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

[Agemegos]

And in this case what makes you believe he was in a lawless land?

Nothing. I was addressing a statement that paladins have a duty to bring law to lawless lands. I could have let myself into an argument over whether we have any reason to believe that the land in question is lawless, but I wanted to make another point: that this was not a Lawful way to deal with a malefactor in either a Lawless or a lawless land.

If this was not a lawless land, then a Lawful character would have tended to leave judgement and punishment to the law.

So either way, whether the land was lawful or lawless, Vindicator's character in my opinion in this incident acted according to Chaotic norms. A single Chaotic act under considerable stress is no big deal, hence my votes that the character remain a paladin. It would only be if this was an example of a consistent unlawful tendency that I would consider an alignment change that threatened class abilities.

The reason that I make this point so forcefully is that a lot of posters insist that Vindicator's character did nothing whatsoever wrong. That may be true by a Chaotic Good or even Neutral Good standard, or by the laws of Texas. But I don't believe that those are the appropriate standards.

So its OK to kill if King and Country says kill - the I was just following orders defence.

Actually, I would be applying a 'Just War' defence, not a 'Just Following Orders' defence. And I would still judge the Lawful character's alignment according to a Lawful standard. It is just that the principles of Lawfulness that demand certain procedures in judging a neighbour and delivering justice to a community demand different procedures when killing an enemy of that community in open war.

In the Vindicator's scenario - I think it was reasonable to think that lethal force was the most effective means of stopping the perp. That is probably where we disagree most - but thats easy to live with.

'Most effective' != 'necessary' or 'appropriate'

Don't get a job as a cop or security guard. And don't try house-training a puppy

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
In the eyes of the law, "Deadly force" doesn't equal "used a weapon," it means force likely to cause serious bodily injury.

Okay then. Why do you discount the possibility of using force that would not be likely to result in serious bodily injury? It is an option that you do not even mention.

Yes I did. I pointed out that someone who is a trained fighter who gets in a fight outside of a controlled environment (read: a prizefight, wrestling match, etc.) and uses ANY of his skills could be charged with use of deadly force. A Paladin is quite clearly a trained warrior.

To clarify further- there are all kinds of less-than-lethal (note: not NON-lethal) subdual techniques out there ranging from rubber rounds to joint-lock grips. And yet, any of those can be considered lethal force if used (properly or improperly) and serious injury or death results.

Essentially, almost any amount of physical force required to subdue a human being, however minimal, can be considered lethal force if the circumstances warrant. Its VERY fact sensitive.

To reiterate, someone who is a trained fighter runs the risk of being charged with use of deadly force any time he gets into a fight. Thus, if you ARE such a person-NEVER throw the first punch.

Quote:
Subjective belief is all that is required.

Interesting. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, there is almost always a requirement that actions be based upon reasonable belief: the belief that a reasonable man would have held in the situation. This turns out in practice to be a very difficult test for juries to apply, and judges have from time to time established some very peculiar precedents about it.

The standard is ostensibly still reasonableness, but it isn't the objective standard of the average reasonable person you find in most other laws. This area is much more subjective-what would be reasonable for someone like that person in an analogous situation. For example, a kid's use of deadly force in the defense of another will be judged differently from an ex-marines' use who will be judged differently from use of deadly force by someone who was victimized by a rapist in the past, etc.

As such, the objective reasonability standard collapses into subjectivity. Does this mean that justification defenses always succeed? No. Juries are more critical than you might think about discerning whether someone used deadly force appropriately.

I will concede that if the circumstances were such that the paladin could reasonably expect that if he dragged the rapist out of the room by the scruff of the neck justice could not be served and the girl would not be protected, then the paladin's actions were justified. But absent any evidence to that effect, I consider the argument unfounded speculation.

