My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!)

[ThoughtBubble]

sidenote: JG, if a marathon runner is unable to run marathons, obviously he's not a marathon runner.

There's another level that the conversation needs to hit. And that's the stae of the game. Especially when engaging in a debate like this, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that this is, in it's essence, a way for friends to have fun.
Thus, for any major task, the question must be asked "does this make the game fun?"

I've got one character who is currently in a somewhat paladinsh dillema. He's strongly ruled by Valor, but also by his good sense. He's been challenged to a duel by an imperial knight. The knight doesn't know the PC's true identity, but would be hunting the PC if the he did. Now, valor dictates that the PC go and beat the knight soundly and show his skill. However, if he does that, his identity will be revealed. So sense dictates that he can't do that. Either way, he's going against one of his primary virtues, and will then be penalized. When he realized this, he looked at me, laughed, and said "****! Guess I'm going to be hitting my limit a lot."

Another player in my game could be put into a similar situation. However, I actively avoid putting them in any personally ambiguous situations with negative outcomes. The player would just fold up for the evening.

So, in each case, I do what I feel is best for making a fun game.

And I think that's likely my answer to every paladin arguement that ever was or ever will be "Well, what's more fun for the game? Does that choice make things better?"

 

[Amal Shukup]

I've been lurking and ruminating on this for a while.

As a DM, I might very well have stripped the Paladin of powers (with the understanding that reflection and atonement would be sufficient for reinstatement). Particularly if the 'execution' occurred within a civilized area of 'competent jurisprudence' *

1. It is not enough that justice be done. It must be SEEN to be done
The good people of wherever probably don't want to live in a society where a (self?) appointed arbiter of justice can execute a member of their society in a back room away from the public view. That way lies star chambers and the like. Justice (which the Paladin should care deeply about) is not thereby served.

2. Execution is a bell that can not easily be un-ringed.
Of course, it is a fantasy environment where a wrongful execution can be discovered and reversed, but such occurences erode society's faith in the dispensers of law and justice - who should exercise all sorts of due diligence in the pursuit of their calling. Again, justice is not served.

Granted, the evidence presented (slim tho it be) seems to indicate that an eventual execution is fully warranted - but why the unseemly haste? Better by far to capture, investigate (what if there are accomplices or demonic influences etc?), try and punish the perpetrator(s) in the full view of society, and with that society's imprimateur.

* If this occured way out in back and beyond (where the Paladin is the ONLY reliable source of justice), or in a land that lacks justice or is likely to allow justice to be miscarried, things become a bit grayer - but no matter how you look at it, the execution was unseemly in its haste. Also, the 'execution' was undoubtedly motivated (quite understandably so) by outrage and anger - NOT the state of mind best suited for administering justice (and the Paladin's deity or supervising mentor should issue a stern warning against carrying out sacred duties while ruled by baser emotions).

Note, however, I would have NO PROBLEM with a Paladin (out in the back and beyond, say) capturing the perp, interrogating him (magically etc.), and upon determining his actual and unalloyed guilt, pronouncing sentence and summarily hacking his head clean off (give him a weapon and duel? Please...)


A'Mal

 

[Zimri]

The proper thing could have been any number of things, but the point of the story wasn't that the paladin had a relatively obvious way out that he didn't take. It was that real entrapment is when the DM lets the player have all the rope in the world to hang his PC with. While I threw out token bones to give the PC a chance to save himself, it didn't really matter. I knew the player would act as I (and most of you, I'm sure) predicted, and an evil bard is precisely the kind of villain that would go for such an under-handed method of dealing with a foe. Therefore, I (and the bard) were the ones who ultimately forced the issue - the entrapment in question.

IF this other DM is guilty of entrapment, he didn't do a very good job. That whole "you're gonna kill him" thing is a warning if ever I saw one.

Heh.

What do you mean, 'if'? I'm not on this thread to shill my stuff, so I won't go into any specifics. Suffice it to say that this and other cruel tricks are the mainstay of the game I write for.

I believe Bart's camp counselor said it best: "Gentlemen, to evil."

Let me start off by way of an apology. I truly enjoyed the tale, I may even attempt to remember it and use some of those same tricks myself. I don't think the DM was trying to entrap the character and I do agree that if he was he did so really badly.

I fear that my asking what the way out was may have inadvertantly put you on the defensive and that was not my intent. I was simply wondering if there was one way that you had forseen the villian getting royally smited by the paladin and his crush not dying.

I apologize if the tone of my post or my previous posts has caused you to think I was in anyway saying the situation you described was "bad". Heck if at all possible I would love to hear more. Your game seems quite intriguing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The paladin defended a helpless child in imminent danger of bodily harm (and possible subsequent killing) by killing the assailant.

In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.

The one concern-he didn't warn the predator. On the other hand, he had no way of knowing or acertaining quickly if the guy was alone. Delay could have resulted in unneccessary harm to the child or himself.

