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



## Vindicator

Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.

Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in.  Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room.  My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated." 

Our campaign is a gritty one.  These issues come up.

Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  And he *undid his pants*.

With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword.  My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."

"My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.

I did so.  

Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."

My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation.  He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)

Discuss.


----------



## Patman21967

*I agree with your GM*

In my opinion, a Paladin would have at the worst, given the guy the opportunity to defend himself, but optimally, have arrested the man and brought him before the Law. I could see any alignment other than " Lawful Good " doing what you did, but that is why I do not play Paladins. The God of law is whom, I forget...Lathander maybe? Yeah...arrested, or beaten into submission, then dragged before the courts...definately way to go

I hate Lawful Good....Dirty Harry was Chaotic Good


----------



## Crothian

Ya, a LG person first should have asked him to surrender to take him to the local law.  Killing him in such an unhonorible way (attacking a man from behind who has his pants down) would go against a Paladins code.  But lucky, in D&D attuning and being forgiven is not hard.


----------



## Dark Jezter

According to the paladin's Code of Conduct, a paladin must "punish those who threaten or harm innocents."

I'd say that your paladin deserves to keep his powers.


----------



## WayneLigon

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood. I'm fighting him on it. His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."



Cowardly, very dubious and only because the man's back was to him and the man was unaware. Unjust and unlawful? Feh. The paladin is just saving the courts time on this one. If anything his patron diety should reward him with something nice, like making his sword a Good weapon.


----------



## Sejs

> In my opinion, a Paladin would have at the worst, given the guy the opportunity to defend himself



 To exactly what point and purpose?  5th level paladin.  "Lowly" commoner.  The man's death is a foregone conclusion. Telling him to zip up, grab a club and defend himself would pointless sophistry - he _can't_ defend himself against the paladin.  It won't matter what he does, he is going to die in single combat against so supperior an opponent.



> but optimally, have arrested the man and brought him before the Law.



  Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the paladin walking up to whatever local constabulary is in the area and telling them "Hey guys, I walked in on this man about to rape this 10 year old girl ... again.  She can testify to what happened.  I killed the man in defense of the child." and having their response being anything other then "Oh. Alright then.  Nicely done there, citizen.  Thank you."  And that's to say nothing of the fact that on the good/evil end of things it was the morally _right_ thing to do.  Defending the weak and innocent from the depredations of the wicked.  The paladin was justified in what he did.



> The God of law is whom, I forget...Lathander maybe?



 Lathander's neutral good, actually.  God of the Sun, Renewal and so forth.  The god you're thinking of is Tyr, God of Justice.  He's lawful good.  Either can have paladins in their service, however.

My oppinion:  the paladin did what was right and took what action was appropriate at the time.  He should keep his powers and status.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hi Vindicator,

I am currently playing two paladins, one of whom has lost his powers once but atoned.
Guess what, your guy should most likely follow the same path.

The following is "Old School" but most likely applicable to 99% of Paladins out there.

You attacked an unarmed opponent from behind without warning. The fact that he was in the act of commiting a grievous offence did not demand lethal action when a stern warning to cease followed by subsequent "punishment" if your orders were not followed was more appropriate.

If I was the mentor of said Paladin, I would have described to him what would have happened if an unscrupulous "friend" of the deceased said that you had raped the child and killed the man as he was trying to protect her and then pulled his pants down to cover your indiscretion?
To those looking upon the scene, they would most likely have seen through the falsehood but what if one or two did not? Your actions would come into question and you would have been brought to an unnecessary trial bringing undue and unwarranted pressure upon the church that you profess to follow.
Paladins are not renegades or vigilantes. They are required to follow the law and the processes there entailed. A Paladin must ALWAYS be above reproach and unquestioned in his actions. Your acts while expediating the process of the law did not render the law the respect it deserved.

However, while your character has shamed the ideals of his station, the emotional consequences of seeing a violated juvenile in the process of once again being victimized should be taken into account and not be denied. As such, a quest of atonement would be suitable so that your character could once again re-establish his righteous and divine link with his God. Having been guided back to the path of RIGHTEOUSNESS and justice, your character will then be a paragon of faith and virtue and a symbol to others who would follow your august journey to paladinhood.

Classic case of atonement in my opinion.
Apologies if this sinks you in it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## res

Wow, this is a big can of worms.

What deity does your Paladin worship?  I guess the punishment really depends on your god.  

_Helm_ - being the God of Protection, you could probably argue that you were protecting the girl.  

_Torm_ - you are to strive to maintain law and order, strike quickly and forcefully against the rot of evil

_Tyr_ - Uphold the law wherever you go and punish those who do wrong under the law.  

I took those from Faiths and Pantheons for FR (under the dogma) those are the usual big 3 Paladin religions.  

For a Paladin to loose their abilitie they have to a) cease being Lawful Good, b) willfully commit an evil act or c) grossly violates the code of conduct.  I wouldn't say you did either a or b.  Maybe a strike against you for under a.  

If you were a follower of Helm or Torm, I'd let you go.  If you were a follower of Tyr, you're screwed.  

You should probably have detained this man and made sure he got a fair trial.  If you followed Tyr, you definatly should have done that and your GM was right to strip you of your powers (assumeing the law is innocent until proven guilty, or if the penalty for child molestation was not death, etc.)

Helm can chalk this kill up to defending the innocent.  You definatly did that. 

Torm can attribute this to your duty to strike quickly and maintain the law.  

If you are a worshiper of someone else, well, I just wasted your time.  

Did this help?


----------



## D+1

Vindicator said:
			
		

> With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword.  My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."
> 
> "My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.
> 
> I did so.
> 
> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."



A couple of points.  One, your DM was correct in giving you a warning.  In many ways you have to take the consequences of your characters actions - even if YOU don't think it was a problem your DM did, and told you so before you took the last step.

Your DM was wrong though (IMO) in his basic stance and I think it's valid that you argue against it.  From behind, from in front, in one blow or in 1000 is irrelevant.  What matters is - whether the victim was deserving of the punishment that the paladin dealt to him; whether the paladin was "authorized" to be the one to deal out that punishment on the spot.  My responses would be yes, and yes.

Rape and child molestation are hands-down qualified as Evil acts - the guy had it coming to him.  The paladin is IN NO WAY required to tap him on the shoulder, get his attention, read him his rights, and THEN kill him.  He's an evil man in the ACT of doing evil deeds and if the paladin can apply lethal punishment with complete safety because the target is blissfully unaware (or even incapable of mounting a worthwhile defense if he weren't) so much the better for all concerned.

This does not mean that your paladin can't take the attitude of not wanting to kill even an evil opponent without giving them a sporting chance of fighting back.  He certainly can.  He's just not OBLIGATED to do so.  He could simply KO the guy, and have him incarcerated or otherwise turned over to metropolitan authorities (or whoever), but he's not OBLIGATED to do so by default.

Unless your DM has well-established beforehand the reasons why your paladin needs to be not just goody-two-shoes, but to go out of his way to give evil a fighting chance because it SEEMS cowardly or dishonorable on the face of it?  Nonsense.


----------



## Stereofm

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.
> 
> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in.  Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room.  My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Discuss.



IMO you did alright !
Paladins are based loosely around the legends of the ideal medieval knight. In some versions of the Arthurian legends, king Arthur and Lancelot at some point encounter rapists (a giant living on an isolated small island if I remember). They only have a second hand report. Their reaction : immediately travel there and cut off its head. The guy, despite being a giant dies at the first sword stroke. They go home happily smiling that justice is done.

Morality : Knights were EXPECTED to take the law into their hands ! Mostly also, there was no law to speak of, and when it existed, it was often days away and uncaring if you were not a noble. When you think of medieval laws and medieval cities, think Lankhmar. only in worse.

Besides, most of you are thinking of the law of fantasy world as the modern day efficient police we have. Nothing could be more wrong. Give such a guy to a medieval "police" and three things could happen :
- He is thrown in a deep oubliette and dies for days
- He is executed by dismemberment on the public square
- OR : he pays a bribe, goes home and resume tormenting the girl.

In the first two cases, the paladin is in fact merciful in his treatment of the rapist, in the third, he prevents an horrible monster from tormenting innocents.

Congratulations Vindicator ! Your character is a paladin.


----------



## MrFilthyIke

Well, a LAWFUL man would have, knowing from the DM he's a low-level 
commoner and will likely die, would have declared a subdual strike, as striking
a pervert about to attack from behind would be "protecting" her.  Use the
flat-footed state and the likelyhood you'll gain Init to wail on him twice for
subdual and knock his arse out.

Then drag him to court, or if not court, to be lynched by the town, letting
SOCIETY decide his fate.

*I* would say this was a breach of LAWFUL behavior, but not of GOOD 
behavior.  Penance would be necessary, but maybe not as bad as losing
ALL powers.

*I* would say all powers cease functioning unless used in selfless-behavior.
(example: Pervert's friend attacks same girl, takes her to -1hp.  YOU dive to
her side and Lay On Hands to heal her...it WORKS!  But, you draw an Attack 
of Opportunity. Those are the risks of being a hero.)

Just my 2cp,


----------



## Stereofm

Sejs said:
			
		

> To exactly what point and purpose?  5th level paladin.  "Lowly" commoner.  The man's death is a foregone conclusion. Telling him to zip up, grab a club and defend himself would pointless sophistry - he _can't_ defend himself against the paladin.  It won't matter what he does, he is going to die in single combat against so supperior an opponent.
> 
> .



This is meta gaming thinking, not roleplaying.

In medieval times, being given a chance to fight in such a case would be an unexpected chance to survive. Most people, criminal or not, were never given that.

Now since a lot of you insist on the rules, remember that it could have been a 5th lvl commoner.


----------



## D+1

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Cowardly, very dubious and only because the man's back was to him and the man was unaware.



To attack him BECAUSE his back is turned, but when facing him openly to instead attempt to take him into custody rather than go directly for his giblets - THAT'S cowardly.  Not to mention unwise.  The attack is not cowardly, it's simply opportune.


----------



## Anabstercorian

I think the only conceivable reason you might be berated for this act is that you let the girl see a man die with explosive horrible bloodiness.

You ARE a representative of the law.  The punishment for rape of a child is death.  You have absolute proof of his guilt - you're watching him preparing to do it.  Killing him was not only justified - It was OBLIGATED.  Well done.  Nice, clean execution.

Though I would have knocked him out just for the girls sake, but I'm a softie that way.


----------



## Sejs

Tyr's dogma includes such lines as:  reveal the truth, punish the guilty, right the wrong and always be true and just in your actions. Uphold the law wherever you go and punish those who do wrong under the law.  Deliver vengeance to the guilty for those who cannot do it for themselves.

It also notes that clerics of tyr (and one would assume this would extend equally to tyr's paladins) 'bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury and executioner.'


Looks like even if he was a paladin of Tyr, he'd be in the clear.


----------



## jgbrowning

Was the killing necessary? Was there no other option?

I'm assuming that it killing wasn't necessary and that there were other options that would result in protecting the innocent while punishing the guilty. Paladin's aren't "judge, jury, and executioner" especially when dealing with people who are within a society that has pre-determined methods for dealing with crime/evil/abberation.

Were this man an orc, or some other race known to be commonly evil and generally outside the arc of the human society, things may be different. As it is, you've broken the law by killing another man and will have to go to trial to justify your actions.

Actions which, IMHO aren't justifiable as you had many other options than choosing as your *first* option, lethal force in a surprise attack. Evil is bad, but that doesn't mean you can kill what or who you want, when or how you want. The fact that the man deserved to die (even this is questionable... in many times/countries raping children is not a killable offense.. i don't know how the crime fairs in that part of Forgotten Realms) doesn't remove the fact that you're not the one who should be making that decision except in situations that cannot be dealt with through normal channels.

For a paladin, both the means and the end must be done lawfully and goodly. You should have knocked him unconscious and delivered him to the proper authorities. That's the way to be both lawful and good.

And striking with lethal force from behind against an unarmed, unworthy opponent? That is utterly contemptable and base. *Actions far from worthy for the title of Paladin.*

joe b.


----------



## Stereofm

MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> Well, a LAWFUL man would have, knowing from the DM he's a low-level
> commoner
> 
> Then drag him to court, or if not court, to be lynched by the town, letting
> SOCIETY decide his fate.
> 
> *I* would say this was a breach of LAWFUL behavior, but not of GOOD
> behavior.  Penance would be necessary, but maybe not as bad as losing
> ALL powers.
> 
> Just my 2cp,



Letting society decide its fate : take a look at medieval society : is it not really doing the world a service ? Such a guy would likely walk free in medieval society. besides law was inefficient, and known criminals walked all over Europe unmolested, because they were either nobles (ruled by "divine" right), or known (valuable to the nobles) mercenaries.

In such a case letting society decide is a bit of hypocrisy. By the time society decides anything, if ever, the guy has so many years to escape and continue to hurt innocents. Clearly not desirable for a paladin. IMO at least


----------



## Zimri

The difference In my opinion is honor. Striking an unarmed, defenseless, unknowing, obviously weaker foe from behind is not honorable. I wouldn't say you have to take him to the authorities, or that you have to accept his surrender to you but you can not go around smiting people from behind.


----------



## the Jester

Let me get this straight.

Your paladin _attacked an unarmed man from behind_, with no warning; the dm warned you; and you're surprised you lost your paladinhood??

In my campaign, a paladin fights with honor and valor.  Striking an opponent from behind doesn't qualify.  Striking an unarmed and helpless opponent doesn't qualify. 

Striking this guy down may have been fully justified, _but not without warning._  In my campaign, you'd have lost your paladinhood too.  Especially given the dm's prior warning!

Striking this villain down, without warning, from behind, sounds like 'end justifies the means' to me.  That's more NG (or, arguably, CG)- not LG.

Although your dm's willingness to listen to other opinions is laudable, I urge him to avoid dming by committee.  It never makes the game better.

All, of course, imho.


----------



## Agemegos

Sorry, but I'm with your DM. Killing this guy was not necessary to protect the girl. Insofar as you had a good purpose, it would have been served just as well by arresting the guy and handing him over for lawful punishment. You killed a man unnecessarily (which is therefore not Good), unlawfully, and unchivalrously (the surprise attack from behind was un-called for).

Repent!

Atone!


----------



## MrFilthyIke

I wonder what everyone thinks the psychological trauma for the girl would be.  Assaulted by a pervert repeatedly, only to witness his head vacate his shoulder premises in a bloody mess, followed by the sight of a radiant paragon of virtue walking through the door to free her.

I would suspect another convert for Tyr/Helm/Torm/etc.


----------



## SirEuain

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."
> 
> My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation.  He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)
> 
> Discuss.




Here's the thing... 

Was the paladin's behavior moral (good)? Possibly. The child involved WAS in imminent harm, though not so much so that the paladin couldn't have avoided killing the guy. The perp may not have been able to defend himself from behind, but neither would he have been able to defend himself, period.

Was the paladin's behavior ethical (lawful)? As others have pointed out, that depends on the deity involved. A god that places a heavier emphasis on redemption than on punishment would certainly find your conduct unbecoming.

Should your paladin get smacked down for it? Certainly. Allow me to indulge in a little criminology/criminal psychology...

This is questionable behavior, even for the most strident paladin, but that's not the real issue. The real issue is that your paladin didn't take anything else into account but the immediate scene before him. This is a D&D setting, after all, which means small populations. You've said this person was a repeat offender. From the description, he was operating with very little in the way of precaution - if a PALADIN can get this close without attracting the target's attention, it's because the target's pretty convinced that nobody'll be there. This, despite a virtually public setting for these atrocities. All of this points towards one thing, the true reason your paladin should get slapped down.

The man had accomplices. 

By killing him without need, you've unnecessarily risked letting them get away with it. Your paladin has inadvertantly aided and abbetted these people by his negligence, which most certainly IS a violation of his code of conduct. He's certainly within reach of atonement, and fortunately for him there's an obvious and handy quest already involved. He must, however, come to grips with the knowledge that he could have saved more children by letting this vile man live.


----------



## Kem

Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.

Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?


----------



## ThoughtBubble

This reminds me of my response to the time travelling paladin's paradox. If a paladin gets sent back in time to a point when he could kill some really evil guy who caused countless innocents to die, but the evil guy wasn't evil yet, is it ok to kill him? My answer to that remains much like my answer to this. I assume the paladin made the right decision.

I view paladinhood as something from within. You're not a paladin because you've got a book of 1000 guidelines to follow. The paladin follows those rules because that's what he'd do. You're not granted powers for singing and dancing. You're granted them because of who you are. So I assume that the answers to most of the situations that come up will be the correct one. Of course, my group is fairly good about this. However, if it did come down to a paladin that I felt was acting innapropriately, I'd use a sliding scale. First, bad dreams, images, and a not so subtle shaking. Then, powers slip a little. Then a power works at half power or only gets refilled half the time. Then power loss. But I'd only do this in more extreme situations, or if the player has a history of behavior that I find questionable. Have you had a history of questionable behavior?

Anyway, I can see both sides of the arguement. Frankly, I'd make your life miserable though other means. Did you dispose of the body? If you did, was it a proper burial? Does his family know? Does anyone know? Could his friends find out who did it? Would the athorities come after you for murder? Does he have an influencial ally or contact? Does the girl have parents? If not, whos going to take care of her? Does he feel an obligation to confess and seek proper punishment?

I would be reluctant to strip a paladin of his powers, simply because anyone willing to play a paladin with any degree of reasonability is going to be more fun to play with as one.


----------



## Sejs

> This is meta gaming thinking, not roleplaying.



  I both agree and disagree somewhat with you there.  It is metagame thinking trying to balance it in terms of relative level, it wouldn't, however, be metagame thinking putting it in terms of "I'm a well trained, experienced soldier in the service of the light.  I am physically capable, in good condition, and have my sword in hand.  This man has the bearing of someone who's never seen a fair fight in his life, his pants are down and the only weapon he's got in hand doesn't threaten me in the slightest."

To put it in more roleplay-ish terms.  

^_^


----------



## jgbrowning

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?




IMHO, yes. Societies have methods of dealing with criminals/evil/abberations. Usually Orcs are considered "outsiders" to those societies and are therefore subject to less "lawful" restrictions in a paladin's actions.

In other words, if a human commits a crime the paladin should try to behave lawfully and support the currently legal processes before becoming "judge, jury, and executioner." He's obligated to support the order of the society, as long as that society isn't evil, for he is also obligated to support good.

joe b.


----------



## MrFilthyIke

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Letting society decide its fate : take a look at medieval society : is it not really doing the world a service ? Such a guy would likely walk free in medieval society. besides law was inefficient, and known criminals walked all over Europe unmolested, because they were either nobles (ruled by "divine" right), or known (valuable to the nobles) mercenaries.
> 
> In such a case letting society decide is a bit of hypocrisy. By the time society decides anything, if ever, the guy has so many years to escape and continue to hurt innocents. Clearly not desirable for a paladin. IMO at least




I had pondered that, and went on the idea that Forgotten Realms is very "modern" in thinking, not very medieval (at least that how it comes across)

Some Paladins are Judge, Jury, Executioner...other are Law Enforcers.
It's very vague.  I hate punishing players, I'd rather somewhat punish and then make ATONING all that more desireable by making it rewarding.

Plus, I'm too tired to think and strong, coherent debate tonight.


----------



## talinthas

was inflicting subdual damage (hilt of the sword, gauntlet to the side of the head etc) somehow not an option?  In my campaign, the party ran into a situation similar to this (a commoner was drunk and assaulting a female kender, and the paladin took him out), and i responded by forcing a light version of atonement (the player was new, this was his first ever D&D session, so i took it a lot easier on him).  Had the player been more experienced, i'd have certainly stripped his powers for taking a violent route when other means were available.


----------



## jgbrowning

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> I view paladinhood as something from within. You're not a paladin because you've got a book of 1000 guidelines to follow. The paladin follows those rules because that's what he'd do. You're not granted powers for singing and dancing. You're granted them because of who you are.




I look at it from another viewpoint. A paladin is granted his powers because of what he's done, not what he is. To me, a paladin's actions have no greater goodness or lawfulness than a rogues *just because a paladin's doing them.* The action is what makes the actor, not the other way around.



> I would be reluctant to strip a paladin of his powers, simply because anyone willing to play a paladin with any degree of reasonability is going to be more fun to play with as one.




Me too. I think the paladin in this case should suffer a small loss in power and have to perform a fairly simple atonement with the understanding that he should try to be more honorable and conscious of non-lethal processess. The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.

joe b.


----------



## D+1

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Paladins are not renegades or vigilantes.



They most certainly ARE vigilantes.  They enforce their own code of right and justice.


> They are required to follow the law and the processes there entailed.



No, they are required to respect legitimate authority (and guess who gets to decide the definition of legitimate?)  _IF_ an authority that the paladin recognizes as legitimate says that a paladin is NOT allowed to fight evil deeds using lethal force THEN he'd have to "play nice".  But a DM had better be clear on that sort of thing or else a paladin is going to do what he's there to do - enforce what's good and right _as he sees it_.


> A Paladin must ALWAYS be above reproach and unquestioned in his actions.



Generally a fine endeavor for a paladin but not something that his status as a paladin hinges upon.  In fact, that would be one of the tough things about being a paladin.  You know that bad guys will try to slander and disparage you but you do the right thing anyway (such as killing a child rapist before he can draw another breath much less draw a weapon to fight you or - surprise - instead of fighting you directly and honorably, to instead hold the child hostage or just move to kill her.)


> Your acts while expediating the process of the law did not render the law the respect it deserved.



A paladin LIVES to expedite the law - and THAT is the respect that the law deserves.


> Classic case of atonement in my opinion.



Well, if the DM in question sticks to his guns then that is the logical move.  It's easy to do as the paladins actions were definitely not evil, just questionable in the DM's view.  So, you can always just atone and move on.  That can be a bit mercenary and meta-gamed in its treatment of Atonement, but it's at least book-legal and will generally make all parties happy.


----------



## Firzair

*That's what a paladin is for...*

You just gave him the justice he deserved. A paladin should defend the innocents (what's more innocent than a child) and punish them for their crimes. Deaths the only just punishment for a criminal effectively "caught in the act" without any doubt doing such a crime and you dealt it hard and quick.
So I say, your paladinhood shouldn't be taken from you. In fact it was a nice clean execution, a mob lynching the man would have been "nastier" and probably more painful for the man.

These are my 2 cents.

Greetings
Firzair


----------



## Agemegos

Sejs said:
			
		

> It also notes that clerics of tyr (and one would assume this would extend equally to tyr's paladins) 'bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury and executioner.'




If you want to bring law to a lawless land you have to demonstrate in public that the people that you punish have done something clearly wrong or forbidden in advance, that you are acting in an impersonal capacity, dispassionately, and without personal malice. This persuades the malefactor's relatives that they would be doing wrong to avenge him or her, and allows them to feel that the law, not its agents personally, are responsible for (for instance) the execution. It also reassures everyone else that the agents of the law are not abusing their powers. On the other hand, summmary executions (or worse, police bush-whackings) make the victim's family understandably angry and nervous, and lead everyone else to wonder what the 'perpetrator' knew that the police would not let him live to say.

The law must not only be served. It must be seen to be served. And thus the pomp of due process is as important to establishing the law in a lawless land as it is to acquit the innocent and punish the guilty. That's why Tyr was "Tyr Thincsus": the god of the judicial assemly.

Being judge, jury, and executioner is one thing. Skipping the trial is another.


----------



## Sammael

IMO, this was clearly a Chaotic act. I wouldn't have stripped the paladin of his abilities, although I would have had him stand a trial and then perform some service for the city.

Of course, if this happened in a place where raping 10-year-old children is _not_ a crime (and I can think of several such places in FR), handing the guy to the authorities wouldn't have been an option. But killing from behind without any sort of prior warning, in front of a small child, is not a honorable act by any stretch of imagination.


----------



## Kem

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> IMHO, yes. Societies have methods of dealing with criminals/evil/abberations. Usually Orcs are considered "outsiders" to those societies and are therefore subject to less "lawful" restrictions in a paladin's actions.




And if the person the Paladin Killed in the original example was an Orc?

To me, you are saying that what a Human does is less evil then what an orc does, even for the same act, by virtue of the punishment that a paladin is allowed to enforce.


----------



## Elephant

Proclaim him as a paragon of Paladinhood for defending the weak, or tear him down in shame for striking dishonorably?

The DM has a great adventure hook here:  Arrest the Paladin and put him on trial.  If he's sentenced to punishment in the trial, he is stripped of his Paladinhood.  If he is exonerated of any wrongdoing, he keeps his powers.

What is his code of conduct?  Does it prohibit executions?  What about stealth?


----------



## d4

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> In other words, if a human commits a crime the paladin should try to behave lawfully and support the currently legal processes before becoming "judge, jury, and executioner." He's obligated to support the order of the society, as long as that society isn't evil, for he is also obligated to support good.



i must have a different view of paladins than others.

in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) _are_ considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself _is_ a legitimate authority.

so, if this paladin were playing in my campaign, not only would he not lose his paladinhood, he'd get a hearty "Well done!" from me, both as GM and through the NPC leadership of the town.


----------



## Dark Jezter

Elephant said:
			
		

> What is his code of conduct?  Does it prohibit executions?  What about stealth?




IIRC, the Book of Exalted Deeds has an ex-thief who saw the light and became a paladin.  He has a few levels in rogue, and is still allowed to use sneak-attack in combat despite being a palaidn.  He also had ranks in skills like Hide and Move Silently.

So yes, I think it's okay for paladins to use stealth and surprise attacks.


----------



## jgbrowning

Kem said:
			
		

> And if the person the Paladin Killed in the original example was an Orc?
> 
> To me, you are saying that what a Human does is less evil then what an orc does, even for the same act, by virtue of the punishment that a paladin is allowed to enforce.




I'm not speaking as much of good or evil as I'm speaking of law and chaos.

It is more chaotic to not apply the laws to a human than it is to not apply the laws (because there aren't any) to an orc. When possible a paladin should support the local law system. Usually under D&D tropes, Orcs are outside that system and usually violently outside.

If there were other viable actions that supported dealing with an Orc that fit with how the society deals with Orcs, the paladin should try and support those first rather than create his own concept of justice on the spot.

I don't like the paladin class because of this reason. I don't think a class concept should, effectively, force conflict between players and GMs and I think the paladin concept does that in spades. Unlike every other core class where powers aren't tied to RL interpretation of morality.

joe b.


----------



## res

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?





yes it would.

There are a few things. 

a) It is an orc.  Usually the laws of a city/country etc don't extend to marauding monsters that are found on the land.  This would put the orc outside of the law.

b) This depends on where the dungeon is.  If its the typical cave type place outside of the citys authority then again, it woudl be outside the law and the Paladin would be required to bring the law to the area.  

This was a human, who in a human city would be considered much more important than some orc, where, it is assumed, there is a local authority that enforces the law.  The Paladin should have gone through them if required by his code and dogma.


----------



## Sejs

> Being judge, jury, and executioner is one thing. Skipping the trial is another.




Not at all; there _was_ a trial, you see.  It was a very, very brief one in which the child rapist confessed to his misdeeds when he advanced on the notedly sexually violated, restrained girl, pants open and said "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  Open and shut case.  Didn't even have to pay the stenographer.  

What would his possible defense be?  He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?


----------



## dead

I think your GM is very cruel.

True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.

Wow, your GM runs a disturbing FR campaign. I respect this, though. At least, if that's the mood of the campaign, he doesn't chose to sweep such controversial things under the carpet.


----------



## SirEuain

Sejs said:
			
		

> What would his possible defense be?  He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?




Possession. Mind control. Magic-based insanity.

This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.


----------



## Dark Jezter

Sejs said:
			
		

> What would his possible defense be?  He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?




ROTFLMAO!

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.  Good one, Sejs!


----------



## SirEuain

dead said:
			
		

> I think your GM is very cruel.
> 
> True, maybe you shouldn't have killed him, but your character's emotions obviously got the better of him and he acted on impulse. But, I think, in the light of the situation, you can be forgiven for your trangression.




Hence the term "atonement". Paladins, by their very nature, don't have emotion as an excuse. They exemplify their gods' will, and must be all the more responsible for it.


----------



## Sejs

> This IS D&D we're talking about, after all.




Heh, fair point.  Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."


----------



## Zimri

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?




No different at all. you do not smite evil no matter the form quietly and from behind if you are a paladin.

The fact that it was FROM BEHIND makes all the difference in the world to me. Even more than the perp being unarmed (coulda had monk levels or something) Doesn't matter a bit that he still would have died from 1 hit. It matters that this paragon of virtue snuck up behind someone and ran him through.


----------



## kolvar

I think, there are three levels to it: 
1st: In any case it is not honorable to attack from behind an unarmed man (+ without warning). If honor is important to the charakter, he got a problem.
2nd: no law allows for killing people just because they did something evil or are doing it, if it can be prevented (with the exception of the law-enforcement of the city and player characters are seldom part of that. Being a paladin does not automatically qualify a character to enforce the law in a city). A city lives by its laws. If people start doing their own law, the city will not survive. Therefore, the character should, at least be dragged before the court. what happens there is a matter of the local laws.
3rd: The paladin violated a law. Did he violate his law? if yes, he is in for atonement

In the end, if the GM feels, that the character violated his code, it is the GMs right to strip the character of his powers. He is the law at the table.


----------



## MrFilthyIke

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.




"Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares also into you." 

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


----------



## jgbrowning

d4 said:
			
		

> i must have a different view of paladins than others.
> 
> in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) _are_ considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself _is_ a legitimate authority.




To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?

I'm not sure if i'm expressing myself well here, but i think focusing on the fact that a person has a game mechanical benefit gained through past actions doesn't mean that that person has any greater claim on "judge, jury, and executioner" than any other class that's lawful good.

IMHO, Being a paladin doesn't mean one is *less likely* to perform questionable actions, nor does it mean that your actions are given an unusual-authority in worlds typically feudal. It just means that there are greater consequences (game mechanics wise) for those actions.

joe b.


----------



## Quirthanon

I think there are too many questions here.  What type of god is worshiped by the paladin, they’re not all equal.  What are the player’s AND the DM’s definitions of Lawful.  I’ve seen two different uses of that word in this thread.  Lawful meaning must follow the laws, and meaning honorable; not really the same thing.  Then once this is clearly defined by the player and DM, what are the laws in the area? 

Also, following the laws doesn’t preclude attacking from behind and be honorable doesn’t either.  It really depends on the code of the paladin’s order and the laws of the land.  Neither of which is given to us.

I think your DM and you should sit down and talk about what type of paladin you have; a law-enforcer type or one who cares out judgments.  You have to of course consider what type of order the paladin is in and how much the paladin knows about local laws.  The location where the paladin was trained will probably be his reference point for laws if he’s not familiar with the local ones.

This really is something for your DM and you to decide.


----------



## bodhi

Here's another vote for "it depends".

In addition to the question of deity...

Where did this happen? If you were in Waterdeep, there's definitely more weight on the side of knocking him out and turning him over to the authorities. But if you were in Skullport (for whatever reasons), then you pretty much are the authorities.

Also, what happened afterwards? If you bailed, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up, that's a strong argument for "cowardly act". If you got the girl to Good-aligned social services, made sure the corpse got properly treated, and otherwise dealt openly with the local authorities, then I'd hold that in your favor.

That being said, I would hold defending an innocent girl in imminent danger strongly in your favor. I'm reminded of Ultima IV. So you get points for Compassion (for the girl, and _maybe_ for the quick painless execution) and Justice, and lost points for Valor, and maybe Honor.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

The paladin protected someone who couldn't defend herself while also sending the wicked to a much higher judge than any mortal. 

No, the paladin shouldn't be stripped of his powers. However he should take responsibility for his actions, perhaps throwing himself upon the mercy of the town. Hopefully the girl will be unafraid to speak up in his defense. 

Rather unusual but the punishment I would mete out for your paladin is: lead and guide her so she doesn't slide towards darkness or even taking vigilante-ism to extremes. Congratulations on your new squire / apprentice. You may not have broken her but you definitely should help fix her. Perhaps caring for an innocent will likewise temper your emotions. A bit heavy handed but how she turns out is your responsibility now and will determine your paladin's final fate or at least be an ongoing atonement quest.


----------



## SirEuain

Sejs said:
			
		

> Heh, fair point.  Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."




Granted. OTOH, a level 5 paladin can't tell whether this is true just by looking at the scene laid out, hence the NEED for a trial.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I look at it from another viewpoint. A paladin is granted his powers because of what he's done, not what he is. To me, a paladin's actions have no greater goodness or lawfulness than a rogues *just because a paladin's doing them.* The action is what makes the actor, not the other way around.




