.  Do players usually state the intent of each of their actions?  Not in my games, at least.

Intent is judged after the fact, with as much evidence brought to bear as is possible.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Does Heironeous demand lethal retribution every time one of his paladins witnesses an evil act?



 Lethal no.  But if the Paladin is ignoring evil before his own eye he is going to fall due to inaction allowing evil to spread.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Would you strip him of his class abilities if he chose chicken?




I gotta say Hypersmurf, you have the best way of expressing things. Now to bastardize your quote, I believe the Paladin definitely chose chicken (or did the pilot have fish?) 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Looks can be deceiving, to punish the player for what it looked like is not different than to punish the halfling for what it looked like. You'd have to prove that the player acted due to rage.




No, you have to say the character acted out of that - and that being a GM call, that's exactly what I'd advise.  DM's word is final.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Um... well, he is.  What I would or wouldn't do doesn't matter - it comes down to "does he violate his code or not"?  This seems like a violation of his code.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The stripping of powers is lower down in the class description. Violations don't do it, but GROSS violations do.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or *who grossly violates the code of conduct * loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Lethal no.  But if the Paladin is ignoring evil before his own eye he is going to fall due to inaction allowing evil to spread.




He didn't ignore evil.  He realized the halfling was up to something, nabbed him, roughed him up until the little guy was in no condition to flee.  He didn't "ignore evil."

His next (logical) choice was to turn the halfling over to the city authorities, question him some more, or do something else (like, unfortunately, snapping the guy's neck).

If Heironeous doesn't demand lethal retribution, then it's my opinion the execution meted out was the paladin's "sentence," not his god's will.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You're comparing apples (attacking a dungeon full of hostile creatures) and oranges (killing a captured and helpless opponent).  Ergo, false analogy.  On the irony of the dungeon delve and many other roleplaying scenarios, I suggest you read John Tynes' fine _Powerkill_.




Those creatures are only hostile because a group of well-armed individuals smashed down the door and started to murder them and take their stuff. Its a home invasion in all but name.

But yes, Powerkill does (seem to) illustrate my point.

Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> This doesn't make sense to me.  Does a player have to state the *intent* of every action he takes?  No.  Do players usually state the intent of each of their actions?  Not in my games, at least.
> 
> Intent is judged after the fact, with as much evidence brought to bear as is possible.




As I've stated before, I believe that in cases of alignment where players might lose abilities or have their alignment changed, the players shoud be given a warning that their actions will do so. If for no other reason, to prevent hour long "discussions" between the player and DM for such actions (boring the rest of the players in the meantime). I've seen too many DMs that enjoy pushing the player's buttons rather than the character's and don't see such as good DMing. For a DM to declare what the motivations are for a character after the fact without input from the player is just railroading and at that point, why even bother with having players?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I think we can reasonably assume that the _detect evil_ ability could be considered a handy tool to determine if something is smitable.




Let's say the party sorcerer has just cast Protection from Good on himself.  It's a spell with the Evil descriptor; the sorcerer now has an evil aura.  Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say someone bought the halfling a 'shot of brandy' that is, in fact, a potion of Protection from Good.  The halfling drinks the potion; he now has an evil aura.  Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say the paladin runs across Ebeneezer Scrooge.  The man is petty, spiteful, unconcerned with the suffering of others.  He has an evil alignment, though strictly, he hasn't broken any laws.  Is his cruelty a death sentence?  Is the paladin correct to smite him?

Let's say we have an Lawful Good Aasimar sorceress who has polymorphed into a succubus temporarily for the purpose of a Mission of Goodness, gaining the Evil subtype and thus an evil aura.  Is the paladin correct to smite her?

Let's say we have a reformed succubus, who has devoted herself to good and changed alignment.  She retains her Evil subtype, however, and thus possesses an evil aura.  Is the paladin correct to smite her?

Let's say we have a good undead creature - a FR baelnorn, for example.  As an undead creature, despite having a good alignment, it shows up on Detect Evil.  Is the paladin correct to smite it?

Let's say we have an evil man who has recently seen the error of his ways and repented.  Is his alignment still evil until he performs sufficient good acts to redeem it?  If so, is this someone the paladin should be smiting?  If, on the other hand, alignment changes with current state of mind (rather than as a record of past deeds), then someone who has been truly good their entire life who has a change of heart now radiates evil.  Is this someone the paladin should be smiting?  What if it was only an aberrant spike of evil in an otherwise good spirit?

Is a 'ping' on a detect evil _always_ justification for an immediate smite?  

-Hyp.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Those creatures are only hostile because a group of well-armed individuals smashed down the door and started to murder them and take their stuff. Its a home invasion in all but name.
> 
> But yes, Powerkill does (seem to) illustrate my point.
> 
> Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.




You're also comparing apples to oranges again - in a typical D&D campaign, good and evil are not subjective as they are in the real word, they're objective, as terrifying a universe as that might be.  As for 'justified' - no.  Roughed up/incapacitated is one thing, but lethal retribution is disproportionate to the crime, thus failing definitions of lawful (let the authorities handle it, as this is a LG kingdom) and good (prisoner helpless, paladin killed them anyway).  I say still - turn it into an opportunity to trip the paladin up.  _Test his faith_.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Given the typical days work of an adventurer, I just don't see how the actions of a Paladin warrant any loss of powers. I'd say that if you took the Paladin to the authorities and explained that the halfling was involved in a potentially deadly assault on his pregnant wife, they'd probably just warn the Paladin about taking the law into his own hands and mark the case down as a justified homicide.




However, the local authorities don't determine whether a Paladin loses his powers, in this case Heironeous does. I'll be interested to read how the DM in question interprets Heironeous's actions; [rolls sense motive] it would seem that Galfridus is looking at taking the "atonement required" path.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Just remember all you paladins out there, don't choose chicken! That path can only lead to pain and eternal damnation.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Is a 'ping' on a detect evil _always_ justification for an immediate smite?
> 
> -Hyp.




Good points and to answer your question, no a 'ping' on detect evil does not always justify an immediate smiting.  In this case though, it would have been a step in the right direction.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Is a 'ping' on a detect evil _always_ justification for an immediate smite?



Wow — that's a complete list of possibilties there.    All I said was that it was a "handy tool," not the end all be all of smitability testing.  So, no, it's not, and I never said it was, but it's a tool at the disposal of the paladin in question that wasn't used at all.

Nick


----------



## Voadam (Nov 9, 2005)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> PS: Just remember all you paladins out there, don't choose chicken! That path can only lead to pain and eternal damnation.




Paladins of a god of valor should not pick chicken. The symbolism is all wrong.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> As I've stated before, I believe that in cases of alignment where players might lose abilities or have their alignment changed, the players shoud be given a warning that their actions will do so.




OK, fair enough.  I don't fully agree, though.  I feel that a player running a paladin should weigh his actions before taking them.



			
				painandgreed said:
			
		

> I've seen too many DMs that enjoy pushing the player's buttons rather than the character's and don't see such as good DMing.




I don't like that either, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  The raid/attack happened on the paladin's home and wife, not the player's.  Unless the player's house had been invaded or his wife assaulted at some time in the past, that's not pushing the player's buttons.

The paladin's buttons seem to have been pushed, and he reacted the way he did.  I really can't view this situation as a DM's paladin trap because there's no way he could have known that the halfling would get caught, beaten down, and then had his neck snapped at the paladin's hands.  Those are player choices.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 9, 2005)

On the chicken scenario. I like a third option of ordering what food you like and making a small donation to the fund as well. Options, people, options! Think outside the box!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> On the chicken scenario. I like a third option of ordering what food you like and making a small donation to the fund as well. Options, people, options! Think outside the box!




I was going to get to that one eventually 

-Hyp.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I don't like that either, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  The raid/attack happened on the paladin's home and wife, not the player's.  Unless the player's house had been invaded or his wife assaulted at some time in the past, that's not pushing the player's buttons.
> 
> The paladin's buttons seem to have been pushed, and he reacted the way he did.  I really can't view this situation as a DM's paladin trap because there's no way he could have known that the halfling would get caught, beaten down, and then had his neck snapped at the paladin's hands.  Those are player choices.





It's hard to tell. I've known players who would become frustrated in such a situation especially if the DM wanted to frustrate the player despite how the player may see their character. Might not be the best roleplaying but not everybody is a good role player even if they want to be. Announcing the result of an action allows the player to keep his character in line and consistant to their idea of what the character would do. I don't see it as being metgaming as the character has had a lifetime of study in what his code is and what would violate it while the player doesn't. The character, especially in the case of a paladin, would have the conscience that the player doesn't have.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Nope.  _If_ you've got a very liberal code of conduct that allows for such a thing, at the very least it has to be _reasonable_ suspicion - which this wasn't.




That's what I've advocated in my previous posts: the Paladin should have reasonable suspicions. Thats what happened in this case, as is clear from the first post:



> The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault.







> 'Kill things and take their stuff' is quintessential hack and slash.  And again - zero proof, lack of reasonable suspicion.  Please stop trying to bring the dungeon/hack and slash attitude into it.  It doesn't apply here.




So it's different standards for those guys forced to live in dungeons and clean evil Halflings living in cities? How _just_ and _fair_, the Paladins be in your world. I'm just saying that if the Paladin pretends to be an equal opportunity Smiter he should direct his divine wrath equally on those scheme murders in cities and poor orcs living in dungeons. This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect _all_ innocents he can, and punish _all_ those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.



> *bzzt!* Wrong and how.  No reasonable suspicion of guilt - only allegation and suspicion.  The paladin clearly acted out of anger, which is against the code of the church he belongs to.  And I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing justice, something you seem to be missing.  You keep bringing out the same old straw men, and frankly it's a little tiresome.




See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar. What's the straw-man? I just stated what's in the Paladins Code and whats not. Thats as un-strawy as can be. Justice is not in the Paladins Code while punishing those who harm innocents is. It's your argument thats going nowhere, and it is starting to show in your attitude  :\


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect _all_ innocents he can, and punish _all_ those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.




OK, let's play hypothetical here.  A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler.  What does he do?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 9, 2005)

I've always figured that a paladin's code is something the DM and player need to hammer out, at least roughly, before play begins.

Important to cover off right away:
1. Is the paladin obliged to attack anything that shows up as Evil on his radar?
2. What are the 'rules' regarding unconscious/sleeping/surrendered opponents, particularly when there is no way to safely confine them?
3. What are the 'rules' regarding noncombatants of traditionally evil races?
4. Is it okay for the paladin to 'turn a blind eye' to things like torture of prisoners for information if it's in a good cause?
5. Is it 'dishonourable' to use stealth or disguises, attack without warning, lie as a 'ruse of war', etc?
6. Can a minor evil be ignored in pursuit of a greater evil?  (Is it okay to let the mugging in the dark alley continue, if intervening would mean letting the demon lord escape?)

Other things that might be worth addressing are attitudes to sex and alcohol, tolerance for other religions, tithing, and the like.

These can be fleshed out further if unexpected situations arise in game, but having at least those initial contentious points fleshed out in advance will help to avoid unpleasant surprises where expectations don't mesh.

I could see a very simple Paladin's code boiled down to 'What would Benton do?'  

-Hyp.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar.




Ok, I'm going to nitpick again.  I'll do this via example (overblown as it may be, I've seen a similar situation in High School some 16 years ago):

Paladin: "What do you know about this?"

Halfling: "Uh...nothing...I mean it, nothing."

Paladin: "Stop holding back, you had something to do with this." *punch, punch, kick*

Halfling: "Ok, ok, I had something to do with it, if that will make you stop hitting me."

Paladin: "Who is behind this?"

Halfling: "Awe man, I really don't know."

Paladin: *snap*

I knew a person that admitted to stealing a fellow students backpack in order to get him to stop hitting him.  The backpack was later found to have been misplaced and had nothing to do with the *evil* student who *obviously* stole it due to the *better than magic* method of beating the *truth* out of someone.

Forgive me if I am a bit dubious of your logic.


----------



## Numion (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> OK, let's play hypothetical here.  A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler.  What does he do?




Depends .. how evil is the *toddler?* Kidding aside, PHB states that beings incapable of moral action neither good or evil. I'd think that a 6-year old could still fall in this category. However, if he pings evil, the Paladin is by the RAW required to punish him, or risk losing his powers. Oh, scrap that, by the RAW his Code requires him to punish the boy in any case. He's harming innocents, you see.

Thems the breaks.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's what I've advocated in my previous posts: the Paladin should have reasonable suspicions. Thats what happened in this case, as is clear from the first post:




And then he snapped his neck.  Neither just nor fair, I'd say.



> So it's different standards for those guys forced to live in dungeons and clean evil Halflings living in cities? How _just_ and _fair_, the Paladins be in your world. I'm just saying that if the Paladin pretends to be an equal opportunity Smiter he should direct his divine wrath equally on those scheme murders in cities and poor orcs living in dungeons. This is because the Paladins Code requires him to protect _all_ innocents he can, and punish _all_ those who harm innocents - regardless whether they be dwelling in a damp dungeon or a lawful goody good city.




Spare me your sarcasm, Numion.  If you can't defend your position and have to resort to _ad hominem_, then this has passed the point of debate and becomes a matter for the mods.  The difference philosophically between actions in combat and in peacetime are debated elsewhere and offer some interesting insights.  I suggest you read up before wading into these waters.



> See quote above from the beginning of the thread. It doesn't go into specifics, but the Paladin apparently roughed the admission of guilt from the Halfling. That's even better than the Paladins Evil-Radar. What's the straw-man? I just stated what's in the Paladins Code and whats not. Thats as un-strawy as can be. Justice is not in the Paladins Code while punishing those who harm innocents is. It's your argument thats going nowhere, and it is starting to show in your attitude  :\




You're arguing semantics and putting up strawmen to support your own argument.  And no, sorry, beating a confession out of someone isn't 'better' than the relatively objective _detect evil_...and even that's been shown to not be a decent yardstick at all.  But since you're resorting, again, to _ad hominem_, then any discussion with you is now over.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> OK, let's play hypothetical here.  A paladin who lives by the above code sees a 6-year-old boy kicking the crap out of a toddler.  What does he do?



He protects the toddler and punishes the 6 year-old.

Wow!  That was easy!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 9, 2005)

Actually, it's not ad hominem.  Ad hominem would be saying, "How would you know what paladins should be when you're evil yourself?"  See, you switch the attack from the argument to the credibility of the arguer.  I didn't see Numion doing that this time.

He is putting up strawmen, though.  Creating his own exaggeration of your argument that is easily refutable and then equating the exaggeration with the value of the original argument.  While one can legitimately carry an argument to its logical extreme and show how ludicrous it is, that isn't what is happening here.

Try http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html for some clarification.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Nov 9, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You're arguing semantics and putting up strawmen to support your own argument.  And no, sorry, beating a confession out of someone isn't 'better' than the relatively objective _detect evil_...and even that's been shown to not be a decent yardstick at all.  But since you're resorting, again, to _ad hominem_, then any discussion with you is now over.




If a Paladin cannot use his god-given gift of detect evil to decide whether he can smite someone or not, then what's the point of being a Paladin? Best be a Fighter with a large stick then you don't have to even seek justification for beating up on the wife-beating halfling.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> If a Paladin cannot use his god-given gift of detect evil to decide whether he can smite someone or not, then what's the point of being a Paladin? Best be a Fighter with a large stick then you don't have to even seek justification for beating up on the wife-beating halfling.



 Are you asking meta-game or in-game, Shining Dragon?  In-game, I highly doubt that most paladins become paladins simply to beat the living hell out of people (and, remember, the halfling in the OP's post wasn't actually assaulting the wife — he's some sort of accessory, although we don't know if he was willingly or not), and, if that's the reason on a meta-game level, then, yeah, I agree — I think people would be better off being fighters.


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> painandgreed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem with that is--as this thread has clearly demonstrated--people use totally different "scales" to "weigh" those actions.  I believe that I have an extremely good handle on the official alignment rules, and yet anytime an issue like this one comes up, there are dozens of people (if not more) who come to the exact opposite conclusion that I do!

Thus, the problem--and painandgreed's eminently sensible solution to it: rather than sit back and let the paladin's player "weigh his actions," then slam him with the penalties for "breaking his code," and then arguing with him for the next two weeks about whether what he did was Evil or not...why not just say, "Um, you _do_ know that I (the DM) will rule that to be a violation of your paladin's code, right?"  I'll bet that most people who try this will be surprised how many times the answer is: "No, I didn't realize that.  How is it a violation of my code?"


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Thus, the problem--and painandgreed's eminently sensible solution to it: rather than sit back and let the paladin's player "weigh his actions," then slam him with the penalties for "breaking his code," and then arguing with him for the next two weeks about whether what he did was Evil or not...why not just say, "Um, you _do_ know that I (the DM) will rule that to be a violation of your paladin's code, right?"  I'll bet that most people who try this will be surprised how many times the answer is: "No, I didn't realize that.  How is it a violation of my code?"




That's a brilliant idea Peter, why didn't anyone come up with this before (just kidding painandgreed)...  

Actually, all joking aside, that was probably the best advice of the thread (not as fun as debating, but good advice).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 9, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not ad hominem.  Ad hominem would be saying, "How would you know what paladins should be when you're evil yourself?"  See, you switch the attack from the argument to the credibility of the arguer.  I didn't see Numion doing that this time.




That's right, kids.

Remeber: "You're wrong, and you're dumb" is just an insult.

"You're wrong *because* you're dumb" is an _ad hominem_ attack.

The More You Know!


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> He protects the toddler and punishes the 6 year-old.
> 
> Wow!  That was easy!




Oh...I hate you!    

And if this evildoer doesn't answer your questions, is it OK to rough him up?

If he tries to escape, is it OK to grab him, whoop him 'til he can't escape, and then snap his neck?  Especially if you get him to admit that he did indeed kick that poor innocent toddler?

What if the 6-yr.-old's mother intervenes?  Is she eligible for smiting then too?

Especially if you claim to be a paladin of Heironeous?


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> What if the 6-yr.-old's mother intervenes?  Is she eligible for smiting then too?



As someone who has worked in the juvenile court system, I can say:

Yes.  Yes, you absolutely have my permission to smite the bejeezus out of her.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 9, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not ad hominem.  Ad hominem would be saying, "How would you know what paladins should be when you're evil yourself?"  See, you switch the attack from the argument to the credibility of the arguer.  I didn't see Numion doing that this time.
> 
> He is putting up strawmen, though.  Creating his own exaggeration of your argument that is easily refutable and then equating the exaggeration with the value of the original argument.  While one can legitimately carry an argument to its logical extreme and show how ludicrous it is, that isn't what is happening here.
> 
> Try http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html for some clarification.




Point, and mea culpa.  And what you're referring to is, of course, _ad absurdum_.    

But moving along to more interesting and insightful conversation with folks like...



> Shining Dragon: If a Paladin cannot use his god-given gift of detect evil to decide whether he can smite someone or not, then what's the point of being a Paladin? Best be a Fighter with a large stick then you don't have to even seek justification for beating up on the wife-beating halfling.




In combat, when lives are at stake and every moment counts, then you can make the 'better to ask forgiveness than permission' argument, sure.  In this case, though, snap judgement was exactly what _wasn't_ required.  

A paladin is expected to use _detect evil_..._responsibly_.  Presumably, that would be in the ethos of his church.   Which is why when I ran a D&D game in my homebrew world, I wrote up exactly that - an ethos for any given church, precisely because the paladin isn't some stick in the mud self-righteous do-gooder with the whack stick.  Lawful Good does not, and _must not_ mean 'Lawful Stupid.'


----------



## Demmero (Nov 9, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> The problem with that is--as this thread has clearly demonstrated--people use totally different "scales" to "weigh" those actions.  I believe that I have an extremely good handle on the official alignment rules, and yet anytime an issue like this one comes up, there are dozens of people (if not more) who come to the exact opposite conclusion that I do!
> 
> Thus, the problem--and painandgreed's eminently sensible solution to it: rather than sit back and let the paladin's player "weigh his actions," then slam him with the penalties for "breaking his code," and then arguing with him for the next two weeks about whether what he did was Evil or not...why not just say, "Um, you _do_ know that I (the DM) will rule that to be a violation of your paladin's code, right?"  I'll bet that most people who try this will be surprised how many times the answer is: "No, I didn't realize that.  How is it a violation of my code?"




Yeah, I suppose that makes sense.  But where does the hand-holding end?  If a party of 2nd-level PCs decides to march off to vanquish the ancient red dragon that leveled Waterdeep, do you also call a timeout and ask if the players really want to do that?  I see your point but I guess I'm just more of a give-and-take person when it comes to the Player-DM relationship.

I've never played a paladin, I've never played (or even NPCed) a cleric or follower of Heironeous, but when I read the OP's description of the incident, I immediately thought, "Gee, that doesn't sound like something a paladin of Heironeous should do."  If I have that reaction, part of me wonders why the player who runs this PC doesn't have similar thoughts.

Snapping a captive's neck isn't exactly something on the white/gray border.  Why couldn't the player ask the DM beforehand if the action might affect him paladin status?


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> ...But where does the hand-holding end?...




I would say that is between the Player and the DM.  I have younger players that have told me to let them play the character without guidance and that I should judge them accordingly.  If something bad happens, then experience will teach the player.

On the other hand, I have had long time players who want me to remind them of things that their character would know.  The person has played for over 15 years and is around 40 years old.  He has a fairly demanding job, a wife and two young daughters, so he doesn't want to put much effort into the game.

As the DM, I can decide not to game with someone who needs hand-holding, or I can agree to help him out.  So, I don't think that the game has to be a learning experience or a lesson in roleplaying unless all parties want this.


----------



## Torm (Nov 9, 2005)

I don't think the Paladin did right if he killed the Halfling before finding out as much as he could to prevent evil - which may have required letting the Halfling live a bit longer.

