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.