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

[pawsplay]

Quick observation: the act was neither evil nor chaotic. It might not have been good or lawful, but it's understandable, and delivering summary justice is no violation of a Paladin's code. I can see strong arguments that killing the man was both Lawful (administering justice) and Good (killing what is probably an irredeemable man). If the man truly repented, he would probably wish he was dead.

There is nothing in the Paladin's code that prohibits wrath, nor any prohibition against killing someone, even from behind, if they are in the process of committing an evil act. If the man had a sword raised, the Paladin would kill him. Is he *less* justified in killing the man because the man was only about to molest a young girl?

Some Paladins may choose to knock out the man and bring him to trial, but I would actually consider it possible grounds to strip the Paladin's powers if he did so, uncertain the man would actually be tried and executed.

In any case, it's a complex situation, and a Paladin should never lose his powers over an arguable case.

Facing an armed man in combat is a matter of personal valor. Striking in this situation is not a matter of cowardice, but of believing that something more important is at stake than his personal valor.

I think the question arises: would the deity strip a LG cleric of his spells for the same act? If the answer is no, he has not committed an evil or lawless act.

 

[Deadguy]

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.

I have stayed out of this thread, since little good ever comes of these Paladin discussions other than increasingly shrill words as game and reality become blurred in the posters' replies.

But since this a pure historical point, I wanted to say that I have never come across this description of Simon de Montfort, and the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of Braveheart! I'd be the first to say I am not an historian, but having played an Ars Magica campaign that ran right through the reign of Edward I, I read widely around its history.

Was Edward a hard man? Yes, most certainly. But every successful monarch of this age had to be pretty damned ruthless if they were going to have a kingdom left. There's little sense of national identity and patriotism, and most magnates were interested only in what personally improved their station. Likewise, your characterisation of the de Montfort's rebellion is, I think, coloured by looking backwards and knowing what happened to the governance of England. de Montfort was not, I feel, a man acting to aid the common weal; he was a powerful noble who was concerned with controlling his king (Henry III, Edward's father) to prevent him from draining further power and authority away from the magnates.

Clearly in mediaeval historical matters, there is much scope for disagreement, even from primary sources. But it did sound that you were stating as fact to support an unrelated thesis.

Sorry, now to return you to your previous Paladin Animosity.

 

[Majere]

Just my 2c from a completely unrelated source.
Baldurs Gate 2 (Convenietly set in Forgotten realm)

One ok the missions you are sent to help a baron evict squatters.
It soon becomes clear that the baron is trying to steal their land.
The baron refuses stop so you kill him.

Is the killing of a noble lawful and good ?
The Order of theHeart seem to think so, infactI bevelie the quotes is something along the lines of:
"Im sure your actions were justified"

And that is kinda the point (in a roundabout way)
The actions were justified.
None can argue the man shouldnt have been punished. Very few will argue that under normal law he wouldnt have been executed.
Perhaps the method was not the most "noble" but thats almost besides the point. The paladin did the right thing for the right reasons. Possibly in the wrong way, but ultimately a paladin is accountable only to his god.

One way to do this might be just to have th paladin go on trial in the local courts.
If nothing else this teaches the character that his actions are not without repercussions and that he should apply thought.

And then cut the infidels head off

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

And then cut the infidels head off

Majere

Be careful with that one.

 

[Khaalis]

Lets please not being to debate over semantics...

 

[Agemegos]

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

Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.

So this was not a Lawful act. But the question remains open whether it was the act of a Chaotic personality, or an abberration on the part of a Lawful one acting under the stress of circumstances.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.

Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?

What about going the other direction? Suppose the girl was someone the paladin knew (or even related to). The paladin was acting as any good father would, protecting his daughter, as well as a religious leader protecting a (potential) member of his 'flock'.

 

[Agemegos]

the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of Braveheart!

Just so. Asked to arbitrate between the claims of the rivals for the throne of Scotland, he sold his justice to the one who agreed to swear fealty to him. And then claiming a suzerainty that he had obtained by extortion, he invaded and attempted to conquer.

Are you aware that in 1265 he robbed a bank (the Temple in London)? That as a youngster he had a commoner's eyes gouged out becasue the man was not in his opinion quick enough to get out to the road to let him pass?

