Would a chaotic good paladin spare an enemy who has genuinely surrendered to them?

a LG paladin could also go the other way, saying that it is lawful and good to show mercy
while a CG paladin would say "screw the rules" and smite a surrendering enemy, disregarding that it may make him look bad

Depends on the enemy. Like if Rapesbabies mcHitler surrendered to me, I would be like, good on you for seeing the light, but I'm still going to kill you.

even a modern SWAT team is not authorized to shoot stalin mcmurdface as long as his weapon is not drawn

so the moment he is unarmed and unwilling to fight, the shackles come one
everyone deserves not a just a second or third chance, but at least 77^2, and only when they are completely and utterly beyond the pale, and a clear and present danger, should you try to kill them

This. DnD isn't usually set in 21th century, where imprisoning monsters in resort prisons is the norm. As for taking them to authorities, you are a paladin. You are the authority.
And they are just gonna hang the guy anyway. They sure aren't giving him a lawyer and a fair trial.

See this guy? He is why the Joker keeps killing people.

personally, i would blame the jury, the prison makers, the judges, the people whos job it is to actually sentence and contain the joker
i wouldnt blame batman or the police for doing their job and catching them

a paladin shouldnt be stupid and let an obvious danger run around wily nily, but he should also be merciful and just, never striking down someone unless its the absolute last choice

he should not hesitate to kill his foe, but he should always leave the option of mercy and redemption
not to mention if you develop a reputation for ruthlessness, people would either hide and run instead of fight, making your job harder, or fight like a cornered rat, making you more likely to die

No, that's because Arkham is about as good at holding inmates as a cheese grater holding water.

Only God can judge a man's intentions and innocence. Their crimes demand he send them to the Maker.

Gygax is dead

While a lawful good paladin probably has a consistent policy for this sort of thing, a chaotic good paladin might be more likely to make their choices on a case-by-case basis in these situations, depending on how evil and dangerous the particular enemy is and potentially on other aspects of the circumstances.

use slay evil. it's a power given to you by your god, so if it kills him you did not kill him, your god did.

>would person with alignment X do ambiguous deed Y?
>alignments are like hardcoded programming and everyone of a given alignment must follow that program like a robot

Yeah, people often talk about how it's batman's responsibility that the Joker keeps killing people but well...the Joker keeps going through the legal system. It's not like Batman just bops him on the chin and sends him on his way. Does Batman have the right (Or even should he) to be Judge, Jury and Executioner with no oversight?

>Batman knows this and keeps sending them to Gotham anyway
He's clearly the biggest threat to Gotham.

Let me put it like this: is Batman supposed to be a vigilante or a cop in an impractical uniform that for some reason refuses to shoot?

No, but Batman doesn't just not kill the Joker. He goes out of his way to SAVE him.
Like this one time when SWAT was going after them, and Batman attacked them because they intended to shoot him with their guns.
Or that one time when Joker was actually succesfully executed him and Batman revived him. Like, what the fuck?

its easier to blame batman than the huge and interconnected web of people and influence

its more obvious to blame batman, even though he is already going above and beyond the call of duty just getting off his ass to catch joker, instead of the cops, judges, prisons, FBI, literally anybody else who is actually paid at tax payers expense to catch people like the joker

Wew, my post is hard to understand. To clarify, SWAT was going after the Joker. Joker was executed.

>Does Batman have the right (Or even should he) to be Judge, Jury and Executioner with no oversight?
because we all know how effective and loved the punisher is
he is neither effective in stopping the overall crime rate nor does anyone approve of him

>That time the Joker tried to commit suicide THREE TIMES in the same story, and Batman saved him every time

Older Batman was a unofficial cop newer Batman not so much.

>After his parents died, young Bruce Wayne felt aimless and alone in a cold, dark world
>To cope with his grief, he decided he has a "responsibility" to prevent crime
>This has become the full driving factor behind his life and, behind all the rich playboy façades, this is the only true foundation of his personality
>He knows he is nothing without crime, and that a crimefree Gotham is one that doesn't need Batman, forcing Bruce Wayne to remove the mask and confront the grief that has built up while he tried to repress it
>To maintain his own fragile ego, Batman allows crime to fester until it's a big enough problem for Batman to deal with, and even then it will never be dealt with permanently

>you are a paladin. You are the authority.
That's quite a serious assumption you have going on there

Do you feel in charge?

