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

[Bagpuss]

Even if the DM tells you OOC that its a lowly commoner, in character the paladin has no real way of judging his opponent. Suppose he gave a warning and then was defeated, the child was in immediate danger and it required an immediate judgement. While attacking from behind is un-noble his action isn't unjust and is excusable in the situation that an innocent was in immediate danger.

If this is a first offence stripping the character of their paladinhood seems a little harsh, if however the character has a history of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit, and has had a number of dubious acts in the past this might be the final black mark against him to tip the scales.

As a player I'ld roll with it and either try and atone, or get into a heated debate with the senior clerics/paladins of my order and then turn my back on my diety and become a figher (or even Blackguard) dedicated to vengence rather than justice, such a fall from grace could be fun to play.

But then it depends how your DM is about Evil characters. IMHO a LE character is prefectly playable in a normal adventuring party if his evil is restricted to a particular focus, he doesn't need to stab the party in the back or sell them out to the first LE enemy they encounter.

 

[Maggan]

I can't stay away

A child about to suffer rates as a very urgent necessity in my book. Apparently it doesn't in yours, and I don't seem to be able to convince you otherwise.

Even though that is not directed at me, I think you are slugging below the belt here. Just because a person does not think lethal force being necessary to solve the problem as line up here, he DOES NOT condone actions to make children suffer.

You claiming that indicates to me that this is more an emotional issue than anything else.

"A child is in danger of rape. Off with the perps head! It's ok because he deserved it!"

There are indications in the description that the perp did not intend to kill the girl (she had suffered before). So to stop the rape, the paladin could have taken a five foot step and placed himself between the perp and the victim. Or even just said, "what's all this then?". Do you think the rapist would have carried through with his foul deed if he had realised someone else was in the room? He would probably have turned against the paladin. Sure there is a possibility of a hostage sitaution, which is why the paladin could have placed himself between the perp and the victim.

Does a line of reasoning like the one above prove that anyone that thinks like this is condoning child abuse.

Of course not.

Maggan

 

[Agemegos]

Just to make clear then, you do consider immediate capital punishment a lawful action? Because if you do not insist on courtroom action, thats pretty much what happened.

No. I don't insist on formal courtroom action, but I do think that where possible there should be some sort of open demonstration of justice, some precautions taken and demonstrated to guard against hasty misjudgements. An immediate execution without considering the possibility of defence, and without demonstrating a due process of some sort, is not in my opinion Lawful (whatever the law might say).

A child about to suffer [rape is] a very urgent necessity in my book. Apparently it doesn't in yours, and I don't seem to be able to convince you otherwise.

In my book too. An urgent necessity to do something effective and decisive. But not necessarily to use lethal force. If there were something non-lethal and equally effective that would save the girl, then the use of lethal force is uncalled-for.

In this case I think that it would probably have been enough for the paladin to make his presence known, and that a non-lethal attack would have been every bit as effective as a lethal one. If the rapist was such as to remain active through a subdual attack he would certainly have survived any lethal attack. Ie., if he had been a high-level rogue or monk the lethal attack would not have put him down, and if he wasn't then the subdual one would have. So the lethal attack did not actually avoid the dangers of the cryptic monk or the chimerical dagger.

I must say that if any of my characters had been there he would have been convinced that the scene was a trap or some sort of staged set-up. A real rapist would certainly have closed the door. The fact that he left the door open was a clear indication that he was trying to make sure this incident was seen. An obvious trap.

How do Paladins in your game fare in normal dungeon crawls?

We don't play classic dungeon crawls. And as it happpens, I don't think anyone has ever played a paladin in any of the few games of D&D I have run. I mostly use other games systems.

My paladin character, Edmund "Bluelights" Edwinson, has had mixed travelling. Sometimes he has done it rough, or at least got into grave danger, by always trying to make peace if there seems to be any chance of it succeeding. On other occasions he has managed to defuse or avoid fights, make friends out of enemies, and so forth. It seems to balance out.

But on the whole, a dungeon crawl against implacable monsters is a different case. That is war, not policing. Killing an enemy in open combat does not undermine the lawfulness of one's community the way summarily executing a neighbour in backroom does. When last we left Edmund Edwinson the Scots had invaded Cumbria, and his lord was off to war as a vassal of the king of England. Edmund was about to be forced by his duty to kill fellow-Christians in what he thought a futile war. He didn't feel happy about it, but he was going to do his duty. Obviously, Edmund would not have arrested and tried a Scottish soldier in battle. Lawfulness doesn't require that.

Do they use all the methods of non-lethal confrontation you've suggested for the child molester in every case? If yes, I'm pretty stunned. If not, why do they discriminate against different races?

The paladins in my campaigns have always been NPCs, and in general it has been their scrupulous fair play that has allowed the PCs to survive against them. (My last campaign was much more Law-vs.-Chaos than Good-vs.-Evil.)

