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

[jgbrowning]

Hm. Maybe the GM should have given the rapist a Spot and a Listen roll to notice the clanking, armor-clad, sword-toting paladin following him. I bet the DC would have been something like 3. Even this 1st-level commoner NPC could have passed it with flying colors.

...oh, but then this whole little morality play wouldn't have happened in the first place, because the rapist wouldn't have let the paladin catch him in the act. You know, I think that's good for another point on the "kick-the-paladin" scoreboard for this scenario.

One of the reasons I don't like paladins, beyond the arguements they spawn, is that once a situation occurs that creates an arguement, someone invarably accusses the DM of "kick-the-paladin" or some such.

That in and of it self, the idea that in every game, every situation should be solvable using a very rigid code of behavior or else the GM has it out for the player really gets my goat. It's another example of how poor game design (linking abilities to Role-Playing Aspects *in particular Alignment*) causes unending headaches over the paladin.

I don't think that every encounter must be solvable without breaking a paladin's code just because a paladin is part of a group especially when, when a paladin isn't part of a group, such requirements aren't necessary.

In otherwords, I'll play devils advocate since I've heard this arguement many times before. Why should I, as a DM, change the universe for all the other players because one player wants to play a character which prevents a broader type of role-playing because of alignment/personal code requirements and because the player also wants to be able to advance in levels and stay alive, regardless of what said code may actually require in the way of action according to situation?

joe b.

 

[Crass]

Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.

Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."

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

Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.

With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword. My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."

"My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.

I did so.

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."

My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation. He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)

Discuss.

Unlawful, yes. Good, definitely. I personally see paladins as champions of good, and therefore think your DM should concentrate more on the Good/Evil axis than the Lawful/Chaotic one. That doesn't mean that you become a rebel with a cause, though...

Was the stripping permanent? If so, your DM should rethink his attitude. I'd say, an atonement spell for the chaotic act, followed by a quest to redeem yourself would be in order, but you should have retained the paladin status.

But please let us know once the issue is resolved, what your DM has decided.

 

[jgbrowning]

But in this swords-and-sorcery setting, I'm not going to put any money on most countries (or any of them, for that matter) having such an enlightened, complicated, and comprehensive legal and ethical system in place.

I also make a distinction between the secular authorities, who cannot revoke paladinhood, and the actual god who grants paladinhood in the first place.

God's don't grant paladinhood since paladins can be paladins without a god.

And D&D-style gods seem to be an awfully pragmatic (and often dogmatic and intolerant) bunch; obviously, the paladin's god can know the full truth about the situation in an instant and will know that the paladin has, in modern cop parlance, made a righteous bust. He has caught a child molestor with his pants literally down, and it takes an unreasonable amount of pretzel logic to see that situation any other way. Now all we need to know is whether this paladin's god is the kind of god who thinks that everyone, even a vile rapist, deserves a second chance, or if it's the kind of god that says that certain crimes are so heinous that they permanently stain the soul of the criminal and that it is the sacred duty of all that is Right and Good to send that besmirched soul off to the Abyss where it can suffer the eternal torments meted out to such creatures.

Not necessarily. Given the fact that a god doesn't have to be involved to begin with which removes this line of arguement, the god could be the kind of god that thinks his paladins should support the local attempts a justice instead of creating his own justice. The type of god that thinks even a poorly operating justice system is better than allowing people to willy-nilly slay whoever they wish as long as they can justifiy their rage as "I was protecting a child." It could also be a god that knows the more and more his paladins take life and death into their own hands, the less they value it. For though they can take it away, they cannot give it to those who deserve it.

I tend to think the latter kind of god is more likely to ordain paladins, but without either of us knowing more about this particular setting, we're both just speculating. If this is a paladin of a god of mercy and redemption, he's totally screwed because you're right, he should have at least made an attempt to do something other than mete out swift, uncompromising justice to the evildoer; but if he's a paladin of a god of righteousness and shielding the innocent, he's just won some serious spirtual brownie points for doing exactly the right thing.

Righteousness and shielding the innocent != killing when other options are available. How is chosing to slay righteous when you can get the same end effect (shielding the innocent and punishment) without slaying, especially considering the perp didn't even know why he was being punished because he didn't know that he was about to be punished.

An important part of justice is understanding what your crime is, why it's wrong, and what your punishment will be. The paladin did none of that in this circumstance. And considering that unlike other circumstances (like fighting a red dragon) all of these aspects of justice could have easily occurred, his actions deserve repremanding.

joe b.

 

[Numion]

It is the role of the executioner alone to punish the guilty. If a paladin is also to by judge and jury he or she has to fulfil their roles too: to make sure that all the evidence is presented in a public and conspicuously impartial process, and to hear and impartially weigh anything that the accused has to say in his defence.

"Judge, jury, and executioner" > "executioner".

What about the childs wellbeing? Do you think a public trial would do good to her? The right thing for the paladin would've been to kill the man quietly and hide the body, that the stories of what were done to the girl wouldn't haunt her in the village for the rest of her life.

Putting your "honor" above a childs wellbeing is not really honor - it is hubris.

So forget challenging the man to a duel, or taking him to trial or putting him to jail. There needs be no other witnesses to the divine punishment of death than god. Thats best for the child.

 

[diaglo]

fair warning should've been given. killing him was not within the paladin's rights without confronting the commoner with his crime.

lose powers

 

[Numion]

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.

Which would be more important: protecting the child from reliving the abuse in a courtroom trial, or protecting the paladins honor?

 

[jgbrowning]

Thats best for the child.

Or perhaps its in the childs best interest to have it all out in the open?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to not watch someone be decapitated?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to see that justice can happen in a courtroom?

Perhaps talking about perhapses when discussing the child are avoiding the issue of the paladin's behavior?

I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.

joe b.

 

[d4]

I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.

it really depends on your definition of honor.

in some codes, killing a person who himself has no honor is NOT considered dishonorable.

 

[jeffers]

He keeps tha powa!

Such decisive action! Paladins cannot second-guess themselves!

 

[Numion]

Or perhaps its in the childs best interest to have it all out in the open?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to not watch someone be decapitated?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to see that justice can happen in a courtroom?

How come children and women in real life aren't that eager to confront their rapists in courtroom?

Perhaps talking about perhapses when discussing the child are avoiding the issue of the paladin's behavior?

I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.

joe b.

The child is the issue here. Paladins duty is to protect innocent from harm. I'd say that a trial is actually harmful to the child, as they have been in real life. Putting paladins personal honor above the childs wellbeing is selfish IMO.

And I never said that attacking from behind is honorable. It's not. What I am saying is that the childs wellbeing is more important than the paladins personal honor. Losing some honor to protect others is a sacrifice for the paladin, yes. Preserving your honor on the expence of the innocent is selfish.

It's not enough for the paladin to lose his powers, though.