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

[Numion]

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.

If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful. His inner rules tell him to dispatch all molester at first opportunity. There isn't anything disorganized in single unhesitant swipe of the sword.

Let me back that up with the PHB page 88:

"Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability"

Sounds like this was the paladins close adherence to dispatching evildoers about to commit evil Lawful behaviour requires systematic actions - not necessarily complicated lawroom actions.

 

[Agemegos]

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.

Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.

In treating authority with disrespect, in dispensing justice in a summary, personal, private fashion, the paladin has acted out of accord with a lawful alignment, and (in the lawful point of view) to the harm of society. But it is just a single act. I think that the paladin is due a stern caution for Chaotic behaviour, but that o strip him of paladinhood or it powers in not warranted underthe rules unless a continual tendence to Chaos is manifest in his acts in general.

I think that part of the reason that we are seeing so much controversy is that people think that 'Lawful Good' means 'extra-specially righteous', even though their own personal standards of righteousness tend more to the individualistic case-by-case Chaotic Good than the institutional due-process Lawful Good. They judge that according to their own standards the paladin has done the right thing, and fail to take into account the gap between their own standards and the ones by which the paladin is correctly judged. Me, I am apparently Neutral Good, but I recognise that a paladin has to be judged by lawful Good standards, not my own.

 

[Numion]

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.

It has been noted many times that the more "Paladinny" Gods of the FR (Tyr, Torm) want their Paladins to, and grant them power to, wait for it, act as a roaming Judge, Jury and Executioner. So the Paladin didn't have to take that right into their hands, but it was rather demanded of them by their God. It should be noted that with such authority at their hands any secular courts decision, while noteworthy, is secondary.

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.

Paladins would have hard time avoiding the lethal injection in modern day america. Mercilessly vanquishing evil by long sharp instruments isn't going to last

 

[jgbrowning]

You could try adding an "In my opinion" to the beginning of that first sentence.

Anything I write I always only my opinion.

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 don't remember who it was earlier in this thread who had paladins be representitives of their monothesistic god. I quickly agreed that in his world, that's how they work. In a bigger view, I'm argue what a paladin should be genericlly based upon all of the D&D WoTC sources as to what good means. I don't think paladins are intended to be as simplistic as "If they detect evil or If I catch them in an evil act that means I can kill them and still be a paladin. I don't need more than that." I think there's a lot more to being a paladin, who's supposed to try and be the pinnicle of lawful good, than choosing to kill evil when found as opposed to trying to end evil

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...

I usually don't get involved with paladin threads. I got suckered in on this one. If nothing else, I think the thread continues to show how paladins are not really suitable for core class material. They're too arbitrary and unlike other classes their powers depend upon that arbitrariness. There's an utter lack of portibility between gaming groups.

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.

I have a great ability to never really get embarresed. I say things that are wrong, stupid, and probably shouldn't have been said but I just go, "I'm wrong, your right," or "Sorry, that was stupid," and don't worry about it anymore. I'm too old to worry about people's opinions of me as long as I think I'm behaving, uhem... honorably to everyone involved.

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.

Hehe... yeah, i don't think the locals worrying about the system is so much an issue (although that could be important) as much as the paladin should go out of his way to support the local authorities as long as those authorities aren't doing evil. The paladin is always better served by not taking the law into his own hands (even if he has that capability) because an inportant part of being lawful good is supporting systems that increase the lawfull goodness quotient in the world.

The paladin should have just knocked the guy out and let the natural workings of the society take place, as long as those natural workings didn't include torture or some such, which he has to not associate himself with.

It's always seemed to me that paladins acting as many people suggest paladins can act aren't any different than a simple fighter who's lawful good. I think paladin's have to be more lawful good than other classes because they're supposed to be paragons, supposed to be shining beacons of lawful goodness in the world.

But in the end, tying class abilities to an alignment is bad game design. But you can blame that on the gamers who simply can't give up the "Paladin Class" even though you can easily role-play the same thing without the game-alingment resistrictions by playing a "holy warrior" without worrying about alignment because "holy warriors" could be of any alignement.

Very little is gained by trying to keep the Paladin "special."

joe b.

 

[Agemegos]

If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful.

Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.

"Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition"

So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a tradition that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.

 

[Numion]

Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.

And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin does have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.

So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a tradition that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.

No, I'm not, thats why I put the winking smiley there. I was just pointing out that a lot of behaviour you don't consider lawful, really are. Like that Paladins rules require him to protect innocents, and this can lead to him sometimes circumventing secular laws, because he's so used to it. That's lawful as per the examples I gave you. Not necessarily a tradition in the game at hand.

 

[jeffh]

Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.

He saw him doing it. The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence; that has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense, and/or that something like idealized Western European medieval chivalry is hardwired into the Paladin's code, also not true. Read the CoC, folks - it ain't there!

 

[jgbrowning]

And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin does have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.

Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was absolutely no other acceptable way for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.

If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?

And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify always killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?

joe b.

