Paladin's dilemma: repentance but no punishment

[Conradine]

An old friend of the paladin become filthy rich using evil ways. Not Vile-level Evil but your mundane kind of evil: loan-sharking, exploiting legal loopholes, corruption to get favors from political figures, paying thugs to intimidate rivals, extortion, blackmail ecc.

All crimes done not "for the Evulz" but in the name of greed. Pure, undiluted lust for gold and riches. Very despicable, and very human.

The criminal now lives a life of moderate comfort in a foreign country, his misdeeds skillfully covered up by greasing many palms.

The paladin come to visit him, knowing of his past crimes, and they talk.

---

The evil doer is genuinely repented of his past misdeeds. He no longer does evil things, he donates to charity, he uses his money to give work ( honestly retributed work ) to many people, he's a productive and benevolent member of his community.

But he refuses to accept punishment for his past deeds. Because such punishment, should he return to the country were he did his intrigues and confess, would be execution.

" I know I did evil things in the past. I'm trying to atone as much as I can. But please, don't ask me to return and give myself to the authority. I'm not brave enough to face the gallows, I'm afraid to die. "


What would be the right thing to do?

[GloatingSwine]

I'm not seeing the dilemma.

A Paladin isn't an enforcer of the law of any particular place, they are champion of good which follows a set code of honourable behaviour (that's the lawful bit, not an adherence to specific temporal laws).

If the paladin's friend is genuine in their redemption, then the paladin would be happy for them.

[legomaster00156]

The correct solution is to help the villain with his atonement. If there is genuine desire to do good, then the punishment is barely relevant, and entirely irrelevant to the paladin. What matters to the paladin is getting one more soul into Heaven.

[pabelfly]

An old friend of the paladin become filthy rich using evil ways. Not Vile-level Evil but your mundane kind of evil: loan-sharking, exploiting legal loopholes, corruption to get favors from political figures, paying thugs to intimidate rivals, extortion, blackmail ecc.

All crimes done not "for the Evulz" but in the name of greed. Pure, undiluted lust for gold and riches. Very despicable, and very human.

The criminal now lives a life of moderate comfort in a foreign country, his misdeeds skillfully covered up by greasing many palms.

The paladin come to visit him, knowing of his past crimes, and they talk.

---

The evil doer is genuinely repented of his past misdeeds. He no longer do evil things, he donates to charity, he uses his money to give work ( honestly retributed work ) to many people, he's a productive and benevolent member of his community.

But he refuses to accept punishment for his past deeds. Because such punishment, should he return to the country were he did his intrigues and confess, would be execution.

" I know I did evil things in the past. I'm trying to atone as much as I can. But please, don't ask me to return and give myself to the authority. I'm not brave enough to face the gallows, I'm afraid to die. "


What would be the right thing to do?

I would think that the Paladin would take the person back to be tried and would do their best to have evidence presented to show the truth. I would think that the Paladin would make some character representation of this person's latter philanthropy and charity to argue for a lighter sentence, but they also would want to make sure the people who were extorted and blackmailed and so forth get justice too.

[dancrilis]

There is nothing actually worse then neutral about loan-sharking, exploiting legal loopholes, corruption to get favors from political figures, paying thugs to intimidate rivals, extortion, blackmail ect.
In fact depending on circumstances you might even be able to maintain a lawful good alignment and undertake all of it.

Unless the paladin is an officer of the law of the land (either the current land or the land of origin) and tasked to interfere they probably shouldn't.

[Esprit15]

I would think that the Paladin would take the person back to be tried and would do their best to have evidence presented to show the truth. I would think that the Paladin would make some character representation of this person's latter philanthropy and charity to argue for a lighter sentence, but they also would want to make sure the people who were extorted and blackmailed and so forth get justice too.

Given that "justice" in their home country is death, I think skirting the law here would do more good than going back and confessing, expecting mercy. Nations that prescribe death for crimes like this tend to not be big on the concept of mercy or repentance.

[MisterKaws]

Being Lawful has no relation to following any country's laws. This has already been discussed ad nauseam on these boards. A Paladin does not at all need to enforce a law he does not agree with, and should never execute someone who generates so much income for the population.

Instead, having him killed would generate a power vacuum in the region, reducing thousands to unemployment, and opening up the space for an actual tyrant. Were I the patron God of this Paladin, and he chose to kill his friend over past deeds he's already working to atone for, I'd take away his divine powers until he atoned by fetching the guy from hell and returning him to his job.

[Conradine]

There is nothing actually worse then neutral about loan-sharking, exploiting legal loopholes, corruption to get favors from political figures, paying thugs to intimidate rivals, extortion, blackmail ect.


Actually this is the "lightest" sin worth of damnation mentioned in the codex: "stealing from the needy".
It's only 1 point of corruption, but it stacks.

[dancrilis]

Actually this is the "lightest" sin worth of damnation mentioned in the codex: "stealing from the needy".
It's only 1 point of corruption, but it stacks.

2 actually based on page 30 - but you didn't specify stealing from anyone let alone the needed.

[Evil DM Mark3]

There is nothing actually worse then neutral about loan-sharking, exploiting legal loopholes, corruption to get favors from political figures, paying thugs to intimidate rivals, extortion, blackmail ect.

Ah, no, several of those are definitely evil. I don't doubt that extortion and blackmail could be used in a CG sort of way when the goal is one's own personal wealth its degrading the quality of another person's life and causing suffering for the sake of your own quality of life.

If the man is genuinely repentant, (and a Paladin usually has the tools to tell if a person is evil, which they would be if they hadn't repented) then the paladin needn't do anything, and to be honest unless they also have law enforcement powers may not be able to do anything. However "not evil" is a long way from "just and fair". The Paladin could, and probably should, make it clear that he would expect the man to face the consequences of his actions and not to hide behind the wealth and status evil bought him. Even if he isn't willing to face the court out of cowardice then he should at least ensure that those with whom he conspired, and who are likely still at large, are outed. He should, if he genuinely regrets what he has done, be looking to make amends. If I was the Paladin I would be polite, but also make it clear that I had still lost a friend. Its the differnce between not being evil and being good. Between no longer being a criminal and being an honest person.

[Segev]

Justice requires restitution. Mercy requires that it not be beyond the means of the truly repentant. Avoiding real-world religion, the merciful paladin should point out that doing good NOW, while good, doesn't serve as restitution to those his friend wronged in the past. In D&D, there's a lot that can be done to recompense even things that are impossible to make up for in real life (e.g. death). The paladin should insist, if not that his friend face what are potentially unjust laws (none of the listed wrongdoings sound like they should be capital offenses; this sounds like a potentially overly-harsh regime), that his friend devote significant resources to actively finding those who he wronged and making it up to them and/or their families. If the paladin wishes to help by being an agent of investigation, so much the better.

[ZamielVanWeber]

There are many forms of attunement that do not mandate suicidal acts of penance. Donating his wealth, volunteering in a house for the poor, working to bring down the corrupt politicians.

The man can surrender his ill gotten gains or turn them into a force for the light. There are options the paladin can recommend that do not mandate a criminal justice system that demands blood.

[pabelfly]

Given that "justice" in their home country is death, I think skirting the law here would do more good than going back and confessing, expecting mercy. Nations that prescribe death for crimes like this tend to not be big on the concept of mercy or repentance.

The person committed these crimes fully understanding the punishment that would occur and it's said in the OP that these were evil acts. I'd let the Paladin sort it out however they felt was right but if it were my character I'd be hauling them back for trial and get justice for the wronged.

[dancrilis]

Ah, no, several of those are definitely evil.
Which ones?

To save time (imagine you are a character living in a largely neutral evil settlement):
loan-sharking - loaning people who the bank rejects money and expecting to be paid back - does not seem to be evil.
exploiting legal loopholes - depending on what the loopholes are (tax dodging etc) - does not seem to be evil.
corruption to get favors from political figures - if you know the political figure and ask them for favours they wouldn't likely grant other (can I get the licence for trading spears expedited?) - does not seem evil.
paying thugs to intimidate rivals - if your rival starts it, harassing your customers, sending a relative to break things in your store, asking the corrupt town guard captain (one of your loyal customers) to sort it out for a slight fee - does not seem evil.
extortion - noticing that your supplier is trying to sell you inferior iron and holding it over them, while not informing your rival (the guy you needed to intimidate away), or the authorities who might seriously hurt the guy who sought to compromise weapon quality - doesn't seem evil.
blackmail - finding out your rival is working for a enemy noble to the one running the town, and blackmailing them to leave - doesn't seem evil.

All could be done for a profit motive.