Ah, maybe it's just my group (one player exception though) but I assume that each character's actions are defined by that character's personaltiy. Say a paladin sneaks past some guards in the city. While I could raise a fuss, or a flag about it, I assume that he's doing it out of paladinish reasons. This is opposed to the rogue, who I know (because of his character) is sneaking because it'll make his escape easier better. I try not to second guess their actions unless it's pretty big. I think that while the actions do show what a person is, the same action can be undertaken for thousands of reasons, and any action has at least 5 real reasons behind them. It's complex enough that I try to use the characters as a guide, especially given how hard it can be to keep characters players and game concerns all balanced at any time. Sometimes I need to forgive characters their players' mistakes.




> Me too. I think the paladin in this case should suffer a small loss in power and have to perform a fairly simple atonement with the understanding that he should try to be more honorable and conscious of non-lethal processess. The child molester is a monster, but when fighting monsters care must be taken to not become one.




Yeah, but I still think it would be more fun to have the world have a problem with his righteousness. As soon as he starts losing abilities, *I'm* punishing the player. But if the pervert's gangster friends get a corrupt judge to send the LG guard after the paladin, that's just the consiquence of the character's actions coming back to haunt him. Even bad dreams and ill portent, prayers not being answered, angels coming down to tell him off. Anything I can do to keep it in the game world. If I am going to take it out of the game world, it's going to be a "dude, that was unpaladinish." And, agree, or disagree, any action needs to be taken with upmost care.


----------



## d4

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well?



the way i interpret the paladin class is that they receive their abilities by the grace of a god. (usually a lawful, good god.)

that makes all the world of difference between a paladin and, say, a LG fighter -- who can't claim that his powers are received through divine grace. in my campaigns, paladins have religious authority due to their powers. and, like in most feudal settings, religious authority usually trumps secular authority.

this is how it would run in one of my campaigns.

Paladin kills child molester.
City Militia runs in 2 seconds later.
City Militia: "What happened here? Did you kill that man?"
Paladin: "Yes. I am a paladin. I was doing God's Will."
City Militia: "Well, all right then."

the government of the city has the right to exercise secular authority over the city, but no secular authority can gainsay God's Will -- because God is higher than any city mayor or noble, and the paladin is the direct wielder of God's power in the world.

but that's just how i run the game.


----------



## frankthedm

Unjust / Just? What is the punishment meted out by the kingdom for that act? If its death, then it is just. What do the in-game religious text say on such matters? 

Unless your character really rolled bad spot checks and sense motive checks, and completely misunderstood the situation [tied up because she is behaving horribly, early menstrual blood making things look worse and parent going for his belt to administer a run of the mill wuppin’ for misbehavior] i would say your paladin should keep his paladinhood if the Lawful Good gods ordained punishment for such a dead is death.

If the Paladin is due a punishment, then I would say being forbidden from attacking with any weapon for the duration of an appropriate quest. 

_Your blade is too swift, but your chosen work is not yet done, until you defeat the slaver’s guild, your hand and weapon may not be one”_

Defeat the local ring of slavers bare handed or lose your powers.

If this all pans out you might want to ask for Knowledge: Religion checks for quotes from in-game Holy texts that pertain to the situations at hand.


----------



## Sejs

> To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?



  I'm on the opposite side of the coin here, personally.  Noblemen and their ilk make and enforce laws because they claim to have a divine right to rule over their fellow man.  Paladins enforce what is morally right and trounce upon evil because they are given a divine right to do so.  The difference between the two is that the paladin can back their claim with proof of their divine favor.



> I'm not sure if i'm expressing myself well here, but i think focusing on the fact that a person has a game mechanical benefit gained through past actions doesn't mean that that person has any greater claim on "judge, jury, and executioner" than any other class that's lawful good.



 *shrug* don't worry too much about expressing yourself well - we're all just people who enjoy a common hobby having a friendly discussion, after all.  In any case, the way I see it is that a paladin does have a greater claim to the JJ&E title because of their paladin abilities.  That they have Smite Evil as an ability says to me that it is to be used in the Smiting of Evil.



> IMHO, Being a paladin doesn't mean one is less likely to perform questionable actions, nor does it mean that your actions are given an unusual-authority in worlds typically feudal. It just means that there are greater consequences (game mechanics wise) for those actions.



 Erm, wait.  So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class?  That seems somewhat unfair.  Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed.  One is a paladin, the other is not.  The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?

I may be totally misreading what you're saying though, and if that's the case I appologise.  I'm just confused somewhat on this point.


----------



## Zimri

Quirthanon said:
			
		

> Also, following the laws doesn’t preclude attacking from behind and be honorable doesn’t either.  It really depends on the code of the paladin’s order and the laws of the land.  Neither of which is given to us.




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

pray tell HOW is that honorable ?


----------



## robberbaron

Doesn't matter which God the Paladin worships. A Paladin is a Paladin and, until the rules change, are restricted to one alignment, hence one basic "outlook".

My Paladin would have done exactly the same, although I would probably have shouted, "Foul scum! Asura guide my blade in Righteous Justice!" (soliloquising as a Free Action), THEN cut him in half.

DM's right though. Bad Paladin let his emotions rule him. Nothing wrong with that per se, he's just being Good.
Powers gone until Atonement, but the authorities may reward him for saving them the cost of a trial and public execution. 

Take your lumps and learn from them.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

Considering I personally hate child molesters, let's look at this from the point of view of your paladin probably had at the time.

He probably did the following:

1. Walked in.
2. Quickly assessed the situation.
3. Became utterly enraged forgetting himself.
4. Drew his sword.
5. Destroyed the vile, evil thing before him forgetting that it was a human being. (Just like I'd do in real life if I saw this happening).


I would say that your Paladin engaged unwillingly in a chaotic act. Within city limits, the Paladin should have attempted to apprehend the criminal and keep his cool. It is the law, and Paladins should respect the law.

Maybe a slight atonement is in order. I would probably have you spend a few days in praying to your deity for the strength to control your rage. This was a minor transgression at best. It isn't the modern day, so the man wasn't going to live after the court got a hold of him. The paladin should still respect the process of law, but death would have been the final sentence anyhow. He just forgot his lawful aspect, but sometimes evil makes him real angry.


----------



## Alzrius

Personally, I think the paladin did the right thing. The person he killed was seriously a monster, and about to inflict grevious harm on an innocent, after already committing what could already be described as sadistic torture.

Looking at the Code of Conduct laid out on page 44 of the PHB, I don't see anything that'd make you immediately lose your powers. You only lose them if you perform an "evil" act. Killing someone to prevent imminent harm to another isn't evil...duress maybe, but not evil. Your paladin, in-character, didn't know that he was just a commoner, and I can't see anything anywhere that says paladins must always use nonlethal or minimal force. 

Let's go through the rest of the points laid out there:

Respect legitimate authority - No contest here. The NPC wasn't an authority, and what he was doing was definately illegal.

Act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth) - the "and so forth" aside, this seems in the clear also. Honor does not necessarily bind one to always alert the person they're striking beforehand...there is a difference between assassination and being foolish. Would your paladin not attack an evil spellcaster who was about to slay an innocent with a spell unless he (the paladin) was facing that spellcaster, or would he just stab him in the back to save them? 

Help those in need - 'nuff said.

Punish those who threaten innocents - This certainly seems to be in line with your character's actions. 

The last one is the reason most paladins can slay monsters willy-nilly without getting into ethical trouble. Ask your DM, honestly, that if that NPC had been a gnoll, and this had been happening out in the woods, if you'd still be facing these penalties.

Paladins are holy warriors, defeating evil with a sword. When facing a monster in the wild, they aren't bound to subdue it and bring it to a magistrate, so why here? Additionally, if the law says that raping a minor is a capital offense, then the paladin was meting out justice, which they seem qualified to do.

I say, your character should keep his powers.


----------



## Toras

-In order to really reach a consense we need to know a few things?
-Which God does the paladin serve? I think we can all agree that makes a big difference?
-What is the penality for this crime in this land? 
-What is the penality for this crime as far as the paladin's church is concerned?
-Which law is higher, the Church Law with its moral imperatives or the Local Law with its cultural traditions?


Now here are a few thoughts of mine.
1. The girl was a potential hostage, and in situations where we have hostages present, the standing order is always shoot the hostage taker.
2. Is Honor more important than Good?


Of course I don't play paladins much, but I do play a CG Holy Warrior/ Protector of Children.

He would most likely have knocked the guy out, made sure the girl was deliveried to his clergy, so they could be begin the healing process both mental and physical.  
Then I would have spent the next two weeks killing that man.  Using my healing abilitys (as a half-celestial) as well as basic alchemy and antomy to keep him alive as I killed him in the most horrible way I could think off.  But that is the kind of thing that my god would sanction.


----------



## jgbrowning

d4 said:
			
		

> the way i interpret the paladin class is that they receive their abilities by the grace of a god. (usually a lawful, good god.)
> 
> that makes all the world of difference between a paladin and, say, a LG fighter -- who can't claim that his powers are received through divine grace. in my campaigns, paladins have religious authority due to their powers. and, like in most feudal settings, religious authority usually trumps secular authority.




The problem with this is that we're not talking about the paladin's abilities.... we're talking about his *judgement*. His judgement is no more divine than anyone's. His discernment of what is just isn't better than anyone else's. At least according to game rules.

You're assuming that he's got a direct line to his god when it comes to his making decisions. What's really going on is he has a direct line to his god because of the decisions he's already made, not the one's he's going to make.

For if paladin's were truly given divine grace in judgement to be "judge, jury, and executioner" there wouldn't be Blackguards. If divine grace can fail, it's not really divine grace.

On a tangent, the historical conflict between secular and religious authority is one just that: conflict. There wasn't any obvious superior in the feudal period (if any, I'd go with secular. you can alway be forgiven for killing a priest if your really sorry) and who was on top really depends on the time and place.



> this is how it would run in one of my campaigns.
> 
> Paladin kills child molester.
> City Militia runs in 2 seconds later.
> City Militia: "What happened here? Did you kill that man?"
> Paladin: "Yes. I am a paladin. I was doing God's Will."
> City Militia: "Well, all right then."




And I'm assuming all the paladin's have recognizable heraldry which has never been used as a roguish disguise.... 



> the government of the city has the right to exercise secular authority over the city, but no secular authority can gainsay God's Will -- because God is higher than any city mayor or noble, and the paladin is the direct wielder of God's power in the world.
> 
> but that's just how i run the game.




It's your campaign so it's your call. What do you do when two paladin's argue about what one of them did, or are all LG gods monolitically in agreement concerning the amount of violence appropriate in every situation?

Please don't take my comments in a poor light. I don't mean them that way. I'm just throwing out some thoughts.

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

Then again my responses could be because I kind of like the whole "pardon me I will be kicking your butt now" kind of thing.

Of course someone could argue that in order to be sure the perp was going to actually do what it looked like he was going to do the Paladin had to watch, wait for him to finish up, and then confront him when he turned to leave.


----------



## Sejs

> Then I would have spent the next two weeks killing that man. Using my healing abilitys (as a half-celestial) as well as basic alchemy and antomy to keep him alive as I killed him in the most horrible way I could think off. But that is the kind of thing that my god would sanction.




*nod* and if the character was a paladin, that would definitly earn him a divine tap on the shoulder and a stern, reproving a-HEM.  For a paladin, inflicting pain just to sate your own personal desires is a no-no.

But, as you said, the character you were talking about isn't a paladin.  So it's an elephant of a slightly different color.


----------



## Sejs

Zimri said:
			
		

> Of course someone could argue that in order to be sure the perp was going to actually do what it looked like he was going to do the Paladin had to watch, wait for him to finish up, and then confront him when he turned to leave.




Heh, yes.  We like to call those people who would argue that _wrong_, for the most part.


----------



## Trickstergod

Divine mandate does not lawfulness make or secular authority trump.

Two guards walk in on a cleric of a god of thieves, catching him in the act of theft. 

Guards: "What happened here? Did you break into this home and steal those jewels?"
Cleric: "Yes. I am a priest. I was doing my gods will."
Guards: "Well, all right then."

That isn't going to happen. Divine mandate does not lawfulness make. Being a paladin no more gives you the lawful right to kill evil than being the priest of a god of thieves would give you the lawful right to steal willy-nilly. 

Unless a paladin were a magistrate, nobleman or some other individual of authority, I would consider any attempts at playing at "Judge, jury and executioner" to make them into Chaotic vigilantes. They are no more exempt from the law than the aforementioned thief-god priest, and acting against it makes them not lawful, bit by bit. 

In circumstances like the first poster put up, I'd say the paladin was doing the right thing, the good thing (if perhaps not necessarily the best thing - compulsion effects could have been in place, the molestor might have other children locked up elsewhere, and so on), but was also definitely doing the chaotic thing by taking matters into his own hands. 

However, it's evil acts that screw the paladin over, not chaotic ones. 

As such, I'd let the paladin keep his powers - but also inform the player that his paladin just took a very large step towards "Neutral Good" by not simply knocking the molestor out and bringing him into justice. 

Perhaps there are more extenuating circumstances about; perhaps there was no one the paladin could bring the man into, for example, or walking out with the man in tow woud have ended up in the molestor's friends jumping the paladin or something, but presuming nothing of the sort existed, the paladin did the chaotic thing by playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. Most societies don't take kindly to that kind of attitude, even if it's in the right. 

So I'd say the paladin has his powers. But probably not for long if his attitude keeps up - he'd be taking a swift trip towards Chaotic Good.


----------



## Zimri

Still though I can't see those actions (which are tantamount to torture) as being "good" they are definately chaotic though.


----------



## jgbrowning

Sejs said:
			
		

> I'm on the opposite side of the coin here, personally.  Noblemen and their ilk make and enforce laws because they claim to have a divine right to rule over their fellow man.  Paladins enforce what is morally right and trounce upon evil because they are given a divine right to do so.  The difference between the two is that the paladin can back their claim with proof of their divine favor.




They claim the divine right with just as much authority as the paladin claims his divine right. The paladin has his abilities, the noble has his land and his laws. Both are equal representations of divine right.

Thus is the slippery slope of using divine right as justification for anything.



> *shrug* don't worry too much about expressing yourself well - we're all just people who enjoy a common hobby having a friendly discussion, after all.  In any case, the way I see it is that a paladin does have a greater claim to the JJ&E title because of their paladin abilities.  That they have Smite Evil as an ability says to me that it is to be used in the Smiting of Evil.




No more than the noble has the right to decide what is right and what isn't. Again I'm not sure if i'm being clear, but I think we have a very modern concept of rulership that utterly precludes the concept of divine right. IMHO, the divine right of the ruler is equal to or even greater than the paladin's gifts from his god. After all, according to the rules, you don't even have to worship a god to be a paladin.



> Erm, wait.  So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class?  That seems somewhat unfair.  Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed.  One is a paladin, the other is not.  The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?




Yep. It is unfair. That's because the game designers when against one of their cardinal 3E rules to please the vocal group that couldn't give up the paladin as a core class: no RP restrictions for abilities. They've stated in black and white that paladin's can't break their code or diliberately do evil or they lose their abilities. To me, it's bad design, and the cause of countless arguements and bad blood for gamers for years. Now everyone argues about how to interpret the paladin, while no one argues about how to interpret the fighter.

joe b.


----------



## the Jester

Sejs said:
			
		

> Erm, wait.  So a paladin isn't given anymore leeway, but would be punished more for going the same distance outside the same bounds than a member of any other class?  That seems somewhat unfair.  Two people, both lawful good, both do the same deed.  One is a paladin, the other is not.  The paladin gets punished more than the non-paladin even though they both did the same act?




This is perfectly legitimate, because it is through exemplifying lawful goodness that the paladin _gains_ his powers.  If he ceases to exemplify LG he ceases to be a paladin.

Paladins _are_ held to a higher standard than other classes, but so are monks and clerics.


----------



## sellars

A thing that bothers me (maybe it's been said before) is that you have allowed yourself to lose your temper like that. 

Sure, the guy was an evil bastard, but killing him in the backroom of a pub wouldn't do anyone good (except ofcourse for the girl, but she could have been saved in another way, now she is traumatized twice)

This guy should have had a public trial, probably followed by a public hanging. The effect on the comunity would have been a lot larger, and perhaps other (unknown) victims of the man would see justice. You should have seen these consequences.

Offcourse, as has been said, this kind of depends on which god you serve.


For me it all comes down on you losing your temper, which is a bad thing to do as a LG paladin.


(good catch though, let the bastard rot in hell   )


----------



## d4

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that we're not talking about the paladin's abilities.... we're talking about his *judgement*. His judgement is no more divine than anyone's. His discernment of what is just isn't better than anyone else's. At least according to game rules.



true, which is where those blackguards come from. 

as long as the paladin keeps making judgments that match those of his god's, he keeps his powers.



> On a tangent, the historical conflict between secular and religious authority is one just that: conflict. There wasn't any obvious superior in the feudal period (if any, I'd go with secular. you can alway be forgiven for killing a priest if your really sorry) and who was on top really depends on the time and place.



the difference in a D&D world is that here the religious authority can _prove_ via divine magic that they really are working the will of God.

kill a priest in the "real" world and perhaps you can get away with it. kill a cleric in a D&D world and you'll have a hound archon chasing you down.

by virtue of their magical power, i see religious authority trumping purely secular authority.



> And I'm assuming all the paladin's have recognizable heraldry which has never been used as a roguish disguise....



of course i was being a bit snarky there. if the city militia weren't immediately familiar with the paladin, they'd probably want confirmation from the local church that this man was indeed a paladin. which would be simple enough to check given the divine powers of clerics.



> It's your campaign so it's your call. What do you do when two paladin's argue about what one of them did, or are all LG gods monolitically in agreement concerning the amount of violence appropriate in every situation?



well, in my last D&D campaign, there was only one god who allowed paladins. (and, for what it's worth, he was LN -- so violence was definitely considered a reasonable course of action for dealing with most violators of the law.)



> Please don't take my comments in a poor light. I don't mean them that way. I'm just throwing out some thoughts.



of course not! these are all decisions that each GM must make for himself. i was just explaining how i run things. feel free to disagree.


----------



## dren

As a DM, I think it was a cowardly act...but he did act to uphold goodness. I wouldn't have penalized him. If his first reaction was always to slaughter people weaker than him, even evil creatures, I would wonder why he would be allowed to continue as a paladin. But a one time act of holy rage, nah, well understood and well justified. 

The strange thing in my campaign world is, if the molester was abusing his daughter, in parts of my world, the paladin would have been breaking the law, as technically children are chattel and belong to the parent. So, the paladin could be arrested for saving the child. The liklihood of this happening is low, but it could happen, especially if the authorities were looking for a reason to arrest the paladin.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?




My Paladin is in the interesting situation of having a Hill Giant on his island who he has converted from evil. Redemption is always possible and should be offered where prisoners are involved. If they fail to do as such, the law will be very quick to deal with such transgressors. So following the tenor of your argument, an orc would provide no difference for me on the basis of just being an orc.

However, if it wan an Orc and a more substantial threat to all involved than a betrousered commoner, then more direct action might be possible if the Orc attacked the Paladin. Still, you would not strike from behind and with surprise. You would demand the foul creature either submit to your authority or prepare to defend itself.


D+1,

My previous statement



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> Hi Vindicator,
> 
> I am currently playing two paladins, one of whom has lost his powers once but atoned.
> Guess what, your guy should most likely follow the same path.
> 
> The following is "Old School" but most likely applicable to 99% of Paladins out there.
> 
> You attacked an unarmed opponent from behind without warning. The fact that he was in the act of commiting a grievous offence did not demand lethal action when a stern warning to cease followed by subsequent "punishment" if your orders were not followed was more appropriate.
> 
> If I was the mentor of said Paladin, I would have described to him what would have happened if an unscrupulous "friend" of the deceased said that you had raped the child and killed the man as he was trying to protect her and then pulled his pants down to cover your indiscretion?
> To those looking upon the scene, they would most likely have seen through the falsehood but what if one or two did not? Your actions would come into question and you would have been brought to an unnecessary trial bringing undue and unwarranted pressure upon the church that you profess to follow.
> Paladins are not renegades or vigilantes. They are required to follow the law and the processes there entailed. A Paladin must ALWAYS be above reproach and unquestioned in his actions. Your acts while expediating the process of the law did not render the law the respect it deserved.
> 
> However, while your character has shamed the ideals of his station, the emotional consequences of seeing a violated juvenile in the process of once again being victimized should be taken into account and not be denied. As such, a quest of atonement would be suitable so that your character could once again re-establish his righteous and divine link with his God. Having been guided back to the path of RIGHTEOUSNESS and justice, your character will then be a paragon of faith and virtue and a symbol to others who would follow your august journey to paladinhood.
> 
> Classic case of atonement in my opinion.
> Apologies if this sinks you in it.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise






			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> They most certainly ARE vigilantes. They enforce their own code of right and justice.




They must still submit to righteous authority which was not done in this case. The Paladin had left himself wide open. Paladins are not given carte blanche authority to smite down who they see fit. Again, they are not vigilantes unless their order has been given express permission by the authorities to act as such.



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> No, they are required to respect legitimate authority (and guess who gets to decide the definition of legitimate?) IF an authority that the paladin recognizes as legitimate says that a paladin is NOT allowed to fight evil deeds using lethal force THEN he'd have to "play nice". But a DM had better be clear on that sort of thing or else a paladin is going to do what he's there to do - enforce what's good and right as he sees it.




Vindicator has given no direction that his paladin had any issue with the legitimacy of the authorites. Even if he had, he is still bound by his own code which I am positive he trangressed - at least as far as his DM saw it.
Paladin's don't have to "Play nice". They have to play fair; ALWAYS. This does not mean that they have to be stupid about it either. 

In terms of being above reproach,



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> Generally a fine endeavor for a paladin but not something that his status as a paladin hinges upon. In fact, that would be one of the tough things about being a paladin. You know that bad guys will try to slander and disparage you but you do the right thing anyway (such as killing a child rapist before he can draw another breath much less draw a weapon to fight you or - surprise - instead of fighting you directly and honorably, to instead hold the child hostage or just move to kill her.)




Again, I suppose I'm old school when it comes to these things.
Others will try to sully your name but through faith in your God and by the steadfast path of righteousness that you walk, you will prevail!
By straying from the righteous path - and cutting down a defenceless, unarmed man - you give credence to the slander that others will throw at you.




			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> A paladin LIVES to expedite the law - and THAT is the respect that the law deserves.




Simply put: no.
A paladin lives to follow the law, not to assume that he is above it. 



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> Well, if the DM in question sticks to his guns then that is the logical move. It's easy to do as the paladins actions were definitely not evil, just questionable in the DM's view. So, you can always just atone and move on. That can be a bit mercenary and meta-gamed in its treatment of Atonement, but it's at least book-legal and will generally make all parties happy.




He has acted against his code in a profound way - based on his DM's ruling of circumstances. Therefore atonement should be offered.
However, your view of atonement and mine differ greatly. The act of atonement was certainly not simple for my character. It took him at least a level before he had convinced his superiors that he was back on the path and even now at 13th level, he still has difficulties over his actions on that fateful day.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Sejs

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> However, it's evil acts that screw the paladin over, not chaotic ones.



  You know, that's a very, very good point come to think of it.


----------



## d4

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> Divine mandate does not lawfulness make or secular authority trump.
> 
> Two guards walk in on a cleric of a god of thieves, catching him in the act of theft.
> 
> Guards: "What happened here? Did you break into this home and steal those jewels?"
> Cleric: "Yes. I am a priest. I was doing my gods will."
> Guards: "Well, all right then."



well of course, the god in question has to be one that the secular authority agrees is _good_ and _lawful_.

of course they're not going to allow a cleric of the god of murder to kill anyone willy-nilly.

but in my campaigns, they _do_ believe the gods that have paladins have the right to mete out justice.

it's a totally different situation, so your counter-example there just doesn't work.


----------



## argo

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Was the killing necessary? Was there no other option?



Since when is a paladin required to be a pacifist/modern day cop?  Whatever happened to the holy warrior emphasis on warrior?

My point is that there are many different ways to play a paladin.  If there wern't then the class really would be as boring and lifeless as some people accuse it of being.  Playing a paladin as a "modern day cop" who sees that the law is enforced in a noble and goodly manner is fine.  Playing a paladin as a "missionary" who seeks to show evil the folly of its ways and convert it to good is fine.  But there is also plenty of room in the code for playng as a "righteous but-kicker of evil" who defends the weak and lays the wrath of his diety on the heads of the guilty.  Matter of fact there is a good argument that that is the intended sterotype considering the presence of abilities such as smite evil and the combat-oriented bent of DnD.

Of course the DM is always free to intrepret what a paladin is in his game but this *is* FR we are talking about and not a homebrew.  Judging by most of the official literature and game suplements I would have to say that FR is plenty accomidating to the "righteous butt-kicker of evil" paladin.

I mean, there are only two accusations leveled at this paladin anyway.  The first one, that he shouldn't take the law into his own hands, carries some weight.  But the vile nature of the crime and the fact that it was a crime *in progress* serves in my mind to balance that out.  If he does this too often he might have something to worry about but it is way to minor an offense to lose his paladinhood over.  The second, that he behaved dishonorably, is absurd.  What ever happned to those threads about "lawful stupid" paladins and the people pointing out that paladins are supposed to be free to use common sense and good tactics?  The attack was not cowardly it was opportune, he came upon a villan who was too distracted by the commission of his crime to notice the paladin and struck the wretch down where he stood.  Again, even if this is a violation of the code it is way too minor an offense to warent a loss of paladinhood without being part of a pattern of bad acts.  If the paladin code really is supposed to be that strict the only paladins left would be the one dimensional, holier than thou stick up their butt types everybody loathes.

So far the best argument I've heard that the paladin behaved badly was the guy who pointed out that if he took the villan alive he could have questioned him about other crimes.  Fine point that.


----------



## jgbrowning

d4 said:
			
		

> the difference in a D&D world is that here the religious authority can _prove_ via divine magic that they really are working the will of God.
> 
> kill a priest in the "real" world and perhaps you can get away with it. kill a cleric in a D&D world and you'll have a hound archon chasing you down.




That hound archon isn't nearly a full of divine grace as my 15th level elite bodyguard.... 



> by virtue of their magical power, i see religious authority trumping purely secular authority.




But dieties are just powerful beings. There's not a "GOD" you know. Polytheisms are very different in feel of authority than what we're more familiar with in our monotheisms and I think we tend to lose track of that when thinking about secular/religious interactions.

If anything, more religions with actual power gives the secular more opponents to play off each other.

Also, I still don't understand why a noble ruling his land can't claim divine right. Just because he's not given the gifts that others have (all men are given different gifts by the gods) doesn't necessarily mean his gift of rulership is subservient to the gift of magic.

Divine magic doesn't *prove* greater authority. It's just another tool, like arcane magic. Especially condsidering that there are many different sources of divine magic, but only one source of rulership.



> well, in my last D&D campaign, there was only one god who allowed clerics. (and, for what it's worth, he was LN -- so violence was definitely considered a reasonable course of action for dealing with most violators of the law.)




I don't have any issues with a particular group of paladins having the recognized rights similiar to a guardsmen in certain designated locations, but paladins in general seems a bit pushy to me. In your campaign, it sounds like it works, but I don't think you're running a very traditional world.



> of course not! these are all decisions that each GM must make for himself. i was just explaining how i run things. feel free to disagree.




Good. So many people get hot and bothered about paladins. It's surprsing.

joe b.


----------



## Alynnalizza

*Chime*

 This is definitely interesting. Having given some thought to this issue. (And thought about adding a similiar situation in for one of my PC's now). I would have to rule that the Paladin keep his powers.

 The reasoning behind this is that there is no more of an honorable act than a Human Paladin saving a Human Child from pain and torture, regardless of whom is causing the pain. The DM in this instance stated that the evidence was clear of previous misgivings against the child, and the individual stated that he was 'going to teach another lesson'.

 Destroying evil is always number one on any of my list for a paladin to do. 

For the charges of "cowardly, unjust, and unlawul" I'll go one at a time.

Cowardly: That is what the perp was doing, not the Paladin. There is a difference between cowardly and fair. (Sometime minor, but difference there is). This was an unfair fight, but so... A paladin was destroying evil.

Unjust: I can't see this one, really. I would look more kind toward an invading orc ransacking and murdering half the town, then some perp getting his jollys off on the little girl. The Paladins action was very Just.

Unlawful: This is the sticky one. Really depends upon the a: Religion, and b; Town Laws. With out more, can't really make a statement on this.

If punishment must be handed out. Have the Paladin go with out spells for a tenday, if he violated the Religion by his swift death. Possibly include no lay on hands.

If he violated town law, would a god, even for a paladin, worry about this. Let the town punish him.

I personally think he should be left alone, but make sure the girl is WELL taken care of.

Thanks.


----------



## Ogre Mage

Was killing the child molester an "evil" act?  No.  Part of the Paladin's code of conduct is to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Was killing the child molester a "chaotic" act?  Probably, assuming there are local laws and a criminal justice system to deal with such individuals.  Even if his "personal" code was somewhat different, the proper "lawful" action would have been to subdue/apprehend the molester and turn him in to the authorities.  Now, if the town was corrupt (Skullport) or the action took place out in the wilds, the paladin could get away with administering immediate justice.  In the absence of that the PC is veering dangerously close to Wolverine or Robin Hood style vigilantism -- still good, but not the "Captain America" ideal the Paladin strives to attain.

Since this was not an evil act, I would not strip the paladin of his powers.  But the DM should take note that this was a "chaotic" act.  Repeated behavior of this sort would eventually push the paladin to CG, thus losing his paladin status.  You might want to check out the Holy Liberator PrC in DoF and CD, it's a perfect fit for ex-paladins who couldn't deal with the "lawful" part of their code.


----------



## Sejs

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> But dieties are just powerful beings. There's not a "GOD" you know.




Well, this is Forgotten Realms after all, so actually there is.  His name is Ao  and he doesn't care one single bit about anything we, or anyone else, does.

^_^


----------



## d4

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> But dieties are just powerful beings. There's not a "GOD" you know. Polytheisms are very different in feel of authority than what we're more familiar with in our monotheisms and I think we tend to lose track of that when thinking about secular/religious interactions.



would it help if i explained that my last D&D campaign _was_ monotheistic; with a Lawful Neutral god and a religion patterned on medieval Islam? (and yes, i still had paladins. i think they fit right in with a Muslim religious mindset.)



> Also, I still don't understand why a noble ruling his land can't claim divine right. Just because he's not given the gifts that others have (all men are given different gifts by the gods) doesn't necessarily mean his gift of rulership is subservient to the gift of magic.



well, i looked at it this way: a noble has a right to rule because he inherited the title from his father. a paladin or cleric has divine power because a god _personally_ granted it to him. it's that personal interaction that makes it seem more powerful to me.

(though i see that i'm using a rather modernistic view of secular authority, and that's contrasted with the more medieval view i have of religious authority.)



> Divine magic doesn't *prove* greater authority. It's just another tool, like arcane magic.



i don't agree. arcane magic is indeed just a tool -- it can be learned by anyone who studies the rules (i.e., the wizard class). but divine magic doesn't work that way. in order to wield divine power, a god must grant it to you. it's that personal aspect that makes it not just another tool.

if you do something against your god's wishes, you lose your powers. thus, if you _have_ divine power, it must mean you are acting in accordance with your god's wishes. the same can't be said for other things like arcane magic or rulership.



> I don't have any issues with a particular group of paladins having the recognized rights similiar to a guardsmen in certain designated locations, but paladins in general seems a bit pushy to me. In your campaign, it sounds like it works, but I don't think you're running a very traditional world.



you're right -- i wouldn't call my take on paladins and lawful clerics as arbiters of the law as traditional. but it worked for the culture i wanted to create.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

I was gonna go quote grab from an earlier one, but this one lets me say my point better.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that we're not talking about the paladin's abilities.... we're talking about his *judgement*. His judgement is no more divine than anyone's. His discernment of what is just isn't better than anyone else's. At least according to game rules.




I'd argue his judgement is better for two reasons. The paladin is Lawful. The paladin is Good. That is tied to him being a paladin. Since that perspective is a part and parcel of the character class, I'd expect his judgements to reflect that. It's not like he's a rogue who might be good, but could also be evil.



