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

[Zimri]

But no matter what attacking an unarmed, unaware, tangled in his own clothing, with his "wand" in one hand, and obviously distracted foe no matter how vile with lethal force is NOT an HONORABLE thing to do.

He brought dishonor to himself, his church, and his deity. He murdered the perpetrator in cold blood from behind when other better options were obviously available. He may have sentenced a family to starving to death, he may have made sure that the real perpetrator ( if the girl was "entertainment" at a common bawdy house) goes unpunished, or the slavers that sold her in the first place. There were better ways to do things that could have brought him and his order more prestige

 

[jgbrowning]

According to you, what kind of authorities existed in medieval times ?

[plug] http://www.montecook.com/arch_review25.html [/plug]

What kind of authorities existed in the wilds of the US at the time of the Western expansion ? Especially towards indian people ?
What kind of authorities exist even now in places like Sudan, Somalia, North Korea ?

Honestly, I don't care about these places. I do care what kind of authorities exist where the paladin snuck up on a peasant and chopped his head off. Everything else isn't really important for the discussion.

Would you necessarily trust that kind of authorities ? Assuming that the law and the authorities have the answer, legitimity and even if they have, the Willingness to stop that kind of perp is VERY optimistic. It's not because modern day, northern countries authorities are MOSTLY just in that respect that the ones in the rest of the world, and even less in a fantasy world are necessarily.

The "Paladin" archetype that creeps up in many human cultures is remarkable because it stands out from the generally low morales of its surrounding. Minstrels and church sang the praise of the paladin/knight in western europe because so few people looked like that ideal, and they wanted to educate people to act differently.

Either we're talking historically or we talking in the game world. Mixing the two isn't going to work because, historically, "Paladins" were some of the most barbarous people in the middle ages. Ala the Crusades.

I believe paladins get their powers because they have a "mandate from the heavens" and the mindset to act and face personal sacrifices to stamp out evildoers like the one described. That it could get them into trouble with authorities is irrelevant, said authorities can be a lot worse than even the perp.

True, I don't think most governments would be LG, I think most would be LN or LE and wouldn't tolerate paladins interfering with their legal systems. I wouldn't be surprised to see paladins explictly singled out in law providing precedent about how they should be handled when they flip out and claim they were doing their gods work by killing peasants without warning from behind.

But the crux of your arguement seems to be, "The paladin's code isn't valid here because the authority's authority isn't valid." I don't think this is the case because:

1. You're using a modern concept of "good" from the PHB, not the concept of good during a feudal period and then you're comparing the PHB good with the historical reality of rulership.
2. We don't know where in the Forgotten Realms the Paladin is.

joe b.

 

[Zimri]

So according to you, if it has been done once, it can be done safely again, and will not cause more suffering ? I do not agree with you at all. I think your posts are becoming more and more shocking and offensive. I hope you do not think what you wrote.

Of course I don't believe I should be able to smite you from behind unannounced for finding you just before you commit a crime.

Yes rape is bad and I am not suggesting otherwise. Being raped as your first sexual encounter is even MORE heinous. Being raped subsequent times IS not as shocking or debilitating as the first time. That isn't to say subsequent acts are not shocking or debilitating, just that one learns to detach or put up walls. And I say the previous from experience.

Seeing your perpetrator fall over dead on top of you sans head ( I would assume as I have never had that happen) would also be fairly traumatic.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?

Because that's the paladin's job. In modern day terms, a type of law enforcement officer. That's like complaining because a cop can draw his weapon in public and you can't.

I vote for no loss of paladin powers.

Maybe the problem is that the DM and player had differing viewpoints about what paladins are and aren't allowed to do? If so, in the interest of game harmony and fairness, this might be a good opportunity to discuss what constitutes crossing the line in the DM's world and let the paladin go scot free this time.

 

[ruemere]

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.

It may have turned into a very ugly hostage situation. By acting imemdiately the paladin has prevented this from happening.