Now walking out of that town with a lawful good alignment might be a challenge - but I see no reason you couldn't walk out with a good alignment, returning to the town would be a death sentance as the local NE noble finds out you let him enemies get away, his iron supplies to be compromised and his taxes to be undercut on a technicality (they might not care about the rest).

[Conradine]

2 actually based on page 30 - but you didn't specify stealing from anyone let alone the needed.

All the actions I listed are theft in spirit - if not in letter. Loan sharking is usually against the poor and the needy.
Bribe and extortion are basically variants of the same crime: theft.



(none of the listed wrongdoings sound like they should be capital offenses; this sounds like a potentially overly-harsh regime)

Corruption was punished with death by many cultures including ancient romans.

[Anymage]

The paladin would not fall, because since we're talking about paladins in Conradine threads the paladin would have fallen due to some stray impure thought long ago.

[Psychoalpha]

Some days I wish the sort of people prone to playing Paladins would understand that Good is what they're supposed to do, and Lawful is just how they're supposed to go about it.

Forcing this guy to go back to face his death isn't going to undo any of the wrongs committed in the past, it's not going to promote any Good, it's just enforcing Law for the sake of Law. Make what arguments you want about justice, but nothing listed seems like execution is a reasonable thing for a Paladin to support, laws be damned. If a Paladin travels to a place where stealing will 100% of the time result in your hand getting chopped off if you're caught, I would fully expect that Paladin to ignore petty theft 100% of the time, if doing otherwise would mean amputation.

Justice may require restitution, but a Paladin's devotion shouldn't be entirely or even primarily to justice, but to Good. Does it promote any Good to see him executed? Does it promote any Good to remove him from a life of atonement and charity? Having been evil in the past should be, imo, almost entirely irrelevant to these questions.

So unless your Paladin is actually a law enforcement officer charged with such things, or a bounty hunter who's seeking out criminals whose executions he believes would promote Good or stop Evil, taking him back just seems like... well, like the sort of laser focused Lawful that makes people not want to play with Paladins.

[GloatingSwine]

So unless your Paladin is actually a law enforcement officer charged with such things, or a bounty hunter who's seeking out criminals whose executions he believes would promote Good or stop Evil, taking him back just seems like... well, like the sort of laser focused Lawful that makes people not want to play with Paladins.

Even in those situations, a Paladin should prefer the outcome which doesn't reduce the doing of Good in the world.

Which is the outcome of "taking him in".

If you're going to play a lawman whose primary guiding motivation is a particular nation's set of laws, you probably shouldn't play a Paladin, because if the two are in conflict a Paladin should put Good above Law.

[Red Fel]

Some days I wish the sort of people prone to playing Paladins would understand that Good is what they're supposed to do, and Lawful is just how they're supposed to go about it.

Forcing this guy to go back to face his death isn't going to undo any of the wrongs committed in the past, it's not going to promote any Good, it's just enforcing Law for the sake of Law. Make what arguments you want about justice, but nothing listed seems like execution is a reasonable thing for a Paladin to support, laws be damned. If a Paladin travels to a place where stealing will 100% of the time result in your hand getting chopped off if you're caught, I would fully expect that Paladin to ignore petty theft 100% of the time, if doing otherwise would mean amputation.

This. I'm with the people who say "I don't see a dilemma."

The Paladin isn't an agent of this foreign government - he's a soldier for Good. Taking this person - who is now an upstanding member of the community, charitable soul, and powerful individual promoting Good in the world - to another country for the sole purpose of having him executed does not promote Good in the world. If anything, it diminishes Good in the world for the sake of the law. Not the capital-L Law, just the law. Mortal law.

Nor is a person saying "I won't go back and face trial" the same as a person refusing to accept punishment. There are lots of ways he could receive punishment where he is, even at the hands of the Paladin or his associates. The person in question could agree to certain terms - like a tithing obligation or public shaming or similar - or could accept a Geas or Mark of Justice or similar. There's nothing here that says the guy rejects any punishment, only that he rejects execution - and honestly, you can't really blame him for that.

I wouldn't make a Paladin fall for dragging a Good person, a force for Good in the world, off to be executed. But I would certainly give him a vision, after the fact, of the future that could have been, which he destroyed through his over-adherence to little-l law over big-G Good.

[Agrippa]

As far as I'm concerned, the paladin's old "friend" isn't truly repentant if he isn't at least trying to make restitution to his victims. He's just self-deluded scum who thinks that a few years of good deeds can wipe away his likely decades worth of abuse and oppression of the poor. This guy's an ex-loan shark, right? That means he charged exorbitant interest on his loans, I'm willing to bet in excess of 30-40%, most likely in under two weeks. Then your theoretical paladin's "friend" likely backed up each loan he made with blackmail, threats of violence, debt bondage and sexual extortion.

I'd say his "repentance" seems pretty fishy to me and more like he's trying to whitewash his record than anything else. Look for someone else to run this bastard's commercial/charitable empire before bringing him in, that and try to arrange a lighter sentence for him if he flips on his past co-conspirators. I'd also do my best to convince him to pay restitution to his victims and their dependents. That's just me though.

[Conradine]

As far as I'm concerned, the paladin's old "friend" isn't truly repentant if he isn't at least trying to make restitution to his victims.


He's trying to make restitutions. And he's really remorseful. The point is , while he makes restitution, he doesn't accept the harsh punishment ( execution, branding, mutilation ecc. ) that he earned with his crimes.

Or, more specifically, he's too coward to face the punishment.

Basically the fundamental point of the OP is: restitution is necessary for redemption, ok, we all agree on that; but is punishment also absolutely necessary for redemption?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

He's trying to make restitutions. And he's really remorseful. The point is , while he makes restitution, he doesn't accept the harsh punishment ( execution, branding, mutilation ecc. ) that he earned with his crimes.

Or, more specifically, he's too coward to face the punishment.

Basically the fundamental point of the OP is: restitution is necessary for redemption, ok, we all agree on that; but is punishment also absolutely necessary for redemption?The two main reasons for punishment are to A.) act as a deterrent (which is no longer apropos, since it's already done and won't happen again), and B.) ensure some sort of restitution for the victims (which doesn't often happen in most places, since the punishment is prison, or maiming, or some other sort of suffering, and fines go to the government rather than the victims).

Since A is no longer a factor due to him being truly remorseful and not willingly doing it again, and B is pointless since he's freely ensuring that restitution happens of his own volition, no. No punishment is necessary. The paladin in question should look over what he's doing already and should make suggestions if the restitution isn't entirely acceptable.

Otherwise, no; he's already punishing himself, and more is both unnecessary and counterproductive. At this point, it's not punishment; it's revenge.

[Evil DM Mark3]

To save time (imagine you are a character living in a largely neutral evil settlement):

Irrelevant. It could be muderville, (the town run by murderers, for murderers) if you are blackmailing someone out of greed you are behaving in an evil fashion.


Basically the fundamental point of the OP is: restitution is necessary for redemption, ok, we all agree on that; but is punishment also absolutely necessary for redemption?

When you say redemption, do you mean to become "Good" or "Not evil". People tend to forget that Neutral is a thing and Paladins are at war with Evil, not Non-goodness. I would argue that this guy is currently in the Neutrals because he hasn't sought restitution nor has he given up the gains of his evil acts.

But, to address the OP, no punishment is irrelevant for redemption because punishment is an external force and external forces don't change your alignment (outside of certain magic), although your reaction to them can.

If this guy chose to face the music, that is him seeking redemption and he wouldn't fail to be seeking redemption and this remain LN if he was, say, pardoned by the king and thus never punished. Take that to its logical extreme and you have a world where publicly flogging the entire town whenever a crime happens is morally right as punishing the guilty party stops them becoming evil.

Likewise he could donate all or the mast majority of his wealth to the needy and spend his life in service to the vulnerable, seeking to do more good than he did evil. That would also, under a different PoV perhaps, count as seeking redemption. Which is better is a complex matter that plays in Law Vs Chaos more than Good Vs Evil.

[Agrippa]

He's trying to make restitutions. And he's really remorseful. The point is , while he makes restitution, he doesn't accept the harsh punishment ( execution, branding, mutilation ecc. ) that he earned with his crimes.

Or, more specifically, he's too coward to face the punishment.

Basically the fundamental point of the OP is: restitution is necessary for redemption, ok, we all agree on that; but is punishment also absolutely necessary for redemption?