> You're assuming that he's got a direct line to his god when it comes to his making decisions. What's really going on is he has a direct line to his god because of the decisions he's already made, not the one's he's going to make.




The way it's run in my game is that I assume they got their paladinhood because of their previous decisions, but also the mind and spirit that lead to those decisions. Given typical circumstances, those who showed good judgement in the past will continue to show good judgement in the future. And if he didn't show good judgement in the past, he wouldn't be picked. Hence, while not infallible, they will have better judgement overall.



> For if paladin's were truly given divine grace in judgement to be "judge, jury, and executioner" there wouldn't be Blackguards. If divine grace can fail, it's not really divine grace.




Well, given my above assumptions, when there's a change in the mind or spirit of the person, the arrow that flew straight my fly straight no longer. When the paladin isn't a paladin anymore, he isn't a paladin. If that makes any sense. Again, I think paladinhood is within, not without.



> It's your campaign so it's your call. What do you do when two paladin's argue about what one of them did, or are all LG gods monolitically in agreement concerning the amount of violence appropriate in every situation?




I'd say let them disagree. Not only is it more fun to see in game, they're both right. Besides, it can lead to some interesting situations.

Thanks for letting me quote you completely out of context!


----------



## jgbrowning

argo said:
			
		

> Since when is a paladin required to be a pacifist/modern day cop?  Whatever happened to the holy warrior emphasis on warrior?




Firstly I never implied that the paladin had to act like a pacifist/modern day cop. I merely said he is responsible to behave according to the laws in his area, as long as those laws are also good, as well as lawful.

It is generally not OK to kill someone when there is the option of not killing someone. This is a truism of almost all societies everywhere. It's better to not kill when given the choice between kill and not.

This is usually only under debate when there's the change that the failure to use immediate lethal force could lead to greater danger than what currently exists. The immedieate need simply isn't there.



> My point is that there are many different ways to play a paladin.  If there wern't then the class really would be as boring and lifeless as some people accuse it of being.  Playing a paladin as a "modern day cop" who sees that the law is enforced in a noble and goodly manner is fine.  Playing a paladin as a "missionary" who seeks to show evil the folly of its ways and convert it to good is fine.  But there is also plenty of room in the code for playng as a "righteous but-kicker of evil" who defends the weak and lays the wrath of his diety on the heads of the guilty.  Matter of fact there is a good argument that that is the intended sterotype considering the presence of abilities such as smite evil and the combat-oriented bent of DnD.




Yep. But being a righteous butt-kicker of evil doen't abrogate the paladin from his responsibilities to his society. He is supposed to uphold the law as long as that law is just.

Beyond that, there were many other things the paladin could have done that would have be "more" Paladinesque than what he did do. The situation wasn't so dire that he had to act or someone was going to immediately die. He had pleanty of time to command the villian down under penalty of bodily harm, or to do several other variations on that theme, but he chose instead to immediately kill. From behind without warning. When he absolutely wasn't forced to in order to protect the innocent.

As discribed, the scene is one of vengence, not justice. Anger, not temperance. Baseness, not quality.

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

Lethal force from behind is still not honorable. Both the PHB and BOED say that LG characters are HONORABLE and compassionate. By the way of thinking I am seeing exhibited here any paladin that walks into a town with detect evil up SHOULD kill everything that glows with no thought of redeeming anyone. That same paladin should probably also kill anything that isn't evil so it doesn't have the chance to become so.


----------



## jgbrowning

Sejs said:
			
		

> Well, this is Forgotten Realms after all, so actually there is.  His name is Ao  and he doesn't care one single bit about anything we, or anyone else, does.
> 
> ^_^







joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning

d4 said:
			
		

> would it help if i explained that my last D&D campaign _was_ monotheistic; with a Lawful Neutral god and a religion patterned on medieval Islam? (and yes, i still had paladins. i think they fit right in with a Muslim religious mindset.)




Yes. Muchly. With this take in mind, I agree with everything you've said about your paladins.




> you're right -- i wouldn't call my take on paladins and lawful clerics as arbiters of the law as traditional. but it worked for the culture i wanted to create.




Indeed!

joe b.


----------



## Khaalis

*Late Addition...*

Where in the Realms are you?  Knowing this would help to understand the culture and local law. 

I think the DM was wrong for even warning you. You DON’T know that the man is nothing more than a commoner, nor does that fact even matter. To the Paladin, the criminal is a vile, evil creature. Anyone who would rape and torture a child is the embodiment of what the Paladin stands against.  Just because he is LG doesn’t mean he is a pansy nor does he allow evil to run rampant due to legal loopholes and propriety. There is more at stake then killing one man.  I also believe the Dm was wrong to strip the Paladin of his powers. If every Paladin was stripped of his powers for doing their duty – their wouldn’t be any Paladins left.

Why do I feel this way?

From the SRD:


> *Ex-Paladins:* A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who *willfully commits an evil act*, or who *grossly violates the code of conduct* loses all paladin spells and abilities.
> 
> *Code of Conduct:* A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




Thus the questions are:
1)	Did the Paladin willfully commit an Evil Act?
2)	Did the Paladin *“Grossly”* Violate the Code of Conduct?


* Did the Paladin willfully commit an Evil Act?


> *GOOD VS. EVIL*
> Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
> “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.




Lets look at these step by step.

Is what the Paladin did Evil?  In my opinion – Not in the least! 

*1st & Foremost: “Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.”*
Unless the 10 year old child was a demon in disguise, there isn’t much more innocent than a child. The Paladin acted to protect the innocent, who at the time was in imminent danger. That is a good act.

*“Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.”*
1) The man was not an innocent, by any stretch of the imagination.
2) The Paladin did this act to protect the innocent, not for profit or pleasure. More so, by killing the man the Paladin not only protected the innocent at hand, but also protected all the potential future innocent victims the man would have molested.

*“Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.”*

Altruism – the unselfish concern for the welfare of others.  The Paladin had only one thought going through his mind – saving the child and eradicating a source of evil from the world without concern for the cost to himself.  Sometimes a Paladin has to get dirty and soil themselves, making a personal sacrifice of the MUCH touted Paladin “Honor” to do what is right instead.  What is Honorable, and what is Right are not always the same thing – and a True Paladin knows when to sacrifice personal honor in order to do what is necessary and right.

*“Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.”*

Did the Paladin kill someone? Yes.  Is this act in and of itself evil? No or there would be no such thing as Good Heroes. The difference between killing for good and killing for evil, is that the Paladin killed an evil man caught “in the act”, to prevent that man from further atrocities.  The Paladin did not kill for pleasure, profit, or sport – and thus it was not an evil act.

So… did the Paladin commit an Evil act?  *NO*


* Did the Paladin *“Grossly”* Violate the Code of Conduct?

From the SRD:


> *Code of Conduct:* A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




So to answer if the Paladin Grossly violated the code we have to ask:
1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
2) Did he act with honor?
3) Did he NOT help those in need?
4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?




> *LAW VS. CHAOS*
> Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
> “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
> 
> *Lawful Good, “Crusader”*
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
> Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.




Now to the question…

1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
I am not sure as we do not know WHERE this occurred. However, in most places in the Realms this offense is a death penalty offense.  Depending on where this occurred, it may even be that the Paladin knew that any other course would allow the criminal a chance to escape punishment, legal systems being as they are, and it is within the Paladin’s nature to _” hates to see the guilty go unpunished”_.  The Paladin caught the man in the act. That does NOT mean that a magistrate (court, etc.) is A) Going to believe the Paladin, nor does it B) Prove that the court will find the criminal guilty.  The Paladin acted within the boundaries of what was GOOD and RIGHT.  He may have avoided the legal system, but we also do not know what acts the Paladin followed up this event with. At the very worst, the Paladin acted as Judge and Jury. 

Does this grossly violate the code? No.  It may not have followed the local law to the letter but it falls within the LG alignment and within the Paladin code, assuming that the Paladin had ANY reason to be doubtful of the local authority. Remember the Paladin is only required to “Respect” *LEGITAMATE* authority. At the absolute worst, the Paladin bent this aspect of the Code as a personal sacrifice to do what was the Good and Right thing.  Again, as with the Good Vs. Evil argument – doing what is right is sometimes more important than doing what is “Lawful”.

(Example: Just because Slavery is legal somewhere, doesn’t mean a Paladin is going to suffer slavery as a Non-Evil act. To the Paladin, what is right – acting against slavery – is more important than respecting the law.)


2) Did he act with dishonor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
In my opinion... No. 
There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly.  It is not a cowardly act to act immediately.  If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child.  Acting immediately was the best action. 

From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.


3) Did he NOT help those in need?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.


4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.


So overall, the Paladin MIGHT have bent One aspect of the Paladin code by doing the GOOD act rather than the LAWFUL act.  I think the DM is wrong to strip the Paladin of his powers. The Paladin acted fully with the purview of what it is to be a Paladin.  The DM “COULD” make the Law an issue depending on where they are.  Somewhere like Waterdeep, the Paladin at worst would get a slap on the wrist and might have to pay a small fine for technically being a vigilante, however at best he would be commended for his act to protect the citizens and to stop a crime in the act.

The Paladin should NOT be stripped of his powers.


----------



## Agemegos

Sejs said:
			
		

> Not at all; there _was_ a trial, you see.  It was a very, very brief one in which the child rapist confessed to his misdeeds when he advanced on the notedly sexually violated, restrained girl, pants open and said "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  Open and shut case.  Didn't even have to pay the stenographer.




I am sorry, I evidently didn't express myself well. I did not mean to claim that there was any possibility that a fair trial would acquit the guy. I only meant to claim that there was a chance that a trial _in camera_ would raise anger and fears of persecution on the part of the perpetrator's friends and relatives and suspicions in the general community that the vigilante paladin might be pursuing a private vendetta or killing witnesses to conceal malfeasance. Those are, after all, the suspicions that arise when the police shoot someone dead.

Retribution alone rises rise to feuds. It takes a due process to pacify a lawless land.

If a paladin's role is to bring law to lawless lands he or she has to establish due process, not simply deliver a bit of summary justice. One might say that the Lawful position is "Punish a malefactor and you make a community just for a day. Establish a court and you make it just for a lifetime."



> What would his possible defense be?  He had a text book printed on his wang and was just trying to teach her how to read?




If he has no possible defence, then it behooves his prosecutor to demonstrate in public that this is the case. That way the law is served, and everybody is reassured that the authorities (such as paladins) are pursuing justice and not just their own interests.

It is the role of the executioner alone to punish the guilty. If a paladin is also to by judge and jury he or she has to fulfil their roles too: to make sure that all the evidence is presented in a public and conspicuously impartial process, and to hear and impartially weigh anything that the accused has to say in his defence.

"Judge, jury, and executioner" > "executioner".


----------



## jgbrowning

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> I'd argue his judgement is better for two reasons. The paladin is Lawful. The paladin is Good. That is tied to him being a paladin. Since that perspective is a part and parcel of the character class, I'd expect his judgements to reflect that. It's not like he's a rogue who might be good, but could also be evil.




But a rogue that's Lawful Good? I the paladin's jugement better than his?



> The way it's run in my game is that I assume they got their paladinhood because of their previous decisions, but also the mind and spirit that lead to those decisions. Given typical circumstances, those who showed good judgement in the past will continue to show good judgement in the future. And if he didn't show good judgement in the past, he wouldn't be picked. Hence, while not infallible, they will have better judgement overall.




A person who's alignment is Lawful Good as just as good judgement concerning what is lawful and what is good as does a paladin. 



> Well, given my above assumptions, when there's a change in the mind or spirit of the person, the arrow that flew straight my fly straight no longer. When the paladin isn't a paladin anymore, he isn't a paladin. If that makes any sense. Again, I think paladinhood is within, not without.




And its for this reason that I argue that a Paladin's jugement on what is lawful and what is good is no better than anyone else's judgement (as long as they're lawful good as well) because the Paladin is just a capable of being "wrong" as anyone else.

IMHO, the Paladin's judgement isn't special. His abilities that come from his judgement are.



> Thanks for letting me quote you completely out of context!




I do it all the time to myself as well... 

joe b.


----------



## Creamsteak

Zimri said:
			
		

> My goodness, we can *honorably* sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?
> 
> pray tell HOW is that honorable ?



Well, this is entirely unrelated and quite circumstantial, but it is honorable in certain contexts. I think it's honorable so-long as both men are armed and their weapons are unsheathed, whether they are aware or not.

I really don't know much about this, but as I understand it, the Samurai code of honor (which I think is just as valid as the knightly) worked like this:

If your carrying a "weapon" and by that I mean a katana or spear or other weapon that is intended for battle, and it is sheathed, I can announce a challenge. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, I must accept the consequences for the challenge and you should try to defend yourself because you were walking around with a weapon.

If your weapon is drawn, I don't need to say a word. You are armed. I can attack you outright.

If you have no weapon, I can challenge you (and face the consequences), but I can't attack you unless you draw up a weapon.


----------



## Khaalis

Zimri said:
			
		

> Lethal force from behind is still not honorable. Both the PHB and BOED say that LG characters are HONORABLE and compassionate. By the way of thinking I am seeing exhibited here any paladin that walks into a town with detect evil up SHOULD kill everything that glows with no thought of redeeming anyone. That same paladin should probably also kill anything that isn't evil so it doesn't have the chance to become so.




There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly. It is not a cowardly act to act immediately to protect the innocent. If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he likely would have attacked and killed the Child. Acting immediately was the best action. 

From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself, in an "honerable" duel, would have done nothing but soil the Paladin. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, and make the man attempt to fight a battle that the Paladin knew full well he had no chance of winning - would qualify as “playing with the victim” and THAT would have been an evil act.


----------



## Zimri

Khaalis said:
			
		

> 2) Did he act with honor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
> In my opinion... No.
> There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly.  It is not a cowardly act to act immediately.  If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child.  Acting immediately was the best action.
> 
> From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.




But thats the rub it was in no way honorable to kill him from behind after spying on him. Forcibly turning him around to face you and justice would negate his attacking and killing the girl, as would tossing him out the door he just walked through, or punching him with a heavy steel covered hand.

Giving him a chance to surrender to authorities or face the justice of your blade is not "playing with the victim". It offers him the choice of repenting being punished and then redeeming himself, or an oppurtunity to make peace with himself and his own code of conduct before he dies.


----------



## Zimri

Creamsteak said:
			
		

> Well, this is entirely unrelated and quite circumstantial, but it is honorable in certain contexts. I think it's honorable so-long as both men are armed and their weapons are unsheathed, whether they are aware or not.
> 
> I really don't know much about this, but as I understand it, the Samurai code of honor (which I think is just as valid as the knightly) worked like this:
> 
> If your carrying a "weapon" and by that I mean a katana or spear or other weapon that is intended for battle, and it is sheathed, I can announce a challenge. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant, I must accept the consequences for the challenge and you should try to defend yourself because you were walking around with a weapon.
> 
> If your weapon is drawn, I don't need to say a word. You are armed. I can attack you outright.
> 
> If you have no weapon, I can challenge you (and face the consequences), but I can't attack you unless you draw up a weapon.




Right but the only "weapon" the perp was holding in this particular case was his "magic wand of child defilement" He was unarmed, and no challenge was announced. The child had already been sullied so it wasn't like he was currently "taking" her maidenhood, besides I am fairly certain that when caught in the act he would fail his "use magic device" roll for the aforementioned wand.


----------



## Agemegos

Sejs said:
			
		

> Heh, fair point.  Though if there were some form of trial, basing your defense on that sort of grounds without anything else to back it up would be about on the same level as saying "an older boy did it and then ran away."




Very true. But since the suspect has been killed out of hand we'll never know whether he would have been able to back up his defence. This being the case, a lot of people are now feeling more ambivalent about paladins than they would have been if the suspect had been allowed his day in court.

Really, what would have been so impossible about arresting or subduing the trouserless one, convening a court, and acting as judge and jury instead of just executioner?


----------



## Khaalis

Zimri said:
			
		

> Right but the only "weapon" the perp was holding in this particular case was his "magic wand of child defilement" He was unarmed, and no challenge was announced. The child had already been sullied so it wasn't like he was currently "taking" her maidenhood, besides I am fairly certain that when caught in the act he would fail his "use magic device" roll for the aforementioned wand.




And what if this man were a monk or sorcerer? What if the man were a rogue with a throwing dagger up his sleave? We have no idea how dangerous the perp really was. We also dont know the law of the land. What part of the Realms was this in?  What if it were somewhere like Oeble where the law is as corrupt as everything else int he city?  Should the Paladin have risked the further safety of the child? Should the Paladin have risked the man's escaping punishment?

And to say the child had already been raped, so anything more done to her doesnt matter - THATS evil!

Even so... Even if killing the man wasnt the most Lawful act, one act done for the greater good is NOT enough to strip a Paladin of his powers. The deity might "warn" the Paladin through visions that it wasnt the best choice - but it is not enough to Violate the Paladin's code.


----------



## jgbrowning

As a counterpoint.....



			
				Khaalis said:
			
		

> * Did the Paladin *“Grossly”* Violate the Code of Conduct?
> 
> From the SRD:
> 
> 
> So to answer if the Paladin Grossly violated the code we have to ask:
> 1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
> 2) Did he act with honor?
> 3) Did he NOT help those in need?
> 4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
> 
> Now to the question…
> 
> 1) Did the Paladin respect the Legitimate Authority?
> I am not sure as we do not know WHERE this occurred. However, in most places in the Realms this offense is a death penalty offense.  Depending on where this occurred, it may even be that the Paladin knew that any other course would allow the criminal a chance to escape punishment, legal systems being as they are, and it is within the Paladin’s nature to _” hates to see the guilty go unpunished”_.  The Paladin caught the man in the act. That does NOT mean that a magistrate (court, etc.) is A) Going to believe the Paladin, nor does it B) Prove that the court will find the criminal guilty.  The Paladin acted within the boundaries of what was GOOD and RIGHT.  He may have avoided the legal system, but we also do not know what acts the Paladin followed up this event with. At the very worst, the Paladin acted as Judge and Jury.
> 
> Does this grossly violate the code? No.  It may not have followed the local law to the letter but it falls within the LG alignment and within the Paladin code, assuming that the Paladin had ANY reason to be doubtful of the local authority. Remember the Paladin is only required to “Respect” *LEGITAMATE* authority. At the absolute worst, the Paladin bent this aspect of the Code as a personal sacrifice to do what was the Good and Right thing.  Again, as with the Good Vs. Evil argument – doing what is right is sometimes more important than doing what is “Lawful”.
> 
> (Example: Just because Slavery is legal somewhere, doesn’t mean a Paladin is going to suffer slavery as a Non-Evil act. To the Paladin, what is right – acting against slavery – is more important than respecting the law.)




I think we all agree that there is a typical manner of dealing with such happenings. Be that calling for the guard or whatever, there was some set of socially determined methods for dealing with this man. What, in detail those are, we don't know as of yet.

The question I'm looking at is this: Why didn't the Paladin use those methods to deal with this issue? Not using that method is not respecting legitimate authority, unless the paladin has already been given that authority by whoever give authority.

It is assumed that the paladin acted against the local authority buy using lethal force when he doesn't have that right because he was concerned with the safty of the child. This isn't true. The man wasn't threatening the life of the girl. As vile as what he was going to do, it isn't the same as if he held her with a knife to her throat. The Paladin had a multitude of non-lethal ways of protecting the innocent, *but he deliberately chose to disrespect the legitimate authority* by using lethal force immediatly. He doesn't have that right. *Even if the man had a knife to the girls throat.*

If there was a knife, the paladin's disrespect of the local authority's power would be quickly understood. Sometimes one must act quickly, without authority, inorder to further the goals of that very authority one acts against.

This is plainly not the case. The Paladin didn't even announce his presence before killing the man. The Paladin did in no form the "good and right" thing.



> 2) Did he act with honor? (ie: Did he act cowardly or unjustly?)
> In my opinion... No.
> There was nothing the Paladin did that was unjust or cowardly.  It is not a cowardly act to act immediately.  If the Paladin had given the cretin a chance, he might have attacked or even killed the Child.  Acting immediately was the best action.
> 
> From another viewpoint, as someone mentioned earlier, having the evil cretin “defend” himself would have done nothing. In fact, the Paladin acted in a MERCIFUL manner, killing the man outright in one swift strike. If the Paladin would have made the man defend himself, and face the fear of retribution and punishment, which would qualify as “playing with the victim” – THAT would have been an evil act.




There was no pressing need to act immediately. The cretin obviously was not intending to kill the child. No matter the vileness of his actions, the man wasn't threatening life and limb. The Paladin acted dishonorably by disregarding the expected annoucnment along the lines of "Stop right there you beast!" and jumped right into sword swinging. Why?

Because he wanted to kill the man and he didn't want to wait for the "law" to do it.



> 3) Did he NOT help those in need?
> I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.




Agree. He helped those in need.




> 4) Did he NOT punish those who harm or threaten innocents?
> I think the answer to this obvious. He acted fully within the code.




As long has he punishes within his given right to punish, yes. I don't think the paladin in this instance has a carte blanc right to kill those who are evil or who have commited evil acts.

To me the Paladin ignored authority, behaved cowardly by not announcing himself in a situation that didn't justify immediate action, and fell pray to the spirit of vengence by not being willing to allow the legal authorities to deal with the matter.

joe b.


----------



## Alynnalizza

Another question, one of the statements was as follows:

<Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.>

 How similar were the issues that have come up. Is there any previous experiences that the paladin acted differently upon?

 If the said paladin has been in a similiar issue, and responded in same tone, without reprucussions. Then I do not see the problem as well.

 If the paladin had never been is a truly similiar circumstance, than my previous info stands.

 Now, If the individual had been warned previously, strip!


----------



## Agemegos

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> However, it's evil acts that screw the paladin over, not chaotic ones.
> 
> As such, I'd let the paladin keep his powers - but also inform the player that his paladin just took a very large step towards "Neutral Good" by not simply knocking the molestor out and bringing him into justice.




Good point. I am forced to agree.

The paladin should not be stripped of his powers immediately, but unless he gets back on the straight and narrow in short order he is in danger of having his alignment changed to Chaotic Good, and as a Chaotic he would not be able to be a paladin.



> … the paladin did the chaotic thing by playing the role of judge, jury and executioner.




Well, I would say that he did the Chaotic thing by not playing the roles of judge and jury, but merely those of executioner. But we end up with the same conclusion.


----------



## jgbrowning

Khaalis said:
			
		

> And what if this man were a monk or sorcerer? What if the man were a rogue with a throwing dagger up his sleave? We have no idea how dangerous the perp really was. We also dont know the law of the land. What part of the Realms was this in?  What if it were somewhere like Oeble where the law is as corrupt as everything else int he city?  Should the Paladin have risked the further safety of the child? Should the Paladin have risked the man's escaping punishment?




Part of being a paladin is accepting that, to behave honorably, you may just once in a while have to realize that you could have been more effective by not doing so.

So yes, what if the guy was a monk? Who cares? That's irrelavent to the paladins behavior, because the paladin must not only have ends that are good and lawful, he must also use means that are good and lawful to get there.

By you logic, paladin's should *NEVER* announce themselves, for it could make the situation worse.



> And to say the child had already been raped, so anything more done to her doesnt matter - THATS evil!
> 
> Even so... Even if killing the man wasnt the most Lawful act, one act done for the greater good




An act done for the greater good must also be done in a good manner. This the the difficulty of being a paladin.



> is NOT enough to strip a Paladin of his powers. The deity might "warn" the Paladin through visions that it wasnt the best choice - but it is not enough to Violate the Paladin's code.




I don't think he should be completely stipped of his powers, but he should lose some and have to atone. He simply didn't behave as a paladin should. He behaved as *any other LG character should*.

This is why I don't like paladins.

joe b.


----------



## Toras

Another thing to point out.  Many of the medieval societies, and perhaps the realms as well have a concept of "High Justice" which only those of nobility gain this rights you are assigning to everyone.  In a case such as this,
1) Any noble of even minor rank could have slane him without a thought
2) Medieval Courts are hardly even the most fallible of todays courts.  Many were barely more than accusasion, and a vouching, followed by an execution.
As for the punishment it would have either been far too small (fine or a 10 day in the stocks) or Death in a way more horrible than you could imagine. (Beheadings were for royality), Commoners were Cruxified, Hung, or Something truly horrible (Drawing and Quartering, Being Staked out over an Ant hill, Stoned to death, burned at the stake, in Realms, magical deaths both ironic and imaginative, such as being sodomized to Death by Orges enchanted for the Job)

Much what I have seen so far in terms on "Honor" are either references to Samurai Code that don't take into account that this man was not samurai at all, and that those self same warriors could have executed a peasant they found guilt of this without so much as a second thought.  or References to a modernized system of laws that don't exist for commoners till the 1800's.  

I consider the Paladin in the right, and honestly if he didn't serve Tyr or some deep LG diety, you should congradulate him.   

-Lastly, Reforming prisoners is not something any legal system prior 1900's gave a damn about.  You punished Criminals with hard labor, or horrific prision conditions.  At least those who were not noble or extremely well connected, that is how things happened before Legal System we all know and deal with.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Hmmm, caught somebody _in the middle of raping a child_. Yes, he should act immediately, and with finality.

_However_, I might well have the paladin arrested and tried for murder.

Was the child rape legal in the area it happened in? (There are places even in our world where it might be.) If so the rapist was commiting no crime, while at the same time was commiting an evil act. And the result of the trial no forgone conclusion.

Did the deviant bastiche have friends in the judiciary that could help make sure the paladin nuisance was dealt with... permanently?

Even if we take a look at the inspiration for the paladin we find that Arthur's knights and Charlmagne's paladins were not above such abrupt dispensing of justice.

The Auld Grump


----------



## ThoughtBubble

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> But a rogue that's Lawful Good? I the paladin's jugement better than his?




Probablly, but not necessarrally. How definitively LG is the rogue? How tied up in his LGness is he?



> A person who's alignment is Lawful Good as just as good judgement concerning what is lawful and what is good as does a paladin.




I don't agree with this position for the simple fact that the paladin has more tied to being LG, thus I assume there's more import on that aspect. Here's a bad attempt at explaining it via using something else completely. People who run are in shape. But people who run marathons are probablly, as a whole, in better shape than what you'll see from people who run. 



> And its for this reason that I argue that a Paladin's jugement on what is lawful and what is good is no better than anyone else's judgement (as long as they're lawful good as well) because the Paladin is just a capable of being "wrong" as anyone else.




See above as to why I think a paladin's judgement is better. And, to go back to the runner version of things, a marathon runner can stop running, and then he won't be in shape anymore, but he won't be a marathon runner either.



> IMHO, the Paladin's judgement isn't special. His abilities that come from his judgement are.




Your arguements and reasoning are sound, but I think a paladin's judgement is special. I havn't seen many LG characters or NPC's around. Anyone who's LG is special. Anyone who has committed to being LG (as a paladin has) is even more special. Anyone who gets abilities for their judgement is definately more special simply because it's tangible now. The fact that paladins are a character strongly devoted to an archetype and type of behavior is insanely cool and offers so much potential for gameplay it hurts me to see things where all people can think of is to take powers away. If a player is playing a paladin to the point where taking powers away becomes an issue (rather than simply an annoying chore) then there's bound to be more interesting, interactive ways to handle it.


----------



## argo

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Beyond that, there were many other things the paladin could have done that would have be "more" Paladinesque than what he did do.




Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe it was a base act of vengance and anger and maybe it was an act of rightetous holy justice.  I obviously think that there is some room to manouver here.  However lets say that there were better, more paladinesque choices.  Should a paladin really loose his paladinhood just because he didn't make the *best* decision for a given situation?  Or only if his actions are _un_paladinesque?  I really do not see how you can argue that a paladin who finds a man in the act of raping a 10 year old girl and strikes him down on the spot and without hesitation is behaving in a truly unpaladinesque manner.  At worst this should be a checkmark in his cosmic tally sheet under "right motives, wrong methods".  If he continues with a pattern of vigilanteism and poor choices then he might start to get warnings from his diety followed by temporary loss of powers and finally a loss of paladinhood.  But it would just be folish for his god to hand a valued employee his pink slip on the spot for such a minor offense and espically when his heart was in the right place.  If you are going to argue that the road to hell is paved with good intentions then I am going to counter that it is still a road that must be walked and not a binary choice.


The real rat bastard thing for the DM to do would not be to strip the paladin of his paladinhood but to have the villian's Lawfull Neutral and politically well-conected older brother show up and absouetly refuse to believe that his beloved sibbling could be guilty of such a thing and then procede to make the PC's life miserable in perfectly lawful and morally acceptable ways.  Then remind the player that if there had been a public trial this never would have happened.  Now that would be mean.


----------



## Zimri

Khaalis said:
			
		

> And what if this man were a monk or sorcerer? What if the man were a rogue with a throwing dagger up his sleave? We have no idea how dangerous the perp really was. We also dont know the law of the land. What part of the Realms was this in?  What if it were somewhere like Oeble where the law is as corrupt as everything else int he city?  Should the Paladin have risked the further safety of the child? Should the Paladin have risked the man's escaping punishment?
> 
> And to say the child had already been raped, so anything more done to her doesnt matter - THATS evil!
> 
> Even so... Even if killing the man wasnt the most Lawful act, one act done for the greater good is NOT enough to strip a Paladin of his powers. The deity might "warn" the Paladin through visions that it wasnt the best choice - but it is not enough to Violate the Paladin's code.




Did you miss this paragraph 



			
				Zimri said:
			
		

> But thats the rub it was in no way honorable to kill him from behind after spying on him. Forcibly turning him around to face you and justice would negate his attacking and killing the girl, as would tossing him out the door he just walked through, or punching him with a heavy steel covered hand




I didn't say it didn't matter. Her being further traumatized by seeing it again is less offensive than if he were stealing her maidenhood.

I also never said you must turn him over to the authorities espescially ones you know to be corrupt (in which case the paladin is in for a world of hurt regardless and it would be better to face that with your abilities intact)

Other options the given scenario had
1) Knock him out with the hilt of your sword
2) Toss him out of the room
3) Spin him around in place
4) Warn him of his impending doom from behind while holding your action in case he makes a lunge for the girl
5) Unarmed strike to the groin.

any of those are better than sneaking up behind a person and killing them. Heck for all we know he had every "legal" right to be doing what he was doing. She could have been a slave, or chattel, perhaps they were having an ongoing consentual tryst and they both liked playing "master and servant". None of that can be known for sure so err on the side that keeps you noble, honorable, and valorous.

Being a hero isn't easy if it were everyone would do it.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> According to the paladin's Code of Conduct, a paladin must "punish those who threaten or harm innocents."
> 
> I'd say that your paladin deserves to keep his powers.



Absolutely.  The only part of the PH that actually discusses a paladin's code says that they respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those who need help, and punish those who harm/threaten innocents.

Here's a definitively, obviously evil guy _caught in the act_ of harming an innocent child; the paladin's under no obligation to bring the guy back alive or give him a "fair fight" or tell him "hey, please stop" or anything like that, barring vagaries in local law enforcement.  It's a clear-cut decision:  you are the paladin, you are confronted with a man who is about to perform an utterly vile crime, _you stop him._  Not "you stop him in the nicest way possible," or "you stop him as long as he's looking in your direction," or "you ask him nicely to stop and please repent his evil ways," or even "you stop him with minimal force."

Taking off his head in one stroke is actually kind of merciful for a habitual child rapist; I'd imagine many communities even today would have cried out for a longer, more painful end for the criminal.  Unless this particular kingdom has a bizarre criminal justice system where rape isn't considered to be all that bad (like you're playing F.A.T.A.L. or something), I don't even see how what the paladin did conflicts with "respecting legitimate authority," which is about the only part of the code as written that is even called into question by this act, and that's only if he doesn't free the girl and report the whole thing to the local authorities, up to and especially the bit where he chopped the rapist's head off.  The paladin helped an innocent in need, punished the person harming that innocent, and if anything, cutting that guy's head off just enhances the honor of the paladin; all he needs to do now is take responsibility for his actions and explain to the local magistrates what he did and why.

Whereupon they'll probably give him a reward for doing the right thing.

