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

[Creamsteak]

My goodness, we can honorably sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?

pray tell HOW is that honorable ?

Well, this is entirely unrelated and quite circumstantial, but it is honorable in certain contexts. I think it's honorable so-long as both men are armed and their weapons are unsheathed, whether they are aware or not.

I really don't know much about this, but as I understand it, the Samurai code of honor (which I think is just as valid as the knightly) worked like this:

If your carrying a "weapon" and by that I mean a katana or spear or other weapon that is intended for battle, and it is sheathed, I can announce a challenge. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, I must accept the consequences for the challenge and you should try to defend yourself because you were walking around with a weapon.

If your weapon is drawn, I don't need to say a word. You are armed. I can attack you outright.

If you have no weapon, I can challenge you (and face the consequences), but I can't attack you unless you draw up a weapon.

 

[Khaalis]

Lethal force from behind is still not honorable. Both the PHB and BOED say that LG characters are HONORABLE and compassionate. By the way of thinking I am seeing exhibited here any paladin that walks into a town with detect evil up SHOULD kill everything that glows with no thought of redeeming anyone. That same paladin should probably also kill anything that isn't evil so it doesn't have the chance to become so.

There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly. It is not a cowardly act to act immediately to protect the innocent. If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he likely would have attacked and killed the Child. Acting immediately was the best action.

From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself, in an "honerable" duel, would have done nothing but soil the Paladin. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, and make the man attempt to fight a battle that the Paladin knew full well he had no chance of winning - would qualify as “playing with the victim” and THAT would have been an evil act.

 

[Zimri]

2) Did he act with honor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
In my opinion... No.
There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly. It is not a cowardly act to act immediately. If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child. Acting immediately was the best action.

From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.

But thats the rub it was in no way honorable to kill him from behind after spying on him. Forcibly turning him around to face you and justice would negate his attacking and killing the girl, as would tossing him out the door he just walked through, or punching him with a heavy steel covered hand.

Giving him a chance to surrender to authorities or face the justice of your blade is not "playing with the victim". It offers him the choice of repenting being punished and then redeeming himself, or an oppurtunity to make peace with himself and his own code of conduct before he dies.

 

[Zimri]

Well, this is entirely unrelated and quite circumstantial, but it is honorable in certain contexts. I think it's honorable so-long as both men are armed and their weapons are unsheathed, whether they are aware or not.

I really don't know much about this, but as I understand it, the Samurai code of honor (which I think is just as valid as the knightly) worked like this:

If your carrying a "weapon" and by that I mean a katana or spear or other weapon that is intended for battle, and it is sheathed, I can announce a challenge. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, I must accept the consequences for the challenge and you should try to defend yourself because you were walking around with a weapon.

If your weapon is drawn, I don't need to say a word. You are armed. I can attack you outright.

If you have no weapon, I can challenge you (and face the consequences), but I can't attack you unless you draw up a weapon.

Right but the only "weapon" the perp was holding in this particular case was his "magic wand of child defilement" He was unarmed, and no challenge was announced. The child had already been sullied so it wasn't like he was currently "taking" her maidenhood, besides I am fairly certain that when caught in the act he would fail his "use magic device" roll for the aforementioned wand.

 

[Agemegos]

Heh, fair point. Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."

Very true. But since the suspect has been killed out of hand we'll never know whether he would have been able to back up his defence. This being the case, a lot of people are now feeling more ambivalent about paladins than they would have been if the suspect had been allowed his day in court.

Really, what would have been so impossible about arresting or subduing the trouserless one, convening a court, and acting as judge and jury instead of just executioner?

 

[Khaalis]

Right but the only "weapon" the perp was holding in this particular case was his "magic wand of child defilement" He was unarmed, and no challenge was announced. The child had already been sullied so it wasn't like he was currently "taking" her maidenhood, besides I am fairly certain that when caught in the act he would fail his "use magic device" roll for the aforementioned wand.

And what if this man were a monk or sorcerer? What if the man were a rogue with a throwing dagger up his sleave? We have no idea how dangerous the perp really was. We also dont know the law of the land. What part of the Realms was this in? What if it were somewhere like Oeble where the law is as corrupt as everything else int he city? Should the Paladin have risked the further safety of the child? Should the Paladin have risked the man's escaping punishment?

And to say the child had already been raped, so anything more done to her doesnt matter - THATS evil!

Even so... Even if killing the man wasnt the most Lawful act, one act done for the greater good is NOT enough to strip a Paladin of his powers. The deity might "warn" the Paladin through visions that it wasnt the best choice - but it is not enough to Violate the Paladin's code.

 

[jgbrowning]

As a counterpoint.....

* Did the Paladin “Grossly” Violate the Code of Conduct?

From the SRD:


So to answer if the Paladin Grossly violated the code we have to ask:
1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
2) Did he act with honor?
3) Did he NOT help those in need?
4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?

Now to the question…

1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
I am not sure as we do not know WHERE this occurred. However, in most places in the Realms this offense is a death penalty offense. Depending on where this occurred, it may even be that the Paladin knew that any other course would allow the criminal a chance to escape punishment, legal systems being as they are, and it is within the Paladin’s nature to ” hates to see the guilty go unpunished”. The Paladin caught the man in the act. That does NOT mean that a magistrate (court, etc.) is A) Going to believe the Paladin, nor does it B) Prove that the court will find the criminal guilty. The Paladin acted within the boundaries of what was GOOD and RIGHT. He may have avoided the legal system, but we also do not know what acts the Paladin followed up this event with. At the very worst, the Paladin acted as Judge and Jury.

