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

[MrFilthyIke]

I wonder what everyone thinks the psychological trauma for the girl would be. Assaulted by a pervert repeatedly, only to witness his head vacate his shoulder premises in a bloody mess, followed by the sight of a radiant paragon of virtue walking through the door to free her.

I would suspect another convert for Tyr/Helm/Torm/etc.

 

[SirEuain]

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.

Here's the thing...

Was the paladin's behavior moral (good)? Possibly. The child involved WAS in imminent harm, though not so much so that the paladin couldn't have avoided killing the guy. The perp may not have been able to defend himself from behind, but neither would he have been able to defend himself, period.

Was the paladin's behavior ethical (lawful)? As others have pointed out, that depends on the deity involved. A god that places a heavier emphasis on redemption than on punishment would certainly find your conduct unbecoming.

Should your paladin get smacked down for it? Certainly. Allow me to indulge in a little criminology/criminal psychology...

This is questionable behavior, even for the most strident paladin, but that's not the real issue. The real issue is that your paladin didn't take anything else into account but the immediate scene before him. This is a D&D setting, after all, which means small populations. You've said this person was a repeat offender. From the description, he was operating with very little in the way of precaution - if a PALADIN can get this close without attracting the target's attention, it's because the target's pretty convinced that nobody'll be there. This, despite a virtually public setting for these atrocities. All of this points towards one thing, the true reason your paladin should get slapped down.

The man had accomplices.

By killing him without need, you've unnecessarily risked letting them get away with it. Your paladin has inadvertantly aided and abbetted these people by his negligence, which most certainly IS a violation of his code of conduct. He's certainly within reach of atonement, and fortunately for him there's an obvious and handy quest already involved. He must, however, come to grips with the knowledge that he could have saved more children by letting this vile man live.

 

[Kem]

Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.

Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?

 

[ThoughtBubble]

This reminds me of my response to the time travelling paladin's paradox. If a paladin gets sent back in time to a point when he could kill some really evil guy who caused countless innocents to die, but the evil guy wasn't evil yet, is it ok to kill him? My answer to that remains much like my answer to this. I assume the paladin made the right decision.

I view paladinhood as something from within. You're not a paladin because you've got a book of 1000 guidelines to follow. The paladin follows those rules because that's what he'd do. You're not granted powers for singing and dancing. You're granted them because of who you are. So I assume that the answers to most of the situations that come up will be the correct one. Of course, my group is fairly good about this. However, if it did come down to a paladin that I felt was acting innapropriately, I'd use a sliding scale. First, bad dreams, images, and a not so subtle shaking. Then, powers slip a little. Then a power works at half power or only gets refilled half the time. Then power loss. But I'd only do this in more extreme situations, or if the player has a history of behavior that I find questionable. Have you had a history of questionable behavior?

Anyway, I can see both sides of the arguement. Frankly, I'd make your life miserable though other means. Did you dispose of the body? If you did, was it a proper burial? Does his family know? Does anyone know? Could his friends find out who did it? Would the athorities come after you for murder? Does he have an influencial ally or contact? Does the girl have parents? If not, whos going to take care of her? Does he feel an obligation to confess and seek proper punishment?

I would be reluctant to strip a paladin of his powers, simply because anyone willing to play a paladin with any degree of reasonability is going to be more fun to play with as one.

 

[Sejs]

This is meta gaming thinking, not roleplaying.

I both agree and disagree somewhat with you there. It is metagame thinking trying to balance it in terms of relative level, it wouldn't, however, be metagame thinking putting it in terms of "I'm a well trained, experienced soldier in the service of the light. I am physically capable, in good condition, and have my sword in hand. This man has the bearing of someone who's never seen a fair fight in his life, his pants are down and the only weapon he's got in hand doesn't threaten me in the slightest."

To put it in more roleplay-ish terms.

^_^

 

[jgbrowning]

Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.

Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?

