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

Why don’t we look at the definition of Honor then. Too many people are confusing Chivalry and other Codes of Fair Play with “Honor”. Having honor is having a sense of what is right, that which gives respect, dignity and courage. I think the Paladin fell far within the bounds of acting with Honor. No person who is "good" would have lost respect for the Paladin's actions. He would be applauded for saving the child and riddig the world of an evil.

Even in a Chivalric code a criminal (or evil-doer) falls outside the boundaries of fair play and honor. Even amongst the Samurai, one of the strictest codes of Honor – a criminal is deserving of no Honor, only punishment.

Per Websters:

Noun
1) Esteem due or paid to worth; high estimation; respect; consideration; reverence; veneration; manifestation of respect or reverence.
2) That which rightfully attracts esteem, respect, or consideration; self-respect; dignity; courage; fidelity; especially, excellence of character; high moral worth; virtue; nobleness.
3) Purity; chastity; - a term applied mostly to women, but becoming uncommon in usage.
4) A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege; integrity; uprightness; trustworthness.
5) That to which esteem or consideration is paid; distinguished position; high rank.
6) Fame; reputation; credit.
7) A token of esteem paid to worth; a mark of respect; a ceremonial sign of consideration; as, he wore an honor on his breast; military honors; civil honors.
8) A cause of respect and fame; a glory; an excellency; an ornament; as, he is an honor to his nation.
9) A title applied to the holders of certain honorable civil offices, or to persons of rank; as, His Honor the Mayor. See Note under Honorable.
10) (Feud. Law) A seigniory or lordship held of the king, on which other lordships and manors depended.
11) Academic or university prizes or distinctions; as, honors in classics.
12) (Whist) The ace, king, queen, and jack of trumps. The ten and nine are sometimes called Dutch honors.

Verb
1) To regard or treat with honor, esteem, or respect; to revere; to treat with deference and submission; when used of the Supreme Being, to reverence; to adore; to worship.
2) To dignify; to raise to distinction or notice; to bestow honor upon; to elevate in rank or station; to ennoble; to exalt; to glorify; hence, to do something to honor; to treat in a complimentary manner or with civility.

Usage:
Affair of honor: a dispute to be decided by a duel, or the duel itself.

Court of honor: a court or tribunal to investigate and decide questions relating to points of honor; as a court of chivalry, or a military court to investigate acts or omissions which are unofficerlike or ungentlemanly in their nature.

Debt of honor: a debt contracted by a verbal promise, or by betting or gambling, considered more binding than if recoverable by law.

Honor bright!: (Feudal Law) one held in an honor or seignory.

Honors of war: (Mil.) distinctions granted to a vanquished enemy, as of marching out from a camp or town armed, and with colors flying.

Law of honor: certain rules by which social intercourse is regulated among persons of fashion, and which are founded on a regard to reputation.

Maid of honor:
a - a lady of rank, whose duty it is to attend the queen when she appears in public.
b - the bride's principle attendant at a wedding, if unmarried. If married, she is referred to as the matron of honor.

On one's honor: on the pledge of one's honor; as, the members of the House of Lords in Great Britain, are not under oath, but give their statements or verdicts on their honor.

Point of honor: a scruple or nice distinction in matters affecting one's honor; as, he raised a point of honor.

To do the honors: to bestow honor, as on a guest; to act as host or hostess at an entertainment.

To do one honor: to confer distinction upon one.

To have the honor: to have the privilege or distinction.

Word of honor: an engagement confirmed by a pledge of honor.

8 pages overnight? Whoa! Forgive me for not reading all of it.

I think the best course of action for the paladin would have been to give the man a chance to defend himself, then knock him out by dealing nonlethal damage (he can take the -4 to hit and still win easily), then take care of the girl, and then take the man to court. I also think the DM should have warned the player that the action could have caused him to lose his paladinhood, since that's quite debatable.

Keeps powers.

The race of the perpetrator is irrelevant (human, orc, dwarf, mind flayer or whatever). Evil are his actions, not his heritage.

From "Defenders of Faith", Playing an Effective Paladin:
"Refusing to lie, cheat or use poison doesn't limit you and your allies to frontal assaults in broad daylight, either. You are a trained warrior. You can use clever tactics: Set up an attack from an unexperienced direction, lure opponents onto unfavorable ground, create flanking opportunities..."

Also The Code and the DM:
"The paladin's ultimate relationship is with his patron deity. At times, the interests of temporal authorities such as kings or church superiors may be at odds with the paladin's personal sense of right or justice."

