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

[Bagpuss]

Even if the DM tells you OOC that its a lowly commoner, in character the paladin has no real way of judging his opponent. Suppose he gave a warning and then was defeated, the child was in immediate danger and it required an immediate judgement. While attacking from behind is un-noble his action isn't unjust and is excusable in the situation that an innocent was in immediate danger.

If this is a first offence stripping the character of their paladinhood seems a little harsh, if however the character has a history of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit, and has had a number of dubious acts in the past this might be the final black mark against him to tip the scales.

As a player I'ld roll with it and either try and atone, or get into a heated debate with the senior clerics/paladins of my order and then turn my back on my diety and become a figher (or even Blackguard) dedicated to vengence rather than justice, such a fall from grace could be fun to play.

But then it depends how your DM is about Evil characters. IMHO a LE character is prefectly playable in a normal adventuring party if his evil is restricted to a particular focus, he doesn't need to stab the party in the back or sell them out to the first LE enemy they encounter.

 

[Maggan]

I can't stay away

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.

Even though that is not directed at me, I think you are slugging below the belt here. Just because a person does not think lethal force being necessary to solve the problem as line up here, he DOES NOT condone actions to make children suffer.

You claiming that indicates to me that this is more an emotional issue than anything else.

"A child is in danger of rape. Off with the perps head! It's ok because he deserved it!"

There are indications in the description that the perp did not intend to kill the girl (she had suffered before). So to stop the rape, the paladin could have taken a five foot step and placed himself between the perp and the victim. Or even just said, "what's all this then?". Do you think the rapist would have carried through with his foul deed if he had realised someone else was in the room? He would probably have turned against the paladin. Sure there is a possibility of a hostage sitaution, which is why the paladin could have placed himself between the perp and the victim.

Does a line of reasoning like the one above prove that anyone that thinks like this is condoning child abuse.

Of course not.

Maggan

 

[Agemegos]

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.

No. I don't insist on formal courtroom action, but I do think that where possible there should be some sort of open demonstration of justice, some precautions taken and demonstrated to guard against hasty misjudgements. An immediate execution without considering the possibility of defence, and without demonstrating a due process of some sort, is not in my opinion Lawful (whatever the law might say).

A child about to suffer [rape is] 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.

In my book too. An urgent necessity to do something effective and decisive. But not necessarily to use lethal force. If there were something non-lethal and equally effective that would save the girl, then the use of lethal force is uncalled-for.

In this case I think that it would probably have been enough for the paladin to make his presence known, and that a non-lethal attack would have been every bit as effective as a lethal one. If the rapist was such as to remain active through a subdual attack he would certainly have survived any lethal attack. Ie., if he had been a high-level rogue or monk the lethal attack would not have put him down, and if he wasn't then the subdual one would have. So the lethal attack did not actually avoid the dangers of the cryptic monk or the chimerical dagger.

I must say that if any of my characters had been there he would have been convinced that the scene was a trap or some sort of staged set-up. A real rapist would certainly have closed the door. The fact that he left the door open was a clear indication that he was trying to make sure this incident was seen. An obvious trap.

How do Paladins in your game fare in normal dungeon crawls?

We don't play classic dungeon crawls. And as it happpens, I don't think anyone has ever played a paladin in any of the few games of D&D I have run. I mostly use other games systems.

My paladin character, Edmund "Bluelights" Edwinson, has had mixed travelling. Sometimes he has done it rough, or at least got into grave danger, by always trying to make peace if there seems to be any chance of it succeeding. On other occasions he has managed to defuse or avoid fights, make friends out of enemies, and so forth. It seems to balance out.

But on the whole, a dungeon crawl against implacable monsters is a different case. That is war, not policing. Killing an enemy in open combat does not undermine the lawfulness of one's community the way summarily executing a neighbour in backroom does. When last we left Edmund Edwinson the Scots had invaded Cumbria, and his lord was off to war as a vassal of the king of England. Edmund was about to be forced by his duty to kill fellow-Christians in what he thought a futile war. He didn't feel happy about it, but he was going to do his duty. Obviously, Edmund would not have arrested and tried a Scottish soldier in battle. Lawfulness doesn't require that.

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?

