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

[Toras]

Another thing to point out. Many of the medieval societies, and perhaps the realms as well have a concept of "High Justice" which only those of nobility gain this rights you are assigning to everyone. In a case such as this,
1) Any noble of even minor rank could have slane him without a thought
2) Medieval Courts are hardly even the most fallible of todays courts. Many were barely more than accusasion, and a vouching, followed by an execution.
As for the punishment it would have either been far too small (fine or a 10 day in the stocks) or Death in a way more horrible than you could imagine. (Beheadings were for royality), Commoners were Cruxified, Hung, or Something truly horrible (Drawing and Quartering, Being Staked out over an Ant hill, Stoned to death, burned at the stake, in Realms, magical deaths both ironic and imaginative, such as being sodomized to Death by Orges enchanted for the Job)

Much what I have seen so far in terms on "Honor" are either references to Samurai Code that don't take into account that this man was not samurai at all, and that those self same warriors could have executed a peasant they found guilt of this without so much as a second thought. or References to a modernized system of laws that don't exist for commoners till the 1800's.

I consider the Paladin in the right, and honestly if he didn't serve Tyr or some deep LG diety, you should congradulate him.

-Lastly, Reforming prisoners is not something any legal system prior 1900's gave a damn about. You punished Criminals with hard labor, or horrific prision conditions. At least those who were not noble or extremely well connected, that is how things happened before Legal System we all know and deal with.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, caught somebody in the middle of raping a child. Yes, he should act immediately, and with finality.

However, I might well have the paladin arrested and tried for murder.

Was the child rape legal in the area it happened in? (There are places even in our world where it might be.) If so the rapist was commiting no crime, while at the same time was commiting an evil act. And the result of the trial no forgone conclusion.

Did the deviant bastiche have friends in the judiciary that could help make sure the paladin nuisance was dealt with... permanently?

Even if we take a look at the inspiration for the paladin we find that Arthur's knights and Charlmagne's paladins were not above such abrupt dispensing of justice.

The Auld Grump

 

[ThoughtBubble]

But a rogue that's Lawful Good? I the paladin's jugement better than his?

Probablly, but not necessarrally. How definitively LG is the rogue? How tied up in his LGness is he?

A person who's alignment is Lawful Good as just as good judgement concerning what is lawful and what is good as does a paladin.

I don't agree with this position for the simple fact that the paladin has more tied to being LG, thus I assume there's more import on that aspect. Here's a bad attempt at explaining it via using something else completely. People who run are in shape. But people who run marathons are probablly, as a whole, in better shape than what you'll see from people who run.

And its for this reason that I argue that a Paladin's jugement on what is lawful and what is good is no better than anyone else's judgement (as long as they're lawful good as well) because the Paladin is just a capable of being "wrong" as anyone else.

See above as to why I think a paladin's judgement is better. And, to go back to the runner version of things, a marathon runner can stop running, and then he won't be in shape anymore, but he won't be a marathon runner either.

IMHO, the Paladin's judgement isn't special. His abilities that come from his judgement are.

Your arguements and reasoning are sound, but I think a paladin's judgement is special. I havn't seen many LG characters or NPC's around. Anyone who's LG is special. Anyone who has committed to being LG (as a paladin has) is even more special. Anyone who gets abilities for their judgement is definately more special simply because it's tangible now. The fact that paladins are a character strongly devoted to an archetype and type of behavior is insanely cool and offers so much potential for gameplay it hurts me to see things where all people can think of is to take powers away. If a player is playing a paladin to the point where taking powers away becomes an issue (rather than simply an annoying chore) then there's bound to be more interesting, interactive ways to handle it.

