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

[sellars]

A thing that bothers me (maybe it's been said before) is that you have allowed yourself to lose your temper like that.

Sure, the guy was an evil bastard, but killing him in the backroom of a pub wouldn't do anyone good (except ofcourse for the girl, but she could have been saved in another way, now she is traumatized twice)

This guy should have had a public trial, probably followed by a public hanging. The effect on the comunity would have been a lot larger, and perhaps other (unknown) victims of the man would see justice. You should have seen these consequences.

Offcourse, as has been said, this kind of depends on which god you serve.


For me it all comes down on you losing your temper, which is a bad thing to do as a LG paladin.


(good catch though, let the bastard rot in hell )

 

[d4]

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.

true, which is where those blackguards come from.

as long as the paladin keeps making judgments that match those of his god's, he keeps his powers.

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.

the difference in a D&D world is that here the religious authority can prove via divine magic that they really are working the will of God.

kill a priest in the "real" world and perhaps you can get away with it. kill a cleric in a D&D world and you'll have a hound archon chasing you down.

by virtue of their magical power, i see religious authority trumping purely secular authority.

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

of course i was being a bit snarky there. if the city militia weren't immediately familiar with the paladin, they'd probably want confirmation from the local church that this man was indeed a paladin. which would be simple enough to check given the divine powers of clerics.

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?

well, in my last D&D campaign, there was only one god who allowed paladins. (and, for what it's worth, he was LN -- so violence was definitely considered a reasonable course of action for dealing with most violators of the law.)

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

of course not! these are all decisions that each GM must make for himself. i was just explaining how i run things. feel free to disagree.

 

[dren]

As a DM, I think it was a cowardly act...but he did act to uphold goodness. I wouldn't have penalized him. If his first reaction was always to slaughter people weaker than him, even evil creatures, I would wonder why he would be allowed to continue as a paladin. But a one time act of holy rage, nah, well understood and well justified.

The strange thing in my campaign world is, if the molester was abusing his daughter, in parts of my world, the paladin would have been breaking the law, as technically children are chattel and belong to the parent. So, the paladin could be arrested for saving the child. The liklihood of this happening is low, but it could happen, especially if the authorities were looking for a reason to arrest the paladin.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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?

My Paladin is in the interesting situation of having a Hill Giant on his island who he has converted from evil. Redemption is always possible and should be offered where prisoners are involved. If they fail to do as such, the law will be very quick to deal with such transgressors. So following the tenor of your argument, an orc would provide no difference for me on the basis of just being an orc.

However, if it wan an Orc and a more substantial threat to all involved than a betrousered commoner, then more direct action might be possible if the Orc attacked the Paladin. Still, you would not strike from behind and with surprise. You would demand the foul creature either submit to your authority or prepare to defend itself.


D+1,

My previous statement

Hi Vindicator,

I am currently playing two paladins, one of whom has lost his powers once but atoned.
Guess what, your guy should most likely follow the same path.

The following is "Old School" but most likely applicable to 99% of Paladins out there.

You attacked an unarmed opponent from behind without warning. The fact that he was in the act of commiting a grievous offence did not demand lethal action when a stern warning to cease followed by subsequent "punishment" if your orders were not followed was more appropriate.

If I was the mentor of said Paladin, I would have described to him what would have happened if an unscrupulous "friend" of the deceased said that you had raped the child and killed the man as he was trying to protect her and then pulled his pants down to cover your indiscretion?
To those looking upon the scene, they would most likely have seen through the falsehood but what if one or two did not? Your actions would come into question and you would have been brought to an unnecessary trial bringing undue and unwarranted pressure upon the church that you profess to follow.
Paladins are not renegades or vigilantes. They are required to follow the law and the processes there entailed. A Paladin must ALWAYS be above reproach and unquestioned in his actions. Your acts while expediating the process of the law did not render the law the respect it deserved.