As for Edmund Edwinson, the only 'other races' he has come across have been Spaniards, Moors, Jews, French, and Normans. He has found good and bad among all of them, as among his fellow Northumbrians. He married a Jewess, he is one of the retainers of a Norman lord.

Hey, that's great. I always assumed otherwise but I guess you never stated otherwise. My bad, my apologies!

Never mind. It is very hard to keep different posters straight. And in these days where everyone is trained to put forward every argument that tends to advance the conclusion one favours it must be hard to understand somebody arguing vigorously that Vindicator's character's action was wrong if that person does not believe that he ought to be stripped of his paladinhood.

 

[Agemegos]

Even if the DM tells you OOC that its a lowly commoner, in character the paladin has no real way of judging his opponent. Suppose he gave a warning and then was defeated….

If the rapist were so formidable that he, with no armour and only concealable arms, and with his trousers undone, could defeat an armed and armoured 5th-level paladin, then one surprise hit plainly wasn't going to take his head off. Since the player and character in question explicitly did expect the blow to take the rapist's head off. So plainly the paladin's actions were not dictated by concern for the danger that the rapist might defeat him. If the paladin were to put this forward as his defence, he would be lying and his god would know it.

 

[Bagpuss]

An immediate execution without considering the possibility of defence, and without demonstrating a due process of some sort, is not in my opinion Lawful (whatever the law might say).

That's really placing a modern western value on Lawful however. It could well be that Paladin's are seen as able to meet out direct justice (akin to the Judges in Megacity One [2000AD]), and the paladin catching someone red handed (in their eyes) is due process enough for a judgement. They are after all more in touch with their God than a jury of peers would be.

 

[Bagpuss]

Since the player and character in question explicitly did expect the blow to take the rapist's head off. So plainly the paladin's actions were not dictated by concern for the danger that the rapist might defeat him.

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

 

[Agemegos]

Paladins don't get happy endings.

<snip>

They're doomed to fall. Either they won't be good enough to remain paladins forever, or they will, and everyone else has fond memories of them.

À propos, I have strong suspicion that the GM in the campaign in which I was playing Edmund Edwinson was setting me up to go along on the First Crusade, which (historically) was seven years after the point that the campaign had got up to. If he had survived so long, I expect that Edmund would have come to grief in the sack of Jerusalem at Easter 1100.

 

[Agemegos]

Without using Metagame knowledge anyone would expect a swift blow from a sword would decapitate any unaware opponent no mater how skillful they were. The fact the player described it as a killing blow tells you nothing of the danger this character could have presented if he was allowed to pull his trousers up, and be made aware of the threat.

Similarly, without taking into account knowledge of combats in the game world*, anyone would expect that if you grabbed a man in that situation by the back of the doublet and heaved he would come off his feet and out of the room.

* Besides, a fifth-level paladin has presumably been in a lot of fights in his time, and ought to have learned how that work in the world he inhabits.

 

[Agemegos]

That's really placing a modern western value on Lawful however.

I disagree. This value of 'Lawful' dominated for example the proceedings against Cicero after he saved the Roman state from the conspiracy of Cataline. They are discernable in the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of Draco and Solon. The Code of Justinian was Lawful by this criterion. St Olaf and St Louis IX won undying fame for establishing such standards. Henry I of England established such a standard of law. the magnates at Runnymede demanded that King John restore them.

Man's thirst for peace and order, king's recognition of the power of showing that the law is being duly appled, are much, much older than you imagine.

 

[Agemegos]

It could well be that Paladin's are seen as able to meet out direct justice (akin to the Judges in Megacity One [2000AD]), and the paladin catching someone red handed (in their eyes) is due process enough for a judgement. They are after all more in touch with their God than a jury of peers would be.

I am perfectly happy for the paladin to do without a jury, of peers or of anyone else. I agree that it may be lawful that that he be judge, jury, and executioner. I do not ask for wigs, gowns, advocates, or adversarial proceedings.

What I do expect is that any Lawful character dispensing justice will think it proper to:

1. Demonstrate that it is justice being done, not a private killing

2. Demonstrate that appropriate steps have been taken to rule out the possibility that the accused is an innocent person taken in misleading circumstances. Hearing a defence and demonstrating that it is untrue or unsound would be a very good way to start.

3. Treat the authority of the judge and the jury with respect, by discharging their duties with diligence and dmonstrating that they are not being abused to private ends.

Circumstances may make these things impractical, but I submit that these circumstances did not.

These requirements are not arbitrary. This things promote confidence in the authorites (such as paladins) and dissipate suspicions, so that people who feel themselves to be wronged will turn to the law for relief and not to feud. And they reassure innocent people who find themselves in suggestive circumstances that they will be safe in the hands of the authorities, and need not resort to flight or other desperate measures. They promote social solidarity, put an end to feud, foster respect for authority. That's what D&D calls Law, and it does not depend on the particulars of local law.