Does this grossly violate the code? No. It may not have followed the local law to the letter but it falls within the LG alignment and within the Paladin code, assuming that the Paladin had ANY reason to be doubtful of the local authority. Remember the Paladin is only required to “Respect” LEGITAMATE authority. At the absolute worst, the Paladin bent this aspect of the Code as a personal sacrifice to do what was the Good and Right thing. Again, as with the Good Vs. Evil argument – doing what is right is sometimes more important than doing what is “Lawful”.

(Example: Just because Slavery is legal somewhere, doesn’t mean a Paladin is going to suffer slavery as a Non-Evil act. To the Paladin, what is right – acting against slavery – is more important than respecting the law.)

I think we all agree that there is a typical manner of dealing with such happenings. Be that calling for the guard or whatever, there was some set of socially determined methods for dealing with this man. What, in detail those are, we don't know as of yet.

The question I'm looking at is this: Why didn't the Paladin use those methods to deal with this issue? Not using that method is not respecting legitimate authority, unless the paladin has already been given that authority by whoever give authority.

It is assumed that the paladin acted against the local authority buy using lethal force when he doesn't have that right because he was concerned with the safty of the child. This isn't true. The man wasn't threatening the life of the girl. As vile as what he was going to do, it isn't the same as if he held her with a knife to her throat. The Paladin had a multitude of non-lethal ways of protecting the innocent, but he deliberately chose to disrespect the legitimate authority by using lethal force immediatly. He doesn't have that right. Even if the man had a knife to the girls throat.

If there was a knife, the paladin's disrespect of the local authority's power would be quickly understood. Sometimes one must act quickly, without authority, inorder to further the goals of that very authority one acts against.

This is plainly not the case. The Paladin didn't even announce his presence before killing the man. The Paladin did in no form the "good and right" thing.

2) Did he act with honor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
In my opinion... No.
There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly. It is not a cowardly act to act immediately. If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child. Acting immediately was the best action.

From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.

There was no pressing need to act immediately. The cretin obviously was not intending to kill the child. No matter the vileness of his actions, the man wasn't threatening life and limb. The Paladin acted dishonorably by disregarding the expected annoucnment along the lines of "Stop right there you beast!" and jumped right into sword swinging. Why?

Because he wanted to kill the man and he didn't want to wait for the "law" to do it.

3) Did he NOT help those in need?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.

Agree. He helped those in need.

4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.

As long has he punishes within his given right to punish, yes. I don't think the paladin in this instance has a carte blanc right to kill those who are evil or who have commited evil acts.

To me the Paladin ignored authority, behaved cowardly by not announcing himself in a situation that didn't justify immediate action, and fell pray to the spirit of vengence by not being willing to allow the legal authorities to deal with the matter.

joe b.

 

[Alynnalizza]

Another question, one of the statements was as follows:

<Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.>

How similar were the issues that have come up. Is there any previous experiences that the paladin acted differently upon?

If the said paladin has been in a similiar issue, and responded in same tone, without reprucussions. Then I do not see the problem as well.

If the paladin had never been is a truly similiar circumstance, than my previous info stands.

Now, If the individual had been warned previously, strip!

 

[Agemegos]

However, it's evil acts that screw the paladin over, not chaotic ones.

As such, I'd let the paladin keep his powers - but also inform the player that his paladin just took a very large step towards "Neutral Good" by not simply knocking the molestor out and bringing him into justice.

Good point. I am forced to agree.

The paladin should not be stripped of his powers immediately, but unless he gets back on the straight and narrow in short order he is in danger of having his alignment changed to Chaotic Good, and as a Chaotic he would not be able to be a paladin.

… the paladin did the chaotic thing by playing the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Well, I would say that he did the Chaotic thing by not playing the roles of judge and jury, but merely those of executioner. But we end up with the same conclusion.

 

[jgbrowning]

And what if this man were a monk or sorcerer? What if the man were a rogue with a throwing dagger up his sleave? We have no idea how dangerous the perp really was. We also dont know the law of the land. What part of the Realms was this in? What if it were somewhere like Oeble where the law is as corrupt as everything else int he city? Should the Paladin have risked the further safety of the child? Should the Paladin have risked the man's escaping punishment?

Part of being a paladin is accepting that, to behave honorably, you may just once in a while have to realize that you could have been more effective by not doing so.

So yes, what if the guy was a monk? Who cares? That's irrelavent to the paladins behavior, because the paladin must not only have ends that are good and lawful, he must also use means that are good and lawful to get there.

By you logic, paladin's should NEVER announce themselves, for it could make the situation worse.

And to say the child had already been raped, so anything more done to her doesnt matter - THATS evil!

Even so... Even if killing the man wasnt the most Lawful act, one act done for the greater good

An act done for the greater good must also be done in a good manner. This the the difficulty of being a paladin.

is NOT enough to strip a Paladin of his powers. The deity might "warn" the Paladin through visions that it wasnt the best choice - but it is not enough to Violate the Paladin's code.

I don't think he should be completely stipped of his powers, but he should lose some and have to atone. He simply didn't behave as a paladin should. He behaved as any other LG character should.

This is why I don't like paladins.

joe b.