However, while your character has shamed the ideals of his station, the emotional consequences of seeing a violated juvenile in the process of once again being victimized should be taken into account and not be denied. As such, a quest of atonement would be suitable so that your character could once again re-establish his righteous and divine link with his God. Having been guided back to the path of RIGHTEOUSNESS and justice, your character will then be a paragon of faith and virtue and a symbol to others who would follow your august journey to paladinhood.

Classic case of atonement in my opinion.
Apologies if this sinks you in it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

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

They must still submit to righteous authority which was not done in this case. The Paladin had left himself wide open. Paladins are not given carte blanche authority to smite down who they see fit. Again, they are not vigilantes unless their order has been given express permission by the authorities to act as such.

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.

Vindicator has given no direction that his paladin had any issue with the legitimacy of the authorites. Even if he had, he is still bound by his own code which I am positive he trangressed - at least as far as his DM saw it.
Paladin's don't have to "Play nice". They have to play fair; ALWAYS. This does not mean that they have to be stupid about it either.

In terms of being above reproach,

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.)

Again, I suppose I'm old school when it comes to these things.
Others will try to sully your name but through faith in your God and by the steadfast path of righteousness that you walk, you will prevail!
By straying from the righteous path - and cutting down a defenceless, unarmed man - you give credence to the slander that others will throw at you.

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

Simply put: no.
A paladin lives to follow the law, not to assume that he is above it.

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.

He has acted against his code in a profound way - based on his DM's ruling of circumstances. Therefore atonement should be offered.
However, your view of atonement and mine differ greatly. The act of atonement was certainly not simple for my character. It took him at least a level before he had convinced his superiors that he was back on the path and even now at 13th level, he still has difficulties over his actions on that fateful day.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Sejs]

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

You know, that's a very, very good point come to think of it.

 

[d4]

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."

well of course, the god in question has to be one that the secular authority agrees is good and lawful.

of course they're not going to allow a cleric of the god of murder to kill anyone willy-nilly.

but in my campaigns, they do believe the gods that have paladins have the right to mete out justice.

it's a totally different situation, so your counter-example there just doesn't work.

 

[argo]

Was the killing necessary? Was there no other option?

Since when is a paladin required to be a pacifist/modern day cop? Whatever happened to the holy warrior emphasis on warrior?

My point is that there are many different ways to play a paladin. If there wern't then the class really would be as boring and lifeless as some people accuse it of being. Playing a paladin as a "modern day cop" who sees that the law is enforced in a noble and goodly manner is fine. Playing a paladin as a "missionary" who seeks to show evil the folly of its ways and convert it to good is fine. But there is also plenty of room in the code for playng as a "righteous but-kicker of evil" who defends the weak and lays the wrath of his diety on the heads of the guilty. Matter of fact there is a good argument that that is the intended sterotype considering the presence of abilities such as smite evil and the combat-oriented bent of DnD.

Of course the DM is always free to intrepret what a paladin is in his game but this is FR we are talking about and not a homebrew. Judging by most of the official literature and game suplements I would have to say that FR is plenty accomidating to the "righteous butt-kicker of evil" paladin.

I mean, there are only two accusations leveled at this paladin anyway. The first one, that he shouldn't take the law into his own hands, carries some weight. But the vile nature of the crime and the fact that it was a crime in progress serves in my mind to balance that out. If he does this too often he might have something to worry about but it is way to minor an offense to lose his paladinhood over. The second, that he behaved dishonorably, is absurd. What ever happned to those threads about "lawful stupid" paladins and the people pointing out that paladins are supposed to be free to use common sense and good tactics? The attack was not cowardly it was opportune, he came upon a villan who was too distracted by the commission of his crime to notice the paladin and struck the wretch down where he stood. Again, even if this is a violation of the code it is way too minor an offense to warent a loss of paladinhood without being part of a pattern of bad acts. If the paladin code really is supposed to be that strict the only paladins left would be the one dimensional, holier than thou stick up their butt types everybody loathes.

So far the best argument I've heard that the paladin behaved badly was the guy who pointed out that if he took the villan alive he could have questioned him about other crimes. Fine point that.