Has he made restitution to the people he's hurt? If not, then he isn't truly atoning for his sins, he's just running from them like the spineless coward he is. By refusing to risk and accept punishment for his crimes, this paladin's "friend" is also refusing to accept responsibility for those actions. His new life as a philanthropist doesn't wash away his past life as a cruel and brutal loan shark. As I say, find someone else to take over his businesses and philanthropy, someone at least just as capable without the taint of having abused and mistreated the poor and powerless for his own greed. And if the paladin's "friend" is afraid of execution, he can always turn on any of his accomplices for leniency.

[MisterKaws]

Has he made restitution to the people he's hurt? If not, then he isn't truly atoning for his sins, he's just running from them like the spineless coward he is. By refusing to risk and accept punishment for his crimes, this paladin's "friend" is also refusing to accept responsibility for those actions. His new life as a philanthropist doesn't wash away his past life as a cruel and brutal loan shark. As I say, find someone else to take over his businesses and philanthropy, someone at least just as capable without the taint of having abused and mistreated the poor and powerless for his own greed. And if the paladin's "friend" is afraid of execution, he can always turn on any of his accomplices for leniency.

...And, as I said before, if you kill him, all those people he raised from poverty to modest living conditions through his philanthropy will drop back do unemployment. Then, because there's no one taking care of whatever business he ran, someone worse will just come along and take it all for themselves.

How is that good, or Good for that matter? You kill the guy as a punishment, and whole cities suffer because you just had to kill the damn guy. He's atoning on his own way, and does it really matter whether the guy has become a monk of some sort or not? He's doing more good alive than dead, and killing him would be the real evil here.

[dancrilis]

How is that good, or Good for that matter?

There is an arguement that killing good people sends them to the upper planes and therefore helps good at a cosmic level - if this holds true then killing good people could be considered an act of good (and redeeming evil people to kill them once they ping as good would be a valid tactic for helping Good dominate the cosmos).

[PoeticallyPsyco]

There is an arguement that killing good people sends them to the upper planes and therefore helps good at a cosmic level - if this holds true then killing good people could be considered an act of good (and redeeming evil people to kill them once they ping as good would be a valid tactic for helping Good dominate the cosmos).

Unless they come back as a ghost because of unfinished business (such as you killing them before they finished making amends in this case), in which case you have actually increased the net evil in the universe. Oops.

[Peat]

To me there's no dilemma. He doesn't need to be punished to be redeemed and even if he did, it wouldn't have to be the legal punishment of his home jurisdiction.

[Jack_Simth]

If the paladin's friend is genuine in their redemption, then the paladin would be happy for them.

Justice requires restitution.

This. I'm with the people who say "I don't see a dilemma."

Most of the dilemma boils down to a different question: "What is the most important purpose of justice?"
"Punishing the guilty", "Preventing problem behavior as much as possible", "bettering society as a whole", "taking care of the victims" and many other possible answers will be given by different folks. Which answer a given person sees as most important will guide their response to the OP's dilemma.

From a perspective of "Punish the guilty": Take the guy in, he's guilty as sin; he absolutely committed the crimes, in full knowledge of the law of the land. What dilemma? The answer is obvious.

From a perspective of "Preventing problem behavior": Taking him in for punishment will help make it clear that such behavior really isn't tolerated ... but it's also already handled, at least for this guy. A person who looks at it this way is likely to find either behavior on the Paladin's part acceptable.

From a perspective of "Bettering society as a whole": You let him stay right where he is. He's making things better, and taking him in wouldn't help much. What dilemma? The answer is obvious.

From a perspective of "taking care of the victims": His death might give them some closure, but that's about it. Convincing him to make some form of restitution to his victims is the obviously correct way to go.

... and on, and on, and on.

But here's the rub: What the paladin "should do" is guided by "What is the most important purpose of justice?" - and that's not really an arguable thing. It's also a thing that a rather lot of people will consider "obviously it's ..." and not really think beyond that.

So I see how it is a dilemma. I also see how it's not.

[denthor]

I am forced to agree with Red Fel. That felt wrong. I hate paladin. This one does not have a problem however, he is on a foreign land the laws are not the same.

Solution is take him down to a church of his deity ask the church to by spell change his alignment this will cost. Both the friend and the priest. If the friend refuses he is not repentant. Then there is a problem.

[Agrippa]

...And, as I said before, if you kill him, all those people he raised from poverty to modest living conditions through his philanthropy will drop back do unemployment. Then, because there's no one taking care of whatever business he ran, someone worse will just come along and take it all for themselves.

I said after finding someone to replace him in his business and philanthropic roles. Someone who hasn't made a living from preying upon the poor and helpless. I'm also giving him chance to save his life by testifying against his accomplices, thus putting an end to further injustice. Have you not read those parts? He's still profiting off his past bad acts, therefore he hasn't fully repented, in my eyes at least. Otherwise he's not an atoner, just a retired monster.

[Duff]

An element which has not been discussed - Does the (former) relationship change the paladin's responsibility?
For roleplaying, it would become harder if the paladin felt their vows require them to "bring the criminal to justice" but their own friendship may be making it hard. Depending on how meta you want to go, the paladin may feel that all they need to do is point the charitable works toward the victims of the crimes (or at least "the poor in the home town", but then question themselves on if that is correct, or are they making the wrong call due to the friendship?

[Psyren]

The paladin would not fall, because since we're talking about paladins in Conradine threads the paladin would have fallen due to some stray impure thought long ago.

This.


All the actions I listed are theft in spirit - if not in letter. Loan sharking is usually against the poor and the needy.
Bribe and extortion are basically variants of the same crime: theft.

If it was truly theft from the needy, then this guy has an obligation to make restitution to those victims specifically, or their descendants or loved ones. Staying wealthy with the occasional donation to an unrelated charity isn't quite good enough. He can figure out a way to do that without putting himself in certain danger if he has to.

[D+1]

What would be the right thing to do?
In real life?
In EVERYONE'S campaign, or just yours?

[Esclados]

I'd say it depends pretty heavily on the paladin's order and deity.

A paladin of Sarenrae on Golarion would probably be overjoyed by their old associate's redemption, and care chiefly about making sure the former criminal's soul is truly saved. They'd definitely help facilitate making restitution to people harmed back home for both parties' sake, delivering messages, gold, and the like.

A paladin of St. Cuthbert on Oerth might well insist they admit to their crimes and face their victims back home as a matter of adherence to the law (assuming they're empowered to carry this out in a foreign country, anyway)... though they might also put their own reputation on the line to see that justice is served and the guy isn't executed, using their church's ties to the justice system to encourage leniency given the criminal's willingness and ability to make things right.

Both are completely legitimate paladins.

[tiercel]

I'm with the people who say "I don't see a dilemma."

Y’know, when Red Fel is saying “you might be taking this ‘law’ thing a bit far,” it’s probably a sign. Unless it’s a trap.

:amused:

Having said that, I’m probably also with the “is the presumably-ex-bad-guy working to make some kind of amends/restitution to his victims?” camp. Especially with his resources — much less a paladin buddy — that should be possible without having to walk into the gallows. If he is trying to undo his evil as well as do actual good, that sounds like a total win condition for the paladin (and, presumably, for the redeemed villain, whose post-death destination will be much less likely to be a Very Hot Place).

[Conradine]

There is an arguement that killing good people sends them to the upper planes and therefore helps good at a cosmic level - if this holds true then killing good people could be considered an act of good (and redeeming evil people to kill them once they ping as good would be a valid tactic for helping Good dominate the cosmos).


... and Gary Gygax supported this view, it seems.
Terrifying. :smalleek:



Otherwise he's not an atoner, just a retired monster.

Television Tropes?



If he is trying to undo his evil as well as do actual good, that sounds like a total win condition for the paladin

Yes, he's trying everything reasonably possible to undo his evil and doing good

but

he has not the will to do the two thing that would fullfill the "punishment" part:

1- he's not giving himself up to the gallows
2- he has not gave up every single copper piece of his fortune to the poor ( although he's not living in luxury, just moderate comfort )


- - -


My opinion:

if the evil deeds are mundane, the Paladin should let this person try to atone his way.
But if the evil deed were Vile Evil, the Paladin should say " I'm sorry for you but these actions demand justice".

[Ubak]

I think that trying to separate evil into categories is a slippery slope for a paladin. Also, paladin deciding to leave his friend alone (without taking any action) may be grounds for falling on the basis of abandoning his duty (with obvious atonement being to return and take action).