Other than that, the Halfling was party to an attack on an innocent pregnant woman, so I like this Paladin. No trial, no reports to file. 

If I were his DM, rather than stripping him of any powers, I _might_ punish the Paladin by making something else bad happen that might have been stopped if the Paladin had been a little more patient and paid a little more attention - _if_ I had provided any inkling that something was there to pay attention to in the first place.

So speaks Torm, The True, The Loyal Fury, God of Paladins. So you know it's right.

(That, btw, is known as an Ad Endum argument - Endum, cause it's all over now.  )

(If it _isn't_ over, maybe we need another Paladin trial, hmmmm?)


----------



## Peter Gibbons (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I've never played a paladin, I've never played (or even NPCed) a cleric or follower of Heironeous, but when I read the OP's description of the incident, I immediately thought, "Gee, that doesn't sound like something a paladin of Heironeous should do."  If I have that reaction, part of me wonders why the player who runs this PC doesn't have similar thoughts.



The only answer I can give to that is: when *I* read the OP's description of the incident, *I* immediately thought: "So what's the problem?"  And I _have_ played paladins before.  (In fact, I'm currently playing one, and the DM has actually intervened a couple of times now to say that I'm taking the paladin's code _too_ seriously by offering mercy to Evil foes and preventing the other PCs from killing captured enemies!)

I can certainly empathize with you about one thing, though: I often (almost constantly, really) wonder why other people don't have similar thoughts about alignment issues as I do.  But there's no doubt that they don't, so it's obvious to me that this is one of those areas that people just can't seem to agree about in any detail.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Yeah, I suppose that makes sense.  But where does the hand-holding end?  f a party of 2nd-level PCs decides to march off to vanquish the ancient red dragon that leveled Waterdeep, do you also call a timeout and ask if the players really want to do that? I see your point but I guess I'm just more of a give-and-take person when it comes to the Player-DM relationship.




I adopt the Common Sense merit approach. I assume everybody has the common sense merit and when they say they're going to try something that their character should know is impossible or unbelievably stupid, I tell them so. As a rule of thumb, if you find yourself no able to beleive that they would actually want to pursue a certain course of action, you should inform them. Again, there are many varying levels of games out there and plenty of players out there that think that if the DM tells them about the dragon that leveled Waterdeep, then the PCs must be able to take it out.

I'm all for letting PC dig their own graves, but there are times when they need to be filled in on things because they do not actually live in the world their characters live in and therfore they do not understand it.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 10, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> (If it _isn't_ over, maybe we need another Paladin trial, hmmmm?)




Hello Torm,
I was thinking of calling the twelve paladins again once more myself...

Somewhere deep within the infinite layers of the Abyss, waging war upon the demons of the lower planes, a Paladin of Fiarle by the name of Herremann Mallaeforr hear's Torms rumblings once more. As always he is ready to serve in the guidance of his peers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## tonym (Nov 10, 2005)

Cripes!  I seriously doubt the Original Poster has a "Paladin Code" that insists every paladin use _detect evil_ every time before killing somebody in the city limits.

Therefore, it follows that if a paladin in his campaign witnesses an act that he--a trained paladin--deems evil, then it is entirely his *option* whether or not he _detects evil_ on the offending person.  A paladin is considered wise enough to make that decision, I think.

In our scenario, the paladin did just that.  The halfling participated in a crime and compounded his wickedness by refusing to cooperate with the investigation.  By the halfling's actions, he provided sufficient information to the paladin regarding his 'likely' alignment, and the paladin killed him.  

Did the paladin make a mistake about the halfling's alignment?  Seriously, it doesn't matter.  A paladin can make mistakes, just like a paladin can kill evil people and decide to skip the whole _detects evil_ rigamarole.  It's totally his call.

I'd have to say any DM who punishes a paladin for this kind of thing is likely interested in punishing a PC for his (the DM's) own amusement, or he (the DM) misunderstands the rules about paladins.  The RAW clearly support the paladin.  Paladins *can* act chaotic on occasion--like this one did.  

If you want to strip the paladin of his powers for all of his accumulated questionable acts, wait until he does something much, much worse than this.  His killing of the seemingly evil halfling shouldn't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

There, the defense rest its case.



Tony M


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 10, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Lethal no.  But if the Paladin is ignoring evil before his own eye he is going to fall due to inaction allowing evil to spread.




He could have easily detained the halfling until the authorities arrived to deal with the situation, applying law as written - but instead decided to murder him in cold blood. Unless two wrongs really _do_ make a right, I'm entirely unconvinced that _murder_ was the best or only option available to the Paladin. 

I still see any argument that advocates murder as the only justified response to those that wrong a Paladin as being an open advocation of vigilante justice which, IMHO, does not at all adhere to the Paladin's Code or required alignment. In retrospect, I haven't seen a single argument on this thread that convinces me otherwise.

'I'm a Paladin. If people piss me off, I can kill them. It's my right as a warrior of god!'

I am _not_ seeing the Lawful Good in that.

[Edit: What I _do_ see in that argument is a justification of right to murder by way of religious affiliation - and is that not unjust? The exact same argument was made during the Crusades... and later deemed unjust and in error by The Church.]


----------



## Voadam (Nov 10, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> The only answer I can give to that is: when *I* read the OP's description of the incident, *I* immediately thought: "So what's the problem?"




My immediate thought was it didn't seem evil or a gross violation of the code so no problem. But having read a few paladin threads before I said to myself "I bet a bunch of people will have a problem with it. I'll bet some say it is an evil act or gross violation, or that paladins are held to a higher standard."


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> I'd have to say any DM who punishes a paladin for this kind of thing is likely interested in punishing a PC for his (the DM's) own amusement, or he (the DM) misunderstands the rules about paladins.  The RAW clearly support the paladin.  Paladins *can* act chaotic on occasion--like this one did.



Alternatively the DM may roleplay the Deity that the Paladin is servant to and find that killing a helpless creature was dishonorable. Alternatively, the DM may place paladins on a pedestal and expect a certain standard to be kept (represented by the code that the PC follows). Alternatively, if the DM views that the act in question was evil then they will likely strip the Paladin of their abilities immediately.

The RAW are vague in this regard - thus why these Paladin threads get the amount of attention that they do. To say that a DM who does not follow your line of thinking (which in case you had not realised, I don't) is a: punishing the PC for his own amusement or b: misunderstands the rules regarding paladins, is a little out of step. Remember, a messageboard like Enworld gets a lot of opinions, most of them particularly valid. Be careful when blanketing a whole section of dissenting opinions like you have. Just because someone disagrees with your summation does not mean that as a DM they're vindictive or ignorant.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 10, 2005)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> AThe RAW are vague in this regard




As I said earlier, _this_ is the real issue here - the RAW are next to entirely useless when it comes to resolving situations like this, as they're open to a wide variety of wildly different interpretations as a result of being vaguely worded (again, as threads like this demonstrate). In the end, resolving a situation like this relies purely on a given GM's interpretation of the vaguely-worded rules. It's all about parallax, baby.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 10, 2005)

Hunter Simon said:
			
		

> Stalin, Nero, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, the Inquisitors, serial killers . . .




As soon as I saw this, I was tempted to do a massive rant, but as the moderators have warned about staying on topic, I'll just post a link instead.
http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780609610626 

It's the description of a book, but it sums up Ghengis Khan's actual history quite succinctly.  I'm so sick of people who think Temujin was evil, let alone hitler evil....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2005)

First, what the OP posted:



> The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, *at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault*.



(emphasis mine)

So, all the comments about:


> Various Posters
> Dealing out death on suspicion isn't justice...
> 
> No reasonable suspicion of guilt - only allegation and suspicion...




and the like are off base.  He _ascertained_ that the Halfling was involved in the kidnapping. 



> Lastly, the halfling wasn't killed breaking and entering; he was found to be in league with home invaders, rendered helpless, and subsequently executed.




In any jurisdiction, he is a co-conspirator, and can be convicted of kidnapping (an evil act).  He is every bit as guilty as the people who dragged off the Paladin's wife.  As I mentioned, the crime involved a home invasion at night- about as heinous a crime as was imagined in the ancient world, short of murder.

In certain jurisdictions, he could even be granted a death sentence (if kidnapping is a death penalty crime)- usually in ultraconservative theocracies.  Try this scenario in, say, Teheran, where sharia (laws based on the Quran) is the law of the land.  Islam typically draws no distinction between religious and secular life, so sharia covers not only religious laws, but many aspects of daily life...and it has been interpreted to allow for the execution of kidnappers.

People have pondered whether he detected evil before killing the halfling, to determine whether he was being forced into acting as he did.

I ask, how many times does a GM force a Paladin to detect evil before killing opponents in more traditional scenarios, like guarding a temple of evil?  After all, _the guard may be a conscript_; he may just have taken the job to pay to_ feed his starving family_; he _may have a child being held hostage_ by the High Priest of Evil.  In short, the guard of a temple of evil may not neccessarily be evil.  Does your GM make you detect evil on those guys before attacking?

Remember- Paladins use Detect Evil at will *as the spell* (PHB p44).  That, friends, takes time.

If the GM doesn't make the Paladin DE on *everyone* he's considering killing- especially those known to have either comitted or aided and abetted evil (like our halfling decoy)- then its a non-issue here.



> His next (logical) choice was to turn the halfling over to the city authorities, question him some more, or do something else (like, unfortunately, snapping the guy's neck).




Exigent circumstances say otherwise- he had to decide whether to act for himself, or wait for the authorities to arrive.  Given that he'd have to either send a messenger of his own, or trot the halfling to the closest watchmen himself, it may have taken hours for the appropriate authorities to show up, and in the meantime, an innocent is in peril, the trail is growing cold.  Unlike most of us, the Paladin is uniquely equipped for meting out justice all by himself.

He had to decide* right then* whether to take action or delay, considering what the halfling's actions would be if freed, or what the others would be doing to his wife.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I ask, how many times does a GM force a Paladin to detect evil before killing opponents in more traditional scenarios, like guarding a temple of evil?  After all, _the guard may be a conscript_; he may just have taken the job to pay to_ feed his starving family_; he _may have a child being held hostage_ by the High Priest of Evil.  In short, the guard of a temple of evil may not neccessarily be evil.  Does your GM make you detect evil on those guys before attacking?




I agree with you. If the case of the squeezed Halfling was taken in the context of the typical day in the life of a D&D Paladin, it isn't that serious. 

And there are dangers involved if the DM requires the Paladin to ping each and every Smite candidate with Detect Evil. Before long the ping is going to become the only thing that's required for the Paladin to kill someone, and the Paladin could just detect and smite evil like some medieval radar-guided missile launcher. That's against the Code.


----------



## Sejs (Nov 10, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> (If it isn't over, maybe we need another Paladin trial, hmmmm?)





			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Hello Torm,
> I was thinking of calling the twelve paladins again once more myself...



*nod*

Happy to serve again if needed.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Nov 10, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I'm not the biggest fan of alignments, but this game was set up to be as close to "by the book D&D" as possible (I was new to the area, did not know any gamers, and wanted the campaign to be "common ground"). That said, the game has been running 5 years, so some shades of grey are inevitable.
> ...
> The player is an excellent roleplayer and a good sport; however, the paladin has definitely exhibited borderline chaotic (not evil) behavior in the past. This will figure into What Happens Next.
> ...
> ...




After reading all that, I've come to the conclusion that this is a neat role-playing expeirence that has started to bloom here. I'm sure you're going to handle it well, and it'll be a fun time.

Best of luck, and salutations sir!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 10, 2005)

I recommend that anyone who thinks that the Paladin in the above example did evil does NOT go and read this webcomic here http://thunt.comicgen.com/d/20050826.html - that is the introductory page, DON'T read on from there.

I have to issue this warning to make sure that nobody's head explodes. Or anything.

(I'm glad that Goblins advertised on ENworld, otherwise I'd never have found another nice webcomic to keep track of!)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2005)

Heh...THAT's a badass Paladin, no doubt!


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 10, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I recommend that anyone who thinks that the Paladin in the above example did evil does NOT go and read this webcomic here http://thunt.comicgen.com/d/20050826.html - that is the introductory page, DON'T read on from there.
> 
> I have to issue this warning to make sure that nobody's head explodes. Or anything.
> 
> (I'm glad that Goblins advertised on ENworld, otherwise I'd never have found another nice webcomic to keep track of!)




Well at least that Paladin made a nice speech that told us why he was killing the boy...

While I still think that IN THIS CASE (not every case), the Paladin could have done more (like detect evil), I do not have a big problem with his actions.

At this point, I believe that we have the Mercygivers vs. the Smitenators, so everyone bring their most powerful Paladin and we will settle this the old fashioned way...

BATTLE ROYALE


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Like I said - it's not the 'smiting of evil', it's the fact that the paladin:

1) Killed a helpless opponent (thereby losing any justification in the LG alignment property of 'mercy').

2) Has a pattern of this behavior and has committed similar acts in the past, according to the DM.

That being said, yeah.  Time for a test of faith.  Time for some fallout and consequences.  Time to take this little incident and turn it into a roleplaying opportunity for the character.  What happens when the people who witnessed this start talking and rumors spread?  How long until evil beings hear of it?

Far, far too many (as evidenced by some responses on this thread) seem to think playing a paladin means you're another sword jock with Kewl Powerz (tm).  Paladins, by their nature, _are_ held to a higher standard - by society, by their religion, by their diety.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - this wasn't a killing in combat, it was murder, plain and simple.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Like I said - it's not the 'smiting of evil', it's the fact that the paladin:
> 
> 1) Killed a helpless opponent (thereby losing any justification in the LG alignment property of 'mercy').
> 
> 2) Has a pattern of this behavior and has committed similar acts in the past, according to the DM.




We're here debating about the Paladin losing his powers. They can be lost three way:

1) Gross violation of the Code

2) Committing an Evil act

3) Ceasing to be Lawful Good

I can now summarize why the Paladins actions were not any of those three (without using straw men, I hope, but RAW):

1) The code is silent on mercy, but calls for punishing those who harm innocents. The Paladin punished a Halfling he had ascertained to be 'in' on the attack. So he complied with his code (which still is silent on mercy, BTW ) Check.

2) He meted out some Paladin-type punishment on a creature engaging in evil activity. Punishing evil is not evil. Hence it was not an evil act. Check.

3) Not showing mercy might not be a [Good] action, but it isn't [Evil] either. I direct you to PHB alignment section which states that Alhandra the LG Paladin fights evil 'without mercy'. Check. EDIT: Just to make my case fool-proof: one neutral act doesn't shift your alignment from Lawful Good.

Because those are the conditions you loose your P0WRZ with, and none of them were fulfilled, it stands that the Paladin keeps his P0WRZ. We cool, Jim?


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Remember- Paladins use Detect Evil at will *as the spell* (PHB p44).  That, friends, takes time.




Can't argue with logic like that.  Waste 3 rounds (18 seconds) to make sure I'm not killing a coerced, non-evil being or enjoy the warm, delicious feeling and delectably wonderful sound of snapping his spine right now?  18 looooooooong, boring seconds of Detect Evil (Gee, why don't they give paladins a much kewler power like....oh, maybe Smite All!) or brighten my day now with the crisp, clean sound of bones breaking?

*SNAP!*

Yeah, that's paladin behavior.

And I never thought of it before, but Cartman on South Park is a paladin!  Kewl!!!


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I agree with you. If the case of the squeezed Halfling was taken in the context of the typical day in the life of a D&D Paladin, it isn't that serious.




And since I'm tired of arguing, I'll agree too.  If the case of the squeezed halfling was taken in the context of the typical day in the life of a D&D Chaotic Evil half-orc barbarian, it isn't that serious.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> 2) He meted out some Paladin-type punishment on a creature engaging in evil activity. Punishing evil is not evil. Hence it was not an evil act. Check.



Er, snapping the neck of a helpless halfling is not evil?  What about the methods, Numion?  I would argue that snapping someone's neck isn't really "paladin-type punishment" — you ever read about Galahad snapping someone's neck in Arthurian legend (I would argue that he's one of the primary prototypes for the D&D paladin)?  Sometimes how you get there is just as important as where you're going.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Can't argue with logic like that.  Waste 3 rounds (18 seconds) to make sure I'm not killing a coerced, non-evil being or enjoy the warm, delicious feeling and delectably wonderful sound of snapping his spine right now?  18 looooooooong, boring seconds of Detect Evil (Gee, why don't they give paladins a much kewler power like....oh, maybe Smite All!) or brighten my day now with the crisp, clean sound of bones breaking?




Detect Evil doesn't tell you for sure that the creature itself is [Evil]. It tells if the creature is [Evil] _or_ that it has an [Evil] spell on him. So the Paladin cannot be sure even after detecting evil. But I'd say it would be enough for me.

The Paladin in the example certainly did some stupid things, but nothing warranting P0WRZ (god I love that word   ) yoinkage.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> Er, snapping the neck of a helpless halfling is not evil?  What about the methods, Numion?




Snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner, like, um, what happens to murderers who are hanged? Now I'm gonna be called for using straw-men again, but IMO it's no different. Killing helpless prisoners is quite ok if they are receiving the friggin' _death penalty_. That's what happened here. 

Now let me backtrack a bit and admit that you do have a very good point here. Strangling is not actually a very 'Paladinly' method. Too personal, usually a method in personal crimes of passion or rage. While it was justified in this case, it might look to those not 'in the know' that the Paladin is a raging maniac, and tarnish the reputation of the whole lot!


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> We're here debating about the Paladin losing his powers. They can be lost three way:
> 
> 1) Gross violation of the Code
> 
> ...




Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?"  He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).

Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment).  If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.

Ceasing to be Lawful Good: The DM said the paladin in question has been on the edge in terms of his actions several times before; if this is the questionable action that causes an alignment shift, then no more LG.  Not my call or your though; that's up to the ruling DM.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2005)

I don't know if killing the halfling on the spot is necessarily evil, after all he was involved in the commission of a crime and in the Greyhawk of my game he would have probably been executed by the constable unless he had some thing to show he was coereced.  However for a Paladin of Heironeous I would think that he acted with very little honor in that situation and in our game Paladins and clerics of Heironeous put honor and the tenets of chivalry up there with the belief in law and good.  But that is how we play based on the beliefs of that god in question and it is not part of the RAW.  We found that treating all Paladins the exact same was weak so creating different codes for each LG god is necessary to add some flavor and depth to the characters. 

In any event it's not fall from grace level dishonor, but I think some minor atonement should be necessary.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Snapping the neck of a helpless prisoner, like, um, what happens to murderers who are hanged? Now I'm gonna be called for using straw-men again, but IMO it's no different. Killing helpless prisoners is quite ok if they are receiving the friggin' _death penalty_. That's what happened here.



They're not the same -- the death penalty is issued by a judge, after someone is found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers (at least that's how the system works in theory).   There are checks and balances in the system and how it's built.  We're essentially talking about a vigilante here, killing an accomplice to a crime, in a city that presumably has some form of legal system.  He's circumventing the law.  As to whether he's bound to it, I would presume that a paladin of Heironeous would be, but that's largely up to the OP and how he runs things in his campaign.







			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Now let me backtrack a bit and admit that you do have a very good point here. Strangling is not actually a very 'Paladinly' method. Too personal, usually a method in personal crimes of passion or rage. While it was justified in this case, it might look to those not 'in the know' that the Paladin is a raging maniac, and tarnish the reputation of the whole lot!



I think even if I were in the know, the paladin would look like a bit of a maniac, particularly if I knew he was a paladin.  At least momentarily.  Higher standards and all.  But, yeah, it could have bad repercussions for his paladin buddies and peers.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Detect Evil doesn't tell you for sure that the creature itself is [Evil]. It tells if the creature is [Evil] _or_ that it has an [Evil] spell on him. So the Paladin cannot be sure even after detecting evil. But I'd say it would be enough for me.




But if he took those 18 seconds and DIDN'T get a Ping! on Detect Evil...does the halfling deserve a reprieve and a bit more investigating as to why he set up the diversion?


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?"  He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).




Respect and strict obedience are different things. The Paladin is more beholden to curch or celestial authority. I don't think that a Paladin should abide to every single law when fighting evil. I agree though that handing the Halfling to the city watch would've been a fine alternative; it's only the big fish that the Paladin should make sure to punish personally.



> Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment).  If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.




If you're arguing it on the law-chaos axis (I assume you do since you mentioned code of crime), it's of no relevance to losing powers, because you can't lose your powers by committing a chaotic act, unless it shifts your alignment from LG. It of course might, if the Paladin is a habitual offender with chaotic acts.



> Ceasing to be Lawful Good: The DM said the paladin in question has been on the edge in terms of his actions several times before; if this is the questionable action that causes an alignment shift, then no more LG.  Not my call or your though; that's up to the ruling DM.




This I agree with, now that you put it like that. By itself, this act shouldn't make the Paladin lose his powers, but if it's the one that breaks the camels back and makes him non-LG, powers are yoinked.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Respect and strict obedience are different things. The Paladin is more beholden to curch or celestial authority. I don't think that a Paladin should abide to every single law when fighting evil. I agree though that handing the Halfling to the city watch would've been a fine alternative; it's only the big fish that the Paladin should make sure to punish personally.




Hey!  We're getting somewhere!  As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous!  Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?

If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Hey!  We're getting somewhere!  As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous!  Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?
> 
> If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.




In fact, here's a li'l bit on him:

"The Invincible One, the Axe of Justice. 
Heironeous is the god of Chivalry, Justice, Honour and Valour."

So, murdering a helpless, defeated prisoner is, according to some, chivalrous, just, honorable and valorous.  Riiiight.  Pull the other one, why don'tcha?


----------



## Voadam (Nov 10, 2005)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Alternatively the DM may roleplay the Deity that the Paladin is servant to and find that killing a helpless creature was dishonorable.




Sure, Heironeous can intervene and punish the paladin outside of the paldin class RAW. 