 

[Ferret]

Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the paladin walking up to whatever local constabulary is in the area and telling them "Hey guys, I walked in on this man about to rape this 10 year old girl ... again. She can testify to what happened. I killed the man in defense of the child." and having their response being anything other then "Oh. Alright then. Nicely done there, citizen. Thank you." And that's to say nothing of the fact that on the good/evil end of things it was the morally right thing to do. Defending the weak and innocent from the depredations of the wicked. The paladin was justified in what he did.

On the lawful side, it only means that every one would have the same punishment, and need the same evidence.

On the good side, if she had beed tied up and he found her, he got pointed out on street, I wouldn't have let him go lopping his head off.

 

[Numion]

Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was absolutely no other acceptable way for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.

I'm saying that this was the safest way. Paladins aren't required to give initiative to the very evil they're about to vanquish - which is acceptable as long as the Paladin doesn't resort to trickery. Busting through a door in a platemail with sword in hand is not trickery.

Maybe there could've been other ways, but as per Paladin Coc in PHB Paladin is required to punish those who harm innocent or are intent to do so. And there were the marks of previous abuse. So he was fully within his CoC to dish out capital punishment.

So let me be clear: it wasn't the only way, but this way the Paladin did it in a safe and swift manner, and shouldn't be punished. Which was the original point of this thread, IIRC. (Although the true point of the thread tends to get lost in 20 pages).

If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?

I don't think so, but I'll give reasons for my interpretation of the Paladin class nonetheless:

Reasons for my beliefs are the PHB feel they give for Paladin, which isn't that of a defense lawyer for the bad guys, and the intent of keeping the Paladin as a playable character class. The driving force of the Paladin in PHB seems to be very martial - Alhandra vanquishes evil without hesitation, etc. IMO the Paladin in this case was played within the rules set in the PHB.

And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify always killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?

I just gave these 'what if' possibilities after the other side said that the man could've been possessed, the girl could've been an illusion, and let me clear on the iffing: it's completely worthless and can only be used to hamstring the class completely.

 

[historian]

Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

It has been noted many times that the more "Paladinny" Gods of the FR (Tyr, Torm) want their Paladins to, and grant them power to, wait for it, act as a roaming Judge, Jury and Executioner. So the Paladin didn't have to take that right into their hands, but it was rather demanded of them by their God. It should be noted that with such authority at their hands any secular courts decision, while noteworthy, is secondary.

These are certainly fair points and, generally speaking, I don't disagree one iota. Another way of thinking about this is that paladins should obey the laws of the land so long as they do not conflict with the paladin's code. Indeed, I could imagine a situation where a paladin found himself in an entirely lawful, but evil setting (one that promoted forced servitude, etc.) where a paladin was constantly running afoul of the law.

Put another way, the standard by which the paladin should be judged should be put forth by his (her) order and supplemented by general notions of morality. Otherwise (if the paladin were held to both the order's and the laws standard) a paladin would be subject to an undue amount of "catch-22" scnarios where he is unable to adhere to the order's code and the law which, could in effect make the character unplayable.

However, close calls still arise, and paladins (almost by definition) are held to high standards. What if the character had slain a teenager for stealing chickens, or mistakenly punished the wrong person despite all the evidence that that person is the wrongdoer (ex. the real molester, having discovered the presence of the paladin, coerces a mentally handicapped blind man into the room with instructions to unzip his pants and say something incriminating)?

But I digress, if the paladin was acting pursuant to an established code, then he's probably ok w/in the order (but nevertheless may be subject to local punishment). However, if the paladin was acting in the service of a deity who takes a more rigorous view of procedural justice, then he's out.

Paladins would have hard time avoiding the lethal injection in modern day america. Mercilessly vanquishing evil by long sharp instruments isn't going to last

He he , no arguments here. I also think many paladins wouldn't avail themselves of all the applicable Constitutional rights.

 

[mythago]

A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.

What if the punishment for the molestor's actions, in the paladin's world, is being forced to marry the girl and pay her father her bride-price? What if, instead, the man was from an 'untouchable' social class, the girl was a noble, and the punishment for an 'untouchable' even raising his eyes to a noble is death?

Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.

 

[Driddle]

As long as the paladin character is acting on the orders of his gawd, then I'd there's no real problem.

Well, sure, assuming we can trust the nutcase to actually be connected to the deity in question. But how are we to assume he's not just imagining justification for his righteous killing spree?

 

[historian]

A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.

I absolutley agree that the customs of the campaign should be controlling here (sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier posts). I brought forth what I could offer in re: "how this would play out in most modern American jurisdictions" in the event default rules were needed. With that said, I'm not even sure it's the best of possible defaults because the modern American views differ vastly from previous counterparts.

Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.

And the PC's head. Hopefully, in character creation the DM and PC can agree on a general outline for which of the good principle the paladin's order stands for and the means by which that good can be served.

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm saying that this was the safest way. Paladins aren't required to give initiative to the very evil they're about to vanquish - which is acceptable as long as the Paladin doesn't resort to trickery. Busting through a door in a platemail with sword in hand is not trickery.

Maybe there could've been other ways, but as per Paladin Coc in PHB Paladin is required to punish those who harm innocent or are intent to do so. And there were the marks of previous abuse. So he was fully within his CoC to dish out capital punishment.

A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?

Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he deserved capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.

Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.

I just gave these 'what if' possibilities after the other side said that the man could've been possessed, the girl could've been an illusion, and let me clear on the iffing: it's completely worthless and can only be used to hamstring the class completely.

Don't you think the paladin should have at least detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.

To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be better suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a better opportunity for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.

I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?

joe b.

 

[Agemegos]

The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence.

I disagree. The role of the judge is to ensure that there is a fair and open trial, in which the every effort is made to discover the truth. The role of the jury is to hear both sides impartially and to render an impartial verdict. The point of doing it that way is not just to reach a verdict, and not even just to reach a correct verdict. The point is also to demonstrate openly that the authorities are not abusing their power, to assure the community that if they have any complaints that the authorities will settle them fairly so that the principals need not seek private vengeance, and to reassure anyone who is accused in misleding circumstances that he or she will be able to establish his or her innocence, and need not resort ot flight or other desperate measures. And I maintain that belief that these things are very important are what distinguishes the Lawful Good from their Neutral Good and Chaotic Good fellows.

That has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Most unlikely. It will not have been done to the satisfaction of the rapists friends and relatives, and there may be a great many other people in the community who are generally suspicious of authority figures: they will not have been convinced either. Perhaps some of these suspicions can be laid if the paladin stands his trial for manslaughter (and although the victim may mercifully be considered too young to bear witness, there is no hope in the event of that trial that the secret of her rape will be concealed). But as long as the event is remembered some people will wonder "what did he know that They were afraid he would tell us?".

Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense

Well, I am not one of the 'nerf the paladin' posters, and I have not made that erroneous supposition. So let's not reply to my post on the basis that I concur with a view expressed by a mere majority of a group that I am not in this case a member of.

 

[Mr Gone]

Well, the act in and of it self would be best defined as a Neutral Good act. Its a good act that defys the rule of law, but it is a just act, so its not a chaotic good act. Now, can a Paladin lose his status by performing a single Neutral Good act? no, only if a number of act indicate an alignment shift. a warning, sure. censure, sure. loss of paladin, I dont beleive so.

 

[Numion]

A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?

Huh, investigating whether the man was controlled to hold out his wang in front of an already raped girl? Yeah .. um, let's say we do that. But if thats what the Paladin is required to do in a simple case like this, I'd hate to see what is required of him in more dangerous and subtle situations.

But I see no need to give the man to authorities which aren't as trusthworthy as the Paladin to carry out what needs to be done.

Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he deserved capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.

What need is there for defense when the Paladin saw him in-action? Are you saying that the Paladin should trust the man more than his own eyes? And consequently, should the Paladin extend that courtesy to all evildoers he encounters .. thats what lawfulness is too - consistent actions. Is the next Red Dragon going to be put to trial of peers?

Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.

In my stanrdards safer for the innocent is the better way. Knocking him out would require the Paladin to take a -4, which is most of his BAB at that level. Not so overwhelming for the Paladin anymore.

Don't you think the paladin should have at least detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.

I guess it's good to use the evil-radar(tm) as much as possible, but are you going to stand there for a couple of rounds concentrating when evil is about to happen? I would not.

Besides, a Paladin shouldn't let the remote possibilities hamstring his ability to act efficiently. I'd rather use Evil-Radar to find new evil rather than to waste time from acting against already identified evildoers.

To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be better suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a better opportunity for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.

Again, you seem to think that this is indeed a situation which the Paladin should approach like a puzzle. "Activate evil-radar, maybe knock out". Thats all good, and I bet the DM intended that too, but in reality there was an innocent about to be harmed. At that point I'd say it's not outside the Paladins Code of Conduct to vanquish the evil swiftly, even if you should (god forbid) sidestep the DMs supposed moral puzzle.

If it happened in a dungeon with an Orc standing there no questions would've been asked. I don't think Paladins code encourages double standards for different sentient races. I might be wrong on that though.

I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?

Any situation where there's not an innocent child in the room.

 

[billd91]

He saw him doing it. The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence; that has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense, and/or that something like idealized Western European medieval chivalry is hardwired into the Paladin's code, also not true. Read the CoC, folks - it ain't there!

Actually, paladins being generally law abiding is not at all utterly nonsense. Lawful characters are predisposed to respect authority according to the description of Lawful in the PHB. Paladins also have it in their code to respect authority.
The way I look at this, a paladin or any other lawful character really tries to respect ALL legitimate authorities (and organizational and cultural traditions) when he or she can and they is not in direct conflict with a higher authority. That's why they're lawful and not chaotic. Chaotic character use their own personal judgement to pick and choose which authorities will have their hard won respect.
The paladin should try to obey the law, but I'd be hard pressed to see any society that would significantly punish the paladin for hacking down a child molester about to attack some child again. It may be illegal in most modern, Western countries, but I think it would still be met by little more than a bit of disapproval. I can't imagine many prosecutors who would take up the charges against such vigilantism.

 

[am181d]

I'm confused. Would everyone still be having this conversation if the child molester was an orc? We can argue real world morality all day, but this is D&D. If you can't kill someone in the process of doing evil, then the entire game falls apart.