I think that correct actions for paladin would be trying to seek advice from his god/cleric of his god/his order/his lord or, at the very least, other people (there is no shame in deciding he isn't able to accurately judge somebody). Other courses of action could be trying to test his friend in some way (you've got one month to leave your business in capable hands and then you'll leave to face judgement. If his friend decides to run we may judge that he doesn't deserve mercy - especially so if he tries to take his wealth with him). If a paladin thinks that country's laws are unjust, maybe trying to bring this person to a more appropriate place (church of his god/his order, might also depend on whether his friend was a paladin himself or not - if he was then breaking his vows is another crime he had committed). If they're leaving together it would be a good idea to leave this business in capable hands of somebody who lives his life admirably.

I think that leaving his friend as he is is an affront not only to the people that were wronged but also to those who never strayed from the path of good. Is the message that one can freely commit evil as long as he plans to retire into the life of philanthropy with his ill-gotten wealth later in life one we want to send to others? It could become the justification that some need to fall into a life of evil after all. Also, I don't think that the punishment the perpetrator set for himself is significant enough for the paladin to leave it alone - paladin should take in consideration that in this situation his judgement may be clouded by the fact that the perpetrator is his friend and he may not be able to accurately assess the situation.

And one more thing, in kind of medieval age D&D is set being indebted isn't like the current day where you can declare you're bankrupt. I imagine that when his debtors went bankrupt they become part of the debt - not just their possessions, money, land or house. They could be sold to slavery or otherwise made to repay the debt. The friend could do things to them as part of demanding repayment on the debt. And if the friend wouldn't do that it, it's probable he wouldn't become rich which he had.

I see the punishment as a preventative measure, recompense to the injured party, isolation of the spread of evil and a way of establishing equivalences - if he had done this, taken things from people then the people should be able to take things from him, impose the punishment they deem to be appropriate as the party that was hurt and the amends that were made may deem to be insufficient. Take into consideration that he didn't part with all his ill-gotten wealth hence it could be said that he is still profiting from his crimes in the form of living a moderately wealth life. With this in mind, one could even say that the perpetrator didn't even try to redeem himself.

[Conradine]

It's a situation grey enough to justify several kind of actions.
I wouldn't make a Paladin fall ( jokes aside ) whatever his decision would be.

With one notable exception.

If the country laws inflict torture ( not simple, clean death penalty ) like the infamous Prisoner's Carnival of Luskan, I would make any Paladin fall for giving a prisoner - no matter how much vile and evil - to such a corrupt mockery of justice.

Much better just to kill the evil doer with his hands, if there are no other solutions.

Fiendish Codex puts torture as the worst possible sin, and I agree.

[Red Fel]

Or, more specifically, he's too coward to face the punishment.

Basically the fundamental point of the OP is: restitution is necessary for redemption, ok, we all agree on that; but is punishment also absolutely necessary for redemption?


he has not the will to do the two thing that would fullfill the "punishment" part:

1- he's not giving himself up to the gallows


If the country laws inflict torture ( not simple, clean death penalty ) like the infamous Prisoner's Carnival of Luskan, I would make any Paladin fall for giving a prisoner - no matter how much vile and evil - to such a corrupt mockery of justice.

Much better just to kill the evil doer with his hands, if there are no other solutions.

I've said it before, I will say it again.


Nor is a person saying "I won't go back and face trial" the same as a person refusing to accept punishment. There are lots of ways he could receive punishment where he is, even at the hands of the Paladin or his associates. The person in question could agree to certain terms - like a tithing obligation or public shaming or similar - or could accept a Geas or Mark of Justice or similar. There's nothing here that says the guy rejects any punishment, only that he rejects execution - and honestly, you can't really blame him for that.

You are conflating punishment under the law - that is, the punishment he faced at the time and place of his crimes, under their laws - with punishment absolutely - that is, any consequence for his actions. You're saying that the latter is limited to the former.

It isn't.

You acknowledge that he is truly repentant. You acknowledge that he is giving away his wealth - not all of it, but a significant amount and enough to make a significant difference. You acknowledge that he is, in many ways, punishing himself. And there can always be more of that.

And yet, you insist that he still must die, because that was the legal punishment - at the time and place of his crimes - for his conduct. You insist that this punishment must be carried out, or else he is escaping without consequence. Not only is that not true, it is also LN at best. Insisting on enforcing a punishment - including one as severe as execution - for no purpose other than to see the law enforced is not a Good position. It is a Neutral position at best. "Enforcing Law for Law's sake" is LN. LG is epitomized by tempering adherence to order with mercy and compassion - you are demanding that your Paladin show none of this.

Once again, for everyone in the back: He is not avoiding any punishment simply because he avoids this specific punishment.

[GloatingSwine]

I think that trying to separate evil into categories is a slippery slope for a paladin. Also, paladin deciding to leave his friend alone (without taking any action) may be grounds for falling on the basis of abandoning his duty (with obvious atonement being to return and take action).


Yet putting mortal laws before the ideal of Good is a worse one.

To a champion of Good, an evil person redeemed and now doing good in equal measure is a far greater thing than an evil person punished for past deeds.

[gkathellar]

This all depends on the paladin in question, exactly what they believe, and what powers and oaths they are beholden to. There are differing views on the purpose of punishment - principally, is its function to rehabilitate or to exact some form of "justice?" - and neither view is necessarily more Lawful Good or more paladin-ish than the other.

As with most "paladin dilemma" questions, the answer is that not all paladins are identical to one another.

[Conradine]

I've an opinion on the matter "mortal law".

One thing is to kidnap someone who did a crime outside your country and putting him to trial with your laws. This is "illegittimate authority" ( Miko's behiavour ).

Another thing is if someone consciously breaks a country's law fully knowing the consequences and then escape. This would be "extradition".



you are demanding that your Paladin show none of this.

No, I'm not. I'm just asking your ( whole forum ) opinion on the matter.
I even said it's an evil action to give a prisoner to be tortured.

[Red Fel]

I've an opinion on the matter "mortal law".

One thing is to kidnap someone who did a crime outside your country and putting him to trial with your laws. This is "illegittimate authority" ( Miko's behiavour ).

Which is the "dilemma" in the OP - whether the Paladin should do this specific thing. Whether the Paladin should take this person to another country and put him on trial with their laws. As you point out, that's kidnapping.


Another thing is if someone consciously breaks a country's law fully knowing the consequences and then escape. This would be "extradition".

By the country. Extradition is an act taken by a country via its agents. It is not an action taken by a private citizen, especially one of another country. That is not extradition. It is kidnapping.


No, I'm not. I'm just asking your ( whole forum ) opinion on the matter.
I even said it's an evil action to give a prisoner to be tortured.

Tortured, yes. But you're suggesting that handing a prisoner over to die a meaningless death is not an Evil action.

You have to be suggesting that. Because if you aren't, there is no dilemma. If it is not an Evil action to send a Good person to a meaningless death, the Paladin might consider it, but if it is an Evil action, there's no dilemma - the Paladin simply won't do it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The dilemma only exists if the paladin is foolish. There are so many ways the criminal can show penitence and accept punishment that don't involve execution. Let me steal from a real world example: the criminal donates *all* his wealth save an simple set of clothes, a pat, and a holy symbol and performs a pilgrimage barefoot, even going so far as to be on his knees for the last mile of it.

He has made restitution to the best of his ability and has physical and mental pain to offer up to the gods his joy at finding a new life free of his old cruelties as well as sorrow for the evils he committed.

[Gallowglass]

You would have to make some serious -setting-specific- additions to the base paladin code of duty to make this non-pointless.

You would have to declare that this paladin is an agent of the specific foreign goverment, not just of his church

Or you would have to declare that paladins, in accordance with their code of duty, act as general "bounty" hunters. That they have been given the authority to seize fugitives outside of jurisdiction and bring them back to jurisdiction. Not for profit (although perhaps the bounty is paid to the church) but for "justice"

This, by the way, is the semi-legal, semi-legitimate way that bounty hunters in real life operate. They act as semi-legitimate "officers of the court". The reason, for example, Arizona might allow a Texas bounty hunter to come in and seize a fugitive and return them to Texas without calling it kidnapping is because they want their Arizona "officers of the court" to be able to go into TEXAS and do the same thing. So they have a loose cross-jurisdiction agreement. You leave the confines of a single country and you often find the same general loose cross-jurisdiction agreements. At least enough that a bounty hunter might try following someone to a non extradition country and "kidnap" them if they think they can get away with it.

And, assuming the now-redeemed former-evil-doer is in a country that does not allow extradition or actions by said "bounty" hunters, then the paladin has to have it written as part of his code of duty that he is only bound by the laws of his home country (the one he is already declared an agent of) and not by conflicting laws in a different country he happens to be in.

Your scenario does not specify these things.

If you did specify these things, and state that it is all part of the paladin's code of duty, then he's duty bound to do so.