But Heironeous can do that to CE halfling rogues who act dishonorably and smite them with deific power as well. 

Heironeous can pull a Job and smite the paladin, take away all his powers, and kill his wife to test whether he will stay true and faithful when it appears his god abandons him.

Gods can act however they want.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Sure, Heironeous can intervene and punish the paladin outside of the paldin class RAW.




Yep, and he do it within the RAW as well.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> But Heironeous can do that to CE halfling rogues who act dishonorably and smite them with deific power as well.




Yep, but at least the god took the time to discover that the halfling in question was:
1) Chaotic Evil, and
2) A Rogue


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Hey!  We're getting somewhere!  As luck would have it, we know that the paladin in question serves Heironeous!  Where in the RAW does it say that Heironeous is the god of vigilatism, instantaneous vengeance, or (heaven forbid) Smiting?




Well, by the RAW doesn't state that you lose powers when you piss off your god .. excuse me for all these lame attempts at humor  I don't recall what the dogma for Capital H is, but there is no good reason the Paladin couldn't have given the Halfling to authorities.

I'm starting to feel like a pain in the ass (which means I probably am ), but I still need to remind that while the facts above are right, it's still nothing to yoink powers over. Who metes out the punishment is not as important as the fact that it _is_ meted out.



> If Heironeous isn't the Vicar of Vigilantes, then the paladin in question can't fall back on the old, "My god made me do it!" excuse for his actions.




That certainly _is_ a lame excuse, and not something I would advocate. I would neither advocate going too far in the opposite direction where the Paladin is just a glorified policeman. He still is the gods chosen instrument and carries a lot of duties and expectations that transcend mortal laws.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Nov 10, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> give him his first level in Blackguard. he gave into the Dark Side of the Force.
> 
> 
> subdual damage on the halfling would've been kosher. but killing him  ain't kewl.



 I can hear the cleric now. "...and Heironious stripped you of your powers?! She was your wife... mother of your unborn son!" he shakes his head. "Hextor wouldn't have taken your powers. He understands such things..."


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So, murdering a helpless, defeated prisoner is, according to some, chivalrous, just, honorable and valorous.  Riiiight.  Pull the other one, why don'tcha?




That's a straw-man argument, because we aren't arguing about murdering a defeated prisoner. Pot, kettle, etc   

It was an execution with a little bit unconventional method. Executions can be plenty Lawful, maybe not Good but can be Neutral also. And they _always_ happen to helpless people  :\


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's a straw-man argument, because we aren't arguing about murdering a defeated prisoner. Pot, kettle, etc



What was he then?  He was, IIRC, bound and helpless.  He was definitely "defeated," and I'd argue he was the paladin's prisoner.  So, yeah, we are talking about murdering a defeated prisoner.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Well, by the RAW doesn't state that you lose powers when you piss off your god ..




Actually, they can if they grossly violate the code of conduct (3.5 PHB, pp. 44-45 under "Ex-Paladins").



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I would neither advocate going too far in the opposite direction where the Paladin is just a glorified policeman. He still is the gods chosen instrument and carries a lot of duties and expectations that transcend mortal laws.




We agree again.  I'd add, though, that in addition to being the god's chosen instrument, a paladin is a living, breathing representative of the god on earth.  And if even a handful of people start referring to this particular god as "Heironeous Halfling-Smiter (But Only When They're Helpless!)"...the Big Guy's not gonna be happy with his so-called paladin.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> What was he then?  He was, IIRC, bound and helpless.  He was definitely "defeated," and I'd argue he was the paladin's prisoner.  So, yeah, we are talking about murdering a defeated prisoner.




IT WASN'T MURDER LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU 

It was indeed a helpless, defeated Halfling prisoner. But murder is distinctly different from execution. Murder is almost by definition [Evil], and it isn't justified. It's my belief that the killing was justified, and thus execution and not murder.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> IT WASN'T MURDER LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU
> 
> It was indeed a helpless, defeated Halfling prisoner. But murder is distinctly different from execution. Murder is almost by definition [Evil], and it isn't justified. It's my belief that the killing was justified, and thus execution and not murder.



Nice.   

I do agree with the dichotomy you set up — that's the crux of the issue and where things'd end up swinging one way or the other.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

So, let's see here:

mur·der    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrdr)
n. 
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders 
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully. 
To kill brutally or inhumanly. 

The paladin's action was almost certainly in contravention of the local laws, so the first definition checks.  Snapping someone's neck, especially when helpless, is pretty much the definition of brutality.  Substitute 'being' for 'human' to fit the setting, and it's murder.  Not honorable, not chivalrous, not valorous.

Murder.  Opinion doesn't change the definition, unless, perhaps, you're in Kansas.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2005)

Well is the Paladin empowered to deal out justice?  In the nation of Furyondy the Paladin in out game is able to do so as he is a knight of the realm and a minor noble.


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So, let's see here:
> 
> mur·der    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrdr)
> n.
> The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.





What do you know, 20th century earth dictionary doesn't account for divine right to slay evil people when in evil activity. Under that definition the Paladin could never kill anyone unless he somehow worked as an executioner for the city prison, or he somehow ended up being assaulted by all the evil people and it's lawful self-defence. Doesn't go hand-to-hand with the accepted PHB portrayal of pro-active, _adventuring_ Paladins who go out on their way to find evil and vanquish them.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Well is the Paladin empowered to deal out justice?  In the nation of Furyondy the Paladin in out game is able to do so as he is a knight of the realm and a minor noble.




See, that's a good question...but I'd say in a LG kingdom, since said halfling wasn't caught in the commission of a crime, he'd go to jail, then to trial.  And given the paladin's proximity to the issue, I have very serious doubts he could act objectively as court on the street.


----------



## Cartigan Mrryl (Nov 10, 2005)

Well - it would depend upon the paladin's God. I have a God in my own World Called Volark, God Of Righteous Fury... he'd approve. But Most other Gods wouldn't... so Paladin-boy isn't a Paladin anymore - dead fact.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> See, that's a good question...but I'd say in a LG kingdom, since said halfling wasn't caught in the commission of a crime, he'd go to jail, then to trial.  And given the paladin's proximity to the issue, I have very serious doubts he could act objectively as court on the street.




Do they really have trials though or would a constable hear the plea and pass judgement?  In that case I think the Paladin would have authority to do the same.

edit for crappy spelling


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Do they really have trials though or would a contable hear the plea and pass judegment?  In that case I think the Paladin would have authority to do the same.




Ah, but the key note here is _objectivity_ - justice is blind, after all.  And the paladin most certainly _wasn't_ objective.  Ergo, he can't act as judge, jury and executioner - and executioner assumes the crime is worthy of death in the first place, which as an accessory to an assault it likely wouldn't be.


----------



## tonym (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> ...And if even a handful of people start referring to this particular god as "Heironeous Halfling-Smiter (But Only When They're Helpless!)"...the Big Guy's not gonna be happy with his so-called paladin.




This is the kind of solution I like: mundane repercussions amongst the populace.  

Misc ideas:
* Some townsfolk start to fear the paladin and avoid him  
* An investigation by the constable is launched into the killing 
* The church investigates the past several years of the paladin's life

Stuff like this creates an opportunity for roleplaying (and also sends a message to the player that he is on thin ice with the DM).  Contrariwise, atoneing to get powers back sucks eggs.

Yoinking the paladin's powers...I just don't like it.  It looks like another standard case of an overly-controlling DM cramping a player's style for no good reason.  If yoinking was justified, 90% or more more of people would agree with the yoinking, I bet.  Unlike this situation.

If the DM thinks the paladin has changed his alignment to CG, then fine--do that.  Change his alignment and strip him of paladinhood.  But don't say (or imply) that the player did a pathetic job of running a paladin.  The player did nothing unequivocably wrong.

By the way, an hour ago I added a new group of Heironeous paladins to my world.  They have a nifty new feat called Punitive Necksnap...


Tony M


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> If the DM thinks the paladin has changed his alignment to CG, then fine--do that.  Change his alignment and strip him of paladinhood.  But don't say (or imply) that the player did a pathetic job of running a paladin.  The player did nothing unequivocably wrong.
> 
> By the way, an hour ago I added a new group of Heironeous paladins to my world.  They have a nifty new feat called Punitive Necksnap...
> 
> ...




Uh, yeah, he did, and it's been pretty conclusive - he's playing the paladin like any other sword jock, save for the Kewl Powerz.  He's repeatedly skirted close to the edge of CE.  He murdered a guy in the middle of the street.

I'd make that group fallen paladins, if I were you.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Do they really have trials though or would a contable hear the plea and pass judegment?  In that case I think the Paladin would have authority to do the same.




Maybe, but the paladin in this thread didn't even do that.  He roughed up the halfling until he got a confession (perhaps under duress) that he was providing a distraction, found out that his wife had been assaulted (but apparently not harmed), and decided then and there to snap the halfling's neck.  No chance to explain any other circumstances the paladin ought to know before rendering his brand of 'justice.'


----------



## MrKen (Nov 10, 2005)

*What ???*

:: snicker, snicker ::  It is obvious that Paladins are supposed to do only act of Goodness, smart should have nothing to do with it.  Nothing else!  So, the Evil Halfling is an accomplice to the murder of the Paladins wife and unborn child.  It is clear the Paladin must assist the Evil Halfling and his accomplices in hacking up his wife and child.  Wouldn’t want to hurt the evil characters feelings.  And the Paladin will just have to burn in hell because evil characters have feelings too.

Come on people, evil is evil and eliminating evil is what Paladins do.  There is no need to judge evil as a Paladin KNOWS evil on sight.  A Paladin must eliminate the evil.  Not eliminating the evil would be an act of evil on the part of the Paladin.  

This is what is the problem with our western society.  We feel we must accommodate everyone including those who commit evil acts no matter what.  And in so doing we become evil.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

*Curse of the 10-Page Thread*



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> He murdered a guy in the middle of the street.




No, I believe the halfling came to his door and was let into the paladin's house.  Though in the course of a 10-page thread, maybe I'm forgetting facts myself   

Also, there was no kidnapping, no attempted murder of the wife, and no confirmation that the halfling distraction was a Chaotic Evil rogue.

Now...we return you to your previously scheduled thread!


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

MrKen said:
			
		

> :: snicker, snicker ::  It is obvious that Paladins are supposed to do only act of Goodness, smart should have nothing to do with it.  Nothing else!  So, the Evil Halfling is an accomplice to the murder of the Paladins wife and unborn child.  It is clear the Paladin must assist the Evil Halfling and his accomplices in hacking up his wife and child.  Wouldn’t want to hurt the evil characters feelings.  And the Paladin will just have to burn in hell because evil characters have feelings too.




Hi!  Maybe you should check your facts before posting.  The halfling lured the paladin outside.  There was an assault, not a murder.  But don't let that stop you from snickering, y'know, being dead wrong.  Here's what happened:



> The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault. The paladin then attempted to kill the halfling (and may have succeeded; I ended the session at that point, as it was a good cliffhanger).






> Come on people, evil is evil and eliminating evil is what Paladins do.  There is no need to judge evil as a Paladin KNOWS evil on sight.  A Paladin must eliminate the evil.  Not eliminating the evil would be an act of evil on the part of the Paladin.
> 
> This is what is the problem with our western society.  We feel we must accommodate everyone including those who commit evil acts no matter what.  And in so doing we become evil.




Wrong again.  A paladin can use _detect evil_ at will, as per the spell.  It's not automatic, not 'on sight', not instantaneous.  And please try to keep your political opinions out of this, 'kay?  thanks.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

MrKen said:
			
		

> :: snicker, snicker ::  It is obvious that Paladins are supposed to do only act of Goodness, smart should have nothing to do with it.  Nothing else!  So, the Evil Halfling is an accomplice to the murder of the Paladins wife and unborn child.  It is clear the Paladin must assist the Evil Halfling and his accomplices in hacking up his wife and child.  Wouldn’t want to hurt the evil characters feelings.  And the Paladin will just have to burn in hell because evil characters have feelings too.
> 
> Come on people, evil is evil and eliminating evil is what Paladins do.  There is no need to judge evil as a Paladin KNOWS evil on sight.  A Paladin must eliminate the evil.  Not eliminating the evil would be an act of evil on the part of the Paladin.
> 
> This is what is the problem with our western society.  We feel we must accommodate everyone including those who commit evil acts no matter what.  And in so doing we become evil.




Darn, this snuck in before my fact-fixing memo posted.  ::Sighs::



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> So, the Evil Halfling



  We don't know this; the paladin never bothered to even use Detect Evil on him. We know he was playing some part in an evil act (the home invasion/etc.) but don't know if he's just a stooge.



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> is an accomplice to the murder of the Paladins wife and unborn child




She wasn't murdered; in fact, she seems completely unharmed.

Oh, BTW, she wasn't kidnapped either.



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> It is clear the Paladin must assist the Evil Halfling and his accomplices in hacking up his wife and child.




No, not entirely.



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> Come on people, evil is evil and eliminating evil is what Paladins do.




To a point, but 'eliminating' doesn't have to mean 'snapping the neck of a captive.'  Also, there are degrees of evil.  let me pull a couple of examples out of thin air: you might have a halfling who takes his friends to the paladin's house to hack up the guy's wife and unborn child (Very Evil) or you might have a generally nice and popular halfling who owes money to the wrong person and is told his debt will be forgiven if he knocks on a door, asks to see Joe, and keeps him busy for a while...and is also told that something bad will happen to his wife and three kids if he doesn't comply (a slightly evil act done by a generally good person).



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> There is no need to judge evil as a Paladin KNOWS evil on sight.




I'll need to ask for a rules quote on this one.  Detect Evil would help...but that wasn't used in this instance.



			
				MrKen said:
			
		

> This is what is the problem with our western society.  We feel we must accommodate everyone including those who commit evil acts no matter what.  And in so doing we become evil.




This one gets close to politics, so all I'll say is that IMHO not all evil acts require the death penalty.  On the spot.  With no semblence of a trial.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> No, I believe the halfling came to his door and was let into the paladin's house.  Though in the course of a 10-page thread, maybe I'm forgetting facts myself




Good thing I slipped in that disclaimer, Jim  

I really could've sworn that the Cleric in the scenario came downstairs to speak with the paladin, but I'm getting old, the memory's a bit faulty, and I'm too lazy to shift through a 11-page thread for a minor detail.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Good thing I slipped in that disclaimer, Jim
> 
> I really could've sworn that the Cleric in the scenario came downstairs to speak with the paladin, but I'm getting old, the memory's a bit faulty, and I'm too lazy to shift through a 11-page thread for a minor detail.




Heh.  That's why I quoted the OP - 11 pages is a _lot_ to sift through, no matter which side of the argument you're on.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 10, 2005)

I think extracting a confession under duress isn't evil in the mindset of the game I run.  Torture is bad, but a little ruffing up is tolerated I would think.  


edit: Now that I think of it unless the prisoner is definately evil then it's probably not good to use force to coerce a confession.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> This is the kind of solution I like: mundane repercussions amongst the populace.
> 
> Misc ideas:
> * Some townsfolk start to fear the paladin and avoid him
> ...




Yep, and wouldn't it be cool if the main gate into and out of the city just happened to pass through its "Halflingtown" neighborhood.

And even cooler if the paladin happened to have a halfling servant in his manor who witnessed the 'dispensation of justice'...nah, let's have him walk up as the cleric says, "Your wife seems fine" and the paladin snaps the halfling's neck!    

OK, the servant's not usually one to speak ill of his master, but one night over drinks he tells a buddy about the incident saying, "Well, I don't know about all the details, but the way m'lord just snapped the fellow's neck puts me off a bit."

This friend then tells another friend, who tells another, etc. ad nauseum until, in the end (in the fine form of this very thread) we have a story like this:

Halfling: "Yeah, I hear Lord High-N-Mighty just kidnapped poor Skippy off the street!  I hear Skippy put up a hell of a fight, but then some spellcasting human--dedicated to one of their many dark gods, no doubt--joined the fray and they overpowered him and tied him up.  Old Jeremiah Brittlebones--he works as a servant at this guy's fortress of evil, if you can believe it!--says they tied Skippy up, tortured him a while, and then snapped his neck!  Jeremiah tried to intervene but was told, "This is the fate that awaits all your kind, you tiny, pencil-necked, Chaotic Evil (not sure exactly what that means) Rogue!"

It'd be interesting to see how the paladin would react if some righteous violence was thrown his way!


----------



## Numion (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Wrong again.  A paladin can use _detect evil_ at will, as per the spell.  It's not automatic, not 'on sight', not instantaneous.




A Paladin usually knows when he sees something evil, I think that was what he was saying. Like was the case here, he asked the Halfling some questions and came to the conclusion that he was involved in evil activity. If the only way to know someone's evil was that Evil-Radar, Paladin would be rendered inneffectual by a simple Ring of Undetectable Alignment.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> This one gets close to politics, so all I'll say is that IMHO not all evil acts require the death penalty.  On the spot.  With no semblence of a trial.



You damn evil accomadating weak westerner!!!!!!!


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

*SNAP!!*

Paladin: "What?  I was just using my "lay on hands" ability...."


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> You damn evil accomadating weak westerner!!!!!!!




Hee hee!  The best part of this is that I think the halfling probably IS evil and deserving of a pretty harsh penalty.  There's just enough of a whiff of stooge about him that I think he's entitled to a quick Detect Evil from the paladin before the penalty is decided.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Hee hee!  The best part of this is that I think the halfling probably IS evil and deserving of a pretty harsh penalty.  There's just enough of a whiff of stooge about him that I think he's entitled to a quick Detect Evil from the paladin before the penalty is decided.




I agree 100%.  Killing him seems lazy or frustration-based in this case.  I've seen other types of characters perform the same way, but none called themselves Paladin of Heironeous (and yes, I would hold a Cleric of said religion to the same standards).

My issue comes from the "Detect Evil doesn't always work, so we shouldn't use it" camp.  This is apparently a reaction to the "always use Detect Evil before smiting" camp, which doesn't exist on this thread (I have heard some say the Detect Evil should have been used in THIS CASE, and some say that Detect Evil should not have been used, but noone has said that it should be used in ALL CASES).

I also don't approve of "roughing up the suspect" as a paladin's method of getting a confession.


----------



## Smackfish (Nov 10, 2005)

Let me preface what I'm about to say with a quick disclaimer: I'm not taking sides as to whether what the paladin did in this case was right or wrong for a paladin, or whether there should be a punishment or what the punishment should be.

That having been said, unless I misread the OP, there's a point being missed that I think deserves consideration, ie, that when the cleric comes to tell the Paladin his wife's ok, it seems like this is the first time the Paladin knows his wife's been assaulted. So picture if you will, the paladin is dowstairs, it's late at night, he's been disturbed from his rest by this halfling who now won't tell him why, he already has some reason to be concerned for his wife (why else ask a friend to guard her?), and things with the halfling have already started to get physical (This confuses me a bit too, but they have). All of the sudden his cleric friend comes bolting down the stairs and says "Your wife's been assaulted, but she's ok."

Now, I don't know about how I would react in a similar situation, but I suspect that I would hear the first part very loudly and the last part very softly or not at all.  I don't know for sure if that's clear, so let me restate it another way, I think that by the time the cleric gets to "But she's ok." I would have if at all possible already done whatever i was going to do to the halfling and be running up the stairs.  In the mind of a husband and father, from my understanding, the second part of that sentence doesn't matter, someone's tried to hurt my wife and child, i have to get to them and whatever's in my way be damned.  My friend may say they're ok, but to me theyre not until i've seen it with my own eyes.

That is the reaction i view from a normal person, whether or not that is acceptable from a paladin very much depends on what you think a paladin is.

Just my two cents.

_Edit: grammar_


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Sure - and maybe the reaction's understandable.  But you, nor I, no anyone on this thread as far as we know, is the _direct represenative_ of a divine power.  And a paladin, as such - especially a paladin of the god in question - must needs take that role very seriously, no matter what the situation.  That's the price you pay for heeding the gods' call.  

I'm really hoping this turns into a roleplaying opportunity for the DM and the paladin's player - the meat of this is far, far too good to leave untouched, or to deal with by a simple stripping of powers...as evidenced by 11 pages so far of mostly civil debate.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping this turns into a roleplaying opportunity for the DM and the paladin's player - the meat of this is far, far too good to leave untouched, or to deal with by a simple stripping of powers...as evidenced by 11 pages so far of mostly civil debate.



  Yep, this is a brilliant chance for the campaign to really go into some neat areas.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> Yep, this is a brilliant chance for the campaign to really go into some neat areas.




Oh hell yes.  I had something similar happen in one of my campaigns, which brings up an important point - handle carefully.  There's players that won't want to go along with the idea, unfortunately.  In this case, the mechanical stripping may be the only recourse.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Smackfish said:
			
		

> Now, I don't know about how I would react in a similar situation, but I suspect that I would hear the first part very loudly and the last part very softly or not at all.




Excellent point, and probably right on the money for what the paladin in this case did.  Selective hearing.  Selective reasoning.  Perhaps selective picking of his god's tenets to justify his actions.  To quote the PHB, "Heironeous promotes justice, valor, chivalry, and honor."

He could cry "Chivalry!" to try to explain away his actions, but it'd be a warped sort of chivalry where you don't actually help the damsel in distress while she's being assaulted but instead worry more about catching and dealing with her attackers.

Likewise, he could cry "Justice!" and say that's what he dealt to the halfling accomplice.  You'd get some arguments (11 pages so far) as to whether such an execution counts as "justice," however.

What about the valor of Heironeous?  Is that what we see when the paladin farts around with a flunky out in the street while the big crime's happening up in his bedroom where his wife is being assaulted?

Do we see the honor of Heironeous in the way the captive halfling is executed?

