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

[Vanuslux]

I don't have the threshold to wade through everything...I gave up around page 8. Anyway, in my campaign the Paladin would have to atone for succumbing to the sin of Wrath. It wouldn't be too big of a thing since the paladin acted with the best of intentions, but he did in fact lose his cool and use lethal violence as his first course of action. A small atonement would be in order before he'd be able to use the powers that only a paragon of virtue has bestowed upon them.

The rapist deserved to die, but a paragon of virtue should have approached it with a little less rage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 8.05. of the Texas penal Code.
(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another

Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack. Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.

What does 'compelled' mean in this context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model Penal Code
b. Deadly Force
i. Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse
What does 'necessary' mean in this context?

"Compelled" in this context means driven to act by the acts of another. That is, he didn't use deadly force just for the hell of it, nor did he intend to kill that guy as soon as he found him, or any other hunting scenario, but instead had a reasonable justification for doing so- namely saving the life of another.

The Paladin wasn't acting out of revenge. He didn't follow the guy thinking "I'm gonna kill him." Instead, he was investigating a shady character who then proceeded to commit a heinous crime in front of him. His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.

"Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted. The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.

Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!" Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?

But note that it's an affirmative defense--which means that in a campaign set in modern-day Texas, a paladin would have to prove his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the serious bodily harm. If there was a police officer standing five feet away, it would be more difficult to show that the paladin had to kill the guy, when he could have called the police officer to arrest the guy. Or if the paladin could easily have prevented the assault through nondeadly means.

Some truth there, but re-read the original post. Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign. No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant. No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help. That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.

 

[adembroski3]

It depends on your campaign.

Assuming that other than magic and answered prayers, we're looking at a basically medeival society, and that Paladins represent knighthood and carry the authority and respect of Knights, then while what you did was fine, but how you did it was not.

I don't believe it is necessary to challenge the man to an honorable dual. Being a peasant, and a child molesting peasant at that, he has no right to being treated with honor. In fact, according to some interpretations, one might consider lowing yourself to actually fighting this guy one on one might have been dishonoring yourself to a certain extent (though not a violation).

That said, the appropriate action would have been to address the man before any further action was taken, then consider your options. A quick converstaion with your DM should tell you where to go... what is the traditional penalty for this crime? Most medieval societies had yet to develop prisons... punishments were usually one time things... either an infliction of great pain or embarassment. For this type of crime, death was the likely penalty... or perhaps castration. Most knights were authorized to carry out the punishment if they witness the crime, so you were certainly justified in killing him... BUT the method which you used was not good.

 

[Zimri]

Some truth there, but re-read the original post. Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign. No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant. No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help. That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.

Lets go back through the initial post then.

"he is a commoner you WILL kill him in one hit"
Paladin followed him while still armed and I assume armored and the perp didn't hear him (or failed his listen check). Pretty sure this tranaslates into what exactly the description was a commoner. Not a thief in disquise with a knife in his belt (which he had taken off)

Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.

 

[Torm]

You cannot lighten this thead up... it's a paldin thread. You need epic level skills

Check ME, baby! EPIC epic levels.

Now, show 'em my motto:

 

[Henry]

Now, show 'em my motto:

Oh, SNAP!

Oh, no you dit'n't!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Compare:

Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."

Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.

Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.

With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword. My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."

With:

Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.

The condition of his party (drunk/sober) isn't mentioned. The power level, number and general disposition (law abiding/questionable virtue) of the tavern's other patrons is unknown. The general character of the neighborhood (good/seedy) is unknown. Whether the assailant's or Paladin's cries for help would be heard above the noise of the tavern's common area is unknown. How many allies the assailant might have is unknown. Whether/how well the assailant is armed is unknown. All that is certain is Paladin + Assailant + Victim + Active Harm In Progress = Dead Assailant

As for the DM's cautionary statement, that's hardly dispositive.

"Commoner" could just refer to his apparent status in society, not his game class or level. No reason a commoner can't be a thief of some power. He obviously wasn't going to say the guy's a noble in disguise or a shapechanged doppelganger or the serial child rapist the watch has been looking for over the past decade. He's dressed like a commoner, he gets called a commoner. What he ACTUALLY is gets revealed later.

After all, who among us hasn't had a DM use verbal misdirection to steer us from our intended course of action when it is actually the correct path?

Ever heard a DM say something like:


"Nothing to see here, why don't you move along?"
"He seems unconscious."
"Why on earth do you think this little kid is a demon? Are you nuts?"
"The bridge seems safe as houses."
"He doesn't appear to have any weapons."
"The room appears empty."
"He's just a harmless old man."
"Its just an oak chest-nothing special."
"The clearing is apparently a perfect campground."
"You don't find any traps-its probably safe to proceed"

and then been punished for believing the DM? If not, your DMs have probably been taking it easy on you. The DM is neither ally nor foe- he is the interface between the campaign world and the players. If he never uses guile or misdirection, he's not using 2 of the biggest tools in the DM's toolbox.

