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

[pawsplay]

Quick observation: the act was neither evil nor chaotic. It might not have been good or lawful, but it's understandable, and delivering summary justice is no violation of a Paladin's code. I can see strong arguments that killing the man was both Lawful (administering justice) and Good (killing what is probably an irredeemable man). If the man truly repented, he would probably wish he was dead.

There is nothing in the Paladin's code that prohibits wrath, nor any prohibition against killing someone, even from behind, if they are in the process of committing an evil act. If the man had a sword raised, the Paladin would kill him. Is he *less* justified in killing the man because the man was only about to molest a young girl?

Some Paladins may choose to knock out the man and bring him to trial, but I would actually consider it possible grounds to strip the Paladin's powers if he did so, uncertain the man would actually be tried and executed.

In any case, it's a complex situation, and a Paladin should never lose his powers over an arguable case.

Facing an armed man in combat is a matter of personal valor. Striking in this situation is not a matter of cowardice, but of believing that something more important is at stake than his personal valor.

I think the question arises: would the deity strip a LG cleric of his spells for the same act? If the answer is no, he has not committed an evil or lawless act.

 

[Deadguy]

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.

I have stayed out of this thread, since little good ever comes of these Paladin discussions other than increasingly shrill words as game and reality become blurred in the posters' replies.

But since this a pure historical point, I wanted to say that I have never come across this description of Simon de Montfort, and the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of Braveheart! I'd be the first to say I am not an historian, but having played an Ars Magica campaign that ran right through the reign of Edward I, I read widely around its history.

Was Edward a hard man? Yes, most certainly. But every successful monarch of this age had to be pretty damned ruthless if they were going to have a kingdom left. There's little sense of national identity and patriotism, and most magnates were interested only in what personally improved their station. Likewise, your characterisation of the de Montfort's rebellion is, I think, coloured by looking backwards and knowing what happened to the governance of England. de Montfort was not, I feel, a man acting to aid the common weal; he was a powerful noble who was concerned with controlling his king (Henry III, Edward's father) to prevent him from draining further power and authority away from the magnates.

Clearly in mediaeval historical matters, there is much scope for disagreement, even from primary sources. But it did sound that you were stating as fact to support an unrelated thesis.

Sorry, now to return you to your previous Paladin Animosity.

 

[Majere]

Just my 2c from a completely unrelated source.
Baldurs Gate 2 (Convenietly set in Forgotten realm)

One ok the missions you are sent to help a baron evict squatters.
It soon becomes clear that the baron is trying to steal their land.
The baron refuses stop so you kill him.

Is the killing of a noble lawful and good ?
The Order of theHeart seem to think so, infactI bevelie the quotes is something along the lines of:
"Im sure your actions were justified"

And that is kinda the point (in a roundabout way)
The actions were justified.
None can argue the man shouldnt have been punished. Very few will argue that under normal law he wouldnt have been executed.
Perhaps the method was not the most "noble" but thats almost besides the point. The paladin did the right thing for the right reasons. Possibly in the wrong way, but ultimately a paladin is accountable only to his god.

One way to do this might be just to have th paladin go on trial in the local courts.
If nothing else this teaches the character that his actions are not without repercussions and that he should apply thought.

And then cut the infidels head off

Majere

 

[DarkMaster]

And then cut the infidels head off

Majere

Be careful with that one.

 

[Khaalis]

Lets please not being to debate over semantics...

 

[Agemegos]

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

Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.

So this was not a Lawful act. But the question remains open whether it was the act of a Chaotic personality, or an abberration on the part of a Lawful one acting under the stress of circumstances.

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

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?

What about going the other direction? Suppose the girl was someone the paladin knew (or even related to). The paladin was acting as any good father would, protecting his daughter, as well as a religious leader protecting a (potential) member of his 'flock'.

 

[Agemegos]

the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of Braveheart!

Just so. Asked to arbitrate between the claims of the rivals for the throne of Scotland, he sold his justice to the one who agreed to swear fealty to him. And then claiming a suzerainty that he had obtained by extortion, he invaded and attempted to conquer.

Are you aware that in 1265 he robbed a bank (the Temple in London)? That as a youngster he had a commoner's eyes gouged out becasue the man was not in his opinion quick enough to get out to the road to let him pass?

 

[Agemegos]

I wanted to say that I have never come across this description of Simon de Montfort

As "Simon the Righteous"? It is mentioned in Chambers Biographical Dictionary (ISBN 0550 100512) on page 1071. And it is discussed by the historical novellist Sharon Kay Penman in her novelised biography of de Montfort "Falls the Shadow".

 

[Agemegos]

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

Trial in the Curia Regis was. But the manor courts, hundred courts, assizes, and other Royal courts were certainly available to commoners. Indeed, the escheat of property from commoners convicted of felony was an important source of revenue to whomever owned the right of high justice and managed to catch the gulty party. High justice in England belonged originally to the earl, but was gradually reclaimed by the Crown except in a few anomalous cases such as the Duchy of Cornwall, the Bishopric of Durham, and (I think) the Duchy of Lancaster.