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

[billd91]

Its a good act that defys the rule of law, but it is a just act, so its not a chaotic good act.

??? Chaotic good doesn't equal just? It certainly could. If the villain deserved punishment and the chaotic character metes it out, it isn't any less just. The difference is the chaotic character metes out justice based on his or her own ideas of justice, which might be very personal or at least less collective than general society.
Lawful characters rely on external sources of justice (like society, custom, and the law) when deciding what is just or not. It doesn't they are any more just or that chaotic characters mete out less justice.
It's all about the source of judgement and how collective or individual it is.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I want to add this thought for consideration: is it truly justice if the recipient doesn't know he's being punished, or why? It reminds me of a comment in the Cask of Amontillado (E.A.Poe) that said that a good revenge will have the victim knowing what you are doing to him, and why.

In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead. Wouldn't the paladin at least want the criminal to know what's coming? "Wretch! Your crimes against this innocent child have not gone unnoticed! Face the righteous steel of Torm the True!" <stab>

 

[Khaalis]

I want to add this thought for consideration: is it truly justice if the recipient doesn't know he's being punished, or why? It reminds me of a comment in the Cask of Amontillado (E.A.Poe) that said that a good revenge will have the victim knowing what you are doing to him, and why.

In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead. Wouldn't the paladin at least want the criminal to know what's coming? "Wretch! Your crimes against this innocent child have not gone unnoticed! Face the righteous steel of Torm the True!" <stab>

This is the difference between Justice and Vengeance.

"Justice" as punishment is dealing out a righteous punishment.
"Vengeance" is retribution, usually with great violence or taken to an extreme.

Justice demanded that the perp die. It did not demand that the per be taunted or given a chance to further disgrace himself before death. Just as it was a merciful killing compared to a fate he would have suffered in most cases if tried, which border on evil (mutilation, draw and quarter, hanging, etc.).

JMHO

 

[jgbrowning]

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

I guess this is another basic difference. I see the child, as long as the paladin is there, as in very little real danger. Simply stepping between the unarmed perp and the child while holding a drawn sword would usually send most people heading the other way.

A situation where the man had a weapon, would seem to me, as to be much more deserving of more hasty action than one in which he didn't have a weapon. Again, it seems like there was little actual need to use a lethal attack. The -4 to hit against a flat AC of 10 would seem to me as to be around 75% probability of hitting. Also, he could always grapple.

I think this is my last post on this subject. But I thought you deserved a response. Also, someone above pointed out that I'd misread the BoED concerning violence and evil. He was right. I think it was rumene?

joe b.

 

[Henry]

In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead.

I'd like to think that if no one else, Kelemvor would let him know while he's stuffing him into the wall of souls.

Otherwise, he'll have Bane or Cyric's devils showing up, saying, "good job, worm! Pity that paladin caught you with your trousers down, though. Now, come on - those larvae pits aren't going to fill themselves, you know! A-HA-HA-HA-HA!"

Or if, being a farmer, he gave lip service to someone like Chauntea, she might just grind his little wormy soul down for plant food.

 

[Ace]

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.

so, if this paladin were playing in my campaign, not only would he not lose his paladinhood, he'd get a hearty "Well done!" from me, both as GM and through the NPC leadership of the town.

Same here. Other than Necromancy there is no worse affront to law and good than child molesting

If the diety is a "fair play" diety I might give the Paladin a stern lecture but otherwise killing a pedophile was both lawfull and good in game context

 

[Arnwyn]

Holy sweet mother-of-pearl. 23 pages?

No, I didn't read this entire thread (normally I do!)... but I find it completely laughable that people are still burbling out the "I'm right and you're wrong!" comments when it comes to both alignment and expected behavior of paladins.

D00ds - you can (obviously) only make such a decision in your own campaign. DM says that he loses his paladin abilities, and gives a reason? DONE. Discussion over.

[Wow, normally I'm not one to add the inane "obvious argument" in threads... but after 23 pages, who'll notice? ]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: my post:

In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.

Others have responded:

It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.

You're making a big assumption with that word "justifiable." In most places, for lethal defensive force to be legal, it must be apparent that there is no alternative.

I'm an attorney in the gunslinging state of TX.

If there are reasonable alternatives to using deadly force in defending yourself- such as an easy escape route-you may in fact have to go to trial. And a peace officer is usually required to identify himself before using deadly force unless there are exigent circumstances.

But the law is a little bit different for civilians, especially those acting in defense of another. Since the average citizen isn't trained in law enforcement techniques, they aren't held to the same standard as peace officers. And here, we have a PC who, while a shining beacon of Law and Order, is not indicated to be an actual Officer of the Law. He is a citizen. He is not required to assess the various possible outcomes and options to the same extent as one trained in law enforcement. "Excessive force" is used almost exclusively a landmine for officers, not civilians.

Tx penal code
Section 8.05. of the Texas penal Code.

(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another

Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack. Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.

In fact, on a flow chart of the Model Penal Code (enacted with minimal variation in most USA jusrisdictions, Tx included), under Justification as a defense against a charge of any kind of homicide, it reads:

b. Deadly Force
i. Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse
ii. Unavailable if self-provoked or can retreat
(a) not obliged to retreat from dwelling or place of work

Other sections note that you can't use it when resisting arrest or in defense of property.

In modern Texas, the Paladin might go to jail for carrying an illegal weapon, but probably not for what he did with it in this case.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

D00ds - you can (obviously) only make such a decision in your own campaign. DM says that he loses his paladin abilities, and gives a reason? DONE. Discussion over.

Yep.

 

[mythago]

Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack. Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.

But note that it's an affirmative defense--which means that in a campaign set in modern-day Texas, a paladin would have to prove his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the serious bodily harm. If there was a police officer standing five feet away, it would be more difficult to show that the paladin had to kill the guy, when he could have called the police officer to arrest the guy. Or if the paladin could easily have prevented the assault through nondeadly means.