The paladins in my campaigns have always been NPCs, and in general it has been their scrupulous fair play that has allowed the PCs to survive against them. (My last campaign was much more Law-vs.-Chaos than Good-vs.-Evil.)

As for Edmund Edwinson, the only 'other races' he has come across have been Spaniards, Moors, Jews, French, and Normans. He has found good and bad among all of them, as among his fellow Northumbrians. He married a Jewess, he is one of the retainers of a Norman lord.

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

Never mind. It is very hard to keep different posters straight. And in these days where everyone is trained to put forward every argument that tends to advance the conclusion one favours it must be hard to understand somebody arguing vigorously that Vindicator's character's action was wrong if that person does not believe that he ought to be stripped of his paladinhood.

 

[Agemegos]

Even if the DM tells you OOC that its a lowly commoner, in character the paladin has no real way of judging his opponent. Suppose he gave a warning and then was defeated….

If the rapist were so formidable that he, with no armour and only concealable arms, and with his trousers undone, could defeat an armed and armoured 5th-level paladin, then one surprise hit plainly wasn't going to take his head off. Since the player and character in question explicitly did expect the blow to take the rapist's head off. So plainly the paladin's actions were not dictated by concern for the danger that the rapist might defeat him. If the paladin were to put this forward as his defence, he would be lying and his god would know it.

 

[Bagpuss]

An immediate execution without considering the possibility of defence, and without demonstrating a due process of some sort, is not in my opinion Lawful (whatever the law might say).

That's really placing a modern western value on Lawful however. It could well be that Paladin's are seen as able to meet out direct justice (akin to the Judges in Megacity One [2000AD]), and the paladin catching someone red handed (in their eyes) is due process enough for a judgement. They are after all more in touch with their God than a jury of peers would be.

 

[Bagpuss]

Since the player and character in question explicitly did expect the blow to take the rapist's head off. So plainly the paladin's actions were not dictated by concern for the danger that the rapist might defeat him.

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

 

[Agemegos]

Paladins don't get happy endings.

<snip>

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.

À propos, I have strong suspicion that the GM in the campaign in which I was playing Edmund Edwinson was setting me up to go along on the First Crusade, which (historically) was seven years after the point that the campaign had got up to. If he had survived so long, I expect that Edmund would have come to grief in the sack of Jerusalem at Easter 1100.

 

[Agemegos]

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

Similarly, without taking into account knowledge of combats in the game world*, anyone would expect that if you grabbed a man in that situation by the back of the doublet and heaved he would come off his feet and out of the room.

* Besides, a fifth-level paladin has presumably been in a lot of fights in his time, and ought to have learned how that work in the world he inhabits.

 

[Agemegos]

That's really placing a modern western value on Lawful however.

I disagree. This value of 'Lawful' dominated for example the proceedings against Cicero after he saved the Roman state from the conspiracy of Cataline. They are discernable in the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Draco and Solon. The Code of Justinian was Lawful by this criterion. St Olaf and St Louis IX won undying fame for establishing such standards. Henry I of England established such a standard of law. the magnates at Runnymede demanded that King John restore them.

Man's thirst for peace and order, king's recognition of the power of showing that the law is being duly appled, are much, much older than you imagine.

 

[Agemegos]

It could well be that Paladin's are seen as able to meet out direct justice (akin to the Judges in Megacity One [2000AD]), and the paladin catching someone red handed (in their eyes) is due process enough for a judgement. They are after all more in touch with their God than a jury of peers would be.

I am perfectly happy for the paladin to do without a jury, of peers or of anyone else. I agree that it may be lawful that that he be judge, jury, and executioner. I do not ask for wigs, gowns, advocates, or adversarial proceedings.

What I do expect is that any Lawful character dispensing justice will think it proper to:

1. Demonstrate that it is justice being done, not a private killing

2. Demonstrate that appropriate steps have been taken to rule out the possibility that the accused is an innocent person taken in misleading circumstances. Hearing a defence and demonstrating that it is untrue or unsound would be a very good way to start.

3. Treat the authority of the judge and the jury with respect, by discharging their duties with diligence and dmonstrating that they are not being abused to private ends.

Circumstances may make these things impractical, but I submit that these circumstances did not.

