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

Just another, perhaps slightly OT point - if the paladin is punished for performing what HE sees as the correct thing by his deity (read: DM), and loses his paladin status, he may come to believe that there "is no justice in the world" or some such thing, and may slide towards LN, or elsewhere... This may be the first step on the road to becoming a blackguard for a paladin, and would be a waste of good material for a (Good-aligned) deity.

mroberon1972 said:

The paladin is a religious warrior.
He is a defender of innocents, slayer of evil, and symbol of justice.
Not local laws... JUSTICE...
He is the sword of his god. He's built to be the hand of his lord's retribution.
He is not a police officer.
HE IS THE LAW!
It comes down to this: Ask your game master if the character's god advocates turning over the defiler to a MORTAL COURT, as opposed to his hand-picked paladin for justice.
Now local law might run him in, but all religions get persicuted sooner or later...

Click to expand...

As has been discussed earlier: The paladin does not have to be the LAW. He can be. That depends on the campaign and on the DM.

I would probably play it like Janx: the paladin is fine with his God, but would have to deal with a trial for murder or (more easily proven) vigilantism. Besides, it's fun to say "I answer to a higher law than that of mortal men. I answer to divine law."

Depending on the amount of extant magic, the molester might even be raised at the paladin's expense and become a life-long enemy. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist?

Darklone said:

But I'm really surprised how many people here see the shining beacon of virtue and honor as a guy who walks around and kills helpless people from behind.

Click to expand...

How is the perp helpless? I am so tired of people saying because he doesnt have a weapon that he is helpless. He was caught red-handed in the middle of commiting a brutal and evil act. Period.

You make it sound as if the Paladin in questions kills indescimately because he feels like it or for the pleasure of it. He didnt go into the encounter with the intent to kill the man, but when presented with evil at its worst thrown in his face he did what he was trained to do.

As I posted earlier, he commited no evil nor anything wrong in killing the man. The Paladin acted in a righteous manner, doing exactly what he has been TRAINED to do. If Paladins were supposed to take names and try to "aprehend" people - they wouldnt be warriors trained to kill, they would have a bunch of Non-Lethal special abilities. They are trained to protect the innocent and to ERADICATE evil. You dont eradicate evil and champion the war on evil by playing the unarmed English Bobby of 10 yearas ago. "Stop... or.. I'll say Stop again..."

Darklone said:

As has been discussed earlier: The paladin does not have to be the LAW. He can be. That depends on the campaign and on the DM.

Click to expand...

And what happens when a paladin is directed by his god to go against local authorities in power? Joan of arc anyone?

The paladin HAS to be the law, because he cannot just assume the laws of the land are the same as his god's...

Mind you, his law better be the same as his god's law, or else you get to see a paladin get struck by pretty colored lightning alot...

In medieval parlance, "murder" is defined as stealthy killing, assassination, that kind of thing.

If you killed someone in open, "honorable" combat, it wasn't murder...it was just death.

It's not lawful or good to hack down a defenseless man from behind, no matter what he's doing or has done.

Besides, if it's the paladin's duty to "punish" the wrongdoer, what the heck kind of punishment is a swift death?? The paladin should lose his powers just for sparing Chester the repercussions of his acts.

It's not enough for paladins to punish evil...they have to remain good while doing it.

I vote your character loses the powers, and you and your DM come to some consensus as to what it means to be a "lawful" "good" "paladin."

So, paladins who are in a land where some pervert things are allowed, common or lawful (such as slavery for example) should murder and kill?

How is a guy without weapons and with his pants down not helpless? Ok, there are demons and stuff... but this was in a town? I do have the impression some people here are too much used to high level D&D where every streetmerchant is a djinni.

mroberson: Please read the earlier posts. You assume too much from your own game, there are other gamestyles. The paladin may be his gods law, the blackguard as well. Who's right? And where?

2WS-Steve said:

I think Wulf's criticism of the DM is well-motivated. Also, attacking the Wulf's weakest point while ignoring several good ones isn't a good way to get at the truth.

Click to expand...

I was commenting that Wulf's and everyone else opinions that agree with his stance of "Black and White" as expresses in his quotation is inconsitant with how "Good" is defined in D&D.

Good is doing the least damage to get what needs to be done, done.
It's talking when talking will work. It's punching when only punching is needed, it's drawing a blade only when absolutely necessary. Because (Book of Exhalted Deeds) "violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good and a victory for evil."

This isn't to say that you don't kick ass and take names. This is to say that you kick ass and take names once every other possible attempt has been made to avoid kicking ass and taking names. This is what D&D good is.

It's not detecting evil and smiting anything that detects. It's not killing goblin babies. It's not choosing to kill a rapist when subdual is just as effective. Good people use their words more than their swords. Even when it means that being good may mean being dead. Because being good and dead is more important than being not good and alive.

Book of Exhalted Deeds: "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand live by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocnets die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she chan just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a person sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil's favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond that single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable."

joe b.

Tom Cashel said:

Besides, if it's the paladin's duty to "punish" the wrongdoer, what the heck kind of punishment is a swift death?? The paladin should lose his powers just for sparing Chester the repercussions of his acts.

Click to expand...

THIS is an evil or at best, neutral attitude. Punishment does NOT mean Cruelty! The punishment meted out by the Paladin was swift and merciful as it should have been. Anything else is Vengeance, not Punishment.

mroberon1972 said:

And what happens when a paladin is directed by his god to go against local authorities in power? Joan of arc anyone?

Click to expand...

That's just fine!

The question is, does the paladin burn down the county seat after trapping all the councilmembers inside...or does he submit to their "law" only for the purpose of speaking his god's will? Does he try to make them see his point of view, or does he poison the water supply?

Good isn't what you do, it's how you do it.