The situation was handled with speed and skill. The girl needn't suffer more trauma from watching his assailer fighting for his life, or being arrested and brought to trial before a judge. She had immediate vindication from the utmost representative of upholding the weak and punishing the guilty.

I'd even commend the player for not taking an action to detect evil, just to be on the safe side. He followed his gut feeling and innate sense of justice and meted out due punishment (a quick, painless death instead of lynching or mutilating).

Saved the city court costs

The reality is that you did the molester a favor. He would be convicted and executed anyway. This way it was quick and painless! No spending days in a cell waiting for the gallows, maybe even victimized yourself. One minute your looking down at your manhood content and happy, next your looking up at it for a second and lights out. He got off easy. If it had been a person stealing a purse, yeah arrest and try him, a child molester caught in the act, no way! Dumb question, what if the molester was given warning and duelled the Paladin and won (commoners can crit too!)? The girl would be attacked again and the Paladin would have failed twice.

d4 said:

it really depends on your definition of honor.

in some codes, killing a person who himself has no honor is NOT considered dishonorable.

Click to expand...

Yes it does. I don't think that Forgotten Realms is usually one of those places and this isn't consistant with the Book of Exhalted Deeds take on honor and criminals in which "subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable to killing them and possibley being forced to stand trial for murder."

joe b.

I'm of the "should lose his powers" opinion.

I think one thing that this thread demonstrates quite well is that different gamemasters have different interpretations of what paladins should be like. Essentially, is Phillip Marlowe a paladin?

When running a game and having a paladin character in it I think it's important for the gamemaster to make it clear what paladins can be like in the campaign so the player can choose to go with it, if acceptible, or play another concept if not. I figure this is best handled by giving some examples of characters from fiction that would count as paladins. After all, the potential paladin character would have heard plenty of stories about great paladins and more than a few warning stories about paladins that have fallen.

***
That said, you could also turn this into an interesting roleplaying opportunity. Perhaps the character is just now learning what his god expects of him. Does the character react by realizing that he's done something wrong? If so he can attempt to atone or something similar. Alternatively, does he think that his god's got a screwed up code of justice? If so then he should voluntarily walk away and take up a different path--that'd make a good story too.

Regardless of the choice, as a GM I don't think the player should be permanently shafted with neutered class levels for going one way or the other. It's not as if the paladin class is overpowered compared to the others and thus needs compensating restrictions, especially if you've taken several levels in it.

***
But, to answer the original question, in my campaign you'd be cool. Phillip Marlowe is definitely a paladin.

Lose powers. And without remorse and repentence no chance of getting them back.

For a paladin such rash action is very dangerous.

What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.

He should have apprehended the man and either let local law deal with him or, in case that would not work for some reason, question the villain himself to determine the truth and act upon it.

Numion said:

How come children and women in real life aren't that eager to confront their rapists in courtroom?

Click to expand...

Because it's not pleasent, although it's necessary.

The child is the issue here. Paladins duty is to protect innocent from harm.

Click to expand...

And the paladin also has the duty to attempt to subdue and turn over criminals to the city watch when possible instead of killing. It seems to me, there was pleanty of time for subdual.

I'd say that a trial is actually harmful to the child, as they have been in real life. Putting paladins personal honor above the childs wellbeing is selfish IMO.

Click to expand...

Sometimes learning the lesson that being good, (turning over criminals to the watch instead of killing them) hurts more than being bad (killing them.) The paladin's duty to protect the innocent doesn't mean he's oathbound to try and prevent all unpleasent things from happening to people, such as being called unfriendly names or doing one's duty to convict a criminal.

And I never said that attacking from behind is honorable. It's not. What I am saying is that the childs wellbeing is more important than the paladins personal honor.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a one or the other dicotomy your setting up. It's not either protect the child or keep personal honor. It can be both by going to court and obeying the law.

joe b.

monboesen said:

What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.

Click to expand...

Yeah and what if the small child was actually a succubus? He should've done nothing .. !

EDIT: Just tried to point out that the paladin shouldn't let extreme probabilities interfere with his everyday duty. There's possibility the man is indeed possessed. There's possibility that the 'child' is actually a grown woman who's into bondage but accidentally drank a gallon of potions of youth. Or she was a prostitute illusioned to be a child for the patrons amusement. Big deal. The paladin isn't a defence attorney for the bad guys.