1) Rape is a violent crime. This guy was comitting a violent crime, not in a back alley, not in the underbrush, but in the storage room of a tavern, apparently without concern about being discovered. He was comfortable, even relaxed in his surroundings-implying that he may have acted similarly in this location at a previous time. As stated, the kid had obviously been violated before- perhaps it was even her he had been violating in this room prior to discovery and execution.

2) The Paladin saw the kid and her assailant immediately upon entering the room, so the kid wasn't off in some hidden corner of the room-she and her assailant were in direct line of sight of the door. If the tavern is in full swing (the original poster said his party was "carousing"), people are going to be going in and out of that storage room repeatedly. How could the taverner or one of his employees not have known about the girl's plight? How did this guy have free access to the tavern's storage room? (I'm surprised the Paladin stopped with killing the assailant.)

This does NOT sound like a tavern in a high-class neighborhood to me.

If it was, it was also obviously a front for SOMEBODY's illegal activity.

 

[Agemegos]

Essentially, almost any amount of physical force required to subdue a human being, however minimal, can be considered lethal force if the circumstances warrant. Its VERY fact sensitive.

So the courts don't observe any distinction between grabbing a man by the collar of the coat and opening up without warning with a 12-gauge?

The standard is ostensibly still reasonableness, but it isn't the objective standard of the average reasonable person you find in most other laws.

I see. That's interesting.

Juries are more critical than you might think about discerning whether someone used deadly force appropriately.

I'm glad to hear it. Texas was beginning to sound like a scary place, and I was reconsidering my desire to visit some time.

1) Rape is a violent crime. This guy was comitting a violent crime, not in a back alley, not in the underbrush, but in the storage room of a tavern, apparently without concern about being discovered.

I must say that if the events had occurred thus either under my GMing or under the GMing of the bloke I most often play with, the fact that the paladin didn't even have to open the door to the room would have been highly significant. As a player, I would have taken it as a sign that the 'rape' was a trap that I was meant to see, set up from beginning to end. But this was evidently not the case in Vindicator's GM's world.

2) The Paladin saw the kid and her assailant immediately upon entering the room, so the kid wasn't off in some hidden corner of the room-she and her assailant were in direct line of sight of the door. If the tavern is in full swing (the original poster said his party was "carousing"), people are going to be going in and out of that storage room repeatedly. How could the taverner or one of his employees not have known about the girl's plight? How did this guy have free access to the tavern's storage room? (I'm surprised the Paladin stopped with killing the assailant.)

This is a point that others have raised. The rapist would seem to have had accomplices, possibly to have been a member or customer of a child-rape ring. If the paladin had taken him alive it might have been a lot easier to catch them. Fortunately, the PC party would seem to be of high enough level that their cleric (if they have a cleric) can cast Speak with Dead. Unfortunately, asking two or three questions of a corpse is not as satisfactory as interrogating a living perp.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I think this D+1 is just another account of the original poster. Oh, and thanks for bringing up the political thing after I asked nicely to not do so. But since you did, the translation of the 4 1/2 minutes of the tape leading up the beheading directly said this is to avenge our brothers who where disgraced in the prision. That aside, your completely wrong about this whole thing with the Paladin.


You may be a player in the campiagn, in that case you may have more information that we don't have, or the information you do have is buried within 25 pages of posts. However, given what we know, he over reacted.

I am pretty liberal with the letter of the law and the rules of the game when I DM, but if one of my players went around slaying unarmed people, for whatever reason, they would pay for it.

If the man had been armed and was about to strike the girl, then lethal force would have been justified. If the man had been stranggling the child, then lethal force would have been justified. The man was unarmed and could have been easily subdude into submission.

About the only way this, or your, Paladin could have gotten away with this was if the man had been armed (in which case you should challenge him or warn him of the battle), your God demands justice on child Molesters as part of your Dogma (in which it would have to say slay on sight) or the DM never gave him a code (which, even if he didn't give him a code, he gave him fair warning that what he was doing was wrong).

