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

[Numion]

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.

If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful. His inner rules tell him to dispatch all molester at first opportunity. There isn't anything disorganized in single unhesitant swipe of the sword.

Let me back that up with the PHB page 88:

"Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability"

Sounds like this was the paladins close adherence to dispatching evildoers about to commit evil Lawful behaviour requires systematic actions - not necessarily complicated lawroom actions.

 

[Agemegos]

By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights. I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.

Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.

In treating authority with disrespect, in dispensing justice in a summary, personal, private fashion, the paladin has acted out of accord with a lawful alignment, and (in the lawful point of view) to the harm of society. But it is just a single act. I think that the paladin is due a stern caution for Chaotic behaviour, but that o strip him of paladinhood or it powers in not warranted underthe rules unless a continual tendence to Chaos is manifest in his acts in general.

I think that part of the reason that we are seeing so much controversy is that people think that 'Lawful Good' means 'extra-specially righteous', even though their own personal standards of righteousness tend more to the individualistic case-by-case Chaotic Good than the institutional due-process Lawful Good. They judge that according to their own standards the paladin has done the right thing, and fail to take into account the gap between their own standards and the ones by which the paladin is correctly judged. Me, I am apparently Neutral Good, but I recognise that a paladin has to be judged by lawful Good standards, not my own.

 

[Numion]

By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights.

It has been noted many times that the more "Paladinny" Gods of the FR (Tyr, Torm) want their Paladins to, and grant them power to, wait for it, act as a roaming Judge, Jury and Executioner. So the Paladin didn't have to take that right into their hands, but it was rather demanded of them by their God. It should be noted that with such authority at their hands any secular courts decision, while noteworthy, is secondary.

I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.

Paladins would have hard time avoiding the lethal injection in modern day america. Mercilessly vanquishing evil by long sharp instruments isn't going to last

 

[jgbrowning]

You could try adding an "In my opinion" to the beginning of that first sentence.

Anything I write I always only my opinion.

One of my problems with your arguments in this thread is simply that you are so adamant that you are right. It almost seems like you think there is no other right way to play than your own. Granted, the original poster asked for your opinion and that's what you're giving; you just don't act like it's an opinion as much as fact/religious canon.

I don't remember who it was earlier in this thread who had paladins be representitives of their monothesistic god. I quickly agreed that in his world, that's how they work. In a bigger view, I'm argue what a paladin should be genericlly based upon all of the D&D WoTC sources as to what good means. I don't think paladins are intended to be as simplistic as "If they detect evil or If I catch them in an evil act that means I can kill them and still be a paladin. I don't need more than that." I think there's a lot more to being a paladin, who's supposed to try and be the pinnicle of lawful good, than choosing to kill evil when found as opposed to trying to end evil

I suppose poster #1 and his DM opened the door for that sort of thing.
I'm not trying to pick on you personally, I'm sure there are others in this thread who have acted the same way, it's just that it's your name and avatar I've seen three or four times on nearly every page of the thread I've read so far...

I usually don't get involved with paladin threads. I got suckered in on this one. If nothing else, I think the thread continues to show how paladins are not really suitable for core class material. They're too arbitrary and unlike other classes their powers depend upon that arbitrariness. There's an utter lack of portibility between gaming groups.

Also, keeping in mind that we have only the barest details to base our decisions on is a good thing. It stems the embarrassment that inevitably occurs when the original poster returns and says, "Aw shucks, I should have mentioned that this took place in Villain Junction where there's not a lawfully appointed magistrate for 100 miles.", and turns everyone's understanding of the situation on its head.

I have a great ability to never really get embarresed. I say things that are wrong, stupid, and probably shouldn't have been said but I just go, "I'm wrong, your right," or "Sorry, that was stupid," and don't worry about it anymore. I'm too old to worry about people's opinions of me as long as I think I'm behaving, uhem... honorably to everyone involved.

And for everyone worried the locals doubting the justice system because of this unannounced execution; If the authorities are that worried about their image they can bring the guy back to life, try him, and kill him again. It's the Realms after all, there should be a guy in the nearest bar or privy who can rez someone and will keep silent for the right price.

