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

[sword-dancer]

My goodness, we can honorably sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?

pray tell HOW is that honorable ?

That he define his honor over other things than his way of fighting?
OTOH
Would it be honorable
to let a murder kills somebody, because you wouldn`t attack him in the back
or better
let a demonfpollower sacrifices an innocent soul to demons, because yo don`t attack him from behind?
Would you let a comrade in arms go down, because you refuse him help because this would be "dishonrable"

 

[Abraxas]

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

The character may have well left the judgement and punishment to the law - it was just that he was the law. We don't have enough info to actually make this determination, without the needed info making blanket statements on both sides of the discussion is merely speculation.

or by the laws of Texas. But I don't believe that those are the appropriate standards.

So the character could be following the law and still not be lawful? Seems a bit odd.

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.

What if that enemy combatant is possesed or under a charm or any of the other scenarios proposed as to why the pedophile rapist might not have been in control of his actions. Don't you have to consider those actions at all times? Or can you ignore them when the king says kill the enemy?

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

I'm not really sure what you mean by this but I don't like the tone and - perhaps I'm a bit thin skinned at the moment - the little winky face at the end bugs me. I did work security to help pay for college and my last puppy grew up to be a healthy happy dog who lived to the ripe old age of 17.

Feh

 

[Agemegos]

I did work security to help pay for college and my last puppy grew up to be a healthy happy dog who lived to the ripe old age of 17.

Then I guess that when your puppy piddled in the house you didn't use the most effective way to make sure that he would not do it again. You limited yourself to reasonable means and appropriate force. And I guess that when as a security guard your duties required you to make someone stop doing something that you took into account (when choosing your means of doing so) not only what was effective but also what was appropriate and necessary.

I agree that killing the rapist was the most effective way of making hiim stop. But then, going on to kill everyone in the tavern would have been a very effective way of making sure that any of them who were complicit in the rape or any other crime would stop that. The point is that you can't use its effectiveness as the only criterion for judging whether to use lethal force. You didn't shoot lots of people when you were a security guard, You didn't housebreak the puppy with a shotgun. So in fact you don't treat its effectiveness as a sufficient justification of the use of lethal force.

Sorry about the wink. It was supposed to indicate that the meaning of the material marked was not literal. (And to think I have been told the smileys remove the ambiguity of indirect statement.)

 

[Numion]

That he define his honor over other things than his way of fighting?
OTOH
Would it be honorable
to let a murder kills somebody, because you wouldn`t attack him in the back
or better
let a demonfpollower sacrifices an innocent soul to demons, because yo don`t attack him from behind?
Would you let a comrade in arms go down, because you refuse him help because this would be "dishonrable"

These are good reasons why it isn't dishonorable to refuse honor to those who have none.

 

[Agemegos]

In most D&D worlds, and certainly in the high-fantasy Forgotten Realms, one does not need to hear the malefactor in order to know something is untrue.

No. But one has to do something, and after the execution is a bit late.

The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth.

True, but having a paladin execute everyone against whom there is a prima facie case, and acquitting the corpse if the paladin loses his powers is unacceptably costly in innocents and paladins.

 

[Torm]

Then I guess that when your puppy piddled in the house you didn't use the most effective way to make sure that he would not do it again.

I hate to jump in here, but I think the difference between the puppy in your analogy and the pedophile-rapist is that the puppy, in piddling on the carpet, is not traumatizing anyone for the rest of their lives, or possibly killing them!

The difference is whether what is being done in something you could afford to have happen again. You'll be alright with a little piddled carpet - there's a fine line of carpet care products for that that work pretty well. The little girl won't be alright with just some Luv-My-Carpet.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. But one has to do something, and after the execution is a bit late.

Clearly, this case was designed by the DM to be rather clear-cut. If this case is not clear-cut, then no case ever is. This includes, as others have pointed out, the case of orcs attacking a town, and, yes, wartime.

True, but having a paladin execute everyone against whom there is a prima facie case, and acquitting the corpse if the paladin loses his powers is unacceptably costly in innocents and paladins.

No one suggested that this was an appropriate reaction to every case, merely that it was an approriate reaction to this case, and therein lies a world of difference.

If you accept that it is true that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," I would suggest once more that the magical nature of a D&D world can prove that justice was done far more absolutely than any modern equivilent, including an open trial, and thus renders your point requiring an open trial "to show that justice was done" moot.

Raven Crowking

 

[Agemegos]

However, were I possessed by a demon and about to bring harm to my daughter, I would accept decapitation as not the optimal, but a satisfactory, preventative.

Sure. No question. But you'd rather be taken down by a tazer, or wrestled to teh ground by a burly cop.

My point here is that the paladin had other means at his disposal, that (both according to the actual circumstances and according to his actual belief at the time) would have been equally effective in protecting the girl, and that would have 1) avoided the risk of killing an innocent man in the case of possession, compulsion, or illusion; 2) given a better chance of discovering any accomplices the rapist might have had; 3) reduced the risk of the rapist's relatives refusing to accept his guilt, and turning to feud; and 4) been more in accord with a Lawful standard of conduct.

I don't think that that amounts of a case for stripping the paladin of his powers. But given that that's teh way it seems to me, neither can I accept that what the paladin did was perfectly alright by Lawful standards.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, there is, and that difference is where the "unwilling breach" lies. A paladin tricked into a corner gets to atone. One that abandons his code on his own doesn't. While I commented very early on that whether Vindicator's paladin violated the code of conduct is probably contingent on his deity's nature, I also pointed out that as a paladin, he still should have known better than to kill a man showing every sign of having accomplices.

I won't pull punches on paladins just because they've got a hard job - if the player doesn't want to RP the difficulties of being a paladin, he has the option of not playing one. Neither will I dumb down villains just to give a paladin PC some leeway, since it's hard enough to outwit 4-6 players as it is. While I may throw out occasional villains who are too honorable themselves to stoop to such actions, that'll be if and when the story calls for it.

As far as I'm concerned, a player running a paladin in a campaign is tacitly asking for a tragic outcome. I'll work with him on how it'll happen, but I won't put the kid gloves on just for him.

Please note that I did not argue that unwilling breaches could occur. Had Cuchulainn survived, he could have atoned for eating dog's flesh.

I am not arguing that you should pull punches for paladins.

I am arguing that, where you have not made the rules clear, you should allow some leeway to take the fact that you haven't made the rules clear into account.

There have been a few good "paladin's codes" posted in this thread (yoink! Thanks! ), and in those worlds paladins know absolutely what is expected of them. If you've got the same sort of definitions, don't pull your punches. But barring that sort of predefined rules set, the player has a reasonable expectation that the rules for Paladinhood in the PHB define what should (and should not) restrain his or her behavior.

This seems fairly clear to me, anyway.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes they do. However, they also recognize the difference between Joe Ordinary and someone who is trained in any form of fighting or martial art. A punch by me is nothing, but a punch by Mike Tyson could be considered deadly force because he is a trained fighter.

The Paladin is a trained warrior- anything beyond a shout and grab could get him in trouble. In fact, if he grabs the guy and accidentally injures him, the Court might inquire as to whether that grab was intended to do damage.

This stuff is all situationally sensitive.

Sorry, but as interesting as this is, in D&D there is a much clearer line between subdual damage and lethal damage. As such, I would say that this point is fairly moot. If the paladin wanted to attempt to subdue, there is very little chance that this would result in permanent injury.

RC