Here Comes the Jury!

[Abraxas]

The real problem is we don't have all the info needed.

First - Why exactly did this shifty character stand out among all the others in the bar? Was it because the DM wanted him to stand out (the fact that he was a pedophile/rapist and was going to victimize his captive makes me think that this was the case). Or, was it because the player on a whim decided to follow the shifty guy and the DM created the rest on the spot?

Second - What was the room layout. All it is described as is a storage room with no dimensions. We don't really know if this all occurred in the surprise round (although it seems likely). If so the only way to attack is a) be within 5 feet of the perp (in which case him not seeing the paladin seems like a DM set up) or b) the perp was within range of a charge. a) is unlikely because unless the paladin was following the perp with his sword drawn he would have to draw his weapon and attack - drawing a weapon is a move action or can be combined with a move action - a 5 foot step is not a move action. So if the paladin was following the perp with sword drawn wouldn't some of the other bar patrons notice?

Third - Did the paladin try to hide? We don't know. Because of the new lack of facing rules the perp should have automatically spotted the paladin - he doesn't have cover in the door way.

Vigillance Apparently you and I interpet "He is a LOWLY COMMONER YOU'LL KILL HIM WITH 1 HIT" differently.

Fourth - In the games I've played in and DM'd this could just as well be DM talk to hide the fact that the perp is really a high level rogue in disguise, a doppleganger or some other dangerous opponent in disguise.

 

[evildmguy]

A police officer today would lose his job for shooting an assailant ,that was about to mount a rape victim and was unarmed , from behind, and likely serve jail time. Police however are not bound by any kind of code to always act with honor, valour, and chivalry.

Do not make this about "todays standards" as they dictate you lose. It is much more grey in FRCS.

I have already said what I said and I stand by it. (To sum up: I would let the player decide to give them control over their character but I have some good players.) However, I must point out that the above is wrong, by at least two sources.

I work with a former police officer. Her husband teaches at the police academy of my city. I also saw several Discovery channel specials on training for FBI agents. This may surprise some of you but here is what I watched and what I was told.

Law enforcement officials are taught to shoot the bad guy until they go down. Period.

This could mean empty their clip. The reason they do this is because without a lucky shot to the head or heart, it takes a lot of wounds to cause a person to go down (Not to be mortal but go down) due to low blood pressure starving the brain. During this time, they can still react but each hit dimishes their ability to act.

Further, my same sources tell me that said police officers would also fire if the person was within fifteen feet of them and definitely within ten, because within that distance, they can close to melee range and perhaps grapple for the weapon probably before the officer can fire even one shot!

I think we see too much sensationalized violence on TV, including officers stopping at one shot or two, to understand fully what kind of training our law enforcement people receive.

Second, while I do agree that the FRCS is grey on this topic, the sources I quoted earlier, in terms of a LN perspective, were not. Some areas would kill the rapist, others would fine him. I don't know what sources the DM and player have in question, of course, but there are sources out there as to what would be done in FR in this situation.

I am not trying to attack you personally, so much as question what you brought up in terms of its veracity. I hope I did it in a fair and respectful manner to you and to the boards.

Good discussion!

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Torm]

Wyatt Earp (there's another LAW enforcer of fame) blindsided people all the time, often critically injuring them, out of a desire to avoid gunfire that could harm him or (more often) innocent townsfolk.

Humorously enough, Mr. Earp happens to be an ancestor of mine. I guess this view of the law and what is right runs in the family.

 

[Torm]

And I suspect that others besides myself may have misunderstood your euphemism of 'unbecoming conduct' for 'gross impropriety'. I notice that no-one who voted 'guilty' has suggested that Vindicator's characer should lose his paladinhood.

I had noticed that, and in the penalty phase (should there be one after Paul Excelsior weighs in), permanent loss of paladinhood will not be listed as a voting option.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

Based on the rather short, summarized information in the initial question, I vote no.

Paladins are tough characters to role-play well and there can be quite a bit of variation within that LG alignment (just looking at the variety of opinions regarding this incident). Possibly the paladin's actions were not lawful (depending on how the role of the paladin is defined in the particular campaign, regardless of real world comparisons). Even so, seems like a knee-jerk DM choice to have a deity reacting both so strongly and immediately given the situation based on what I read of it.

Quite possibly the DM and the player had an opportunity to spur some great interaction, character development, and role-playing rather than an immediate reprisal from the deity for a (at worst) "gray" area reaction. The stripping of powers feels heavy handed (i.e. power struggle between player and DM), unless the Paladin was guilty of some other incidents that "put him on the fence" in regard to his status with his god.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yes, the paladin should lose his paladinhood - if the DM said so and gave a reason. If the DM did this, then the discussion is over.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I voted no, but...

I've played many Paladins, but never until I know how the DM views them. Some go so far as to play the "never strike first in combat or lose your paladin abilities". Those games have very few high level paladins. Lots of dead ones & former paladins though. My own personal code of a paladin is to protect the weak & fight evil. Killing a child molestor fulfills both of those requirements.