 

[Agemegos]

I wanted to say that I have never come across this description of Simon de Montfort

As "Simon the Righteous"? It is mentioned in Chambers Biographical Dictionary (ISBN 0550 100512) on page 1071. And it is discussed by the historical novellist Sharon Kay Penman in her novelised biography of de Montfort "Falls the Shadow".

 

[Agemegos]

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

Trial in the Curia Regis was. But the manor courts, hundred courts, assizes, and other Royal courts were certainly available to commoners. Indeed, the escheat of property from commoners convicted of felony was an important source of revenue to whomever owned the right of high justice and managed to catch the gulty party. High justice in England belonged originally to the earl, but was gradually reclaimed by the Crown except in a few anomalous cases such as the Duchy of Cornwall, the Bishopric of Durham, and (I think) the Duchy of Lancaster.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You attacked an unarmed opponent from behind without warning. The fact that he was in the act of commiting a grievous offence did not demand lethal action when a stern warning to cease followed by subsequent "punishment" if your orders were not followed was more appropriate.

Sorry, but the act did demand lethal action. A stern warning fails to protect the innocent. After all, it is doubtful that the paladin is staying in town forever.

IMC, the paladin wouldn't lose his paladinhood.

In too many cases (though I don't think this one), the paladin alignment code is seen as an opportunity by DMs to create no-win situations. If the paladin slays the guy, he overreacted. If the paladin delivers a stern warning, he underreacted.

Was it cowardly to attack the commoner with his pants down? No. This wasn't the BBEG, and (as was pointed out by the DM in this case) the commoner had no real chance under any circumstances. It would have been cowardly to walk away.

Was it unjust? Absolutely not.

Raven Crowking

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

but he deliberately chose to disrespect the legitimate authority by using lethal force immediatly. He doesn't have that right.

And how do you know that? You don't. We simply don't know enough about the game in question to make statements so surely.
This is the problem with people that ask the boards for a decision or opinion on their situation; they never give enough details.

Even if the man had a knife to the girls throat.

And that's just insane.

I don't see where paladins have to respect local authority, and you don't even know if there are local authorities in this case, or if they aren't perhaps corrupt like the molester. Once again, we just don't have enough info to be setting answers in stone the way you seem to be.
Also, it sounds like some people have a bad case of "1st/2nd edition-itis". The symptoms of this sickness include mistaking the Lawful alignment for meaning that the PC always obeys the law. This is overly simplistic and was cast aside years ago. Lawful characters abide by a set of rules. Those rules might be the local law, but they are far more likely to be the character's own personal code of ethics, or a code of chivalry, or the precepts of their religion, or simply "don't go against the family". Most paladin's will abide by a combination of their own personal code of conduct and the expectations/goals of their religion. Not all paladins even have patron deities, in which case their own code of conduct is the only law they have to answer to (in regard to losing their powers).
Now a paladin wouldn't go out of his way to flout local authority, but he's not going to hamstring himself for it either. Conflicts with secular authority would be regrettable, but not a cause for atonement.

That the man's back was to the paladin when he struck is of little consequence. Might does not make right, so why would the paladin engage in a contest of strength and skill with a guilty perp?
"Have at thee rapist! If you win you must be in the right, though I do not wish it so. I'd execute you since you're obviously guilty, but honor requires that I give your molesting ass a fair shot."
What the $%*#?
Fighting an obviously guilty perp for the sake of honor or fairness or whatever only sullies the paladin. He isn't supposed to be equal to purveyors of evil, he's above them, so treating them as worthy opponents is just wrong-headed.
And before anyone says it, because I know they will; beheading an evildoer caught unawares does not mean he's sinking to their level, it means he's simply not recognizing the evildoer as being worthy of such niceties.
FYI: Honor is often neither good nor evil, but rather a product of the ego. It might be lawful, if you are bound to a code of honor and follow it, but honor codes are followed by evil and good alike, and sometimes the "honorable" thing to do according to that code, is misguided and silly. Certainly putting a child at risk for the sake of not tarnishing his honor would be selfish and careless.

In my opinion it was a righteous kill. The only thing that was unfortunate is that he hastily killed the man without finding out whether the brute was acting alone.
If the local authorities are just and aren't soft on molesters, they should see things the paladin's way and then suggest that he turns such mundane criminals over to them, instead of his sword arm in the future.
If the locals are mostly evil, he should try to get the hell out of there with the girl.
Either way, I think he should see to it that the girl is cared for, and if that means she has to come along with him until he can find suitable guardians for her, so be it.