And, even if you don't do metagame thinking on Paladin chances to subdue a commoner (who could be be of 5th level for all we know), there is also the simple fact, that all it takes to kill/harm a child strapped to a chair is a single, well aimed, push.

My own campaign is set in Mithril (a city in Scarred Lands), where paladins are the law. It is possible to disagree with a paladin's judgement, but one cannot question their morals. And certainly, no one argues with a judgement-on-spot... though a higher ranking paladin may examine the case or the paladin-executioner may be asked to prove his paladinhood.

And, were it to take place in my game, there would be no slap on the back. Rather a report to file and thorough investigation of all present in vicinity, establishment owner and so on in order to find out whether the perpetrator had any accomplices.

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

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.

Stereotypical goody-goody approach may lead to idiotic situations. Hence I dislike most superheroic stories.

Also, a paladin is human. He is prone to just anger like everyone else. However, in this case he knew what was going to happen (he could have attacked before the criminal condemned himself with his own words) so, prevailing emotions nonwithstanding, he did the right thing.

If anything, this show of empathy is much more redeeming than slaying a chaotic evil troll.

Finally, what did GM think placing such a challenge in front of a character? Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Stupid.

*sarcasm mode on*
Advice to the paladin player. Next time such a *double the amount of sarcasm on* mature *double the amount of sarcasm off* issue comes up, warn the perp about his rights and possible consequences. Do not attempt to strike or subdue without warning first the perp about your presence and your weapons, sharp and ready to be used.

For those who really like challenges, give a brief lecture why it is wrong to harm innocents, and provide arguments, why do you think that the victim in question is an innocent and why do you consider molesting a child to be evil and warranting an extreme action.

Then, if the victim is still alive and not taken hostage and the perp is still available, do a citizen arrest. Otherwise, pray to your deity to strip you of your powers, as you have allowed the evil to prevail and harm the innocent.
*sarcasm mode off*

Regards,
Rumere

 

[FireLance]

Thought I should chime in with my view, for what it's worth. Several issues have been raised, but I think the most relevant in this situation are the following four: Good, Law, Honor, and Mercy.

1. Did the paladin do Good?
In my view, certainly. He saved an innocent from harm and punished evil. These are Good acts.

2. Did the paladin act in a Lawful manner?
The conclusion here is less obvious. Apart from the fact that there is usually no consensus on what Lawful behavior actually is, there are too many variables, such as: whether the paladin is empowered to act as he did by secular authority, whether the paladin's god or religion would support his actions, what the penalty was under the local laws, whether the local laws required due process of trial or permitted summary execution, etc. From the context, however, he may not have acted as Lawfully as he could.

3. Did the paladin act in an Honorable manner?
In my view, he could have acted with more honor. At the most basic level, acting with honor means giving up an advantage that you might have, whether it is the advantage of preparation (challenging a foe before attacking), armament (allowing the foe to arm himself) or certain actions (not lying, not cheating, and refusing to use poison, for example). Often, honor conflicts with practicality, which proposes that a person should use whatever advantage he has to win. In a way, honor is a luxury which a paladin may not be able to afford in some circumstances, e.g. facing a powerful evil foe, or one that is about to commit some great act of evil. In this case, however, I believe that paladin could have acted honorably without endangering the girl, and thus probably should have.

4. Did the paladin act in a Merciful manner?
There are those who believe that paladins need not and even should not be merciful. I respect that view, but I believe otherwise. Further muddying the issue is whether you believe whether it is more merciful to kill or imprison the man. However, from the context again, the paladin may not have acted as mercifully as he could.

So, my overall analysis is that the paladin acted in a good manner, but probably not as lawfully, honorably or mercifully as he could. I would not strip the paladin of his powers, but I would have probably added some in-game consequences for his actions, such as having to justify his killing the man to the local guard or watch.

 

[Zimri]

Police can not shoot to kill an unarmed person.