However, I have played some paladins that would NOT have killed the man (keep in mind the appearance between a 1st lvl commoner & a 10th lvl thief can be nothing, the only way he knew is his DM TOLD him). Namely my Paladins on Illmater tend to be of the "all must be given a chance at redemption" view (makes the party made when he tries to reason with every ogre, goblin, kobold they come across. I've had some paladins of Tyr who would NEVER have struck the man down if a proper court of law was nearby.
On the other hand my LG 28th lvl Crusader (2nd ed kit) of Hoar, God of Ironic Vengeance would have done just as Vinidicator's Paladin did (though he would have aimed at a different spot.

My final analysis. Your DM serves as your direct link to your God. If he interrupts you to ask you if you are sure you want to do this, you can be sure he (thus your GOD) finds something you should think about reconsidering. When this happens, you need to take a moment to think.

The best thing to do, before you play a paladin, ask you DM for his version of a Paladin's code. If he doesn't have up, ask to make one up yourself for your paladin order. Give it to him after your done, let him make changes. Once you both KNOW what the defintion of a Paladin's Code is you can play one much better.

As shown on these boards, many have a different idea of what a Paladin's Code is. The best DM's don't have a single code either. It should vary from god-to-god and order-to-order. With a few exceptions I'd NEVER play a paladin if the DM just had one iron-clad view of how to be a Paladin.

Vraille Darkfang

 

[Agemegos]

I had noticed that, and in the penalty phase (should there be one after Paul Excelsior weighs in), permanent loss of paladinhood will not be listed as a voting option.

Which means that you were not considering the sentences proposed by those who voted to acquit? Because I certainly nominated ex-paladinhood as appropriate if any substantial charge had found to be proven.

 

[Goobermunch]

This is a pretty idea and totally lacking any historical grounds at all.

So is your post. I'm sorry to jump in here, but this is a great springboard.

Here's the 411.

The Code of Chivalry did not apply to infidels (as someone completely outside the social and religious order) and those who had, by word or implicit deed, abrogated his place in the social and religious order.

This is why all the knights, following the code of chivalry weren't stripped of their knighthood and excommunicated for slaughtering every Saracen in the holy land.

This is why knights serving the Star Chamber in England were allowed to execute traitors on the spot in front of their screaming wives and children.

Having spent a substantial portion of the past few months studying the Star Chamber, I can tell you right now you're dead wrong. The Star Chamber was not permitted to impose the death penalty.

In fact, in its early period, the Star Chamber was a Court of Equity--a place where a peasant could bring a petition for the King's Justice. As such, it's primary purpose was to mitigate the unjust results of the Law Courts.

Further, it wasn't the chivalric code that permitted the crusaders to kill the Infidel, it was a papal indulgence given to each. Prior to the granting of the indulgence, the Church couldn't find enough soldiers to engage in the Crusades because of the concerns that murder was a mortal sin.

You note that knights were judge jury and executioner.

100% correct. But then you place namby pamby limits on that right that would have had the little medieval grade schooler learning his latin scratching his head at you.

There was no "he has the right to execute the child molestor BUT"...

He had the right.

He was upholding the social order by removing a cancer, in the way that posed the least threat to him and the girl.

Chuck

He had an absolute duty to act with honor. An honorable combatant does not fight an unarmed foe. An honorable combatant does not strike from behind. An honorable combatant doesn't strike with surprise (this doesn't mean you can't attack first, it just means you can't do it when your foe is completely unable to react). His acts were patently dishonorable.

Sure, he had the right reason for his act. But the ends do not justify the means.

Even in medieval England, knights were not judges, juries, and executioners. They had more important things to do. There were, however, judges and juries. Judges were appointed by the king and travelled the country dealing with criminal and civil suits. Juries were generally members of the peerage in cases involving nobles (thus a jury of your peers, a thing Americans are not entitled to). Executions were done by members of the military. There were also canon courts, which handled matters involving canon law.

The point here is that there was a legal system outside the knighthood.

I'll gladly spot you that his actions were in the defense of an innocent and helped someone in need. But the Code of Conduct doesn't say that a paladin should act with honor, or help those in need, or punish those who harm the innocent. It requires that the paladin act with honor and help those in need and punish the evildoers. All at the same time.

That's why this is a gross violation of the code. And that's why this paladin loses his status. Of course, it's not the end of the paladin's career, because the paladin can simply attone for his wrong doing and get on with his life.

--G

 

[schnee]

Running a Paladin is hard, because the player and DM have to be completely in sync with how 'Lawful Good' behavior manifests in their campaign. Otherwise, for the player, it's like running through a minefield blindfolded, or worse. Hell, look at how differently various religions - even sects within one religion - view 'good' - in real life. Is this do-able in a game? Not without either a) serious effort and b) open, strong communication.

IMC, whenever my Paladin player encounters a situation that is ambiguous, I very clearly tell him what I feel the Lawful Good action is, and also tell him if his actions (or lack thereof) are pushing it. Why? Because he's not there to read my mind, or navigate some morality obstacle course, he's there to have fun. If he wants his character to push the boundries for whatever reason, it will be due to his own clear choices instead of some unwitting mistake. If he wants to do the upright thing, he can now roleplay with complete confidence that I'm not setting him up for some fall. If he wants to play a tragic fall from grace, he can do that too, and relish it.

In other words, I always want there to be a very big distinction between player morality/knowledge and character morality/knowledge. If a player's character in my group ever loses his Paladinhood due to an honest mistake on his part, it will be because I failed as a DM.

I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's the way I choose to make an otherwise horrifically difficult and burdensome class viable.