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

[MrFilthyIke]

Well, a LAWFUL man would have, knowing from the DM he's a low-level
commoner and will likely die, would have declared a subdual strike, as striking
a pervert about to attack from behind would be "protecting" her. Use the
flat-footed state and the likelyhood you'll gain Init to wail on him twice for
subdual and knock his arse out.

Then drag him to court, or if not court, to be lynched by the town, letting
SOCIETY decide his fate.

*I* would say this was a breach of LAWFUL behavior, but not of GOOD
behavior. Penance would be necessary, but maybe not as bad as losing
ALL powers.

*I* would say all powers cease functioning unless used in selfless-behavior.
(example: Pervert's friend attacks same girl, takes her to -1hp. YOU dive to
her side and Lay On Hands to heal her...it WORKS! But, you draw an Attack
of Opportunity. Those are the risks of being a hero.)

Just my 2cp,

 

[Minicol]

To exactly what point and purpose? 5th level paladin. "Lowly" commoner. The man's death is a foregone conclusion. Telling him to zip up, grab a club and defend himself would pointless sophistry - he can't defend himself against the paladin. It won't matter what he does, he is going to die in single combat against so supperior an opponent.

.

This is meta gaming thinking, not roleplaying.

In medieval times, being given a chance to fight in such a case would be an unexpected chance to survive. Most people, criminal or not, were never given that.

Now since a lot of you insist on the rules, remember that it could have been a 5th lvl commoner.

 

[D+1]

Cowardly, very dubious and only because the man's back was to him and the man was unaware.

To attack him BECAUSE his back is turned, but when facing him openly to instead attempt to take him into custody rather than go directly for his giblets - THAT'S cowardly. Not to mention unwise. The attack is not cowardly, it's simply opportune.

 

[Anabstercorian]

I think the only conceivable reason you might be berated for this act is that you let the girl see a man die with explosive horrible bloodiness.

You ARE a representative of the law. The punishment for rape of a child is death. You have absolute proof of his guilt - you're watching him preparing to do it. Killing him was not only justified - It was OBLIGATED. Well done. Nice, clean execution.

Though I would have knocked him out just for the girls sake, but I'm a softie that way.

 

[Sejs]

Tyr's dogma includes such lines as: reveal the truth, punish the guilty, right the wrong and always be true and just in your actions. Uphold the law wherever you go and punish those who do wrong under the law. Deliver vengeance to the guilty for those who cannot do it for themselves.

It also notes that clerics of tyr (and one would assume this would extend equally to tyr's paladins) 'bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury and executioner.'


Looks like even if he was a paladin of Tyr, he'd be in the clear.

 

[jgbrowning]

Was the killing necessary? Was there no other option?

I'm assuming that it killing wasn't necessary and that there were other options that would result in protecting the innocent while punishing the guilty. Paladin's aren't "judge, jury, and executioner" especially when dealing with people who are within a society that has pre-determined methods for dealing with crime/evil/abberation.

Were this man an orc, or some other race known to be commonly evil and generally outside the arc of the human society, things may be different. As it is, you've broken the law by killing another man and will have to go to trial to justify your actions.

Actions which, IMHO aren't justifiable as you had many other options than choosing as your first option, lethal force in a surprise attack. Evil is bad, but that doesn't mean you can kill what or who you want, when or how you want. The fact that the man deserved to die (even this is questionable... in many times/countries raping children is not a killable offense.. i don't know how the crime fairs in that part of Forgotten Realms) doesn't remove the fact that you're not the one who should be making that decision except in situations that cannot be dealt with through normal channels.

For a paladin, both the means and the end must be done lawfully and goodly. You should have knocked him unconscious and delivered him to the proper authorities. That's the way to be both lawful and good.

And striking with lethal force from behind against an unarmed, unworthy opponent? That is utterly contemptable and base. Actions far from worthy for the title of Paladin.

joe b.

 

[Minicol]

Well, a LAWFUL man would have, knowing from the DM he's a low-level
commoner

Then drag him to court, or if not court, to be lynched by the town, letting
SOCIETY decide his fate.

*I* would say this was a breach of LAWFUL behavior, but not of GOOD
behavior. Penance would be necessary, but maybe not as bad as losing
ALL powers.

Just my 2cp,

Letting society decide its fate : take a look at medieval society : is it not really doing the world a service ? Such a guy would likely walk free in medieval society. besides law was inefficient, and known criminals walked all over Europe unmolested, because they were either nobles (ruled by "divine" right), or known (valuable to the nobles) mercenaries.

In such a case letting society decide is a bit of hypocrisy. By the time society decides anything, if ever, the guy has so many years to escape and continue to hurt innocents. Clearly not desirable for a paladin. IMO at least

 

[Zimri]

The difference In my opinion is honor. Striking an unarmed, defenseless, unknowing, obviously weaker foe from behind is not honorable. I wouldn't say you have to take him to the authorities, or that you have to accept his surrender to you but you can not go around smiting people from behind.

 

[the Jester]

Let me get this straight.

Your paladin attacked an unarmed man from behind, with no warning; the dm warned you; and you're surprised you lost your paladinhood??

In my campaign, a paladin fights with honor and valor. Striking an opponent from behind doesn't qualify. Striking an unarmed and helpless opponent doesn't qualify.

Striking this guy down may have been fully justified, but not without warning. In my campaign, you'd have lost your paladinhood too. Especially given the dm's prior warning!

Striking this villain down, without warning, from behind, sounds like 'end justifies the means' to me. That's more NG (or, arguably, CG)- not LG.

Although your dm's willingness to listen to other opinions is laudable, I urge him to avoid dming by committee. It never makes the game better.

All, of course, imho.

 

[Agemegos]

Sorry, but I'm with your DM. Killing this guy was not necessary to protect the girl. Insofar as you had a good purpose, it would have been served just as well by arresting the guy and handing him over for lawful punishment. You killed a man unnecessarily (which is therefore not Good), unlawfully, and unchivalrously (the surprise attack from behind was un-called for).

Repent!

Atone!