These requirements are not arbitrary. This things promote confidence in the authorites (such as paladins) and dissipate suspicions, so that people who feel themselves to be wronged will turn to the law for relief and not to feud. And they reassure innocent people who find themselves in suggestive circumstances that they will be safe in the hands of the authorities, and need not resort to flight or other desperate measures. They promote social solidarity, put an end to feud, foster respect for authority. That's what D&D calls Law, and it does not depend on the particulars of local law.

 

[Gundark]

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."

Well in all fairness your Paladin probably didn't know what level or class the rapist was. People don't go walking around with "6th level fighter" or "12th level monk" written on a sign above their heads. He could have been a powerful Blackguard for all your Paladin knew. Also I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system. In the time period which FR is set (or patterned after I should say) this sort of justice that you paladin dished out would have been fine. It also depends on the laws of where this event happened. Waterdeep? the dalelands? Thay? What would the locals have done? It has been mentioned before but also what Deity your character serves would be in effect here.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Or even just said, "what's all this then?". Do you think the rapist would have carried through with his foul deed if he had realised someone else was in the room?

Well, considering that the rapist didn't even get the courtesy of a Spot or a Listen check to notice the armored, armed paladin following him back to his room, I don't know that we can assume that the rapist wouldn't have carried through with his foul deed, or maybe even something fouler.

I mean, this whole event was clearly slapped together specifically for the paladin; allowing the rapist the opportunity to spot the paladin following him openly (which, honestly, even a 1st level commoner should have been able to pull off) would have derailed the entire moral-dilemma train immediately, so the rapist suddenly developed a mysteriously specific blindness and deafness to big guys carrying swords and holy symbols instead.

And when you're looking at that kind of dedication to playing a round of "let's face the paladin with a complete moral outrage out of absolutely nowhere and see what he does," who knows what could happen next?

--
we're all smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of this thread

 

[Agemegos]

I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system.

21st-century morality? The presumption of innocence and the requirement of due process did not spring from nowhere during the last three years. Various law codes have been demanding orderly trials before punishment, and allowing for a defence for thousands of years.

 

[AugurSSj]

I haven't had a chance to read all 25 pages of post yet but i want to bring up a point that i haven't seen so far.

There was a possible senario had the paladin followed forthe

Paladin gives the guy a warning
A) He is taken a back and cowers away
B) He jumps at the child uses her as a shield
C) Gets a weapon near by and kills the child
D) Uses the child as a distraction (throwing her on the ground), possibly injuring her gravely and running away.
E) Possibly kills the child out of spite(breaking her neck, knife through body)
F) Stands ready with a weapon that could kill or poison the paladin rendering his saving ability useless.

You really should not know whether he would go down in one hit, that's out of game knowledge and should not be taken into consideration. (However if you knew that subdual damage would have been better, however that could have missed due to the -4 so its tactically a worse choice)

(Good is also a reletive term and DND attempts to make it black and white for simplicity sake)
Lawful good
The best possible good for the best possible out come. This good should be the most prejidice and should always find look for ways to to elliminate evil and injustice out right.

Nautral good
The best good all the the time even if the out come is bad. They have faith that good will prevail

Chaotic good
Understand that there are nessacary evils to get good results and doesn't rely on others perception of goods .

Many of these scenario puts the child in harms way. Based on how i belive LG is defined, it was best to minimize the possible damage and protect the greatest amount of people. If the choice was between:
*Pessant dies and girl lives - Likely outcome (Epecially if the paladin attacked first)
*Pessant live and girl dies - Possible outcome
*Pessant dies girl dies - Possible outcome
*Pessant lives girl lives - Possbile outcome

The paladin should have chosen the best and most likely out come explaing that there was little room for other outcomes or even think up a plan that could have protected the girl fully. To stand there and do nothing would have beencowardly and evil. This was a time for action and he gave the best possible mercy he could have at the time. However, the paladin should have talked to his clergy regarding the death, prayed over and tithe heavily for their digression. There was no moment of weakness, just a moment of justice at its cruelest.

 

[Turanil]

Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.

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."

"My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.

I did so.

Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood. I'm fighting him on it. His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."

My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation. He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)

Discuss.

