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

[Agemegos]

That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station.

According to Edward I it was. According to Simon de Montfort it wasn't. One of them is remembered as 'Simon the Righteous, Father of Parliament' and was revered as a saint. The other is remembered as a cruel, cold, methodical giant, a tyrant, oathbreaker, and warmonger.

 

[Numion]

I do get the impression that for some paladin posters here being good means to kill faster than the bad guy...

Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.

Sometimes it's just best to take it as you see it, and act swiftly.

Maybe it was not honorable, but still I wonder if sticking to your honor further endangers a child, is it really honor or personal hubris and a little too big ego for a Paladin? Anyway, it wasn't an evil act, and so shouldn't lead to loss of powers.

 

[Numion]

It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.

The child appeared molested, remember? Well, Paladins only duty is not to prevent harm from happening, but also to punish evildoers. That he did. Killing the man served two purposes: prevented the next rape and punished for the previous one.

If secular courts decide that the Paladin is a murderer for doing his duty .. then so be it. It's the price for being a Paladin. The secular law is wrong and unjust then, and Paladin is not obliged to follow it. Just like in Thay being a Paladin could be illegal.

It's pointed out that Lawful doesn't really mean that you're law-abiding. It means you work in an organized fashion.

 

[nick2]

Wouldn't the Paladin know if he was committing an evil act or not? In his mind he was simply defending someone. If he was told that killing this person was an evil/unlawful act, he would have found a different means to stop the person.

The DM probably picked the most despicable crime there is. I think most characters in this situation, paladin or not, would have done the same thing.
Having consequences for these actions, like a trial or a vendetta against the paladin is reasonable enough. Have the commoner be resurrected, or tainted by an evil god/spirit, and let him continue doing evil deeds.

I also agree that applying modern laws and ideals to fantasy worlds does not work all that well. Suddenly the characters are charged with trespassing, breaking and entering, assault, murder, uttering threats. Then they have to use all of their adventuring money to pay for legal fees.

Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?

 

[Numion]

Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?

And for commoners the standard was guilty until proven innocent.

 

[AuraSeer]

In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.

You're making a big assumption with that word "justifiable." In most places, for lethal defensive force to be legal, it must be apparent that there is no alternative.

The paladin didn't need to use lethal force, because he so obviously overpowered the commoner. He could very easily have struck with the flat of his blade, incapacitating the opponent but not killing him. Even striking with bare hands would have done the job. In a modern analogue he might very well find himself arrested for manslaughter, because his use of force was so far in excess of what was necessary. (It might be legal to shoot a mugger, but probably not if you're also carrying a tazer.)

 

[Wormwood]

"Yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"

 

[Samurai]

Add my vote to "the paladin should be praised for enacting swift justice, not punished." IMHO, the child molester is far more evil than your common orc or goblin, or even undead. They simply are trying to survive, while the rapist chose to inflict harm on the helpless for sheer pleasure. I'd be far more likely to warn a paladin who ran into an orc encampment swinging his sword than I would in this case. Justice was done.

 

[Fenes]

I think we have many different definitions of Honor. IMHO, a paladin is not required to challenge commoners to honorable combat - in fact, doing so could be dishonorable in itself, a mocking of the honorable duel between knights. In that view, striking a knight from behind would be dishonorable in most circumstances, striking down (evil) rabble down from behind would be perfectly ok.

IMC, I try to apply medieval views, not my modern views, though it took me some time. It just feels more right to me to have characters who do not behave like they memorized modern penal codes, but live medieval values.

 

[FireLance]

Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.

For the sake of focusing the arguments, can we keep all remote possibilities out of it? For every argument not to strike because it could have been an illusion or the man could have been possessed, there is a counter-argument to strike because the man could have had accomplices or could have caused more harm to the girl if he was not put down immediately.

I don't think it is very productive or persuasive for either side to base arguments on what if.

Thanks.