Bottom line is that your DM has the final say and the player admited that he knew that the man was unarmed and that his strike would kill the man. The DM gave him fair warning. Sorry, but I know that I am not the only one on this post that feels this way. Your Paladin over reacted, even if his Dogma or dedication to his God demanded that this man die, he would have to challenge him to a fight of honor on a field of battle, not stab him in the back like a rogue.

I think the issue is touchy because in the real world that is what we would love to do to these types of people. I was a player in a game of one of my friends. We entered a town in search of a Barbarian and a Cleric who had been riading the nearby towns. They left lots of death and destruction behind. The Evil Cleric, for reasons that we never found out, had a fettish for cutting off the hands and feet of the children in the town while they were still alive and then leave them for dead.

My first reaction as a person was that this was too much for role playing. My first reaction as a player was that this man must die. We were hoplessly out numbered, so I had to kill him later. But I was not a Paladin, I was a Rogue.

Reguardless, I think the Paladin over reacted. I think the person controlling the Paladin was in the right. The game can be hard to seperate at times from what are character should do as PCs and what we would do as players.

Now, if the Paladin would have simply said, "Vile fiend, defend yourself," I would say that it would be harder to argue this point, but since he stabbed him in the back, I think he lost all honor, reguardless of who the man was that he slew, and he is lucky that atonement is all he has to do.

 

[kirinke]

another reason why i never play paladins. i'm just chaotic at heart. but i do have to agree. your character did over-react.

Knocking him over the head would have been smarter. Personally, I would have knocked him over the head, delivered him to the nearest arch-mage and had him cast a permanent illusion on the man. Something along the lines of a buxom pretty and scantily clad girl and dropped him in the middle of the vilest neighborhood in the city. That would have been after I interrogated him. ^)^.
But then, I'm just mean.

Like the man says. If you kill em, they don't larn nuthin.

 

[Rabelais]

Paladin Code of Conduct

I would say that you should keep your powers. However... If I were a DM I would have your god give you a real talking to the next time you went to sleep. Nightmares about becoming a Blackguard, horror stories along the lines of "It's a Wonderful Life" about what would happen were you NOT a paladin. I would make these alagorical nightmares so vivid and crystal clear, that your god was NOT PLEASED ONE LITTLE BIT, that your character would have to save vs. Will to keep from losing a level or two for a couple of days.

PLUS, your character would have to Atone somehow. Starting with submitting to the nearest legitimate legal authority. If that's not present, then by visiting the Home Temple (or whatever) of your order, then submitting to whatever punishment he deems worthy.

PLUS, your character would have to go to bed without his dinner.


Just telling the evildoer why you were putting him down like the dog he was would have been good enough. Pants down, unarmed sure... but being a Pally is about educating the evil...


"Hey You! You're evil... zorch" would have been good enough for me.

 

[med stud]

Okay then. Why do you discount the possibility of using force that would not be likely to result in serious bodily injury? It is an option that you do not even mention.



Interesting. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, there is almost always a requirement that actions be based upon reasonable belief: the belief that a reasonable man would have held in the situation. This turns out in practice to be a very difficult test for juries to apply, and judges have from time to time established some very peculiar precedents about it.



You believe that they were in a low waterfront tavern, and your subjective belief is good enough in Texas. I think there are no grounds on which a reasonable person would reach that belief in the evidence with which we are present.

I will concede that if the circumstances were such that the paladin could reasonably expect that if he dragged the rapist out of the room by the scruff of the neck justice could not be served and the girl would not be protected, then the paladin's actions were justified. But absent any evidence to that effect, I consider the argument unfounded speculation.



I do indeed (or would if I ever did go into a gang-controlled neighbourhood: I live in a country town, and there isn't a gang-controlled neighbourhood withint three hundred miles). But I do not assume without evidence that every event I hear tell of occurs in such a neighbourhood.

I think you are right assuming a modern juridical system. There is no chance in hell that anyone would think you did the wrong thing if you killed a child molester on the spot in old times.