I'm not saying that a paladin of Heironeous should always stop and make sure he's honoring all four of these tenets before doing an action, or that all four of these things need to be present in every single action he does.  But he should have a decent working knowledge of how to mesh all or most of these tenets into a code he can live and be a paladin by.  

When he clearly ignores one of his god's tenets to twist around another tenet to justify an action...well, he's not doing Heironeous' will, he's doing his own.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Oh hell yes.  I had something similar happen in one of my campaigns, which brings up an important point - handle carefully.  There's players that won't want to go along with the idea, unfortunately.  In this case, the mechanical stripping may be the only recourse.




Excellent point.  And I'm not just talking about the player of the paladin.  What about the player of the cleric and his PC?  I've been wondering what faith he belongs to and how he'd react to the paladin's brand of justice.

Lots of potential stuff brewing here.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 10, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> What about the player of the cleric and his PC?  I've been wondering what faith he belongs to and how he'd react to the paladin's brand of justice.




The cleric is a rough and tumble priest of Kord; not sure what his reaction will be but I'm thinking utter condemnation is not high on the list.

In my campaign, a paladin's Detect Evil requires a standard action to activate and concentration to maintain; just like the spell. It is established in my game that just because someone is evil doesn't mean they are automatically deserving of death, but in this particular case, it would certainly have added to the case against the halfling (were he to detect as evil, that is -- at present his alignment is unknown to the PCs and unstated here). 

Upon further conversation, the player felt that the PC's actions were in character, though not necessarily appropriate for a paladin. He felt the act was moderately evil and chaotic, and said that his motive was anger and not so much vengeance. He did not think he should lose his powers over it.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> The cleric is a rough and tumble priest of Kord; not sure what his reaction will be but I'm thinking utter condemnation is not high on the list.
> 
> In my campaign, a paladin's Detect Evil requires a standard action to activate and concentration to maintain; just like the spell. It is established in my game that just because someone is evil doesn't mean they are automatically deserving of death, but in this particular case, it would certainly have added to the case against the halfling (were he to detect as evil, that is -- at present his alignment is unknown to the PCs and unstated here).
> 
> Upon further conversation, the player felt that the PC's actions were in character, though not necessarily appropriate for a paladin. He felt the act was moderately evil and chaotic, and said that his motive was anger and not so much vengeance. He did not think he should lose his powers over it.




Time for that test of faith, then.  Replace his wife with a succubus or eryine for awhile, or get her involved with a local activity that turns out to be an evil cult.  Switch his kid out with some sort of hellspawn.  _Then don't let his detect evil work_ - after all, if he's self-righteous enough to kill without following the precepts of his church, then let his god test that arrogance.  Let him work without the tool he so 'nobly' spurned to enact murder out of anger.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 10, 2005)

Smackfish said:
			
		

> when the cleric comes to tell the Paladin his wife's ok, it seems like this is the first time the Paladin knows his wife's been assaulted. So picture if you will, the paladin is dowstairs, it's late at night, he's been disturbed from his rest by this halfling who now won't tell him why, he already has some reason to be concerned for his wife (why else ask a friend to guard her?), and things with the halfling have already started to get physical (This confuses me a bit too, but they have). All of the sudden his cleric friend comes bolting down the stairs and says "Your wife's been assaulted, but she's ok."
> 
> Now, I don't know about how I would react in a similar situation, but I suspect that I would hear the first part very loudly and the last part very softly or not at all.



Yeah, I noticed that as well. I suspect there was some degree of metagaming going on with the paladin player. I don't think the paladin would have "roughed up" the prisoner if the player hadn't known something was going on upstairs. And if the paladin *did* know something was going on upstairs earlier, I think he would have rushed to his wife's aid asap.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Time for that test of faith, then.  Replace his wife with a succubus or eryine for awhile, or get her involved with a local activity that turns out to be an evil cult.  Switch his kid out with some sort of hellspawn.  _Then don't let his detect evil work_ - after all, if he's self-righteous enough to kill without following the precepts of his church, then let his god test that arrogance.  Let him work without the tool he so 'nobly' spurned to enact murder out of anger.



I think this'd be a pretty good compromise -- he retains most of his powers but loses one tool.  As to what you do with it, that depends on how adversarial you'd like to be.  Screwing with his family right away might be a little hardcore, but it's one option.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I think this'd be a pretty good compromise -- he retains most of his powers but loses one tool.  As to what you do with it, that depends on how adversarial you'd like to be.  Screwing with his family right away might be a little hardcore, but it's one option.




It was phonetic coincidence that inspired that idea, given the situation - "Evil that takes root in the heart shall spread to the hearth."


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 10, 2005)

Hey, I think it's absolutely appropriate, but the player might take it as being too adversarial.  That's all.


----------



## tonym (Nov 10, 2005)

Holy moley!  Jim Hague, you've gone from trying to paint the paladin as a murderer to screaming for him to be dragged into hell, along with his tainted seed and despoiled wife.

"Switch his kid out withsome sort of hellspawn"?  Cripes!   

Haha.  Good thread.


Tony M


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Holy moley!  Jim Hague, you've gone from trying to paint the paladin as a murderer to screaming for him to be dragged into hell, along with his tainted seed and despoiled wife.
> 
> "Switch his kid out withsome sort of hellspawn"?  Cripes!




Which is why all characters should aspire to the state of nameless, friendless orphans from an undetermined town.

Any other sort of attachment seems to be just too much temptation for DMs to lay off.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> Hey, I think it's absolutely appropriate, but the player might take it as being too adversarial.  That's all.




Please note that I haven't abandoned the gloves on approach here - I had a very, very similar situation in my campaign and the player didn't take well to the hooks I threw him.  Thus I hope others can learn from my misadventures.   I'm saying that at this point the RP-erific approach should be something that makes the paladin's life _interesting_, in the Chinese sense.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is why all characters should aspire to the state of nameless, friendless orphans from an undetermined town.
> 
> Any other sort of attachment seems to be just too much temptation for DMs to lay off.




Eh?  So having consequences for breaking the paladinic code, the dogma of the chruch and possibly metagaming should be...what?  I'm not advocating punitive measures, I'm saying that the paladin needs to learn - and there's plenty of grounding in myth and literature that allegory - his evil, however small, spreading from him to those he was allegedly protecting - is an excellent teacher.  And it could be some damned fine roleplaying, too.

Hardly a screwing by the DM.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Eh?  So having consequences for breaking the paladinic code, the dogma of the chruch and possibly metagaming should be...what?




I'm not sure, but having your wife replaced with a succubus and your unborn child turned into some demonic half-fiend ain't it.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, but having your wife replaced with a succubus and your unborn child turned into some demonic half-fiend ain't it.




I proposed swapping them out in order to give the opportunity for the paladin to execute a rescue later.  You're familiar with the parable of Job, yes?  It's a test of faith, since the paladin seems to be wavering.  I never said kill them off, or turn them into demons - that wouldn't make sense in any case.

Sorry that the proposal's not to your taste.  Why don't you offer something else instead?


----------



## Demmero (Nov 10, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Upon further conversation, the player felt that the PC's actions were in character, though not necessarily appropriate for a paladin. He felt the act was moderately evil and chaotic, and said that his motive was anger and not so much vengeance. He did not think he should lose his powers over it.




Wow.  Saying that his motivation was anger and not just vengeance is bad.  Scary bad.

Think of all the things we get angry about: having the phone ring during dinner, missing remote controls, stubbing your toe on something, etc.  There's a whole lot of things that we get mad about on a regular basis.

On the other hand, the closest I've personally gotten to vengeful in recent days would've been to drag myself to the voting poll and vote against all the jerks who called with recorded campaign messages on Monday and Tuesday...but even there I decided that wasn't worth the effort.

Sounds like this paladin is a loose cannon...and not a paladin at all.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Damn, I missed that.  That's worse, then, IMO - it's not even really spiritual evil, it's petty and entirely mundane evil, willingly committed.  It's not EVIL or Evil, but 'evil', or maybe (evil).  Bad, very bad.  I'm sticking by my guns on what to do, then.  Someone's soul needs a good cleansing.  And how.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I proposed swapping them out ... I never said kill them off, or turn them into demons - that wouldn't make sense in any case.




I'm sorry; the temporary nature of your proposed punishment was not clear from your initial post:



			
				JH said:
			
		

> Replace his wife with a succubus or eryine for awhile, or get her involved with a local activity that turns out to be an evil cult. Switch his kid out with some sort of hellspawn.






> You're familiar with the parable of Job, yes?




Yes.  I'm also pretty sure that it would be a particularly crappy thing to have to roleplay through.  It'd probably be better to just skip to the pillar of salt stage and roll up a new character.  

Also, is what you are proposing really a test of faith?  Is the PC (and, more importantly, the player) likely to see it that way?  I wouldn't.

Furthermore, we're talking about a wife and unborn child who have already been "assaulted."  How much are you willing to bet that whatever shadowy presence invaded her room in the middle of the night dropped by just to say "Hi"?  I'd give even odds, at best, that the unborn child is already in a heap of trouble, regardless of what the Paladin does from here on out.  How does this tie in with your ideas on testing the Paladin's faith?

Again, this just seems to be further proof that backstories and in-character relationships are there so that the DM can hose you with them.  Can it be a great hook to have what you love directly threatened?  Absolutely.  Can it motivate you to go out and save the world?  Certainly.  Am I tired of it being overused?  You betcha.

If you want to give the Paladin a mandate from on high, give him a prophetic dream of what will happen to his grown son should the Paladin fall: enemies the Paladin would have dispatched or routed gain enough power to take over this section of the world, the child grows up under the influence of some resulting dark cult, and becomes a powerful blackguard in his own right, using the anger he inherited from his father.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 10, 2005)

> Can't argue with logic like that. Waste 3 rounds (18 seconds) to make sure I'm not killing a coerced, non-evil being <snip> or brighten my day now with the crisp, clean sound of bones breaking?




I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.

If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.



> Gross violation of the Code: How about the part about respecting "legitimate authority?" He was apparently living in a large city, with its own set of laws, and he took justice into his own hands (most likely in a fit of rage).




and



> Committing an Evil act: Snapping the neck of a neutralized captive (esp. in a case where you're already in a large city that supposedly has its own code of crime and punishment). If that's not across the line, it's at least tightrope-walking along it.




and



> The paladin's action was almost certainly in contravention of the local laws, so the first definition checks.




"Legitimate authority" would most likely allow a homeowner to kill someone engaged in or aiding someone commit a violent felony within that homeowner's abode, especially at night, especially accounting for a society in which "legitimate authority" response times would typically be measured in hours rather than minutes.

Once again, killing a neutralized captive who committed a crime in a jurisdiction and time period in which the death penalty was probably allowable by law for that offense.

AND, as I pointed out, a homeowner's killing of those involved in a night-time invasion of his home was something that was permissible by most secular and religious laws of the time period this game is patterned after- even if they were fleeing or neutralized.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm sorry; the temporary nature of your proposed punishment was not clear from your initial post:




I suppose you could consider 'awhile' to be ambiguous....?



> Yes.  I'm also pretty sure that it would be a particularly crappy thing to have to roleplay through.  It'd probably be better to just skip to the pillar of salt stage and roll up a new character.




You're mixing parables again - the pillar of salt was Lot's wife.  Job's the bet between Yahweh and the Adversary to test Job's faith.  Which is exactly what I'm proposing.



> Also, is what you are proposing really a test of faith?  Is the PC (and, more importantly, the player) likely to see it that way?  I wouldn't.




Given that he's quite possibly metagaming and certainly playing a paladin poorly, I continue to advise the gloves on approach.  My suggestion surely isn't the only one out there.



> Furthermore, we're talking about a wife and unborn child who have already been "assaulted."  How much are you willing to bet that whatever shadowy presence invaded her room in the middle of the night dropped by just to say "Hi"?  I'd give even odds, at best, that the unborn child is already in a heap of trouble, regardless of what the Paladin does from here on out.  How does this tie in with your ideas on testing the Paladin's faith?




Immaterial, actually.  I've gotten the impression it was a gang of thugs, not supernatural evil.



> Again, this just seems to be further proof that backstories and in-character relationships are there so that the DM can hose you with them.  Can it be a great hook to have what you love directly threatened?  Absolutely.  Can it motivate you to go out and save the world?  Certainly.  Am I tired of it being overused?  You betcha.




So tired that you're seeing abuse where there is none.  There's no hosing going on here, no matter how much you want to crow otherwise - I'm proposing that the character face real consequences for a very, very serious action.  Your 'proof' is simply your own filtering of that through whatever experiences you've gone through.  given the vehemence and wrongheadedness of your reaction, you've got my apologies for whatever GM thought that using NPCs only in that manner was a good idea.



> If you want to give the Paladin a mandate from on high, give him a prophetic dream of what will happen to his grown son should the Paladin fall: enemies the Paladin would have dispatched or routed gain enough power to take over this section of the world, the child grows up under the influence of some resulting dark cult, and becomes a powerful blackguard in his own right, using the anger he inherited from his father.




See, that's another proposal, but it doesn't address consequences right now at all, nor really within the scope of the campaign.  IME, consequences have to have real and immediate effect for them to be effective.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.
> 
> If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.




Taking the time to determine the guilt or innocence of _non-combatants_ is entirely different than determining the guilt or innocence of enemies who are you are engaged in combat with.

The paladin even admitted to doing it because he was angry.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I reiterate- unless the Paladin is Detecting Evil on every opponent he faces to determine whether he is not coerced or non-evil, he's acting the same as he did when he executed this halfling- judging him to be evil by his ACTIONS- here, aiding & abetting a night-time home invasion.




Except that the paladin didn't know about the invasion until _after the fact_...it looks a lot like he metagamed and now expects to get off scot free.



> If he IS doing so...then he's spending 3 rounds of every combat DE-ing, while his adventuring fellows are under attack.




There's a world of difference between acting decisively in combat and acting out of anger on the street.  It's the difference between righteous battle and out and out murder.



> "Legitimate authority" would most likely allow a homeowner to kill someone engaged in or aiding someone commit a violent felony within that homeowner's abode, especially at night, especially accounting for a society in which "legitimate authority" response times would typically be measured in hours rather than minutes.




Except that the paladin found out after the fact, and the halfling wasn't involved in the assault.  No attempt to discern innocence or guilt was made; he just 'got angry' and murdered someone on assumption.



> Once again, killing a neutralized captive who committed a crime in a jurisdiction and time period in which the death penalty was probably allowable by law for that offense.




Sorry, but no, this doesn't wash, Danny.  Perhaps you're proposing that the paladin assumed the halfling was a witch or some equally flimsy excuse?  We've already established that he acted out of anger, which violated both the law and his paladinic code.



> AND, as I pointed out, a homeowner's killing of those involved in a night-time invasion of his home was something that was permissible by most secular and religious laws of the time period this game is patterned after- even if they were fleeing or neutralized.




Does the phrase 'imminent danger' mean anything to you?  And no, executing someone out of hand is _not_ historically accurate, sorry.


----------



## tonym (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> ...It's not EVIL or Evil, but 'evil', or maybe (evil).  Bad, very bad.




You mean because the paladin was angry when he did what he did, his actions are evil?  

Anger is evil?  Anger?  The emotion...anger?
Will you elaborate on this idea.  I'm like...huh?

Tony M


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Anger is evil?  Anger?  The emotion...anger?
> Will you elaborate on this idea.  I'm like...huh?




Anger (Wrath) is one of the 7 Deadly Sins and was, throughout the Middle Ages, widely heralded by the Church as an example of the evil that men do and must be held responsible for. Some stern Roman Catholics that I grew up with _still_ view Wrath as a sin that must be atoned for.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> You mean because the paladin was angry when he did what he did, his actions are evil?
> 
> Anger is evil?  Anger?  The emotion...anger?
> Will you elaborate on this idea.  I'm like...huh?
> ...




Some people have been putting a sense of justice, righting wrongs, or protecting the innocent in his decision to kill the halfing. So, he's poiting out that this was not the case. The reason he killed the halfing is that he was angry. He's not saying being angry is evil. He's saying killing someone because you got mad at them is evil.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 10, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> You're mixing parables again - the pillar of salt was Lot's wife.




Again?

And, frankly, no "kidding," Sherlock.



> Job's the bet between Yahweh and the Adversary to test Job's faith.  Which is exactly what I'm proposing.




And I'm proposing that it makes a great story to read, but would be a lousy *role-playing experience.*



> Given that he's quite possibly metagaming




I haven't read any proof of that, yet.*



> Immaterial, actually.  I've gotten the impression it was a gang of thugs, not supernatural evil.




Whereas I'm pretty sure it wasn't just some low-Gather Info rogue looking for a few quick GPs.



> There's no hosing going on here, no matter how much you want to crow otherwise




Really?  Then why were the paladin's wife and unborn child targeted for this invasion in the first place?

EDIT:

*: Reread this, and tell me that there's metagaming going on:



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> The paladin is awakened (by a servant) and told someone has a message for him. He summons another PC to watch over his wife and heads downstairs, where he meets the halfling who begins delaying him.
> 
> At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, they teleport away).
> 
> ...




This tells us several things.


The paladin called PC 1 into the room to protect his wife as he left.
Whatever snuck inside managed to overcome PC 1 long enough to "do something" to the wife *and then teleports away*.
The cleric arrived when he heard "the struggle," and a quick check showed that the wife wasn't *physically* harmed.  No further mention is made of PC 1.
The paladin has been "roughing up" the halfling for some time before the cleric arrives, and has received no useful informatio from him.
The paladin "kills" the halfling *only after the cleric tells the paladin there was an attack on his wife.*

"Simple thug" with teleportation and an ability to hold off a high-level PC long enough to "do something" to the wife?  I don't think so.

"Metagaming"?  Also no.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 10, 2005)

I think the metagaming quandry is why was he roughing up the halfling? Is that normal MO, or was he doing that because the Player knew that stuff was going on upstairs? We really have no idea, I will admit that it looks suspicious unless he normally roughs up people who interupt his sleep.


----------



## tonym (Nov 10, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Anger (Wrath) is one of the 7 Deadly Sins and was, throughout the Middle Ages, widely heralded by the Church as an example of the evil that men do and must be held responsible for. Some stern Roman Catholics that I grew up with _still_ view Wrath as a sin that must be atoned for.




Okay, thanks.

I just Googled "anger" and learned a little more.  Apparently anger is frowned upon because it can _easily_ lead to evil, amongst other downsides.  That makes perfect sense.

However, it seems that "righteous anger" is totally cool.  (A passage in the Bible where gambling tables were overturned was one of several examples.)

So, anyhow...I don't see a problem with the paladin being angry.  I imagine that most paladins are angry a *lot*, and that their anger is most often _righteous_.  They are angry at evil, angry at torture, angry at lies, angry at DM's that strip away paladin powers...

Okay, maybe not that last one.

Tony M


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> ...angry at torture...




Roughing up a halfling to get a confession is a form of torture (low grade and not too barbaric, but torture).  So, it would seem that our paladin is angry at himself...


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 10, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> So, anyhow...I don't see a problem with the paladin being angry.




'Righteous anger' in the Bible is that implcitly carried out according to the written or spoken wishes of God. The 'sin' aspect comes in when one acts upon anger that is based purely upon emotion, rather than the written or spoken commandment of God. The latter instance describes the Paladin. 

Sure, the Paladin could _assume_ that his god wanted him to murder the halfling, but his god didn't tell him to do that implicitly, either by way of written or oral instruction - the Paladin did it solely because he was torqued off. That is, the Paladin acted according to his _own_ will, rather than the will of his God, the laws of the city, or his alignment. 

Recall the scene in Star Wars: Episode III when Anakin murders Count Dooku - this same argument is framed there. Surely, Count Dooku deserves to die, but Jedi law (i.e., the Paladin's code) demands that he be arrested and tried as a criminal - Anakin gives into his own Wrath, however, and slays Dooku _because he wants to_. 

Which is what this comes down to - the Paladin in this example murdered the Halfling, not because it was required, not because his god demanded it, not because law demanded it, but because _he wanted to_. Many people on the thread have tried to justify his actions after the fact, but in the end, the truth is that the Paladin did what he did only because he wanted to. 

This is where the evil in Wrath lies, for it is an example of being consumed by self-will. And self-will is the anti-thesis of what it means to be a Paladin. A Paladin is sworn to help _others_, not themselves. This doesn't mean that they can't do good for themselves, mind you, merely that they have sworn a vow which places others first. When they ignore their duties to god, law, and their fellow man to indulge thier own desires...

These Paladins are on the path to becoming evil.


----------



## BroccoliRage (Nov 11, 2005)

well...


if he killed the hobbit (or halfling if you prefer) in cold blood he is a murderer. if he was protecting his wife he is not. being a murderer is unacceptable in a lawful good alignment. if he violated alignment he is a level one fighter now until he atones...(at least according to 1e)...

good gaming.


----------



## Torm (Nov 11, 2005)

Ya'll are focused too much on whether what he did was Good or Evil. (It wasn't Evil, btw. Evil requires intent, and unless there's something we haven't been told, the Paladin in question acted from an impulsive sense of righteousness, not Evil.)

A much simpler question to settle is, was it Lawful or Chaotic? The answer is that it was more Chaotic than Lawful - the primary difference between the two being that a Lawful character should be mindful of his chosen code of behavior before acting.

BUT - it has always been acknowledged by most DMs, players, and gods with Paladins in their portfolios  that the Law/Chaos axis of Paladin behavior is less important than the Good/Evil axis. Which is why I recommended in my previous post that the Paladin be subject to an in-game consequence of his hasty action, rather than a game mechanic consequence (power stripping).


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Roughing up a halfling to get a confession is a form of torture (low grade and not too barbaric, but torture).  So, it would seem that our paladin is angry at himself...




Ack!  You are right.  The paladin should not have roughed-up the halfling.

Like I said earlier, I believe killing the wicked halfling was the paladin's prorogative.  But a paladin should *never* inflict pain and terror to coerce cooperation.  Even mild torture is not an option.

