Butcher of Hommlet?

it is perfectly normal for a paladin to randomly detect evil someone and kill him should the turn out to be evil. Thats what a paladin DOES. A paladin is a zealous butcher who would kill anything in the name of good.

The butcher of homlet should not have triggered from such a thing.

 

Uh. No. Paladin's are supposed to be champions of virtue and justice. Not mindless slayers of "heathens". The behavior you're describing is neither Lawful nor Good.

 

it is the epitome of lawfulness. not to mention the paladin's code.

A paladin is designed for a single purpose, kill evil.

 

There's nothing Lawful (or Good) about whacking random people with your sword who currently aren't doing anything wrong and just at the inn having a drink.

I don't see anything in there about having to slay all evil on sight, regardless of circumstance. There is no harm or threat to innocents from someone who is just sitting on a bar stool. Yes, a paladin will be zealous in their attempts to destroy great sources of irredeemable evil like demons and dragons, and won't hesitate to use deadly force against those actively seeking to harm others, but that's not indiscriminate slaughter.

"Respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" says to me that you don't kill without good cause. "Commitment to oppose evil" doesn't require violence. Convincing someone of the error of their ways stops evil just as effectively as lopping their head off, and in the end is more useful because that's one more potential ally to help oppose evil.

Yes, a paladin's primary method of dealing with evil is through combat, that doesn't mean that's the only method at their disposal, or their answer to every problem is to hit it with a sword.

 

but they're not random people, they're evil people - they have been judged and found wanting. to be lawful they either have to kill all or none but never pick and choose (thats chaotic), its not the paladins fault that the bad guy decided to take a quick break from his raping and pillaging and he's probably going to go straight back to it and it would be wrong to let him go free if thats what he was going to do. personally I think that paladin behaviour is really LN, Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit, or fun

 

DAMN!

Just as I suspected...an alignment debate.

*Sigh*

There's lots of ways to play paladins, from avenging crusader to bringer of justice. It really depends on the deity being served, as that is the source of the power wielded by the class. Straying from that will cause one to fall, not taking out bad guys one discovers hidden amongst the good folk of a sleepy little hamlet. They are likely to cause evil to befall these denizens, and hence should be run off...or better yet, run through. This will prevent evil from befalling them by at least a factor of the number discovered and slain.

It's just damn hard to do with this blunt instrument we enjoy as a "CRPG".

 

Apparently I'm the only one who doesn't see Paladins as blood-thirsty thugs.

If a paladin in a game I ran drew his sword and killed some unknown guy in a bar just because the guy happened to ping his detect evil, his deity would make his displeasure known. If he continued to behave in this way, he would fall. Someone can be evil without being a rapist and a murderer. It's all a matter of degrees. A paladin whose answer to everything is the sword is not worthy of the title.

And back the original question about "The Butcher of Homlett", all the villagers know is that you've taken up attacking people at random in their village (they're not privy to your paladin's detect evil). Rather than worry who you're going to make an unprovoked attack on next, they decide to do something about your "rampage". I don't see a problem with attacking evil people without provocation or proof of wrong-doing (in the case of Ranos and Gremag) triggering this particular reputation.

 

:blahblah: That's not being a paladin - that's being a murderous goon.

::edit::

 

Well, that's not true. There are plenty of others here in agreement with you. Even me, if you've read my posts. But your 'degrees' and 'rape & murder' is like comparing Furnok to Zert. One's actually evil, the other isn't. Furnok skins gamblers for his income; Zert tries to hamper the deeds of good adventurers, and lead them into an ill fate. Toruko, too is out for murder; just for himself (and Kobort, who is neutral, BTW).

IMO, it boils down to this: Some killing is good. Killing in defense of a defenseless person is good. Killing in self defense is good. Killing in time of war is good. Paladins are at war with evil on a constant basis. They are not always required to take prisoners for the sake of some 'code' or 'honor'; it depends on the circumstances, not degrees of evil. Zert is an enemy combatant, and he lives by the sword...so, if he dies by it, then the paladin doing it shouldn't fall.

 

But the thing is, the paladin doesn't know this when he first meets them in the inn. Yes, he can detect their evil aura, but he doesn't know the nature of the deeds, what their plans are, etc. For all he knows they just kick puppies on a regular basis and steal candy from babies. He definitely would want to keep an eye on them and likely alert the mayor or Burne and Rufus that "Hey, these guys are evil, they should be looked after" but just gutting them in the Welcome Wench's common room is a little extreme.

 

But neither of these acts make a person evil. They make you chaotic or neutral. Do you know any evil farmers? Show me one, and I'll agree that you shouldn't kill him by virtue of discovering his foul deeds with corn by walking up to his cottage, knocking on his door, detecting evil, then slaying him. Zert is a fighter who is evil; a soldier in the army of darkness. He kills people for all of the bad reasons, like glorifying an evil deity, and making people suffer, and attaining personal power. A paladin who does not kill him isn't protecting the innocents of Hommlet who are incapable of using divine powers to ascertain this and protect themselves. If the villagers have a question, they should raise a hue and a cry for the watch, who, upon arrival, would demand the paladin accompany them to see the lawful authority to give an explanation for the deed. The paladin, bound by his code, would comply. Burne & Rufus, being LG themselves, would accept any lawful and good explanation, including...he was evil. They killed an evil green dragon for the same reason. It was just eating gnomes (a natural but stringy food) to survive.

 

And here is a good reason not to use a paladin...that and i like drinking and contests ergo i like drinking contests

 

Spike, I'm not disagreeing with the concept of killing Zert and Turuko. They really are bad guys. I'm objecting with the idea of just hauling off and whacking them while they're getting a drink based only on the results of a detect evil. I also think that the people of Homlett have every reason to take umbrage with someone who makes a habit of cutting people down in the inn's common room without provocation.

As I mentioned in a different thread, according to the protos.tab, the Braumeister is chaotic evil (don't ask me why), and does show up to detect evil effects. Should a paladin hike his way out to the brewery and kill him too?

Deriving pleasure/entertainment from the suffering of others is evil, not chaotic.

 

Historically speaking people of paladianian outlook DID run amok killing left and right. They called it the inquisition, or witch trials... it was immensely popular.

A paladin has been graced by his god with the ability to detect those who are evil at will. He turns on the ability, and joe the farmer glowes red. That is his GOD telling him that joe the farmer is an evil man who has commited many horrible deeds and must be put to death for the sake of protecting innocents. Just because joe the farmer isn't harming anyone RIGHT NOW doesn't mean he isn't going to go out into the street and kidnap some children to torture for fun later on. If the paladin lets him be he is risking the lives of innocents.

When our paladin sees joe the farmer glow red in a crowded inn and proceeds to gut him he declares that he is a paladin, and he must smite joe the farmer for his evil deeds. The other patrons would realise that since the paladin is killing him joe must have deserved it will accept the ruling and let it be. Because, after all, the paladin was just told (indirectly) by a god that joe was evil worthy of death.
Remember, in many places a paladin IS the law!

A person who just kicks a puppy here and there but is normally a good person (how can that even exist? torturing animals for fun isn't something you do if you are a generally altruistic person) would be a NEUTRAL person. Only a person who persistantly commits very evil deeds would actually have an evil aura.