But, barring that, he's only bound to work for good. And good benefits from this well-doer continuing to do-well, not pay for crimes long since past.

[Anymage]

he has not the will to do the two thing that would fullfill the "punishment" part:

1- he's not giving himself up to the gallows
2- he has not gave up every single copper piece of his fortune to the poor ( although he's not living in luxury, just moderate comfort )

The bit about paladins and falling is a red herring here, and instead boils down to general moral philosophy. Which can be fun to discuss, but shouldn't make someone feel like their class features are on the line.

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up Jean Valjean here, as he's a classic case of a character who has done bad things, and the question of at what point we consider someone redeemed for their past. Similarly, I can't help but think of the character Dr. Schlichter von Koenigswald from Cat's Cradle, a former nazi turned into a caring medic, who hopes that the lives he saves will in some way balance out the lives he destroyed. (The novel mentions that at his current rate of saving people, he can expect the books to be balanced by the year 3010.) How should either of these characters be treated?

[Conradine]

Tortured, yes. But you're suggesting that handing a prisoner over to die a meaningless death is not an Evil action.


Let me answer with a quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds. ( page 11 )


The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated. The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest
criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness during their imprisonment. Torturing prisoners, either to extract information or simply as a means of punishment, is unequivocally evil, however.



Which is the "dilemma" in the OP - whether the Paladin should do this specific thing. Whether the Paladin should take this person to another country and put him on trial with their laws. As you point out, that's kidnapping.


No, definetly no.

In the OP , the evil doer broke the laws of Country 1, then escaped to Country 2. To bring him back to Country 2 by any means is extradition.

If someone , resident in Country 1, do an action that in Country 2 is a crime, then is brought to Country 2 and tried according to Country 2 laws, that is kidnapping.

Example:

I'm resident in Calimshan and I buy a slave. Slavery is illegal in Cormyr. Someone capture me and brings me from Calimshan to Cormyr, were I am tried according to Cormyr law ( although my actions were done in Calimshan ). This is kidnapping.

I'm resident in Cormyr and illegaly kidnap, enslave and sell people. Then I escape to Calimshan. Someone capture me and brings me back to Cormyr, were I am tried according to Cormyr law ( where I did the action ). This is extradition.

[Gallowglass]

Let me answer with a quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds. ( page 11 )


The principles of good make certain demands about how criminals are treated. The death penalty for serious crimes is commonly practiced and widely accepted and does not qualify as evil, even if many good characters, firm in their belief that redemption is always possible, would rather see even the vilest
criminals offered the opportunity to find their way to righteousness during their imprisonment. Torturing prisoners, either to extract information or simply as a means of punishment, is unequivocally evil, however.



Yeah. I can't really tell you what I think of that quote under forum rules.

Suffice to say, this doesn't prove that the death penalty is good or that everyone in D&D is bound to treat it as good. It means that James Wyatt, Darrin Drader and/or Chris Perkins felt that writing that line made sense and didn't have an editor contradict or override them.

Whether or not any individual act is "evil" is setting dependent, not system dependent. Whether or not they are [Evil] is slightly more fixed by the rules.




No, definetly no.

In the OP , the evil doer broke the laws of Country 1, then escaped to Country 2. To bring him back to Country 2 by any means is extradition.

If someone , resident in Country 1, do an action that in Country 2 is a crime, then is brought to Country 2 and tried according to Country 2 laws, that is kidnapping.

Example:

I'm resident in Calimshan and I buy a slave. Slavery is illegal in Cormyr. Someone capture me and brings me from Calimshan to Cormyr, were I am tried according to Cormyr law ( although my actions were done in Calimshan ). This is kidnapping.

I'm resident in Cormyr and illegaly kidnap, enslave and sell people. Then I escape to Calimshan. Someone capture me and brings me back to Cormyr, were I am tried according to Cormyr law ( where I did the action ). This is extradition.

Your definition of extradition does not match the dictionary definition.



the surrender of an alleged criminal usually under the provisions of a treaty or statute by one authority (such as a state) to another having jurisdiction to try the charge


it requires that country 2 be the ones delivering them back to country 1. Not Rando McPaladin, do-gooder at large.

[MisterKaws]

I said after finding someone to replace him in his business and philanthropic roles. Someone who hasn't made a living from preying upon the poor and helpless. I'm also giving him chance to save his life by testifying against his accomplices, thus putting an end to further injustice. Have you not read those parts? He's still profiting off his past bad acts, therefore he hasn't fully repented, in my eyes at least. Otherwise he's not an atoner, just a retired monster.


As I say, find someone else to take over his businesses and philanthropy, someone at least just as capable without the taint of having abused and mistreated the poor and powerless for his own greed. And if the paladin's "friend" is afraid of execution, he can always turn on any of his accomplices for leniency.


Huh.

In my defense, that was way after my appointed nappy time, so I was working on reduced brain power.

Still, that would require quite a bit of work. Is it really better to put someone new to all of this, who might get corrupted by power, over someone who became corrupted, saw through the taint, and changed their ways? With this former loan shark, you have a guarantee that he will work in the best interest of people, because he has repented(which can be testified by a number of spells), while a newcomer trustee would have no guarantee other than any magical contracts or geases.

In which case, why bother killing the guy? Isn't he just as capable as this newcomer? Aren't you just killing him over a skewered sense of justice that DEMANDS revenge? This seems Lawful Neutral over Lawful Good. A Paladin should always give a way for evildoers to repent, and this one repented by himself.

[Evil DM Mark3]

In the OP , the evil doer broke the laws of Country 1, then escaped to Country 2. To bring him back to Country 2 by any means is extradition.

To forcibly remove someone without legal authority is kidnapping. It may ALSO be extra-legal extradition, but it is kidnapping first and foremost.

[Elysiume]

Much like a random person killing someone on death row is murder, a random person forcibly moving someone from country A to country B is kidnapping.

[Psyren]

Yeah. I can't really tell you what I think of that quote under forum rules.

Suffice to say, this doesn't prove that the death penalty is good or that everyone in D&D is bound to treat it as good.

I mean, that's exactly what it means in the D&D game, like it or not.



Your definition of extradition does not match the dictionary definition.



it requires that country 2 be the ones delivering them back to country 1. Not Rando McPaladin, do-gooder at large.

On this I'll agree with you though - paladins are not legal authorities in places where they lack jurisdiction, and due process should matter to them.

(A CG hero of course does not have to care, and can "extradite" evildoers to face justice just fine.)

[hamishspence]

I mean, that's exactly what it means in the D&D game, like it or not.


It's more "Not Evil" than "Good". A Paladin of Tyranny is not usually going to Fall for executing somebody - but neither is a regular Paladin.

Exactly what constitutes "Serious crimes" is one of those things that will vary from DM to DM, too.

[Conradine]

People.

Exploiting flawed legal system and using bribe, corruption, blackmail ecc. to squeeze money from the poor is bad. Not bad as sadistical murder, but it still ruins lives and bring despair.

[Anymage]

People.

Exploiting flawed legal system and using bribe, corruption, blackmail ecc. to squeeze money from the poor is bad. Not bad as sadistical murder, but it still ruins lives and bring despair.

Correct.

However, if you're trying to make any sort of moral dilemma out of this, you have to ask a lot more questions. What are proportionate punishments, if you have to chose is it better to subject someone to an unfair punishment or to let them go free? Does the person do enough good that removing them would cause appreciably more harm than leaving them there? Have they changed enough in the intervening time that punishment would serve no purpose? When do you consider someone to be fully redeemed, and to what degree does mercy help put someone on the path to redemption? (Again, Jean Valjean comes immediately to mind here.)

If you want to explore morality while you're playing, you don't need to make it hinge on someone playing a character whose class features hinge on guessing right. If nothing else, people will wise up and stop playing paladins right quick. Just come right out with the problems you want to put in front of people, and let them decide what they think is more right. And realize that if there was one solution to moral problems that was easy, obvious, and right, morality as a whole would've been solved long ago.

[Bovine Colonel]

People.

Exploiting flawed legal system and using bribe, corruption, blackmail ecc. to squeeze money from the poor is bad. Not bad as sadistical murder, but it still ruins lives and bring despair.

I think you'd be seeing the same responses if the original post were about murder. No one's disputing that the friend in the scenario was evil and deserved at the time to be punished. The thing is, you don't punish someone just because they did a bad thing; you punish them to remove a threat to society, or to make restitution to the victims, or some similar reason. Personally, I'd argue that handing the criminal over would be both cruel (i.e. at least a little bit Evil) and counterproductive; not only are you removing a genuinely Good member of society, you're also sending the message to other wrongdoers that repentance is impossible or suicidal for capital crimes.