The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.

Edited to correct typos.

 

[TimSmith]

This is going to depend on how Paladins are portrayed in the campaign. Many people view Paladins as some kind of goody two shoes, but as someone has previously said, Tyr and others encourage their holy warriors to take responsibility and make the decision themselves-judge, jury and executioner if guilt is evident. Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

The most I would say is that the paladin acted a little precipitately and should maybe seek a judgement from his superiors in the church to resolve a possible crisis of confidence (but that should probably be a matter for the player to decide). I thought the other thread with the jury of the Paladin's peers has the best of it.

 

[Sejs]

The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.

Exactly. Lets not go and forget the lessons that Metal Gear Solid taught us all.

"Huh. Just a box..."

 

[Sejs]

Yoink! New profile pic ahoy!

^_^

Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

Yep, he would be about as close an approximation as that setting would have to a paladin. He is, however, not a very nice paladin. Dredd is that hard line that if you've done wrong you never, ever want to come up against, because he doesn't give second chances.

 

[Agemegos]

"Compelled" in this context means driven to act by the acts of another. That is, he didn't use deadly force just for the hell of it, nor did he intend to kill that guy as soon as he found him, or any other hunting scenario, but instead had a reasonable justification for doing so- namely saving the life of another.

Interesting. he doesn't have to be compelled to use lethal force to be justified in using it? He only has to be compelled to act in some way, and then he is justified in uusing lethal force?

His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.

I note that you implicitly discount the possibility of immediately using non-lethal force. Why?

"Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted.

Does that belief have to be reasonable? I would have thought that a reasonable paladin (there's a notion for AP Herbert) in that situation would have believed that there was another safe way to prevent the rape or other assault.

The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.

law enforcemment officers are held to a higher standard, I take it?

Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!" Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?

I consider that just as speculative as the possibility that the rapist might have been acting under a compulsion or possession. Basing our judgement on chimeras is an axe that cuts both ways. Imaginary allies, imaginary knives, imaginary demons, imaginary spells, imaginary fears: they aren't the things that a reasonable person bases his or her actions on.

 

[Agemegos]

Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

I think not. He doesn't lay on hands, doesn't remove disease, and appears to be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil rather than Lawful Good. I guess you could treat his motorcycle as a Paladin's mount….

 

[SirEuain]

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.

Oh, no, no, no. I wasn't feeling defensive, I was just clarifying my point - by the time I'd written it, two people had made comments about it that showed I wasn't anywhere NEAR clear enough about why I was prattling on.

As for the crush not dying, all the player really had to do is promise to visit her often or somesuch. Paladins' promises count for a lot ;-)

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.

Not in the slightest, and to be perfectly blunt, the situation WAS bad. It's also such that the player set himself up - the journal, for instance, was his idea, and the players seriously underestimated the villain. After all, he was "just" a bard. What harm could possibly come of making an enemy of someone who not only knows how to tug at heart strings as he sees fit, but feels it's his RESPONSIBILITY to do so, the better to separate the real heroes from the pretenders.

 

[Sejs]

Judge Dredd is far, far removed from being Lawful Evil. I can't think of a single instance in which he twisted the system he served just for his own personal benefit. I wouldn't discount Lawful Neutral though.

 

[Sarmaga]

As has been mentioned before, it all depends on the Paladin's god (well that and the player's GM). Honestly, if I were the GM, I would probably elect to send down a wee bit of friction from the heavens as well. I think there's a valuable lesson for your character to learn about keeping his cool even in the most harrowing situations.

This could be a plot device too. Perhaps your GM needs to send you somewhere and is looking for an excuse to send you on an "atonement" quest.

In any event, consider what your character has learned form this. It's a good opportunity for character growth or, if he's annoyed enough with his god's poor judgement, for becoming something other than a paladin.

 

[SirEuain]

One other thought... a lot of you have said that paladins deserve some extra leeway, given their strict code of conduct and the potentially serious consequences for violating it. As a player, DM, and a writer, I have to disagree.

The paladin is a warrior for his god and/or his church. Of all the basic character classes, he's the only one inherently equipped and obligated to be a hero. In many cases, he's the leader of the party, and often the leader of the armies of good in the climactic battle against the campaign's villainous legions. His honor is more valuable to him than his life, and he would rather die than betray an oath or confidence.

Literature is rife with heroes like this - characters who are just this side of being perfect. There's even a word for them.

Tragic.

