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

[Tom Cashel]

THIS is an evil or at best, neutral attitude. Punishment does NOT mean Cruelty! The punishment meted out by the Paladin was swift and merciful as it should have been. Anything else is Vengeance, not Punishment.

Swift and chaotic, but not lawful, good, or merciful. Mercy implies forgiveness.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

My two pesos

IMC, the paladin wouldn't have been stripped of his powers. He stopped someone in the middle of an obviously evil act; at least not the first time.

However, he would have faced censure and light punishment from his order or church, perhaps little more than a stern lecture on the virtues of due process and providing the wicked a chance to atone for their evil ways. Or perhaps he has to spend a few days aiding the temple clerics healing the sick and injured so that he might further contemplate on the virtue of mercy.

The leader of his order would make absolutely clear to him that even the most wicked mortal can seek repentance, and that there are laws in place for such situations, and that attacking with such force and duplicity are not the ways of the good heart. But I wouldn't have his god strip his paladinhood.

Now, if this were a common occurance, then, yes, I would strip him of his paladin abilities. If such situations happen often, then you have a sociopath using a facade of virtue to hide his dark heart.

Even if, for some reason, I did strip him of his powers, I would allow him to atone for his misdeeds.

 

[Darklone]

Could we have a "Nightchilde-2s proposal" option in the vote in the other thread?

 

[Henry]

I sure disagree with that. Frankly, seeing the molester cut down would probably be a lot less scary to the child than anything that the molester had already done to her. A paladin lives to vanquish evil, and I think this a clear-cut example of evil in action. I'm with Wulf on this, and wouldn't strip away the paladin's powers.

If anything, I think it would have actually served a good purpose for the child to see the rapist punished directly for his actions. The child doesn't have any worry that this monster will come back to hurt her ever again, whereas a court may only let him go with a stiff fine in a pseudo-medieval setting; 10 years old is almost marrying age, after all... I'd say the paladin AT WORST might do an atonement for letting his passion goad him into a dishonorable attack, but even THAT's being strict.

I'm not your DM, but you'd be getting XP, not grief, from me.

 

[Henry]

Swift and chaotic, but not lawful, good, or merciful. Mercy implies forgiveness.

I maybe missed it, but was it said what god the paladin served? If he served Tyr or Torm (in the FR), then a "fie" and a "pshaw" on mercy. Paladins and Clerics of Tyr are seen as roving lawgivers by definition, and Torm the god of Duty at most would have disabled the man with a subdual attack, and ensured he received justice even if he had to follow the trial all the way through and be sure the man got more than a slap on the wrist.

Knowing a certain paladin who plays in my games, and his view on this subject, I'm surprised the molester would have even gotten the words out of his mouth.

 

[Elrik_DarkFury]

There is no issue about dishonnor because a)he didn't even think sneaking from behind,and b) he acted by heart.

Yes a paladin has to be lawful(meaning that he tries to follow the code his god represents) but he is a man not an automaton and u can not punnish him for that.(you can punish him but that just doesn't seems right for me)

The shock of watching a monster raping a child and the chance and the ability to punish him the way it deserves even in a game justifies what the u did through your character.

In grim adventures the emotions of the players are more likely to appear throught their characters than in a dungeon crawl adventure.

The dm must not be so judgmental and stuck to the rules ,for even a paladin can do something not so lawfull without beeing punished.
The good part(of a lawful good paladin) is more important for me.


____________________
The Wizard

 

[Numion]

Whats the relevance of the man being helpless? Dropping your weapon (and pants) shouldn't let you escape justice.

The Paladin quickly acted as a Jury and Judge, then as an Executioner. If we're into "iffing", what if the perp had been warned (so that the Paladin wouldn't backstab), and he quickdrew a knife and killed the child (only witness). Thus considering the situation the Paladin acted in the safest and most protective way in regards to the innocent present (the child).

That the child saw the decapitation isn't that severe. In those times she would've seen it regardless if the trial punished the man to death. Executions were usually very violent for sexual offenders, and most of the times public. Only infraction I see here is that the paladin didn't say "close your eyes, child", before attacking.

One more thing: Paladins aren't restricted to frontal assaults. While that would be the right approach vs. commoners, in this case there was the child to be protected.

 

[mroberon1972]

So, paladins who are in a land where some pervert things are allowed, common or lawful (such as slavery for example) should murder and kill?

How is a guy without weapons and with his pants down not helpless? Ok, there are demons and stuff... but this was in a town? I do have the impression some people here are too much used to high level D&D where every streetmerchant is a djinni.

mroberson: Please read the earlier posts. You assume too much from your own game, there are other gamestyles. The paladin may be his gods law, the blackguard as well. Who's right? And where?

A paladin IS a killer. It is the point of the paladin's abilities:

Smite evil don't do subdual damage, ya know.

Explain to me where, out of the descriptions in the player's handbook, you can get this 'local law abiding cop guy' aspect of a paladin?

Has the guy who started this named his character's god yet? It would be a big help in deciding anything. It's the character's connection to his god that's in question here...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf I do have to disagree. The DM set a trap for the paladin, sure. But he gave him a warning.

Actually, this is what makes it seem to me all the more likely that the DM had it in for the paladin (character or player, no difference).

He trolled the bait right past the paladin. A child molester. Caught in the act.

By the time he'd set up this whole scenario, the "warning" was almost rhetorical. I don't think the DM really expected the paladin to do anything other than what the paladin did.

I'd be curious to know what would have happened if the paladin hadn't dealt swift justice. What new depradations would this DM have heaped on him?

"The child molester gets out on bail and murders the child in retaliation. You failed to act. You lose your powers!"

Just a hunch. The whole thing stinks.


Wulf

 

[Crass]

What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.

He should have apprehended the man and either let local law deal with him or, in case that would not work for some reason, question the villain himself to determine the truth and act upon it.

We're playing D&D here - who's to say that nobody can Speak with Dead, or uses some other magic, prior to burial to ascertain "the truth"? Also, resurrection of the slain is possible if the paladin was in error.