Agemegos said:
Sure. No question. But you'd rather be taken down by a tazer, or wrestled to teh ground by a burly cop.
Assuming, of course, that being possessed by a demon does not make either of those options fail.
My point here is that the paladin had other means at his disposal, that (both according to the actual circumstances and according to his actual belief at the time) would have been equally effective in protecting the girl, and that would have 1) avoided the risk of killing an innocent man in the case of possession, compulsion, or illusion; 2) given a better chance of discovering any accomplices the rapist might have had; 3) reduced the risk of the rapist's relatives refusing to accept his guilt, and turning to feud; and 4) been more in accord with a Lawful standard of conduct.
1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable.
2) Clearly, the tavern owner is an obvious person to assume as an accomplice, as the girl is tied up in his tavern. Take it from there.
3) I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial. If the miscreant's relatives do not accept the paladin's word, and seek him harm, the paladin cannot slay them out of hand, but he can attempt to show them that he is honorable (through word and deed) and convince them of the truth.
That said, suppose that the rapist
was possessed by a demon. In this case, the paladin has made one of SirEuain's "unwilling breaches" and
should find his paladin powers temporarily revoked until he atones. In fact, the revocation of paladinhood in this case should only occur if it is intended as a clue that the paladin, though speaking the truth
as he understands it is nonetheless
not speaking the truth.
I would accept this as a perfectly valid reason for the DM to remove paladin powers. After all, any magical measure of "absolute truth" or "absolute proof" (as I was arguing) cuts both ways!
4) Perhaps, but you still haven't convinced me that
your idea of "lawful" is
the idea of "lawful". Certainly, in your own campaign world, you can define terms however you like. In the case of "Law vs. Chaos" I would especially encourage this. You may also have special rules regarding paladins. However, barring that, and barring said rules being made available to players, the players have a reasonable assumption that the definitions given in the core rulebooks can be followed.
I don't think that that amounts of a case for stripping the paladin of his powers. But given that that's teh way it seems to me, neither can I accept that what the paladin did was perfectly alright by Lawful standards.
Ah, but the initial question is, effectively, "Does this amount to a case for stripping the paladin of his powers?" The question is not, "Was this the
best solution?" but rather, "Should this have been an
acceptable solution?"
Yes, the paladin should have taken the DM's (effective) "Are you sure you want to do that?" to mean "I may revoke your paladinhood if you do that" --
I would!
And yes, he should have asked for clarification as to his role, and what was expected of him under the circumstances.
Even so, no one comes up with the best solution in all possible cases. Paladinhood should only be revoked when the violation is clear, although I grant that
what is clear to the DM may not be clear to the players, as in the possession example above. (In this case, though, the ghost of the wronged man would visit the paladin in his dreams so the paladin understood his fault, were I running the game.)
RC