Or is it a nono, to always accept the surrender and show mercy, knowing he will kill again anyway and that redemption is impossible with the killer?
this is how I have interpreted it, that even the slightest small evil act to save a million lives is still out of the question, even though id say good looses way more than evil gains by slaying a killer.
But I just gotta double check, how stupid can a good character be? Is it really this "simple" in the D&D universe?
Of course, the DM might still screw you but it can be justified. In order to protect the innocent, you must slay an evil one who abused the laws of mercy.
I'd do it this way: When the Bad Guy is caught a second time and tries to surrender, call him out. Tell him that last time you showed mercy, he escaped and committed more evil acts. You know in your heart that he will do so again if he gets the chance so you have been forced to execute him in the name of the Greater Good.
Of course, the DM might still screw you but it can be justified. In order to protect the innocent, you must slay an evil one who abused the laws of mercy.
That would probably be my take on it. You showed mercy, he abused it. He had his once chance to learn from his mistakes and change his path, and didn't take it. It's on him now.
It means you don't have to haul his unconcious/dead arse back to stand trial. You can make him walk....
And then you give him a quick trial & watch him hang.
I agree to the alignment system being problematic, rest of the replies cleared things up alot!
Thanks for your divine and wise guidelines
Im playing a Lawful good Paladin (3.5) whose aiming to become a saint. Now by reading book of exalted deeds "mercy" states you should always accept a surrender no matter how big the crime is of the one guilty. But if the badguy escapes captivity and kills a dozen children whereas yup catch him again and he surrenders once more to spare his own life from being killed, When should the mercy-part cease and a well deserved charge+smite+rhinos rush be performed to make him regret he ever went evil?
When you give up on being a saint.
Or is it a nono, to always accept the surrender and show mercy, knowing he will kill again anyway and that redemption is impossible with the killer?
That's right. Part of the assumption includes that redemption is ALWAYS possible.
this is how I have interpreted it, that even the slightest small evil act to save a million lives is still out of the question, even though id say good looses way more than evil gains by slaying a killer.
That's basically right, yes. That's part of the point: You cannot do evil, even if doing evil would be efficient or expedient. Road, Hell, Good Intentions. Superman doesn't kill The Joker, Spiderman does not kill Carnage.
The real problem is that the Paladin requirements, and the Saint requirements, require that the GM agree with you about the One True way of doing things - and then, the GM controls the universe and the NPCs, and can easily stick you in a no-win situation *and then* swap his interpretation to whichever one doesn't match the one you picked, therefore you autofail. The GM can *and often will* arrange things such that you are punished over and over again for obeying your vows - and will then declare you to have failed your vows because there was no way to keep them.
(My Lovely Wife suggests you invest in ranged weaponry, so as to better kill the enemy before he has a chance to surrender, next time. This being D20, ranged weaponry is useless - instead, invest in a Wizard, Druid, or Cleric, so that you can autokill the enemy with them pre-surrender and be done with it. However, this doesn't actually fix the problem. The only fix to the problem is getting your GM on the same page as you with regards to collaborating on the story and getting an agreement to not gank you using your conveniently located gank spots.)