That being said RL analogies don't hold water. And incidentally for the most part "the game world" isn't "back then" it's "over there"

 

[Minicol]

[plug] http://www.montecook.com/arch_review25.html [/plug]

Honestly, I don't care about these places.

Either we're talking historically or we talking in the game world. Mixing the two isn't going to work because, historically, "Paladins" were some of the most barbarous people in the middle ages. Ala the Crusades.

True, I don't think most governments would be LG, I think most would be LN or LE and wouldn't tolerate paladins interfering with their legal systems. I wouldn't be surprised to see paladins explictly singled out in law providing precedent about how they should be handled when they flip out and claim they were doing their gods work by killing peasants without warning from behind.

But the crux of your arguement seems to be, "The paladin's code isn't valid here because the authority's authority isn't valid." I don't think this is the case because:

1. You're using a modern concept of "good" from the PHB, not the concept of good during a feudal period and then you're comparing the PHB good with the historical reality of rulership.
2. We don't know where in the Forgotten Realms the Paladin is.

joe b.

true, we don't know where in the FR it is.
My point is the authorities are not NECESSARILY valid.
also, there might not be any real authorities around.
I also dislike the fact of a DM ganging on a paladin player in that kind of situations.

My view of the paladin is certainly coloured by medieval times, but more from the legends. Arthur and such are pretty action-forward paladins. And they are certainlu one of the main sources of inspiration in the game.

I do not think either that the crusaders were paladins. At most a few of them might have been in outlook. Those ones came back to Europe with their ideals crushed.

 

[jgbrowning]

It may have turned into a very ugly hostage situation. By acting imemdiately the paladin has prevented this from happening.

Or it could have not turned into a very ugly hostage situation.

You do realize that with this logic, the Paladin can literally justify anything? "I did it because he could have been a monk and it would have been worse if I didn't do it." "I did it because he detected as evil and I know that means he's done evil in the past. It's justice!"

Just because something may get worse (nevermind that the guy was unarmed and didn't have his pants on) doesn't justify using secretive lethal force. It's situations like this that have caused our refinement of our laws to determine when and when not to use lethal force.

And, even if you don't do metagame thinking on Paladin chances to subdue a commoner (who could be be of 5th level for all we know), there is also the simple fact, that all it takes to kill/harm a child strapped to a chair is a single, well aimed, push.

And the paladin is both obligated to his code and beliefs and to defend the innocent. He must do both to be a paladin. That's why it's hard.

My own campaign is set in Mithril (a city in Scarred Lands), where paladins are the law. It is possible to disagree with a paladin's judgement, but one cannot question their morals. And certainly, no one argues with a judgement-on-spot... though a higher ranking paladin may examine the case or the paladin-executioner may be asked to prove his paladinhood.

No blackguards? Never a paladin proven to be less than holy? For your campaign, I'm sure this works, but we're talking about a different situation.

Stereotypical goody-goody approach may lead to idiotic situations. Hence I dislike most superheroic stories.

I think being required to do good ends with good means is what a Paladin really is.

Also, a paladin is human. He is prone to just anger like everyone else. However, in this case he knew what was going to happen (he could have attacked before the criminal condemned himself with his own words) so, prevailing emotions nonwithstanding, he did the right thing.

Do you think he would have been "more right" if he would have turned the guy over to the locals?

joe b.

 

[Zimri]

How was the DM ganging up on the paladin? There was a better more honorable way out of the situation. The player was warned and choose to follow through with an attack unannounced from behind which was neither honorable nor chivalrous and in so doing likely caused further trauma to the child, and himself, his order, and his god to be thought lesser of.

One of the better ways out of the situation would have been to :
1) Grab the perp from behind and toss him out of the room
2) Scream "what in the name of (insert name of deity here) do you think you are doing"
3) Have party untie and comfort the girl
4) Stand over prone perp and offer him the choice of repenting and submitting to local authorities or trial by combat