Here Comes the Jury!

[Thornir Alekeg]

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

If his god or his code specifies to obey all local regulations and authority or something along those lines, I could see some kind of divine penalty, but probably not complete stripping of powers

<edit> didn't really answer the question the first time...

 

[Chacal]

I think the paladin should lose a little something.
But that's based on how the gods having paladins work in my campaign.

Chacal

 

[Caspian Moon Prince]

I see the paladin as being completely within line. Possibly a following of Tyr would have been more lawful than good and brought the person in for a trial, but catching the bastard in the act is more than enough to allow for the action.

 

[shilsen]

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.

What he said.

 

[Patman21967]

It depends upon the world

Nobody appointed the paladin Judge, jury and executioner. In most fantasy worlds, there is more than just a town watch. There are laws. I'm not focusing on our world, but most fantasy novels have some sort of law system, and a paladin should obey these. At the least he must obey the tenent of his church, then face the reprisals of the local law.

 

[evildmguy]

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.

Thanks! I actually enjoyed it and kept thinking I must be in a "LN" mood!

I didn't state it well but I agree with what you said. Essentially, if I were playing the paladin, I might have gotten mad, done what he did but then I would turn myself in to the authorities. That, to me, would be LG.

I also agree that the paladin should be tried. Probably not found guilty but tried.

However, it gets really tough in many, many ways. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is NOT that old, perhaps three hundred years. Certainly, they didn't have anything like this in the middle ages or even early rennaissance. (Remember the water ordeal? If you drown, you were innocent, if you float, you are guilty and killed. Catch 22 anyone?) I mention all of this, including the various fines and differences in "justice" between the classes, because a LOT of DND, and especially FR, is very 20th century. I think that is a fine way to play and present it.

It doesn't accurately reflect the times, though. Violence was very common. A person could get away with murder if no one else went looking for vengeance. It was also costly to get justice, with the magistrate being paid by the plaintiff and possibly defendent. etc.

I didn't bring those in because it kinda isn't relevant. However, the books with the listed punishments do hint that it is a medieval society in the true sense of the word. Novels, though, don't always back up that claim. The last few I have read are more of a 20th century medieval outlook. It is fine and I like the books fine but it isn't what the society would be like.

Okay, now I am rambling and I apologize for that. I do hope we find out what happens in this case!

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[starkad]

Considering in a bulk of our campaigns we throw alignment to the wind, and most Paladins turn out to be NG with Lawful tendencies (Lawful is so subject to opinion, do you obey the town laws? The laws of your faith? Or the laws of your heart? I say all three, depending on which situation you're in, thus why alignment tends to break down in our games)... I would say he shouldn't lose it.

I have stripped paladinhood once before (and allowed him to atone, though the player was a little childish and dropped the character immediately thereafter), and people are very hesitant to play them now. Be wary of just outright stripping the powers, it sets a bad precedent in some instances. I like the idea of losing a power or two, as a sign from the god that perhaps there was a little shady dealing, but overall approval. I don't think I would strip detect evil, but possibly spell use and/or lay on hands. To me, those are more closely linked with the affections and approval of one's god. Yes, they all are, but like we said, subject to opinion.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Yes you should lose your Paladinhood, temporarily.....

1) The creep deserved to die

But....

1) You sneak attacked him ... not a knobel act
2) From the rear
3) You, with evil intent, attached his head

You should have...
1) anounced yourself
2) subdued him so that he could be strung up by the town

-Swiftbrook

 

[Anthraxus]

I voted no…

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.


Sunglar

Hopefully not the case, but it does sound like another 'Paladin baiting'.

I say no penalties, maybe a reprimand by the local law(followed by giving him a medal...).

-A

 

[Maggan]

Stripped down Paladin for sale!

I voted Yes.

Insofar as I'm concerned, it's an evil act to cut down a defenseless person, and attacking from behind is also dishonorable.

The Book of Exalted Deeds has this to say:

"Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme - respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless.

A good character must not succumb to that trap."

Also, the DM warned the players that it was a questionable action. So my interpretation is that the DM said "in my campaign, which I run, your god will see this as a questionable action".

So the Paladin goes through with killing the man, and the DM says: "ok, your god is angry with you."

And the Paladin (through his player) says: "No he's not!"

So not only has a carried out a questionable action, he is also raging against his god, claiming that he is wrong in punishing the Paladin.

Heck, if I was a god (or the DM), that would really piss me off. So strip his Paladinhood, I say. And send him on a quest to make good.

I suggest that the Paladin player takes this as an opportunity to get some really good roleplaying out of his character. Raging against his god, being sent on a mission to do good, just because he tried to to good in the first place, and then being put in difficult moral situations by his god until in the end he realises what true goodness is.

So I voted Yes.

Cheers!

Maggan