Here Comes the Jury!

[ironmani]

I voted no in the above poll, BUT I feel that the Paladin should suffer some repercutions. Yes what he did was "good", but a Paladin must follow the law. Striking down an unarmed man from behind is definatly not in keeping with the Lawful Good alignment. Here is what I propose, not only will it make a cool story, but give the people a chance here to participate in Vindicators campaign. Put the Paladin on trial by his church. Three board member who are on the fence can be the three Justices. One who is pro for the Paladin losing his power is the prosecution and another who con for the paladin losing his powers is the defence. We start a thread where each sid presents thier arguments and the the justices rule on the matter and hand down the punishment. Of course we would need Vidicators DMs consent, but I think that would be a cool idea. What say you.

 

[evildmguy]

In RE: Paladin vs the Commonwealth

Greetings!

I voted no. However, I have 'decision' notes that I must publish.

First of all, if the DM said yes, that's it. I would probably argue it as well but the DM did issue a warning, the act was still done and so that's it. Hopefully, the DM will allow atonement.

With that said, I probably wouldn't have done it. As someone said on the other thread, I don't like it when the game rules bring GM and player into conflict, especially when player character abilities are on the line. I would have probably found some role playing things that made the paladin question what they did and probably asked the player, not the character, to play the paladin has having second thoughts, feelings of guilt and remorse and penalizing themselves rather than me, as DM, handing down any judgments.

Second, I agree with what others have said about this being a very tough call. Which laws are followed?

For example, using FR books, here is what I found about this crime:

Waterdeep FR1 - This would NOT back up the paladin's actions. Crimes against the citizens, including assault, do NOT have a death sentence. (page 19 of FR1) The punishment would have been either mutilation, enforced hard labor or some level of fine to be paid to the victim.

Amn FR3 - This would NOT back up the paladin's actions. With regards to Amn, it says, "More serious crimes are also punished by fines, but the fines are usually so high that the offender has no choice but to become an indentured servant (that is, a slave). If possible, the victim of a violent crime is often given possession of the offender as part of the restitution." So, it would only be a fine, it would merely be a question of how much of a fine it would be. Also, there is some dark humor here that the rapist would become an indentured servant (slave) to the victim. Hopefully, she would sell him right away!

Calimshan - This would back up the paladin's actions. "Calimshan justice is cruel and swift; as a result, crime is not common. The death penalty is common for most serious crimes (murder, kidnapping, any sort of assault or other crime that results in injury to another). Maiming, branding, or slavery are typical punishments for less serious crimes." Pretty clear there.

Thay FR6 - Kinda. The problem is that if the girl was a noble, what the paladin did would have been fine under Thay's justice. Otherwise, it would be up to a magistrate to determine the punishment for the Paladin. (Of course, WTF was a paladin doing in Thay? )

Mulhorand FR10 - Kinda. About the same reasoning as Thay, except she would need to be a priestess or acolyte.

Chessenta - This would NOT back up the paladin's actions. "Punishments for crimes are not as harsh in Chessenta as in Unther; they consist of four levels: fines, imprisonment, banishment, and execution. Murder and treason are punishable by execution; public troublemaking is punishable by banishment (starting a fight or causing a riot are examples of troublemaking)." Looks like a fine here.

Great Glacier FR14 - This would back up the paladin's actions. "So how are violations punished? Simple-the violators are put to death. The punishment is the same regardless of the crime; thieves are executed along with frauds and murderers. Executions generally take the form of drownings, stonings, or beheadings. Occasionally, criminals are buried alive, or stripped of all protective clothing and left to die of exposure. There are no trials or appeals, no second chances."

Dambrath FR16 - This would PROBABLY back up the paladin's actions. However, there are a few possible ways it wouldn't. It would because it is ruled by females, drow (however it is pronounced! ) females, and they would not take kindly to an assault on any female. However, it does say that business is most important and that crimes that stop business are the most severe.

I could not find anything in the 3E FRCS about crime and punishment, so I don't know what it would say. I also didn't have any more recent books with me.

There is another source I have. However, it would appear that it doesn't back up the paladin's actions. In MMS:WC, unless the girl was a noble or member of the clergy, there is no execution for the crime. In fact, assuming the girl was a commoner, it says it would be a fine of 10 gp to be paid to the victim.

This source also brings up another good point. The few laws I did find, except for Waterdeep's (and Cormyr would probably have a similar code), pretty much held justice for nobles higher than commoners. Even then, Waterdeep's laws don't allow for murder in this case. The family of the girl would no doubt be fine with what the paladin did but the local magistrates, who might have to be paid to hear the trial (again, as per MMS), would only levy the fine as presribed by the law.

The next issue is what would be done from here with the paladin. Part of the issue, though, is that someone will have to charge the paladin with murder and bring him to trial. If no one stands up for the rights of the deceased, more than likely, there will be no civil punishment for the paladin. If there is, depending on where he is, it could be a mock trial to a full blown political issue. That could be fun!

