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

[Alzrius]

Personally, I think the paladin did the right thing. The person he killed was seriously a monster, and about to inflict grevious harm on an innocent, after already committing what could already be described as sadistic torture.

Looking at the Code of Conduct laid out on page 44 of the PHB, I don't see anything that'd make you immediately lose your powers. You only lose them if you perform an "evil" act. Killing someone to prevent imminent harm to another isn't evil...duress maybe, but not evil. Your paladin, in-character, didn't know that he was just a commoner, and I can't see anything anywhere that says paladins must always use nonlethal or minimal force.

Let's go through the rest of the points laid out there:

Respect legitimate authority - No contest here. The NPC wasn't an authority, and what he was doing was definately illegal.

Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) - the "and so forth" aside, this seems in the clear also. Honor does not necessarily bind one to always alert the person they're striking beforehand...there is a difference between assassination and being foolish. Would your paladin not attack an evil spellcaster who was about to slay an innocent with a spell unless he (the paladin) was facing that spellcaster, or would he just stab him in the back to save them?

Help those in need - 'nuff said.

Punish those who threaten innocents - This certainly seems to be in line with your character's actions.

The last one is the reason most paladins can slay monsters willy-nilly without getting into ethical trouble. Ask your DM, honestly, that if that NPC had been a gnoll, and this had been happening out in the woods, if you'd still be facing these penalties.

Paladins are holy warriors, defeating evil with a sword. When facing a monster in the wild, they aren't bound to subdue it and bring it to a magistrate, so why here? Additionally, if the law says that raping a minor is a capital offense, then the paladin was meting out justice, which they seem qualified to do.

I say, your character should keep his powers.

 

[Toras]

-In order to really reach a consense we need to know a few things?
-Which God does the paladin serve? I think we can all agree that makes a big difference?
-What is the penality for this crime in this land?
-What is the penality for this crime as far as the paladin's church is concerned?
-Which law is higher, the Church Law with its moral imperatives or the Local Law with its cultural traditions?


Now here are a few thoughts of mine.
1. The girl was a potential hostage, and in situations where we have hostages present, the standing order is always shoot the hostage taker.
2. Is Honor more important than Good?


Of course I don't play paladins much, but I do play a CG Holy Warrior/ Protector of Children.

He would most likely have knocked the guy out, made sure the girl was deliveried to his clergy, so they could be begin the healing process both mental and physical.
Then I would have spent the next two weeks killing that man. Using my healing abilitys (as a half-celestial) as well as basic alchemy and antomy to keep him alive as I killed him in the most horrible way I could think off. But that is the kind of thing that my god would sanction.

 

[jgbrowning]

the way i interpret the paladin class is that they receive their abilities by the grace of a god. (usually a lawful, good god.)

that makes all the world of difference between a paladin and, say, a LG fighter -- who can't claim that his powers are received through divine grace. in my campaigns, paladins have religious authority due to their powers. and, like in most feudal settings, religious authority usually trumps secular authority.

The problem with this is that we're not talking about the paladin's abilities.... we're talking about his judgement. His judgement is no more divine than anyone's. His discernment of what is just isn't better than anyone else's. At least according to game rules.

You're assuming that he's got a direct line to his god when it comes to his making decisions. What's really going on is he has a direct line to his god because of the decisions he's already made, not the one's he's going to make.

For if paladin's were truly given divine grace in judgement to be "judge, jury, and executioner" there wouldn't be Blackguards. If divine grace can fail, it's not really divine grace.

On a tangent, the historical conflict between secular and religious authority is one just that: conflict. There wasn't any obvious superior in the feudal period (if any, I'd go with secular. you can alway be forgiven for killing a priest if your really sorry) and who was on top really depends on the time and place.

this is how it would run in one of my campaigns.

Paladin kills child molester.
City Militia runs in 2 seconds later.
City Militia: "What happened here? Did you kill that man?"
Paladin: "Yes. I am a paladin. I was doing God's Will."
City Militia: "Well, all right then."

And I'm assuming all the paladin's have recognizable heraldry which has never been used as a roguish disguise....

the government of the city has the right to exercise secular authority over the city, but no secular authority can gainsay God's Will -- because God is higher than any city mayor or noble, and the paladin is the direct wielder of God's power in the world.

but that's just how i run the game.

It's your campaign so it's your call. What do you do when two paladin's argue about what one of them did, or are all LG gods monolitically in agreement concerning the amount of violence appropriate in every situation?

Please don't take my comments in a poor light. I don't mean them that way. I'm just throwing out some thoughts.

joe b.

 

[Zimri]

Then again my responses could be because I kind of like the whole "pardon me I will be kicking your butt now" kind of thing.

Of course someone could argue that in order to be sure the perp was going to actually do what it looked like he was going to do the Paladin had to watch, wait for him to finish up, and then confront him when he turned to leave.