Being good, especially paladin-style holy-warrior Lawful Good, doesn't mean pacifism or embracing modern concepts of civil and criminal rights.  Most fantasy settings are very rough places, with small communities fortifying themselves against bandit armies and monsters and the like.  Evil is a real, palpable presence in most of those settings, and it needs to be fought.  Sure, that kind of high-handed I-am-the-executioner vigilante schtick won't fly in the real world, but in a setting where demons are real and gods exist and actually interact with their worshippers, I suspect that paladins should be more than capable of administering some instant justice to the vilest scum they encounter without _their own god_ pitching a fit about it.  Local authorities will have a few things to say about it, I'm sure.  But if you're trying to tell me that a good god who ordains paladins to go out and slay evil in his/her name would say "Whoops, sorry pally, killing a _guy who is raping a little girl_ is way over the line, no more special powers for YOU," I think you may need to rethink just what kind of gods your campaign world has in it. 

--
honestly, it sounds like your gm is just looking for an excuse to play kick-the-paladin
ryan


----------



## Plane Sailing

d4 said:
			
		

> i
> in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) _are_ considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself _is_ a legitimate authority.
> 
> so, if this paladin were playing in my campaign, not only would he not lose his paladinhood, he'd get a hearty "Well done!" from me, both as GM and through the NPC leadership of the town.




This is exactly my view too. No doubt about it in my mind.


----------



## jgbrowning

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Probablly, but not necessarrally. How definitively LG is the rogue? How tied up in his LGness is he?




How tied up in the Paladin in his LGness? Is he just hanging on after atoning?



> I don't agree with this position for the simple fact that the paladin has more tied to being LG, thus I assume there's more import on that aspect. Here's a bad attempt at explaining it via using something else completely. People who run are in shape. But people who run marathons are probablly, as a whole, in better shape than what you'll see from people who run.




Naw, that's a good analogy. But not all marathon runners are paladins and not all paladins are marathon runners. Some of them are still barely running.



> Your arguements and reasoning are sound, but I think a paladin's judgement is special. I havn't seen many LG characters or NPC's around. Anyone who's LG is special. Anyone who has committed to being LG (as a paladin has) is even more special. Anyone who gets abilities for their judgement is definately more special simply because it's tangible now.
> 
> The fact that paladins are a character strongly devoted to an archetype and type of behavior is insanely cool and offers so much potential for gameplay it hurts me to see things where all people can think of is to take powers away. If a player is playing a paladin to the point where taking powers away becomes an issue (rather than simply an annoying chore) then there's bound to be more interesting, interactive ways to handle it.




My problem here is that the paladin would fit better as a template, than a PC class. Anyone can be devout LG seekers of justice. I find it odd that people seem to think that those who do so in heavy armor with swords are somehow more "LG" than those who don't simply because the source of the classes power depends upon maintaining LGness. Not maintaining the "best" LGness, just LGness.

joe b.


----------



## Li Shenron

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."




Since your DM is playing the role of your patron deity in the campaign, I think he has the complete right of doing as he wishes. While another LG deity might have wanted his Paladin to do as you did, eventually this was not the case for your deity.

At best, you could argue with your DM that you were not informed enough about the deities available in the campaign when you chose to be a Paladin of this one. You can tell him that this is not the kind of Paladin you wanted to play, and maybe he'll make another god which suits your character better, of he'll let you switch to a different existing patron.

If you want to settle down a moral debate about Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos, you are going to have a hard time. For someone, eliminating evil is a good act, while for someone else killing someone when there are other ways to deal with him is always evil; killing a man in that situation is still a crime in most of the real world's countries (and thus a not very lawful act), but on the other side it would probably be percieved my most of the people in the same world as a just punishment for the torturer (and thus a lawful act on a level higher than mortal laws)*. The whole discussion also involves the hazardous topic of motivations vs means.

*just to say that if in your opinion yours was a LG act, for someone else it could be a CE act

As I suggested earlier, you and your DM have to find a way to keep the discussion inside the fantasy world and therefore in-character, because if each of you cling to his own opinion in the real life, and pretend that the whole fantasy setting adheres to his personal morals and ethics, you are going to risk spoiling the game for someone (as it just happened to you in this case) or at worst it can even bring hostility between people involved.


----------



## jgbrowning

argo said:
			
		

> Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe it was a base act of vengance and anger and maybe it was an act of rightetous holy justice.




I've always thought that part of justice was the criminal knowing that punishment is coming and for what reason it's coming.



> I obviously think that there is some room to manouver here.  However lets say that there were better, more paladinesque choices.  Should a paladin really loose his paladinhood just because he didn't make the *best* decision for a given situation?  Or only if his actions are _un_paladinesque?




I don't think he should lose his paladinhood, just some of his powers until he atones and realizes that, unless he absolutely has to, killing someone from behind without warning isn't tolerated. And even then, there'll still be a price to pay.

joe b.


----------



## Hemlock Stones

*Damned Alignments!*

GREETINGS!

I am shocked that a paladin would behave in such a manner.   Don't you just hate it when you have those darned characters all high and mighty knocking off those secret significant plot elements?   

All silliness aside, from what you've indicated, this was for the most part your garden variety paladin (5th level). I'll cover the whole issue of alignment in a moment. In many instances there are prestige classes that allow paladins to go willy nilly smiting the slightest hint of evil without complications. Paladins often wind up in situations that hamstring the rest of the adventuring party if the paladin does not act appropriately. Roleplaying a paladin is one of the easiest yet most complicated characters to do justice. (No direct pun intended.) 

Having stated the obvious, if the perpetrator was doing evil, the paladin must act without hesitation. According to my understanding of a paladin, a great deal of tutelage and training is doted on the paladin by the elders of the diety that they worship. Certain villainy requires to be dealt with harsh and promptly. The paladin has been taught to judge situations when they arise and take action. Stepping away from that for a moment. The conniving DM   placed the paladin in a morality situation that required him to do the "right thing" regardless of the outcome. The complication is that the DM decides whether or not the player's interpretation of what a paladin does in that situation is appropriate. 

The key alignment aspect is Lawful in this issue. Following the guidlines of order. Clearly something lawful was violated. Now here is where the problem lies. Good vs. Neutral vs. Evil. Slaying the evil-doer as it relates to the circumstance is vague. Walking into that situation blindly as the paladin did meant that so much was unclear. Did the paladin detect evil? Did the paladin cast detect alignment? Was an iniative roll used to determine whether or not the paladin could act first? If the paladin caught the peasant flat-footed and had a free action before an actual combat would initiate, it seems the paladin chose the tried-and-true: strike-first-and-ask-questions-later. The player's actions could be related to how the DM has ambushed his players in the past.

Paladins following a code strictly is a bland way to role play a character. How often have you been in a game where the party wastes twenty minutes hemming and hawing over what to do? More often than not all the parties efforts make no difference because no matter what, the DM will have his way win out. Removing that which makes a paladin from the character in this situation seems too harsh. The character's alignment may have been played inappropriately. As a result the DM is within his bounds to say that the paladin's alignment is being played ie. Lawful Neutral opposed to Lawful Good and the player must now adjust the character accordingly. At the same time, the opportunity for the character to atone for this has to be there.

So Sayeth The Bone Daddy!


----------



## jgbrowning

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Here's a definitively, obviously evil guy _caught in the act_ of harming an innocent child; the paladin's under no obligation to bring the guy back alive or give him a "fair fight" or tell him "hey, please stop" or anything like that, barring vagaries in local law enforcement.  It's a clear-cut decision:  you are the paladin, you are confronted with a man who is about to perform an utterly vile crime, _you stop him._  Not "you stop him in the nicest way possible," or "you stop him as long as he's looking in your direction," or "you ask him nicely to stop and please repent his evil ways," or even "you stop him with minimal force."




Is catching someone in an evil act always justification for homicide for a paladin then?

This is why stopping people in the nicest ways, or stopping them when they're looking at you, or asking them to stop and repent *is part of being a Paladin.*

Paladin's don't slay evil unless they have too. If they can slay evil whenever they want to just because it's evil, they can slay probably a good 50% of the population. Some may think this molester is a "has to slay evil" situation, but others don't. Paladins especially shouldn't slay evil when the societies they're supposed to protect and support have decided on other Good means of dealing with evil.

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  The only part of the PH that actually discusses a paladin's code says that they respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those who need help, and punish those who harm/threaten innocents.
> 
> Here's a definitively, obviously evil guy _caught in the act_ of harming an innocent child; the paladin's under no obligation to bring the guy back alive or give him a "fair fight" or tell him "hey, please stop" or anything like that, barring vagaries in local law enforcement.  It's a clear-cut decision:  you are the paladin, you are confronted with a man who is about to perform an utterly vile crime, _you stop him._  Not "you stop him in the nicest way possible," or "you stop him as long as he's looking in your direction," or "you ask him nicely to stop and please repent his evil ways," or even "you stop him with minimal force."
> 
> Taking off his head in one stroke is actually kind of merciful for a habitual child rapist; I'd imagine many communities even today would have cried out for a longer, more painful end for the criminal.  Unless this particular kingdom has a bizarre criminal justice system where rape isn't considered to be all that bad (like you're playing F.A.T.A.L. or something), I don't even see how what the paladin did conflicts with "respecting legitimate authority," which is about the only part of the code as written that is even called into question by this act, and that's only if he doesn't free the girl and report the whole thing to the local authorities, up to and especially the bit where he chopped the rapist's head off.  The paladin helped an innocent in need, punished the person harming that innocent, and if anything, cutting that guy's head off just enhances the honor of the paladin; all he needs to do now is take responsibility for his actions and explain to the local magistrates what he did and why.
> 
> Whereupon they'll probably give him a reward for doing the right thing.
> 
> Being good, especially paladin-style holy-warrior Lawful Good, doesn't mean pacifism or embracing modern concepts of civil and criminal rights.  Most fantasy settings are very rough places, with small communities fortifying themselves against bandit armies and monsters and the like.  Evil is a real, palpable presence in most of those settings, and it needs to be fought.  Sure, that kind of high-handed I-am-the-executioner vigilante schtick won't fly in the real world, but in a setting where demons are real and gods exist and actually interact with their worshippers, I suspect that paladins should be more than capable of administering some instant justice to the vilest scum they encounter without _their own god_ pitching a fit about it.  Local authorities will have a few things to say about it, I'm sure.  But if you're trying to tell me that a good god who ordains paladins to go out and slay evil in his/her name would say "Whoops, sorry pally, killing a _guy who is raping a little girl_ is way over the line, no more special powers for YOU," I think you may need to rethink just what kind of gods your campaign world has in it.
> 
> --
> honestly, it sounds like your gm is just looking for an excuse to play kick-the-paladin
> ryan




Just so we are clear if I as a law-abiding upstanding member of society ever find you ABOUT to commit a crime, with  compelling circumstancial evidence that you have in the past committed a crime I am well within my rights to walk up behind you unsheath my weapon and slice your head off ? Without so much as a warning? And I should get a freaking medal ? I just can't picture you being okay with that.

Paladins are held to a stricter moral code than anyone else. His actions were NOT honorable, his actions did NOT serve the greatest possible good, his actions MAY cause he and others of his religion, and even his GOD to be thought of in a lesser manner. 

It isn't like he is permanently stripped, a small quest (perhaps with the child as his squire or what not , teaching her that losing your temper is not a good thing and that the ends do not justify the means) and an atonement spell and he is all better.


----------



## Al

*Deconstructing the Paladin's Code*

It is largely uncontested that the paladin committed a Good act.  Protecting the innocent from an almost certainly Evil man is Good.

The problem arises when one considers the paladin's code: here I will cite two points of obvious conflict: the "respect" of "legitimate authority" and the fact that a paladin must "act with honour".

*"Respect of Legitimate Authority"* 



> Respect legitimate authority - No contest here. The NPC wasn't an authority, and what he was doing was definately illegal.




This comment in particular, and others, have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what respecting the legitimate authority means.  Respect of legitimate authority does not mean doffing your hat and saying 'Yes, Guv', when Lord Goodheart asks you to fetch him a cup of tea.  Respecting legitimate authority means that one acknowledges that, where the authority is non-evil and preferably non-chaotic, that the established magistracies and prevailing laws takes precedence over the paladin's code.  Where there is a gross violation, then the authority has 'delegitimises' itself.  An authority which ruled that nobles had the right to rape peasants had 'delegitimised' itself, at least with regard to that particular law.  Insofar as the local authority acts in a legitimate fashion, the paladin is bound to acquiesce in spite of his personal predilection.  For example, if the molester was brought to court and the paladin thought him worthy of death but the local jurists sentenced him to twenty years' hard labour, then he must accept their laws.  Laws are derived from society, and the paladin must respect that.



> Paladin: "Yes, I am a paladin.  I was doing God's will"




In the example cited, then we come across the classical notion of conceiving a set of predetermined axioms and drawing conclusions based from them.  The problem is that these axioms are not always valid.  If the city militia respect the paladin's right to dole out punishment, he is not merely respecting legitimate authority- he *is* legitimate authority.  However, the problem arises where this is not the case.  Depending on the local laws, the church to which the paladin is dedicated may or may not represent a valid part of law enforcement.  If local law specifically permits paladins to punish, he is part of legitimate authority; otherwise, he is disrespecting it.

It is thus inconceivable to argue that the paladin is simultaneously outside local authority and for him to respect it- either he is part of it (which was not postulated) or he inherently disrespects it by subjugating it to his personal morality.

*"Act with Honour"* 

This is a more straightforward one.  "Not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc" has a coherent theme.  Now, those who are familiar with my posts may know that I have sometimes advocated the ability of a paladin to use covert methods for the 'greater good'.  However, the argument I have always deployed is that of 'final option'.  Moreover, when a paladin is forced to lie to protect his innocents, he does not break his code but merely exerts a balance between the different sections: "act with honour" as against "protect innocents" (and IMHO the latter ought be the predominant).

In this scenario, no such 'final option' exists.  As has been repeatedly articulated throughout the thread, there were a myriad of non-lethal methods of dealing with the man, from subduing him to arrest.  Attacking an unarmed opponent of grossly inferior combat ability who posed no discernible threat and had his pants down is dishonourable.  It places an already vastly weaker opponent at even more of a disadvantage.  As has already been argued, the paladin could logically reason that the man was no threat.  This is no argument to say 'oh well, may as well attack from behind unseen'.  Honour is not utilitarian.  It is not balancing the odds of the man winning and coming to zero in either scenario.  Honour is the principle of allowing an opponent a reasonable chance to defend himself, particularly if that opponent is already a negligent threat.  Indeed, the man's pathetic nature made honour *more* not less valid- had the paedophile been a 10th level wizard, the paladin could have perhaps eschewed his honour in order to be certain of "help[ing] those in need".  Here, the paladin could and should have done both.

The paladin thus acted dishonourably.

Nevertheless, I would argue that whilst the code was breached, it was not a "gross violation".  Some removal of certain powers might be appropriate- the loss of his Aura of Courage (to represent dishonour) and his Divine Grace (since this is based upon the compact between paladin and god) would probably be the most reasonable outcome.


----------



## epochrpg

Sounds to me like you need to take that "chaotic good paladin" prestige class from Defenders of the Faith.

Think of it this way: Paladin = Superman, Avenger (or whatever it is called) = Batman!

Your character sounds more like batman-- who is willing to get his hands dirty in order to see justice done.  Superman, however, will not break the law, even to see justice done.

If your character were superman, you'd have apprehended the lecher, and brought him to the town marshal.  As a paladin, you would swear an oath indicating what you saw.  The Marshal would also take the girl's testimony to verify what happened.  

There would be a short trial.

Then the townsfolk would put this guy on a stool, kick it, and make him take a short drop with a quick stop, if you know what I mean.

In essence, even if this guy deserved to die for what he did-- it was not for your character to decide.  The law has its own executioners, judges, and juries.  You are not all three roled up into one, but a servant of justice.  You should be helping the system, not overriding it.

DM, if you are listening, I recomend, you DO NOT let this person remain a paladin.  If s/he wanted this person dead, all that was necessary would be to turn them over to the authorities, who would have swiftly executed him anyway.  The paladin's attack was not done in the interest of justice-- it circumvented it.   This attack was done out of anger.

Frankly, this person is lucky that they did not end up being charged with murder (after all, it not legal to kill someone who does not directly threaten you with bodily harm), let alone lose favor with their diety.  

What I would recomend to you, however, is that you allow this person to join a prestige class for "avenger" type, ex paladins.  There is something to this effect in Def. of the Faith.  (I don't remember the class' name right now) It is a class for chaotic good characters, and is similar to paladin (paladin abilities stack with it)

I had a friend that also wrote up their own version of the "avenger" prestige class (his is actually called the avenger) if you are interested.  Drop me an email at epochrpg@yahoo.com and I will send it over to you.


----------



## dvvega

I think many people have taken the "uphold and protect" parts of the code of conduct to mean "kill and maim".

Upholding the law DOES NOT mean killing. Your Paladin could have done subdual damage, knocked him out, saved the little girl, and dragged his arse to the authorities.

Secondly you were in some kind of carousing establishment (I dont' want to know what carousing entails in your gritty games - I just hope it was Paladin-like). Is it possible that this guy was just a "customer" of whomever really held the girl captive. Perhaps selling her off.

All you did was kill a man. Yes he was about to commit a horrendous act, however you DID NOT have to kill him.

The alignment of Lawful Good indicates that you follow the laws for the good of everyone. What are the laws of the land? If they allow you to kill an unarmed civilian then you are perfectly in the clear, however I'm guessing that you're not allowed to do this. 

Secondly, you cannot prove 100% that killing him was good for everyone. Indeed it was good for the girl, however was he the sole-provider for a family he wasn't abusing? Is his family now destined to die of starvation this winter?

Your DM did warn you about the situation. Which IMHO he did not have to do if he had previously defined the laws of the land and the gods. Assuming he didn't do this (it's a tough job to do), he gave you indication of what the law (his law) said about the situation. 

At this point you decided to continue with the kill. You made a conscious choice to murder - you planned to kill him while his back was turned and pants down. Granted it could be opportunistic murder, but murder nonetheless. You helped the girl, but you MURDERED someone. A Paladin's code of conduct doesn't not state "and thou shalt murder the infidels". It says you should punish them. 

Knocking him out and chaining him to the wall would be a decent punishment. If the place is how you describe then sooner or later some other person is going to wander in and abuse the man.


----------



## Zimri

Gee I hope the original poster wasn't looking for a quick easy unanimous thread.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> This is why stopping people in the nicest ways, or stopping them when they're looking at you, or asking them to stop and repent *is part of being a Paladin.*



I think you are--and please don't take this as an insult, because it isn't--instinctively applying modern, real-life standards of criminal justice and morality to a much less ambiguous and much harsher fantasy setting.

It's not an insult, because it's says something nice about you when your gut reaction tells you that people should be innocent until proven guilty, that you must prove that guilt even if you actually witnessed the crime as it happened, that rehabilitation and reform is preferable to punishment, and that mercy should be extended to everyone, even (and perhaps especially) to those who most would say do not deserve it.  I'm a big fan of all of those things.

I just don't assume that a fantasy setting where devils and demons and gods and monsters are all visibly present and active, where people live in pseudo-medieval communities, where dictatorships and monarchies and the like seem to be the rule rather than the exception, and where people can be magically forced to speak the truth _even when they're dead_ is necessarily an appropriate place for those sentiments to be considered normal.  In the 21st century, in this country?  Absolutely they should be normal, and I wouldn't want it any other way.  But in this swords-and-sorcery setting, I'm not going to put any money on most countries (or _any_ of them, for that matter) having such an enlightened, complicated, and comprehensive legal and ethical system in place.

I also make a distinction between the secular authorities, who cannot revoke paladinhood, and the actual god who grants paladinhood in the first place.  And D&D-style gods seem to be an awfully pragmatic (and often dogmatic and intolerant) bunch; obviously, the paladin's god can know the full truth about the situation in an instant and will know that the paladin has, in modern cop parlance, made a righteous bust.  He has caught a child molestor with his pants literally down, and it takes an unreasonable amount of pretzel logic to see that situation any other way.  Now all we need to know is whether this paladin's god is the kind of god who thinks that everyone, even a vile rapist, deserves a second chance, or if it's the kind of god that says that certain crimes are so heinous that they permanently stain the soul of the criminal and that it is the sacred duty of all that is Right and Good to send that besmirched soul off to the Abyss where it can suffer the eternal torments meted out to such creatures.

I tend to think the latter kind of god is more likely to ordain paladins, but without either of us knowing more about this particular setting, we're both just speculating.  If this is a paladin of a god of mercy and redemption, he's totally screwed because you're right, he should have at least made an attempt to do something other than mete out swift, uncompromising justice to the evildoer; but if he's a paladin of a god of righteousness and shielding the innocent, he's just won some serious spirtual brownie points for doing exactly the right thing.

So I'm going to stick to my original diagnosis and say that in this case, the GM is simply playing kick-the-paladin.  He's inventing new, undocumented restrictions, adding them to the paladin's code without mentioning it to the player, and then setting the PC up to fail.  I'm with the player here in crying foul over this.

--
and i'm also firmly in the "good is more important than lawful" paladin camp anyway

Edit to add:


			
				Zimri said:
			
		

> Just so we are clear if I as a law-abiding upstanding member of society ever find you ABOUT to commit a crime, with  compelling circumstancial evidence that you have in the past committed a crime I am well within my rights to walk up behind you unsheath my weapon and slice your head off ?



Well, considering that you're not a paladin, you probably aren't allowed to carry around any weapon (sheathed or not) that could cut my head off, and that I live in a society where the criminal justice system specifically forbids that kind of rogue-vigilante act...wait, do I actually have to make this any more clear, or can I just pretend that you're joking about actually trying to start this argument?

Obviously, we don't live in the setting where this event occurred.  We never will live in that setting.  That setting is under no obligation to mimic our modern-day world in any respect.

In fact, let's all take a moment to remember that in this particular scenario, it was the GM's decision to have the paladin stumble across this rape-in-progress.  This wasn't random, this wasn't real, this was an event specifically selected by the GM and--I'm fairly sure--meant to be a little "test" for the paladin.  The only reason this thread exists is because the GM and the player disagree about whether that test was actually passed or not, and all I'm saying is that the player's case is better supported in most of the settings I've read and/or played in.

I don't see anything here that tells me that the paladin performed an overtly evil act or a gross violation of the standard paladin's code.  If the standard-issue code has been modified in their game to encompass modern philosophies about criminal justice, I kinda think it's the GM's responsibility to make those modifications clear to the player _before_ setting up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation.


----------



## Stereofm

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> As a counterpoint.....
> 
> I think we all agree that there is a typical manner of dealing with such happenings. Be that calling for the guard or whatever, there was some set of socially determined methods for dealing with this man. What, in detail those are, we don't know as of yet.
> 
> 
> To me the Paladin ignored authority, behaved cowardly by not announcing himself in a situation that didn't justify immediate action, and fell pray to the spirit of vengence by not being willing to allow the legal authorities to deal with the matter.
> 
> joe b.



According to you, what kind of authorities existed in medieval times ?
What kind of authorities existed in the wilds of the US at the time of the Western expansion ? Especially towards indian people ?
What kind of authorities exist even now in places like Sudan, Somalia, North Korea ?

Would you necessarily trust that kind of authorities ? Assuming that the law and the authorities have the answer, legitimity and even if they have, the Willingness to stop that kind of perp is VERY optimistic. It's not because modern day, northern countries authorities are MOSTLY just in that respect that the ones in the rest of the world, and even less in a fantasy world are necessarily.

The "Paladin" archetype that creeps up in many human cultures is remarkable because it stands out from the generally low morales of its surrounding. Minstrels and church sang the praise of the paladin/knight in western europe because so few people looked like that ideal, and they wanted to educate people to act differently.

I believe paladins get their powers because they have a "mandate from the heavens" and the mindset to act and face personal sacrifices to stamp out evildoers like the one described. That it could get them into trouble with authorities is irrelevant, said authorities can be a lot worse than even the perp.


----------



## Stereofm

Zimri said:
			
		

> Right but the only "weapon" the perp was holding in this particular case was his "magic wand of child defilement" He was unarmed, and no challenge was announced. The child had already been sullied so it wasn't like he was currently "taking" her maidenhood, besides I am fairly certain that when caught in the act he would fail his "use magic device" roll for the aforementioned wand.




So according to you, if it has been done once, it can be done safely again, and will not cause more suffering ? I do not agree with you at all. I think your posts are becoming more and more shocking and offensive. I hope you do not think what you wrote.


----------



## Zimri

But no matter what attacking an unarmed, unaware, tangled in his own clothing, with his "wand" in one hand, and obviously distracted foe no matter how vile with lethal force is NOT an HONORABLE thing to do.

He brought dishonor to himself, his church, and his deity. He murdered the perpetrator in cold blood from behind when other better options were obviously available. He may have sentenced a family to starving to death, he may have made sure that the real perpetrator ( if the girl was "entertainment" at a common bawdy house) goes unpunished, or the slavers that sold her in the first place. There were better ways to do things that could have brought him and his order more prestige


----------



## jgbrowning

Stereofm said:
			
		

> According to you, what kind of authorities existed in medieval times ?




 [plug] http://www.montecook.com/arch_review25.html [/plug]



> What kind of authorities existed in the wilds of the US at the time of the Western expansion ? Especially towards indian people ?
> What kind of authorities exist even now in places like Sudan, Somalia, North Korea ?




Honestly, I don't care about these places. I do care what kind of authorities exist where the paladin snuck up on a peasant and chopped his head off. Everything else isn't really important for the discussion.



> Would you necessarily trust that kind of authorities ? Assuming that the law and the authorities have the answer, legitimity and even if they have, the Willingness to stop that kind of perp is VERY optimistic. It's not because modern day, northern countries authorities are MOSTLY just in that respect that the ones in the rest of the world, and even less in a fantasy world are necessarily.
> 
> The "Paladin" archetype that creeps up in many human cultures is remarkable because it stands out from the generally low morales of its surrounding. Minstrels and church sang the praise of the paladin/knight in western europe because so few people looked like that ideal, and they wanted to educate people to act differently.




Either we're talking historically or we talking in the game world. Mixing the two isn't going to work because, historically, "Paladins" were some of the most barbarous people in the middle ages. Ala the Crusades.



> I believe paladins get their powers because they have a "mandate from the heavens" and the mindset to act and face personal sacrifices to stamp out evildoers like the one described. That it could get them into trouble with authorities is irrelevant, said authorities can be a lot worse than even the perp.




True, I don't think most governments would be LG, I think most would be LN or LE and wouldn't tolerate paladins interfering with their legal systems. I wouldn't be surprised to see paladins explictly singled out in law providing precedent about how they should be handled when they flip out and claim they were doing their gods work by killing peasants without warning from behind.

But the crux of your arguement seems to be, "The paladin's code isn't valid here because the authority's authority isn't valid." I don't think this is the case because:

1. You're using a modern concept of "good" from the PHB, not the concept of good during a feudal period and then you're comparing the PHB good with the historical reality of rulership.
2. We don't know where in the Forgotten Realms the Paladin is.

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

Stereofm said:
			
		

> So according to you, if it has been done once, it can be done safely again, and will not cause more suffering ? I do not agree with you at all. I think your posts are becoming more and more shocking and offensive. I hope you do not think what you wrote.




Of course I don't believe I should be able to smite you from behind unannounced for finding you just before you commit a crime.

Yes rape is bad and I am not suggesting otherwise. Being raped as your first sexual encounter is even MORE heinous. Being raped subsequent times IS not as shocking or debilitating as the first time. That isn't to say subsequent acts are not shocking or debilitating, just that one learns to detach or put up walls. And I say the previous from experience.

Seeing your perpetrator fall over dead on top of you sans head ( I would assume as I have never had that happen) would also be fairly traumatic.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> To me, a paladin has no authority simply because he's a paladin. Why is he special? Why isn't a LG rogue allowed to do what he wants as well? To me this seems kinda meta-gamy. Paldin's are treated differently because of what they are as opposed to what they do. Why isn't anyone allowed to act like paladins do?



Because that's the paladin's job. In modern day terms, a type of law enforcement officer. That's like complaining because a cop can draw his weapon in public and you can't.

I vote for no loss of paladin powers.

Maybe the problem is that the DM and player had differing viewpoints about what paladins are and aren't allowed to do? If so, in the interest of game harmony and fairness, this might be a good opportunity to discuss what constitutes crossing the line in the DM's world and let the paladin go scot free this time.


----------



## ruemere

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Part of being a paladin is accepting that, to behave honorably, you may just once in a while have to realize that you could have been more effective by not doing so.
> 
> So yes, what if the guy was a monk? Who cares? That's irrelavent to the paladins behavior, because the paladin must not only have ends that are good and lawful, he must also use means that are good and lawful to get there.
> 
> By you logic, paladin's should *NEVER* announce themselves, for it could make the situation worse.




It may have turned into a very ugly hostage situation. By acting imemdiately the paladin has prevented this from happening.

And, even if you don't do metagame thinking on Paladin chances to subdue a commoner (who could be be of 5th level for all we know), there is also the simple fact, that all it takes to kill/harm a child strapped to a chair is a single, well aimed, push.

My own campaign is set in Mithril (a city in Scarred Lands), where paladins are the law. It is possible to disagree with a paladin's judgement, but one cannot question their morals. And certainly, no one argues with a judgement-on-spot... though a higher ranking paladin may examine the case or the paladin-executioner may be asked to prove his paladinhood.

And, were it to take place in my game, there would be no slap on the back. Rather a report to file and thorough investigation of all present in vicinity, establishment owner and so on in order to find out whether the perpetrator had any accomplices.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> An act done for the greater good must also be done in a good manner. This the the difficulty of being a paladin.
> 
> I don't think he should be completely stipped of his powers, but he should lose some and have to atone. He simply didn't behave as a paladin should. He behaved as *any other LG character should*.
> 
> This is why I don't like paladins.
> 
> joe b.




Stereotypical goody-goody approach may lead to idiotic situations. Hence I dislike most superheroic stories.

Also, a paladin is human. He is prone to just anger like everyone else. However, in this case he knew what was going to happen (he could have attacked before the criminal condemned himself with his own words) so, prevailing emotions nonwithstanding, he did the right thing.

If anything, this show of empathy is much more redeeming than slaying a chaotic evil troll.

Finally, what did GM think placing such a challenge in front of a character? Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Stupid. 

*sarcasm mode on*
Advice to the paladin player. Next time such a *double the amount of sarcasm on* mature *double the amount of sarcasm off* issue comes up, warn the perp about his rights and possible consequences. Do not attempt to strike or subdue without warning first the perp about your presence and your weapons, sharp and ready to be used.

For those who really like challenges, give a brief lecture why it is wrong to harm innocents, and provide arguments, why do you think that the victim in question is an innocent and why do you consider molesting a child to be evil and warranting an extreme action.

Then, if the victim is still alive and not taken hostage and the perp is still available, do a citizen arrest. Otherwise, pray to your deity to strip you of your powers, as you have allowed the evil to prevail and harm the innocent.
*sarcasm mode off*

Regards,
Rumere


----------



## FireLance

Thought I should chime in with my view, for what it's worth.  Several issues have been raised, but I think the most relevant in this situation are the following four: Good, Law, Honor, and Mercy.

1. Did the paladin do Good?
In my view, certainly.  He saved an innocent from harm and punished evil.  These are Good acts.

2. Did the paladin act in a Lawful manner?
The conclusion here is less obvious.  Apart from the fact that there is usually no consensus on what Lawful behavior actually *is*, there are too many variables, such as: whether the paladin is empowered to act as he did by secular authority, whether the paladin's god or religion would support his actions, what the penalty was under the local laws, whether the local laws required due process of trial or permitted summary execution, etc.  From the context, however, he may not have acted as Lawfully as he could.

3. Did the paladin act in an Honorable manner?
In my view, he could have acted with more honor. At the most basic level, acting with honor means giving up an advantage that you might have, whether it is the advantage of preparation (challenging a foe before attacking), armament (allowing the foe to arm himself) or certain actions (not lying, not cheating, and refusing to use poison, for example).  Often, honor conflicts with practicality, which proposes that a person should use whatever advantage he has to win. In a way, honor is a luxury which a paladin may not be able to afford in some circumstances, e.g. facing a powerful evil foe, or one that is about to commit some great act of evil.  In this case, however, I believe that paladin could have acted honorably without endangering the girl, and thus probably should have.

4. Did the paladin act in a Merciful manner?
There are those who believe that paladins need not and even should not be merciful.  I respect that view, but I believe otherwise.  Further muddying the issue is whether you believe whether it is more merciful to kill or imprison the man.  However, from the context again, the paladin may not have acted as mercifully as he could.

So, my overall analysis is that the paladin acted in a good manner, but probably not as lawfully, honorably or mercifully as he could.  I would not strip the paladin of his powers, but I would have probably added some in-game consequences for his actions, such as having to justify his killing the man to the local guard or watch.