Finally, there is the issue of the gods. Well, that is troublesome as well. While some of these areas have their own gods, many of these areas have the standard pantheon, with different names and different forms of the same area of influence. So, Tyr's justice in Cormyr will be very different compared to Tyrian justice in Impiltur. Again, that's why we have a DM, and in this case, it was ruled against the paladin.

This probably doesn't help, and I was feeling very LN in looking all of that up, but depending where this happened, there could already be laws in place that talk about that exact issue.

I hope this was an interesting read, if nothing else!

Good discussion! Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Sunglar]

I voted no…

Paladins are tough characters to play and appropriate challenges for the character should include though moral choices and situations in which good judgment should come into play.

Having said that, the encounter with the child molester seems simple enough and (sorry for implying here without having all the facts) a little like bait to get the Paladin player into a tough choice in which the DM could punish him.

As a DM I only allow Paladins if I am sure I can deal with them in the context of the campaign and the group. The DM has as much responsibility as the player of the character in making things fair and just.

My two cents at least…

Sunglar

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I voted no (although as a DM I agree with Pcat that decision by committee is not a good idea).

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities

Killing the abuser was not an evil act by any stretch of the imagination. I can agree that it was not honorable to kill him the way he did, but I do not think he grossly violated his code of conduct; I would say that the paladin reacted emotionally to what he was seeing, an unthinking reaction. Yes, his DM asked him questions to be sure that he wanted to do this and the PLAYER acted willfully, but just becasue the DM asked, does not mean the player no longer can choose to have the CHARACTER act unthinkingly. The player needs to be free to play his character as he sees fit. The DM is not a character's inner voice or conscience.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Greetings!

Second, I agree with what others have said about this being a very tough call. Which laws are followed?

For example, using FR books, here is what I found about this crime:

<snip>

Nice job pulling all that together!

My one comment would be; sure the paladin can be tried for what he did, and in any just land should be tried (maybe not found guilty, but tried), but just because he violated the laws of men does not necessarily mean that he violated the laws of his faith, and those of his faith should be the only laws that matter when it comes to his God stripping him of his powers.

 

[Darklone]

My one comment would be; sure the paladin can be tried for what he did, and in any just land should be tried (maybe not found guilty, but tried), but just because he violated the laws of men does not necessarily mean that he violated the laws of his faith, and those of his faith should be the only laws that matter when it comes to his God stripping him of his powers.

Devils advocate: What if violating the laws of men means a violation of the laws of his faith ?

But I guess we got a huge majority who says no to stripping the paladin of his powers but yes to some minor penalties.

 

[Conaill]

I voted "no" for full strippage of the paladin's powers, but he should get some sort of serious reprimand.

When it comes to paladins, I often ask myself "what would superman do?", or "what would a good cop do?" The first one is more G-aligned, the second more L-aligned, but I don't think either would have just killed the guy from behind when there were *so* many other options. Ever thought of just knocking him out with nonlethal damage?

The Paladin acted like an Avenger, which is a distinctly CG trait. Still, I tend to weight G higher than L, so personally I don't feel this warrants a complete removal of all powers.

Since the paladin committed an offense against the Lawful aspect of his code, how about his order slapping a Mark of Justice on his forehead?

 

[Marius Delphus]

"No" on suddenly making the paladin an ex-paladin, but a penalty of some sort may be merited.

How does the paladin's *deity* feel about the dead man's attempted crime (and highly probable past crimes)? This should be the only guiding principle. Superman and Captain America tend to be my paladin role models, with the caveat that paladins have the option of using lethal force to right wrongs or punish wrongdoers.

I view this as not a combat encounter (hardly!) but an execution for crimes committed.

So if an execution "on the spot" is all right with the deity, considering what the criminal is -- more likely than not* -- guilty of, then the paladin deserves a small slap on the wrist to remind him that executions should not generally be carried out via surprise attack. Perhaps the deity feels the criminal should be given one last chance to repent; this doesn't commute the execution to some other sentence, but rather gives the criminal the opportunity to reflect on his misdeeds etc.

(* The modern "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't really feel right to me in D&D.)

Or, perhaps the crime doesn't merit execution in the deity's eyes. In this case, the penalty should be stronger: perhaps merely withholding all paladin powers until an atonement quest is completed. I think that ought to be the maximum penalty, though, since the paladin was carrying out his mandate, to a certain extent... he just needs to be reminded to toe the line.

Two more cp for the heap.

 

[frankthedm]

My vote is for keep powers, however the punishment i suggested If the paladin's actions reached the "gross violation" level [fight slaver guild barehanded] is quite possibly a death sentence.

 

[weiknarf]

Should the paladin lose paladin-hood? No.

Should the DM let ENWorld make his decisions? No.

If the DM wants to weigh our opinions against his, more power to him. But if he still doesn't agree after the debate is over then he should not have to abide by ENWorld's decision.

Maybe the paladin should lose an ability or two. Maybe. Or a stern talking to.

If I were the Paladin I would have given him the flat of my blade to the head.