Consequently, I slightly withdraw some of my support for the paladin.  Just a little, mind you.  Say...8%.

Because of the torture, I'd probably handle the situation this way:

Heironeous would not punish the paladin, for the roughing-up was not especially cruel.  However, the High Priestess (or Priest) to whom the paladin is answerable would mete out some form of disciplinary action, something that does not involve atonement (as only Heironeous can command atonement).  The punishment would likely be community service and having to listen to a 12-hour lecture about how torture is wrong.

Tony M


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Ya'll are focused too much on whether what he did was Good or Evil. (It wasn't Evil, btw. Evil requires intent, and unless there's something we haven't been told, the Paladin in question acted from an impulsive sense of righteousness, not Evil.)




"But I was thinking _good_ thoughts when I burned down the orphanage! Honest!"


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> You mean because the paladin was angry when he did what he did, his actions are evil?
> 
> Anger is evil?  Anger?  The emotion...anger?




Yup.  Although it's Fear that starts the chain off.

Fear is the path to the dark side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering.

This paladin?  Much anger in him, like his father.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Yup.  Although it's Fear that starts the chain off.




But ... but ... paladins are immune to fear effects.

Therefore, they can't get angry.


----------



## Torm (Nov 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> "But I was thinking _good_ thoughts when I burned down the orphanage! Honest!"



Bad example - in that case, you know the person is lying, which invalidates your point.


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> 'Righteous anger' in the Bible is that implcitly carried out according to the written or spoken wishes of God. The 'sin' aspect comes in when one acts upon anger that is based purely upon emotion, rather than the written or spoken commandment of God. The latter instance describes the Paladin...




Okay, now I think I get you.  This must be the core point of disagreement, where we diverge.  

I think paladins are instruments of their god's wrath and have been completely pre-approved to kill anything that is probably evil.    

You, on the other hand, have a more complicated view of the relationship between the paladin and his god.  Your view takes the emotional state of the paladin in mind when he is confronting evil, and your view sometimes places more importance on honor and justice than killing evil.  And the paladin's pre-approval for killing evil has more restrictions and qualifiers.

Does that sound close to the mark?

Tony M


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> The punishment would likely be community service and having to listen to a 12-hour lecture about how torture is wrong.
> 
> Tony M




No, no, NO!  Anger Management classes taught by a priest of Yondalla


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Bad example - in that case, you know the person is lying, which invalidates your point.




What if he isn't lying?

My point being: you can have the best of intentions but that doesn't make you non-evil. That way leads to "ends justify the means." You can't say that you weren't trying to be evil and let that be an excuse to commit acts of murder, torture, and so forth. Intent has nothing to do with it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> You, on the other hand, have a more complicated view of the relationship between the paladin and his god.  Your view takes the emotional state of the paladin in mind when he is confronting evil, and your view sometimes places more importance on honor and justice than killing evil.  And the paladin's pre-approval for killing evil has more restrictions and qualifiers.




In this case, _alleged_ evil. Noone knows if the halfing was good or evil (or most probably neutral).


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What if he isn't lying?
> 
> My point being: you can have the best of intentions but that doesn't make you non-evil. That way leads to "ends justify the means." You can't say that you weren't trying to be evil and let that be an excuse to commit acts of murder, torture, and so forth. Intent has nothing to do with it.




Hey, my goblin hordes are always happy and intent on only doing good as they ravage the land (and smite the evil halflings)...


----------



## Godofredo (Nov 11, 2005)

that paladin is going to be a very good blackguard


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Does that sound close to the mark?




I think that's pretty close. Basically, some people see the Paladin solely as an instrument of divine retribution where others see the Paladin as an individual that has a duty to represent all facets of a god, not merely his or her retribution. In the end, it's the difference between viewing the Paladin as a divinely sanctioned hitman and a religious diplomat, I think.


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> In the end, it's the difference between viewing the Paladin as a divinely sanctioned hitman and a religious diplomat, I think.




Good analogy.  It sounds like the Original Poster sees paladins as you do, and the player of the paladin sees them as I do.

Here's another analogy...

It's the difference between seeing the paladin as a modern-day police officer authorized to kill people but answerable to one-hundred rules regarding the discharge of his weapon, and seeing him as a soldier in a modern-day army, given only two or three rules about shooting the enemy and provided with lots and lots of bullets.

Tony M


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> *I think paladins are instruments of their god's wrath and have been completely pre-approved to kill anything that is probably evil.*



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. 



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You, on the other hand, have a more complicated view of the relationship between the paladin and his god.  Your view takes the emotional state of the paladin in mind when he is confronting evil, and your view sometimes places more importance on honor and justice than killing evil.  And the paladin's pre-approval for killing evil has more restrictions and qualifiers.
> 
> Tony M




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


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 11, 2005)

> The paladin (married, with a pregnant wife) was called down to the street in the middle of the night by a messenger: a halfling who said he had a message but then hemmed and hawed about what it was -- then tried to scamper off. The paladin grabbed him -- and then learned that just after he left his room, someone had assaulted his wife. The paladin asked a couple more questions, at which point it became clear that the halfling was involved in the assault. The paladin then attempted to kill the halfling (and may have succeeded; I ended the session at that point, as it was a good cliffhanger).






> Except that the paladin didn't know about the invasion until after the fact...it looks a lot like he metagamed and now expects to get off scot free.




The Paladin ascertained the Halfling's complicity.  He had been questioned and stopped cooperating.



> There's a world of difference between acting decisively in combat and acting out of anger on the street. It's the difference between righteous battle and out and out murder.




Yep...and the Paladin was actively looking for his pregnant wife- he was, in the parlance, "in hot pursuit," facing a co-conspirator who was no longer cooperating with his questioning, even to the point of not letting the Paladin know if his wife was to be killed or merely held hostage.

Months ago, someone proposed a scenario in which a Bandit Lord and his large band of miscreants captured a village an a Paladin therein, demanding that the Paladin kill one villager in order for the others to be set free.  If he didn't, all, including the Paladin, would be slain.

The overwhelming consensus in that thread was that the Paladin should either not act (ensuring the death of everyone in the village and himself), or attack the Bandit Lord, consequences be damned, still letting innocents die.  (I agreed with neither.)

The Paladin here was avoiding that kind of ethical whipsaw, eliminating one minion at a time.



> ...the paladin found out after the fact, and the halfling wasn't involved in the assault.




The OP said the Halfling was involved.  Even as only a decoy, he is BY LAW, as guilty as the people who did the actual assault.  That is why getaway car drivers get sentenced to all the crimes involved in a bank robbery, including murder, even if all they did was transport the guys in the bank to and from the scene of the crime.

Assault & Nighttime home invasions were potential death-penalty crimes- combine the 2 and the Halfling's neck was in the noose as soon as he knocked on the door seeking to draw the Paladin out.

The Paladin merely acted as the executioner.



> In this case, alleged evil. Noone knows if the halfing was good or evil (or most probably neutral).




He was apprehended after acting in furtherance of an evil act.  He's guiltier than most mercenaries.



> No attempt to discern innocence or guilt was made; he just 'got angry' and murdered someone on assumption.




Already disproved.  The OP stated that the Paladin found out the Halfling was involved.



> *Re: neutralized non-combatants*
> Sorry, but no, this doesn't wash, Danny. Perhaps you're proposing that the paladin assumed the halfling was a witch or some equally flimsy excuse?




Let me ask you: Do Paladins in your campaigns kill dragon hatchlings?  Kobolds in their nests?  Coup de Grace opponents?  If so, what's your problem here?

The Halfling was complicit in a heinous act and was caught- one that made his life forfeit by law.  Unlike a young monster, he ACTED in an EVIL fashion.  The Paladin had no way to determine how deeply involved in the plot the Halfling was, and the Halfling wasn't cooperating anymore.

He gambled on the mercy of a Paladin who had been personally violated by an evil act,  and he lost.



> We've already established that he acted out of anger, which violated both the law and his paladinic code.




No.  We're know how he acted.  We know some of what the PC did, and that anger (at an evil act) was a motivating force.  But we also know that merely acting out of anger is not sufficient to strip a Paladin of his powers.

What we're doing is discussing whether he did so in a way that he actually violated his code.  Obviously, minds differ.



> Does the phrase 'imminent danger' mean anything to you?




Yep.  And here we have a winner.

The Halfling was complicit in a night time invasion of a private domicile- this much the Paladin ascertained.

He then shut up.

The Paladin had no way to figure out where in the scheme the Halfling fit.  Mastermind?  Mook?  But his actions had already damned him- he participated in an evil act.

In the meantime, as he's trying to get a lead on his wife's whereabouts, time is slipping away.  The more time that passes, the greater the chance that his wife and unborn son are being further mistreated.  She is in "imminent danger."

And the Halfling doesn't care, doesn't alleviate the Paladin's concerns by saying something like "Your wife is unhurt- cooperate with us and she'll stay that way..." NOTHING.

Kid gloves come off.  (Note- the OP doesn't say that the Paladin tortured the halfling at any point.)



> And no, executing someone out of hand is not historically accurate, sorry.




Yes it is.  You can find such laws as old as the Roman 12 tables (450BC), and even the laws of Dracon (somtime between 800-500BC).  For certain offenses, a citizen could beat someone to death in the street, without fear of legal action.

Then there is the question of the lex talionis, the age-old expedient of an exact retaliation.  In it, you took "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life."  And abductions were equated with murder.

Under Judaic Law, there was a person called the "Avenger of Blood," a bounty hunter of sorts, acting for the kindred and carrying out the blood feud or law of self-help.  By custom he could *kill the offender wherever he finds him.*  If the offender acted suddenly without malice (our manslaughter) or accidentally, and was not his enemy, nor sought his harm, the people of the city were to deliver the accused out of the hands of the Avenger of Blood and there in the city of refuge he stayed until the death of the high priest.  But he must stay in the city of refuge-if he comes out he can be killed.  After the death of the high priest, the slayer can return to his own land.

Was instant justice frowned upon?  Yes.  Was it occasionally permitted?  Yes- and it still is.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...(Note- the OP doesn't say that the Paladin tortured the halfling at any point.)...




The rest of your discussion isn't important to me, as arguing opinion seems fruitless (expressing opinion is fine and has been done more than once in this growing thread).  But, this quote bit here, while accurate, was elaborated on in post #166 by the original poster.  In his elaboration, he did admit that some roughing up was done (once again, not high level torture by any means, but still coersion by physical force).

So, in closing, if I were playing in your game your ruling would be fine by me.  In my game, the ruling would be different.  Both cases are completely valid, as long as the DM was clear with the player what his expectations of the paladin are (if the DM varied from the RAW).  I only want to make sure that the facts being argued about are expressed correctly.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yep...and the Paladin was actively looking for his pregnant wife- he was, in the parlance, "in hot pursuit," facing a co-conspirator who was no longer cooperating with his questioning, even to the point of not letting the Paladin know if his wife was to be killed or merely held hostage.




The wife was upstairs apparently unharmed. Where are you getting this from?

In fact, he didn't even know she was being attacked until the cleric came down and told him that she had been assaulted. Note that the whole time he was "roughing up" the halfing, he had no clue as to what was going on. Some halfing was trying to fast talk him and he decided to beat a confession out of him.

Then his friend comes running down saying that his wife had been assaulted but she was okay. The Paladin beats a confession out of the halfing and determines that he had something to do with it. Then, he decides to break the halfing's neck.

Where in here is he in any way shape or form protecing _anyone_?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 11, 2005)

Hi Everyone,

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



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> *General - The Paladin killed someone...what to do?*
> 
> I'm looking for advice / opinions on a paladin-related issue.
> 
> ...




***​
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Unto itself here is the motive



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> Upon further conversation, the player felt that the PC's actions were in character, though not necessarily appropriate for a paladin. He felt the act was moderately evil and chaotic, and said that his motive was anger and not so much vengeance. He did not think he should lose his powers over it.




Just to keep it simple.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

In response to the quote: "Does the phrase 'imminent danger' mean anything to you?"



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yep.  And here we have a winner.
> 
> The Halfling was complicit in a night time invasion of a private domicile- this much the Paladin ascertained.
> 
> He then shut up.




Meaning...that the halfling was obviously casting a Silent Spell?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The Paladin had no way to figure out where in the scheme the Halfling fit.  Mastermind?  Mook?  But his actions had already damned him- he participated in an evil act.




If this is the case, then the alleged paladin's action of killing a subdued captive should damn him: a REAL paladin of Heironeous should show up and cut down the rogue before he gives Heironeous and more of a black name.  No, that'd leave the wife and unborn without a father.  Wait--that's an outside factor in regards to the evil act and (apparently) shouldn't come into play in a paladin's code.  Shouldn't even be considered, in fact.  If evil's done--smite it without mercy...even if the evil guy's a fellow paladin.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Then there is the question of the lex talionis, the age-old expedient of an exact retaliation.  In it, you took "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life."  And abductions were equated with murder.




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.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Meaning...that the halfling was obviously casting a Silent Spell?




I'm not jumping sides here, but in a game where this is a possibility, we may have a legitimate reason for immediate lethal action.  I don't know if I buy it or if I am subconsciously trying to keep this thread alive (  ), but it is food for thought...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> 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.




Not even that. There is no physical sign of what they did. Divination spells might turn up something, but mundane means seem to lead to no answer.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Nov 11, 2005)

Fry his abilities!!! For one thing, how can the rest of the little buggers be brought to justice if he just killed the only person who knew who they were.  
Besides after the attackers are caught, he may be given the choice to slay his wife's attackers as a way to "reward" his faithful service.  

For the posters who see no evil is MURDERING an accomplise to a crime without real provocation, shame on you.  If a paladin slays a goblin who is attacking an innocent, or defending himself in a fight, that is justifable.  Slaying a goblin, BECAUSE he's a goblin is murder - the same applies here.  The halfling may BE evil but has committed no other act than being patsy for a scheme.  In todays "liberal" court system that would probably be equal to an "Aid and Abet, and probably the lesser charge of Conspiracy" (Any lawyers want to back this one up)  Which would probably be jail time forever (in the medieval conditions, rot and die in cativity)  Meanwhile the real attacker has gotten away Scott-free.

Again, this would be akin to a police officer drawing his weapon and firing at a man who was driving the get away car at an armed bank robbery while the robbers were still inside.  Bottom line - Bad Paladin, no mana for YOU!


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I'm not jumping sides here, but in a game where this is a possibility, we may have a legitimate reason for immediate lethal action.  I don't know if I buy it or if I am subconsciously trying to keep this thread alive (  ), but it is food for thought...




I was being sarcastic with the Silent Spell comment, but yeah--it's a consideration, however unlikely.  As is the possibility of coersion--magical or otherwise--in the case of the halfling distractor.

All this talk about how medieval law worked forgets that D&D also has magic, and that changes everything.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> 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.



   

Herman was wise, but too late on the recap....


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

*Stooge Consideration*

One of the reasons I think there's a decent chance the halfling's either a stooge or being blackmailed is because he didn't escape himself.  The other baddies were able to use a teleport-like ability to zip away.  Why didn't the halfling?

Maybe because the paladin had already grappled him and made spellcasting next to impossible...or maybe he didn't have the teleport magic at his disposal.

Why not?

Also, he didn't seem to fight back much (or at all) against the paladin's rough interrogation.

Why not?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

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




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


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> 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?
> ...




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


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

*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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> ...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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In this case, _alleged_ evil. Noone knows if the halfing was good or evil (or most probably neutral).




Does it really matter? Paladins Code requires him to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. It doesn't discriminate between [Good], [Neutral] or [Evil] things who harm or threaten innocents. So if the Paladin sees someone harming innocents (like the Halfling here) he's obliged to punish them, regardless of their alignment.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Maybe because the paladin had already grappled him and made spellcasting next to impossible...or maybe he didn't have the teleport magic at his disposal.
> 
> Why not?
> 
> ...




Obviously he was a Lawful Good plant by the baddies. 
Why? To cause the Paladin LOZ3 H15 P0\/\/RZ!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Does it really matter? Paladins Code requires him to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. It doesn't discriminate between [Good], [Neutral] or [Evil] things who harm or threaten innocents. So if the Paladin sees someone harming innocents (like the Halfling here) he's obliged to punish them, regardless of their alignment.




First off, the halfling didn't harm or threaten innocents. He helped others do it, but in all likelihood he had no idea what was going on.

Secondly, punishment does not equal kill. Especially when the guilty party is some non-combatant who seems rather oblivious to the severity of what he's doing.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> First off, the halfling didn't harm or threaten innocents. He helped others do it, but in all likelihood he had no idea what was going on.




Well, I think pretty clearly that anyone distracting protection is harming the innocents. This wasn't merely looking away when innocents were harmed - he was enabling the evil activity. Consider the Code: would it make sense that it required punishing those who even _threaten_ innocents (but don't do it), but let those off the hook who _help_ others harm innocents?

And in all likelihood he did have idea, and didn't the Paladin already discern as much before this whole thread started? 

[/QUOTE]
Secondly, punishment does not equal kill. Especially when the guilty party is some non-combatant who seems rather oblivious to the severity of what he's doing.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes the most dangerous evildoers are those that don't act as triggermen. So being a lousy fighter is no reason for leniency. But you're right, it was a bit on the harsh side of penalties.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Obviously he was a Lawful Good plant by the baddies.
> Why? To cause the Paladin LOZ3 H15 P0\/\/RZ!




It's nice to see a DM that runs his villains intelligently.  Now while his nemesis is without his special powers (or off atoning, or off at blackguard college, or whatever), the villain and his minions can finish whatever evil plans they have in regards to the paladin's wife.  Brilliant!


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> It's nice to see a DM that runs his villains intelligently.  Now while his nemesis is without his special powers (or off atoning, or off at blackguard college, or whatever), the villain and his minions can finish whatever evil plans they have in regards to the paladin's wife.  Brilliant!




You know, I am beginning to think that the villians had no plans for the wife.  I think that their plans were for the paladin all along...

"Okay, Mr. Halflingbate, you go in and talk to Mr. Highenmighty for a while.  Don't worry, he's a good humored chap.  Whatever you do, don't tell him why you are there and don't let him go back upstairs too soon.  We are just going to surprise him with a gift. Yeah, we go way back, nothing to worry about."

*excellent*


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Sometimes the most dangerous evildoers are those that don't act as triggermen. So being a lousy fighter is no reason for leniency. But you're right, it was a bit on the harsh side of penalties.




The flip side of that coin:

Sometimes the most dangerous do-gooders ar those that don't act within the code of law of their society (or act outside the tenets of the god they claim to serve).  So being a prestigious paladin is no reason for leniency.  Heironeous should strip this guy of his paladin powers, though that's a bit on the harsh side of penalties.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> It's nice to see a DM that runs his villains intelligently.  Now while his nemesis is without his special powers (or off atoning, or off at blackguard college, or whatever), the villain and his minions can finish whatever evil plans they have in regards to the paladin's wife.  Brilliant!




But .. but, that would make Heironeous the unwitting pawn of the evil dudes   . Don't you think he's a bit more better than that? 

And your plan, while I noticed the smiley, smacks of trickery on the DMs part. Just too contrived to get a Halfling succesfully dupe a Paladin while at the same time remain totally unwitting pawn. Besides the Halfling admitted guilt which made it necesasry for the Paladin to invoke section 3b of his Code: punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> You know, I am beginning to think that the villians had no plans for the wife.  I think that their plans were for the paladin all along...




Very possible.  Me, I'm leaning more towards thinking that this is a paladin trap or at least a test set up by the DM.  (Not that I'm wholly for or against such scenarios; it usually depends on the subtlety or lack thereof IMO).

And this might be brilliantly subtle.  Maybe the intruders' plan was exactly what we've seen them do: create a distraction, sneak in, torment the wife a bit (although the OP said they "assaulted" her; it'd be nice to know exactly what they did while the paladin was otherwise occupied), and get out.

It's possible they intended to cause her no serious harm or even no harm at all.  Maybe they were sending a message to the paladin: "We know where you live!"...or maybe their plan was more insidious.  Maybe their plan was to let the paladin think about all the things that might've happened to his wife when he wasn't around to protect her.

I mean...just take a look at this thread for examples.  There have been posters who said the wife was kidnapped or hacked up...despite the OP saying that she was apparently unharmed.  Another poster suggested that maybe the wife had been replaced by a succubus, or that the child she carried had somehow been transformed into a demonspawn.

Maybe that was the whole plan...to get the paladin's imagination going as to what *could have happened*, not necessarily what actually *did* happen.

Who knows...such thoughts might torment the paladin enough to make him snap and do something that earns him the disfavor of his god...say, snapping the neck of a subdued captive, for example.



			
				FickleGM said:
			
		

> "Okay, Mr. Halflingbate, you go in and talk to Mr. Highenmighty for a while.  Don't worry, he's a good humored chap.  Whatever you do, don't tell him why you are there and don't let him go back upstairs too soon.  We are just going to surprise him with a gift. Yeah, we go way back, nothing to worry about."
> 
> *excellent*




Well, when the halfling hems and haws about why he's come knocking at the paladin's house, he confesses some knowledge that an assault is going on inside while the paladin's preoccupied, so he's no innocent.  We're talking degrees of guilt here.  Maybe he's a full-fledged co-conspirator; or maybe he's a generally nice guy with some gambling debts to the wrong people and has a pretty good idea of what's going on inside, as these people often hurt others in their line of business.  (But we don't know for certain that the halfling knows the guy he's distracting is a paladin or that the baddies' real target is a pregnant woman.)


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> But .. but, that would make Heironeous the unwitting pawn of the evil dudes   . Don't you think he's a bit more better than that?




