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

[jgbrowning]

Hardly in this case. Paladin is a warrior, a killing machine dedicated to eradicating evil. If he refrains from doing his duty, it means that he grants evil a second opportunity to strike. And such an obvious evil at that.

It's here that I see our fundimental disagreement. To me, Paladin's aren't killing machines. They are proponants of good who know how to use violence in that persuit. The goal isn't the eradication of evil through killing. The goal of being good is much greater than that.

joe b.

 

[Toras]

Half the arguements could be silenced by a little bit more information. We need to know the full scenario if you want to rely on the concensus of this body.

For all we know, they could have been in Thay for Oa's sake, or he might worship and serve a god (NG or LG with the empasis on Innocence) than someone who favors redemption.

And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions. How do we even know that their such a thing to be respected, how do we know that this man and his family might have wouldn't have been put to death for this crime (It happened in some of our earlier societies). Or even that this was a crime in secular terms. Honestly we are all assuming that the Law exists as we proceive it there.

Also does the Church have a codified set of laws? Many LG churches do, and those who serve them will place that law beyond all others. What does that say about such things?

 

[Agemegos]

Therefore, the paladin should be the final arbiter on who deserves to be treated honorably, and who does not.

No. The correct conclusion from that premise is that the paladin's obligation to honourable conduct depends only on his involvement in the situation, and not on any quality of other people involved.

 

[nonamazing]

I guess this must touch you, but what about the molester who got killed with almost no proof an not a single chance to defend himself. Or the thousands of soldier that might be fathers that were killed by the barbarian in my campaign when the group I DM invaded an enemy citadell. These events never occured for real. If we were to stop at every single attrocity that this game can bring we would be playing a RPG about the Teletubbies

I didn't mean to say that we need to avoid such things. In fact, I very strongly believe that roleplaying benefits in a very significant way from dealing with serious issues. Every story we tell needs to have some level of conflict in it. My belief is that the level of your reaction to these ideas should be equal to the level of respect and seriousness the idea deserves. To be playing in a campaign with such mature concepts, and to turn this sort of situation into a complaint about the loss of 'powers' seems foolish. I'm not seeing a lot of maturity coming from this group.

Yes, certainly bring violence into your games. Use serious situations, and make your players think about the consequences of their characters' actions. Make your story vibrant and alive and as realistic as you want it to be. And then treat it with the level of respect it deserves. There's a lack of compatability between the player who wants to roleplay through adult situations but also feels the need to quibble over an essential unimportant rule mechanism.

My problem isn't with the seriousness of the depicted situation, but with the way this particular group had reacted to it. I don't feel that they trust one another, or that they really understand what one another want from the game (Of course, I'm not really speaking about the whole group per se, just the relationship between this particular player and DM).

 

[Zimri]

It's not even a question of honor. The man had no honor. He was a child molester. He was beneath contempt and was dealt with like a piece a vermin. Why would the Paladin in anyway conduct himself as though this man were deserving of the honor of face to face combat?

The Paladin needs to be honorable because society ESPESCIALLY in a grim and gritty campaign needs to see that there are HEROES out there standing for them. That not everyone is out to be self-serving and making back room deals.

The Paladin needs to hold himself to a higher standard and not take the easy way out.

A great example of a Knight treating an oppnent differently because of the person's nature is when Launcelot killed Sir Bruce sans Pit the rapist. Launcelot defeated him and didn't even offer mercy as he would an honorable knight. He unlaced his helm and beheaded the scum without even a fight. I think Sir Bruce fell from his horse while being chased. Launcelot never intended to give Sir Bruce an honorable fight. He never intended to grant Sir Bruce mercy. Sir Bruce was a rapist, and the only thing he was going to receive was death at the first available opportunity even if he was on his knees begging for mercy.

No question about it there. Sir Bruce (from the example given) KNEW he was caught and Knew justice was going to come to him if he didn't get away and he umm didn't. Had the Paladin in question flung the evil rapist from the room walked up to the prone villian and pronounced justice upon him to his face I would be on the other side of the argument. Striking an unarmed foe from behind without warning, in secret is NOT HONORABLE. A paladin doesn't need to accept surrenders in my opinion. "Armed or not you will gain no quarter from the justice My Lord and I have passed villian" is completely acceptable.

