alignment question using the proverbian paladin (again)

[BiggusGeekus]

Using strict adherence to the rules and assuming the minimum amount of DM interpretation and given a "generic" fantasy d20 setting:

A paladin attempts to knock someone unconscious to keep that person from going into danger. He accidentally uses too much force and delivers a killing strike that he is powerless to remedy as his spells are all gone for the day and his healing skill fails him.

Given this highly contrived scenario, what happens to his paladin status and alignment?

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

He is still a paladin of his deity.

 

[Halivar]

He is still a good guy, still fervently righteous, and very, very sorry about what he did.

 

[gizmo33]

Does the paladin have to refuse the experience points and a share of the person's treasure?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Does the paladin have to refuse the experience points and a share of the person's treasure?

:snicker:

 

[Weregrognard]

Well, if we're talking strict adherence to the rules, the paladin could not have accidentally killed the person in question with non-lethal damage. Otherwise, what Halivar said.

Reminds me of the scene in The Gamers where something similar to this happens

 

[shilsen]

Androlphas and Halivar nailed it. It can't happen while using "strict adherence to the rules", and if it did, a little remorse will do.

 

[Klaus]

Using strict adherence to the rules and assuming the minimum amount of DM interpretation and given a "generic" fantasy d20 setting:

A paladin attempts to knock someone unconscious to keep that person from going into danger. He accidentally uses too much force and delivers a killing strike that he is powerless to remedy as his spells are all gone for the day and his healing skill fails him.

Given this highly contrived scenario, what happens to his paladin status and alignment?

It wasn't Chaotic.

It wasn't Evil.

He was trying to protect an innocent. He made a mistake.

And he's still a paladin. A very sorry, atoning one, but a paladin nonetheless.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Thanks guys!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Disagree with the consensous here. As there is a straightforward, mechanically foolproof way to subdue someone, the paladin would have instead have to deliberately and recklessly inflict lethal damage hoping to knock the innocent into the negs but not dead. Doing this knowing that he would have to fall back on an untrained heal check without magic to help is a murderous act, and he can be sorry while seeking an atonement spell.

Its all about the good faith effort - imo, within core rules the paladin did not make a good faith effort to stop the person without killing them.