 

[jgbrowning]

the difference in a D&D world is that here the religious authority can prove via divine magic that they really are working the will of God.

kill a priest in the "real" world and perhaps you can get away with it. kill a cleric in a D&D world and you'll have a hound archon chasing you down.

That hound archon isn't nearly a full of divine grace as my 15th level elite bodyguard....

by virtue of their magical power, i see religious authority trumping purely secular authority.

But dieties are just powerful beings. There's not a "GOD" you know. Polytheisms are very different in feel of authority than what we're more familiar with in our monotheisms and I think we tend to lose track of that when thinking about secular/religious interactions.

If anything, more religions with actual power gives the secular more opponents to play off each other.

Also, I still don't understand why a noble ruling his land can't claim divine right. Just because he's not given the gifts that others have (all men are given different gifts by the gods) doesn't necessarily mean his gift of rulership is subservient to the gift of magic.

Divine magic doesn't prove greater authority. It's just another tool, like arcane magic. Especially condsidering that there are many different sources of divine magic, but only one source of rulership.

well, in my last D&D campaign, there was only one god who allowed clerics. (and, for what it's worth, he was LN -- so violence was definitely considered a reasonable course of action for dealing with most violators of the law.)

I don't have any issues with a particular group of paladins having the recognized rights similiar to a guardsmen in certain designated locations, but paladins in general seems a bit pushy to me. In your campaign, it sounds like it works, but I don't think you're running a very traditional world.

of course not! these are all decisions that each GM must make for himself. i was just explaining how i run things. feel free to disagree.

Good. So many people get hot and bothered about paladins. It's surprsing.

joe b.

 

[Alynnalizza]

*Chime*

This is definitely interesting. Having given some thought to this issue. (And thought about adding a similiar situation in for one of my PC's now). I would have to rule that the Paladin keep his powers.

The reasoning behind this is that there is no more of an honorable act than a Human Paladin saving a Human Child from pain and torture, regardless of whom is causing the pain. The DM in this instance stated that the evidence was clear of previous misgivings against the child, and the individual stated that he was 'going to teach another lesson'.

Destroying evil is always number one on any of my list for a paladin to do.

For the charges of "cowardly, unjust, and unlawul" I'll go one at a time.

Cowardly: That is what the perp was doing, not the Paladin. There is a difference between cowardly and fair. (Sometime minor, but difference there is). This was an unfair fight, but so... A paladin was destroying evil.

Unjust: I can't see this one, really. I would look more kind toward an invading orc ransacking and murdering half the town, then some perp getting his jollys off on the little girl. The Paladins action was very Just.

Unlawful: This is the sticky one. Really depends upon the a: Religion, and b; Town Laws. With out more, can't really make a statement on this.

If punishment must be handed out. Have the Paladin go with out spells for a tenday, if he violated the Religion by his swift death. Possibly include no lay on hands.

If he violated town law, would a god, even for a paladin, worry about this. Let the town punish him.

I personally think he should be left alone, but make sure the girl is WELL taken care of.

Thanks.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Was killing the child molester an "evil" act? No. Part of the Paladin's code of conduct is to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Was killing the child molester a "chaotic" act? Probably, assuming there are local laws and a criminal justice system to deal with such individuals. Even if his "personal" code was somewhat different, the proper "lawful" action would have been to subdue/apprehend the molester and turn him in to the authorities. Now, if the town was corrupt (Skullport) or the action took place out in the wilds, the paladin could get away with administering immediate justice. In the absence of that the PC is veering dangerously close to Wolverine or Robin Hood style vigilantism -- still good, but not the "Captain America" ideal the Paladin strives to attain.

Since this was not an evil act, I would not strip the paladin of his powers. But the DM should take note that this was a "chaotic" act. Repeated behavior of this sort would eventually push the paladin to CG, thus losing his paladin status. You might want to check out the Holy Liberator PrC in DoF and CD, it's a perfect fit for ex-paladins who couldn't deal with the "lawful" part of their code.