My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!)

bweibeler · May 27, 2004

I have to go with the GM. There were plenty of more viable options for the paladin: knocking him out rarther then subduing, demanding his surrender, challenging him to a duel, etc. Killing him from behind was not a very paladin thing to do.

mroberon1972 · May 27, 2004

Darklone said:
The god was not named yet. The paladin is a killer sure. But could you please answer on our emphasis on "It's important how you do something, not if."

We're not against killing, we're against how he kills.

And PLEASE. Read the rest of the thread instead of repeating arguments that were answered on page 3-8.

Ok... Good queston.

Ask a police negotiator or sniper.

The negotiator will lie, trick, and play mindgames with a perp until he's a psychic wreck, then act like his friend to get him out into the open where he can be taken down. Every one I have met would line up to lawful good better than most people I know.

The sniper does not care if the perp is facing or away, and they don't have to give warning a sniper is going to shoot the perp. Oh, and he doesn't have to be holding a weapon either.

Darklone · May 27, 2004

Yet one point I'm missing in the current discussion, though it's not very suitable for most D&D games. Paladins should not like to kill. That's what evil guys do. He will kill if he has to, but did he have to?

Arguing that he was allowed to kill the guy from behind cause it makes no difference because that guy stands no chance anyhow... OMG, do you really think so? If the paladin is so much stronger than the guy, why kill him at all right now? Take him to court and go there and take care that he gets justice. Rotting in a cell, getting hanged, no matter. But why bloodying your hands?

Joker[ZW] · May 27, 2004

Darklone said:
But is it good to become evil while killing evil ?

IMO, he won't. Why? Because if he did he would not be a Paladin. A Paladin (in FR) gets his Powers from his god, because the god trusts the Paladin to walk the line without becoming evil.
IMO the Nietzsche quote is good for "normal" people, a Paladin is a Paladin because his God trusts him to do what other people would not be able to do without succumbing to evil.
Sometimes a god is wrong in his judgement, thus a Blackguard is born.
You have read Sepulchrave's Story Hour, Darklone, and I think it is a good example of what a Paladin should be able to do without losing the trust of his diety.

Darklone · May 27, 2004

mroberon1972 said:
Ok... Good queston.

Ask a police negotiator or sniper.

The negotiator will lie, trick, and play mindgames with a perp until he's a psychic wreck, then act like his friend to get him out into the open where he can be taken down. Every one I have met would line up to lawful good better than most people I know.

The sniper does not care if the perp is facing or away, and they don't have to give warning a sniper is going to shoot the perp. Oh, and he doesn't have to be holding a weapon either.

If that's lawful good for you... then I'm sorry for you.

These situations are a problem for the paladin, no discussion about that. But in the game, he is strong and powerful and most likely (at least in this situation) to handle the evildoer. Or to keep him away from the victim. He is able to drag him to court. In this situation.

Situations where a paladin can not succeed with noble actions are another matter. He did not have this problem here.

Wulf Ratbane · May 27, 2004

jgbrowning said:
Hey Wulf, from a D&D cosmology viewpoint, the "good" planes are almost free of violence while the "evil" planes are full of them. I think part of the defining of good and evil in both BoED and BoVD takes this basic cosmology into account.

I don't recall reading any of this cosmology in my PHB. I could be wrong, but my impression is that you are pulling heavily from supplements that are specifically written to change the fundamental D&D game and to add complexities of grey to a black and white core.

To put it another way, you are citing from works that are specifically written to explore deeper philosophical arguments on the nature of good and evil.

The D&D game is not "defined" by the BoVD, the BoED, or the MoP. The D&D game at its core essence does not say that killing is bad.

Put in cosmological terms, any act of violence can be seen as a result of evil.

Do they not wrestle on Mt. Olympus?

To say that "all violence is evil" is a pacifist approach. The core D&D game is not pacifist.

And certainly in the real world, one can make a very solid argument that pacifism and non-violence inevitably leads to GREATER EVIL than measured, violent resistance. Perforce, as Evil, using violence as a means, would be impossible to resist. Pacifism is not a valid response to the relentless assault of evil.

Wulf

mroberon1972 · May 27, 2004

Darklone said:
Once again for the third time now: HOW did he do that? Without honor. Nothing against execution. Nothing against killing. But he did it not like a paladin should.

Hey, he's right!

The paladin should have dragged him into the town square, with the villians pants still undone. He should have then shouted "This is the fate of all who defile children on my watch!" and hacked his head from his shoulders in full view of the public.

It's the knightly way...

(And no. I am not joking. I mean it as dead serious.)

Darklone · May 27, 2004

Joker[ZW] said:
IMO, he won't. Why? Because if he did he would not be a Paladin. A Paladin (in FR) gets his Powers from his god, because the god trusts the Paladin to walk the line without becoming evil.

Sure. Did this paladin walk the line? IMHO not. He overstepped it a little bit. Not too much, but he acted without honor... and IMHO without being pressed too hard yet.

IMO the Nietzsche quote is good for "normal" people, a Paladin is a Paladin because his God trusts him to do what other people would not be able to do without succumbing to evil.
Sometime a god is wrong in his judgement, thus a Blackguard is born.
You read Sepulchrave's Story Hour, Darklone and I think it is a good example of what a Paladin should be able to do without losing the trust of his diety.

We could ask Eadrics player to post here, but knowing him from the story I think he wouldn't have acted like this paladin. Remember the battle where he subdued his opponents on the battlefield?

Edit: to make myself clear: this is a common problem for young paladins, possibly young Eadric encountered a similar situation. It's a possibility to learn and mature, and that's why I vote for a lesser atonement (not necessarily the spell), not the full loss of all class abilities.

Wulf Ratbane · May 27, 2004

Darklone said:
Paladins should not like to kill.

Bull----.

There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil.

A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.

Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.

Wulf

Calico_Jack73 · May 27, 2004

Wulf Ratbane said:
To say that "all violence is evil" is a pacifist approach. The core D&D game is not pacifist.

And certainly in the real world, one can make a very solid argument that pacifism and non-violence inevitably leads to GREATER EVIL than measured, violent resistance. Perforce, as Evil, using violence as a means, would be impossible to resist. Pacifism is not a valid response to the relentless assault of evil.

Wulf

Indeed.... Gygax said that it would be perfectly fine for a Paladin to capture a group of Orcs, tie them up, and force them to give up their evil ways. Once they had sworn to do so a Paladin would be perfectly justified in slaying the Orcs so that they could no resume their evil lives. In that way the Orcs' souls would be saved.