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

[Agemegos]

He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.

He is also given an obligation to be judge and jury, not just executioner.

And remember that paladin's gods are lawful as well as good. They believe that it is best to do things in an orderly, open fashion, and that wider issues must be considered in judging particular instances. They believe that it is not enough to do justice on a case-by-case basis, but that it is essential to establish a regular, orderly process whereby justice is not only done but seen to be done.

 

[DarkMaster]

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.

Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?

 

[GravyFingerz]

Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?

Yes, he is required to be lawful and good, but he is to specifically avoid evil acts. Chaotic ones, while antiethical to his oath, are not as severe as evil ones. If he performs a chaotic act once, it doesn't make him chaotic good; why should it cost him his paladinhood?

If he routinely performs chaotic acts, that is a totally different story.

 

[Graf]

This thread has been useful for me.

I have a reputation for being excessively severe on paladins. The paladin in my last game still complains about my hyper-strict rullings on falling from grace.
[I made one fall from grace for attacking a good ally who was trying to help him, when he was as drugged, hallucinating and under mind control. His god (who was NG and not the god of who arbitrates on Pally matters) appeared to him, told him she still loved him and he would always had a place in heaven and told him about a quest that would help him reclaim his paladin hood.]

We still talk about what happened and I think that it really depends on your world and some discussion of allignment.

People in the thread have made some interesting assumptions. I think you DM needs to decide certain things.
1. Does lawful mean you are a legal representative of the government?
If you are, and you broke the law killing someone (either without a fair trial, or because child molestation isn't punishable by death in your world) then you probably fell from grace.

2. Does lawful mean "extremely honorable". I.e. you will never attack a foe from behind because you feel that it is dishonorable -regardless-. Do you feel that all crimes are ultimately arbitrated by the gods, who make their will known by allowing one person to walk away from a dueling match alive (I think this is a greek concept, but I could be wrong).
If so you're probably cooked too.

3. Does lawful just mean that you want their to be order, for people to stay in their roles?
If so then you have a criminal, who is deviating from their social role and disrupting harmony. And killing him is just fine.
(Though people with more expertise in the setting will probably step in to comment: this, btw, was the LG as represented by the you-will-conform Harmonium in Planescape).

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?

Then why not turn himself in to the local authorities? What he did was a good act even if it did involve killing a 'defenseless' man. Likewise, any parent with a child in the same situation probably would've reacted the same. With the victim's testimony, he shouldn't have anything to worry about except maybe a ruler across his knuckles. Perhaps even a diety or at least a representative pops in as a character witness.

In any case, the act of going on trial should counter his chaotic act.

 

[Zimri]

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.

No not forever, not even for very long, perhaps not even all of it, and perhaps he should be the only one to know. Some sort of penance, prayers, atonement (not necessarily the spell). Perhaps some bad dreams showing him the possible outcomes of rash activity, perhaps an "audience" with his diety. He should be made aware that he should not continue to act rashly and fly off the handle.

 

[GravyFingerz]

The DM or the Player should probably pipe in and say if the DM has required the PC adhere to additional or different codes of conduct in his game. Otherwise, the paladin did no wrong as stated in the Player's Handbook. You can speak all you want about honor and such; however, if the DM runs his paladins out of the book, the PC did nothing wrong.

Well, that isn't entirely true. He did perform a chaotic act, but like I've stated before, one chaotic act does not a chaotic character make.

 

[Agemegos]

Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?

It is so written in the PHB chapter 3, in the section on the paladin class, under the heading "Class features", sub-headings "code of conduct" and "associates", and under the heading "ex-paladins". In my PHB 3.0 that is page 43.

A single Chaotic act does not make a character Chaotic, any more than a single Evil act makes a character Evil. Only a sustained tendency to act Neutrally, Chaotically, or Evilly would challenge a paladin;s status through the alignment requirement. But a paladin loses his or her powers and class membership if he or she willfully commits a single evil act. Also, a paladin is forbidden to associate with evil characters but not with chaotic ones. That clearly establishes the primacy of Good over Lawful in the constition of the paladin.

While we are citing the rules, let's point out to those people who claim that a paladin is necessarily an emissary of his or her god, responsible only to his of her god, or that the continuation of his or her powers depends onthe judgement or even whim of that god, what is says under the heading "Religion" in the paladin class description:

"Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity. Devotion to Righteousness is enough for most."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd say the paladinhood loses the status due to attacking an unarmed, unaware person from behind.

BUT, depending on his diety, I'd also say the atonement quest wouldn't necessarily be all that bad.

 

[dead]

The Law and the Church aren't gonna worry about one dead pervert, so I don't think his god will either.