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

[Agemegos]

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!

Let's not mistake a humorous example of an incidental point for the cornerstone of my argument.

In fact, the rapist was a low-level commoner. The paladin's actual belief was that he was a low-level commoner. In fact the rapist was unarmed. The paladin's actual belief was that he was unarmed. Therefore, both according to the actual situation and according to the paladin's belief about the situation, the paladin had at least two available alternatives to killing the rapist, either of which would have been just as effective in protecting the girl from further harm. Killing the rapist was not necessary to protecting the girl, and the paladin knew it.

So the paladin threw away the chance of saving the rapist if, for example, possession or compulsion, were involved. The paladin ran the risk of killing an innocent man and losing his powers if the situation were other than his first impression suggested (eg. because of illusions). The paladin threw away the chance of interrogating the rapist to discover who his accomplices (if any) were. The paladin threw away the chance of demonstrating the lawful dispensation of justice. And according to both the facts and his belief, he gained nothing by it.

That being the case, I cannot accept that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the paladin's choice. I agree that it doesn't constitute a 'lose-you-powers' offence. But if the paladin keeps behaving in such an intemperate and injudicious way he will soon commit such an offence.

 

[Torm]

So the paladin threw away the chance of saving the rapist if, for example, possession or compulsion, were involved.

And herein lies my problem with a lot of these arguments. I believe that, unless the description gives some hint to the contrary (which the statement the rapist made certainly did not), you have the right to assume that people are acting of their own volition. And given that: I would not want the rapist saved!

 

[Sir Elton]

And herein lies my problem with a lot of these arguments. I believe that, unless the description gives some hint to the contrary (which the statement the rapist made certainly did not), you have the right to assume that people are acting of their own volition. And given that: I would not want the rapist saved!

The correct term is Pederast.

 

[Agemegos]

The correct term is Pederast.

No it isn't. The victim was a girl, not a boy.

 

[Agemegos]

And herein lies my problem with a lot of these arguments. I believe that, unless the description gives some hint to the contrary (which the statement the rapist made certainly did not), you have the right to assume that people are acting of their own volition. And given that: I would not want the rapist saved!

Given that, the 'if' clause evaluates as false and the sentence does not apply.

But that is not a given in a D&D world. In a D&D word, paladins actually are going to encounter illusions, and innocent people acting under possessions and compulsions. If they're Good, they are supposed to care about saving innocent lives where possible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Assuming, of course, that being possessed by a demon does not make either of those options fail.

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.

1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable.

2) Clearly, the tavern owner is an obvious person to assume as an accomplice, as the girl is tied up in his tavern. Take it from there.

3) I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial. If the miscreant's relatives do not accept the paladin's word, and seek him harm, the paladin cannot slay them out of hand, but he can attempt to show them that he is honorable (through word and deed) and convince them of the truth.

That said, suppose that the rapist was possessed by a demon. In this case, the paladin has made one of SirEuain's "unwilling breaches" and should find his paladin powers temporarily revoked until he atones. In fact, the revocation of paladinhood in this case should only occur if it is intended as a clue that the paladin, though speaking the truth as he understands it is nonetheless not speaking the truth.

I would accept this as a perfectly valid reason for the DM to remove paladin powers. After all, any magical measure of "absolute truth" or "absolute proof" (as I was arguing) cuts both ways!

4) Perhaps, but you still haven't convinced me that your idea of "lawful" is the idea of "lawful". Certainly, in your own campaign world, you can define terms however you like. In the case of "Law vs. Chaos" I would especially encourage this. You may also have special rules regarding paladins. However, barring that, and barring said rules being made available to players, the players have a reasonable assumption that the definitions given in the core rulebooks can be followed.

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.

Ah, but the initial question is, effectively, "Does this amount to a case for stripping the paladin of his powers?" The question is not, "Was this the best solution?" but rather, "Should this have been an acceptable solution?"

Yes, the paladin should have taken the DM's (effective) "Are you sure you want to do that?" to mean "I may revoke your paladinhood if you do that" -- I would! And yes, he should have asked for clarification as to his role, and what was expected of him under the circumstances.

Even so, no one comes up with the best solution in all possible cases. Paladinhood should only be revoked when the violation is clear, although I grant that what is clear to the DM may not be clear to the players, as in the possession example above. (In this case, though, the ghost of the wronged man would visit the paladin in his dreams so the paladin understood his fault, were I running the game.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's not mistake a humorous example of an incidental point for the cornerstone of my argument.

In fact, the rapist was a low-level commoner. The paladin's actual belief was that he was a low-level commoner. In fact the rapist was unarmed. The paladin's actual belief was that he was unarmed. Therefore, both according to the actual situation and according to the paladin's belief about the situation, the paladin had at least two available alternatives to killing the rapist, either of which would have been just as effective in protecting the girl from further harm. Killing the rapist was not necessary to protecting the girl, and the paladin knew it.

At best, your examples would have only been as effecting in protecting the girl from further immediate harm, which is not the same this as protecting her from further harm. Without more information on the local law, and what would have happened had the paladin tried non-lethal methods, you cannot say that the paladin would have done more than delay the additional rape.