Betting a remote chance of a criminal acting nice (and submitting oneself to justice) against a high probability of bringing further harm to a child... I don't buy it, sorry.

When it comes to this choice, I'd still choose child's welfare.

Lack of a decisive action can be very bad. Furthermore, the sword is not meant as a subduing weapon, therefore, were the paladin to strike to stun the offender, it could be argued that the hero was taking too many chances

Hardly in this case. Paladin is a warrior, a killing machine dedicated to eradicating evil. If he refrains from doing his duty, it means that he grants evil a second opportunity to strike. And such an obvious evil at that.

Not so much a remote chance if the un-noticed paladin grabs him and extricates the perpetrator from the vicinity of the girl. Remember the perp didn't even know he was there. The paladin had surprise on his side. No more harm comes to the girl. Espescially not the "harm" of being splattered by the torrents of her rapists blood as his head falls into her lap and his eyes stare up at hers.

But he is not just some individual. He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Right and as such is held by himself, his church, his deity, his companions, and society as a whole to a stricter moral, ethicl and philosophical standard. We can't have paladins acting in secret and dispensing back room justice. That is simply not honorable.

 

[Agemegos]

And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions.

Scream, then. These things are not modern constructs: they were well established in ancient Greece and Rome 2,400 years ago (think of the trials of Socrates and Verres). Also, they were common in the Middle Ages and the good guys struggled for them where they did not prevail.

 

[Squire James]

I think the crux of the matter is this: Is a Paladin Law's Master or Law's Slave?

My personal opinion is that a PC in a D&D game should, as a default, have multiple "right answers" to nearly any situation. I shouldn't have to turn to the DM in every dilemma and say, "I do that One Right Thing that will preserve my Paladin status. Do I know what that is, or do I have to guess?" So my view's about in the "90% Master" range, I suppose.

 

[DarkMaster]

Half the arguements could be silenced by a little bit more information. We need to know the full scenario if you want to rely on the concensus of this body.

For all we know, they could have been in Thay for Oa's sake, or he might worship and serve a god (NG or LG with the empasis on Innocence) than someone who favors redemption.

And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions. How do we even know that their such a thing to be respected, how do we know that this man and his family might have wouldn't have been put to death for this crime (It happened in some of our earlier societies). Or even that this was a crime in secular terms. Honestly we are all assuming that the Law exists as we proceive it there.

Also does the Church have a codified set of laws? Many LG churches do, and those who serve them will place that law beyond all others. What does that say about such things?

In all case the descision was taken too quickly. What if the paladin misunderstood the situation and the man was simply correcting her child, or that having sex with your children was a respectable behavior, then would the paladin lose his paladinhood? Like Elder Basilik say this kind of attitude doesn't lead to a lawful society

 

[PoppaGunch]

As a player I would have dragged the bad guy out of the tavern into the street by his hair, thrown him to the ground, and made him confess to his crimes in front of everyone in the street. Then I would have made him beg the gods to forgive him for his horrible transgression, and make him say he will atone.

If he went along with it, I would then ask the crowd what they thought? I would let them judge him. The idea is, if he had done good stuff in the town other than what he was doing, he might be redeemable. But usually when people do screwed up crap like he was doing, they are also B***ards. So the townspeople would most likely say to the pit with him, or somesuch thing.

Hopefully he would fight back though, cause then I could dispense righteous justice. Combat before my god and all that. If I were wrong I would lose the combat, and he would be vindicated.

Now if I were the DM here, I would not strip his powers right off the bat, but I would have his god warn him in some way that he was screwing up. Like his healing abilities wouldn't work correctly, or once I had a paladin detect evil in front of him all the time, and he discovered it was his hands that were evil, because he had tainted them. He got the hint.

 

[GravyFingerz]

While not honorable, the paladin performed a chaotic act, not an evil one. He fulfilled his duty by purging the world of evil scum. He shouldn't lose his paladinhood.