Then, if we are keeping with the old times justice system, there was no such thing as prison sentences back in the days. The punishments were fines, mutilation and death. Child molesting was punished by death if blood money couldnt be brought up. The paladin was a witness to what happened and if his reputation wasnt enough he could be tried under a Zone of truth and his story thus confirmed. OK, mr Childmolester, enjoy being torn apart by horses. In that case the paladin just acted as the executioner of the local laws.

If on the other hand the society consider child rape as a mild crime it doesnt go together with any paladin code I have ever heard of. Then the paladin has to do the juridical process by himself; jury (just a minor point, juries are Anglo Saxian. There is nothing to say that fantasy worlds would have juries) to evaluate the evidence: The man was raping a little girl. Evidence is clear. Judge: Fitting punishment. Now this depends but if following a "medieval" line of thought death is a fitting punishment. Repentance is another option but if he doesnt have the time or resources there is a very big risk that the rapist will pay lip service and strike again. For the best of society and the extreme trauma on the victim death is probably a fitting punishment. Executioner: Pretty self explanatory.

One thing though is that the paladin as a servant of a good diety should give the molester a chance to save his soul before the execution. Do you prayers, convert to Heironyous, then please bow down your head. As afterlife in D&D is a known reallity (at least for paladins) the wellbeing of the criminals soul is far more important the the well being of the body.

 

[Agemegos]

i'm just chaotic at heart.

A lot of us are. I lean that way myself on lot of issues. But a lot of the attraction of gaming outside the dungeon is to look at these things from another point of view.

For example, I am not a Christian, and have correspondingly non-Christian views on a lott of things. So it was very interesting to look at the world through the eyes of Edmund Edwinson, paladin of Christ. Or on aother occasion through those of a Neutral Evil drow secret agent and worshipper of Fharlanghan. D&D is IMHO duller if you always play yourself-with-a-prosthetic-forehead. YMMV. YDWYDWP.

 

[Maggan]

Who's having fun?

In this, the GM may have failed. Let's be honest, the player got screwed in this one, and the GM did not deal well enough with the player to prevent him from coming here and complaining.

Just my opinion. And yes, I GM most of the time. I learned a long time ago that there are times the rules have to be second to fun.

So who is entitled to "fun"? The player who plays in the DMs campaign, or the DM who runs the campaign? Whose need is the greatest?

The DM might have planned a really fun campaign based on the Paladin atoning his actions. And the player is missing out, because he does not accept the ruling of his DM.

Maggan

 

[Agemegos]

I think you are right assuming a modern juridical system. There is no chance in hell that anyone would think you did the wrong thing if you killed a child molester on the spot in old times.

I disagree. The authors of the Magna Carta insisted that "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor
will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." 1215 is 'old times' enough for me. Those authors would plainly object to such a proceeding, at least if the rapist were a freeman. Also, in many cases someone (often the king) owned the property of anyone who was condemned for a felony. The owner of this 'right of high justice' would very likely be most annoyed if someone killed a [rich] felon before he could be convicted.

Child molesting was punished by death if blood money couldnt be brought up.

Again you are over-generalising about 'old times'. It seems from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that the Norman Conquest introduced the practice of castrating rapists with a white-hot iron, with no option of paying a wergild.

just a minor point, juries are Anglo Saxian

Our twelve-member juries in modern common-law countries are indeed descended from Anglo-Saxon juries. But there were juries before there were Anglo-Saxons. For example, the Athenians used them, sometimes very lage ones (up to 501 members). If you had studied ancient Greek history you would recall that one of the reforms introduced by Ephialtes in about 462-461 BC was to pay members of juries while their courts sat. If you had studied ancient Roman history you might recall that in the famous speech Contra Verres (which is introductory remarks delivered by a state prosecutor) Cicero addressed separate remarks to teh judges (three of them) and the jury.

See http://www.nycourts.gov/Community_Outreach/history/timeline_jury.html.