Here Comes the Jury!

[Khaalis]

It also SHOWS justice to be done, spares the honor of the paladin, gives the paladin and or local authorities the chance to find co-conspiritors.

And provides ample opportunity for more harm to come to the child. There is no guarentee the Paladin would apprehend the perp. There is an entire encounter "unknown" not taken into account. In such a scenario the perp could use an afore unseen weapon on the child, he could run from the Paladin and manage escape to return at a later time for vengeance, the perp likely has friends that might choose to avenge the perp's capture once the perp tells them what went down, the child could be traumatized by a trial, and scarred by its public display.

Remember this isnt modern day. Trials in a medeival/renaissance setting - which is what fantasy is based on - were not the stately courtrooms with a judge. lawyes and jury we think of when we think trials. They were generally a single Magistrate who was more inquistor than judge/lawyer, and torture was used in lieu of polygraphs/DNA, etc. to ensure "truth" (regardless that under torture most anyone will say anything). There is also the fact that the events of the child's disgrace would be brought into the public light. Is that fair to the child? That is something she will never live down or escape. If it were kept secret, she might, in time, be able to move on and have a somewhat normal life, haunted only by her own memory. But to drag it out in public would forever taint her and make her likely an untouchable, or worse forever branded a whore. Remember - the people of the setting are not as "worldly" as we are now. In 90% of the cases of "rape" the woman was the one that ended up being burned alive as a witch for bewitching the man, not the man being dealt with for raping the woman. Even now, in our so called "enlightened" society - rapists have more rights than their victims, and the victims are STILL put on trial.

So yes, I agree that it helped the child.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

I wonder how these threads still come about on every board I read...

Did the rapist deserve to die? Yes.
Did the Paladin kill the rapist? Yes.

Is the Paladin bound to bring the rapist to justice? Yes.
Did he? Yes.

Is the Paladin a social-worker with the rights of the rapist in his mind? No.

The Paladin is a Knight Protector: He brings justice to those who cannot get justice. Remember in medieval times the Lord of the Manor was judge/jury/executioner, and was often fickle or ignorant, and easily bribed. The Paladin is the travelling justiciary who prevents the noble from ignoring crimes or overstepping his mark.

When will people realise that if the punishment meted out by the Paladin fits the crime comitted, the Paladin is in the clear?

 

[Drow Jones]

I voted yes, he loses paladinhood until atonement.

Did the rapist deserve to die? Absolutely
Did the Paladin kill the rapist? Yes.
Is the Paladin bound to bring the rapist to justice? Yes.
Did he? Yes.

Did the Paladin fight with honor and valor? No. He backstabbed an evildoer.

Therefore, Paladinhood is gone until atonement, but I would make atonement pretty easy in this case. "Bless me father for I have sinned..."

- DJ

 

[mmu1]

I voted yes, he loses paladinhood until atonement.

Did the rapist deserve to die? Absolutely
Did the Paladin kill the rapist? Yes.
Is the Paladin bound to bring the rapist to justice? Yes.
Did he? Yes.

Did the Paladin fight with honor and valor? No. He backstabbed an evildoer.

Therefore, Paladinhood is gone until atonement, but I would make atonement pretty easy in this case. "Bless me father for I have sinned..."

- DJ

This wasn't a fight, it was an exectution. A very merciful one, since the evil bastard didn't even know it was coming.

One thing I have a problem with as far as many people's view of the Paladin is concerned is that they have no problem with saddling him with both a code of conduct based on antiquated, chivalric ideas of honor, and a commitment to due process, miranda rights and offender rehabilitation straight out of some modern courtroom drama.

 

[Henry]

I saw this in the other thread but just had to respond after seeing numerous people use it (not you specifically, Zimri, your post was just a good jump-point):

How exactly does grabbing him from behind when he is unaware and dragging or tossing him from the room but the child in more danger ?

