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

[Gundark]

My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."

Well in all fairness your Paladin probably didn't know what level or class the rapist was. People don't go walking around with "6th level fighter" or "12th level monk" written on a sign above their heads. He could have been a powerful Blackguard for all your Paladin knew. Also I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system. In the time period which FR is set (or patterned after I should say) this sort of justice that you paladin dished out would have been fine. It also depends on the laws of where this event happened. Waterdeep? the dalelands? Thay? What would the locals have done? It has been mentioned before but also what Deity your character serves would be in effect here.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Or even just said, "what's all this then?". Do you think the rapist would have carried through with his foul deed if he had realised someone else was in the room?

Well, considering that the rapist didn't even get the courtesy of a Spot or a Listen check to notice the armored, armed paladin following him back to his room, I don't know that we can assume that the rapist wouldn't have carried through with his foul deed, or maybe even something fouler.

I mean, this whole event was clearly slapped together specifically for the paladin; allowing the rapist the opportunity to spot the paladin following him openly (which, honestly, even a 1st level commoner should have been able to pull off) would have derailed the entire moral-dilemma train immediately, so the rapist suddenly developed a mysteriously specific blindness and deafness to big guys carrying swords and holy symbols instead.

And when you're looking at that kind of dedication to playing a round of "let's face the paladin with a complete moral outrage out of absolutely nowhere and see what he does," who knows what could happen next?

--
we're all smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of this thread

 

[Agemegos]

I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system.

21st-century morality? The presumption of innocence and the requirement of due process did not spring from nowhere during the last three years. Various law codes have been demanding orderly trials before punishment, and allowing for a defence for thousands of years.

 

[AugurSSj]

I haven't had a chance to read all 25 pages of post yet but i want to bring up a point that i haven't seen so far.

There was a possible senario had the paladin followed forthe

Paladin gives the guy a warning
A) He is taken a back and cowers away
B) He jumps at the child uses her as a shield
C) Gets a weapon near by and kills the child
D) Uses the child as a distraction (throwing her on the ground), possibly injuring her gravely and running away.
E) Possibly kills the child out of spite(breaking her neck, knife through body)
F) Stands ready with a weapon that could kill or poison the paladin rendering his saving ability useless.

You really should not know whether he would go down in one hit, that's out of game knowledge and should not be taken into consideration. (However if you knew that subdual damage would have been better, however that could have missed due to the -4 so its tactically a worse choice)

(Good is also a reletive term and DND attempts to make it black and white for simplicity sake)
Lawful good
The best possible good for the best possible out come. This good should be the most prejidice and should always find look for ways to to elliminate evil and injustice out right.

Nautral good
The best good all the the time even if the out come is bad. They have faith that good will prevail

Chaotic good
Understand that there are nessacary evils to get good results and doesn't rely on others perception of goods .

Many of these scenario puts the child in harms way. Based on how i belive LG is defined, it was best to minimize the possible damage and protect the greatest amount of people. If the choice was between:
*Pessant dies and girl lives - Likely outcome (Epecially if the paladin attacked first)
*Pessant live and girl dies - Possible outcome
*Pessant dies girl dies - Possible outcome
*Pessant lives girl lives - Possbile outcome

The paladin should have chosen the best and most likely out come explaing that there was little room for other outcomes or even think up a plan that could have protected the girl fully. To stand there and do nothing would have beencowardly and evil. This was a time for action and he gave the best possible mercy he could have at the time. However, the paladin should have talked to his clergy regarding the death, prayed over and tithe heavily for their digression. There was no moment of weakness, just a moment of justice at its cruelest.

 

[Turanil]

Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.

Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."

Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.

Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.

With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword. My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."

"My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.

I did so.

Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood. I'm fighting him on it. His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."

My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation. He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)

Discuss.

IMO: Plain and simple, the evil commoner had to be punished. Death is the right, and in fact benevolent sentence. However, I think the paladin should nonetheless had first lectured the guy on his evil ways; then pronounced the sentence, and executed it. The commoner should have died knowing it, and knowing why he was being killed. In being killed so swiftly and by surprise, it's like he was not chastised.

 

[Alhazred]

Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all). Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous. If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts. If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.

If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world. (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.) In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law). If paladins are considered an ecclesiastical court unto themselves and are allowed to mete out justice as necessary, then the killing is justified. Although attacking from behind is still rather cowardly.

