Kem said:
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
D+1 said:
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
D+1 said:
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.
D+1 said:
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,
D+1 said:
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.
D+1 said:
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.
D+1 said:
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