I'm not certain that I get what you're saying.  I think it's something along the lines of "Isn't an overzealous paladin follower better than no follower at all?"  Depends.  If Heironeous wants to risk becoming known as "Heironeous Halfling-Killer" or doesn't mind the change in portfolio from 'justice' to 'vigilante justice,' he could look away and let the paladin go on doing these things in his name, sure.  I just don't happen to believe he would.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> And your plan, while I noticed the smiley, smacks of trickery on the DMs part. Just too contrived to get a Halfling succesfully dupe a Paladin while at the same time remain totally unwitting pawn. Besides the Halfling admitted guilt which made it necesasry for the Paladin to invoke section 3b of his Code: punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents




DMs live to trick PCs, be they paladins or otherwise.  The paladin code is part of the paladin class; I don't think that an occasional test or two makes a DM a bad one.

And I've just addressed some of my beliefs about the halfling's innocence or lack thereof in this case.  For me, one of the big sticking points in this thread is justice (or the lack thereof).  The paladin's god is big on justice; the OP said that the city this occurred in has its own justice system that the paladin was beholden to; and even in the unlikely event that this paladin is allowed to mete out justice--is the punishment he deal equal to the severity of the crime?  And *more importantly*, how does he go about making that determination?  (Answer: without even bothering to use his god-given Detect Evil power on the culprit and by doing a minimal amount of investigation.)



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Besides the Halfling admitted guilt which made it necesasry for the Paladin to invoke section 3b of his Code: punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents




Amen.  The paladin invoked *his* personal code, not the code of law in the city, not the code of his god, not even some overgeneralized paladin's code.  He acted outside of church and law and should be subject to penalties for his actions.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again?
> 
> And, frankly, no "kidding," Sherlock.




I think you need to step off there, Patryn.  I'm not real keen on someone copping an attitude.




> And I'm proposing that it makes a great story to read, but would be a lousy *role-playing experience.*



*

You're welcome to your opinion.  I think you're wrong, but that's me.  I've GMed for 20 years, and I've learned a thing or two about the process.





			I haven't read any proof of that, yet.*
		
Click to expand...



I said that it looked like he was metagaming - after beating the snot out of the halfling, when the second PC arrived, he unceremoniously snapped the prisoner's neck.  Seems pretty pat to me.





			Whereas I'm pretty sure it wasn't just some low-Gather Info rogue looking for a few quick GPs.
		
Click to expand...



Likely not - but nothing supernatural was mentioned.  You're assuming.





			Really?  Then why were the paladin's wife and unborn child targeted for this invasion in the first place?
		
Click to expand...



Gosh, I don't know...because evil people who couldn't take the paladin in an up front fight might, just might target him at a weak spot, his family?  You really need to get off the 'GM vs. player' kick you're on here.




			"Simple thug" with teleportation and an ability to hold off a high-level PC long enough to "do something" to the wife?  I don't think so.

"Metagaming"?  Also no.
		
Click to expand...



Teleporting?  Where're you getting this stuff?  Seriously.  They may have teleported, but the exact details are unclear.  Go back and reread.  That there might have been some supernatural agency involved does nothing to support your point - the DM isn't 'screwing' the player or the character, they're using the NPCs to make the story interesting.  The villains are doing the smart thing...and has been pointed out, the paladin may well have fallen into their trap with his actions.*


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> DMs live to trick PCs, be they paladins or otherwise.




I see where you are coming from. I just see no sport in this. The DM controls all the information the PCs get. So of course he can trick the PCs, if that is his aim. I'm not saying _all_ or even most information given to PCs should be correct, but in any case [Good] Halflings doing evil stuff is pushing it. 



> Amen.  The paladin invoked *his* personal code, not the code of law in the city, not the code of his god, not even some overgeneralized paladin's code.  He acted outside of church and law and should be subject to penalties for his actions.




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 ).


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> ...The paladin invoked *his* personal code, not the code of law in the city, not the code of his god, not even some overgeneralized paladin's code.  He acted outside of church and law and should be subject to penalties for his actions.






			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> ...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.





I must disagree. I think the paladin totally acted within the parameters of "an over-generalized paladin's code," as Demmero put it.  He may be several steps removed from the Heironeous ideal, and the other paladins of Heironeous may sneer at him for his brutality, but he still seems like he should belong to the Heironeous club. 

But I see what you mean.  He's probably not going to be Paladin of the Month at the church.

Tony M


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Teleporting?  Where're you getting this stuff?  Seriously.  Go back, reread and stop trying to interject mistruths to support your already weak point.




Zkt, zkt .. accusing others while you're the one with "mistruths injected"? This is what we were told happened:



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> At the same time, someone sneaks in to his wife's bedroom (yes, past the PC who is watching) and "does something" to her. At the time, what it was is not clear, but she was alive and not obviously harmed. The PC drives the "attacker" off (in essence, *they teleport away*).
> 
> Another PC, a cleric, roused by the struggle, bursts into the room, sees that the wife is alive but confused, and gets a quick summary of what happened. He runs downstairs.
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Hey, I must disagree. I think the paladin totally acted within the parameters of "an over-generalized paladin's code," as you put it.  He may be several steps removed from the Heironeous ideal, and the other paladins of Heironeous may sneer at him for his brutality, but he still seems like he should belong to the Heironeous club.
> 
> Tony M




So, explain to everyone again how murdering someone in a fit of anger fits into honor, justice, mercy and chivalry...?


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 11, 2005)

I think Jim Hague's pointing out that Patryn of Elvenshae's assertion that the halfling was able to teleport was incorrect, not that the other guys couldn't.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> I think Jim Hague's pointing out that Patryn of Elvenshae's assertion that the halfling was able to teleport was incorrect, not that the other guys couldn't.




Went back and edited for clarity.  I don't know what Numion said, but given Kajamba's post, I can guess.  The bad guys _may_ have teleported away, but that's immaterial to the argument.  The paladin killed his prisoner after the fact and after the danger had passed.


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So, explain to everyone again how murdering someone in a fit of anger fits into honor, justice, mercy and chivalry...?




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

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

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.  

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


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> ...The paladin killed his prisoner after the fact and after the danger had passed.




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


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

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




No; not even close.



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> 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).



			
				tonym said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> 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] (Nov 11, 2005)

I hate Paladin Threads... 



			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> "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 (Nov 11, 2005)

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 (Nov 11, 2005)

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

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


----------



## Joker[ZW] (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

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



I have, thank you very much.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> > 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 (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

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




Before we creep back into the realm of wife kidnapping/murder....

Heironeous' most important tenets are: Honor, Chivalry, *Valor* , and Justice.

No Mercy on his list.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Before we creep back into the realm of wife kidnapping/murder....
> 
> Heironeous' most important tenets are: Honor, Chivalry, *Valor* , and Justice.
> 
> No Mercy on his list.




Good catch.  I'll go back and edit.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> But you're right, it was a bit on the harsh side of penalties.




Murder was  only a _bit_ on the harsh side?!?!? Man, I'd hate to see what your idea of straight-up Evil is... oh, wait. That's right... assisting in a plot to accost somebody is evil so vile that it demands punishment by death! But murder? Eh, that's only 'a bit harsh'.  

[Edit: I could be wrong, but this paints a picture of a world where clergy are free to murder, rape, loot and pillage in the name of their good god, and where non-ordained citizens are subject to being murdered, raped, looted, and pillaged merely for not being ordained. 

Ironically, this is a pretty accurate description of certain periods in out own history, but I _really_ don't see where the Paladin's Code or Lawful Good alignment in D&D support this scenario at all, despite many arguments made to the contrary on this thread.

People making the 'license to kill' Paladin argument are making the exact same argument that the Church made to justify The Crusades. 'We believe them evil, therefore it is okay to dehumanize/murder/rape/loot them. And we do so in the good name of out Lord, therefore it can only be just!' - an argument that the Church has long since retracted as being in error.]


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> ...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...




Exactly.  The paladin did something that isn't exactly what Galahad would do, but his action isn't bad enough for Heironeous to step in and smack him around.

However, the secular authorities are a totally different matter.  They can put him on trial, execute him, whatever.

Tony M


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but this paints a picture of a world where clergy are free to murder, rape, loot and pillage in the name of their good god, and where non-ordained citizens are subject to being murdered, raped, looted, and pillaged merely for not being ordained.




Well, I know you're being funny, but in a sense you are correct.  You are certainly barking up the right tree.

Paladins have a lot of authority to make decisions on-the-spot.  So what stops them from raping a woman?  Killing an innocent child?  Taking whatever equipment the need from anybody they encounter, and then justify it all as necessary in their fight against evil?

They are *paladins*.  They have paladin training, they are LG, and they hate evil.  That is why they do not do those things.  

So just because a paladin 'can' kill a prisoner, for example, does not mean he will.  It is his call.  And he does not need a million rules curtailing his behavior.

A lot of posters feel like the answer to every paladin question is WWGD?  (What would Galahad do?)  For example, if Galahad encounters a helpless evil priest, he 100% must take the priest into custody, treat him as an equal (chivalry), make an effort to convert the priest, find a legal system to judge the priest, be merciful, and feel sad if the priest is put to death. 

They want every paladin to act this way, every time.

D&D is about flexibility.  If all paladins were meant to act this way, the rules would be crystal clear on the matter.  The PHB would say, "Paladins always accepts an offer of surrender.  Paladins always treat their enemies with mercy.  Paladins always defer to local secular law over their oath to destroy evil.  Paladins never kill prisoners."  Etc.

But the PHB does not say those things.  Instead it offeres every paladin a range of Feats to help make every paladin *different*.

The answer to every paladin question should *not* be "WWGD?"  It should be, "What would _your_ paladin PC do?"


Tony M


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Exactly.  The paladin did something that isn't exactly what Galahad would do, but his action isn't bad enough for Heironeous to step in and smack him around.
> 
> However, the secular authorities are a totally different matter.  They can put him on trial, execute him, whatever.
> 
> Tony M




Very interesting.  I come to the exact opposite conclusion: that the paladin's social status may be enough for the authorities to look the other way when it comes to any broken laws in regards to the halfling's death, but Heironeous would know the truth of the matter and probably not take too kindly to killing someone that way in his name.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Murder was  only a _bit_ on the harsh side?!?!? Man, I'd hate to see what your idea of straight-up Evil is... oh, wait. That's right... assisting in a plot to accost somebody is evil so vile that it demands punishment by death! But murder? Eh, that's only 'a bit harsh'.
> 
> [Edit: I could be wrong, but this paints a picture of a world where clergy are free to murder, rape, loot and pillage in the name of their good god, and where non-ordained citizens are subject to being murdered, raped, looted, and pillaged merely for not being ordained.




That wasn't the picture I was trying to paint. I've stated before that in this case the Paladin could've also let the authorities punish the halfling, once he's reasonably sure that he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole thing and only an accomplice to breaking and entering, assault and obstructing the Paladins fight against evil. Those three things, IMO, warrant a severe penalty. 

Where are you getting murder, rape, loot and pillaging? The Paladin can't do any of those things, except for looting sometimes in the form of confiscating stuff from his enemies. He can't murder anybody, but he can kill and execute targets fitting the justifications in his Code. That's why he has 'Smite Evil', and last time I checked it doesn't deal subdual damage. 



> People making the 'license to kill' Paladin argument are making the exact same argument that the Church made to justify The Crusades. 'We believe them evil, therefore it is okay to dehumanize/murder/rape/loot them. And we do so in the good name of out Lord, therefore it can only be just!' - an argument that the Church has long since retracted as being in error.]




I never said he could kill evil people 'at will'. He must follow the Code. It says what his duties at the minimum are. The section which relates to this case is, for the Nth time, "punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents". No provisions are made for the _harmee_'s alignment. The Halfling was fair game becaue he was involved in a plot to harm innocents, regardless of his alignment. 

And you _do_ realize that in the D&D world there really _are_ races and nations that are 'always evil'? So they don't "believe them evil", like you said, they _know_ it! That kinda makes the argument for crusades sound good, if it's done without raping or any other evil activity. Or should the Paladins living next to Mordor do nothing, or should they be having some plans for a large military assault (say, named Operation Crusade) to overthrow Sauron?

I believe in pro-active vs. reactive Paladins. They wouldn't police Mordors borders, but actively go looking for the bad guys instead of waiting them to make their move.


----------



## Thia Halmades (Nov 11, 2005)

Hrm.  Always evil because the book says they're always evil, or always evil because of the general interpretation of your 'good' kingdom/empire/democracy?  This chains back to the whole Crusade/Saracen argument.

They're not us!  They're evil!  Whole books were written that proposed that argument.  We know they weren't evil - but that didn't stop the righteous smiting at the time.  If I have a group of Gnolls (which I do) and they're "evil" (which they are, by alignment) does that make them a threat, and worth smiting?

What if I wrote a module where their "evil" was simply a function of how their society is forced to operate because of the depredations of the Empire, instead of a moral decision?  According to them, they're doing fine.  They don't eat babies.  They aren't marauding villages.  You CAN Smite them, and Smite WILL work.  But would you be in the right?  In other words:

- Would it be Lawful to kill someone, because Detect Evil tells you they're evil?
- Would it be Good to remove a Warchief because of his title, even if he's the one preaching tolerance?

Your question, "Living next to Mordor" is a valid one.  Then the Paladin (IMO) isn't going to go in single-handedly and start mowing them down.  He'll gather an army, get the blessing of everyone involved, and lead the dramatic charge where he can get gloriously skewered on round one.  Pro-Active can get you killed.  Policing Mordor's borders while you assemble that army makes far more sense, and to me, is the more Paladin like behavior.


----------



## painandgreed (Nov 11, 2005)

This is good stuff as Imay hav a paladin in my next campaign it turns out. A rare event. 

I do not think that the paladin in question violated the paladin's code although he may have violated Heironius' code. However, while that may put him on the bad side of Heironius, I don't think that would warrent punishment as a paladin. To be punished because of breaking code more exacting that the regular paladin code, he would have to be held due to special oaths above and beyond that of being a paladin. This would be more than simply saying he follows Heironius but require something like a feat of Paladin of Heironius which would confer additional benefits along with additional restrictions.

So in this case, I don't think he'd lose paladin powers although Heironius may send him a warning in some manner or simply tell him that his services are no longer needed and perhaps he should go be of service of some other LG god*.

*Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of LG and the paladin code and others may differ. Always refer to the DM in the case of any individual game to determine what is suitable.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> I do not think that the paladin in question violated the paladin's code although he may have violated Heironius' code. However, while that may put him on the bad side of Heironius, I don't think that would warrent punishment as a paladin. To be punished because of breaking code more exacting that the regular paladin code, he would have to be held due to special oaths above and beyond that of being a paladin. This would be more than simply saying he follows Heironius but require something like a feat of Paladin of Heironius which would confer additional benefits along with additional restrictions.




I'd say the paladinic code and the domga of Heironius would be the same in this case.



> So in this case, I don't think he'd lose paladin powers although Heironius may send him a warning in some manner or simply tell him that his services are no longer needed and perhaps he should go be of service of some other LG god*.
> 
> *Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of LG and the paladin code and others may differ. Always refer to the DM in the case of any individual game to determine what is suitable.




Always a good way of putting things.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> 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.




In my campaign, a paladin promotes Law and Good -- which often, but not always, involves killing Evil. For example, it might better serve The Cause to see that this priest received the appropriate legal process, in order to showcase that the system works, etc. Mercy is applied where appropriate, whether it be to good people or evil people whose evils are minor. 

One of the reasons I have mitigated my initial assessment of the "evilness" of the paladin's actions is campaign history. The campaign is high level (17-18), and there are numerous instances of bad guys conducting late-night ambushes via teleport. Being a _little_ paranoid about the latest nighttime incursion is quite understandable. However, that doesn't excuse the act, just reduces its severity somewhat. That, plus the fact that the paladin's past history involves a lot of chaos and not much evil, has me thinking along Law-Chaos lines  rather than Good-Evil lines.

(The indoor assailant did indeed escape via powerful magic; the guarding PC, after being distracted for a moment, drove her off and then remained in the room to guard the paladin's wife in case more attacks were forthcoming.)


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> A lot of posters feel like the answer to every paladin question is WWGD?  (What would Galahad do?)  For example, if Galahad encounters a helpless evil priest, he 100% must take the priest into custody, treat him as an equal (chivalry), make an effort to convert the priest, find a legal system to judge the priest, be merciful, and feel sad if the priest is put to death.
> 
> They want every paladin to act this way, every time.




Tony, I think you're talking more about paladins in general while most of us bashing the particular paladin in this thread are, well, bashing a particular paladin.  I know that I've been careful to do so (most of the time).     

You don't like the "you've-seen-one-paladin-you've-seen-them-all," generic paladin.  Me too.  We don't have one in this case: the player gave him a bit more depth by making him a paladin of Heironeous.  Heironeous promotes justice, valor, chivalry, and honor.  Unless the player picked that church for its sweet benefits (Day care?  Could be with the expecting wife....), those four traits should play a fairly important role in his moral code.

I agree...to hell with Galahad.  But is it too much to expect the paladin to ask himself, "WWHD? (What Would Heironeous Do?)"  Especially when meting out Justice (one of Heironeous' Big Four).

The one thing that I expect of all paladins (and I'm pretty sure it's not in the RAW) is some sense of responsibility for their actions and for the use (or lack thereof) of their special powers.  If it's feasible, try to be as certain as possible that the targets of your righteous anger truly deserve it.  Things can't always be taken at face value--a person with a "Kick Me" sign taped on his back doesn't actually want to get kicked.

That's why I have a hard time with this particular paladin opting not to bother with using Detect Evil on the halfling.  His god's big on justice: so try to at least make an attempt at actually dealing out justice!  If the paladin in question was affiliated with the church of St. Cuthbert, god of retribution...well, that puts a whole new spin on his actions, doesn't it?


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Those three things, IMO, warrant a severe penalty.




I agree. But who is the Paladin to forego the laws of the land, as well as his god, and mete out his own brand of justice? 



> Where are you getting murder, rape, loot and pillaging?




Well, I'm getting murder specifically from the OP's post - the Paladin _murdered_ the halfling. The other crimes were a logical outgrowth of your argument that it is okay for a Paldin to murder people that he thinks may be evil. I mean, murder is pretty much _the_ most taboo crime, so I reasoned that if you were cool with murder, that other stuff would be thrown in free of charge.  



> The Paladin can't do any of those things




Yet he did do at least one of them. 



> That's why he has 'Smite Evil', and last time I checked it doesn't deal subdual damage.




Yes, but in this instance, the Paladin has no idea whether the Halfling was actually Evil - guilty of participating in an evil act, perhaps, but note that in D&D this does not automatically make one evil (alignment shifts in D&D don't generally occur as the result of _one_ act that runs contrary to alignment).  More importantly, as the OP mentioned, the Paladin's player acknowldges this. 



> I never said he could kill evil people 'at will'.




Haven't you been arguing that he can kill anybody that he _thinks_ is evil, regardless of whether he has actual proof or not? That is, by definition, 'at will' - lacking _proof_, what else could he be basing an accusation of evil upon but his own will?  



> "punish those who harm or threaten to harm innocents"




Certainly. So how does "punish" suddenly become "kill" - there are hundreds of punishments that were more appropriate in this instance than _murder_. 



> And you _do_ realize that in the D&D world there really _are_ races and nations that are 'always evil'?




Sure, but that has nothing to do with _this_ incident, so let's stop that strawman right here.  



> I believe in pro-active vs. reactive Paladins.




As I said earlier, vigilantes vs holy emmisaries. Which is the fundamental divide here. Some of us see Paladins as honorable, chivalrous, knights of old and others of us see them as god-blessed murder machines charged to cut down any potential evil in its tracks. Incidentally, that made me think of something else....

_All_ people are _potentially_ evil, so a vote for authorzing a Paladin to kill _potentially_ evil people is a vote for the Paladin as complete sociopath, killing anything that he so chooses, using the justification 'Well, he _may_ have been evil!'


----------



## Thia Halmades (Nov 11, 2005)

Which goes back to the basic question:

Because it cons evil, does that make killing it either LAWFUL or GOOD?  I'm siding with the 'not all Paladins are the same' argument here; because each character has to make individual choices.  However.

All Cops are held to a certain standard of conduct.  Failure to follow said Code of Conduct involves swift trial and temporary, if not full revocation of their rights & priviliges involved in being Cops.  In order to prosecute a bad cop, you must catch a bad cop.  A Paladin has a different problem.

He's a Cop in the service of a deity.  Failure to engage in cop-like behavior can - and often will - result in the revocation of cop-like status.  I still fail to see, in any way, why this Paladin's actions shouldn't be immediately and swiftly punished.  It's Heironeous' way of saying "Hey, I don't promote this.  Justice, sure.  That was murder."  So when another Paladin approaches him, and gives him 'the look' as one Paladin can recognize another by a certain sixth sense (it's in the PHB), and they realize "HEY, you're not a Paladin!" then they're going to know, immediately, something horrible has happened and action needs taken.

I'm not just talking about the dogma of "WWGD" or "WWSMD" - I'm talking about straight up logic in terms of what it means to be both Lawful, Good, and a defender of society.  Does your Paladin defend society, or hunt down and murder bad guys because Detect Evil told him it was okay?


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> That wasn't the picture I was trying to paint. I've stated before that in this case the Paladin could've also let the authorities punish the halfling, once he's reasonably sure that he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole thing and only an accomplice to breaking and entering, assault and obstructing the Paladins fight against evil.




This doesn't make sense to me.  Why does the paladin have to make sure that the halfling's not the mastermind if he chooses to turn him over to the authorities, yet he doesn't have to bother making that determination if he instead chooses to *take the halfling's life* himself??!!



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I believe in pro-active vs. reactive Paladins. They wouldn't police Mordors borders, but actively go looking for the bad guys instead of waiting them to make their move.