You've cited a quote that says the death penalty itself is not Evil, but I don't think that's relevant here - just because it's not Evil in general doesn't mean it's not Evil in this situation.

All this, of course, depends on whether the friend really has repented, which also seems to be a point of contention here. Maybe the Paladin can convince the friend to take a vow of poverty?

[Segev]

People.

Exploiting flawed legal system and using bribe, corruption, blackmail ecc. to squeeze money from the poor is bad. Not bad as sadistical murder, but it still ruins lives and bring despair.

I...don't think that's in dispute? The questions are:

1) Is it worthy of the death penalty?
and
2) Is a man who has committed those sins but is now doing his best to make up for it through actual good works so deserving of death that he should be dragged back to the nation he committed those crimes in for execution?

Question (2) being the biggest.

We're not talking about an escaped WWII Nazi war criminal, here. We're talking about a financial-crimes guy. At least, from what I'm reading in this thread. So (1) is even in question. But even were it not, if we take as given that he's truly remorseful for his crimes, and truly has changed, and truly is doing everything (short of turning himself over for execution) he can to make restitution... no, I don't think the Paladin has any obligation to take him back to that nation for execution.

[Psyren]

It's more "Not Evil" than "Good". A Paladin of Tyranny is not usually going to Fall for executing somebody - but neither is a regular Paladin.

That's what I meant - the passage says "does not qualify as evil."


Exactly what constitutes "Serious crimes" is one of those things that will vary from DM to DM, too.

Yes - they're leaving that open so that you can set the bar as high as your campaign needs it to be. Perhaps it's so high that only a fiend could merit that punishment for example.

[Conradine]

You've cited a quote that says the death penalty itself is not Evil, but I don't think that's relevant here - just because it's not Evil in general doesn't mean it's not Evil in this situation.

I just meant that it's not - for d&d standards - intrinsecally and always evil.



I think you'd be seeing the same responses if the original post were about murder.

If he was a sadistical serial rapist and killer I think most people would agree he had to pay with his life.
There wouldn't be much dilemma.



1) Is it worthy of the death penalty?
and
2) Is a man who has committed those sins but is now doing his best to make up for it through actual good works so deserving of death that he should be dragged back to the nation he committed those crimes in for execution?


Good questions. Here's the dilemma.

---

Jokes apart, I would not make a Paladin fall whatever his choice. It's indeed a grey situation.

[Bovine Colonel]

I don't think there's any reason to bring the death penalty into consideration. If there's any doubt about whether the friend has truly repented, or still deserves punishment or whatever, the paladin can pretty easily introduce the friend to a local senior priest. The friend can then take a few vows and spend the rest of his life giving every copper piece he makes to the poor while relying on the church for his basic needs. Repentance established for all to see, punishment administered, done.

[Gallowglass]

If he was a sadistical serial rapist and killer I think most people would agree he had to pay with his life.
There wouldn't be much dilemma.



EDIT: I'm just removing this. This is no longer a conversation about a role playing game. And that's what this board is for. So I'm removing my off-topic content.

[Ubak]

I think some clarification may be needed. I'll assume the paladin has the authority to bring the person in question back, even against their will, because if he can't then the discussion is pointless - or rather it starts to abandon the core question. I'll assume that the countries have an extradition treaty and the paladin is recognized as the figure of authority.

Other question would be: does the paladin think of laws of his country as just? If it's not the case then the paladin has no obligation of following them any more than following, say, the mafia boss' edict. I'll assume that paladin thinks of the laws as generally just and that this punishment (death) is generally a just one.

My observation and friend's testimony leads me to believe that even if he isn't evil now he had been in past. This is the assumption that I use to formulate my judgement.


After some consideration, my stance would be as follows:
Firstly, the paladin can't just walk away from this situation after the talk with a friend. Doing so would be to ignore the crime that had been committed and to abandon his duty. While it is necessary to take the weight of the crime in question, we're not talking about petty theft. The crime is significant enough to warrant death and as a paladin, we can't try to justify it as it's a slippery slope. Just walking away leaving the status quo would be no different than walking away in "I look around the corner and see a murder about to be committed, I could go in and intervene but I think I'll just go on my merry way" kind of situation. The injustice had been done and I'm in the position to try and amend it so I've got to take some steps to do something. The solution may vary from person to person but the paladin can't just turn the blind eye. The only exception would be if a paladin had an important business that is time-sensitive. In this case, he'd be forced to abandon it for now.

Secondly, the paladin shouldn't let their friendship to cloud his judgement. If he thinks he is inadequate he may try to relegate the job to somebody else.

Thirdly, as the perpetrator had committed a crime that warrants death, the self-imposed punishment isn't sufficient on the first glance. I think that the paladin should be required to, at the very least, make sure that the self-imposed punishment is followed through and the person in question won't return to the life of crime. Additionally, it would be expected that the injured parties be recompensed. If it's impossible then the death may be the correct course of action as the only way of setting things right so that the wronged parties may at least find solace in his death. The criminal not willing to face the punishment is a normal state of things and, if anything, it only serves to prove that the criminal's redemption isn't genuine.

Finally, as the business that had been created serves as a tool to create more good and well-being, the paladin should take steps to ensure that it continues to do so. Leaving the friend in this role is one option but we can't forget that letting the status quo continue is, ultimately, letting the criminal to enjoy the fruits of his crimes and sends the wrong message to the world by saying that you're free to commit evil and, as long as you claim to be redeemed, you will avoid the punishment. The paladin may know that the criminal has redeemed but I'd assume that for the general populace it will be the message that crime does indeed pay. Also, the established business ought to be known by his name (or he should be known as a founder) as a sign that redemption is indeed possible.

In conclusion, I think that this situation warrants punishment (to answer the question posed in the topic name). If I was put in this situation I'd either:
- return with the perpetrator to the home country, seeing this as an opportunity to change the unjust laws if I'd felt strongly about it (but I wouldn't think of it as required, it would probably depend on paladin's faith),

- deliver the perpetrator to an organization I deem worthy of resolving the conflict - probably my church - and leave the decision to them after giving my take on the situation (and if the friend was a paladin I'd bring him to my order because the crime of oathbreaking had likely been committed),

- if I didn't have much time and were to become a judge I'd rule that the perpetrator has to take enforced oath of poverty (by geas of enforced by somebody else) - as the greed had been the reason behind his crimes, become a subject of an atonement spell and live the rest of his life as a monk or as if he was a monk if he can't leave because he wants to continue leading the organization. In this situation, I could, with a clear conscience, say that the price of life had been paid. I'd consider this option as a last resort. (The costs would be paid by would-be profits of the friend and his property to the church that cast the spell(s) or to people that ensure that the verdict is upheld, maybe partially covered by paladin)

In any case, I'd probably try to preserve the organization.

[dancrilis]

I'll assume that the countries have an extradition treaty and the paladin is recognized as the figure of authority.

I think this is the core issue - that was not the case within the opening post.

Effectively if the paladin has the (1)duty (and authority) of extradition and (2)holds that the penalty is just - then yes they should do their duty, it is literally their job (so should a Lawful Good fighter, or a monk etc).
However if the paladin lacks either of these than they would either be (1) breaking the law or (2) delivering someone to an unjust punishment - and so they should likely stay out of it.

A seperate question might be:
There is a horrific criminal - multiple murders, child sacrifice, mutilations etc - who escaped justice.
The paladin comes across them decades later and they have reformed - now they hunt murderers, break up demon cults. Undoubtedly they are a good person now.
However the criminal believes that the good they do in life is worth more then the good their death would do - they have saved some of the souls they damned, have anonymously gotten many of those they killed raised etc, and saved many others besides.
Should the Paladin bring them in for punishment (death) if they have no legal authorty to do so, understand that they are reformed but feel that crimes commited justify the sentance and that the families deserve to see justice done?

Or to put it another way should a paladin assume that their judgement of 'good' is better than another good person's judgement of 'good' - and apply what they think over what the other person thinks?
Does the answer to that change if the other person is also paladin?

[Sutr]

I'm very confused at people saying repentance requires righting every wrong committed. Aren't repented fiends a thing in this game? A fiend who has spent literal eons spreading evil and injustice can still become good, can become a paladin.

This hypothetical fiend likely doesn't remember all the stuff they have done (no ranks autohypnosis or knowledge skills). If they go about the world stopping evil instead of righting their past wrongs; some people in this thread are acting like they can't be good because they can't remember that 20 years ago they got dirt farmer Bob to sell his soul so his housecat wouldn't kill the family.