Hehe... yeah, i don't think the locals worrying about the system is so much an issue (although that could be important) as much as the paladin should go out of his way to support the local authorities as long as those authorities aren't doing evil. The paladin is always better served by not taking the law into his own hands (even if he has that capability) because an inportant part of being lawful good is supporting systems that increase the lawfull goodness quotient in the world.

The paladin should have just knocked the guy out and let the natural workings of the society take place, as long as those natural workings didn't include torture or some such, which he has to not associate himself with.

It's always seemed to me that paladins acting as many people suggest paladins can act aren't any different than a simple fighter who's lawful good. I think paladin's have to be more lawful good than other classes because they're supposed to be paragons, supposed to be shining beacons of lawful goodness in the world.

But in the end, tying class abilities to an alignment is bad game design. But you can blame that on the gamers who simply can't give up the "Paladin Class" even though you can easily role-play the same thing without the game-alingment resistrictions by playing a "holy warrior" without worrying about alignment because "holy warriors" could be of any alignement.

Very little is gained by trying to keep the Paladin "special."

joe b.

 

[Agemegos]

If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful.

Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.

"Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition"

So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a tradition that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.

 

[Numion]

Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.

And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin does have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.

So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a tradition that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.

No, I'm not, thats why I put the winking smiley there. I was just pointing out that a lot of behaviour you don't consider lawful, really are. Like that Paladins rules require him to protect innocents, and this can lead to him sometimes circumventing secular laws, because he's so used to it. That's lawful as per the examples I gave you. Not necessarily a tradition in the game at hand.

 

[jeffh]

Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.

He saw him doing it. The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence; that has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense, and/or that something like idealized Western European medieval chivalry is hardwired into the Paladin's code, also not true. Read the CoC, folks - it ain't there!

 

[jgbrowning]

And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin does have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.

Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was absolutely no other acceptable way for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.

If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?

And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify always killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?

joe b.

 

[Ferret]

Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the paladin walking up to whatever local constabulary is in the area and telling them "Hey guys, I walked in on this man about to rape this 10 year old girl ... again. She can testify to what happened. I killed the man in defense of the child." and having their response being anything other then "Oh. Alright then. Nicely done there, citizen. Thank you." And that's to say nothing of the fact that on the good/evil end of things it was the morally right thing to do. Defending the weak and innocent from the depredations of the wicked. The paladin was justified in what he did.

On the lawful side, it only means that every one would have the same punishment, and need the same evidence.

On the good side, if she had beed tied up and he found her, he got pointed out on street, I wouldn't have let him go lopping his head off.

 

[Numion]

Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was absolutely no other acceptable way for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.

I'm saying that this was the safest way. Paladins aren't required to give initiative to the very evil they're about to vanquish - which is acceptable as long as the Paladin doesn't resort to trickery. Busting through a door in a platemail with sword in hand is not trickery.

Maybe there could've been other ways, but as per Paladin Coc in PHB Paladin is required to punish those who harm innocent or are intent to do so. And there were the marks of previous abuse. So he was fully within his CoC to dish out capital punishment.

So let me be clear: it wasn't the only way, but this way the Paladin did it in a safe and swift manner, and shouldn't be punished. Which was the original point of this thread, IIRC. (Although the true point of the thread tends to get lost in 20 pages).

If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?

I don't think so, but I'll give reasons for my interpretation of the Paladin class nonetheless:

Reasons for my beliefs are the PHB feel they give for Paladin, which isn't that of a defense lawyer for the bad guys, and the intent of keeping the Paladin as a playable character class. The driving force of the Paladin in PHB seems to be very martial - Alhandra vanquishes evil without hesitation, etc. IMO the Paladin in this case was played within the rules set in the PHB.

And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify always killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?

I just gave these 'what if' possibilities after the other side said that the man could've been possessed, the girl could've been an illusion, and let me clear on the iffing: it's completely worthless and can only be used to hamstring the class completely.