That makes it a deeper shame that the paladin didn't make Detect Evil kick in when he was coming down the stairs to greet his midnight visitor.  I'm not a fan of the 'palanoid' in general, but this would've been one of those instances where having Detect Evil up and running would've been a good thing.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I agree...to hell with Galahad.  But is it too much to expect the paladin to ask himself, "WWHD? (What Would Heironeous Do?)"  Especially when meting out Justice (one of Heironeous' Big Four).




It's never as helpful as you'd hope 

-Hyp.


----------



## Thia Halmades (Nov 11, 2005)

By Request, a reposte (not to be confused with a riposte)

Holding the Paladin to the tenets of their Deity is reasonable. I constantly feel like I'm the wrong person to get involved in these discussions, because my view is black & white. I've read the thread on the General Board and contributed to it; it's 505 or something (on page 10) and you can flip to it if you like. Look for the wolf statue. But the answer to your question (if such a question was asked) is simply, what to do in this situation?

Far as I'm concerned, the player handled it perfectly. He failed, he knew he failed, he went full bore and said "Eff it. If I'm going, they're coming with me." He snapped. TOTALLY COOL with the snapping, it's the tragic side of the character. No one can be that good, all the time. And enough stress means eventually you'll freak. I might've allowed a Will Save to avoid it, or allow the PC to be 'aware' of what he was doing in character, but the way you retell it, the character knew full well what was happening.

Bravo.

You chose (or the DM chose) in this campaign to reward that hot RP session with a full blown recovery, intervention by another deity, and an Atonement granted by the Divine Itself. Again, I must say.

Bravo.

This adheres pretty much to what I usually say about Paladins; it isn't "WWGD" or even "WWSMD" - it's "What's right, in your world view, and what is within the bounds of the law?" Lawful. That to me means caring about society, and upholding the standards of society. It means that by doing so, you protect others by living your life to the standard you set. You don't "go around" your code to cut down the BBEG when you can't catch him red-handed. It isn't done. This is one of the great RP conflicts of the Paladin. They have the ability to Smite Evil, but doing the Smiting isn't always Lawful. Shoot, it isn't always Good, either.

Good means keeping the peace, protecting the innocent, etc. It means, generally, your opponent should have a weapon in his hand and see you coming (honor code). I've made (and won) plenty of arguments over what constitutes being both Lawful (upholding the literal law) and Good (murdering evil doers to protect others from their predations). Are these Paladin behaviors? Depends on the Deity, and it depends on the DM. Some will rule "Yes," in a heart beat. I rule "no."

My Paladins live in a black & white world. There's good, there's evil, and there's the Empire. Evil in the Empire is handled as best as possible. Because Paladins are generally part of the military, which is connected to the theocracy, they're assigned to empty raiding camps, hunt down villains (bounty hunting Paladins. Yes.) and bring them to justice. Justice doesn't mean murder. It means 'Justice within the bounds of the law.'

But for every DM, there are multiple answers, and multiple scenarios. Did the Paladin in the former thread kill a Halfling? Yep. Was he evil? We don't know that; he may have been coerced, he may have been charmed, he may have just been the messenger. But he's dead now, and he wasn't the main threat. That act was neither Lawful nor Good, and I would have ruled immediate, lightning bolt style revocation.

But that's me.
__________________
LCpt. Thia Halmades

"A life spent making mistakes is not only more useful, but more honorable than a life spent doing nothing." -- G.B. Shaw


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Thia Halmades said:
			
		

> ...Did the Paladin in the former thread...




Nice post, but I have one small observation...you are in that thread...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 11, 2005)

I'm assuming he posted it to an e-mail or other discussion, and was asked by one of the other participants to repost it here.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm assuming he posted it to an e-mail or other discussion, and was asked by one of the other participants to repost it here.





Oh, that would explain the first sentence...darn, my attempt at funny has backfired...sorry.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 11, 2005)

So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:

*what to do?*

Herreman the Wise already posted an excellent recap of the most important facts. Don't even bother posting to this thread unless you've read it...


Let me just summarize the most important points, so we know where we stand (and more importantly, where the DM, his game and his player stands!)

- The DM (and by extention, presumably the paladin's god) is of the opinion that what happened was "Obviously _not_ an Approved Paladin Activity", and "excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior".

- The player himself has said that the act was "moderately evil and chaotic", and "not necessarily appropriate for a paladin".

- The paladin's actions were illegal under the local law, and there may have been witnesses

- The halfling isn't dead yet, and may survive (although that's really up to the "rough and tumble priest of Kord" present, and not necessarily something we can count on).


[Edit: Obviously NOT a Paladin Approved activity. Gah - don't you just hate it when you miss a negative?  :\ ]


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:
> 
> *what to do?*




To be perfectly fair, amongst the debate he has been continuously advised *what to do?*.

The one side (I'll call it SIDE JIM) is for power strippage of some form, while the other side (I'll call it SIDE NUMION) is for no power strippage.  The debate is being used to a) justify the advice and to b) sway the other side (or at least explain position).


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> So, could we please stop arguing about what happened and why it happened and get back to the original question:
> 
> *what to do?*
> 
> ...




Possibilities:

*A Job style test of faith - at one extreme of the specturm, the paladin could well be 'up for grabs' after this latest act against his god's edicts.   A contest between Powers might ensue.

*Whispering campaign - if there were witnesses, then it's going to almost certainly be talked about, even if the halfling lives.  The local chruch will almost assuredly get wind of it...and if the villains are smart, they'll warp it even further...or tell the absolute truth.

*Local authority - even given his low noble status, the paladin clearly broke the law.  If he's smart, he'll turn himself in, but given the pattern of behavior, I think the law is going to have to come after him.

*Strip him of his powers - "Congratulations, you're a fighter now."  A RAW but also somewhat boring option.

This is just off the top of my head, mind.  Certainly there's more.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> To be perfectly fair, amongst the debate he has been continuously advised *what to do?*.
> 
> The one side (I'll call it SIDE JIM) is for power strippage of some form, while the other side (I'll call it SIDE NUMION) is for no power strippage.  The debate is being used to a) justify the advice and to b) sway the other side (or at least explain position).




I'm _my own side_?  Rockin'.   

To clarify my position a bit further, I'm pro-consequences, which _may_ include power stripping, but definitely says 'bring the axe of Herionimus down!'.  This is far too good an opportunity for roleplay to let pass.  Time to make things _interesting_...and to make tasty rp lemonade out of the sour lemon the paladin's served up.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> ...*Whispering campaign - if there were witnesses, then it's going to almost certainly be talked about, even if the halfling lives.  The local chruch will almost assuredly get wind of it...and if the villains are smart, they'll warp it even further...or tell the absolute truth...




I like that one the best, as it's subtle yet effective.


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Galfridus' recent post, which makes him seem like an awesome DM in my eyes, got me thinking in a new direction. 

This is my thinking now: The people who want to strip the paladin of his powers are correct...but only in regards to a low-level paladin.

I think a more experienced paladin should have the freedom to kill the halfling, while a 1st level paladin should not.  As a DM, I'm sure I would be very unhappy to see a paladin fresh out of the academy snapping the halfling's neck.  (I'd be like..."You do _what_?")

But a higher level paladin, that's a different story.  Like Galfridus suggested, the high-level paladin *knows* what kind of evil is out there, and it is scary stuff.  Having more freedom in one's fight against evil at higher level makes sense to me.  The contraints that seemed so correct at 1st level may be suicidal at 18th.   

One more thing: I was wrong when I said "Mercy is reserved for the good people."  I take that part back.    

Great thread!

Tony M


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

tonym said:
			
		

> Galfridus' recent post, which makes him seem like an awesome DM in my eyes, got me thinking in a new direction.
> 
> This is my thinking now: The people who want to strip the paladin of his powers are correct...but only in regards to a low-level paladin.
> 
> ...




Only low-level paladins?  The flipside of freedom is responsibility - if anything, IMO, the higher-level paladins should face more _serious_ repercussions, considering they should have better control and judgement.  Becoming more like evil to battle evil isn't how a paladin fights.  Those constraints are the tradeoff a paladin bears for having divine power.


----------



## tonym (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Only low-level paladins?  The flipside of freedom is responsibility - if anything, IMO, the higher-level paladins should face more _serious_ repercussions, considering they should have better control and judgement.  Becoming more like evil to battle evil isn't how a paladin fights.  Those constraints are the tradeoff a paladin bears for having divine power.




Nuh uh.

Tony M


----------



## Joker[ZW] (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> 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.




As has been shown numerous times in this thread, you *can* show that he violated the Code, but you can show just as well that he *didn't*.
The code is worded ambiguous enough for that.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> I'm _my own side_?  Rockin'.




I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.    

Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> To clarify my position a bit further, I'm pro-consequences, which _may_ include power stripping, but definitely says 'bring the axe of Herionimus down!'




"Um...sir...actually, your favored weapon is the longsword...yes, here it is, sir.  And I'm not sure what you just called yourself...and it's probably not my place to say...but maybe you should consider cutting back on the drinks a bit during lunch hour, sir."


Eh...it's a living.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> As has been shown numerous times in this thread, you *can* show that he violated the Code, but you can show just as well that he *didn't*.
> The code is worded ambiguous enough for that.




How, exactly, does he slip the "respect legitimate authority" part of the noose?  So far, I don't recall seeing a good explantion on this point.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 11, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> *Whispering campaign - if there were witnesses, then it's going to almost certainly be talked about, even if the halfling lives.  The local chruch will almost assuredly get wind of it...and if the villains are smart, they'll warp it even further...or tell the absolute truth.



Personally, I'm kinda hoping the halfling does kick the bucket. Just so the paladin can be accosted the next morning by a distraught, sobbing halfling mother, accusing him of mudering her only son. Maybe dragging around the rusty sword her dear departed husband left her when he died in the King's war years ago. Let's see how he deals with *that*!


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Well, I'm getting murder specifically from the OP's post - the Paladin _murdered_ the halfling. The other crimes were a logical outgrowth of your argument that it is okay for a Paldin to murder people that he thinks may be evil. I mean, murder is pretty much _the_ most taboo crime, so I reasoned that if you were cool with murder, that other stuff would be thrown in free of charge.




I think it was execution. 




> Yes, but in this instance, the Paladin has no idea whether the Halfling was actually Evil - guilty of participating in an evil act, perhaps, but note that in D&D this does not automatically make one evil (alignment shifts in D&D don't generally occur as the result of _one_ act that runs contrary to alignment).  More importantly, as the OP mentioned, the Paladin's player acknowldges this.








> Haven't you been arguing that he can kill anybody that he _thinks_ is evil, regardless of whether he has actual proof or not? That is, by definition, 'at will' - lacking _proof_, what else could he be basing an accusation of evil upon but his own will?




Ha! Nevar! I'm advocating that this instance could fall within the Paladins Code, but I never liked the idea of Evil-radar Seek & Destroy. I think that it was ok to kill the halfling since he was participating in evil activity and harming innocents, regardless of his alignment. Since these two are known, I don't even think it would've been necessary to use Detect Evil on the halfling - he got what was coming in any case.



> Certainly. So how does "punish" suddenly become "kill" - there are hundreds of punishments that were more appropriate in this instance than _murder_.




Execution is a form of punishment. A tad harsh in this case, but in medieval times harsh was the norm when it came to punishments. 




> Sure, but that has nothing to do with _this_ incident, so let's stop that strawman right here.




Right you are, but someone else brought up the crusades originally, so I just countered _that_ straw-man. 




> As I said earlier, vigilantes vs holy emmisaries. Which is the fundamental divide here. Some of us see Paladins as honorable, chivalrous, knights of old and others of us see them as god-blessed murder machines charged to cut down any potential evil in its tracks. Incidentally, that made me think of something else....
> 
> _All_ people are _potentially_ evil, so a vote for authorzing a Paladin to kill _potentially_ evil people is a vote for the Paladin as complete sociopath, killing anything that he so chooses, using the justification 'Well, he _may_ have been evil!'




Now _that's_ a straw-man argument. No-one but you made those claims. I've mostly relied on the PHB Paladins Code on my arguments. I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to this kind of tactics.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm kinda hoping the halfling does kick the bucket. Just so the paladin can be accosted the next morning by a distraught, sobbing halfling mother, accusing him of mudering her only son. Maybe dragging around the rusty sword her dear departed husband left her when he died in the King's war years ago. Let's see how he deals with *that*!




Lessee .. brandishing a sword is clearly within "threatening to harm innocents", and that begets PUNISHMENT!!!   

Juss kiddin'


----------



## Joker[ZW] (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> How, exactly, does he slip the "respect legitimate authority" part of the noose?  So far, I don't recall seeing a good explantion on this point.




It's *respect*.
not "slavishly follow", "absolutely and under any circumstance adhere to" or anything else like it.

Respect.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.
> 
> Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.




Sorry, Jim is the first name that came to mind as I was ferverishly typing so I could get back to work...


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> It's *respect*.
> not "slavishly follow", "absolutely and under any circumstance adhere to" or anything else like it.
> 
> Respect.




That's a Cartman argument.

Wearing a nice sweater doesn't make you nice.

Saying that you respect something doesn't mean that you actually respect it.

Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.


----------



## Joker[ZW] (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> That's a Cartman argument.
> 
> Wearing a nice sweater doesn't make you nice.
> 
> Saying that you respect something doesn't mean that you actually respect it.



Um, no, it isn't. I said nothing about respecting authority only in word and not in action.




			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.



Please tell me, that deciding not to go the official way in this case shows in any way that the Paladin doesn't respect the legitimate authority. Because I don't see it.

The "official" way in many countries is so open to outside interference, blackmail, bad judges, easy to escape from prisons, lazy guards, convuluted bureaucracy, and many other things that it is well within the rights of the Paladin not to trust them in this or any other case.
Which doesn't mean that they won't try judge him for his actions.


----------



## Numion (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> That's a Cartman argument.




Is Cart-man agument anything similar to straw-man? 



> Please give me a reason why the legitimate authority doesn't need to be respected in this case.




It should be respected. Whether killing the halfling really is disrespecting legitimate authority isn't clear. Do the laws allow you to use lethal force to deal with house intruders? EDIT: I presume that if respect means obedience they would've mentioned in the book.

The relevant question though is that is that act, if it was disrespectful in the first place, a _gross_ violation of the Paladins code? I don't think it is. So there are no grounds for losing powers.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> As has been shown numerous times in this thread, you *can* show that he violated the Code, but you can show just as well that he *didn't*.
> The code is worded ambiguous enough for that.




Again, look at the definitions and spirit of the four tenets of the god's dogma - Honor (dishonorable to beat a helpless opponent, or one severely overmatched), Justice (beating to extract a confession is hardly just), Valor (see Honor - while he was busy slapping the halfling around, real evil was afoot), Chivalry (again, the actions are pretty unchivalrous).  So, no.  He didn't act like a lay knight, let alone the direct represenative of a god with those facets.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 11, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.
> 
> Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.
> 
> ...




And you do such a good job, too.  As for the axe, I got that off of Google.  So mock my investigative skills as you like.  

But that reminds me...I'd also have paladinboy there go back to this room and find the god's favored weapon, his personal instrument, shattered.  Subtle hint there, y'know.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 11, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Ok, first of all, any DM that puts the paladin in this position and then _afterwards_ has to come wringing his hands for advice, isn't doing his job. What the hell did you _expect_ to happen?




I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.

Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?

My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 11, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> Um, no, it isn't. I said nothing about respecting authority only in word and not in action.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For simplicity (and because I have no idea how to quote multiple sources in one reply), allow me to direct you to the compilation of the original poster's posts - Post #462, middle of page 12 of this thread.

Here's some of his responses, ones I think help prove my point.

"The paladin (who worships Hieroneous) is effectively a noble of the kingdom he is in (he is actually a noble from another kingdom who has been granted noble status and has accepted associated responsibilities). He has the legal powers of a nobleman -- but he is in the capital city of a kingdom which is (simplifying here of course) Lawful Good. He does not have the right to order execution as a punishment (as opposed to killing in self-defense or to protect others). He is in the royal capital, so there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer in any other than the most immediately pressing circumstances."

A bit later, the OP is asked what the normal punishment for accessory to assault would be.

"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."

So....he has been granted noble status *and has accepted associated responsibilities*, he doesn't have the right to order (let alone perform) execution as punishment, and *there are higher nobles who would be expected to pass judgment and to whom he would be expected to defer*.

To give more than lip service to 'respecting' legitimate authority, the paladin has these issues to deal with.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 12, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.




Maybe, or maybe he was simply testing the paladin.  And the paladin's not screwed for being a paladin--it didn't come down to a choice of A) Snap a captured halfling's neck and lose your paladin powers, or; B) Don't snap a halfling prisoner's neck and still lose his paladin powers.  The DM didn't make him brutally execute a captive instead of turning him over to the authorities.



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?
> 
> My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.




Well, assuming that the main foes in the adventure are the proper EL for a 17th-18th-level party...they have to know what a paladin is.  The exact Code of Conduct...that's debateable.


----------



## Conaill (Nov 12, 2005)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> I was thinking the exact same thing. This sounds like trying to create a situation where the Paladin is being screwed for being a Paladin.
> 
> Which leads to a rather important question. In-game how many people in a game world would know what a Paladin is and that they have a very specific code which if violated results in their being stripped of power?
> 
> My guess is that it would not be common knowledge so only very special foes would create situations like this to attempt to ruin a paladin.



Have you read the posts by the DM in this thread? When you do so, you'll see that he sounds like a very reasonable man, who is *not* out to get his paladin player...

As for Wulf's "what did you expect to happen?"... it's clear that the DM did not expect the paladin to start summarily executing prisoners, going against local law, the tenets of his faith, and common sense. Just like I assume he wouldn't expect the paladin to execute a common cutpurse he has captured in the marketplace. My guess is that he expected the party to capture and interrogate the prisoner, and find out important details about who planned or executed the breakin in the first place...


----------



## Joker[ZW] (Nov 12, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> To give more than lip service to 'respecting' legitimate authority, the paladin has these issues to deal with.



Your point of view makes a Paladin unplayable in many situations. According to you if the Paladin gets ordered by the legitimate authority to kill an innocent child (for whatever reason) he loeses his powers whatever he does, its a catch 22. If he does kill the child he loses them because he killed an innocent (an [evil] action), if he doesn't kill the child he loses because he didn't "respect" an order from the legitimate authoritiy (using your definition of the word "respect").



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Again, look at the definitions and spirit of the four tenets of the god's dogma - Honor (dishonorable to beat a helpless opponent, or one severely overmatched), Justice (beating to extract a confession is hardly just), Valor (see Honor - while he was busy slapping the halfling around, real evil was afoot), Chivalry (again, the actions are pretty unchivalrous). So, no. He didn't act like a lay knight, let alone the direct represenative of a god with those facets.



A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time and the different points you make have already been refutet/others by others so if you don't mind I won't take that time to repeat them to you now.




			
				Conaill said:
			
		

> As for Wulf's "what did you expect to happen?"... it's clear that the DM did not expect the paladin to start summarily [snip] going against [snip] common sense.



Then the DM doesn't know a lot about the average PC


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 12, 2005)

My view is that only an evil authority would order the death of an innocent child.  In my games, a paladin does not view an evil authority (or sometimes even a neutral authority) as being legitimate.  To a paladin, a legitimate authority = a good (and most likely lawful) authority.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 12, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> I....[Sniff!]...I didn't get my own side.
> 
> Guess I'll just have to settle for being Heironeous' Executive Assistant and fact-checker.
> 
> ...





"Grumble grumble, impertinent third generation squire whipper snappers! In my day Heironeous was known for his axe. And there was never any in the treasure loots, it was always longsword +1 +2 vs giant sized creatures or longsword +1 flametongue. Paladins these days and their preferred weapons. And we could only have five magic items at most and had to tithe as a class requirement. Paladins these days don't even need to earn more xp than fighters or have a 17 charisma."

Heironeous only took up the sword in 3e. In 1e and 2e his holy symbol and personal deific weapon was the battle axe.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 12, 2005)

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> Your point of view makes a Paladin unplayable in many situations. According to you if the Paladin gets ordered by the legitimate authority to kill an innocent child (for whatever reason) he loeses his powers whatever he does, its a catch 22. If he does kill the child he loses them because he killed an innocent (an [evil] action), if he doesn't kill the child he loses because he didn't "respect" an order from the legitimate authoritiy (using your definition of the word "respect").




No it doesn't.  What you've done is switched your emphasis from *respect* legitimate authority to respect *legitimate* authority.  An authority that routinely has children killed would not be respected or acknowledged by a LG paladin in the first place, and thus would not be legitimate to him.

The paladin in question accepted his place in the city's nobility/caste structure, and acknowledged that there were folks above him whose wishes/beliefs/power might supercede his own.  He was told that there were ways things were handled, and he accepted those conditions (presumably, since it was a Lawful Good city, its tenets were comfortably close enough to those of his own and his church's).

He has accepted the city's laws and rulers as legitimate authority figures and chosen to respect them...up until he shows a callous disregard for that authority by carrying out an unlawful execution.

He did not respect legitimate authority; he's broken the paladin's code of conduct.




			
				Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time




I agree only if you're talking about your god's tenets in relation to the code of conduct, but I'd add that they shouldn't just be tossed aside when they're inconvenient (like when a paladin of Heironeous (who's big on Justice) ignores an authority that he's already deemed legitimate and takes the law (brutally) into his own hands).



			
				Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> A Paladin doesn't need to act according to every single facet of his code all the time




Taking this statement at face value, though, my answer is: Hell yes he does!  Or come darn close to it!  If any element of the code comes into play in any single encounter, he's got to act in accordance with each and every one of 'em.

According to what you wrote, a LG paladin could use poison (against the code), provided that poison wasn't against a legitimate authority that he recognized (that may be a stretch), to take out a group of baddies who are holding children hostage (help those in need, punish those who threaten innocents).  He's acting according to code...except for using poison to get the job done.  And that's a code violation in spite of what he did right on the other points of the code.