 

[argo]

Beyond that, there were many other things the paladin could have done that would have be "more" Paladinesque than what he did do.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was a base act of vengance and anger and maybe it was an act of rightetous holy justice. I obviously think that there is some room to manouver here. However lets say that there were better, more paladinesque choices. Should a paladin really loose his paladinhood just because he didn't make the best decision for a given situation? Or only if his actions are unpaladinesque? I really do not see how you can argue that a paladin who finds a man in the act of raping a 10 year old girl and strikes him down on the spot and without hesitation is behaving in a truly unpaladinesque manner. At worst this should be a checkmark in his cosmic tally sheet under "right motives, wrong methods". If he continues with a pattern of vigilanteism and poor choices then he might start to get warnings from his diety followed by temporary loss of powers and finally a loss of paladinhood. But it would just be folish for his god to hand a valued employee his pink slip on the spot for such a minor offense and espically when his heart was in the right place. If you are going to argue that the road to hell is paved with good intentions then I am going to counter that it is still a road that must be walked and not a binary choice.


The real rat bastard thing for the DM to do would not be to strip the paladin of his paladinhood but to have the villian's Lawfull Neutral and politically well-conected older brother show up and absouetly refuse to believe that his beloved sibbling could be guilty of such a thing and then procede to make the PC's life miserable in perfectly lawful and morally acceptable ways. Then remind the player that if there had been a public trial this never would have happened. Now that would be mean.

 

[Zimri]

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.

Did you miss this paragraph

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

I didn't say it didn't matter. Her being further traumatized by seeing it again is less offensive than if he were stealing her maidenhood.

I also never said you must turn him over to the authorities espescially ones you know to be corrupt (in which case the paladin is in for a world of hurt regardless and it would be better to face that with your abilities intact)

Other options the given scenario had
1) Knock him out with the hilt of your sword
2) Toss him out of the room
3) Spin him around in place
4) Warn him of his impending doom from behind while holding your action in case he makes a lunge for the girl
5) Unarmed strike to the groin.

any of those are better than sneaking up behind a person and killing them. Heck for all we know he had every "legal" right to be doing what he was doing. She could have been a slave, or chattel, perhaps they were having an ongoing consentual tryst and they both liked playing "master and servant". None of that can be known for sure so err on the side that keeps you noble, honorable, and valorous.

Being a hero isn't easy if it were everyone would do it.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

According to the paladin's Code of Conduct, a paladin must "punish those who threaten or harm innocents."

I'd say that your paladin deserves to keep his powers.

Absolutely. The only part of the PH that actually discusses a paladin's code says that they respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those who need help, and punish those who harm/threaten innocents.

Here's a definitively, obviously evil guy caught in the act of harming an innocent child; the paladin's under no obligation to bring the guy back alive or give him a "fair fight" or tell him "hey, please stop" or anything like that, barring vagaries in local law enforcement. It's a clear-cut decision: you are the paladin, you are confronted with a man who is about to perform an utterly vile crime, you stop him. Not "you stop him in the nicest way possible," or "you stop him as long as he's looking in your direction," or "you ask him nicely to stop and please repent his evil ways," or even "you stop him with minimal force."

Taking off his head in one stroke is actually kind of merciful for a habitual child rapist; I'd imagine many communities even today would have cried out for a longer, more painful end for the criminal. Unless this particular kingdom has a bizarre criminal justice system where rape isn't considered to be all that bad (like you're playing F.A.T.A.L. or something), I don't even see how what the paladin did conflicts with "respecting legitimate authority," which is about the only part of the code as written that is even called into question by this act, and that's only if he doesn't free the girl and report the whole thing to the local authorities, up to and especially the bit where he chopped the rapist's head off. The paladin helped an innocent in need, punished the person harming that innocent, and if anything, cutting that guy's head off just enhances the honor of the paladin; all he needs to do now is take responsibility for his actions and explain to the local magistrates what he did and why.

Whereupon they'll probably give him a reward for doing the right thing.

Being good, especially paladin-style holy-warrior Lawful Good, doesn't mean pacifism or embracing modern concepts of civil and criminal rights. Most fantasy settings are very rough places, with small communities fortifying themselves against bandit armies and monsters and the like. Evil is a real, palpable presence in most of those settings, and it needs to be fought. Sure, that kind of high-handed I-am-the-executioner vigilante schtick won't fly in the real world, but in a setting where demons are real and gods exist and actually interact with their worshippers, I suspect that paladins should be more than capable of administering some instant justice to the vilest scum they encounter without their own god pitching a fit about it. Local authorities will have a few things to say about it, I'm sure. But if you're trying to tell me that a good god who ordains paladins to go out and slay evil in his/her name would say "Whoops, sorry pally, killing a guy who is raping a little girl is way over the line, no more special powers for YOU," I think you may need to rethink just what kind of gods your campaign world has in it.