It isn't cinematic- Lancelot DuLac in most movie portrayals would have drawn his sword and laid it upon the miscreant's shoulder *TAP TAP*-but this was described as being a "gritty" campaign. That move could have earned Lancelot a sap to the cranium in such a campaign.

This is EASY. The Paladin keeps his powers. In no way did he violate his oath as published in the PHB.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Honour is not what we owe to others. It is what we owe to ourselves.

That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station. The Paladin need not show much honor towards a peasant raping a girl. He could grab the guy with no explanation and behead him. Then walk out of the room with the little girl and say to the barkeep, "Clean up the mess in that room. This little girl needs attending."

It is the conventions I play with which may be the reason I disagree so vehemently with some of the folks trying to make claims of right to trial and right to accusation. In medieval times near as a I can tell, if a holy knight found a peasant comitting a reprehensible crime, he could put that peasant down without a second thought.

In my mind, Paladin's and priests of gods of like Tyr and Torm are the law of the land. Deities wield immense and visible power, and very few would challenge their servants save for perhaps wizards. If they decide you've done a crime, even if they do so arbitrarily after walking into a room, then that law is respected.

A deity will know if the criminal is true or not. If the criminal was truly a criminal and the deity with his ominiscence is aware of it, then why would he punish his paladin for carrying out justice? D&D, and more specifically the Forgotten Realms, is not a world of ambiguous justice where we are unsure of whether or not a perp committed the crime or not. The Paladin was sure to the best of his knowledge, and carried out a fitting punishment while in a state of righteous rage.

Unless that child molester was not really a criminal, then the God has no reason whatsoever to punish his faithful servant for executing immediately an evil criminal. Maybe a slap on the hand for now speaking to the vermin first, but certainly nowhere near a removal of his paladin powers for properly carrying out justice.

Honor is a matter of station. A Paladin need not give honorable combat to a lowly commoner. If the commoner is so evil that he molests children, he is probably viewed truly as vermin, beneath even words. He is like stamping out a rat on the ground: killed and forgotten.

 

[FireLance]

That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station. The Paladin need not show much honor towards a peasant raping a girl.

It is the conventions I play with which may be the reason I disagree so vehemently with some of the folks trying to make claims of right to trial and right to accusation. In medieval times near as a I can tell, if a holy knight found a peasant comitting a reprehensible crime, he could put that peasant down without a second thought.

Honor is a matter of station. A Paladin need not give honorable combat to a lowly commoner. If the commoner is so evil that he molests children, he is probably viewed truly as vermin, beneath even words. He is like stamping out a rat on the ground: killed and forgotten.

Well, I guess this is the crux of our disagreement. When I play, I try to apply modern standards of morality despite the medieval setting. Even though its is probably more "realistic" to apply medieval standards, my players and I know the modern ones best, and instinctively apply them.

Perhaps because of my background, I am also more inclined to treat all creatures with respect, not only those that "deserve" it according to some criteria.

In my mind, Paladin's and priests of gods of like Tyr and Torm are the law of the land. Deities wield immense and visible power, and very few would challenge their servants save for perhaps wizards. If they decide you've done a crime, even if they do so arbitrarily after walking into a room, then that law is respected.

A deity will know if the criminal is true or not. If the criminal was truly a criminal and the deity with his ominiscence is aware of it, then why would he punish his paladin for carrying out justice? D&D, and more specifically the Forgotten Realms, is not a world of ambiguous justice where we are unsure of whether or not a perp committed the crime or not. The Paladin was sure to the best of his knowledge, and carried out a fitting punishment while in a state of righteous rage.

Again, by modern standards, (as said by Amal Shukup) it is not sufficient that justice is done, it must also be seen to be done. While I would not want to second-guess a paladin or his god, it would be preferable, in my view, if I did not need to.

 

[Darklone]

I do get the impression that for some paladin posters here being good means to kill faster than the bad guy...

 

[Drakmar]

The way I see it is that this whole mess could be sorted out if we all had an understanding of the "Culture" of the Paladin in question. What I mean by this is that whether or not this causes the paladin to lose his status depends on the cultural background of his "Order"

In a campaign I was playing in, my PC was a Viking warrior/Paladin. He was NOT a Knight in Shining Armour. He was from a country that's overall alignment was Chaotic Neutral. His country didn't have Laws, just Traditions... So as a Paladin with NO church, and No Laws, the only things he could do was follow his Code (the Traditions) and put a Good bent on all of them. Amongst his people, if Hrothgar had snuch up on a sleeping White Dragon and crushed it's skull before it awoke, he would still PROUDLY boast that he did, and still get call Dragonslayer.

But... in the same Party, we had another paladin.. who was of the Shining Armour, Honourable loon, variety of Paladin. In her home country she would have needed to put him through the courts. Other countries. dunno. But there still would have been some violence coming that baddies way. My Viking Paladin would not have lost his status or powers. Her Knightly Paladin might have depending on where this occured.