You have to initiate a grapple, then win a grapple check, THEN put him where you want him. Alternately, bull rushing, you have to move on him, (ignore the AoO because of his level), then win a contest, and then you only move him the amount you won the contest by. Neither is a sure thing, and either could get the HELPLESS girl (chained to the chair, I recall) stabbed. In real life, if my loved one is threatened in similar fashion, and I have deadly force, I would use the deadly force instead of taking chances with my loved one's life.

Initiating a charge or a grapple is still taking chances with the girl's life, because the outcome is VERY uncertain, not nearly as certain as the outcome of use of force, because that paladin has at most a +7 or +8 bonus, versus whatever the commoner's strength is, PLUS a 20-point spread. I've seen a 7th level character lose a grapple contest before to a 2nd level goblin. We ribbed the player for a week thereafter.

I WOULD say he POSSIBLY could have subdued, but there's a -4 on the attack, and if he missed and the evildoer retaliated, then he'd REALLY feel like crap-on-a-stick. Also, the DM could have "Storyfied" it, and let the paladin just "save the day by knocking him aside" automatically, but then we don't have inidication one way or another whether he would have allowed that or not.

 

[Henry]

One thing I have a problem with as far as many people's view of the Paladin is concerned is that they have no problem with saddling him with both a code of conduct based on antiquated, chivalric ideas of honor, and a commitment to due process, miranda rights and offender rehabilitation straight out of some modern courtroom drama.

Indeed, it may offer a clue to why paladins are so unpopular in the community as a whole.

 

[BryonD]

This wasn't a fight, it was an exectution. A very merciful one, since the evil bastard didn't even know it was coming.

One thing I have a problem with as far as many people's view of the Paladin is concerned is that they have no problem with saddling him with both a code of conduct based on antiquated, chivalric ideas of honor, and a commitment to due process, miranda rights and offender rehabilitation straight out of some modern courtroom drama.

Excellent point.

 

[BryonD]

Regardless of if you are talking about reality or romanticized archetypes, neither knights nor the even more "honorable" samurai were ever under any compulsion to to be noble and fair to everyone.

A samurai would, in theory, offer a fair fight to another samurai, or a "good" death to a deserving noble. But a dishonorable person or any commoner merited no such favor. A dishonorable commoner easily meets the defintion of below this standard.

If a commoner was run down in the road by a knight, the knight was not considered to have been unhonorable in murdering the guy. The guy was considered to have commited suicide by virtue of not getting his lowly butt out of the way.

This guy commited suicide but putting his loathsome butt in the vicinity of an innocent girl.

I'd take away the paladin's abilities if he did anything other than his best effort to save the girl as quickly and certainly as possible. Killing the guy is not required. Avoiding killing the guy is not required. The very existence of the life of a child rapist is below notice compared to saving the girl.

 

[Drow Jones]

This wasn't a fight, it was an exectution. A very merciful one, since the evil bastard didn't even know it was coming.

A paladin has to act with honor outside combat as well. The execution might have been merciful for the rapist, but definitely not honorable.

One thing I have a problem with as far as many people's view of the Paladin is concerned is that they have no problem with saddling him with both a code of conduct based on antiquated, chivalric ideas of honor, and a commitment to due process, miranda rights and offender rehabilitation straight out of some modern courtroom drama.

I agree.

However, the paladin in the example was not burdened with both of them. He was free to act as judge, jury and executioner, but a paladin still has to follow the chivalric ideas of honor. He did not act accordingly. A backstab is a backstab and a cowardly act especially against an unarmed man.

It's a very minor offence (in this case) and easy to atone for IMHO, but an offence nevertheless. I'd let the paldain walk to a church the very same night and atone for this minor sin even without without the spell. A confession is enough.

- DJ

 

[Feyd Rautha]

I voted already, but I just wanted to say that I have a further problem with this poll because it's obvious in Vindicator's post that he's pushing us all towards giving him a reprieve. I would say that the best answer to him getting to tell his side of the story without reproach is to have had the question here be a bit more balanced against his stalwart defense.

"Should a paladin who executes someone in cold blood without much grasp for the facts of the matter temporarially lose his powers?"

I think this would have been a perfectly fair question because it is obviously the one his DM is asking right now...

Peace,