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

[dead]

I think your GM is very cruel.

True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.

Wow, your GM runs a disturbing FR campaign. I respect this, though. At least, if that's the mood of the campaign, he doesn't chose to sweep such controversial things under the carpet.

 

[SirEuain]

What would his possible defense be? He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?

Possession. Mind control. Magic-based insanity.

This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.

 

[Dark Jezter]

What would his possible defense be? He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?

ROTFLMAO!

That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Good one, Sejs!

 

[SirEuain]

I think your GM is very cruel.

True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.

Hence the term "atonement". Paladins, by their very nature, don't have emotion as an excuse. They exemplify their gods' will, and must be all the more responsible for it.

 

[Sejs]

This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.

Heh, fair point. Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."

 

[Zimri]

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?

No different at all. you do not smite evil no matter the form quietly and from behind if you are a paladin.

The fact that it was FROM BEHIND makes all the difference in the world to me. Even more than the perp being unarmed (coulda had monk levels or something) Doesn't matter a bit that he still would have died from 1 hit. It matters that this paragon of virtue snuck up behind someone and ran him through.

 

[kolvar]

I think, there are three levels to it:
1st: In any case it is not honorable to attack from behind an unarmed man (+ without warning). If honor is important to the charakter, he got a problem.
2nd: no law allows for killing people just because they did something evil or are doing it, if it can be prevented (with the exception of the law-enforcement of the city and player characters are seldom part of that. Being a paladin does not automatically qualify a character to enforce the law in a city). A city lives by its laws. If people start doing their own law, the city will not survive. Therefore, the character should, at least be dragged before the court. what happens there is a matter of the local laws.
3rd: The paladin violated a law. Did he violate his law? if yes, he is in for atonement

In the end, if the GM feels, that the character violated his code, it is the GMs right to strip the character of his powers. He is the law at the table.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.

"Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares also into you."

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

 

[jgbrowning]

i must have a different view of paladins than others.

in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) are considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself is a legitimate authority.

To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?

I'm not sure if i'm expressing myself well here, but i think focusing on the fact that a person has a game mechanical benefit gained through past actions doesn't mean that that person has any greater claim on "judge, jury, and executioner" than any other class that's lawful good.

IMHO, Being a paladin doesn't mean one is less likely to perform questionable actions, nor does it mean that your actions are given an unusual-authority in worlds typically feudal. It just means that there are greater consequences (game mechanics wise) for those actions.

joe b.

 

[Quirthanon]

I think there are too many questions here. What type of god is worshiped by the paladin, they’re not all equal. What are the player’s AND the DM’s definitions of Lawful. I’ve seen two different uses of that word in this thread. Lawful meaning must follow the laws, and meaning honorable; not really the same thing. Then once this is clearly defined by the player and DM, what are the laws in the area?

Also, following the laws doesn’t preclude attacking from behind and be honorable doesn’t either. It really depends on the code of the paladin’s order and the laws of the land. Neither of which is given to us.

I think your DM and you should sit down and talk about what type of paladin you have; a law-enforcer type or one who cares out judgments. You have to of course consider what type of order the paladin is in and how much the paladin knows about local laws. The location where the paladin was trained will probably be his reference point for laws if he’s not familiar with the local ones.

This really is something for your DM and you to decide.

 

[bodhi]

Here's another vote for "it depends".

In addition to the question of deity...

Where did this happen? If you were in Waterdeep, there's definitely more weight on the side of knocking him out and turning him over to the authorities. But if you were in Skullport (for whatever reasons), then you pretty much are the authorities.

Also, what happened afterwards? If you bailed, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up, that's a strong argument for "cowardly act". If you got the girl to Good-aligned social services, made sure the corpse got properly treated, and otherwise dealt openly with the local authorities, then I'd hold that in your favor.

That being said, I would hold defending an innocent girl in imminent danger strongly in your favor. I'm reminded of Ultima IV. So you get points for Compassion (for the girl, and _maybe_ for the quick painless execution) and Justice, and lost points for Valor, and maybe Honor.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

The paladin protected someone who couldn't defend herself while also sending the wicked to a much higher judge than any mortal.

No, the paladin shouldn't be stripped of his powers. However he should take responsibility for his actions, perhaps throwing himself upon the mercy of the town. Hopefully the girl will be unafraid to speak up in his defense.

Rather unusual but the punishment I would mete out for your paladin is: lead and guide her so she doesn't slide towards darkness or even taking vigilante-ism to extremes. Congratulations on your new squire / apprentice. You may not have broken her but you definitely should help fix her. Perhaps caring for an innocent will likewise temper your emotions. A bit heavy handed but how she turns out is your responsibility now and will determine your paladin's final fate or at least be an ongoing atonement quest.

 

[SirEuain]

Heh, fair point. Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."

Granted. OTOH, a level 5 paladin can't tell whether this is true just by looking at the scene laid out, hence the NEED for a trial.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I look at it from another viewpoint. A paladin is granted his powers because of what he's done, not what he is. To me, a paladin's actions have no greater goodness or lawfulness than a rogues just because a paladin's doing them. The action is what makes the actor, not the other way around.

Ah, maybe it's just my group (one player exception though) but I assume that each character's actions are defined by that character's personaltiy. Say a paladin sneaks past some guards in the city. While I could raise a fuss, or a flag about it, I assume that he's doing it out of paladinish reasons. This is opposed to the rogue, who I know (because of his character) is sneaking because it'll make his escape easier better. I try not to second guess their actions unless it's pretty big. I think that while the actions do show what a person is, the same action can be undertaken for thousands of reasons, and any action has at least 5 real reasons behind them. It's complex enough that I try to use the characters as a guide, especially given how hard it can be to keep characters players and game concerns all balanced at any time. Sometimes I need to forgive characters their players' mistakes.