Just remember, this could all be an elaborate ruse designed to saddle him with a succubus, a polymorphed evil wizard or other foul creature in the guise of a child in need. The counterfeit child could then encourage this rash behavior, slowly leading the paladin to "the dark side".
"Strike him down with your anger and your path to the Dark Side will be complete!"

Note: Without more information, all of the above is speculation. If such information has been furnished in the later posts, I apologize, but I haven't the time to go through all 21 pages of posts right now!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.

So this was not a Lawful act. But the question remains open whether it was the act of a Chaotic personality, or an abberration on the part of a Lawful one acting under the stress of circumstances.

The purpose of a trial would have been what? To determine guilt or innocence? In this case, that is a foregone conclusion. To determine correct punishment? Again, if the paladin has the right to mete justice, it is a foregone conclusion.

What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice. He acted in a back room only because a back room was where he found the problem. No different than acting in a dungeon, as others have pointed out.

Raven

 

[mythago]

(Okay, I'm going to assume this really happened and is not just a troll.)

The thing the original poster is not getting at is: what, exactly did the GM expect the paladin to do?

Was the GM setting up a trap in order to "get" the paladin? Did the GM have an expectation in mind that the paladin would drag the guy off to The Law? If I were the player, I'd want to know what the GM expected me to do, and what he considered an appropriate course of action in those circumstances. If the GM's answer was vague or unrealistic, I'd wonder if the GM was setting me up for a fall, and there really was no course of action that was either a) stupid or b) going to be used to deprive my character of paladinhood. In that case, the GM is being a jerk.

If the answer were something mildly sensible ("I expected you to subdue him and bring him to the courts for justice, and take the girl to the Healing Temple") then we have a starting point to discuss exactly why what my PC did was, or wasn't appropriate.

Quick observation: the act was neither evil nor chaotic. It might not have been good or lawful, but it's understandable

In what part of the paladin's code does it say "acts that are neither good nor lawful but understandable don't count"?

I mean, if *I* were one of those GMs who gets off on playing Stick the Pally, I'd have real child molester nearby using some kind of possession magics on the poor schmoe who the paladin killed. Perfect way to commit a crime, no? Control another person's body, force them to commit your evil acts, then let them be arrested or killed by impulsive do-gooders while you go on your merry way.

 

[Agemegos]

The purpose of a trial would have been what?

To demonstrate to the public that justice had been done, and not some sordid private murder. To demonstrate to the public that the law is just, and that they can rely upon the authorities to deliver justice even when appearances are misleading. Thus to enable the community to respect the law and to encourage them to settle their disputes, obtain vengeance for their wrongs, and defend themselves from false accusations in a regular, peaceful orderly manner--and not to resort to feud or flight. In short, to bring law to a lawless land.

What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice.

I disagree. I think it would give rise to exactly the same sort of suspicions as occur when the police gun down some unarmed person in a private home. The masses wonder what he had to say that the police did not want them to hear.

It would be much more useful to have the malefactor make his pathetic excuses in public, and to demonstrate that they were untrue.

 

[historian]

IMHO - and I apologize if this has already been posted (ton of replies) is that the paladin should be set on a path of atonement for the act (which was good, in my definition, but not lawful).

The line betwee vigilantism and the defense of a third party (which is similar to self defense) must be drawn here. Your paladin was present to witness an apparent crime (kidnapping) and another about to happen (violation, etc.) but he acted before the violating (or physical harm) ocurred. Think of it this way, under the circumstances, a police officer would not have been able to use deadly force to subdue the offender, nor would a citizen, even if the citizen were a family member of the victim (though the outcome might have been different if the defender were in the process of torturing the victim). Your paladin had an opportunity to subdue the offender using non-deadly means before he was able to harm the child. Thus, by slicing the bad guy's head off, your paladin crossed the line between legitimately defending a third party to vigilantism. As unjust as this may sound, your paladin likely gets charged with murder in modern America, and pleads to some lesser manslaughter charge.