IMHO, yes. Societies have methods of dealing with criminals/evil/abberations. Usually Orcs are considered "outsiders" to those societies and are therefore subject to less "lawful" restrictions in a paladin's actions.

In other words, if a human commits a crime the paladin should try to behave lawfully and support the currently legal processes before becoming "judge, jury, and executioner." He's obligated to support the order of the society, as long as that society isn't evil, for he is also obligated to support good.

joe b.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Letting society decide its fate : take a look at medieval society : is it not really doing the world a service ? Such a guy would likely walk free in medieval society. besides law was inefficient, and known criminals walked all over Europe unmolested, because they were either nobles (ruled by "divine" right), or known (valuable to the nobles) mercenaries.

In such a case letting society decide is a bit of hypocrisy. By the time society decides anything, if ever, the guy has so many years to escape and continue to hurt innocents. Clearly not desirable for a paladin. IMO at least

I had pondered that, and went on the idea that Forgotten Realms is very "modern" in thinking, not very medieval (at least that how it comes across)

Some Paladins are Judge, Jury, Executioner...other are Law Enforcers.
It's very vague. I hate punishing players, I'd rather somewhat punish and then make ATONING all that more desireable by making it rewarding.

Plus, I'm too tired to think and strong, coherent debate tonight.

 

[talinthas]

was inflicting subdual damage (hilt of the sword, gauntlet to the side of the head etc) somehow not an option? In my campaign, the party ran into a situation similar to this (a commoner was drunk and assaulting a female kender, and the paladin took him out), and i responded by forcing a light version of atonement (the player was new, this was his first ever D&D session, so i took it a lot easier on him). Had the player been more experienced, i'd have certainly stripped his powers for taking a violent route when other means were available.

 

[jgbrowning]

I view paladinhood as something from within. You're not a paladin because you've got a book of 1000 guidelines to follow. The paladin follows those rules because that's what he'd do. You're not granted powers for singing and dancing. You're granted them because of who you are.

I look at it from another viewpoint. A paladin is granted his powers because of what he's done, not what he is. To me, a paladin's actions have no greater goodness or lawfulness than a rogues just because a paladin's doing them. The action is what makes the actor, not the other way around.

I would be reluctant to strip a paladin of his powers, simply because anyone willing to play a paladin with any degree of reasonability is going to be more fun to play with as one.

Me too. I think the paladin in this case should suffer a small loss in power and have to perform a fairly simple atonement with the understanding that he should try to be more honorable and conscious of non-lethal processess. The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.

joe b.

 

[D+1]

Paladins are not renegades or vigilantes.

They most certainly ARE vigilantes. They enforce their own code of right and justice.

They are required to follow the law and the processes there entailed.

No, they are required to respect legitimate authority (and guess who gets to decide the definition of legitimate?) IF an authority that the paladin recognizes as legitimate says that a paladin is NOT allowed to fight evil deeds using lethal force THEN he'd have to "play nice". But a DM had better be clear on that sort of thing or else a paladin is going to do what he's there to do - enforce what's good and right as he sees it.

A Paladin must ALWAYS be above reproach and unquestioned in his actions.

Generally a fine endeavor for a paladin but not something that his status as a paladin hinges upon. In fact, that would be one of the tough things about being a paladin. You know that bad guys will try to slander and disparage you but you do the right thing anyway (such as killing a child rapist before he can draw another breath much less draw a weapon to fight you or - surprise - instead of fighting you directly and honorably, to instead hold the child hostage or just move to kill her.)

Your acts while expediating the process of the law did not render the law the respect it deserved.

A paladin LIVES to expedite the law - and THAT is the respect that the law deserves.

Classic case of atonement in my opinion.

Well, if the DM in question sticks to his guns then that is the logical move. It's easy to do as the paladins actions were definitely not evil, just questionable in the DM's view. So, you can always just atone and move on. That can be a bit mercenary and meta-gamed in its treatment of Atonement, but it's at least book-legal and will generally make all parties happy.