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

[Philip]

The way the situation is set up gives the impression the decision of the Paladin to kill the guy was brought about by personal (and self-interested) motives. I think the challenge to play a Paladin is not to make decision based upon your emotions but one based upon your principles.

That's why it's difficult when your enemies surrender to you, because some part of you desires to trounce them (a well known Paladin problem).

You can take the moral high ground when you offer people you think of as evil and undeserving a chance to surrender themselves and repent. When you treat them as you would like to be treated by them.

This guy was not even offered the chance to surrender and repent. Approving this would condone pre-emptive strikes: kill the bad guy before he has the chance to surrenders and repent and then it will be okay.

Any commoner seeing the Paladin behave in this way will understand him. Most will have done the same. They will certainly not think of it as a holy or divine act. If the Paladin had spared the man despite being easily able to kill him, and tried his best to make this man atone for his evil act, then they would be suprised, then they would think of the Paladin as a special man, maybe even a man with the blessing of the divine.

This behaviour is clearly CG.

 

[Sejs]

What would a blackguard do in this situation? If he killed the molester, would he loose his powers?

Actually, funny thing really. You'll laugh.


Blackguards are not held to any code of conduct what so ever. They can do whatever the hell they choose, and as long as they remain even marginally evil (enough to retain the evil alignment that is one of the prc's pre-reqs) then they can keep on blackguardin.

 

[S'mon]

It wasn't very Lawful, was it? Kinda Chaotic Good, in fact...

 

[S'mon]

1. Lethal force is, in modern societies, authorized to prevent rape.

That's a big generalisation - English law doesn't even have a defence of 'necessity', just 'duress' and 'reasonable self defence', neither of which fit here. I expect US states' laws my be much keener on this kind of thing, but US law is unusually CG in ethos compared to that of most western societies.

 

[Agemegos]

It is largely uncontested that the paladin committed a Good act. Protecting the innocent from an almost certainly Evil man is Good.

Doing so with wholly unnecessary lethal force is not good.

 

[Scharlata]

I've had to vote "yes" as a DM (lose the 'hood) because in my opinion and in my campaign you (the paladin) would be responsible to show that your are an example of grace, goodness, honor and mercy "per excellence". If you wouldn't, you were just a law-enforcer (ranging form LG to LE). As a paladin you would be responsible to show mercy on someone that probably didn't have a chance to be otherwise because he hasn't had another chance in life.

Besides, what would be the learning effect a) for a wrong-doer or criminal if you kill him before he/she had very much time to think about his/her offense or crime; and b) for all others who view a paladin to be an opportunity to lean on or to report crimes of relatives or family if the know that the paladin would be the FIRST to kill a criminal loved one?

Kind regards!

P.S.: Nice cut and I hope the "NOs" win!

 

[takyris]

You know, I've been thinking, and I've reconsidered. The paladin should get a visitation from his deity telling him what he could have done differently. It should go something like this:

God: So, that could have been a guy under mind control.

Paladin: Er, I hadn't thought of that.

God: Could've had accomplices that you don't know how to find now.

Paladin: Oh.

God: Could've given him a trial and then executed him to show it to everyone.

Paladin: Well, I could also have carried out his severed head and made an announcement.

God: Okay, granted, but he didn't get any opportunity to be redeemed.

Paladin: Oh. Oh, yeah.

God: And you didn't give him a fair challenge and chance to defend himself, and even though the little girl was there, you should have done that, because, remember, even flanking can sometimes bring dishonor.

Paladin: Oh, right.

God: In atonement, you must perform strenuous physical labor while meditating upon your actions and thinking of the ways in which you might improve your behavior in the future. Please assume push-up position.

Paladin: I will not fail you, my lord. (drops into push-up position)

God: Alright. Now, give me... two.

Paladin: Er, what?

God: You heard me. Two! Two good ones! Nose to the ground! Straight back!

Paladin: Um, okay. One... and... two. (finishes push-ups)

God: Good. I hope you've learned your lesson. (gates back up to heaven)

 

[Agemegos]

1. Lethal force is, in modern societies, authorized to prevent rape.

Not in the modern society I live in it isn't. And unnecessary use of lethal force is never authorised. The paladin could easily have prevented that rape without any force whatsoever, and he could have prevented the rape and captured the perpetrator without using lethal force.

 

[BASHMAN]

GM, if you allow this guy to keep his powers, you would be actively aiding and abetting munchkinism.

Pretty soon, this person will be able to get away with the stuff that the paladin in KOTDT did:

"Hey, A white flag! I kill Him!"
"What? He is surrendering!"
"No, to my order of paladins, a white flag is the gravest of insults to my god, who has urged us to slay whoever wields them"
"Oh, well if your god wants you to kill people with white flags, go ahead"

That is what it is leading up to.
Pretty soon, there will be no difference between lawful good paladins ans chaotic good barabrians I suppose. Just let everybody do whatever they want right?

Give your pcs all the bonuses of being a paladin, and make sure you don't enforce ANY of the restrictions. Sounds good to me, Mr. Haul.

 

[S'mon]

Personally I'm not that keen on removing Paladin powers as long as he _thinks_ he's acting LG. Paladins in 3e are kinda weak anyway. >