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

[Vanuslux]

I don't have the threshold to wade through everything...I gave up around page 8. Anyway, in my campaign the Paladin would have to atone for succumbing to the sin of Wrath. It wouldn't be too big of a thing since the paladin acted with the best of intentions, but he did in fact lose his cool and use lethal violence as his first course of action. A small atonement would be in order before he'd be able to use the powers that only a paragon of virtue has bestowed upon them.

The rapist deserved to die, but a paragon of virtue should have approached it with a little less rage.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

What does 'compelled' mean in this context?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model Penal Code
b. Deadly Force
i. Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse
What does 'necessary' mean in this context?

"Compelled" in this context means driven to act by the acts of another. That is, he didn't use deadly force just for the hell of it, nor did he intend to kill that guy as soon as he found him, or any other hunting scenario, but instead had a reasonable justification for doing so- namely saving the life of another.

The Paladin wasn't acting out of revenge. He didn't follow the guy thinking "I'm gonna kill him." Instead, he was investigating a shady character who then proceeded to commit a heinous crime in front of him. His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.

"Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted. The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.

Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!" Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?

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.

Some truth there, but re-read the original post. Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign. No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant. No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help. That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.

 

[adembroski3]

It depends on your campaign.

Assuming that other than magic and answered prayers, we're looking at a basically medeival society, and that Paladins represent knighthood and carry the authority and respect of Knights, then while what you did was fine, but how you did it was not.

I don't believe it is necessary to challenge the man to an honorable dual. Being a peasant, and a child molesting peasant at that, he has no right to being treated with honor. In fact, according to some interpretations, one might consider lowing yourself to actually fighting this guy one on one might have been dishonoring yourself to a certain extent (though not a violation).

That said, the appropriate action would have been to address the man before any further action was taken, then consider your options. A quick converstaion with your DM should tell you where to go... what is the traditional penalty for this crime? Most medieval societies had yet to develop prisons... punishments were usually one time things... either an infliction of great pain or embarassment. For this type of crime, death was the likely penalty... or perhaps castration. Most knights were authorized to carry out the punishment if they witness the crime, so you were certainly justified in killing him... BUT the method which you used was not good.

 

[Zimri]

Some truth there, but re-read the original post. Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign. No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant. No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help. That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.

Lets go back through the initial post then.

"he is a commoner you WILL kill him in one hit"
Paladin followed him while still armed and I assume armored and the perp didn't hear him (or failed his listen check). Pretty sure this tranaslates into what exactly the description was a commoner. Not a thief in disquise with a knife in his belt (which he had taken off)

Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.

 

[Torm]

You cannot lighten this thead up... it's a paldin thread. You need epic level skills

Check ME, baby! EPIC epic levels.

Now, show 'em my motto:

 

[Henry]

Now, show 'em my motto:

Oh, SNAP!

Oh, no you dit'n't!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Compare:

Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."

Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.

Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.

With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword. My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."

With:

Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.

The condition of his party (drunk/sober) isn't mentioned. The power level, number and general disposition (law abiding/questionable virtue) of the tavern's other patrons is unknown. The general character of the neighborhood (good/seedy) is unknown. Whether the assailant's or Paladin's cries for help would be heard above the noise of the tavern's common area is unknown. How many allies the assailant might have is unknown. Whether/how well the assailant is armed is unknown. All that is certain is Paladin + Assailant + Victim + Active Harm In Progress = Dead Assailant

As for the DM's cautionary statement, that's hardly dispositive.

"Commoner" could just refer to his apparent status in society, not his game class or level. No reason a commoner can't be a thief of some power. He obviously wasn't going to say the guy's a noble in disguise or a shapechanged doppelganger or the serial child rapist the watch has been looking for over the past decade. He's dressed like a commoner, he gets called a commoner. What he ACTUALLY is gets revealed later.

After all, who among us hasn't had a DM use verbal misdirection to steer us from our intended course of action when it is actually the correct path?

Ever heard a DM say something like:


"Nothing to see here, why don't you move along?"
"He seems unconscious."
"Why on earth do you think this little kid is a demon? Are you nuts?"
"The bridge seems safe as houses."
"He doesn't appear to have any weapons."
"The room appears empty."
"He's just a harmless old man."
"Its just an oak chest-nothing special."
"The clearing is apparently a perfect campground."
"You don't find any traps-its probably safe to proceed"

and then been punished for believing the DM? If not, your DMs have probably been taking it easy on you. The DM is neither ally nor foe- he is the interface between the campaign world and the players. If he never uses guile or misdirection, he's not using 2 of the biggest tools in the DM's toolbox.

The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.

Edited to correct typos.

 

[TimSmith]

This is going to depend on how Paladins are portrayed in the campaign. Many people view Paladins as some kind of goody two shoes, but as someone has previously said, Tyr and others encourage their holy warriors to take responsibility and make the decision themselves-judge, jury and executioner if guilt is evident. Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

The most I would say is that the paladin acted a little precipitately and should maybe seek a judgement from his superiors in the church to resolve a possible crisis of confidence (but that should probably be a matter for the player to decide). I thought the other thread with the jury of the Paladin's peers has the best of it.

 

[Sejs]

The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.

Exactly. Lets not go and forget the lessons that Metal Gear Solid taught us all.

"Huh. Just a box..."

 

[Sejs]

Yoink! New profile pic ahoy!

^_^

Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

Yep, he would be about as close an approximation as that setting would have to a paladin. He is, however, not a very nice paladin. Dredd is that hard line that if you've done wrong you never, ever want to come up against, because he doesn't give second chances.