----------



## Zimri

Police can not shoot to kill an unarmed person.

That being said RL analogies don't hold water. And incidentally for the most part "the game world" isn't "back then" it's "over there"


----------



## Stereofm

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> [plug] http://www.montecook.com/arch_review25.html [/plug]
> 
> Honestly, I don't care about these places.
> 
> Either we're talking historically or we talking in the game world. Mixing the two isn't going to work because, historically, "Paladins" were some of the most barbarous people in the middle ages. Ala the Crusades.
> 
> True, I don't think most governments would be LG, I think most would be LN or LE and wouldn't tolerate paladins interfering with their legal systems. I wouldn't be surprised to see paladins explictly singled out in law providing precedent about how they should be handled when they flip out and claim they were doing their gods work by killing peasants without warning from behind.
> 
> But the crux of your arguement seems to be, "The paladin's code isn't valid here because the authority's authority isn't valid." I don't think this is the case because:
> 
> 1. You're using a modern concept of "good" from the PHB, not the concept of good during a feudal period and then you're comparing the PHB good with the historical reality of rulership.
> 2. We don't know where in the Forgotten Realms the Paladin is.
> 
> joe b.



true, we don't know where in the FR it is.
My point is the authorities are not NECESSARILY valid.
also, there might not be any real authorities around.
I also dislike the fact of a DM ganging on a paladin player in that kind of situations.

My view of the paladin is certainly coloured by medieval times, but more from the legends. Arthur and such are pretty action-forward paladins. And they are certainlu one of the main sources of inspiration in the game.

I do not think either that the crusaders were paladins. At most a few of them might have been in outlook. Those ones came back to Europe with their ideals crushed.


----------



## jgbrowning

ruemere said:
			
		

> It may have turned into a very ugly hostage situation. By acting imemdiately the paladin has prevented this from happening.




Or it could have not turned into a very ugly hostage situation.

You do realize that with this logic, the Paladin can literally justify anything? "I did it because he could have been a monk and it would have been worse if I didn't do it." "I did it because he detected as evil and I know that means he's done evil in the past. It's justice!"

Just because something may get worse (nevermind that the guy was unarmed and didn't have his pants on) doesn't justify using secretive lethal force. It's situations like this that have caused our refinement of our laws to determine when and when not to use lethal force.



> And, even if you don't do metagame thinking on Paladin chances to subdue a commoner (who could be be of 5th level for all we know), there is also the simple fact, that all it takes to kill/harm a child strapped to a chair is a single, well aimed, push.




And the paladin is both obligated to his code and beliefs and to defend the innocent. He must do *both* to be a paladin. That's why it's hard.



> My own campaign is set in Mithril (a city in Scarred Lands), where paladins are the law. It is possible to disagree with a paladin's judgement, but one cannot question their morals. And certainly, no one argues with a judgement-on-spot... though a higher ranking paladin may examine the case or the paladin-executioner may be asked to prove his paladinhood.




No blackguards? Never a paladin proven to be less than holy? For your campaign, I'm sure this works, but we're talking about a different situation.



> Stereotypical goody-goody approach may lead to idiotic situations. Hence I dislike most superheroic stories.




I think being required to do good ends with good means is what a Paladin really is.



> Also, a paladin is human. He is prone to just anger like everyone else. However, in this case he knew what was going to happen (he could have attacked before the criminal condemned himself with his own words) so, prevailing emotions nonwithstanding, he did the right thing.




Do you think he would have been "more right" if he would have turned the guy over to the locals?

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

How was the DM ganging up on the paladin? There was a better more honorable way out of the situation. The player was warned and choose to follow through with an attack unannounced from behind which was neither honorable nor chivalrous and in so doing likely caused further trauma to the child, and himself, his order, and his god to be thought lesser of.

One of the better ways out of the situation would have been to : 
1) Grab the perp from behind and toss him out of the room
2) Scream "what in the name of (insert name of deity here) do you think you are doing"
3) Have party untie and comfort the girl
4) Stand over prone perp and offer him the choice of repenting and submitting to local authorities or trial by combat


----------



## Kem

Since the Paladin did not "sneak up" on the criminal, it was not dishonorable.  He was in the doorway, and was unnoticed.  He never said he was sneaking up, only that he was in the door way, and was able to draw his sword and attack wasn't noticed.

Otherwise you are giving free range on even dragons to just have them turn their backs on you in order to strip your of paladinhood if you even just attack them. "No sorry can't attack that dragon, he's attacking you but he's unaware of me so I have to wait".  To Bad the Dragon is Deaf and is cursed to not be able to see paladins.


By the way, the reason for the situations I outlined in a cave, or if the criminal was an orc.  If in either case, you find it to be ok for the Paladin to kill the orc, then in the case with the non-human, the Paladin Stays a paladin.

A Paladin does not go by the local legitamate authority, he respects them, but he goes by his code of conduct.  Period.  The slavery example earlier shows this.  Slavery can be accepted in all the land, but that doesn't NOT mean that the paladin has a slave or will not fight to have slavery removed.  Even if the slaves are evil goblins and kobolds.

The Paladin cannot treat Orcs differently from Humans.  Both can be redeemed, both are capable of the same thing.  Reason Being:  If that criminal was in a dungeon off somewhere, and this was the only evil act that the paladin knows of about this character when he comes across the scene, an Orc is killable while a Human is not?


----------



## jgbrowning

Ulorian said:
			
		

> Because that's the paladin's job. In modern day terms, a type of law enforcement officer. That's like complaining because a cop can draw his weapon in public and you can't.




I think this is a personal interpretation of what a paladin's role in society is. The class has no more inherant ties to "law enforcement" than the fighter class. If a society is Evil, the Paladin *couldn't* be associated with law enforcement. Law isn't related to either good or evil.

joe b.


----------



## Zimri

Kem said:
			
		

> Since the Paladin did not "sneak up" on the criminal, it was not dishonorable.  He was in the doorway, and was unnoticed.  He never said he was sneaking up, only that he was in the door way, and was able to draw his sword and attack wasn't noticed.
> 
> Otherwise you are giving free range on even dragons to just have them turn their backs on you in order to strip your of paladinhood if you even just attack them. "No sorry can't attack that dragon, he's attacking you but he's unaware of me so I have to wait".  To Bad the Dragon is Deaf and is cursed to not be able to see paladins.
> 
> 
> By the way, the reason for the situations I outlined in a cave, or if the criminal was an orc.  If in either case, you find it to be ok for the Paladin to kill the orc, then in the case with the non-human, the Paladin Stays a paladin.
> 
> A Paladin does not go by the local legitamate authority, he respects them, but he goes by his code of conduct.  Period.  The slavery example earlier shows this.  Slavery can be accepted in all the land, but that doesn't NOT mean that the paladin has a slave or will not fight to have slavery removed.  Even if the slaves are evil goblins and kobolds.
> 
> The Paladin cannot treat Orcs differently from Humans.  Both can be redeemed, both are capable of the same thing.  Reason Being:  If that criminal was in a dungeon off somewhere, and this was the only evil act that the paladin knows of about this character when he comes across the scene, an Orc is killable while a Human is not?




I agreed that you don't kill an orc that you sneak up on either. If it has it's back to you and has not engaged in combat, hasn't even noticed your presence you make it notice by warning it to stop, applying subdual damage or grabbing it.

A dragon actively in combat with something is a much more clear and present danger to life and limb than the perp in this scenario was, heck a dragon in it's natural form with its' "wand" out is more of a clear and present danger than this perp was.

Re sneaking, It was a paladin that had just arrived in town, still had his sword with him and I would assume his armour as well. He managed to tail the perp to the room (he says he followed him) While carrying his sword and stood silently there while the perp laid bare himself and his plan. You are saying that doesn't constitute sneaking ?


----------



## jgbrowning

Kem said:
			
		

> Otherwise you are giving free range on even dragons to just have them turn their backs on you in order to strip your of paladinhood if you even just attack them. "No sorry can't attack that dragon, he's attacking you but he's unaware of me so I have to wait".  To Bad the Dragon is Deaf and is cursed to not be able to see paladins.




That's stretching a bit....  



> By the way, the reason for the situations I outlined in a cave, or if the criminal was an orc.  If in either case, you find it to be ok for the Paladin to kill the orc, then in the case with the non-human, the Paladin Stays a paladin.




Just because you think so, doesn't make it so. Personally I find a large difference between and orc and a human. I think many other people do as well.



> A Paladin does not go by the local legitamate authority, he respects them, but he goes by his code of conduct.  Period.




To me, respect isn't just saying, "I respect you" it's showing respect through action. It's obeying the laws of the land when possible. Even when the code would deal with an issue differently, if the laws of the land are "adequate" they should be paramount in the paladin's actions. That, to me, is respect. "I slightly disagree with what you're doing, but I will support what you do because I don't disagree enough." I view it as compromise between best and better.



> The Paladin cannot treat Orcs differently from Humans.  Both can be redeemed, both are capable of the same thing.  Reason Being:  If that criminal was in a dungeon off somewhere, and this was the only evil act that the paladin knows of about this character when he comes across the scene, an Orc is killable while a Human is not?




In general, yes, the killing of an orc is less damaging than the killing of a human. Orcs are vastly less likely to be redemable given their nature in D&D. Whether it's genetic or environmental or however the DM wants it to work, the Paladin is making a better assessment of the situation if the perp is an orc than a human, just because orcs tend towards evil.

Also, unless orcs are common in this part of the world, an orc would almost certainly signal "Enemy!" moreso than a human would, but not as much as a red dragon would. However, this doesn't mean orcs and even red dragons are sneak-up on and cut their head off material....... To me, it just means that the paladins actions would be more acceptable were it to have been an orc. Even more acceptable were it to have been a red dragon.

joe b.


----------



## Li Shenron

Kem said:
			
		

> Since the Paladin did not "sneak up" on the criminal, it was not dishonorable.  He was in the doorway, and was unnoticed.  He never said he was sneaking up, only that he was in the door way, and was able to draw his sword and attack wasn't noticed.
> 
> Otherwise you are giving free range on even dragons to just have them turn their backs on you in order to strip your of paladinhood if you even just attack them. "No sorry can't attack that dragon, he's attacking you but he's unaware of me so I have to wait".  To Bad the Dragon is Deaf and is cursed to not be able to see paladins.




Sorry to harass your comment, but do you really normally play the game this way?


----------



## Khaalis

*Running Tally (to post #158)*

Just to be helpful to the original poster...

So far, forgive me if I missed any or misinterpreted any…

*For GM Ruling (Paladin BAD, lose them):* 16
Patman21967, Crothian, Herremann the Wise, MrFilthyIke, jgbrowning, Zimri, the Jester, Agemegos, SirEuain, epochrpg, dvvega, The Gryphon, Brilbadr, diaglo, Chronosome, monboesen

*Against GM Ruling (Paladin GOOD, no loss):* 34
Dark Jezter, WayneLigon, Sejs, D+1, Stereofm, Anabstercorian, ThoughtBubble, Firzair, Sammael, d4, dead, Nuclear Platypus, Celtavian, Alzrius, Trickstergod, dren, argo, Alynnalizza, Ogre Mage, Khaalis, Toras, TheAuldGrump, Herpes Cineplex, Plane Sailing, Ulorian, ruemere, FireLance, Kem, glass, Numion, twwtww, Klaus, jeffers, 2WS-Steve

*The Fence… (comments but no definitive choice):* 15
res, talinthas, Elephant, kolvar, Quirthanon, bodhi, frankthedm, robberbaron, sellars, Creamsteak, Li Shenron, Hemlock Stones, Al, Crass, Zappo


----------



## Herpes Cineplex

Zimri said:
			
		

> Re sneaking, It was a paladin that had just arrived in town, still had his sword with him and I would assume his armour as well. He managed to tail the perp to the room (he says he followed him) While carrying his sword and stood silently there while the perp laid bare himself and his plan. You are saying that doesn't constitute sneaking ?



Hm.  Maybe the GM should have given the rapist a Spot and a Listen roll to notice the clanking, armor-clad, sword-toting paladin following him.  I bet the DC would have been something like 3.  Even this 1st-level commoner NPC could have passed it with flying colors.

...oh, but then this whole little morality play wouldn't have happened in the first place, because the rapist wouldn't have let the paladin catch him in the act.  You know, I think that's good for another point on the "kick-the-paladin" scoreboard for this scenario.


Incidentally, Zimri, your spirited prosecution of the case against the paladin in this episode makes me wonder: do people actually _play_ paladins in your game?  And if so, do you treat them as badly as the player in this case seems to have been treated (you know, setting little traps for them, suddenly springing really restrictive interpretations of their code on them without warning)?  Or is this just a devil's advocate gig for you, and you take a more reasonable, less adversarial approach when running your own game?

--
just curious, is all


----------



## glass

I would interpret legitimate authority in this context as meaning authority not at variance with the paladins code or alignment.

In this case, I would say there are 3 possible scenarios:

If the incident took place in a location where the perpetrator would be fairly tried and justly punished, then by striking the man down in anger he committed a chaotic act and a minor violation of his code. Probably a warning from his god would have been in order, maybe in a dream, although loss of powers would not be unreasonable.

If the incident took place in a way inn or other out of the way locale with no real authority, then he acted correctly.

If the incident took place in a locale where  the girls treatment was legal, then again he did the right thing. A law which permits actions such as these is not legitimate authority.

Just my €0.02.


glass.


----------



## Brilbadr

sorry, no pity for the paladin
He had plenty of options, he had the initiative. It's called subdual and it's in the game for a reason. Just because the authorities might hang him doesn't mean you get to kill him. More important you can't cause him to change his ways and repent. His soul is lost, the demons win. There are other issues but none of them excuse not taking the less lethal option when it is available. Expedience is the quickest route to evil.


----------



## The Gryphon

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?



That isn't the same situation, as the orc can't just be handed over to the local authorities...unless your dungeons have a local authority. Therefore in the dungeon I'd say the paladin would be justified, and would be just as justified if the orc were instead a human.

If on the other hand the orc were doing the same thing in the same place as the human, it deserves the same "justice" as the human. IMO this would mean arrest and trial in most locations, but if the local authority is known to be unlawful or inherently evil the paladin is justified as they are following their moral code. Of course in these societies the paladin may be in for a lot more trouble than they can handle from the "authorities".

In the case specified I'd strip the paladin of their powers until they atoned. Paladin's can only take the law, either moral/religious or secular, into their own hands when they can't reasonably expect those around them to do so.


----------



## jgbrowning

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Hm.  Maybe the GM should have given the rapist a Spot and a Listen roll to notice the clanking, armor-clad, sword-toting paladin following him.  I bet the DC would have been something like 3.  Even this 1st-level commoner NPC could have passed it with flying colors.
> 
> ...oh, but then this whole little morality play wouldn't have happened in the first place, because the rapist wouldn't have let the paladin catch him in the act.  You know, I think that's good for another point on the "kick-the-paladin" scoreboard for this scenario.




One of the reasons I don't like paladins, beyond the arguements they spawn, is that once a situation occurs that creates an arguement, someone invarably accusses the DM of "kick-the-paladin" or some such.

That in and of it self, the idea that in every game, every situation should be solvable using a very rigid code of behavior or else the GM has it out for the player really gets my goat. It's another example of how poor game design (linking abilities to Role-Playing Aspects *in particular Alignment*) causes unending headaches over the paladin.

I don't think that every encounter must be solvable without breaking a paladin's code just because a paladin is part of a group especially when, when a paladin isn't part of a group, such requirements aren't necessary.

In otherwords, I'll play devils advocate since I've heard this arguement many times before. Why should I, as a DM, change the universe for all the other players because one player wants to play a character which prevents a broader type of role-playing because of alignment/personal code requirements and because the player also wants to be able to advance in levels and stay alive, regardless of what said code may actually require in the way of action according to situation?

joe b.


----------



## Crass

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.
> 
> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in.  Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room.  My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Our campaign is a gritty one.  These issues come up.
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  And he *undid his pants*.
> 
> With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword.  My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."
> 
> "My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.
> 
> I did so.
> 
> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."
> 
> My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation.  He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)
> 
> Discuss.




Unlawful, yes. Good, definitely. I personally see paladins as champions of good, and therefore think your DM should concentrate more on the Good/Evil axis than the Lawful/Chaotic one. That doesn't mean that you become a rebel with a cause, though...

Was the stripping permanent? If so, your DM should rethink his attitude. I'd say, an atonement spell for the chaotic act, followed by a quest to redeem yourself would be in order, but you should have retained the paladin status.

But please let us know once the issue is resolved, what your DM has decided.


----------



## jgbrowning

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> But in this swords-and-sorcery setting, I'm not going to put any money on most countries (or _any_ of them, for that matter) having such an enlightened, complicated, and comprehensive legal and ethical system in place.
> 
> I also make a distinction between the secular authorities, who cannot revoke paladinhood, and the actual god who grants paladinhood in the first place.




God's don't grant paladinhood since paladins can be paladins without a god.



> And D&D-style gods seem to be an awfully pragmatic (and often dogmatic and intolerant) bunch; obviously, the paladin's god can know the full truth about the situation in an instant and will know that the paladin has, in modern cop parlance, made a righteous bust.  He has caught a child molestor with his pants literally down, and it takes an unreasonable amount of pretzel logic to see that situation any other way.  Now all we need to know is whether this paladin's god is the kind of god who thinks that everyone, even a vile rapist, deserves a second chance, or if it's the kind of god that says that certain crimes are so heinous that they permanently stain the soul of the criminal and that it is the sacred duty of all that is Right and Good to send that besmirched soul off to the Abyss where it can suffer the eternal torments meted out to such creatures.




Not necessarily. Given the fact that a god doesn't have to be involved to begin with which removes this line of arguement, the god could be the kind of god that thinks his paladins should support the local attempts a justice instead of creating his own justice. The type of god that thinks even a poorly operating justice system is better than allowing people to willy-nilly slay whoever they wish as long as they can justifiy their rage as "I was protecting a child." It could also be a god that knows the more and more his paladins take life and death into their own hands, the less they value it. For though they can take it away, they cannot give it to those who deserve it.



> I tend to think the latter kind of god is more likely to ordain paladins, but without either of us knowing more about this particular setting, we're both just speculating.  If this is a paladin of a god of mercy and redemption, he's totally screwed because you're right, he should have at least made an attempt to do something other than mete out swift, uncompromising justice to the evildoer; but if he's a paladin of a god of righteousness and shielding the innocent, he's just won some serious spirtual brownie points for doing exactly the right thing.




Righteousness and shielding the innocent != killing when other options are available. How is chosing to slay righteous when you can get the same end effect (shielding the innocent and punishment) without slaying, especially considering the perp didn't even know *why* he was being punished because he didn't know that he was about to be punished.

An important part of justice is understanding what your crime is, why it's wrong, and what your punishment will be. The paladin did *none* of that in this circumstance. And considering that unlike other circumstances (like fighting a red dragon) all of these aspects of justice could have easily occurred, his actions deserve repremanding.

joe b.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> It is the role of the executioner alone to punish the guilty. If a paladin is also to by judge and jury he or she has to fulfil their roles too: to make sure that all the evidence is presented in a public and conspicuously impartial process, and to hear and impartially weigh anything that the accused has to say in his defence.
> 
> "Judge, jury, and executioner" > "executioner".




What about the childs wellbeing? Do you think a public trial would do good to her? The right thing for the paladin would've been to kill the man quietly and hide the body, that the stories of what were done to the girl wouldn't haunt her in the village for the rest of her life. 

Putting your "honor" above a childs wellbeing is not really honor - it is hubris.

So forget challenging the man to a duel, or taking him to trial or putting him to jail. There needs be no  other witnesses to the divine punishment of death than god. Thats best for the child.


----------



## diaglo

fair warning should've been given. killing him was not within the paladin's rights without confronting the commoner with his crime.

lose powers


----------



## Numion

Zimri said:
			
		

> But no matter what attacking an unarmed, unaware, tangled in his own clothing, with his "wand" in one hand, and obviously distracted foe no matter how vile with lethal force is NOT an HONORABLE thing to do.




Which would be more important: protecting the child from reliving the abuse in a courtroom trial, or protecting the paladins honor?


----------



## jgbrowning

Numion said:
			
		

> Thats best for the child.




Or perhaps its in the childs best interest to have it all out in the open?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to not watch someone be decapitated?
Perhaps its in the child's best interest to see that justice can happen in a courtroom?

Perhaps talking about perhapses when discussing the child are avoiding the issue of the paladin's behavior?

I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.

joe b.


----------



## d4

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.



it really depends on your definition of honor.

in some codes, killing a person who himself has no honor is NOT considered dishonorable.


----------



## jeffers

*He keeps tha powa!*

Such decisive action!  Paladins cannot second-guess themselves!


----------



## Numion

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Or perhaps its in the childs best interest to have it all out in the open?
> Perhaps its in the child's best interest to not watch someone be decapitated?
> Perhaps its in the child's best interest to see that justice can happen in a courtroom?




How come children and women in real life aren't that eager to confront their rapists in courtroom? 



> Perhaps talking about perhapses when discussing the child are avoiding the issue of the paladin's behavior?
> 
> I'm surprised that some people think it honorable for a paladin to kill a weaponless commoner from behind when the commoner doesn't even know the paladin's there.
> 
> joe b.




The child is the issue here. Paladins duty is to protect innocent from harm. I'd say that a trial is actually harmful to the child, as they have been in real life. Putting paladins personal honor above the childs wellbeing is selfish IMO. 

And I never said that attacking from behind is honorable. It's not. What I am saying is that the childs wellbeing is more important than the paladins personal honor. Losing some honor to protect others is a sacrifice for the paladin, yes. Preserving your honor on the expence of the innocent is selfish. 

It's not enough for the paladin to lose his powers, though.


----------



## Khaalis

Why don’t we look at the definition of Honor then.  Too many people are confusing Chivalry and other Codes of Fair Play with “Honor”.  Having honor is having a sense of what is right, that which gives respect, dignity and courage. I think the Paladin fell far within the bounds of acting with Honor. No person who is "good" would have lost respect for the Paladin's actions. He would be applauded for saving the child and riddig the world of an evil.  

Even in a Chivalric code a criminal (or evil-doer) falls outside the boundaries of fair play and honor. Even amongst the Samurai, one of the strictest codes of Honor – a criminal is deserving of no Honor, only punishment.

Per Websters:

Noun
1) Esteem due or paid to worth; high estimation; respect; consideration; reverence; veneration; manifestation of respect or reverence.
2) That which rightfully attracts esteem, respect, or consideration; self-respect; dignity; courage; fidelity; especially, excellence of character; high moral worth; virtue; nobleness.
3) Purity; chastity; - a term applied mostly to women, but becoming uncommon in usage.
4) A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege; integrity; uprightness; trustworthness.
5) That to which esteem or consideration is paid; distinguished position; high rank.
6) Fame; reputation; credit.
7) A token of esteem paid to worth; a mark of respect; a ceremonial sign of consideration; as, he wore an honor on his breast; military honors; civil honors.
8) A cause of respect and fame; a glory; an excellency; an ornament; as, he is an honor to his nation.
9) A title applied to the holders of certain honorable civil offices, or to persons of rank; as, His Honor the Mayor. See Note under Honorable.
10) (Feud. Law) A seigniory or lordship held of the king, on which other lordships and manors depended.
11) Academic or university prizes or distinctions; as, honors in classics.
12) (Whist) The ace, king, queen, and jack of trumps. The ten and nine are sometimes called Dutch honors.

Verb
1) To regard or treat with honor, esteem, or respect; to revere; to treat with deference and submission; when used of the Supreme Being, to reverence; to adore; to worship.
2) To dignify; to raise to distinction or notice; to bestow honor upon; to elevate in rank or station; to ennoble; to exalt; to glorify; hence, to do something to honor; to treat in a complimentary manner or with civility.

Usage:
Affair of honor:  a dispute to be decided by a duel, or the duel itself.

Court of honor: a court or tribunal to investigate and decide questions relating to points of honor; as a court of chivalry, or a military court to investigate acts or omissions which are unofficerlike or ungentlemanly in their nature.

Debt of honor:  a debt contracted by a verbal promise, or by betting or gambling, considered more binding than if recoverable by law.

Honor bright!: (Feudal Law) one held in an honor or seignory.

Honors of war: (Mil.) distinctions granted to a vanquished enemy, as of marching out from a camp or town armed, and with colors flying.

Law of honor: certain rules by which social intercourse is regulated among persons of fashion, and which are founded on a regard to reputation.

Maid of honor: 
a - a lady of rank, whose duty it is to attend the queen when she appears in public. 
b - the bride's principle attendant at a wedding, if unmarried. If married, she is referred to as the matron of honor.

On one's honor: on the pledge of one's honor; as, the members of the House of Lords in Great Britain, are not under oath, but give their statements or verdicts on their honor.

Point of honor: a scruple or nice distinction in matters affecting one's honor; as, he raised a point of honor.

To do the honors: to bestow honor, as on a guest; to act as host or hostess at an entertainment.

To do one honor: to confer distinction upon one.

To have the honor: to have the privilege or distinction.

Word of honor: an engagement confirmed by a pledge of honor.


----------



## Zappo

8 pages overnight? Whoa! Forgive me for not reading all of it.

 I think the best course of action for the paladin would have been to give the man a chance to defend himself, then knock him out by dealing nonlethal damage (he can take the -4 to hit and still win easily), then take care of the girl, and then take the man to court. I also think the DM should have warned the player that the action could have caused him to lose his paladinhood, since that's quite debatable.


----------



## Klaus

Keeps powers.

The race of the perpetrator is irrelevant (human, orc, dwarf, mind flayer or whatever). Evil are his actions, not his heritage.

From "Defenders of Faith", Playing an Effective Paladin:
"Refusing to lie, cheat or use poison doesn't limit you and your allies to frontal assaults in broad daylight, either. You are a trained warrior. You can use clever tactics: Set up an attack from an unexperienced direction, lure opponents onto unfavorable ground, create flanking opportunities..."

Also The Code and the DM:
"The paladin's ultimate relationship is with his patron deity. At times, the interests of temporal authorities such as kings or church superiors may be at odds with the paladin's personal sense of right or justice."

The situation was handled with speed and skill. The girl needn't suffer more trauma from watching his assailer fighting for his life, or being arrested and brought to trial before a judge. She had immediate vindication from the utmost representative of upholding the weak and punishing the guilty.

I'd even commend the player for not taking an action to detect evil, just to be on the safe side. He followed his gut feeling and innate sense of justice and meted out due punishment (a quick, painless death instead of lynching or mutilating).


----------



## twwtww

*Saved the city court costs*

The reality is that you did the molester a favor. He would be convicted and executed anyway. This way it was quick and painless! No spending days in a cell waiting for the gallows, maybe even victimized yourself. One minute your looking down at your manhood content and happy, next your looking up at it for a second and lights out. He got off easy. If it had been a person stealing a purse, yeah arrest and try him, a child molester caught in the act, no way! Dumb question, what if the molester was given warning and duelled the Paladin and won (commoners can crit too!)? The girl would be attacked again and the Paladin would have failed twice.


----------



## jgbrowning

d4 said:
			
		

> it really depends on your definition of honor.
> 
> in some codes, killing a person who himself has no honor is NOT considered dishonorable.




Yes it does. I don't think that Forgotten Realms is usually one of those places and this isn't consistant with the Book of Exhalted Deeds take on honor and criminals in which "subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable to killing them and possibley being forced to stand trial for murder."

joe b.


----------



## Chronosome

I'm of the "should lose his powers" opinion.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

I think one thing that this thread demonstrates quite well is that different gamemasters have different interpretations of what paladins should be like. Essentially, is Phillip Marlowe a paladin?

When running a game and having a paladin character in it I think it's important for the gamemaster to make it clear what paladins can be like in the campaign so the player can choose to go with it, if acceptible, or play another concept if not. I figure this is best handled by giving some examples of characters from fiction that would count as paladins. After all, the potential paladin character would have heard plenty of stories about great paladins and more than a few warning stories about paladins that have fallen.

***
That said, you could also turn this into an interesting roleplaying opportunity. Perhaps the character is just now learning what his god expects of him. Does the character react by realizing that he's done something wrong? If so he can attempt to atone or something similar. Alternatively, does he think that his god's got a screwed up code of justice? If so then he should voluntarily walk away and take up a different path--that'd make a good story too.

Regardless of the choice, as a GM I don't think the player should be permanently shafted with neutered class levels for going one way or the other. It's not as if the paladin class is overpowered compared to the others and thus needs compensating restrictions, especially if you've taken several levels in it.

***
But, to answer the original question, in my campaign you'd be cool. Phillip Marlowe is definitely a paladin.


----------



## monboesen

Lose powers. And without remorse and repentence no chance of getting them back.

For a paladin such rash action is very dangerous. 

What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.

He should have apprehended the man and either let local law deal with him or, in case that would not work for some reason, question the villain himself to determine the truth and act upon it.


----------



## jgbrowning

Numion said:
			
		

> How come children and women in real life aren't that eager to confront their rapists in courtroom?




Because it's not pleasent, although it's necessary.



> The child is the issue here. Paladins duty is to protect innocent from harm.




And the paladin also has the duty to attempt to subdue and turn over criminals to the city watch when possible instead of killing. It seems to me, there was pleanty of time for subdual.



> I'd say that a trial is actually harmful to the child, as they have been in real life. Putting paladins personal honor above the childs wellbeing is selfish IMO.




Sometimes learning the lesson that being good, (turning over criminals to the watch instead of killing them) hurts more than being bad (killing them.) The paladin's duty to protect the innocent doesn't mean he's oathbound to try and prevent all unpleasent things from happening to people, such as being called unfriendly names or doing one's duty to convict a criminal.



> And I never said that attacking from behind is honorable. It's not. What I am saying is that the childs wellbeing is more important than the paladins personal honor.




I don't think there is a one or the other dicotomy your setting up. It's not either protect the child or keep personal honor. It can be both by going to court and obeying the law.

joe b.


----------



## Numion

monboesen said:
			
		

> What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.




Yeah and what if the small child was actually a succubus? He should've done nothing .. !  

EDIT: Just tried to point out that the paladin shouldn't let extreme probabilities interfere with his everyday duty. There's possibility the man is indeed possessed. There's possibility that the 'child' is actually a grown woman who's into bondage but accidentally drank a gallon of potions of youth. Or she was a prostitute illusioned to be a child for the patrons amusement. Big deal. The paladin isn't a defence attorney for the bad guys.


----------



## diaglo

i just want to point out.... there is no facing in this edition.

and a paladin in armor carrying a sword out makes a lot of noise. esp when he barges into an occupied room.

the DM should've made these things obvious too.

if the paladin can hear the commoners speech about his exploits... the reverse is true


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I think your DM ought to be stripped of his powers for trying to entrap you, especially in such an uncreative and blatant way. 

If you ask me, the DM ambushed _you_.

Lots of DMs view the paladin as a outlet for their own B.S. morality plays:

"How could you slaughter those goblin women and children? You should have tried to redeem them!"

Paladins aren't meant to be played in shades of grey. They live in a black and white world.

If it's more important to you to play a paladin than to play with this DM, I think you need to find a game with fewer shades of grey. Otherwise, trying to play a paladin is just asking to be constantly jerked around. 

Then again, I also think most paladin players are munchkins, and occasionally they need to be taught a lesson-- admittedly, only in my own experience, only my opinion.

My instinct tells me that either your DM doesn't like you, or he doesn't like paladins. He set that clumsy trap for you for a reason. Either he doesn't want you to be a paladin, or he wants to frustrate you to the point that you leave. 

Just my gut feeling on this one.


Wulf


----------



## Ogrebear

Reading the thread my thoughts where that he did the right thing, since as a Paladin he is a Knight and a representative  therefore of the Law he has the right to dispense Justice, which this man was deserving. 

However, the player really should of made the man turn around and declared exactly what his crime was in a loud clear voice, then dragged him back in front witness and executed him as a warning to others. 

Killing him with his back turned was definatly wrong imho. Killing him in front of the child was also wrong.

Dont think I'd ever use something like this in a game either. Interesting roleplaying dilemma though.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Numion said:
			
		

> Just tried to point out that the paladin shouldn't let extreme probabilities interfere with his everyday duty.




I know... The "What if's..." arguments are silly.

Paladins cannot be paralyzed into inaction by all the possible what ifs that a world full of magic entails.

That would spell the victory of evil.