Of course, the laws in your campaign world may allow for more expansive measures to be taken on behalf of third parties. In sum, if you can justify your paladin's behavior as legal, then no stripping and atonement. Otherwise, the bad news. Tough call, but it sounds like your DM is being fair (imagine if he had thrown you a nasty curveball like tricking your character into killing an innocent who just seemed guilty of this unspeakable stuff).

BTW and FWIW, your campaign sounds awesome and your paladin would meet my standard for morality (but I'm caught between NG and N, not LG).

Good luck!

 

[Agemegos]

Your paladin was present to witness an apparent crime (kidnapping) and another about to happen (violation, etc.) but he acted before the violating (or physical harm) ocurred.

I don't think that is right. My understanding is that the girl had already been raped at least once. Which makes it clear that condign punishment was in order, but no clearer that lethal force was needed to prevent any crime that could, at that stage, be prevented.

 

[DarkMaster]

The purpose of a trial would have been what? To determine guilt or innocence? In this case, that is a foregone conclusion. To determine correct punishment? Again, if the paladin has the right to mete justice, it is a foregone conclusion.

What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice. He acted in a back room only because a back room was where he found the problem. No different than acting in a dungeon, as others have pointed out.

Raven

I personally would find unacceptable to have police officer kills people because they decided that they were evil and only deserved to die, no matter how certified or trained or whatever. Justice for a chaotic character is based on himself and his perception, Justice for a lawful character is dicted by the whole society. If society says we know there are a evil necromancer in the dungeon and they must be killed because we judge so then yes the paladin can go and kill those guys, but here he decides what is good or wrong without asking too much question and take a descision based on his impulse (extremely chaotic). I like Hyp example about the prostitute with a hat of disguise. That obviously would have the paladin loose his paladinhood.

since most of you are american I don't understand why most of you say it was ok to kill the guy on the spot, but in the US when a police officer just hit a robber there are massive manifestation (like in LA a few years ago). Or a few Iraqui terrorist are pictured with underwear on their head and you see massive indignation. I personnaly agree with those attitude and I am very surprised that most people here simply say: The guy looks guilty, let's kill him on the spot and consider that a LG action, No need for CE enemy when your LG PC act like that. Very disturbing, wonder if I would like to hang with you.
example: I go to your place play DnD, next morning you notice that a small statue that was placed near the place I was sitting just disapear, You take your gun drive to my place and kill me on the spot. You go back home thinking that justice has been done just to notice that your 2 years old just took it to play.

 

[historian]

I don't think that is right. My understanding is that the girl had already been raped at least once. Which makes it clear that condign punishment was in order, but no clearer that lethal force was needed to prevent any crime that could, at that stage, be prevented.

As to the fact, I believe you are right, it was clear that the girl had been violated.

The point though, is that it is not within the purview of citizens (nor police officers) to do the punishing (at least not under the American system - noticed that you are from Australia ) be they paladin or otherwise. As a citizen or police officer, there are instances under which deadly force can be invoked to protect a third party (though its applicability is different than self defense), however, the situation as set forth wasn't one of those.

By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights. I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Yes it does. I don't think that Forgotten Realms is usually one of those places and this isn't consistant with the Book of Exhalted Deeds take on honor and criminals in which "subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable to killing them and possibley being forced to stand trial for murder."

You could try adding an "In my opinion" to the beginning of that first sentence.
One of my problems with your arguments in this thread is simply that you are so adamant that you are right. It almost seems like you think there is no other right way to play than your own. Granted, the original poster asked for your opinion and that's what you're giving; you just don't act like it's an opinion as much as fact/religious canon.
I suppose poster #1 and his DM opened the door for that sort of thing.
I'm not trying to pick on you personally, I'm sure there are others in this thread who have acted the same way, it's just that it's your name and avatar I've seen three or four times on nearly every page of the thread I've read so far...

Also, keeping in mind that we have only the barest details to base our decisions on is a good thing. It stems the embarrassment that inevitably occurs when the original poster returns and says, "Aw shucks, I should have mentioned that this took place in Villain Junction where there's not a lawfully appointed magistrate for 100 miles.", and turns everyone's understanding of the situation on its head.

And for everyone worried the locals doubting the justice system because of this unannounced execution; If the authorities are that worried about their image they can bring the guy back to life, try him, and kill him again. It's the Realms after all, there should be a guy in the nearest bar or privy who can rez someone and will keep silent for the right price.