Me too. I think the paladin in this case should suffer a small loss in power and have to perform a fairly simple atonement with the understanding that he should try to be more honorable and conscious of non-lethal processess. The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.

Yeah, but I still think it would be more fun to have the world have a problem with his righteousness. As soon as he starts losing abilities, I'm punishing the player. But if the pervert's gangster friends get a corrupt judge to send the LG guard after the paladin, that's just the consiquence of the character's actions coming back to haunt him. Even bad dreams and ill portent, prayers not being answered, angels coming down to tell him off. Anything I can do to keep it in the game world. If I am going to take it out of the game world, it's going to be a "dude, that was unpaladinish." And, agree, or disagree, any action needs to be taken with upmost care.

 

[d4]

To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well?

the way i interpret the paladin class is that they receive their abilities by the grace of a god. (usually a lawful, good god.)

that makes all the world of difference between a paladin and, say, a LG fighter -- who can't claim that his powers are received through divine grace. in my campaigns, paladins have religious authority due to their powers. and, like in most feudal settings, religious authority usually trumps secular authority.

this is how it would run in one of my campaigns.

Paladin kills child molester.
City Militia runs in 2 seconds later.
City Militia: "What happened here? Did you kill that man?"
Paladin: "Yes. I am a paladin. I was doing God's Will."
City Militia: "Well, all right then."

the government of the city has the right to exercise secular authority over the city, but no secular authority can gainsay God's Will -- because God is higher than any city mayor or noble, and the paladin is the direct wielder of God's power in the world.

but that's just how i run the game.

 

[frankthedm]

Unjust / Just? What is the punishment meted out by the kingdom for that act? If its death, then it is just. What do the in-game religious text say on such matters?

Unless your character really rolled bad spot checks and sense motive checks, and completely misunderstood the situation [tied up because she is behaving horribly, early menstrual blood making things look worse and parent going for his belt to administer a run of the mill wuppin’ for misbehavior] i would say your paladin should keep his paladinhood if the Lawful Good gods ordained punishment for such a dead is death.

If the Paladin is due a punishment, then I would say being forbidden from attacking with any weapon for the duration of an appropriate quest.

Your blade is too swift, but your chosen work is not yet done, until you defeat the slaver’s guild, your hand and weapon may not be one”

Defeat the local ring of slavers bare handed or lose your powers.

If this all pans out you might want to ask for Knowledge: Religion checks for quotes from in-game Holy texts that pertain to the situations at hand.

 

[Sejs]

To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?

I'm on the opposite side of the coin here, personally. Noblemen and their ilk make and enforce laws because they claim to have a divine right to rule over their fellow man. Paladins enforce what is morally right and trounce upon evil because they are given a divine right to do so. The difference between the two is that the paladin can back their claim with proof of their divine favor.

I'm not sure if i'm expressing myself well here, but i think focusing on the fact that a person has a game mechanical benefit gained through past actions doesn't mean that that person has any greater claim on "judge, jury, and executioner" than any other class that's lawful good.

*shrug* don't worry too much about expressing yourself well - we're all just people who enjoy a common hobby having a friendly discussion, after all. In any case, the way I see it is that a paladin does have a greater claim to the JJ&E title because of their paladin abilities. That they have Smite Evil as an ability says to me that it is to be used in the Smiting of Evil.

IMHO, Being a paladin doesn't mean one is less likely to perform questionable actions, nor does it mean that your actions are given an unusual-authority in worlds typically feudal. It just means that there are greater consequences (game mechanics wise) for those actions.

Erm, wait. So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class? That seems somewhat unfair. Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed. One is a paladin, the other is not. The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?

I may be totally misreading what you're saying though, and if that's the case I appologise. I'm just confused somewhat on this point.

 

[Zimri]

Also, following the laws doesn’t preclude attacking from behind and be honorable doesn’t either. It really depends on the code of the paladin’s order and the laws of the land. Neither of which is given to us.

My goodness, we can honorably sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?

pray tell HOW is that honorable ?

 

[robberbaron]

Doesn't matter which God the Paladin worships. A Paladin is a Paladin and, until the rules change, are restricted to one alignment, hence one basic "outlook".

My Paladin would have done exactly the same, although I would probably have shouted, "Foul scum! Asura guide my blade in Righteous Justice!" (soliloquising as a Free Action), THEN cut him in half.

DM's right though. Bad Paladin let his emotions rule him. Nothing wrong with that per se, he's just being Good.
Powers gone until Atonement, but the authorities may reward him for saving them the cost of a trial and public execution.

Take your lumps and learn from them.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Considering I personally hate child molesters, let's look at this from the point of view of your paladin probably had at the time.

He probably did the following:

1. Walked in.
2. Quickly assessed the situation.
3. Became utterly enraged forgetting himself.
4. Drew his sword.
5. Destroyed the vile, evil thing before him forgetting that it was a human being. (Just like I'd do in real life if I saw this happening).


I would say that your Paladin engaged unwillingly in a chaotic act. Within city limits, the Paladin should have attempted to apprehend the criminal and keep his cool. It is the law, and Paladins should respect the law.

Maybe a slight atonement is in order. I would probably have you spend a few days in praying to your deity for the strength to control your rage. This was a minor transgression at best. It isn't the modern day, so the man wasn't going to live after the court got a hold of him. The paladin should still respect the process of law, but death would have been the final sentence anyhow. He just forgot his lawful aspect, but sometimes evil makes him real angry.