----------



## jgbrowning

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think your DM ought to be stripped of his powers for trying to entrap you, especially in such an uncreative and blatant way.
> 
> If you ask me, the DM ambushed _you_.
> 
> Lots of DMs view the paladin as a outlet for their own B.S. morality plays:
> 
> "How could you slaughter those goblin women and children? You should have tried to redeem them!"




D&D disagrees with this stance:



			
				Book of Exhalted Deeds said:
			
		

> The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including childrend and the females of at least some races and cultures.) Placing a fireball so that it's area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians *IS EVIL,* since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.




Killing women and children is evil.

Furthermore.....



			
				Book of Exhalted Deeds said:
			
		

> In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation--the mere existance of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.




joe b.


----------



## mroberon1972

The paladin is a religious warrior.

He is a defender of innocents, slayer of evil, and symbol of justice.

Not local laws...  JUSTICE...

He is the sword of his god.  He's built to be the hand of his lord's retribution.

He is not a police officer.

HE IS THE LAW!

It comes down to this:  Ask your game master if the character's god advocates turning over the defiler to a MORTAL COURT, as opposed to his hand-picked paladin for justice.

Now local law might run him in, but all religions get persicuted sooner or later...


----------



## Piratecat

Ogrebear said:
			
		

> Killing him in front of the child was also wrong.




I sure disagree with that. Frankly, seeing the molester cut down would probably be a lot less scary to the child than anything that the molester had already done to her. A paladin lives to vanquish evil, and I think this a clear-cut example of evil in action. I'm with Wulf on this, and wouldn't strip away the paladin's powers.


----------



## Darklone

Wulf I do have to disagree. The DM set a trap for the paladin, sure. But he gave him a warning. 

Perhaps he should have talked with the player before the class choice how he envisions a paladin. Right. 

But I'm really surprised how many people here see the shining beacon of virtue and honor as a guy who walks around and kills helpless people from behind. 

The problem whether a paladin has some authority about execution or not is usually discussed in my groups before gametime. Since there are many gods and many laws, it's usually not the case. The paladins player should know that.

In this case, the paladin reacted like a Lawful Good fighter. Not like a paladin. I would propose to take this as an opportunity for roleplaying (in fact, some of the first posts did that already). 

Wulf: Paladins cannot be paralyzed into inaction. Right. But as soon as they use the same methods as the others, where is the difference (see the earlier Nietzsche quote)? They lead by example and promote good by example. Something this particular paladin did not do.

Edit: Summary: The DM is right. But he should have taken care of this problem of a different worldview before the problem occured, not afterwards.


----------



## Janx

This was obviously a DM trap.  The player even had a warning that the DM was up to no good.

However, the DM played it wrong.  This is not a fall-from-grace scenario.  That requires corruption and deceipt on the paladin's part.

So, in the eyes of his god, he should be OK.  At the worst case, his church/god gives him a reprimand (should have found another way).

It's the murder trial for the man in the backroom who was taking a leak, where things get interesting.  Now the Paladin must protect the young girl's honor.  Does he take the blame, or does he reveal the girl's secret and put her through the rigors of trial?

Killing a bad guy should not cause a paladin to fall from grace.  It's that simple.  There may be other in-character complications to his actions.

If the DM doesn't have a 3-4 page treatise on how paladins should behave, then the DM has to accept that the player is mostly defining the paladin's code on his own, and has to accept that definition within practical limitations.

Janx


----------



## 2WS-Steve

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Wulf Ratbane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your DM ought to be stripped of his powers for trying to entrap you, especially in such an uncreative and blatant way.
> 
> If you ask me, the DM ambushed you.
> 
> Lots of DMs view the paladin as a outlet for their own B.S. morality plays:
> 
> "How could you slaughter those goblin women and children? You should have tried to redeem them!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D&D disagrees with this stance:
> ...
> Killing women and children is evil.
Click to expand...



I think Wulf's criticism of the DM is well-motivated. Also, attacking the Wulf's weakest point while ignoring several good ones isn't a good way to get at the truth.


----------



## Crass

Just another, perhaps slightly OT point - if the paladin is punished for performing what HE sees as the correct thing by his deity (read: DM), and loses his paladin status, he may come to believe that there "is no justice in the world" or some such thing, and may slide towards LN, or elsewhere... This may be the first step on the road to becoming a blackguard for a paladin, and would be a waste of good material for a (Good-aligned) deity.


----------



## Darklone

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> The paladin is a religious warrior.
> He is a defender of innocents, slayer of evil, and symbol of justice.
> Not local laws...  JUSTICE...
> He is the sword of his god.  He's built to be the hand of his lord's retribution.
> He is not a police officer.
> HE IS THE LAW!
> It comes down to this:  Ask your game master if the character's god advocates turning over the defiler to a MORTAL COURT, as opposed to his hand-picked paladin for justice.
> Now local law might run him in, but all religions get persicuted sooner or later...



As has been discussed earlier: The paladin does not have to be the LAW. He can be. That depends on the campaign and on the DM.


----------



## Piratecat

I would probably play it like Janx: the paladin is fine with his God, but would have to deal with a trial for murder or (more easily proven) vigilantism. Besides, it's fun to say "I answer to a higher law than that of mortal men. I answer to divine law."  

Depending on the amount of extant magic, the molester might even be raised at the paladin's expense and become a life-long enemy. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist?


----------



## Khaalis

Darklone said:
			
		

> But I'm really surprised how many people here see the shining beacon of virtue and honor as a guy who walks around and kills helpless people from behind.




How is the perp helpless?  I am so tired of people saying because he doesnt have a weapon that he is helpless.  He was caught red-handed in the middle of commiting a brutal and evil act. Period.  

You make it sound as if the Paladin in questions kills indescimately because he feels like it or for the pleasure of it.  He didnt go into the encounter with the intent to kill the man, but when presented with evil at its worst thrown in his face he did what he was trained to do. 

As I posted earlier, he commited no evil nor anything wrong in killing the man. The Paladin acted in a righteous manner, doing exactly what he has been TRAINED to do.  If Paladins were supposed to take names and try to "aprehend" people - they wouldnt be warriors trained to kill, they would have a bunch of Non-Lethal special abilities.  They are trained to protect the innocent and to ERADICATE evil.  You dont eradicate evil and champion the war on evil by playing the unarmed English Bobby of 10 yearas ago.  _"Stop... or.. I'll say Stop again..."_


----------



## mroberon1972

Darklone said:
			
		

> As has been discussed earlier: The paladin does not have to be the LAW. He can be. That depends on the campaign and on the DM.




And what happens when a paladin is directed by his god to go against local authorities in power?  Joan of arc anyone?

The paladin HAS to be the law, because he cannot just assume the laws of the land are the same as his god's...

Mind you, his law better be the same as his god's law, or else you get to see a paladin get struck by pretty colored lightning alot...


----------



## Tom Cashel

In medieval parlance, "murder" is defined as stealthy killing, assassination, that kind of thing.

If you killed someone in open, "honorable" combat, it wasn't murder...it was just death.

It's not lawful or good to hack down a defenseless man from behind, no matter what he's doing or has done.

Besides, if it's the paladin's duty to "punish" the wrongdoer, what the heck kind of punishment is a swift death?? The paladin should lose his powers just for sparing Chester the repercussions of his acts.

It's not enough for paladins to punish evil...they have to remain good while doing it.

I vote your character loses the powers, and you and your DM come to some consensus as to what it means to be a "lawful" "good" "paladin."


----------



## Darklone

So, paladins who are in a land where some pervert things are allowed, common or lawful (such as slavery for example) should murder and kill?

How is a guy without weapons and with his pants down not helpless? Ok, there are demons and stuff... but this was in a town? I do have the impression some people here are too much used to high level D&D where every streetmerchant is a djinni.

mroberson: Please read the earlier posts. You assume too much from your own game, there are other gamestyles. The paladin may be his gods law, the blackguard as well. Who's right? And where?


----------



## jgbrowning

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I think Wulf's criticism of the DM is well-motivated. Also, attacking the Wulf's weakest point while ignoring several good ones isn't a good way to get at the truth.




I was commenting that Wulf's and everyone else opinions that agree with his stance of "Black and White" as expresses in his quotation is inconsitant with how "Good" is defined in D&D.

Good is doing the least damage to get what needs to be done, done.
It's talking when talking will work. It's punching when only punching is needed, it's drawing a blade only when absolutely necessary. Because (Book of Exhalted Deeds) "violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good and a victory for evil."

This isn't to say that you don't kick ass and take names. This is to say that you kick ass and take names *once every other possible attempt has been made to avoid kicking ass and taking names*. This is what D&D good is.

It's not detecting evil and smiting anything that detects. It's not killing goblin babies. It's not choosing to kill a rapist when subdual is just as effective. Good people use their words more than their swords. Even when it means that being good may mean being dead. Because being good and dead is more important than being not good and alive.

Book of Exhalted Deeds: "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: "I can save a thousand live by sacrificing my purity." For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocnets die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats.

Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character's soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she chan just give up or sacrifice like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a person sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, *in evil's favor.* The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond that single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable."

joe b.


----------



## Khaalis

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> Besides, if it's the paladin's duty to "punish" the wrongdoer, what the heck kind of punishment is a swift death?? The paladin should lose his powers just for sparing Chester the repercussions of his acts.




THIS is an evil or at best, neutral attitude. Punishment does NOT mean Cruelty!  The punishment meted out by the Paladin was swift and merciful as it should have been. Anything else is Vengeance, not Punishment.


----------



## Tom Cashel

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> And what happens when a paladin is directed by his god to go against local authorities in power?  Joan of arc anyone?




That's just fine!

The question is, does the paladin burn down the county seat after trapping all the councilmembers inside...or does he submit to their "law" only for the purpose of speaking his god's will? Does he try to make them see his point of view, or does he poison the water supply?

Good isn't _what_ you do, it's _how_ you do it.


----------



## Tom Cashel

Khaalis said:
			
		

> THIS is an evil or at best, neutral attitude. Punishment does NOT mean Cruelty!  The punishment meted out by the Paladin was swift and merciful as it should have been. Anything else is Vengeance, not Punishment.




Swift and chaotic, but not lawful, good, or merciful. Mercy implies forgiveness.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

*My two pesos*

IMC, the paladin wouldn't have been stripped of his powers.  He stopped someone in the middle of an obviously evil act; at least not the first time.  

However, he *would* have faced censure and light punishment from his order or church, perhaps little more than a stern lecture on the virtues of due process and providing the wicked a chance to atone for their evil ways.  Or perhaps he has to spend a few days aiding the temple clerics healing the sick and injured so that he might further contemplate on the virtue of mercy.  

The leader of his order would make absolutely clear to him that even the most wicked mortal can seek repentance, and that there are laws in place for such situations, and that attacking with such force and duplicity are not the ways of the good heart.  But I wouldn't have his god strip his paladinhood.

Now, if this were a common occurance, then, yes, I would strip him of his paladin abilities.  If such situations happen often, then you have a sociopath using a facade of virtue to hide his dark heart.  

Even if, for some reason, I did strip him of his powers, I would allow him to atone for his misdeeds.


----------



## Darklone

Could we have a "Nightchilde-2s proposal" option in the vote in the other thread?


----------



## Henry

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I sure disagree with that. Frankly, seeing the molester cut down would probably be a lot less scary to the child than anything that the molester had already done to her. A paladin lives to vanquish evil, and I think this a clear-cut example of evil in action. I'm with Wulf on this, and wouldn't strip away the paladin's powers.




If anything, I think it would have actually served a good purpose for the child to see the rapist punished directly for his actions. The child doesn't have any worry that this monster will come back to hurt her ever again, whereas a court may only let him go with a stiff fine in a pseudo-medieval setting; 10 years old is almost marrying age, after all... I'd say the paladin AT WORST might do an atonement for letting his passion goad him into a dishonorable attack, but even THAT's being strict.

I'm not your DM, but you'd be getting XP, not grief, from me.


----------



## Henry

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> Swift and chaotic, but not lawful, good, or merciful. Mercy implies forgiveness.




I maybe missed it, but was it said what god the paladin served? If he served Tyr or Torm (in the FR), then a "fie" and a "pshaw" on mercy.  Paladins and Clerics of Tyr are seen as roving lawgivers by definition, and Torm the god of Duty at most would have disabled the man with a subdual attack, and ensured he received justice even if he had to follow the trial all the way through and be sure the man got more than a slap on the wrist.

Knowing a certain paladin who plays in my games, and his view on this subject, I'm surprised the molester would have even gotten the words out of his mouth.


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury

There is no issue about dishonnor because a)he didn't even think sneaking from behind,and b) he acted by heart.

Yes a paladin has to be lawful(meaning that he tries to follow the code his god represents) but he is a man not an automaton and u can not punnish him for that.(you can punish him but that just doesn't seems right for me)

The shock of watching a monster raping a child and the chance and the ability to punish him the way it deserves even in a game justifies what the u did through your character.

In grim adventures the emotions of the players are more likely to appear throught their characters than in a dungeon crawl adventure.

The dm must not be so judgmental and stuck to the rules ,for even a paladin can do something not so lawfull without beeing punished.
The good part(of a lawful good paladin) is more important for me.


____________________
The Wizard


----------



## Numion

Whats the relevance of the man being helpless? Dropping your weapon (and pants) shouldn't let you escape justice. 

The Paladin quickly acted as a Jury and Judge, then as an Executioner. If we're into "iffing", what if the perp had been warned (so that the Paladin wouldn't backstab), and he quickdrew a knife and killed the child (only witness). Thus considering the situation the Paladin acted in the safest and most protective way in regards to the innocent present (the child). 

That the child saw the decapitation isn't that severe. In those times she would've seen it regardless if the trial punished the man to death. Executions were usually very violent for sexual offenders, and most of the times public. Only infraction I see here is that the paladin didn't say "close your eyes, child", before attacking.

One more thing: Paladins aren't restricted to frontal assaults. While that would be the right approach vs. commoners, in this case there was the child to be protected.


----------



## mroberon1972

Darklone said:
			
		

> So, paladins who are in a land where some pervert things are allowed, common or lawful (such as slavery for example) should murder and kill?
> 
> How is a guy without weapons and with his pants down not helpless? Ok, there are demons and stuff... but this was in a town? I do have the impression some people here are too much used to high level D&D where every streetmerchant is a djinni.
> 
> mroberson: Please read the earlier posts. You assume too much from your own game, there are other gamestyles. The paladin may be his gods law, the blackguard as well. Who's right? And where?




A paladin IS a killer.  It is the point of the paladin's abilities:

Smite evil don't do subdual damage, ya know.

Explain to me where, out of the descriptions in the player's handbook, you can get this 'local law abiding cop guy' aspect of a paladin?

Has the guy who started this named his character's god yet?  It would be a big help in deciding anything.  It's the character's connection to his god that's in question here...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Darklone said:
			
		

> Wulf I do have to disagree. The DM set a trap for the paladin, sure. But he gave him a warning.




Actually, this is what makes it seem to me all the more likely that the DM had it in for the paladin (character or player, no difference).

He trolled the bait right past the paladin. A child molester. Caught in the act. 

By the time he'd set up this whole scenario, the "warning" was almost rhetorical. I don't think the DM really expected the paladin to do anything other than what the paladin did.

I'd be curious to know what would have happened if the paladin _hadn't_ dealt swift justice. What new depradations would this DM have heaped on him?

"The child molester gets out on bail and murders the child in retaliation. You failed to act. You lose your powers!"

Just a hunch. The whole thing stinks.


Wulf


----------



## Crass

monboesen said:
			
		

> What if the man was in reality good, but possesed by a demon or evil spirit that forced him to carry out the heineous acts. Then the paladin had thoughtlessly slain a suffering innocent.
> 
> He should have apprehended the man and either let local law deal with him or, in case that would not work for some reason, question the villain himself to determine the truth and act upon it.




We're playing D&D here - who's to say that nobody can Speak with Dead, or uses some other magic, prior to burial to ascertain "the truth"? Also, resurrection of the slain is possible if the paladin was in error.


----------



## Darklone

The god was not named yet. The paladin is a killer sure. But could you please answer on our emphasis on "It's important how you do something, not if."

We're not against killing, we're against how he kills. 

And PLEASE. Read the rest of the thread instead of repeating arguments that were answered on page 3-8.


----------



## diaglo

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Just a hunch. The whole thing stinks.





i agree.


but still the paladin still should've not snuck up on the situation.

first the molester would've known... the DM's fault

and second the paladin should've gave a warning. honor not for the molester but for his own personal code. the player's fault.

both did wrong.


----------



## Darklone

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> "The child molester gets out on bail and murders the child in retaliation. You failed to act. You lose your powers!"
> 
> Just a hunch. The whole thing stinks.
> 
> Wulf



Hehehe. I wouldn't be so hard with the DM, after all, he was willing to talk about it. I would rather say the DM was pretty mischievous and didn't really think about or wasn't experienced enough to deal with the problem... which is BIG.

And the problem here consists in different opinions about what is good, bad or acceptable. ENworld disagrees about that, the player and the DM disagree about that.


----------



## Numion

Darklone said:
			
		

> The god was not named yet. The paladin is a killer sure. But could you please answer on our emphasis on "It's important how you do something, not if."
> 
> We're not against killing, we're against how he kills.
> 
> And PLEASE. Read the rest of the thread instead of repeating arguments that were answered on page 3-8.




I've read the whole thread, but where has it been said that a Paladin can't attack from ambush? In this case it was tactically a superior move, since the Paladin could immediately eliminate any further harm to the child. Protecting the child is the number one priority here, right? Not protecting the Paladins honor.


----------



## Malar's Cow

A paladin must be a paragon of both goodness and lawfulness.  Did the rapist perform an evil deed?  Absolutely.  As a paragon of good, did the paladin have the obligation to stop the perpetration of an evil act?  Without doubt.  I don't feel that the good/evil axis is in question here (although the paladin could have subdued the perp instead of slaying him outright).

I think what's more in question in this scenario is the law/chaos axis.  The question of context has to be addressed.  First, did the crime take place in a frontier town where there is no effective legal structure, a la American west in the 19th century?  What about a land torn by civil strife where the governing legal body has either disintegrated or is powerless to enforce its own laws?  Is the land governed by a morally ambivalent (neutral on the good/evil axis) or downright evil rulership?  What about if the government is chaotic in nature, and believes that justice is determined by individual moral compasses rather than by an unyielding legal structure?

If any of the above circumstances were in effect in the town where the crime occurred, the paladin would not be able to rely on effective justice being doled out by the authorities.  If the crime occurred in Thay or Zhentil Keep, the authorities might have instead arrested the paladin for the murder of an "innocent commoner" who was not doing anything morally objectionable in the government's eyes.

However, if the act were occurring in a lawful good society such as Damara or Cormyr, the paladin could have reasonable certainty that the law would mete out just punishment to the criminal, and have no compunctions about subduing him and turning him over to the proper authorities.

As a paragon of good and law, the paladin must not allow his code to be relative to the moral compass of his surroundings.  To me it is one of the most difficult classes to play, because the paladin will almost always be in conflict with his surrounding environment, and most likely with his companions as well (unless they all are lawful good as well).

Just my two cp to toss into the ante.


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury

And i hate when everyone comes with a rule or something about how should a character act according to his alignment.I think that two filthy words such as "neutral evil" or "lawful good" or something are not enought to descibe something so brilliant and complex as a man's personality.

_______________
The Wizard


----------



## Darklone

Numion said:
			
		

> I've read the whole thread, but where has it been said that a Paladin can't attack from ambush? In this case it was tactically a superior move, since the Paladin could immediately eliminate any further harm to the child. Protecting the child is the number one priority here, right? Not protecting the Paladins honor.



I ambush another group of soldiers whose government declared war upon my king (or the other way round).

I kill an unarmed person from behind in his own house.

If you see no difference here... your problem. The DM in question saw one.


----------



## tonym

Your god is well within his rights to punish your paladin, because gods can be obsessively strict and not care about context.  But gods can also make cold, unemotional decisions that mess things up more than they help things out.  

Maybe your DM could have your PC 'hired' by a different god who thinks your killing of the pervert was just.  And then the DM could have the paladins of your old god loathe your heretic-PC and constantly try to find you guilty of a crime so they can kill you...even though you are still a paladin, but of a different god.

This way the whole situation becomes a nifty source for RPing and plot complications.     

Tony


----------



## 2WS-Steve

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I was commenting that Wulf's and everyone else opinions that agree with his stance of "Black and White" as expresses in his quotation is inconsitant with how "Good" is defined in D&D.




First, I sincerely doubt that the designers of D&D thought that their interpretation of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil were as hard-coded into the rules as things like attacks of opportunity. Every creative person, DM's included, will express their own beliefs through their creations and thus we'll see different interpretations by different DMs.

Moreover, a DM might want to explore different conceptions of the good in a game. What would right and wrong be like in a lawless town such as Deadwood?

Second, page 105 of the PHB 3.5 describes Alhandra as "a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation..." This certainly seems consistent with the way Wulf and several others run the game .

I don't have the Book of Exalted Deeds but it sounds like it is trying to give examples of different conceptions of the good that have been held at different times and by different people. Like other resources, I suspect these are various suggestions or options for how to treat alignment in one's game.

I agree with your later criticism of utilitarianism but it also might be interesting, within a game, to see what kind of stories evolve from a world where utilitarianism were the divinely mandated conception of the good.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I was commenting that Wulf's and everyone else opinions that agree with his stance of "Black and White" as expresses in his quotation is inconsitant with how "Good" is defined in D&D.




The Book of Exalted Deeds does not D&D make. Your quotes from that book make me as happy not to have purchased it as I am not to have purchased its Evil counterpart. 



> Because (Book of Exhalted Deeds) "violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good and a victory for evil."




Oh, please. Violence is not always necessarily a victory for evil, not in the real world, and definitely not in D&D. 

If every act of violence were a de facto victory for evil, there would be no good adventurers. You can hardly call this a tenet of D&D, unless you plan for your adventurers to treat every dungeon as a friggin' diplomatic opportunity.

The vast bulk of the D&D gaming experience is that violence is a perfectly acceptable solution, in some if not most encounters the characters will face.



> This isn't to say that you don't kick ass and take names. This is to say that you kick ass and take names *once every other possible attempt has been made to avoid kicking ass and taking names*. This is what D&D good is.




Again, if you truly live by that quote, there will be few good characters in your D&D game. I do not play D&D for a chance to enter the dungeon and talk the goblins out of their evil ways, or to otherwise exhaust every other possible attempt to avoid kicking ass. 

It's preposterous to say, "This is what D&D good is." It's no wonder that philosophy was relegated to an optional product. Frankly I'm surprised you can even find it there. It flies directly in the face of all of the FUN of D&D. 

Call me crazy, but thousands of years of relentless evil-good conflict abdicates the paladin from any, "Well, maybe _this_ little goblin baby _won't_ grow up to slaughter and pillage."

Evil is evil, and it is GOOD to kill it.

Wulf


----------



## Numion

Darklone said:
			
		

> I ambush another group of soldiers whose government declared war upon my king (or the other way round).
> 
> I kill an unarmed person from behind in his own house.
> 
> If you see no difference here... your problem. The DM in question saw one.




It's no different from if a judge had found him guilty and had him executed. The man would've been helpless when executed then, too. Thats what defines execution - murders are called execution-style when the victims have had no chance to defend themselves. 

The Paladin did not murder anyone. He executed a criminal.


----------



## Darklone

But is it good to become evil while killing evil ?


----------



## Darklone

Numion said:
			
		

> The Paladin did not murder anyone. He executed a criminal.



Once again for the third time now: HOW did he do that? Without honor. Nothing against execution. Nothing against killing. But he did it not like a paladin should.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

I've read the original post several times and can't figure out why everyone thinks the paladin "snuck up" on the bad guy.

He simply followed him. 

The guy's back happened to be turned when the paladin struck without hesitation.

That hardly describes an "ambush."


Wulf


----------



## billd91

In general, the paladin did right. He stopped the man in the middle of perpetrating evil. 
As far as his methods, the paladin shouldn't be given any more punishment than having to say a few prayers of penance for rash action and not putting the fear of divine retribution into the molester. And even if that means kneeling for a couple of hours in front of the alter saying the prayers or wearing a hair shirt for a day, the paladin should be happy to do it. No loss of paladin powers.
I'm constantly amazed at how often people are so strict about paladin powers even when it's clear that the paladin stopped evil from being committed (in this case, committed again). The paladin should be lawful and yes, that does mean having respect for the legal system and legal authority as well as having discipline, but let's not be ridiculous. Not every infraction has to be met with stripping of powers. Minor offenses should be met with relatively minor atonements like extra work at the temple, extra prayers, extra tithing, or minor corporal punishment.
Actually, I'm reminded of a book called Biting at the Grave by many of these sorts of debates. In it, the author, Padraig O'Malley, talked about the trouble in Northern Ireland within the context of the H-Block hunger strikes. While often called a specifically political conflict rather than religious, he takes it right back to religious. Because of their respective educations, mostly parochial, the two communities can't communicate on moral issues. For the Protestants, it's all black and white, sin or no sin. For Cathoics, it's shades of gray, venal sin and mortal sin. Protestants think that Catholics are too morally ambiguous and Catholics think Protestants are too rigid. And so they can't communicate on moral issues.
What I'm seeing here, and in most paladin debates, is too much Protestantism, binary sin vs no sin, too much absolute rigidity. What you need is more gradations of violations for a paladin and appropriate penance for those gradations. It fits a more medieval-based fantasy religion anyway. Make the paladin take a half day out for penance and leave it at that. Don't strip his powers for doing his job, make him work off using non-paladinesque methods.


----------



## Darklone

Though I do like this kind of arguing, Wulf... with my chaotic good characters...

Did the DM agree on your interpretation ?


----------



## Numion

Darklone said:
			
		

> Once again for the third time now: HOW did he do that? Without honor. Nothing against execution. Nothing against killing. But he did it not like a paladin should.




Once again for the third time now: he did in a manner most protective of, and most safe for, the *child*. Do you think it is a serious breach of his code that he put the childs safety (and perhaps the childs honor?) above his own honor? 

Add to this the fact that confrontin her abuser again in a courtroom is harmful in real world and supposedly in fantasy world too.


----------



## billd91

Arrgg. Darn double post.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Darklone said:
			
		

> Though I do like this kind of arguing, Wulf... with my chaotic good characters...
> 
> Did the DM agree on your interpretation ?




Heh... I dunno. I don't play good characters.

I played what I thought was a chaotic neutral sociopath-- but since I pretty much confined my slaughter to evil-doers, he decided I was chaotic good.

So I guess that means, yeah, he did agree with that interpretation. My intent didn't matter (kill people-- just the bad people-- and take their stuff) but the net effect was a victory for good.

So "good" I was. (See the Story Hour in the sig...)


Wulf


----------



## Darklone

Numion said:
			
		

> Once again for the third time now: he did in a manner most protective of, and most safe for, the *child*. Do you think it is a serious breach of his code that he put the childs safety (and perhaps the childs honor?) above his own honor?
> 
> Add to this the fact that confrontin her abuser again in a courtroom is harmful in real world and supposedly in fantasy world too.



Putting the swordblade on the shoulder of the guy and telling him to pull up his pants would have been so bad? It's what I would expect the good hero in a book to do. Old-fashioned, it seems.

And the child would probably not have been witness in medieval courts.


----------



## Darklone

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh... I dunno. I don't play good characters.
> 
> I played what I thought was a chaotic neutral sociopath-- but since I pretty much confined my slaughter to evil-doers, he decided I was chaotic good.
> 
> So I guess that means, yeah, he did agree with that interpretation. My intent didn't matter (kill people-- just the bad people-- and take their stuff) but the net effect was a victory for good.
> 
> So "good" I was. (See the Story Hour in the sig...)
> 
> Wulf



Read that, loved that. Poor halfling. As mentioned, I usually play chaotic good psychopaths. Do you know the old palladium alignment Aberrant Evil? That's it.

But back on topic: This was not a chaotic neutral paladin


----------



## jgbrowning

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Book of Exalted Deeds does not D&D make. Your quotes from that book make me as happy not to have purchased it as I am not to have purchased its Evil counterpart.




True. But it explicitly addressed your statement. Killing women and children is evil. Even when they're orcs.



> Oh, please. Violence is not always necessarily a victory for evil, not in the real world, and definitely not in D&D.
> 
> If every act of violence were a de facto victory for evil, there would be no good adventurers. You can hardly call this a tenet of D&D, unless you plan for your adventurers to treat every dungeon as a friggin' diplomatic opportunity.




Settlling a disagreement with words as opposed to violence is less "evil" than one settled by threat of violence. Settling a disagreement because of threat of violence is better than settlingone by violence.

At it's best violence can good only because it can oppose other violence. Either way, at the root of it violence is the problem. In D&D terms, it's evil, because it's selfish and is only acceptable as good when fighting selfishness (other violence) as a last resort.



> The vast bulk of the D&D gaming experience is that violence is a perfectly acceptable solution, in some if not most encounters the characters will face.




That's often because it's provided as the only solution. The game's desiged around killing things, taking their stuff and getting more powerful by doing so. How many games even offer any form of diplomatic solutions as possible outcomes? That doesn't mean that doing so is considered "good" in the game.



> Again, if you truly live by that quote, there will be few good characters in your D&D game. I do not play D&D for a chance to enter the dungeon and talk the goblins out of their evil ways, or to otherwise exhaust every other possible attempt to avoid kicking ass.




Nor do I expect you to. I'm simply saying that if you decide to kill the goblin women and children you're performing an evil act according the the game.



> It's preposterous to say, "This is what D&D good is." It's no wonder that philosophy was relegated to an optional product. Frankly I'm surprised you can even find it there. It flies directly in the face of all of the FUN of D&D.




Fun doesn't mean good. It's often fun to be the bad guys. Realistically, a party is usually just a bunch of mercanaries who get together to go kill things and take their stuff. Why should I consider that good? Just because the creatures being killed aren't good? That doesn't necessarily follow. In other words, just killing evil doesn't make one good. There's a lot more to being good than killing evil, in fact, just killing evil and doing nothing else probably means that you *aren't* good.



> Call me crazy, but thousands of years of relentless evil-good conflict abdicates the paladin from any, "Well, maybe _this_ little goblin baby _won't_ grow up to slaughter and pillage."
> 
> Evil is evil, and it is GOOD to kill it.
> 
> Wulf




Evil is evil, and it's better to not have to kill it unless you absolutely have too. Does that make sense? I understand your viewpoint, but I'm saying that that viewpoint isn't supported by the supplements dealing with the subject matter. Although Alhandra may "fight evil without mercy and protect the innocent without hesitation..." that doesn't mean that she wouldn't be better off fighting evil *with mercy*. Because "Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and *compassion*."

joe b.


----------



## Westwind

I'm not convinced by the arguements that it's better for the girl to confront her attacker in the courtroom or that she will somehow become more traumatized by watching the Paladin kill her assaulter.  How is the Paladin supposed to know?  My Paladin has ranks in Knowledge (religion) and Profession (judge) but not Knowledge (psychotherapy).  Don't graft current theory onto this Paladin's decision--it's not fair to the character.

According to the PH, a Paladin is to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."  Not bring them to the nearest authority.  Not make sure they are represented by council at a trial.  Not try to convert every last orc in the forest.  Punish them.

Of course, the PH also states the Paladin is supposed to act with honor and gives a few examples of dishonorable behaviour.  If your Paladin found himself behind a demon who, somehow, hadn't heard his approach, would you spend the surprise round getting its attention or smiting it?

According to Faiths and Pantheons, Paladins of Tyr "without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgements...often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'."  I have no idea what the greater cultural context of this event was since it might matter if it was an inn in Waterdeep for somewhere deep in the North.  However, at the very least being allowd to "default" in such a manner implies that Paladins of Tyr have full rights to exact justice in a manner they see fitting at times, as long as the punishment fits the crime.  I suppose we could carry the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing a little too far and say the Paladin picked the wrong punishment, but that's not for grandmothers to read.


----------



## FireLance

Darklone said:
			
		

> Putting the swordblade on the shoulder of the guy and telling him to pull up his pants would have been so bad? It's what I would expect the good hero in a book to do. Old-fashioned, it seems.



[Old-Timer]You're telling me.  Kids these days.  Everything has to be done immediately, at once, in a flash.  Can't even wait for the justice system to do its work.  No patience.  Now it's all these instant e-executions.  Humph.[/Old-Timer]


----------



## jgbrowning

Hey Wulf, from a D&D cosmology viewpoint, the "good" planes are almost free of violence while the "evil" planes are full of them. I think part of the defining of good and evil in both BoED and BoVD takes this basic cosmology into account.