Even had the paladin taken the girl with him to raise, you cannot say that leaving the rapist to the law would not have allowed him to rape another. IMHO, one of the primary tenets of D&D is that there is no such thing as moral relativism. Good is good, and evil is evil. It is the duty of paladins to wage war on evil.

So the paladin threw away the chance of saving the rapist if, for example, possession or compulsion, were involved. The paladin ran the risk of killing an innocent man and losing his powers if the situation were other than his first impression suggested (eg. because of illusions). The paladin threw away the chance of interrogating the rapist to discover who his accomplices (if any) were. The paladin threw away the chance of demonstrating the lawful dispensation of justice. And according to both the facts and his belief, he gained nothing by it.

Again, in both facts and his belief he gained something extremely important: the future safety of the rapist's victim from the rapist.

RC

 

[Agemegos]

1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable.

But no-one has ever made an argument that it would be unreasonable to allow for the possibility when the cost or risk of doing so is small or, as in this case, non-existent.

I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial.

It is not superior to an open trial in this respect: that an open trial can be held before the execution, whereas this test can only be conducted after the execution.

Ah, but the initial question is, effectively, "Does this amount to a case for stripping the paladin of his powers?"

True, and I made it clear back in post #99 and several times since that I do not consider it a case for stripping the paladin of his powers.

However, just because I agree that Vindicator's character ought not to have lost his powers does not mean that I accept every argument that has been put forward in his defence. In particular, it seemed to me that there is something wrong with the frequently repeated assertion that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with his action and that he did exactly the right thing and ought to go on doing things like it. That is the position that i am arguing against. Topic does drift, you know.

Even so, no one comes up with the best solution in all possible cases.

Indeed not, which is why I recommended and recommend taking action to adjust thecharcter's alignment only if this turns out to be one incident in a persistent pattern of Chaotic particularism and ad hockery, or if the character maintained that this action was the best solution.

 

[Agemegos]

At best, your examples would have only been as effecting in protecting the girl from further immediate harm, which is not the same this as protecting her from further harm.

No, at best my examples would have lead just as certainly to the rapist's death. At worst the rapist would have been left for the paladinto deal with decisively and extra-legally if necessary.

Without more information on the local law, and what would have happened had the paladin tried non-lethal methods, you cannot say that the paladin would have done more than delay the additional rape.

And without more information of the rapist's friends, associates, and family, you cannot say that his controversial death in a back room would not have led to a feud in which the victim and her family and their friends would die. While on the other hand, the paladin can always take the law into his own hands later if the local law turns out to be evil or ineffectual.

I am the one asking that the paladin seek information before taking precipitate action.

Even had the paladin taken the girl with him to raise, you cannot say that leaving the rapist to the law would not have allowed him to rape another.

No, but I can say that if the paladin had erred on the side of caution he would have been able to repair the error later, but by erring on the side of recklessness he risked ending up with a dead innocent, an untraceable pedophile ring, or an intractable feud to deal with.

Again, in both facts and his belief he gained something extremely important: the future safety of the rapist's victim from the rapist.

He could have secured that in another way, taking drastic action only if it turned out to be necessary.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, at best my examples would have lead just as certainly to the rapist's death. At worst the rapist would have been left for the paladinto deal with decisively and extra-legally if necessary.

I did not state what was the best/worst legal outcome. I said "At best, your examples would have only been as effecting in protecting the girl from further immediate harm, which is not the same this as protecting her from further harm."

But no-one has ever made an argument that it would be unreasonable to allow for the possibility when the cost or risk of doing so is small or, as in this case, non-existent.

Excepting that an argument has been put forward, repeatedly, that the risk in doing so is very high. The risk is that the watch does nothing, and the little girl is raped again. The risk is that forty brutish friends of the rapists beat the crud out of the paladin when he calls out, and the girl is raped again. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

And without more information of the rapist's friends, associates, and family, you cannot say that his controversial death in a back room would not have led to a feud in which the victim and her family and their friends would die. While on the other hand, the paladin can always take the law into his own hands later if the local law turns out to be evil or ineffectual.

I am the one asking that the paladin seek information before taking precipitate action.

You're right. The paladin should round up the miscreant's friends and family, and interview them, before doing anything. Even before calling the Watch, because, as we know, turning in a miscreant may result in a feud.

He could have secured that [The future safety of the rapist's victim from the rapist - RC] in another way, taking drastic action only if it turned out to be necessary.

Exactly what other way would that be?

Your examples assume that calling the watch is as effective as killing the miscreant. That is simply not so. When the paladin calls the watch, all he can assume is that he has put off the potential for harm. Perhaps that is not the case, and the law is effective. Or perhaps the law does not carry out justice, and there is no legitimate authority in these parts. You ask the paladin to make an assumption, when all evidence points to the miscreant being unafraid of the law. I say that making that assumption in this case reduces the effectiveness of the paladin's action.

But, this argument has become pretty recursive by now, hasn't it?

We agree that the paladin should retain his paladinhood.

We agree that there may have been a better solution.

We do not agree that there necessarily was a better solution.

I can live with that.