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

[historian]

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.

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.

These are certainly fair points and, generally speaking, I don't disagree one iota. Another way of thinking about this is that paladins should obey the laws of the land so long as they do not conflict with the paladin's code. Indeed, I could imagine a situation where a paladin found himself in an entirely lawful, but evil setting (one that promoted forced servitude, etc.) where a paladin was constantly running afoul of the law.

Put another way, the standard by which the paladin should be judged should be put forth by his (her) order and supplemented by general notions of morality. Otherwise (if the paladin were held to both the order's and the laws standard) a paladin would be subject to an undue amount of "catch-22" scnarios where he is unable to adhere to the order's code and the law which, could in effect make the character unplayable.

However, close calls still arise, and paladins (almost by definition) are held to high standards. What if the character had slain a teenager for stealing chickens, or mistakenly punished the wrong person despite all the evidence that that person is the wrongdoer (ex. the real molester, having discovered the presence of the paladin, coerces a mentally handicapped blind man into the room with instructions to unzip his pants and say something incriminating)?

But I digress, if the paladin was acting pursuant to an established code, then he's probably ok w/in the order (but nevertheless may be subject to local punishment). However, if the paladin was acting in the service of a deity who takes a more rigorous view of procedural justice, then he's out.

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

He he , no arguments here. I also think many paladins wouldn't avail themselves of all the applicable Constitutional rights.

 

[mythago]

A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.

What if the punishment for the molestor's actions, in the paladin's world, is being forced to marry the girl and pay her father her bride-price? What if, instead, the man was from an 'untouchable' social class, the girl was a noble, and the punishment for an 'untouchable' even raising his eyes to a noble is death?

Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.

 

[Driddle]

As long as the paladin character is acting on the orders of his gawd, then I'd there's no real problem.

Well, sure, assuming we can trust the nutcase to actually be connected to the deity in question. But how are we to assume he's not just imagining justification for his righteous killing spree?

 

[historian]

A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.

I absolutley agree that the customs of the campaign should be controlling here (sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier posts). I brought forth what I could offer in re: "how this would play out in most modern American jurisdictions" in the event default rules were needed. With that said, I'm not even sure it's the best of possible defaults because the modern American views differ vastly from previous counterparts.

Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.

And the PC's head. Hopefully, in character creation the DM and PC can agree on a general outline for which of the good principle the paladin's order stands for and the means by which that good can be served.

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?

Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he deserved capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.

Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.

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.

Don't you think the paladin should have at least detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.

To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be better suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a better opportunity for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.

I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?

joe b.

 

[Agemegos]

The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence.

I disagree. The role of the judge is to ensure that there is a fair and open trial, in which the every effort is made to discover the truth. The role of the jury is to hear both sides impartially and to render an impartial verdict. The point of doing it that way is not just to reach a verdict, and not even just to reach a correct verdict. The point is also to demonstrate openly that the authorities are not abusing their power, to assure the community that if they have any complaints that the authorities will settle them fairly so that the principals need not seek private vengeance, and to reassure anyone who is accused in misleding circumstances that he or she will be able to establish his or her innocence, and need not resort ot flight or other desperate measures. And I maintain that belief that these things are very important are what distinguishes the Lawful Good from their Neutral Good and Chaotic Good fellows.

That has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Most unlikely. It will not have been done to the satisfaction of the rapists friends and relatives, and there may be a great many other people in the community who are generally suspicious of authority figures: they will not have been convinced either. Perhaps some of these suspicions can be laid if the paladin stands his trial for manslaughter (and although the victim may mercifully be considered too young to bear witness, there is no hope in the event of that trial that the secret of her rape will be concealed). But as long as the event is remembered some people will wonder "what did he know that They were afraid he would tell us?".

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

Well, I am not one of the 'nerf the paladin' posters, and I have not made that erroneous supposition. So let's not reply to my post on the basis that I concur with a view expressed by a mere majority of a group that I am not in this case a member of.

 

[Mr Gone]

Well, the act in and of it self would be best defined as a Neutral Good act. Its a good act that defys the rule of law, but it is a just act, so its not a chaotic good act. Now, can a Paladin lose his status by performing a single Neutral Good act? no, only if a number of act indicate an alignment shift. a warning, sure. censure, sure. loss of paladin, I dont beleive so.

 

[Numion]

A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?

Huh, investigating whether the man was controlled to hold out his wang in front of an already raped girl? Yeah .. um, let's say we do that. But if thats what the Paladin is required to do in a simple case like this, I'd hate to see what is required of him in more dangerous and subtle situations.

But I see no need to give the man to authorities which aren't as trusthworthy as the Paladin to carry out what needs to be done.

Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he deserved capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.

What need is there for defense when the Paladin saw him in-action? Are you saying that the Paladin should trust the man more than his own eyes? And consequently, should the Paladin extend that courtesy to all evildoers he encounters .. thats what lawfulness is too - consistent actions. Is the next Red Dragon going to be put to trial of peers?

Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.

In my stanrdards safer for the innocent is the better way. Knocking him out would require the Paladin to take a -4, which is most of his BAB at that level. Not so overwhelming for the Paladin anymore.

Don't you think the paladin should have at least detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.

I guess it's good to use the evil-radar(tm) as much as possible, but are you going to stand there for a couple of rounds concentrating when evil is about to happen? I would not.

Besides, a Paladin shouldn't let the remote possibilities hamstring his ability to act efficiently. I'd rather use Evil-Radar to find new evil rather than to waste time from acting against already identified evildoers.

To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be better suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a better opportunity for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.

Again, you seem to think that this is indeed a situation which the Paladin should approach like a puzzle. "Activate evil-radar, maybe knock out". Thats all good, and I bet the DM intended that too, but in reality there was an innocent about to be harmed. At that point I'd say it's not outside the Paladins Code of Conduct to vanquish the evil swiftly, even if you should (god forbid) sidestep the DMs supposed moral puzzle.

If it happened in a dungeon with an Orc standing there no questions would've been asked. I don't think Paladins code encourages double standards for different sentient races. I might be wrong on that though.

I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?

Any situation where there's not an innocent child in the room.

 

[billd91]

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!

Actually, paladins being generally law abiding is not at all utterly nonsense. Lawful characters are predisposed to respect authority according to the description of Lawful in the PHB. Paladins also have it in their code to respect authority.
The way I look at this, a paladin or any other lawful character really tries to respect ALL legitimate authorities (and organizational and cultural traditions) when he or she can and they is not in direct conflict with a higher authority. That's why they're lawful and not chaotic. Chaotic character use their own personal judgement to pick and choose which authorities will have their hard won respect.
The paladin should try to obey the law, but I'd be hard pressed to see any society that would significantly punish the paladin for hacking down a child molester about to attack some child again. It may be illegal in most modern, Western countries, but I think it would still be met by little more than a bit of disapproval. I can't imagine many prosecutors who would take up the charges against such vigilantism.

 

[am181d]

I'm confused. Would everyone still be having this conversation if the child molester was an orc? We can argue real world morality all day, but this is D&D. If you can't kill someone in the process of doing evil, then the entire game falls apart.