			
				Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> and the different points you make have already been refutet/others by others so if you don't mind I won't take that time to repeat them to you now.




Meh.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## Greg K (Nov 12, 2005)

I would strip the paladin of at least some of his abilities if not all of them.   Paladins (and clerics) should first and foremost be representatives of their god and should be held to a higher standard that promotes the beliefs/ideals of their deity.  In this case, the Paladin put his own emotion and desire ahead of his teachings and the ideals he is supposed to exemplify. Were his actions understandable? Yes, they were a very human response.  However, in my opinion, the actions taken out of anger and a desire for vengenance were not appropriate actions for a  Paladin of Heironeous as I do not see murder or attempted murder of the halfling as representative of the  ideals of Heironeuos.  If anything, the Paladin's actions could have people seeing  hypocrisy in the of espouting valor, justice, etc. and the paladin's actual behavior and, in turn, have them question the legitimacy of Heironeus's other representatives by association.

Furthermore, I don't see the Paladin's actions as being Lawful Good.  For the reasons others have already stated.

So, what we have is the classic tragedy of someone "falling from grace" , because their own human emotions and immediate needs momentarily clouded their judgement and led to transgression.   

The fallout should make for great roleplaying as should the attempt at redemption.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 12, 2005)

*The Other Factors...Bring on the Wife!!!*

Well...after 12 pages, 559 postings and viewed
5,654 times...no one, no one has hit on the true ramifications in that house. BAH  , time to show them...the way.

*For Galfridus *

Forgive me...but what is offered here, is a suggestion...massive, but a suggestion none the less.

Last scene:The 'paladin' in question, the man of the house, was told by his friend the cleric. His wife was attacked, but is safe.

Halfing life was getting pretty bleak, and further ending was oncoming.

Scene continued; With a new element...the wife will make her way down stairs.

Calling out his name, if he doesn't hear it at first, then she will arrive at the room (she is moving quick), where a possible death might occur.

Upon seeing the scene, she will physically pull him off the hapless halfing, with this saying, "Do not bring  bad omens to our house, when our child is so near to be born."

She will be calm in her manner, and voice *she will be for a reason* If the husband relents, the wife will be holding on to one of his hands, in a firm and secure grip.

Without missing a beat, she will direct the Cleric to do curates, to save the halfing*Yeah, save the Halfing  *

She will give hubby a LOOK, don't describe it in detail, just say, she wants him to be quiet for now.

Dramatize the life and death situation with the cleric, who working feverishly to save the halfing...run it like for two minutes or more...*not pass 7, brain dead occurs  *

Between that time, the only sound that should be heard, is the cleric working his best to save the halfing.

The wife is staring at the halfing, one hand holding her husband's, the other hand resting on her belly, where the unborn child is.

*Vizual insertion snip lines*:The halfing looks like a child now, halpless and defendless...showing all the bruises put upon him or her.

She is rubbing her belly in a caring fashion, and maintaining that grip on his hand, and staring at the halfing, showing great concern.

She will say nothing, and her posture will state, she wants to hear nothing, until the crisis has pass...

At one point, the gurgling cough of the halfing will bring a sign of relief, but before that, if the second PC, who was upstairs, if comes down, she will direct that person, to get the nightwatch, with haste.

That will be only time she will speak again.

Halfing recovery is going slow...but it should be enough time for the Nightwatch to show...during that time, no one should be speaking, expect for the Cleric, *describe the means of saving the halfing*

Upon the Nightwatch entering, she speaks, first to the semi-conscious halfing, who will become wide awake, when she moves up close with hubby in tow. To the halfing's face.

She will ask for the truth, and she will state politely, if the truth is not told, she has all right, to exact punishment.

Continue the hand holding, and belly rubbing, and if hubby try to speak, give that LOOK, to say nothing.

Halfing's view, a very pregnant human woman is kneeling before him. And he heard right, she wants the truth.

Her demeanor is calm, no anger, just calm, but he will realize why she is rubbing her belly...*she mentally, or emotionaly shifting the anxiety feelings to her hubby, so that unborn will not be effected by the stress*

The halfing will know of this, from his youngling days...

Choice:tell the truth or she will kill him.

The Nightwatch, the PC cleric, the other PC friend, and then the hubby, will all get this feeling from her.

She is not playing around.

*Follow through*:Halfing will talk or die.
If talk, will go with Nightwatch after confession. But before that happens, just after confession *if there one*, wife will verbally chastise hubby for almost bringing bad vibes to their home, and almost spilling 'innocent' blood.*she will hold at there, there is more to come*

Halfing will be chastise for being a fool, and for being duped to come here and awakening the family at a late hour. She will continue that this enterprise to bring harm to her and baby, is uncivilized and she will literally spell it out, that this action speaks against all pregnant mothers in the city.

They are not safe from ruffians like him.

Nightwatch is going to get an earful on this.

The halfing will be giving the _book on life_, read on him...by the time she is finished, doing all this, with her calm voice and posture.

The halfing should be in tears...  

If the discussion is successful...halfing on his way out, will offered a, very, very, very, very heartfelt  apology. *He will have flashback memories of home, the human woman will remind him of his own mother, tell no one that in the game *

Home grounds are checked again and made secure.

Wife askes hubby to escort her upstairs,* alone*....she will direct him to the guest bedroom, where she will tell him straight out, when they get there...no anger in her voice. He will need to reflect on his ability to manage his anger.

Make no mention of the church, religion and whatever else has been prescribed by others here. That includes his paladinhood.  

She will say with the following, "If and when I give birth to our child, and unto the days, when the little will be about our home, getting into mischief and the usual trappings of what a growing child does. Will you get that upset, if something was done, so terribly wrong, that you will strike out like that, at so fragile a body...from your own size and strength, they cannot defend against?"

If he tries to speak, she will silent him, with a lightly touched finger placed on his lips. She will go on to say, that he *will need to reflect alone * on this, in the guestroom for two days...until she sees him again.

Then she will leave, blowing him a warm kiss, and with different look now, that can be told, after what has happened, the relationship has been taken in a different direction...both of them will have to make adjustments upon this...pasting drama.

*Summary*, besides all the cries of stripping and a body switching idea...the wife, the wife has a stake in these matters.

That is her husband.

The father to be, of her child.

Her lover...

And her dearest friend.​This is all a suggestion, it is your game...but for me, I have a thing for women who are married to a paladin.

You just don't mess with them...at all. The unknown strength they can possess...is very scary.

Damn...love the drama.


----------



## LordBOB (Nov 12, 2005)

*hey  Truth Seeker*

while you give a good point and i like the story line i think you are a little confused on something.  I went back to the first page and had to re read it to make sure i wasnt missing anything.  From what I've read you missed a few *major* key points.

1. The paladin was called out into the streets away from his home.
2. The wife was assaulted ( i dont know how bad but she was)

you could argue that when the pladin heard about his wife he was tyring to exact revenge for his wife ( which is ok in my eyes).  The wife wouldnt of been in any position to talk her husband down.  Also the Paladin might be fearing for the life of his unborn child and only wants to protect them and make sure this never happens again.

You still have an AWESOME story line.   All in all it is totally up the the DM and the player.  One part of being a paladin ( in my eyes )  Is the ability to have your own morals and code of conduct.  While im not saying to dis obey the church, im saying that you should also ask yourself whats right or wrong.  Everyone has their own idea of whats right and wrong and they use it to their advantage.  Why should the paladin be the only one not able to act on his personal beliefs for fear of being punished badly.  

My Paladin and my DM have set up a quite simple situation for these things.  If i do something bad in the others players eyes, or the DM, we might stop the game and talk about it,  If i am able to defend myself with a well thought good reason and i am able to explain my actions than he might let it slide.  If i am able to prove (in my eyes) that what i did was either for the greater good, or the well being of the rest of my group, than the action isnt seen as bad.  This is simpally b/c i was able to prove to my DM and my fellow players that i was right, and i usually dont get punished.  After words i will continue to go by the guidlines i have set for myself during the rest of the pladins life.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 12, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> 2. The wife was assaulted ( i dont know how bad but she was)




It's a little late to bring this up, but maybe we should stop using that word. People keep thinking something was done to her, and we have no idea what if anything was done to her. "Assaulted" carries the connotation that she has been injured in some way. While possible she has been mystically attacked, her physical condition is perfectly fine. A few divinations would probably clear up what, if anything, has been done to her or the child.


----------



## LordBOB (Nov 12, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It's a little late to bring this up, but maybe we should stop using that word. People keep thinking something was done to her, and we have no idea what if anything was done to her. "Assaulted" carries the connotation that she has been injured in some way. While possible she has been mystically attacked, her physical condition is perfectly fine. A few divinations would probably clear up what, if anything, has been done to her or the child.




I understand what you mean, but according to the original post it never talked about the wife being healed.  Also we dont know what "assaulted" in this text means.  The paladin wouldnt of know exactly how ( or how bad) she was hurt and he wouldnt of cared that much.  He would of been furious that someone was messing with his loved one and that would of been enough to take the law "into his own hands".

Personally i think this thread needs to be locked and we need to move on with our lives...everyone has their own ideas of "Good" and not a single answer will be totally right, since everyone has thier own views. ( just my view)


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 12, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> ...Personally i think this thread needs to be locked and we need to move on with our lives...




Awe, and we've made so much progress   .  Yes, people aren't going to necessarily change their views due to the arguments that are posed here, but I am still enjoying some of the discussion.

Also, if the thread was locked, I wouldn't have seen Truth Seekers last post.  Sure, it took a strange turn, but was a perspective that I hadn't even considered.  Those are the sorts of tidbits that I hope sit in my mind waiting to be unleashed during a game to create one of those "moments"...


----------



## LordBOB (Nov 12, 2005)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Awe, and we've made so much progress   .  Yes, people aren't going to necessarily change their views due to the arguments that are posed here, but I am still enjoying some of the discussion.
> 
> Also, if the thread was locked, I wouldn't have seen Truth Seekers last post.  Sure, it took a strange turn, but was a perspective that I hadn't even considered.  Those are the sorts of tidbits that I hope sit in my mind waiting to be unleashed during a game to create one of those "moments"...





ok ok ok...you have made your point.  This thread should NOT be locked for the slim chance that others like Truth Seeker will grace us with interesting ideas.  *gives Truth Seeker a BIG round of applause*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 13, 2005)

First- apologies.

Despite my repeated postings of the original scenario, somehow, I misread it myself and somehow inserted "kidnapped" in there somehow...by the time I caught it, it was too late.  Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa!  Mea Maxima Culpa!



> It's a little late to bring this up, but maybe we should stop using that word. People keep thinking something was done to her, and we have no idea what if anything was done to her. "Assaulted" carries the connotation that she has been injured in some way. While possible she has been mystically attacked, her physical condition is perfectly fine. A few divinations would probably clear up what, if anything, has been done to her or the child.




IMHO, assault still seems appropriate:



> *Black's Law Dictionary:*Assault: Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional dispaly of force such as would give the victim reaons to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault.  An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking , or doing bodily harm to the person of another.  For a crime of assalut victim need not be apprehensive of fear if the outward gesture is menacing...






> - The DM (and by extention, presumably the paladin's god) is of the opinion that what happened was "Obviously an Approved Paladin Activity", and "excessive, with elements of chaotic and evil behavior".




If that's his call, that's what controls-  DM's game, DM's rules.  IMC, given all the factors as discussed ad infinitum supra, I'd see it as no different than a coup-de-grace.

And how I would adjudicate the consequences would depend on which LG god the PC followed.  A LG god of War, etc., might look favorably upon followers who smite evil as and when they see it, wheras a LG god of Justice might favor more reflective types who seek out the deeper roots.  The difference?  The former might witness an evil act and mete out instant punishment, whereas the latter might ask why the act was comitted and whether the perpetrator was rehabilitatable.



> - The player himself has said that the act was "moderately evil and chaotic", and "not necessarily appropriate for a paladin."




Sometimes, we are our own harshest judges.  What matters (as far as stripping powers goes) is primarily how the deity sees things.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with a LG Deity who might let his follower's own self-percieved guilt or innocence determine his punishment, if any.  (Think about Red Dwarf's Justice Zone episode...)



> - The paladin's actions were illegal under the local law, and there may have been witnesses




Again, DM's game, DM's rules.  If the rules of this land bar such behavior, then so be it, let him be called to court.  However, as others have pointed out, if the Paladin's god has rules that are not in accord with the local law, the Paladin obeys his divine calling first, then the laws of the land.

As I've pointed out before, however, the laws differ from land to land, from religion to religion.  Some favor swift, harsh justice, some favor rehabilitation.



> - The halfling isn't dead yet, and may survive (although that's really up to the "rough and tumble priest of Kord" present, and not necessarily something we can count on).




That halfling may get lucky...


----------



## Acid_crash (Nov 13, 2005)

Ya know what... just kill the Paladin and we won't have this argument.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 13, 2005)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> Ya know what... just kill the Paladin and we won't have this argument.




Unless the Paladin is killed by a Paladin...


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 13, 2005)

I saw it, but I was going on the first postings*yeah saw the street bit, but  the indoor drama was a touch of flare* of the author  .

But thanks for compliments, but as I said,* it was just a suggestion.* When all the elements present, are not used to their fullest, things can go wrong.

One, what was written, was done to point out one thing...deal with it, from the human perpective first, then the paladin stuff will follow.

Paladins are made, not born, so in the end, it is the human factor that needs attention...by the 'wife' showing the barriers that broke down, for the moment...things like having the anger, as seen, would have affected the marriage, the home, his friends, and then leading into his standing as a paladin. All the common pieces that make that person, who they are...need that attention also.

The small stuff, can be, for certain times...have been ignored, or forgotten.

Whatever the case, I have to say, this whole thread has been a blast to watch and read...but it also points out one thing also, time and time again.

We are no closer, in understanding on what a paladin means to us.

And like also, the debate will continue in form or another...but EnWorld exist for us, to give the exchange of ideas...well, I add another to the pool.

It is up those, who wish to use it...when high expection is placed on the paladin's mantle, too high sometimes...we do set up ourselves for the greater disappoint, when they fall.

And that, is our own fault.




			
				LordBOB said:
			
		

> while you give a good point and i like the story line i think you are a little confused on something.  I went back to the first page and had to re read it to make sure i wasnt missing anything.  From what I've read you missed a few *major* key points.
> 
> 1. The paladin was called out into the streets away from his home.
> 2. The wife was assaulted ( i dont know how bad but she was)
> ...


----------



## tonym (Nov 13, 2005)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> ... not a single answer will be totally right, since everyone has thier own views. ( just my view)




Actually, one side can win the argument here.  The DM is the judge.  If the DM judges the paladin's behavior evil and strips away the paladin's powers, the Jim Hague side wins.  If the DM doesn't, that means Heironmous agrees with me and our side wins.  

Miscellaneous repurcussions that are not dealt from the the hand of Heironeous also mean our side wins.

Now read the DM's quote...



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> One of the reasons I have mitigated my initial assessment of the "evilness" of the paladin's actions is campaign history...plus the fact that the paladin's past history involves a lot of chaos and not much evil, has me thinking along Law-Chaos lines  rather than Good-Evil lines.




There you have it.  The paladin was not evil.  He was chaotic.  Ergo, the DM will not have Heironeous strip away the paladin's powers.

Me and Dannyalcatraz and the other guys on our side win!  WOOO!


Tony M


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 13, 2005)

*sigh*...the world live not in black & white...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 13, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Execution is a form of punishment. A tad harsh in this case, but in medieval times harsh was the norm when it came to punishments.




Heh.  I can't remember the exact source of the story, but I remember reading about a harsh empire brought down for this reason.

A bunch of farmers were delayed one morning, through no fault of their own, and would arrive at the fields an hour after their appointed time.

"Brothers, we will be late to work," one of the farmers stated.  "And we all know the penalty for being late to work."
"Death."
"And the penalty for armed rebellion against the throne?"
"Death."
"Doesn't seem like we have much to lose, now, does it?"

-Hyp.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Heh.  I can't remember the exact source of the story, but I remember reading about a harsh empire brought down for this reason.
> 
> A bunch of farmers were delayed one morning, through no fault of their own, and would arrive at the fields an hour after their appointed time.
> 
> ...



 
I saw that in the Cartoon History of the Universe, only it was a group of soldiers who were late getting to an assignment. The lines were:
"So, whats the penalty for armed rebellion?"
"Death"
"Hmmm... what's the penalty for being late?"
"Death"
"Guess what, we're late."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2005)

The above was probably written by some wit who had heard of the Laws of Dracon (aka Draco), mentioned a few posts ago by yours truly.

Dracon made death the penalty for so many infractions that his name became the word for harsh laws or countermeasures: Draconic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 14, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Dracon made death the penalty for so many infractions that his name became the word for harsh laws or countermeasures: Draconic.




Or, more commonly, 'draconian'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 14, 2005)

I hope no one locks the thread before tomorrow! The session is this evening and I intend to post the results in the morning.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 14, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I hope no one locks the thread before tomorrow! The session is this evening and I intend to post the results in the morning.




I'd have to say that on the whole the thread has been pretty civil so do not fear a lock up. Best of luck with the session and looking forward to reading what happened.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 14, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> I hope no one locks the thread before tomorrow! The session is this evening and I intend to post the results in the morning.




Nah, it'll still be here.  Let us know, eh?


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 14, 2005)

...and now for my daily rant about religion and politics...   (what, I couldn't resist)

Just kidding Galfridus, I am looking forward to reading how this plays out for you.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 15, 2005)

So...what  were you ranting about again?  


			
				FickleGM said:
			
		

> ...and now for my daily rant about religion and politics...   (what, I couldn't resist)
> 
> Just kidding Galfridus, I am looking forward to reading how this plays out for you.


----------



## Galfridus (Nov 15, 2005)

*Resolution*

Okay, here's what happened!

The halfling was saved by the priest of Kord and taken into custody by the paladin and the other PCs.

I decided on several consequences for the paladin's actions:

1) The paladin had a celestial "advisor", a leonal who he (and only he) could see and/or talk to. This advisor was replaced by an inevitable with the mission of aiding the paladin in the interpretation and application of the laws of Hieroneous and the mortal realms.

2) The paladin was ordered to place the halfling on trial, with the paladin as judge. (The King's priests received a vision, and the King issued a decree granting the paladin special jurisdiction for the trial.)

Other consequence are not yet known -- spoiler text follows. Players, stay out! 

[sblock] 
3) All of the paladin's spells and abilities that relate to evil (Protection from Evil spells, smiting, etc.) now apply to Chaotic creatures instead. This will be a serious issue as the main campaign enemies are Lawful Evil...

4) When the paladin feels he is ready, he may seek atonement to clear the stain on his soul. The nature of that atonement is not known.
[/sblock]

The paladin acted very appropriately during this session: he confessed his actions to a high priest of Hieroneous, sought guidance, and was genuinely upset and confused over what he had done. A good RP session. 

Unsurprisingly, the thought of adminstering laws was met with less than utter enthusiasm, confirming that this was a proper consequence for his actions. The paladin has a lot of work ahead of him -- but it will be fertile ground for roleplaying, and should improve rather than detract from the game. 

Thanks to everyone who posted advice -- it was very helpful!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 15, 2005)

That sounds like a nice twist. Did the wife have a part in this also?



			
				Galfridus said:
			
		

> Okay, here's what happened!
> 
> The halfling was saved by the priest of Kord and taken into custody by the paladin and the other PCs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 15, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> The paladin acted very appropriately during this session: he confessed his actions to a high priest of Hieroneous, sought guidance, and was genuinely upset and confused over what he had done. A good RP session.



excellent! I'm glad something possitive came out of all this.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 15, 2005)

Bravo!  An excellent way to handle the issue.  Lemons to lemonade is always the best option.


----------



## FickleGM (Nov 15, 2005)

Nicely handled.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 15, 2005)

Exquisitly handled. Good job!


----------



## tonym (Nov 15, 2005)

You must be a supremely skillful and charming person to believe you can make that array of humiliations palatable to a player.  

I'm not the most likable fellow, but I'm nicer than that.

Good luck.


Tony M


----------



## Conaill (Nov 15, 2005)

Sounds good. Make sure not to spring the additional consequences on the player as a surprise. It's important that he realizes this is all part of the same package. Otherwise it might feel like he's being punished twice.


----------



## Demmero (Nov 15, 2005)

I guess I'm somewhere between the gung-ho positive replies and the flat-out negative one.

I don't see where Consequence #3 is anything but trouble down the line, but I like the way that you made the paladin the judge at the halfling's trial, giving him another chance to do "justice" upon him...but not in a moment of blind rage.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Nov 15, 2005)

Galfridus said:
			
		

> Thanks to everyone who posted advice -- it was very helpful!



Thank you for providing us with such an interesting set of circumstances to dissect and ruminate over. A very interesting set of decisions in the end by you so congratulations. Post back on this thread when the full ramifications have been revealed to the player. 
By the way, others should be cautious about giving away information unspoilered.


			
				tonym said:
			
		

> You must be a supremely skillful and charming person to believe you can make that array of humiliations palatable to a player.
> 
> I'm not the most likable fellow, but I'm nicer than that.



Hmmm...
I think most would agree that Galfridus sounds like he has an excellent group of players and as a DM, he's doing an excellent job too. tonym, I think you are far overstating the case in terms of what the DM believes of himself or needs to believe of himself. His entire group sounds much more mature than that and so I can't see where he would have a problem. As he says, the actions have provided a fantastically fertile ground for future roleplaying. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 15, 2005)

Then among us here, we can agree that the results are quiet, excellent, yes?


----------



## genshou (Nov 16, 2005)

I've been reading up on this thread for a few days (some of you may have noticed I've gotten awfully quiet).  Good to hear things turned out the way they did.

Though I would've been so happy to get to the end of the thread and read that he was planning to turn his Paladin into a Blackguard...


----------