The more "realistic" and "gritty" a campaign is, the more uphill the paladin's life. Intelligent enemies find clever ways to undermine the paladin by forcing the issue of honor. Even without such interference, temptation is always an issue - what is right is not always what is easy, or even what is best in the long run (Hamlet learned that the hard way). As the campaign wears on, the paladin's role is likely only getting harder. Where once, any failure of duty meant consequences for himself alone, as a champion any breach of the code could be potentially catastrophic. Despite all this, paladins are only human (or gnomes, or halflings, or whatever), while gods are most assuredly not - and the harsher the god's view of evil, the less forgiving he's likely to be of mortal weakness. As the pressure mounts, they become only more likely to fail.

Paladins don't get happy endings. They die, slaughtered by superior numbers. Mortally wounded, they forgive men who betray them. In a moment of weakness, they betray someone else, and can never forgive themselves for it. They unwillingly (perhaps even unwittingly) break their vows, and are broken for it. They're the ones who leave weeping women in their wakes, the ones to whom the other party members toast in absentia. They're rookies in cop movies, and black guys in horror flicks. They can't shut up about how they can't wait to get out of Nam so they can go marry their girl back home (wanna see the photo?).

They're doomed to fall. Either they won't be good enough to remain paladins forever, or they will, and everyone else has fond memories of them.

It's not entrapment to play to this. AFAIC, it's part of the package. As long as the game's enjoyable for everyone involved, it's not an issue. That said, however, the player has no more right to expect a free pass than the DM has a right to throw the paladin into an impossible situation without warning.

The essence of drama is conflict, however, and the paladins have that all over. Any player who expects anything else from me is asking for it.

 

[Numion]

I think that this thread in some ways proves hong's law about Paladins:

If your DM hates Paladins, don't play a Paladin

If your DM likes Paladins, don't play a Paladin

 

[Numion]

No. I have several times said not. In fact, the very piece of my last post that you quoted just before writing this made it clear that I do not.

Just to make clear then, you do consider immediate capital punishment a lawful action? Because if you do not insist on courtroom action, thats pretty much what happened.

An urgent necessity to do something, yes. In some circumstances an urgent necessity to use lethal force. But in these circumtances there was no necessity to use lethal force.

A child about to suffer rates as a very urgent necessity in my book. Apparently it doesn't in yours, and I don't seem to be able to convince you otherwise.

How do Paladins in your game fare in normal dungeon crawls? Do they use all the methods of non-lethal confrontation you've suggested for the child molester in every case? If yes, I'm pretty stunned. If not, why do they discriminate against different races?

Actually, I don't think his paladin status ought to be taken away at all. Why don't you try reading posts instead of just flaming them?

Hey, that's great. I always assumed otherwise but I guess you never stated otherwise. My bad, my apologies!

 

[Rostoff]

Paladinhood

What will anyone bet neither he or his DM are still reading this?

Anyway, I've never played a paladin myself, but I have an excellent role player in my group who does.

I remember a time (1st level) we discovered 8 goblins and 2 orcs by the highway, split on both sides of the road, waiting to ambush us. We decided to split the party up, sneak behind them and surprise the scum. The Paladin refused to take part. He insisted on challenging their leader to honorable solo combat for the right to pass. Fortuneately, I talked him into giving us some time to set up in case they failed to agree. We killed them all in the time allowed, and he believed they had seen us coming and we had had no choice.

You want the benefits of Paladinhood, you take the restrictions on actions that come with it.

Your DM was correct in Stripping you of Paladin Status. He should allow you to atone, but right now, your character is a fighter.

 

[Krellic]

Context, context , context.

I've ploughed through this skimming I'll admit the posts and I think most of the points that occurred to me have been touched on. The definition of paladin is always a somewhat thorny and subjective business.

We don't know what god the paladin served and we don't know where in the Realms it occurred. So we have little context to base our final analysis on. So I think that 90% of the posters on this thread can be said to be right, from their particular perspective.

As for setting traps for characters I think there's something to be said for DM's challenging a character and challenging the player to role-play the character's convictions. It's another way in my opinion a good DM pushes his players. Having said that it's not fair to arbitrarily punish a player for not doing what the DM expected.

My own take is that the paladin allowed his own outrage to overcome him and that is the only bone of contention. A paladin to me is a deeply spiritual warrior driven by his calling and a devotion to purpose. They must be incredibly focused individuals and above the call of their own prejudices.

I'm sure everybody will agree that this makes them just about the hardest class to play right, especially given all the different perspectives on how they should be played. It is after all easy to say how it shouldn't be done

If I were the DM I would have made the character have to justify his actions to the local populace, who may have a different perspective on the dead man. I might also have landed the paladin with a 10 year old girl that was now his responsibility. I would certainly have tried to put him in the position to reflect upon his actions.

A little atonement and a lesson learned in the paladin's quest for spiritual enlightenment and perfection.