IMO: Plain and simple, the evil commoner had to be punished. Death is the right, and in fact benevolent sentence. However, I think the paladin should nonetheless had first lectured the guy on his evil ways; then pronounced the sentence, and executed it. The commoner should have died knowing it, and knowing why he was being killed. In being killed so swiftly and by surprise, it's like he was not chastised.

 

[Alhazred]

Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all). Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous. If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts. If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.

If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world. (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.) In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law). If paladins are considered an ecclesiastical court unto themselves and are allowed to mete out justice as necessary, then the killing is justified. Although attacking from behind is still rather cowardly.

 

[Agemegos]

If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world. (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.) In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law).

Good point. English equity courts (eg. the Court of Chancery) developed in the 13th century as a remedy for the strict legalism and ponderous procedure of the common-law courts of earlier time. That is one in the eye for those people who think that due process of the law is a strictly modern concept.

 

[Agemegos]

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

Well, there are alternatives in between a decapitating stroke and saying "Fill your hands you son of bitch!".

• The paladin could have struck for subdual damage.

• The paladin could have grappled.

• The paladin could have knocked the rapist to the floor.

• The paladin could have grabbed the rapist by the collar of the and dragged him into the public bar with his trousers around his ankles.

And for every scenario you might present in which these approaches were likely to present a danger to the girl under D&D, there is a scenario just as likely in a D&D world in which the apparent rapist was innocent of any willing and witting evil.

• The rapist might have been a high-level monk. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have had a very lethal concealed weapon. But he hadn't.

• The rapist might have been a sorceror. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have been a powerful monster in disguise. But he wasn't.

If you are going to defend the paladins actions on the grounds that he had to consider what might have been, you have to accept that that blade cuts both ways.

• The rapist wasn't possessed. But he might have been.

• The rapist wasn't subject to a magical mind control. But he might have been.

• The victim wasn't a prostitute under an illusion acting out a sex game. But she might have been.

• The situation was not a set-up, fake from start to finish. But it might have been.

If you are going to judge the 'might-have-beens' you have to judge all the 'might-have-beens'. And if you do, Vindicator's character still comes up as having done wrong. So let's just stick with the facts.

Though: one day one of those 'might-have-beens' will be a 'was'. Circumspection!

 

[Trainz]

Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all). Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous. If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts. If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.

No hard feelings, but...

Once and for all, the paladin's "Lawful" aspect has nothing to do with civil law.

A lawful evil ruler might set up a code of law for his kingdom that says "If one of your slaves speaks before spoken to, you must cut his hands and feed them to his kids". Codified code of law.

Paladins must NOT respect legitimate authority, they must do what's right and good.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

In the eyes of the law, "Deadly force" doesn't equal "used a weapon," it means force likely to cause serious bodily injury. Someone who is a trained martial artist, be he boxer, savate expert, or sensei of the local dojo could be accused of using deadly force if they struck someone with only their bare hands or feet. Even a sap or brass knuckles could be considered deadly force. The paladin is a trained warrior. He is wearing armor, including, presumably, gauntlets of some kind. Almost any kind of force he brings to bear could be considered deadly unless he is trained in non-lethal fighting styles (submission holds and joint locks).

Quote:
"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?

Subjective belief is all that is required.

Quote:
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?

Yes.

Quote:
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

This is not overly speculative at all. We're talking about rational human behavior.

As they say, it goes to state of mind. A Paladin in a high-class neigborhood may have felt more at ease- theoretically he has more potential allies in a "good" neigborhood, so merely raising a ruckus as he apprehends the scumbag would be sufficient. He would feel reasonably assured that he would have more allies in the area than the assailant- the city watch, the good people of the tavern, the law abiding taverner, etc.

If, on the other hand, the party is in a waterfront tavern frequented by ruffians, the Paladin has no expectation of assistance beyond his partymates. The taverner? Probably a smuggler. The other people in the bar might not have been the rapist's allies, but the call of "Hold, Miscreant!" could very well have started a rumble that could have left many dead and dying, and DEFINITELY would have held up any help the Paladin could have hoped for.

Ask yourself- don't you alter your behavior based on where you are? If you go into a gang-controlled neigborhood, aren't you a bit more wary of those around you? Aren't you more relaxed where the lighting is good, the cars are expensive and the cops are in sight?