Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1571044" data-attributes="member: 18280">I am assuming, though I may be wrong here, that the paladin in question didn't kill the child molester and then try to hide the body.  It is doubtful that this would be considered a "sordid private murder" by anyone in the real Middle Ages, or in most D&D-type worlds.  The act itself demonstrates that "justice had been done," if one takes into account the general principles that a) the perp was doing his child raping in a fairly public place, and someone else already probably knew about it, and/or b) the paladin's reputation as a paladin makes it likely that his description of events would be believed unless he is punished by removal of his paladin status .Public trials do not always demonstrate that authority will deliver justice.  Regardless of where you stand on cases like that of O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart, or (in my neck of the woods) Karla Homolka, public trials can result in the general perception that jurisprudence is slipshod, uneven, and/or either excessively harsh or excessively lenient on the well-to-do.  Of course, it is even worse when an allegation (with some evidence for that allegation) exists, but there is no will from those in power to either punish or investigate.Others have claimed that there could have been demonic involvement and/or illusionary effects in place.  Certainly, a trial might have determined this if there was will and jurisprudence for such a trial.  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.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.  In fact, it is possible through the use of magic to know something with utter certainty, which is never possible in the real world.  The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth.  Certainly, it proves it more than any trial could.If the DM in question had requirements for paladinhood other than those listed in the Player's Handbook, he also had the responsibility to spell those requirements out to the players.    <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> It would also be useful to know the reasons (if any) the DM gave for stripping the paladin of his status.  Even if we disagree about the correct course for a paladin to take, we might nonetheless agree that the DM's reasoning is either correct or incorrect.  However, that said, were I the player in question, I would have taken the DM's pre-action intervention as a cue to ask him exactly what he expects under the circumstances.  And then, if his expectations seemed wrong to me, I'd do what I thought was right anyway.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   After all, being a paladin is often about doing what is right, regardless of the consequences!Raven Crowking</blockquote>

Verification