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

[dead]

I think your GM is very cruel.

True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.

Wow, your GM runs a disturbing FR campaign. I respect this, though. At least, if that's the mood of the campaign, he doesn't chose to sweep such controversial things under the carpet.

 

[SirEuain]

What would his possible defense be? He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?

Possession. Mind control. Magic-based insanity.

This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.

 

[Dark Jezter]

What would his possible defense be? He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?

ROTFLMAO!

That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Good one, Sejs!

 

[SirEuain]

I think your GM is very cruel.

True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.

Hence the term "atonement". Paladins, by their very nature, don't have emotion as an excuse. They exemplify their gods' will, and must be all the more responsible for it.

 

[Sejs]

This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.

Heh, fair point. Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."

 

[Zimri]

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?

No different at all. you do not smite evil no matter the form quietly and from behind if you are a paladin.

The fact that it was FROM BEHIND makes all the difference in the world to me. Even more than the perp being unarmed (coulda had monk levels or something) Doesn't matter a bit that he still would have died from 1 hit. It matters that this paragon of virtue snuck up behind someone and ran him through.

 

[kolvar]

I think, there are three levels to it:
1st: In any case it is not honorable to attack from behind an unarmed man (+ without warning). If honor is important to the charakter, he got a problem.
2nd: no law allows for killing people just because they did something evil or are doing it, if it can be prevented (with the exception of the law-enforcement of the city and player characters are seldom part of that. Being a paladin does not automatically qualify a character to enforce the law in a city). A city lives by its laws. If people start doing their own law, the city will not survive. Therefore, the character should, at least be dragged before the court. what happens there is a matter of the local laws.
3rd: The paladin violated a law. Did he violate his law? if yes, he is in for atonement

In the end, if the GM feels, that the character violated his code, it is the GMs right to strip the character of his powers. He is the law at the table.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.

"Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares also into you."

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

 

[jgbrowning]

i must have a different view of paladins than others.

in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) are considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself is a legitimate authority.

To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?

I'm not sure if i'm expressing myself well here, but i think focusing on the fact that a person has a game mechanical benefit gained through past actions doesn't mean that that person has any greater claim on "judge, jury, and executioner" than any other class that's lawful good.

IMHO, Being a paladin doesn't mean one is less likely to perform questionable actions, nor does it mean that your actions are given an unusual-authority in worlds typically feudal. It just means that there are greater consequences (game mechanics wise) for those actions.

joe b.

 

[Quirthanon]

I think there are too many questions here. What type of god is worshiped by the paladin, they’re not all equal. What are the player’s AND the DM’s definitions of Lawful. I’ve seen two different uses of that word in this thread. Lawful meaning must follow the laws, and meaning honorable; not really the same thing. Then once this is clearly defined by the player and DM, what are the laws in the area?

Also, following the laws doesn’t preclude attacking from behind and be honorable doesn’t either. It really depends on the code of the paladin’s order and the laws of the land. Neither of which is given to us.

I think your DM and you should sit down and talk about what type of paladin you have; a law-enforcer type or one who cares out judgments. You have to of course consider what type of order the paladin is in and how much the paladin knows about local laws. The location where the paladin was trained will probably be his reference point for laws if he’s not familiar with the local ones.

This really is something for your DM and you to decide.