In heaven there isn't murder, rape, or violence because there isn't a need for it. Any problems are dealt with peaceably, while in Hell violence is the mainstay for the rule of law.

Put in cosmological terms, any act of violence can be seen as a result of evil.

Just some thoughts...

joe b.


----------



## Feyd Rautha

Look, simply put the act of a vigilante is not a lawful act.  It can be chock full of good intentions, but as a true paladin would say that's what the road to hell is paved with.

It sounds like you're in a gritty campaign world.  Think of it this way then...you are Batman.  Batman doesn't kill ANYBODY.  He even tries to save those who are trying to kill him by risking his own life.  Now granted Batman are stories that can fit into situations where nobody can die, but it is still possible in DnD.  Regardless of whether you hold to that or not, that is where your DM is coming from I do believe.  I would have done the same thing to you, but an atonement won't be a massive ordeal as this was a situation where your god could understand.

What should you have done?  Grabbed the man by the back of the head, dragged him out into the common room of the in (pants still down), and declared before the town and your adventuring party what had happened and that someone should fetch the constable.  If things weren't resolved swiftly then other actions might need to be taken.  If you were travelling in an evil land and the populace didn't want to kill the guy outright then things get interesting, but a paladin's path is never easy.  Sorry.

Your character isn't Sam Jackson ("Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!") even if YOU feel that way when something like this happens.


----------



## 4everdm

IMO (Judge Dredd   ) your paladin did wrong, a LG Paladin is a very difficult class to properly play.
It appears he was very upset due to the age of the victim, would he have behaved the same if it were a woman or man? He must uphold the laws he is bound to by his god & church, but is his church acknowledged in this town, if not the people of the town would be highly upset.
As stated, there were other options as to the handling of the perp, plus let the punishment fit the crime, castrate the bugger & make him live with the reminder of what he has done - you don't go around killing every thief who steals do, but cutting off a hand would suffice.
Perhaps by your actions of sparing his life and teaching him the error of his ways he could be redeemed and who knows become a loyal follower of your god, it is better to make your god stronger with followers then kill everyone.
Yes, some of your powers should be "put on hold" until you atone, but not all. The act being committed is evil without question, but was the paladin 100% certain the perp was evil, acting under his will and not under some control?
If your paladin wants to play judge & jury he should bear in mind there are always circumstances which need to be explained before punshiment is properly doled out.
Best of Luck


----------



## Myrddin ap Taliesen

I believe he did the right thing.  Asking him to turn around and fight him fairly would've been little more than toying with the man.  He deserved to die, the paladin saw that justice was carried out, end of story.  My only issue with is was perhaps he should've dragged the guy into a doorway or something, to avert adding yet one more scar on the psyche of this child (as I'm sure watching a man, even such a loathsomely evil one, be beheaded would do).  No penalty needed for the paladin.


----------



## Eisenkrote

Sejs said:
			
		

> To exactly what point and purpose?  5th level paladin.  "Lowly" commoner.  The man's death is a foregone conclusion. Telling him to zip up, grab a club and defend himself would pointless sophistry - he _can't_ defend himself against the paladin.  It won't matter what he does, he is going to die in single combat against so supperior an opponent.




That doesn't excuse the act.  Whether or not a man dies in combat is a matter of skill and expertise.  *How* he dies is a matter of honor, and that is the pertinent point.  A paladin isn't supposed to act honorable only to his equals... it applies to all, especially the weak.



> Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the paladin walking up to whatever local constabulary is in the area and telling them "Hey guys, I walked in on this man about to rape this 10 year old girl ... again.  She can testify to what happened.  I killed the man in defense of the child." and having their response being anything other then "Oh. Alright then.  Nicely done there, citizen.  Thank you."  And that's to say nothing of the fact that on the good/evil end of things it was the morally _right_ thing to do.  Defending the weak and innocent from the depredations of the wicked.  The paladin was justified in what he did.




A Paladin's actions shouldn't be determined by how the local constabulary would feel about his actions.  A paladin should go by how his God would feel about it.  And I think this is the crux of it.  Whether or not this is a matter of penance depends on the beliefs of his faith.  If you're unsure of them, you should ask for a list of "commandments" from your DM before proceeding.

And while your character would consider being stripped of his powers to be a bad thing, it isn't necessarily so in terms of character development.  Its a quest that will better define your character.


----------



## Calico_Jack73

Sejs said:
			
		

> Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure.




Thank goodness... I finally see that someone else sees that "Lawful" has nothing to do with "The Law".  Gygax picked the absolute "WORST" word to describe that axis of alignment.

I'm sick of people thinking Paladins must always obey the law... I think with my next Paladin character I'll take a Vow of Nonviolence (indeed, every Vow in the Book) because every DM seems to think that a Paladin should never attack when he has the advantage anyway.  What utter crap...


----------



## bweibeler

I have to go with the GM.  There were plenty of more viable options for the paladin: knocking him out rarther then subduing, demanding his surrender, challenging him to a duel, etc.  Killing him from behind was not a very paladin thing to do.


----------



## mroberon1972

Darklone said:
			
		

> The god was not named yet. The paladin is a killer sure. But could you please answer on our emphasis on "It's important how you do something, not if."
> 
> We're not against killing, we're against how he kills.
> 
> And PLEASE. Read the rest of the thread instead of repeating arguments that were answered on page 3-8.





Ok...  Good queston.

Ask a police negotiator or sniper.

The negotiator will lie, trick, and play mindgames with a perp until he's a psychic wreck, then act like his friend to get him out into the open where he can be taken down.  Every one I have met would line up to lawful good better than most people I know.

The sniper does not care if the perp is facing or away, and they don't have to give warning a sniper is going to shoot the perp.  Oh, and he doesn't have to be holding a weapon either.


----------



## Darklone

Yet one point I'm missing in the current discussion, though it's not very suitable for most D&D games. Paladins should not like to kill. That's what evil guys do. He will kill if he has to, but did he have to?

Arguing that he was allowed to kill the guy from behind cause it makes no difference because that guy stands no chance anyhow... OMG, do you really think so? If the paladin is so much stronger than the guy, why kill him at all right now? Take him to court and go there and take care that he gets justice. Rotting in a cell, getting hanged, no matter. But why bloodying your hands?


----------



## Joker[ZW]

Darklone said:
			
		

> But is it good to become evil while killing evil ?



IMO, he won't. Why? Because if he did he would not be a Paladin. A Paladin (in FR) gets his Powers from his god, because the god *trusts* the Paladin to _walk the line_ without becoming evil.
IMO the Nietzsche quote is good for "normal" people, a Paladin is a Paladin because his God trusts him to do what other people would not be able to do without succumbing to evil. 
Sometimes a god is wrong in his judgement, thus a Blackguard is born.
You have read Sepulchrave's Story Hour, Darklone, and I think it is a good example of what a Paladin should be able to do without losing the trust of his diety.


----------



## Darklone

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> Ok...  Good queston.
> 
> Ask a police negotiator or sniper.
> 
> The negotiator will lie, trick, and play mindgames with a perp until he's a psychic wreck, then act like his friend to get him out into the open where he can be taken down.  Every one I have met would line up to lawful good better than most people I know.
> 
> The sniper does not care if the perp is facing or away, and they don't have to give warning a sniper is going to shoot the perp.  Oh, and he doesn't have to be holding a weapon either.



If that's lawful good for you... then I'm sorry for you. 

These situations are a problem for the paladin, no discussion about that. But in the game, he is strong and powerful and most likely (at least in this situation) to handle the evildoer. Or to keep him away from the victim. He is able to drag him to court. In this situation. 

Situations where a paladin can not succeed with noble actions are another matter. He did not have this problem here.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Hey Wulf, from a D&D cosmology viewpoint, the "good" planes are almost free of violence while the "evil" planes are full of them. I think part of the defining of good and evil in both BoED and BoVD takes this basic cosmology into account.




I don't recall reading any of this cosmology in my PHB. I could be wrong, but my impression is that you are pulling heavily from supplements that are specifically written to _change_ the fundamental D&D game and to add complexities of grey to a black and white core. 

To put it another way, you are citing from works that are specifically written to explore deeper philosophical arguments on the nature of good and evil.

The D&D game is not "defined" by the BoVD, the BoED, or the MoP. The D&D game at its core essence does not say that killing is bad.



> Put in cosmological terms, any act of violence can be seen as a result of evil.




Do they not wrestle on Mt. Olympus?

To say that "all violence is evil" is a pacifist approach. The core D&D game is not pacifist. 

And certainly in the real world, one can make a very solid argument that pacifism and non-violence inevitably leads to GREATER EVIL than measured, violent resistance. Perforce, as Evil, using violence as a means, would be impossible to resist. Pacifism is not a valid response to the relentless assault of evil.


Wulf


----------



## mroberon1972

Darklone said:
			
		

> Once again for the third time now: HOW did he do that? Without honor. Nothing against execution. Nothing against killing. But he did it not like a paladin should.




Hey, he's right!

The paladin should have dragged him into the town square, with the villians pants still undone.  He should have then shouted "This is the fate of all who defile children on my watch!" and hacked his head from his shoulders in full view of the public.

It's the knightly way...

(And no.  I am not joking.  I mean it as dead serious.)


----------



## Darklone

Joker[ZW] said:
			
		

> IMO, he won't. Why? Because if he did he would not be a Paladin. A Paladin (in FR) gets his Powers from his god, because the god *trusts* the Paladin to _walk the line_ without becoming evil.



Sure. Did this paladin walk the line? IMHO not. He overstepped it a little bit. Not too much, but he acted without honor... and IMHO without being pressed too hard yet.


> IMO the Nietzsche quote is good for "normal" people, a Paladin is a Paladin because his God trusts him to do what other people would not be able to do without succumbing to evil.
> Sometime a god is wrong in his judgement, thus a Blackguard is born.
> You read Sepulchrave's Story Hour, Darklone and I think it is a good example of what a Paladin should be able to do without losing the trust of his diety.



We could ask Eadrics player to post here, but knowing him from the story I think he wouldn't have acted like this paladin. Remember the battle where he subdued his opponents on the battlefield?

Edit: to make myself clear: this is a common problem for young paladins, possibly young Eadric encountered a similar situation. It's a possibility to learn and mature, and that's why I vote for a lesser atonement (not necessarily the spell), not the full loss of all class abilities.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Darklone said:
			
		

> Paladins should not like to kill.




Bull----. 

There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil. 

A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.

Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.


Wulf


----------



## Calico_Jack73

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To say that "all violence is evil" is a pacifist approach. The core D&D game is not pacifist.
> 
> And certainly in the real world, one can make a very solid argument that pacifism and non-violence inevitably leads to GREATER EVIL than measured, violent resistance. Perforce, as Evil, using violence as a means, would be impossible to resist. Pacifism is not a valid response to the relentless assault of evil.
> 
> Wulf




Indeed.... Gygax said that it would be perfectly fine for a Paladin to capture a group of Orcs, tie them up, and force them to give up their evil ways.  Once they had sworn to do so a Paladin would be perfectly justified in slaying the Orcs so that they could no resume their evil lives.  In that way the Orcs' souls would be saved.


----------



## FireLance

Westwind said:
			
		

> According to the PH, a Paladin is to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."  Not bring them to the nearest authority.  Not make sure they are represented by council at a trial.  Not try to convert every last orc in the forest.  Punish them.



It's been said, but I guess it bears repeating.  Punishing does not necessarily mean killing.  Punishing does not mean you have to do it personally.  You can let the civil justice system do its work and assign the appropriate legal penalty. I suppose it boils down to whether you believe that all creatures, including evil ones, have the right to a fair trial, and whether the civil authorities are competent enough to give one.

Someone mentioned the old saying that when fighting evil, make sure that you do not become evil yourself.  And fundamentally, I guess it boils down to a matter of rights.  Evil may not see that any creatures has rights.  Neutral may deny rights to evil people on the basis that "they deserved it" or "they had it coming". However, I believe that Good must see that all creatures, including evil ones, have rights and those rights should not be taken away unless absolutely necessary.  Once Good starts to think that Evil has no rights, it starts on the slippery slope towards being Evil itself.


----------



## Rel

I'm not going to address the real question at hand.  It's been discussed plenty already and my answer will probably be apparent from what I AM going to post about, which is a strong trend I see whenever these "Paladin" threads surface.

It seems to me that there are a great many GMs out there who, overtly or subtextually, are saying, "I will let you PLAY a Paladin, but I don't have to let you ENJOY playing a Paladin."  We're talking about a class that is already tightly constrained in its tactical options by the rules as written.  Paladins are effectively barred from lying, cheating and stealing, even if against Evil.  Many GM's also come down on the Paladin if they knowingly let any of the other party members lie, cheat or steal, even if against Evil.

And, according to many of these same GM's, when it comes down to what Paladins are really made to do (Kick Evil Square in the Ass), they have to do so under very stringent guidelines that appear to include talking to the bad guy, finding out why he feels he must do evil, showing mercy and then handing him over to the "proper authorities".  Why anyone would want to play a character in an adventure game that is bound to those restrictions is beyond me.

When I GM, I try to look at the party's actions in a favorable light.  When I ask myself the question, "Should they be able to do that?", my default answer is yes.  This holds for the Paladin as well.  My goal is that the player should have as much fun as possible so long that a sense of the PC's integrity is kept intact.  My goal is NOT to look for any small technicality to screw the PC out of his powers on.


----------



## Li Shenron

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Book of Exalted Deeds does not D&D make. Your quotes from that book make me as happy not to have purchased it as I am not to have purchased its Evil counterpart.
> ...
> Oh, please. Violence is not always necessarily a victory for evil, not in the real world, and definitely not in D&D.
> ...
> If every act of violence were a de facto victory for evil, there would be no good adventurers.
> ...
> The vast bulk of the D&D gaming experience is that violence is a perfectly acceptable solution, in some if not most encounters the characters will face.
> ...
> It's preposterous to say, "This is what D&D good is." It's no wonder that philosophy was relegated to an optional product. Frankly I'm surprised you can even find it there. It flies directly in the face of all of the FUN of D&D.




I insist in saying that the whole problem is because everyone pretends to apply his real world belief in the game. If you start doing that, you may find yourself impossibled to play with the others, as Wulf says when talking about his fun with D&D.

In a chess game, there are the whites and the blacks, they are equivalent and they kill each other. Easy. In a D&D game, there are the good and the evil, but it's already more complicated than that. There are evil and there are evil and there are other evil. The game has outsiders which make it simple: here's a devil = evil, period. It also has creatures which are "traditionally" evil such as orcs, but with exceptions. And finally it has creatures which you cannot say, like humans, until you see their actions and/or you are revealed their motivations.
When you play a game, watch a movie, read a book or doing something else which exists only in fantasy, you may want to keep it simple. If you start thinking about fantasy characters in the real world terms, almost none would be "good", and in practice I haven't seen a large difference between the behaviour of good and evil D&D PCs. However, you still cannot make D&D as simple as chess.

If your party really feels like, you can try making the game more complex. Book of Exalted Deeds (and here I totally disagree with Wulf) tries to do that a little, and in fact it is a book for "mature audiences". You need to accept a more difficult way of handling the game if you use this book.

When talking about character's morality, the clash between the DM and the player in question must remain at the game level: the paladin thought he was doing the right thing, and his god disagreed. Instead of complaining because he lost some abilities, the player should take advantage of the situation as a RP idea. OTOH, the DM could have been more careful of the consequences of screwing up the current idea.
It should have been nice before playing that the whole group agreed about the level of complexity of these issues, and about the DM's rights to put character's morality under test. It is really a matter of a few minutes... when we started the last campaign, I just asked the players if it was ok for them that we did not question these things - the reason was that the game was our 1st in 3.5 and I had to concentrate on learning the rules - so they just kill stuff based on tactics; in previous campaigns we enjoyed deepening the issue more and it works just as well if everyone likes it.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Evil is evil, and it is GOOD to kill it.





			
				Numion said:
			
		

> The Paladin did not murder anyone. He executed a criminal.




If you are talking in game terms, these are example of legitimate statements. The point is that if everyone agrees not to stress the subject, your characters don't have to all agree with each other about the statement (just as players don't). For a Paladin of another god these statements could be ultimate blasphemy.

But the reason of this troublesome debate is that when someone writes such statements he is still based on his own believes, not his character, which inevitably leads to something unacceptable for example by religious players.

Just to say, I have played with fascists and pacifists at the same table, and it is possible to play together as long as you play and don't preach.


----------



## mroberon1972

Darklone said:
			
		

> If that's lawful good for you... then I'm sorry for you.




Back it up son...  That sounded a little like a personal attack.  I ain't trucking with that.


----------



## jgbrowning

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't recall reading any of this cosmology in my PHB. I could be wrong, but my impression is that you are pulling heavily from supplements that are specifically written to _change_ the fundamental D&D game and to add complexities of grey to a black and white core.




I'm actually going back to the AD&D PHB... and the manual of the planes. In heaven there isn't internal violent conflict while in hell there is. I think this isn't much away from the 3X PHB and I'd tend to think that the concept of the great wheel is old enough to consider cannon.



> To put it another way, you are citing from works that are specifically written to explore deeper philosophical arguments on the nature of good and evil.
> 
> The D&D game is not "defined" by the BoVD, the BoED, or the MoP. The D&D game at its core essence does not say that killing is bad.




True. But though the core doesn't address the issue that doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed. And to be honest, although the PHB, DMG, and MM (what I think you mean by core) are the only really required books, all the books by WoTC are considered core D&D material.



> Do they not wrestle on Mt. Olympus?




I think wrestling is very different than trying to hurt someone. A sport is not an attempt to injure, it's a contest. Although there may be simularities drawn, I don't think this is pertanent. It's like our discussion is wrestling where a flame war would be real violence. Not a good analogy, but the best I can do right now.



> To say that "all violence is evil" is a pacifist approach. The core D&D game is not pacifist.




Not necessarily. I'll rebutt this with the concept that Paladins don't have the right to smite and kill every creature (human, monsters, whatever) they meet that detects as evil and that that is in the core books. This limitiation wouldn't exist if evil really was evil and good really was good as described in a black and white reading. Shades of gray are explored in the core books, though not to the extent as in other books. The PHB goes so far as to say that only monsters and villians are evil. So the core books obviously shouldn't be considered as the difinitive source for D&D morality alone.

If there is no violence in heaven, I can't help but think that violence cannot be anything but caused by evil. As I stated earlier, violence used against violence is the expected response for good, but it's not the first response, nor even the preferred response. The best way to end violence isn't through more violence, but though non-violent ways. A just mutual peace is often longer lasting than an unjust "victory."



> And certainly in the real world, one can make a very solid argument that pacifism and non-violence inevitably leads to GREATER EVIL than measured, violent resistance. Perforce, as Evil, using violence as a means, would be impossible to resist. Pacifism is not a valid response to the relentless assault of evil.




I'm trying to leave the real world out of this as much as possible. Hopefully that will help focus on the game world.

joe b.


----------



## Darklone

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Bull----.
> 
> There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil.
> 
> A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.
> 
> Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.
> 
> Wulf



That does not mean he should like it. It may have to be done for the greater good, still it's not an easy burden ... 

Guess why I scarcely play paladins?


----------



## FireLance

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Bull----.
> 
> There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil.
> 
> A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.
> 
> Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.
> 
> 
> Wulf



Basic clash of cosmologies, I guess. In my game, there is no irredeemable evil.  Stopping evil is good.  If the only way to stop evil is to kill it, so be it.  The paladin can be satisfied that he has done his job.  If it was not necessary to kill in order to stop evil, a paladin is not wrong to kill, but it would have been better not to.  A paladin really exults when evil is redeemed.


----------



## Joker[ZW]

Darklone said:
			
		

> Sure. Did this paladin walk the line? IMHO not. He overstepped it a little bit.
> We could ask Eadrics player to post here, but knowing him from the story I think he wouldn't have acted like this paladin. Remember the battle where he subdued his opponents on the battlefield?




But did he overstep it far enough to lose the trust of his diety? IMHO, no.
I don't even think he overstepped it and in no way was it "evil" what he did.



I mentioned the Story Hour not because of a specific example out of it, but a an example of how far a Paladin shoud be allowed to go. Eadric did things, that would normally "automatically" strip him of his Paladinhood and were far worse than the case at hand.
In a way your example even proves my point, as Eadric would not have lost his powers even _if he had not used subdual damage_. He did it, yes, but he was not obliged to do it and his god would not have stripped him of his powers if he had not.


I vote for some nightmares, at worst


----------



## Vae Victus

*Chivalric Codes*



			
				mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> Ok...  Good queston.
> 
> Ask a police negotiator or sniper.
> 
> The negotiator will lie, trick, and play mindgames with a perp until he's a psychic wreck, then act like his friend to get him out into the open where he can be taken down.  Every one I have met would line up to lawful good better than most people I know.
> 
> The sniper does not care if the perp is facing or away, and they don't have to give warning a sniper is going to shoot the perp.  Oh, and he doesn't have to be holding a weapon either.




In my opinion, these are not good examples reflecting what a paladin should think like. Neither law enforcement officers mentioned above are expected to live according to a strict moral, social, religious, and martial code of thought and action demanding such strictures as ascetic struggle, chastity, and an exhausting and nearly unrealistic systematic order to how one does battle. I assume that most paladins are based on the religious orders of the crusades (Hospitalers, Templars, the Order of Santiago, the Teutonic Order) or after fantastic accounts such as the Song of Roland or Arthurian myth. In that case, the paladin would be required to take the more difficult and seemingly impractical route because they are not only serving a moral/religious ideal, they are also acting in accordance to the structure of the social order. By not taking the offender before the local magistrate for trial and execution, you have denied the authorities of their divine right to deal out justice thereby upsetting the social order.


----------



## Torak Stoneweaver

*Come on Guys*

Good Day...

I have read all the replies and find it quite funny that people use references to feudalistic Europe, modern day snipers and our moral structure to sanctify or vilify the actions of this Paladin in the D&D world of Faerun.

They have nothing to do with each other.  The problem of over thinkning alignment issues is quite common.  I did this am I evil...  good grief...

The black and white of alignments is grey at best when you try to compare it to modern morales or for that matter morals that exist in any other source but D&D.

With a D&D Faerunian cosmology in mind...  was the act evil...  not a chance...  was the act neutral...  nope...  was the act good...  yes...

You have to remember that a lawful person doesn't neccessarily follow a code of legality imposed on him/her by authorities...  in this case the Paladin's lawfulness would be imparted by the beliefs of his diety and without knowing the Diety we are all just speculating.

Using the provided information, as a DM for over 20+ years, I would say that while his actions may have seems a tad compulsive and not completely Paladin-like...  they were justified due to the situations at hand.

You have an evil person going to rape an inocent child again...  do you say "I am here to end your evil.. turn around and have at it with someone your own size..." and let the evil guy grab the girl and use her as leverage or worse yet kill the girl out of spite so there is no actual victim...  NOPE  you take the options in ... killing the man before he can touch the girl is a primal reaction to a dire situation.

The old phrase everyone knows is Lawful Good doesn't mean lawful stupid...  and with a young girl's life in the balance you take no chances...

If however the same Paladin happened upon the scene and saw the man just finish and leave before he could get there to make a differnce was to later encounter the foe on the street he then must call him out if you will...  it depends on the gravity and direness of the situation..

my 2 1/2 coppers


----------



## CrusaderX

As with every other Paladin discussion, the ONLY things that matter are 1) The Paladin description in the PHB, 2) The aspects of the god that you follow, and 3) The aspects of the code that you follow.  That's it.  Nothing else.  If your actions didn't violate any of the above, you're fine.  And I can easily imagine a Paladin who did what yours did and who didn't violate any of the three points above.


----------



## Darklone

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> Back it up son...  That sounded a little like a personal attack.  I ain't trucking with that.



I apologise if you understood it like that. It was not meant as a personal attack. I do have to admit that I was snippy. Real world examples do that to me.

But if someone has to lie, cheat and trick for the greater good... that is not lawful good to me in no manner appropriate to the rules system or any glorified fantasy literature or fantasy game.


----------



## Feyd Rautha

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Bull----.
> 
> There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil.
> 
> A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.
> 
> Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.
> 
> 
> Wulf



 Redemption is not the issue.  Yes, a paladin should always strive to bring the stray members of the flock back into the fold, but if that fails then it is up to god to punish.  Also, this is NOT a case of irredeemable evil.  Someone else noted that there could very well have been a ruse or magical compulsion driving the "molestor".  While it is unlikely, what would we all be saying if the guy who was the assumed molestor was under a dominate person or worse yet possessed by some evil?  What if he was the girls loving father who was unfortunate enough to come across some great evil???  We wouldn't be having this discussion.  The simple fact of the matter is that we'll never know.  By blindly killing and slaughtering what he SEES as evil, a much greater evil could escape justice.  He did the wrong thing.  He should be stripped of his powers.  The GM should require an atonement.  And in my game, the atonement would be to rehabilitate an offender who would otherwise be put to death.  (I'm not naive and thinking that sex offenders can be rehabilitated.  They cannot.)

The main issue here is that of the paladin as a concerned citizen/lawman and the paladin as  executioner.  I wouldn't even say judge and jury in most of your interpretations so that's a bit of a problem.  Anyway, Paladin posts will go round for round for round with little or no resolution so I'm signing off of this one.  At some point maybe you all will just agree to disagree.  Although I think a poll would have been a much better idea so each person could get one vote and that would be the standard instead of whoever took it upon himself to flood the board with posts...

Peace,


----------



## mroberon1972

Vae Victus said:
			
		

> In my opinion, these are not good examples reflecting what a paladin should think like. Neither law enforcement officers mentioned above are expected to live according to a strict moral, social, religious, and martial code of thought and action demanding such strictures as ascetic struggle, chastity, and an exhausting and nearly unrealistic systematic order to how one does battle. I assume that most paladins are based on the religious orders of the crusades (Hospitalers, Templars, the Order of Santiago, the Teutonic Order) or after fantastic accounts such as the Song of Roland or Arthurian myth. In that case, the paladin would be required to take the more difficult and seemingly impractical route because they are not only serving a moral/religious ideal, they are also acting in accordance to the structure of the social order. By not taking the offender before the local magistrate for trial and execution, you have denied the authorities of their divine right to deal out justice thereby upsetting the social order.




Perhaps that was the 1st edition paladin, but we are now talking about a 3rd edition...

What's the differance?  The 1st edition paladin was a nightmare for a GM due to it's near invulnerability to supernatural evil.  The protection from evil aura allowed him so much protection, combined with his other abilities, so as to make him unusable by some gamemasters.

The 3rd edition is balanced (more or less) against the other classes.  He has no advantage.  The idea of placing strict moral handcuffs on the character can ONLY be balanced by his social power in the setting.

What did I just say?  If he has to play by strict rules of conduct, then the GM better be giving the character power and leeway to match.

Otherwise, he's saying fighters loose all thier class abilities if they ever touch an axe.  That ain't right.


----------



## jasper

Please You dm wants the sick gritty parts but not the gritty justice. And just because it looks like a commoner does not mean he could be. UNLESS you paladin paged you at that moment and told you to go softly on criminal. No way  you should lose you status. Now I would be up for your paladin being arrested by the cops and doing the trial thing. 
What next if Demigorgon is chowing down on the orphaniage. You Paladin must stand in the middle of street and call him out like Matt Dillion

My suggestion get new dm.


----------



## D+1

Zimri said:
			
		

> My goodness, we can *honorably* sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?
> 
> pray tell HOW is that honorable ?



Keep in mind also that in 3.5 there IS NO front or back facing.  There is flat-footed (usually but not always associated with being "aware" of your opponents existence) and flanked, but there are no backstabs and attacking from behind.  There are simply varying degrees of defensibility.


----------



## adwyn

I find it almost inconceivable that the paladin should suffer a permanent penalty.

This shouldn't be an alignment issue, its a DM issue. If in the campaign the action would have warranted an alignment violation the DM should have told the player so rather than simply warning him he might kill the target with one blow. If the DM has previously covered this ground with the player, then perhaps a penalty is warranted, but if not the DM should have intervened prior to with a stronger warning or explanation of the moral situation as he saw it. 

The mere fact there have been so many posts to this thread  with so much dissension in such a short time is sufficient evidence to point to alignment being open to wide interpretations and adjudications. The player definetly deserves a break here.


----------



## dargoth3

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.
> 
> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in.  Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room.  My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Our campaign is a gritty one.  These issues come up.
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  And he *undid his pants*.
> 
> With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword.  My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."
> 
> "My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.
> 
> I did so.
> 
> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."
> 
> My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation.  He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)
> 
> Discuss.




I wouldnt have minded a bit more info specficly what god the PAladin followers and in which the town the event occured (The later effects whether it would have been worth while bringing him in and handing the sicko over to the authorities)

As for the scenario

Ok things to consider 

Did the Paladin know that sicko was responsiable for the girls state?

Yes the Child molester practically confessed "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." Therefore the paladin knew he would be slaying a evil and guilty person

Was the girl potentially in danger if the Paladin issued a challenge? Ie could the sicko have taken the girl hostage if a warning had been issued? Possably, I think its quite likely that the Sicko would have threatened the girls life in order to escape justice

So what was the result of the Paladins actions.

He stopped a crime from taking place 

He prevented the Sicko from harming the girl furthur


As for stripping the Paladins powers.

Alignments a bad arguement in this case as the Paladins powers are ultimatly granted by a god  not an alignment.

So the question is in the eyes of the paladins god did he comit a cardinal sin by attacking the sicko from behind

My view

Depending on your gods alignment

Only gods with 3 alignments can have Paladins (and Sune)

NG: A NG god would have had nothing bad to say about your Paladins act as they are only concerned about good (they would ignore the unlawfulness)

LG: A LG would be offended by the attack from behind but they are also concerned about good in effect the 2 things even out, a LG god would not reward your paladin nor would he punish him.

LN: If your Paladin follows a LN god then you might b in trouble, as a LN god is most concerned with the the Law and they would be unswayed by Good act of saving the girl, morality Good & evil isnt important only the LAw matters and in the eyes of a LN deity your Paladins actions where Unlawful so it might be justified in stripping the Paladins powers.

As you can see varied answers

Hopefully it will help

PS Ill just add that I didnt like what your DM did during the game 

"My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner"

He should have never brought BAB and STR into the debate there game mechanics not tangiable things that your PC thinks about nor should he have told you that the Child Molestors a lowly commoner its infomation your Character doesnt have, for all he knows the sicko could be a Polymorphed Great Wyrm Red Dragon


----------



## D+1

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> Divine mandate does not lawfulness make or secular authority trump.



Not secular authority lawfulness but it DEFINITELY makes for alignment lawfulness and it definitely trumps secular authority as far as a paladin is concerned.  That's why the clause about respecting legitimate authority.  Paladins can - and actually MUST - decide that some things take HIGHER precendence than obeying secular laws.


> Being a paladin no more gives you the lawful right to kill evil than being the priest of a god of thieves would give you the lawful right to steal willy-nilly.



No, that's EXACTLY what being a paladin gives you.


> They are no more exempt from the law than the aforementioned thief-god priest, and acting against it makes them not lawful, bit by bit.



As far as secular authority is concerned, _maybe_ a paladin is not exempt, but maybe he is.  It depends on the outlook of a particular secular authority as to whether paladins need to be treated as vigilantes or a community asset when they deal out lethal punishments.

As far as the paladin is concerned, he probably does realize that if he kills the molester on the spot he MIGHT be convicted of a crime by secular authority.  Maybe that's alright with him - just something that goes with the territory of being guided by a HIGHER code.  But he gets to decide which authority to give precedence to.  His own does not necessarily demand the instant death of the molester - but it's not a violation of his code.  He could well decide to turn the molester over to secular authority, but he can also decide that a delay of justice even a moment longer is unwarranted and kill the slime.


----------



## billd91

Zimri said:
			
		

> My goodness, we can honorably sneak up behind someone and run them through without warning now ?
> 
> pray tell HOW is that honorable ?




And how is acting in a way that is not the epitome of honor an _evil_ act? I certainly don't think it is. Would a CG character be penalized for this action as if it were an evil act? I don't think so. So why should a paladin?

To become an ex-paladin, the character has to *grossly* violate the code of conduct or commit evil. Considering that the paladin upheld 2 of the 4 listed points of the code (helping someone in need and pnushing someone harming an innocent) while only clearly violating one (acting with honor), I don't see that as a gross violation of the code. Minor infraction only. Say a bunch of Hail, Marys and get back to your job.