I find this similar to the evil banker trying to use his wealth to help the people around him instead of going home to be executed. He may be doing the best he can without dying. Some of the people he may be helping may even be worse off than those he wronged.

Both can be truly sad about what they have done. Both would go out of there way to help the less fortunate. They can even help those that they wronged they come across. I think both can be good without the extreme penance of tracking every soul down and fixing all there wrongs.

[Psyren]

If he was a sadistical serial rapist and killer I think most people would agree he had to pay with his life.
There wouldn't be much dilemma.


"Most people would agree" is a real-world sort of judgement (a political one at that) and therefore not suitable for discussion here. What we can say is that executing such a person in a D&D setting is not an evil act by the rules set out in BoED. But Paladins aren't just good, they're lawful good - so going around executing people like Miko instead of following due process is not something they'd be likely to get away with for long.

[Esprit15]

Note to self: Don’t play a Paladin in any of your games.

For Goodness sake, the guy is repentant and doing good. Encourage him to remember those he specifically wronged and if possible, seek them out to make restitution, and keep up the good work. Why we have to bring sending him to his death is beyond me.

[AvatarVecna]

I can't rob Peter, pay Paul, and declare myself washed of sin and thus beyond punishment. Manipulating economies in such a manner hurts the people of the country whose economy was manipulated, and it's why such actions should come with stiff legal punishments. Depending on how much was taken and how large the economy was in the first place, it's entirely possible that the damage done through this theft has fairly widespread and longterm ramifications.

To use a specific example, if I swindle some elderly couple with no living relatives out of everything they own and then donate it all to charity, that's still two old people who are going to suffer and possibly die because of my actions; that it's not technically my fingerprints on the handle of the axe that slew them, and that I passed on the profits of my deceit to another in greater need than myself, does not change my complicity in their deaths. Well what if it's slower and more spread out? What if I'm just reducing a family of fours stream of income to the point that they can live off it but I profit from the excess they would've spent on frivolous things like better food or a rainy day fund? They have not died, but I have stolen a standard of living from them, and they are certainly at greater risk should disaster befall them. Sure, I might he passing that wealth on to a family elsewhere in the world that can now afford more.food and is better prepared for sickness or injury. Well what if instead you stole a very tiny amount (maybe just 1 sp?) every week from every person in a whole city, would that be okay? It'd be a lot of money for sure, but would it truly be missed? What if you stole a tenth of a copper piece from every person in all of Faerun? At what point is the damage per person small enough, the net cast widely enough, that it can be declared an insignificant theft, a victimless crime?

Honestly...I don't think that point exists. Even if it wasn't theft, if the friend was competing in a true capitalist paradise and ended up coming out close to the top in his particular free market, he's still ended up with millions, maybe even billions. And for one person to have so, so much more than they need, there must mathematically be thousands with less. Accumulating so much wealth, hoarding so many resources, when so much suffering in the world results from a lack of resources, is at least to a degree innately immoral. No matter how fair, honorable, or moral the actual methods of acquisition were. And in the case presented, the journey was just as bad as the destination: every last copper piece was swindled and tricked and stolen from those not savvy enough to keep it from the friend, and the friend used the law itself as a means to wrangle even more wealth, using and abusing the system when it benefited him only to skip out when the law came knocking at his door. The paladin's friend, to put it bluntly, cheated his way into wealth at the expense of the masses, fled the legal consequences for his crimes, and now (as is appropriate to a creature of greed) is attempting to balance the cosmic ledger by putting his wealth to charitable purchases somewhere outside of any jurisdiction that might punish him for the crimes he committed to attain that wealth. His community benefits from the profits of his greed, but that community isn't the one that had to bear the expenses it wrought. The people who suffer from the loss of that capital, they're still out there, not being paid by a stranger with money stolen from another stranger's pocket.

The OP seems to have been written from the perspective that, while thievery of such magnitude is certainly quite a crime, that thievery shouldn't be worthy of the death penalty, and that the friend dying as punishment for his crimes means his stolen wealth will cease being put to charitable ends. The easiest part of this to deal with is that, if the friend dies, their will and last wishes (and possibly the laws governing the execution of thieves) can redistribute the resources in a more just manner, and can keep the jobs and charity flowing. If the people he's in business with now are honorable, they can keep up the deals he made to the best of their ability. A trickier bit is debating whether his crimes deserve the death penalty. But if you were to accept the premise that there is some level of crime where the appropriate, morally-defensible legal punishment is death, the line must be drawn somewhere, and the crime measured to see if it crosses the line. Certainly you can't just give the death penalty if somebody does a single murder; killing a person because they killed a person is kinda hypocritical. But if they've killed quite a few people, and there's a not insignificant chance that they'll do so again, and thus causing their death saves more lives in the long run, is that okay? Some people would say yes, others no. For that that would say yes, that being responsible for more than one death (possibly many more than one death) is sufficient to earn murder yourself, one could then look at the crimes committed and determine how much blood is on your hands as part of the extra financial burden, or possibly the death and suffering caused even more directly by your greed.

If you taxing the countryside meant that people had a lot less money for curing diseases, and then the Pharaoh Of Pestilence rolled through town and 30 people weren't able to afford treatment that they could've afforded if not for the tax, then some of that is on you - but only some. You aren't the one setting the price of disease cures, and you're certainly not the one who intentionally got them sick in the first place, after all. But at least some fraction of that blood is on your hands, and at what point does the number of people grow large enough that you have enough of a share that "you" "killed" two people? That's a difficult question to answer. If, instead, when the Pharaoh came through, you raised cure prices in response to the projected increase in demand, that a larger portion of the blame falls squarely on your shoulders - you didn't cause the suffering and death, but you certainly took advantage of it for money.

At the end of the day, who had what stolen from them, who all suffered as a result, and how much better he's made the world, isn't things that are really detailed in the OP, which makes it difficult to determine if the severity of the crime warrants the punishment he would receive - and also makes it difficult to gauge whether his charity work is sufficient to put his cosmic ledger in the black, so to speak. Looking at such things and weighing them is important if taking a utilitarian approach. But at the same time, we can't take an absolutist perspective - sure, you should never steal, even if you're using the law as a shield against morality to perform the theft, but you also should never murder. And how many thefts must be committed to earn a murder is a call you can't make under such a moral system. Without access to enough information to make the right utilitarian choice here, can you even make one?

...well, yes. This is D&D, after all. The paladin might not have enough of an understanding of law and morality to make a call on whether the friend should be punished for his crimes or not - they can make their best judgement call, but at the end of the day they're essentially guessing on whether having him executed is the right call to make. But...that call isn't the final decision. Being executed isn't his final punishment. The paladin and the friend have a reassurance we don't have IRL: that cosmic ledger the friend is trying to balance, it actually definitively exists. And while the paladin might not have enough information to confidently make the right choice, that doesn't matter as much because his final reward/punishment is being handled by cosmic auditors (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm), who do have all the information, who do have the experience necessary to make such a hard, complex choice. When a paladin is confronted with a hard moral choice like that, one of the options is to more or less pass the buck to the guys upstairs; the ol' "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" trick. Some paladins embrace this particular approach to morality a bit too much, becoming clueless murderhobos too stupid to make any decision other than kill, and...that's not a good path to take. The "kill em and let god sort em out" option is there for when the going gets rough, an assurance that if you're about to do wrong by the bad guy in front of you, that somebody else will do right by them afterwards.

The paladin should look into whether the laws regarding execution for thievery of this scale is just and good, should look into whether the victims of his crimes have suffered as a result and if they can be repaid in some fashion. If it ends up looking like the friend has left too many suffering, and has stolen so much that a fairly just government thinks his head on a stick is a fair and just punishment, the paladin should work with his friend to set up a last will and testament and then make sure he receives his due for the crimes he committed. If the victims are fine, or the scale of his thievery just doesn't really justify murder, then the paladin should let him atone the way he has been.

[Conradine]

I'll give my 2 cent on the issue "death penalty in d&d".
From what I read, capital punishment is - although widely accepted - not viewed in a favorable light in d&d.

The book of vile darkness says:

Execution of prisoners, far from light and hope of rescue, is something all creatures fear when venturing into realms where vengeance or brute malice holds sway.

Execution devices appear in the BoVD, and that can't be casual.

And:

And even an otherwise enlightened society may find that vengeance is more important to it than reformation of the convicted.

Otherwise enlightened, so it means death penalty in d&d is not enlightened.

The very best we can say about death penalty, from that quote on Exalted Deeds, is that isn't always evil.