For you.

Paladins cannot be chaotic good

>t. Gaiman

Found the 3.5 baby

Only a chaotic fool!

He does, however, prevent a given individual from reoffending...

le edgy comic man really must have some deep-seated issues, jesus christ. I read parts of the Boys, I think partly through my brain started hemorrhaging of the cringe.

>Neil Gaiman
>edgy
no seriously, I'm not familiar with his DC works but his books and other comics have never seemed "edgy"

>Good
Do what helps
>Chaotic
Do not worry about the rules.

So:

>Law says kill him.
You DGAF
>Law says respect his surrender
You DGAF

>He's a baby eater
Kill him
>He's not really a bad guy and won't be a threat in the future
Let him live

The real headfuck here would is that as a Chaotic paladin you're obliged to tear down ordered societies, but as a Good paladin you have to do it without destroying the people's livelihoods. Kings taxing peasants? Gotta depose him and somehow leave behind a functioning anarchy. Good luck with that.

But can a paladin be judge jury and Executioner? I'm curious about this. Could a paladin be like "in the name of my God and my land I sentence you to death."

Noble is a pretty common backstory for paladins, nobles have the right to sentence criminals

You already know the answer to this. Depends on the setting. If. The various churches have and give power to their paladins, then yes. If the local laws don't allow that, then no.

>chaotic
>paladin

Why this is even allowed?

sometimes you serve a chaotic god

Yes, if it's part of his code, and the power granted to him by the church/state. No, if it's not. Although paladins don't really seem to fall these days anywhere near as often as they used to.

depends on what the enemy has done, which is probably the case with all righteous warriors. In the case of the chaotic paladin it also probably depends on the paladin's personal feelings toward the enemy and gut instinct.

Depends by the setting, but if you believe the paladin to be the champion choosed by that x divinity to bring his insigna, then why not.

He is the law. As he's the closest person to justice (even if the one of his own's god).

But only the moral law. It's his decision to obey human's laws.
His god may condone some actions laws of a state punish.

>his god says that theft is a problem but as long as you surrender and say you're sorry you are free to go
>while laws of the state dictates the thief's hands to be cut
The paladin has to decide, does hos deity allows him to to interfeer with laws, causing much more fuss? Or, at the expense of the thief's hand he stays put, allowing society to work its ways?

I believe this is kinda the difference between a caotic and a lawful paladin. The caotic one decides what's the best case by case. The lawful obeys what he belives to be the "enlighted" way.

Personally speaking, the paladin indeed can or at least he belives he can, as he acts out of fate. He doesn't fear repercussion, as he moves under the "laws" of something greater (a god). The same way people belived burning heretics was right. He's doing his god's will.

the floodgates opened once they allowed non-humans to be paladins

>chaotic good
>on a fucking paladin
How is this possible? Don't get me wrong I love the idea of it but literally how? I'm assuming my whole group is retarded about autistically screeching over a non lawful paladin? They say it's always been a rule that paladins "have" to be some lawful

a proper original paladin is lawful good and human only, which formed the basis for the lore behind the paladin class, later nu-editions removed the restrictions, therefore ruining the lore behind the class

Well shit, so I can just up and do a CN paladin if I somehow convince my group not to pitch a fit over it

Non-human paladins do make sense, if other races have religion they have religious warriors, but unlawful and evil paladins rape the lore.

if you are playing the later editions, then yes, although the DM has the final say regardless of the books.

This is the only real answer. What does the oath say?

In 5e, alignments no longer restrict the paladin (in fact, they barely come up in 5e at all). Instead, he has something called "an oath" which he must follow.
Devotion paladin is your bog standard lawful good paladin. Paladin of ancients is more like an elf paladin, caring about beauty and nature and shit. Paladin of vengeance is the Punisher. Paladin of the crown is concerned with order and the rule of the law, while conquest, treachery and oathbreaker are all various flavours of the blackguard.
There is also oath of redemption that is all kinds of ridiculous.

Yes, being good means not killing people for your own pleasure.