--
honestly, it sounds like your gm is just looking for an excuse to play kick-the-paladin
ryan

 

[Plane Sailing]

i
in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) are considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself is a legitimate authority.

so, if this paladin were playing in my campaign, not only would he not lose his paladinhood, he'd get a hearty "Well done!" from me, both as GM and through the NPC leadership of the town.

This is exactly my view too. No doubt about it in my mind.

 

[jgbrowning]

Probablly, but not necessarrally. How definitively LG is the rogue? How tied up in his LGness is he?

How tied up in the Paladin in his LGness? Is he just hanging on after atoning?

I don't agree with this position for the simple fact that the paladin has more tied to being LG, thus I assume there's more import on that aspect. Here's a bad attempt at explaining it via using something else completely. People who run are in shape. But people who run marathons are probablly, as a whole, in better shape than what you'll see from people who run.

Naw, that's a good analogy. But not all marathon runners are paladins and not all paladins are marathon runners. Some of them are still barely running.

Your arguements and reasoning are sound, but I think a paladin's judgement is special. I havn't seen many LG characters or NPC's around. Anyone who's LG is special. Anyone who has committed to being LG (as a paladin has) is even more special. Anyone who gets abilities for their judgement is definately more special simply because it's tangible now.

The fact that paladins are a character strongly devoted to an archetype and type of behavior is insanely cool and offers so much potential for gameplay it hurts me to see things where all people can think of is to take powers away. If a player is playing a paladin to the point where taking powers away becomes an issue (rather than simply an annoying chore) then there's bound to be more interesting, interactive ways to handle it.

My problem here is that the paladin would fit better as a template, than a PC class. Anyone can be devout LG seekers of justice. I find it odd that people seem to think that those who do so in heavy armor with swords are somehow more "LG" than those who don't simply because the source of the classes power depends upon maintaining LGness. Not maintaining the "best" LGness, just LGness.

joe b.

 

[Li Shenron]

Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood. I'm fighting him on it. His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."

Since your DM is playing the role of your patron deity in the campaign, I think he has the complete right of doing as he wishes. While another LG deity might have wanted his Paladin to do as you did, eventually this was not the case for your deity.

At best, you could argue with your DM that you were not informed enough about the deities available in the campaign when you chose to be a Paladin of this one. You can tell him that this is not the kind of Paladin you wanted to play, and maybe he'll make another god which suits your character better, of he'll let you switch to a different existing patron.

If you want to settle down a moral debate about Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos, you are going to have a hard time. For someone, eliminating evil is a good act, while for someone else killing someone when there are other ways to deal with him is always evil; killing a man in that situation is still a crime in most of the real world's countries (and thus a not very lawful act), but on the other side it would probably be percieved my most of the people in the same world as a just punishment for the torturer (and thus a lawful act on a level higher than mortal laws)*. The whole discussion also involves the hazardous topic of motivations vs means.

*just to say that if in your opinion yours was a LG act, for someone else it could be a CE act

As I suggested earlier, you and your DM have to find a way to keep the discussion inside the fantasy world and therefore in-character, because if each of you cling to his own opinion in the real life, and pretend that the whole fantasy setting adheres to his personal morals and ethics, you are going to risk spoiling the game for someone (as it just happened to you in this case) or at worst it can even bring hostility between people involved.

 

[jgbrowning]

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was a base act of vengance and anger and maybe it was an act of rightetous holy justice.

I've always thought that part of justice was the criminal knowing that punishment is coming and for what reason it's coming.

I obviously think that there is some room to manouver here. However lets say that there were better, more paladinesque choices. Should a paladin really loose his paladinhood just because he didn't make the best decision for a given situation? Or only if his actions are unpaladinesque?

I don't think he should lose his paladinhood, just some of his powers until he atones and realizes that, unless he absolutely has to, killing someone from behind without warning isn't tolerated. And even then, there'll still be a price to pay.

joe b.