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

[Zimri]

I disagree firelance.

No one is saying the rapist is not guilty.
No one is saying the rapist doesn't deserve to die
Heck no one is even saying the paladin didn't have the right to administer justice.

The Bone of contention is about how he rendered the verdict not what the verdict was or that he rendered it.

 

[FireLance]

Well, I arrived at my conclusion because of the number of posts arguing whether it was an illusion, or the man was possessed (i.e. the man was innocent), and those arguing that the man may have been more powerful than he seemed, or that he might have accomplices waiting to gang up on the paladin (i.e. the man would escape punishment one way or another).

Thus, it seemed to me that the dispute was whether to take the very small chance that the man might be innocent or the very small chance that the man might escape justice. Those that would rather take the chance that the man is innocent rather than allow a guilty party to escape were in favor of the paladin striking as hard and as quickly as he could. Those that would rather take the chance that the man might escape rather than punish an innocent man were in favor of using non-lethal means to stop him at first so that the due process of law could take place.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thus, it seemed to me that the dispute was whether to take the very small chance that the man might be innocent or the very small chance that the man might escape justice. Those that would rather take the chance that the man is innocent rather than allow a guilty party to escape were in favor of the paladin striking as hard and as quickly as he could. Those that would rather take the chance that the man might escape rather than punish an innocent man were in favor of using non-lethal means to stop him at first so that the due process of law could take place.

I would agree with you FireLance, if I this argument was occuring outside of the context of a game.

Because of an existing relationship with the DM (and by extension the DM's campaign setting), I feel that the player has a pretty good grasp on the odds that 1) the man was innocent, 2) the local justice system would be effective were the paladin to refer the matter, and 3) whether or not the paladin could successfully refer the matter to the local system given his current circumstances. Although it is metagame for me to say it, there is no innocent or guilty party, really. There is a role-playing situation, and a player who has to decide what to do in that situation, knowing what the DM is likely to do in the case of various circumstances.

No one would get to 5th level in my world without knowing how far they can trust their local judiciary. Hell, by the time they ended up visiting the local magistrate at 1st-to-2nd level and got a good glimpse of exactly how it works (in one town at least). They could turn in a criminal and have a very good idea what would happen to him. In some places, it would be a good idea. In others it would not. Similarly, they would know it wasn't a hat of disguise because magic items IMC are too rare to be squandered in such a way. I'm betting Vindicator was safe in assuming it wasn't a magic act, or a demon, or whatever. What's likely in a campaign world becomes obvious way sooner than that.

Vinidcator was supposed to believe his DM when the DM said, "Dude, it's a lowly commoner!" but not when he said "Dude, it's a rapist." Given what little we know, it seems likely that Vindicator was right to believe both comments. Vindicator knows his DM. He probably knew that his DM wanted the rapist to escape the NPC controlled justice system so that he could inflict a little paladin angst. It has probably happened before.

These things -- and only these things -- determine the odds that the guy was innocent, and that the guy would escape justice if the paladin didn't administer it.

Raven Crowking

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nice theory, Firelance, but I am both anti-death penalty and pro the Paladin's actions.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

My two cents

I haven't read through the full length of this thread but I'm going to have to come down on your DM being right.

My first reason for this is the honour factor - Paladin's in most religions are honour bound and striking from behind for a 'kill strike' is certainly not honourable. Obviously you'll have to take your religion's principals as a guiding factor.

There's also the magic aspect, and this will depend on how magical your campaign is. If magic is everywhere then illusions/possessions/charms etc. must be considered.

And then there's the issue of law. This will require a GM ruling on what the law permits your Paladin to do. Is he part of the legal enforcement system (and please ignore comments on what a medieval knight was permitted to do - you're not in medieval Earth)? If not does he have the right to kill/murder? If not then he needs to try and bring the rapist to justice - not take the law into his own hands. Otherwise he is a vigilante and that is not part of being LG.

But I think the main reason that I agree with your GM is that the story line will be so much more powerful, and your character develop more as a result of this situation. Suddenly your character is faced with a conflict I don't think you ever envisaged when you first rolled him up. Now you're in a position where he can either listen to his God and church superiors, take a penance and submit to a holy quest for redpemption (which is always a good story line) or he can decide that no he was right and his God has failed him - leading to a possible change in deity or even a switch to full on ex-paladin as he goes into vigilante mode.

The character development opportunities of you losing your powers are so much better than if you keep them... and this game isn't called ROLE playing for nothing

 

[Vaxalon]

No, the purpose of the DE would be to determine whether there was something beyond mere mortal evil going on.

Demonic posession would be handled much differently than mundane crime.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone's post:

Detect Evil would have taken 12 seconds (2 rounds) to confirm what is pretty obvious to even those of us who arn't paladins - that the rapist is an evil man.

Someone else's response:

No, the purpose of the DE would be to determine whether there was something beyond mere mortal evil going on.

Demonic posession would be handled much differently than mundane crime.

To which I say:

That's even worse. It takes 3 rounds to determine aura power, which is how you would determine whether the man was an outsider or posessed by one.

By then, the second rape would have already been in full swing. So much for prevention.

Edited to correct formatting error.

 

[Majere]

Ok this thread is beyond silly.
The argument seems to be between people who basically hate paladins and can argue a hundred reasons why the paladin should lose his paladinhood WHATEVER he does, and those of us who actually want a playable class.

I ABSOLUTELY agree that the exact same people suggesting the paladin was wrong, and he should consider a whole bunch of rediculous circumstances would also argue he should have lost it all if this was a thread was about a paladin who DIDNT kill a paedophile about to attack a girl.

Paladins are not infallable.
The guy was evil
We can sit here until the end of time coming up with wierd and wonderful scenarios where it wasnt the guys fault, but the facts are he was RAPNG A GIRL.

The paladin killed evil.
Paladins kill evil.
Why punish him ?

Majere

 

[Torm]

Paladins are not infallable.
The guy was evil
We can sit here until the end of time coming up with wierd and wonderful scenarios where it wasnt the guys fault, but the facts are he was RAPING A GIRL.

Beautiful and simple. Only one problem here, and its not with you - I said almost the exact same thing back in, oh, say..... POST #276!

While it might be interesting to see exactly how long this thread can go, the same arguments are being had VERY verbosely over and over again. Please, people, let it die! I'm tired of this floating back up to the top and then I have to check it to see if anything new is a response to anything I've said, so I can be polite and respond. Really, people, the guy had his day in court, and his DM made his final decision. Good grief! The whole argument really comes down to whether you see the Law part or the Good part to be the most important to the Paladin class - and you're NEVER GOING TO AGREE! Agree to disagree, and take it up with who really matters - the players in your group and your DM (if its not you.)

 

[kirinke]

lol

anything with 'child molester' and 'paladin' in the post is going to get anyone's dander up.
but i am curious. what did vindicator's dm decide?