 

[Agemegos]

If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world. (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.) In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law).

Good point. English equity courts (eg. the Court of Chancery) developed in the 13th century as a remedy for the strict legalism and ponderous procedure of the common-law courts of earlier time. That is one in the eye for those people who think that due process of the law is a strictly modern concept.

 

[Agemegos]

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

Well, there are alternatives in between a decapitating stroke and saying "Fill your hands you son of bitch!".

• The paladin could have struck for subdual damage.

• The paladin could have grappled.

• The paladin could have knocked the rapist to the floor.

• The paladin could have grabbed the rapist by the collar of the and dragged him into the public bar with his trousers around his ankles.

And for every scenario you might present in which these approaches were likely to present a danger to the girl under D&D, there is a scenario just as likely in a D&D world in which the apparent rapist was innocent of any willing and witting evil.

• The rapist might have been a high-level monk. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have had a very lethal concealed weapon. But he hadn't.

• The rapist might have been a sorceror. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have been a powerful monster in disguise. But he wasn't.

If you are going to defend the paladins actions on the grounds that he had to consider what might have been, you have to accept that that blade cuts both ways.

• The rapist wasn't possessed. But he might have been.

• The rapist wasn't subject to a magical mind control. But he might have been.

• The victim wasn't a prostitute under an illusion acting out a sex game. But she might have been.

• The situation was not a set-up, fake from start to finish. But it might have been.

If you are going to judge the 'might-have-beens' you have to judge all the 'might-have-beens'. And if you do, Vindicator's character still comes up as having done wrong. So let's just stick with the facts.

Though: one day one of those 'might-have-beens' will be a 'was'. Circumspection!

 

[Trainz]

Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all). Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous. If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts. If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.

No hard feelings, but...

Once and for all, the paladin's "Lawful" aspect has nothing to do with civil law.

A lawful evil ruler might set up a code of law for his kingdom that says "If one of your slaves speaks before spoken to, you must cut his hands and feed them to his kids". Codified code of law.

Paladins must NOT respect legitimate authority, they must do what's right and good.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.

I note that you implicitly discount the possibility of immediately using non-lethal force. Why?

In the eyes of the law, "Deadly force" doesn't equal "used a weapon," it means force likely to cause serious bodily injury. Someone who is a trained martial artist, be he boxer, savate expert, or sensei of the local dojo could be accused of using deadly force if they struck someone with only their bare hands or feet. Even a sap or brass knuckles could be considered deadly force. The paladin is a trained warrior. He is wearing armor, including, presumably, gauntlets of some kind. Almost any kind of force he brings to bear could be considered deadly unless he is trained in non-lethal fighting styles (submission holds and joint locks).

Quote:
"Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted.

Does that belief have to be reasonable?

Subjective belief is all that is required.

Quote:
The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.

law enforcemment officers are held to a higher standard, I take it?

Yes.

Quote:
Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!" Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?

I consider that just as speculative as the possibility that the rapist might have been acting under a compulsion or possession. Basing our judgement on chimeras is an axe that cuts both ways. Imaginary allies, imaginary knives, imaginary demons, imaginary spells, imaginary fears: they aren't the things that a reasonable person bases his or her actions on

This is not overly speculative at all. We're talking about rational human behavior.

As they say, it goes to state of mind. A Paladin in a high-class neigborhood may have felt more at ease- theoretically he has more potential allies in a "good" neigborhood, so merely raising a ruckus as he apprehends the scumbag would be sufficient. He would feel reasonably assured that he would have more allies in the area than the assailant- the city watch, the good people of the tavern, the law abiding taverner, etc.

If, on the other hand, the party is in a waterfront tavern frequented by ruffians, the Paladin has no expectation of assistance beyond his partymates. The taverner? Probably a smuggler. The other people in the bar might not have been the rapist's allies, but the call of "Hold, Miscreant!" could very well have started a rumble that could have left many dead and dying, and DEFINITELY would have held up any help the Paladin could have hoped for.

Ask yourself- don't you alter your behavior based on where you are? If you go into a gang-controlled neigborhood, aren't you a bit more wary of those around you? Aren't you more relaxed where the lighting is good, the cars are expensive and the cops are in sight?