---

In my opinion, to kill a prisoner who's both too strong and unrepentant in order to avoid further casualities is lecit. Few prisons could held safely a Redcloak or a Belkar, let alone a Xykon.
This is a situation where death penalty becomes an instrument of self defence.

But to kill a Miko - powerful but not so unhinged to kill guards or civilians - or to kill a level 1 thug who can do absolutely nothing from his cell, is to gratuitously end a life. Even worse, is to deprive a soul of the chance to atone at least partially.

Obviously there are situations where imprisonment is simply impossible or highly impratical ( a sieged city, already starving, can't spare the food for enemy prisoners ), so - again - execution becomes self defence.

But if the settlement has the time and the means to imprison instead of execute, d&d morality seems to strongly suggest the former is the best way.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Since the guy is now, by all accounts, in very good standing with the people he's caring for, why not have him come clean, tell his story to the people he's helping, and start what amounts to a GoFundMe campaign, asking for donations for a rez spell for bringing him back after his punishment? Resurrection magic is a thing, so even execution shouldn't be too bad. It's just like a timeout plus a (really expensive) fine, and there are even ways to come back that aren't that bad. Maybe a contingencied rez spell that kicks in after a few days, so it kicks in once his body has been brought back to his family and friends back in the other country?

If he's actually repented, he gets to spend a few days in paradise. If not, it's hell (or equivalent).

[Psyren]

Since the guy is now, by all accounts, in very good standing with the people he's caring for, why not have him come clean, tell his story to the people he's helping, and start what amounts to a GoFundMe campaign, asking for donations for a rez spell for bringing him back after his punishment? Resurrection magic is a thing, so even execution shouldn't be too bad. It's just like a timeout plus a (really expensive) fine, and there are even ways to come back that aren't that bad. Maybe a contingencied rez spell that kicks in after a few days, so it kicks in once his body has been brought back to his family and friends back in the other country?

If he's actually repented, he gets to spend a few days in paradise. If not, it's hell (or equivalent).

I don't know that I'd agree death is as trauma-free as all that. Killing someone doesn't become any less drastic simply because it can be reversed in 10 rounds. And raise dead states "coming back from the dead is an ordeal" - this is represented mechanically by the lost level/constitution, but suggests that the process itself is painful as well.

More importantly though, if he did make it to paradise, he has no incentive at all to come back - worse, if he successfully repented before he was executed, you've now executed someone undeserving.

[Ubak]

I wouldn't take resurrection in consideration - the difficulty of finding a cleric of the required level, combined with exorbitant cost makes it something generally unavailable. It also introduces complications to our question, like what if we rightfully execute unrepentant serial rapist and murderer and then this person gets revived? Should we consider him repented since he had been rightfully executed? Can he get a few more for the future?



More importantly though, if he did make it to paradise, he has no incentive at all to come back - worse, if he successfully repented before he was executed, you've now executed someone undeserving.

I don't think we have an easy way of telling where did he go after death but I'd rather see it as:
If he went to heaven then it's great that he managed to get absolved of his sins and we should be happy for him.
And he wasn't undeserving in the first place. He had been executed for his past crimes to, at the very least, bring closure to those he hurt in the past and to spread the message that crime doesn't pay and the best way to live your life is to not turn to evil. To bring strength to those who live their lives rightfully and fear to those who want to stray from the right path.
Additionally, I wouldn't want to kill him by my hand but I'd bring him to the trial where he would be judged rightfully.
_____

I think we could add extra big question:
Is it right for the paladin to think that ends justify the means?

I wouldn't say so because I think the ultimate, desired state is one where nobody commits evil and not the one where everybody strays to evil because they know they can turn to good when the law catches up to them (our friend had decided to turn over the new leaf when the justice started to catch up with him). And not only he had decided to do it late but he stills profits from his past in a way.

[Segev]

And for one person to have so, so much more than they need, there must mathematically be thousands with less.

This is very much not the thread for this, so I'm not going to debate the point here. I will say, however, that this is only one economic theory, and is not mathematically demonstrable to be true. It is rooted in an assumption that economics are a zero-sum game. Anybody who does not agree with that assumption could easily have a model that makes this not, as you say, "mathematically" true.

It does not seem that this zero-sum economics is in play, here, or the notion of being wealthy would be considered evil in and of itself, and thus grounds for the paladin to be reprimanding his "friend."

[Yogibear41]

The Paladin shouldn't concern himself with such things when he could be out there slaying dragons and demons, like seriously who has time to deal with someone so minor that isn't actively doing evil when there are literally monsters out there burning the country side and devouring people's souls....

[Psyren]

Additionally, I wouldn't want to kill him by my hand but I'd bring him to the trial where he would be judged rightfully.

While non-evil D&D societies can practice execution, my reading of the intent is that it should only be used for those it is truly impractical or impossible to redeem. I don't think a loanshark qualifies - if that is a capital offense, you're probably dealing with a LE jurisdiction that the paladin should not recognize as a legitimate authority.



I think we could add extra big question:
Is it right for the paladin to think that ends justify the means?

No - the whole point of Law is that the means matter. Chaos is the one that thinks the ends justify the means.

[tiercel]

Y’know, threads like this make me want to just houserule that all paladins can, as a class feature, activate the effect of a phylactery of faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) at will.

That wouldn’t completely end the Code of Conduct madness but would seem to go a fair way to eliminating “gotcha!” scenarios.

[Ubak]

While non-evil D&D societies can practice execution, my reading of the intent is that it should only be used for those it is truly impractical or impossible to redeem. I don't think a loanshark qualifies - if that is a capital offense, you're probably dealing with a LE jurisdiction that the paladin should not recognize as a legitimate authority.

I agree. If paladin deems law of this country as unjust there is no reason to follow them. But if paladin thinks that laws of his country are generally just and made with best intentions then he shouldn't cherry-pick what to follow and not to. And if he doesn't agree then maybe it's worthwhile to bring that person back to try and change them.



No - the whole point of Law is that the means matter. Chaos is the one that thinks the ends justify the means.

I also agree. That's why I think that the person shouldn't remain in charge. I wouldn't be against even dismantling the organization if it meant that people who were hurt will receive recompensation (as it's existence is a result of lawlessness).

[TheYell]

The paladin come to visit him, knowing of his past crimes, and they talk.

Please tell me why the Paladin chose to do this, and I'll be able to answer your question better.

I agree with Yogibear41, there's better uses of a Paladin's time, unless he's got something in mind for the guy.


Torturing prisoners, either to extract information or simply as a means of punishment, is unequivocally evil, however.

Does that include the flogging from Starship Troopers, cause if it does, I'll take my fall and atonement for shipping them over.

[Conradine]

Please tell me why the Paladin chose to do this, and I'll be able to answer your question better.

In order to understand if his old friend is truly repentant and what are his future intentions.




Does that include the flogging from Starship Troopers, cause if it does, I'll take my fall and atonement for shipping them over

Flogging is torture.
Unless it's consensual, of course.

[TheYell]

As others have said, if he's not specifically the agent of the jurisdiction then all he has is talk about returning voluntarily, and then he can go on his way.

[Psyren]

I agree. If paladin deems law of this country as unjust there is no reason to follow them. But if paladin thinks that laws of his country are generally just and made with best intentions then he shouldn't cherry-pick what to follow and not to. And if he doesn't agree then maybe it's worthwhile to bring that person back to try and change them.

Trying to change an unreasonable law is totally fine - but a paladin is under no obligation to submit someone to the unreasonable punishment of that law while they're in the process of changing it.

[TheYell]

Flogging is torture.
Unless it's consensual, of course.

Then Sherlock Holmes is evil (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Identity).


"The law cannot, as you say, touch you," said Holmes, unlocking and throwing open the door, "yet there never was a man who deserved punishment more. If the young lady has a brother or a friend, he ought to lay a whip across your shoulders. By Jove!" he continued, flushing up at the sight of the bitter sneer upon the man's face, "it is not part of my duties to my client, but here's a hunting crop handy, and I think I shall just treat myself to--" He took two swift steps to the whip, but before he could grasp it there was a wild clatter of steps upon the stairs, the heavy hall door banged, and from the window we could see Mr. James Windibank running at the top of his speed down the road.

I can't argue you've given the BOED answer correctly. It's bad storytelling, in my opinion.

[Elysiume]

That sounds like Holmes wanting to extra-judicially beat someone which isn't really any sort of reformative act. Violence purely for retribution/vengeance can't be expected to result in lasting improvements to either the victim or society as a whole. I'd raise an eyebrow at a paladin beating a suspect because they were frustrated that they couldn't figure out a way to arrest them.