 

[Sejs]

Then I would have spent the next two weeks killing that man. Using my healing abilitys (as a half-celestial) as well as basic alchemy and antomy to keep him alive as I killed him in the most horrible way I could think off. But that is the kind of thing that my god would sanction.

*nod* and if the character was a paladin, that would definitly earn him a divine tap on the shoulder and a stern, reproving a-HEM. For a paladin, inflicting pain just to sate your own personal desires is a no-no.

But, as you said, the character you were talking about isn't a paladin. So it's an elephant of a slightly different color.

 

[Sejs]

Of course someone could argue that in order to be sure the perp was going to actually do what it looked like he was going to do the Paladin had to watch, wait for him to finish up, and then confront him when he turned to leave.

Heh, yes. We like to call those people who would argue that wrong, for the most part.

 

[Trickstergod]

Divine mandate does not lawfulness make or secular authority trump.

Two guards walk in on a cleric of a god of thieves, catching him in the act of theft.

Guards: "What happened here? Did you break into this home and steal those jewels?"
Cleric: "Yes. I am a priest. I was doing my gods will."
Guards: "Well, all right then."

That isn't going to happen. Divine mandate does not lawfulness make. Being a paladin no more gives you the lawful right to kill evil than being the priest of a god of thieves would give you the lawful right to steal willy-nilly.

Unless a paladin were a magistrate, nobleman or some other individual of authority, I would consider any attempts at playing at "Judge, jury and executioner" to make them into Chaotic vigilantes. They are no more exempt from the law than the aforementioned thief-god priest, and acting against it makes them not lawful, bit by bit.

In circumstances like the first poster put up, I'd say the paladin was doing the right thing, the good thing (if perhaps not necessarily the best thing - compulsion effects could have been in place, the molestor might have other children locked up elsewhere, and so on), but was also definitely doing the chaotic thing by taking matters into his own hands.

However, it's evil acts that screw the paladin over, not chaotic ones.

As such, I'd let the paladin keep his powers - but also inform the player that his paladin just took a very large step towards "Neutral Good" by not simply knocking the molestor out and bringing him into justice.

Perhaps there are more extenuating circumstances about; perhaps there was no one the paladin could bring the man into, for example, or walking out with the man in tow woud have ended up in the molestor's friends jumping the paladin or something, but presuming nothing of the sort existed, the paladin did the chaotic thing by playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. Most societies don't take kindly to that kind of attitude, even if it's in the right.

So I'd say the paladin has his powers. But probably not for long if his attitude keeps up - he'd be taking a swift trip towards Chaotic Good.

 

[Zimri]

Still though I can't see those actions (which are tantamount to torture) as being "good" they are definately chaotic though.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm on the opposite side of the coin here, personally. Noblemen and their ilk make and enforce laws because they claim to have a divine right to rule over their fellow man. Paladins enforce what is morally right and trounce upon evil because they are given a divine right to do so. The difference between the two is that the paladin can back their claim with proof of their divine favor.

They claim the divine right with just as much authority as the paladin claims his divine right. The paladin has his abilities, the noble has his land and his laws. Both are equal representations of divine right.

Thus is the slippery slope of using divine right as justification for anything.

*shrug* don't worry too much about expressing yourself well - we're all just people who enjoy a common hobby having a friendly discussion, after all. In any case, the way I see it is that a paladin does have a greater claim to the JJ&E title because of their paladin abilities. That they have Smite Evil as an ability says to me that it is to be used in the Smiting of Evil.

No more than the noble has the right to decide what is right and what isn't. Again I'm not sure if i'm being clear, but I think we have a very modern concept of rulership that utterly precludes the concept of divine right. IMHO, the divine right of the ruler is equal to or even greater than the paladin's gifts from his god. After all, according to the rules, you don't even have to worship a god to be a paladin.

Erm, wait. So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class? That seems somewhat unfair. Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed. One is a paladin, the other is not. The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?

Yep. It is unfair. That's because the game designers when against one of their cardinal 3E rules to please the vocal group that couldn't give up the paladin as a core class: no RP restrictions for abilities. They've stated in black and white that paladin's can't break their code or diliberately do evil or they lose their abilities. To me, it's bad design, and the cause of countless arguements and bad blood for gamers for years. Now everyone argues about how to interpret the paladin, while no one argues about how to interpret the fighter.

joe b.

 

[the Jester]

Erm, wait. So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class? That seems somewhat unfair. Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed. One is a paladin, the other is not. The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?

This is perfectly legitimate, because it is through exemplifying lawful goodness that the paladin gains his powers. If he ceases to exemplify LG he ceases to be a paladin.

Paladins are held to a higher standard than other classes, but so are monks and clerics.