 

[Numion]

As an aside, this has got to be the quote from the BoED that I have the most problems with.

...no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds...

Now if they're saying 'villians in general' that's one thing. But damn near sounds like they're saying that no matter how many times Sul-Gar the Reaver has tricked you in the past by surrendering and then getting away later, you always, always have to keep falling for the same trick if he presents it. Like saying because you're good, you must be a sucker.

That annoys me to no end.

This sounds strange. I always thought that while Paladin should be honor bound to accept surrender, he wouldn't be honor bound to let the surrendees go free. He might even decide after them surrendering that the capital punishment is right for them, and then execute them.

Like if Paladin 'arrests' a band of thieves with numerous murders on their conscience, he could execute the lot.

 

[Agemegos]

The paladin defended a helpless child in imminent danger of bodily harm (and possible subsequent killing) by killing the assailant. In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another."

It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.

 

[Agemegos]

That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station.

According to Edward I it was. According to Simon de Montfort it wasn't. One of them is remembered as 'Simon the Righteous, Father of Parliament' and was revered as a saint. The other is remembered as a cruel, cold, methodical giant, a tyrant, oathbreaker, and warmonger.

 

[Numion]

I do get the impression that for some paladin posters here being good means to kill faster than the bad guy...

Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.

Sometimes it's just best to take it as you see it, and act swiftly.

Maybe it was not honorable, but still I wonder if sticking to your honor further endangers a child, is it really honor or personal hubris and a little too big ego for a Paladin? Anyway, it wasn't an evil act, and so shouldn't lead to loss of powers.

 

[Numion]

It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.

The child appeared molested, remember? Well, Paladins only duty is not to prevent harm from happening, but also to punish evildoers. That he did. Killing the man served two purposes: prevented the next rape and punished for the previous one.

If secular courts decide that the Paladin is a murderer for doing his duty .. then so be it. It's the price for being a Paladin. The secular law is wrong and unjust then, and Paladin is not obliged to follow it. Just like in Thay being a Paladin could be illegal.

It's pointed out that Lawful doesn't really mean that you're law-abiding. It means you work in an organized fashion.

 

[nick2]

Wouldn't the Paladin know if he was committing an evil act or not? In his mind he was simply defending someone. If he was told that killing this person was an evil/unlawful act, he would have found a different means to stop the person.

The DM probably picked the most despicable crime there is. I think most characters in this situation, paladin or not, would have done the same thing.
Having consequences for these actions, like a trial or a vendetta against the paladin is reasonable enough. Have the commoner be resurrected, or tainted by an evil god/spirit, and let him continue doing evil deeds.

I also agree that applying modern laws and ideals to fantasy worlds does not work all that well. Suddenly the characters are charged with trespassing, breaking and entering, assault, murder, uttering threats. Then they have to use all of their adventuring money to pay for legal fees.

Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?

 

[Numion]

Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?

And for commoners the standard was guilty until proven innocent.

 

[AuraSeer]

In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.

You're making a big assumption with that word "justifiable." In most places, for lethal defensive force to be legal, it must be apparent that there is no alternative.

The paladin didn't need to use lethal force, because he so obviously overpowered the commoner. He could very easily have struck with the flat of his blade, incapacitating the opponent but not killing him. Even striking with bare hands would have done the job. In a modern analogue he might very well find himself arrested for manslaughter, because his use of force was so far in excess of what was necessary. (It might be legal to shoot a mugger, but probably not if you're also carrying a tazer.)

 

[Wormwood]

"Yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"

 

[Samurai]

Add my vote to "the paladin should be praised for enacting swift justice, not punished." IMHO, the child molester is far more evil than your common orc or goblin, or even undead. They simply are trying to survive, while the rapist chose to inflict harm on the helpless for sheer pleasure. I'd be far more likely to warn a paladin who ran into an orc encampment swinging his sword than I would in this case. Justice was done.

 

[Fenes]

I think we have many different definitions of Honor. IMHO, a paladin is not required to challenge commoners to honorable combat - in fact, doing so could be dishonorable in itself, a mocking of the honorable duel between knights. In that view, striking a knight from behind would be dishonorable in most circumstances, striking down (evil) rabble down from behind would be perfectly ok.

IMC, I try to apply medieval views, not my modern views, though it took me some time. It just feels more right to me to have characters who do not behave like they memorized modern penal codes, but live medieval values.

 

[FireLance]

Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.

For the sake of focusing the arguments, can we keep all remote possibilities out of it? For every argument not to strike because it could have been an illusion or the man could have been possessed, there is a counter-argument to strike because the man could have had accomplices or could have caused more harm to the girl if he was not put down immediately.

I don't think it is very productive or persuasive for either side to base arguments on what if.

Thanks.