----------



## Vae Victus

*Paladin-like behaviour*

Another thing...

First of all, the example of Arthur slaying the giants on the islands (someone posted this early on in the thread) would not fit here. Those creatures were of another species- i.e. monstrosities, abominations before the sight of God, or "sons of Cain" (to use a term from Beowulf). Despite the silliness concerning equal treatment for demihuman races in high magic/high fantasy campaigns like Forgotten Realms, the "correct" approach (I use that term loosely since "correct" is only what your DM says is correct in your particular campaign) would be to treat humans like humans and monsters (demihumans, goblinoids, fey, etc.) like insults to God worthy of extermination. In your case, you slew a child molesting human, but he was still a human. Gary Gygax's example of beheading a group of captured orcs is different; they deserve to be beheaded simply by virtue of their species.

The "proper" thing to do, I suppose, would be to loudly call out to the man in a clear and commanding voice that "in the name of [insert deity here], his holy church, and the local ruler, lord [blank], you are hereby apprehended for lecherous conduct and lustful depravity." If the rapist was too drunk or foolish to not resist, the paladin has one of two options he may take- 1) he either apprehends the suspect through unarmed or subduing combat or 2) he can deal a maiming and debilitating wound (removal of a hand, ear, etc.) to compel him to not resist. The paladin then drags him out into the public square, parading him for all to see (pants down and all) and loudly proclaiming what the criminal has done. Hopefully, on the way to the square, he will pass at least one night watchman or member of the local garrison to which he may address a request to speak with either the highest ranking noble in the area or ideally the local ruler (magistrate, castellar, whatever). At that point he hands him over, remembering to be respectful and pay homage to the rightful ruler to whom the criminal is handed to.


----------



## Piratecat

D+1 said:
			
		

> As far as secular authority is concerned, _maybe_ a paladin is not exempt, but maybe he is.




It's worth pointing out that historically the church had ecclesiastical courts whose job it was to deal religious transgressors and matters of a spiritual nature. I imagine that any lawful church in D&D might have a similar system that took precedence over local secular courts.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's worth pointing out that historically the church had ecclesiastical courts whose job it was to deal religious transgressors and matters of a spiritual nature. I imagine that any lawful church in D&D might have a similar system that took precedence over local secular courts.




And in the case of the Holy Orders (like the Templars), many of them were answerable only to the Pope, meaning, I believe, that even regular ecclesiastical courts didn't have jurisdiction over them.


----------



## Alynnalizza

If I can add one other thing.

Would there have been any issue if the girl was able to kill the perp?

If no issue would have occurred with her killing the perp, then I really believe the Paladin did an honorable thig, by defending te weak, and providing justice for someone that was unable to deal it out.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Vae Victus said:
			
		

> The "proper" thing to do, I suppose, would be to loudly call out to the man in a clear and commanding voice that "in the name of [insert deity here], his holy church, and the local ruler, lord [blank], you are hereby apprehended for lecherous conduct and lustful depravity." If the rapist was too drunk or foolish to not resist, the paladin has one of two options he may take- 1) he either apprehends the suspect through unarmed or subduing combat or 2) he can deal a maiming and debilitating wound (removal of a hand, ear, etc.) to compel him to not resist.




This is the route I would take.

Striking down the man in the manner described in the original post wouldn't pass muster in my game.  Here are just some of the reasons:

The man could be possessed/charmed/dominated by an evil entity.  In this case, if the paladin procedes as described, he's just been manipulated by evil to do evil's work!  Congratulations, if you want to stay consistent, it's time for the paladin to familiarize himself with the concept of hari-kiri.
Could be an illusion, with the same possible results as above.
Most paladin codes call for honorable combat.  In my games, the molester could be know to be guilty of a million slaughters, but strking him down unannounced from behind would result in the need for absolution.  Not permanent loss of abilities or alignment change, just a temporary loss.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Feyd Rautha said:
			
		

> Redemption is not the issue.  Yes, a paladin should always strive to bring the stray members of the flock back into the fold, but if that fails then it is up to god to punish.




The paladin is the instrument of that punishment. That's their JOB.


Wulf


----------



## billd91

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> This is the route I would take.
> 
> Striking down the man in the manner described in the original post wouldn't pass muster in my game.  Here are just some of the reasons:
> 
> The man could be possessed/charmed/dominated by an evil entity.  In this case, if the paladin procedes as described, he's just been manipulated by evil to do evil's work!  Congratulations, if you want to stay consistent, it's time for the paladin to familiarize himself with the concept of hari-kiri.
> Could be an illusion, with the same possible results as above.




These are both good ways to completely hamper any paladin in any game by neutralizing his ability to do anything but show angst. It's too easy for a DM to come up with impossibly difficult situations like these to hold the paladin accountable for them all. Good intentions have to count for something even if the road to hell is supposedly paved with them. It's not entirely fair to hold PCs accountable for information they didn't have and, possibly, couldn't have at the time in all situations.
Based on this impression, I'd consider you probably as a DM who makes playing a paladin impossible. Your regular campaign may be different, but by coming up with examples like this (and I'm not sure how striking down an illusion could incorporate commiting evil since nothing would have been killed by it in this circumstance) you're telling me that you make life impossible for paladins to do anything decisive.


----------



## Henry

> That does not mean he should like it. It may have to be done for the greater good, still it's not an easy burden ...
> 
> Guess why I scarcely play paladins?




No offense meant by this, Darklone, but I can understand why you don't -- that's a VERY high standard to set, and I would say impossible to live up to. 

Would you say, Darklone, that a paladin in a Realms campaign that you ran could expect to turn over a molester, and see justice done? Would be he strung by the yardarm, or at least jailed?

I don't see Paladins as 1950's versions of Superman - apprehend the evildoer and trust that the courts will always see justice through - nor are they Modern-Day policemen, whose primary responsibility is enforcing the law regardless of whether the common good is served.

A Paladin by PH definition is a ROVING arbiter of justice, hence the "punish evildoers" statement in the PH. a Judge is someone who metes punishment for a crime, and by saying the paladin punishes, he is by nature set up as judge.

Would this be a power we gave a modern human being? HECK, NO! Not by himself, at least. But a paladin is a different case, because he is a DIRECT representative (same as the will) of his god, just as a cleric is. He has the right and wrong of it, because he not only has the deity's teachings to fall back on, he has the deity's influence to fall back on.

Now, it's one thing if a DM warns you, "this does fly directly in the face of your god's teachings," but another if the DM makes it a guessing game as to the correct action. In this case, there is a direct precedent of Paladins in the Realms acting as both judge and executioner (no need for a jury, this is god's wills we're talking about here) in difficult circumstances.

Would it have been better for the paladin to find the circumstances first? Possibly; but it also would have been just as evil to let the courts dispense justice (which in cases of sexual assault were not as severe a crime as some seem to  think, especially against a commoner), and then have the man exact retribution on a helpless target.

As I said before, depending on which god this is, the outcome would have not only been "not wrong," but celebrated. Tyr doesn't suffer fools for paladins, and he also doesn't suffer people making fun of his servants; they have a hard enough job trying to stop all the rampant evil in the realms AS IT IS.


----------



## mroberon1972

This reminds me of a game I GMed a while back...

The player had a paladin, quiet and logical kind, with a firm belief in following her gods voice.  In fact, she only listened to her god's voice.  If it wasn't in the writings, she would consider it for about a minute, then use the closest thing she could find that worked best in the long-term.

I sent a priest with her to hear confessions and generally keep her reigned in.

She was one of the most frightening beings I have ever game-mastered.

She walked into a lords chamber one, put a sword to his neck, and said, "You will sign and swear for peace with your enemies now, else you will make peace with your gods.  And may they be merciful, for my mercy is a sharp sword for your neck if you choose wrong."

The priest heard her confessions every night, and advised her each day.  Every so often, he would cough at her and give a 'warning' about something or the other.

It was such fun!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder

*Paladins*



			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> This is the route I would take.
> 
> Striking down the man in the manner described in the original post wouldn't pass muster in my game.  Here are just some of the reasons:
> 
> The man could be possessed/charmed/dominated by an evil entity.  In this case, if the paladin procedes as described, he's just been manipulated by evil to do evil's work!  Congratulations, if you want to stay consistent, it's time for the paladin to familiarize himself with the concept of hari-kiri.
> Could be an illusion, with the same possible results as above.
> Most paladin codes call for honorable combat.  In my games, the molester could be know to be guilty of a million slaughters, but strking him down unannounced from behind would result in the need for absolution.  Not permanent loss of abilities or alignment change, just a temporary loss.




Ok, Kid. Here's the problem. His Faerun is not your Faerun is not my Faerun. In my game I've rule zeroed that the charm spell doesn't automatically make you a friend it just gives you a high cha mod. Second, you can only be possessed if you allow it. ie. you have done many evil things and have walked down the path to possession. Domination only happens to the weak willed or in other words those who allow it to happen to them. See where the trouble lies between our thinking.

Also, except for the DMs poor skill (specifically telling the Paladin that it was 'just a commoner') the paladin wouldn't have known what he was facing. It could just as easily have been a one of those sexually deviant high level wizards that seem to populate Faerun like mad.

As for Vindicator, did your DM discuss the paladins code with you before you rolled up your character? The right thing for me to tell you is that your DM is right, because it's his Faerun. For me, you would have done alright in my game.

Son of Thunder


----------



## Rackhir

The arguments seem to come down into two basic camps. The "Paladin did wrong" camp seems to be arguing for essentially 4 color comic book hero moral codes for paladins, ie. killing should always be avoided if possible, never strike from behind, follow the law if at all possible, etc. read superman basically. The other camp seems to be more "The Punisher" code of morality, hey they're evil, we know they're evil, just kill them and save everyone some hassle. Given that it's a grim and gritty (or alt least grimy) campaign the "Punisher" code of morality seem to be more appropriate to me. The Superman code of morality really only makes sense (to me) in situations where you are dealing with clear black and white situations. 

The second issue seems to be the authority of the Paladin in the situation. Which doesn't seem to have been well established. If the paladin has some sort of authority to judge and procecute justice, then the situation is much less problematic. If they have no formal authority and there is a strong local system of laws, then it's much more dubious. 

Given that you had the paladin find the desceased in the middle of comitting a clearly evil act, I don't think that it was an "evil" act to simply execute judgement on the perpetrator. One of the reasons we don't permit such things in our society is a simple one. We can't be certain of the reasons behind the actions or of the judgement of the person executing the criminal. So we have a formalized process to at least attempt to make sure that justice has been served. 

A paladin is by definition supposed to be a different case. First off they can know if someone is evil, so that eliminates a large measure of uncertainty. Second, IF they have acted in error, they have essentially an (supposedly) infallable judge to point this out to them (ie. their god). 

That said, it sounds like you need to sit down and have a talk with your DM about what exactly IS the code of conduct he/she expects from a paladin. This generally seems to be a good idea whenever trying to run a paladin. A final word of advice, if your paladin is getting a clear warning from the DM as to your course of action, what ever you think may be the correct course of action. You should probably try arguing with the DM beforehand.

If it makes you feel any better I once had a chaotic neutral bard of a true neutral god, get flame struck by his god for hamstringing a prisoner so he couldn't escape like one had the previous night. I still don't get that one.


----------



## Torm

I, Torm, God of Paladins, have no problem with this Paladin's behaviour - save for one part of it: His swift and decisive delivery of justice did not allow him to ascertain whether this man was the ONLY threat to the little girl. There may have been others who were party to this crime.

That is my charge for this Paladin. He must now seek, using whatever Lawful Good means are in his grasp, to ascertain that, and bring any others to justice that this makes necessary.

To those who think that "Lawful" refers to the laws of man in the place you are in, I feel sorry for you if you ever visit Thay or Zhentil Keep. *That is not it at all.* The Laws of your God transcend those of man. If this player's Overgod (DM) would allow, I would, in fact, _Bless_ this Paladin in his pursuit of such monsters as the molester - certainly not see him stripped of his powers.


----------



## Rackhir

Torm said:
			
		

> I, Torm, God of Paladins, have no problem with this Paladin's behaviour - save for one part of it: His swift and decisive delivery of justice did not allow him to ascertain whether this man was the ONLY threat to the little girl. There may have been others who were party to this crime.
> 
> That is my charge for this Paladin. He must now seek, using whatever Lawful Good means are in his grasp, to ascertain that, and bring any others to justice that this makes necessary.
> 
> To those who think that "Lawful" refers to the laws of man in the place you are in, I feel sorry for you if you ever visit Thay or Zhentil Keep. *That is not it at all.* The Laws of your God transcend those of man. If this player's Overgod (DM) would allow, I would, in fact, _Bless_ this Paladin in his pursuit of such monsters as the molester - certainly not see him stripped of his powers.




This whole sort of argument just reminded me of a terrific quote from one of the "Guards" books in the Diskworld series. Vimes at one point is telling one of the other watchmen 

"If you are ever in a situation where the other guy has the drop on you and you are dead to rights. Pray the man on the other end of the crossbow is an evil SOB. Because an Evil SOB is going to want to watch squirm and suffer and beg for your life. However, if it is a good man, who is convinced he's doing the right thing, he is going to kill you immediately without a second thought."

Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I'm not going to argue with Cmdr. Vimes. Sounds like he'd give the paladin the night off and a comendation.


----------



## Henry

Torm said:
			
		

> I, Torm, God of Paladins, have no problem with this Paladin's behaviour - save for one part of it: His swift and decisive delivery of justice did not allow him to ascertain whether this man was the ONLY threat to the little girl. There may have been others who were party to this crime.
> 
> That is my charge for this Paladin. He must now seek, using whatever Lawful Good means are in his grasp, to ascertain that, and bring any others to justice that this makes necessary.




'Atta Boy.  See, I told you he wouldn't have let it go and would have seen it to the gory end.


----------



## shilsen

Rackhir said:
			
		

> This whole sort of argument just reminded me of a terrific quote from one of the "Guards" books in the Diskworld series. Vimes at one point is telling one of the other watchmen
> 
> "If you are ever in a situation where the other guy has the drop on you and you are dead to rights. Pray the man on the other end of the crossbow is an evil SOB. Because an Evil SOB is going to want to watch squirm and suffer and beg for your life. However, if it is a good man, who is convinced he's doing the right thing, he is going to kill you immediately without a second thought."
> 
> Hey, I don't know about you guys, but I'm not going to argue with Cmdr. Vimes. Sounds like he'd give the paladin the night off and a comendation.



 Nice example (that's from "Men at Arms" incidentally). I'm pretty sure Vimes might have done exactly the same thing in the same situation as Vindicator's paladin. But do you think Carrot (pretty good example of a paladin, IMO) would have?


----------



## mroberon1972

shilsen said:
			
		

> Nice example (that's from "Men at Arms" incidentally). I'm pretty sure Vimes might have done exactly the same thing in the same situation as Vindicator's paladin. But do you think Carrot (pretty good example of a paladin, IMO) would have?




With grim certanty.  A child, with that situation?  He runs quite a bit deeper than you think.  In fact, I think vimes stopped him from that path once already if I remember correctly.  Vimes knows that carrot could not handle the after-effects of such an act very well.


----------



## Rackhir

shilsen said:
			
		

> Nice example (that's from "Men at Arms" incidentally). I'm pretty sure Vimes might have done exactly the same thing in the same situation as Vindicator's paladin. But do you think Carrot (pretty good example of a paladin, IMO) would have?




Capt. Carrot is far more than simply a paladin, he's so utterly and fundamentally GOOD that evil undead probably get negative levels just from being in the same room as him. Remember this is a guy with such charisma and force of personality that he's been able to single-handedly stop two armies from fighting and got them to play soccer instead (Okay, maybe it's not peace, but it's still an improvement). He IS a four color comic book character essentially. Also if I remember "Men at Arms" correctly at the end of the book, he cut down the BBEG without a moments thought or hesitation.


----------



## satori01

What really disturbed me about this thread is the still continuing "lawful stupid" mentality when it comes to Paladins.

The Paladin is a martial class, why wouldnt a Paladin take a stategic advantage.
This "cant attack from behind" dogma is a bit silly.  Why not? Does this mean a Paladin can not flank, or take a suprise round, or have numerical superiority?
Come on the two salient class abillities of a Paladin is the Warhorse and Smite Evil.  It isnt exactly sporting to ride someone down on your Warhorse and Smite Evil simultaneously doing,(assuming mounted feats), extreme boatloads of damage, but that is what the class is meant to do.

If you want subdual damage and stunning fists for justice, play a monk.  Paladins are about destroying evil, not apprehending it.

Furthermore, the DM's contention that it was a wrong act due to the molester being a first level commoner, is metagame thinking.  Class and level and not triggering points for spells like forbbidance, thus in effect are not game world descriptors.  In real life you dont think of your boss as a "5th level expert" or Michael Jordan as a "10th level monk".  Your boss is the guy who knows all about X, MJ is a great athelete, so it should work from a players perspective.

The Molester was not a first level commoner, the molester was just, that a scruffy molester.

Beyond that, real life 'Paladins", the Knights Templar, often performed 'Conversions by the sword', in essense forcible conversions, sometimes followed by execution so the soul of the recently converted would not lapse into error again, and be assured heaven.  While most of us would not consider that good, we also do not have strong religous convictions about the subject, and extreme acts being justified by religous belief still occur today,(slaying of gynecological doctors that perform abortions, honor killings etc).

Of course, if none of these convince your DM that your actions were consistent with being a Paladin, bring out this justification: 

The Player's Handbook explicitly states that a Paladin can not associate with known evil things.  Clearly if you apprehended the molester you would be associating with him, and might be forced to defend this evil creature  from good folks wanting to exact justice.  To satisfy the EXPLICT code of conduct written into the PHB,(unlike this no attack from behind nonsense), you had to kill him.


----------



## Savage Wombat

Just to add my vote, I agree with the "good, but not lawful" camp.

Since your character "knew" (through the GM) that the character was not a match for your paladin, it was not necessary to kill him to uphold the good and protect the girl.  Having him face the courts (assuming they, too are LG) would do just as well, and does a better job of showing the populace that justice was done here.

The paladin could have grabbed the man, slammed him against a wall, and generally voiced his displeasure without killing him.  A rebuke is in order - but not the loss of paladin powers.


----------



## Vae Victus

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> Perhaps that was the 1st edition paladin, but we are now talking about a 3rd edition...
> 
> What's the differance?  The 1st edition paladin was a nightmare for a GM due to it's near invulnerability to supernatural evil.  The protection from evil aura allowed him so much protection, combined with his other abilities, so as to make him unusable by some gamemasters.
> 
> The 3rd edition is balanced (more or less) against the other classes.  He has no advantage.  The idea of placing strict moral handcuffs on the character can ONLY be balanced by his social power in the setting.
> 
> What did I just say?  If he has to play by strict rules of conduct, then the GM better be giving the character power and leeway to match.
> 
> Otherwise, he's saying fighters loose all thier class abilities if they ever touch an axe.  That ain't right.




My bad. I am speaking from the perspective of my campaign- which technically isn't D&D anymore since we have added SO many house rules and chopped it up so much that it would be more accurate to describe it as a d20 fantasy RPG than a game of D&D 3rd edition. And by the way, we do go by the 1st edition mentality. COMPLETELY. I literally use 1980's Gary Gygax modules converted to 3rd edition and have a number of other 1st edition characteristics to it (elf is a class as well as a race, demihuman races are EXTREMELY restricted, etc.).

However, that does not eliminate the historical example of what the quintessential 11th through 14th century Western European chivalric knight model of a paladin is supposed to look like (provided you use that model instead of, say, a Samurai from the Warring States period).

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Two things.
1. If your DM decides against you, just say "forget this law stuff," become chaotic good and take the holy liberator prestige class. You would recover a number of your paladin abilities (and the mount would actually be better since you can take other prestige classes and it still advances).

2. One might argue that the act is bad--not because it is objectively wrong for child molesters to die but rather because it deprives the populace of a chance to see justice in action. Learning that a sicko is dead is one thing. People say "whatever" or "he had it coming" or "the paladin only killed him because he was a half-orc; he was probably reaching for his wallet to get his ID not his zipper when the paladin killed him. You know what kind of racist pigs these paladins are." However, if there is a chance for his guilt to be determined lawfully and for him to be hanged or stoned by the community instead, the communal action of punishing the pervert would more strongy inculcate aversion to such acts and the publicness of his execution would serve as a more clear and intimidating message to others with similar urges that "such actions are not tolerated here--suppress your perverted desires or die." In short, by killing him alone, out of hand and in private, your paladin passed up a chance to do more good. 

You may also have undermined respect for the law and other positive tendencies in the town. If it becomes public knowledge that "paladin X" killed someone in his own home--with or without good reason, they weren't there so they just have your word on that--it will likely be seen that paladin X is above the law. Now this could either lead others to behave as if they were above the law if the general reaction to your paladin's actions are commendation or to frustration with the law not doing anything if those who wish to foment dissent and impede your effectiveness are successful at casting doubt on your actions. (If I were an evil cult leader in the town, I would find some "witnesses" to the act and ensure that people heard a story about you looting the guy's body while the girl cried next to it. I'd make sure some of them said they saw you go in and cut the guy's head off without ever saying anything or giving any warning--did they hear what the guy said beforehand? Of course not. Defending yourself from accusations of murder would reduce your effectiveness a lot more than spreading false accusations would reduce their effectiveness. If generally accepted, it would also form a base for generating public dissatisfaction with paladins and your character's religion in general). If the law does nothing about it, of course, the evil cultists can continue by saying, "and what is the law doing about this injustice? Nothing. So-called paladins walk into innocent mens' homes and kill them for their money and the justice system does nothing about it. How can you trust that justice system with anything else?" And, of course, if the law does decide to do something to you, that will undermine respect for the law as well. (Now the evil cultist says "that guy had it coming and look what the "justice" system is doing to a paladin who did the right thing. How can you trust this "justice" system to prosecute evil cultists when it's punishing paladins for doing good?)

Now if you have a viking style justice system in this area, you're in luck. Just walk outside, announce that you killed the bastard and pay 70 gp or whatever the weregild is set at to his family. And then you're fine.


----------



## BlackMoria

There is three issues of concern in this Paladin debate.   Issue 1:  Good vs evil.  Issue 2: Laws.  I am not referring to Law vs Chaos, but judicial law.  Issue 3:  Honour.

Issue 1 - is a child molester considered evil?  A subjective evaluation and a thorny issue.  Some will say yes, some will say no - so it boils down to what is considered evil for the society at large and for the paladin's faith.

Issue 2 - this being a FR campaign, the matter of law is dependant on where you are.  If this took place in a bar somewhere in Cormyr, the Silver Marches, Waterdeep or the scores of places in the realms which have codifed laws, the paladin has overstepped his authority.  He must serve the good but also, must uphold the law.  If a law exists to deal with rape of children, then the Paladin is honour bond to act within the framework of the law. 

If this took place in Skullport, Calimshan, Thay or the scores of places which don't have codified laws or justice can be 'bought' (namely, law favors who has the most money or influence), the paladin has not overstepped his authority.  He has upheld a 'higher' law - a law of fair justice for all.

Issue 3 - Now the question of if it is dishonourable for a paladin to slay someone from behind.  Almost all real world chivalry requires a person of honour to act honourably to _those who warrant honour_.  A knight of old was not required to act honourably to _every_ person.  If a enemy knight act honourably or more correctly, didn't act dishonourably, the knight was required to treat his foe with honour.  If a person, regardless of station acted dishonourably, he was considered a churl, a person of no honour and the knight was NOT required to treat that person with honour or respect, since the offender didn't warrant honour or respect.

I can make the case that a raper of children has no honour and in the eyes of the paladin, not worthy of any honour-protocol.  And therefore, being expendiently being dispatched, even from behind, is all the child molester deserved.  Of course, honour is a subjective thing and other posters may disagree.  

In brief, as in all paladin discussions, the issue is not clear cut.  The solution to this issue, IMO, is - Is the molester considered evil?  Is there enforceable laws that are just for the crime?  Does the molester warrant being treated with honour?   If the DM /players can answer that - then what action the paladin merits for his actions should be easier to adjudicate. 

Another way to resolve this - how would the deity in question react to such a act from a paladin of the faith?   If the deity is neutral in reaction of the paladin's actions or approves - then no foul.   If the deity disapproves, then the paladin has 'sinned' and penance is required. 

My two coppers....


----------



## Sejs

> The paladin is the instrument of that punishment. That's their JOB.




Damn straight.

The Cleric's job is to redeem.  That's why they get the _Atonement_ spell.

The Paladin's job is to punish.  That's why they get _Smite Evil_.


----------



## Zimri

Numion said:
			
		

> Which would be more important: protecting the child from reliving the abuse in a courtroom trial, or protecting the paladins honor?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------The Paladin quickly acted as a Jury and Judge, then as an Executioner. If we're into "iffing", what if the perp had been warned (so that the Paladin wouldn't backstab), and he quickdrew a knife and killed the child (only witness). Thus considering the situation the Paladin acted in the safest and most protective way in regards to the innocent present (the child).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That the child saw the decapitation isn't that severe. In those times she would've seen it regardless if the trial punished the man to death.
> 
> I've read the whole thread, but where has it been said that a Paladin can't attack from ambush? In this case it was tactically a superior move, since the Paladin could immediately eliminate any further harm to the child. Protecting the child is the number one priority here, right? Not protecting the Paladins honor.




The paladin's honor as it is (or should be) a huge part of what makes him who he is. But neither needed to be in jeopardy.

Grabbing the perp and hauling  or tossing him away from the child negates the "what if he quickdrew and killed her" argument

Seeing a decapitation isn't severe for a 10 year old ? Having your now dead and headless abuser fall on to your tied body  spewing blood all over you isn't traumatizing ? I am pretty sure there were a lot of people traumatized recently by watching a video of a decapitation I am pretty sure this would be worse, and she doesn't have the option to look away.

The move may have been tactically superior but it was also dishonorable the end does not ustify the means. Protecting the child would be accomplished by dragging or tossing the perp from the room and then dealing with it and then the paladin would have remained honorable.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> My instinct tells me that either your DM doesn't like you, or he doesn't like paladins. He set that clumsy trap for you for a reason
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, this is what makes it seem to me all the more likely that the DM had it in for the paladin (character or player, no difference).
> 
> He trolled the bait right past the paladin. A child molester. Caught in the act.
> 
> By the time he'd set up this whole scenario, the "warning" was almost rhetorical. I don't think the DM really expected the paladin to do anything other than what the paladin did.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what would have happened if the paladin hadn't dealt swift justice.
> 
> What new depradations would this DM have heaped on him?
> 
> "The child molester gets out on bail and murders the child in retaliation. You failed to act. You lose your powers!"
> 
> Just a hunch. The whole thing stinks.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bull----.
> 
> There is evil in the world. Irredeemable evil.
> 
> A paladin should exult when an evil creature is slain. The cause of Good has been served.Again with this notion that violence and killing is always evil... Guys. Come on. You aren't redeeming that mind flayer.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------




Clumsy trap ? Come now numerous posters have seen more than a couple viable ways to have handled the encounter without bringing the paladin's (and his companion's, church's and God's) reputation into the mix.

Yup he trolled the bait of a suspiscious stranger slinking off to a back room because that NEVER happens in a bar. The warning seemed like a DM warning a player that there would be 

consequences for killing an unarmed, unaware, commoner. We can't know what would have happened ahd the paladin acted with more honor. If this was a test than the paladin failed.

Irredeemable evil ? like say perhaps a Drow ? The cause of good is not served when Good men and women replace that which is moral with that which is easy

We are too redeeming a mind flayer 3 to be exact. A mindflayer we killed had 3 babies in an extradimensional space he was carrying when we killed him. There was an entire game sessions worth of debate among the players as to what we should do. End result the Psion that got the robe is a father, we are feeding them eels for now, and will care for them until they can care for themselves. They will be taught by us and by a tutor at a school we will be setting up for orphans. These children are not evil until they perpetrate an evil act willingly. 



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> What next if Demigorgon is chowing down on the orphaniage. You Paladin must stand in the middle of street and call him out like Matt Dillion




Umm no see a demigorgon chowing down on an orphanage is a clear and present danger to life and limb of orphans and those that care for them. As heinous as the intended rape was (and ohh believe me I think it was) the victim wasn't going to be worse off for the paladin subduing or tossing away the perp.



			
				dargoth3 said:
			
		

> Was the girl potentially in danger if the Paladin issued a challenge? Ie could the sicko have taken the girl hostage if a warning had been issued? Possably, I think its quite likely that the Sicko would have threatened the girls life in order to escape justice




Kind of hard for him to threaten her if as your warning you picked him up and hauled or tossed him from the room. He won't be scampering away either not in a bar filled with the paladins companions.



			
				Torak Stormweaver said:
			
		

> You have an evil person going to rape an inocent child again... do you say "I am here to end your evil.. turn around and have at it with someone your own size..." and let the evil guy grab the girl and use her as leverage or worse yet kill the girl out of spite so there is no actual victim... NOPE you take the options in ... killing the man before he can touch the girl is a primal reaction to a dire situation.




Grab him and haul or toss him away from the child while he is unaware of your presence. The girl is saved from the rape, saved from retalliation for him knowing you were there and your honor is intact. Then you accuse him of his crimes tell him he can choose to surrender his life to you, surrender to the town magistrate, or choose trial by combat. If this is the sort of place where his actions won't be met with a justice that is similar to your deity's version of justice option 2 can be stricken from the list.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> And how is acting in a way that is not the epitome of honor an evil act? I certainly don't think it is. Would a CG character be penalized for this action as if it were an evil act? I don't think so. So why should a paladin?




No a CG character would not be punished. Acting swiftly without forethought is a chaotic thing. Killing a rapist is not an evil thing. Doing it from behind is not honorable. Paladins are held to a stricter code of ethics and morality than a CG or even LG fighter.



			
				firelance said:
			
		

> [Old-Timer]You're telling me. Kids these days. Everything has to be done immediately, at once, in a flash. Can't even wait for the justice system to do its work. No patience. Now it's all these instant e-executions. Humph.[/Old-Timer]




Heck can't seem to even just toss the perpetrator away so he doesn't harm the girl anymore then deal with him face to face like an honorable person would. Guy wouldn't even be getting a chance to scramble away through the bar ya know why ... the rest of the party was in the bar. Even if HE didn't notice an armed and armoured paladin sneaking up behind him I am pretty sure the party would have seen the paladin slink off.



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind also that in 3.5 there IS NO front or back facing. There is flat-footed (usually but not always associated with being "aware" of your opponents existence) and flanked, but there are no backstabs and attacking from behind. There are simply varying degrees of defensibility.




I am aware that there is no combat facing, however in the description of the event the paladin IS behind the perp. (I also find the idea of no facing laughable we use it but we don't much like it) How can the perp be at the same time looking at the girl and the paladin when they are on opposite sides of him. The rule should be something like there is no combat penalty for not facing (all of) your opponent(s). It was funny we ran into a baslisk and I told my DM okay "I hide my eyes and move behind it" "you can't be behind it there is no facing" "Oh so it has eyes all around it's head then ?" 



			
				Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Incidentally, Zimri, your spirited prosecution of the case against the paladin in this episode makes me wonder: do people actually play paladins in your game? And if so, do you treat them as badly as the player in this case seems to have been treated (you know, setting little traps for them, suddenly springing really restrictive interpretations of their code on them without warning)? Or is this just a devil's advocate gig for you, and you take a more reasonable, less adversarial approach when running your own game?




I am currently playing though I have Dmed in the past (15 years). I have had paladins under me and yes I tested them with morally ambigous situations. If they failed then they atoned and it wasn't that big a deal few did though because we talked about what I interpreted the rules as. My current character (a LN monk) Is fairly upset with the parties Psychic Warrior for killing a foe that surrendered to her (the monk).

I am less adversarial in RL than I am here. As stated I speak with those that play under me and let them know what is expected. If something comes up that wasn't covered and they disagree with me I will listen. I probably won't mitigate entirely any punishment but I will use it to further the storyline, they will end up getting something out of it eventually, and they get to be the focus of a story arc.

That and yeah I like playing devil's advocate but honestly my belief is that if a paladin has not honor he has nothing. I don't think this act was honorable and I can see many better ways out of it that save the girl, punish the perp, and keep the paladin's honor intact.

WOW that was long I wonder how many pages cropped up while I did all that,


----------



## derverdammte

Given the situation, your DM should have had the molester roll a spot check to see whether he was surprised, then had you both roll initiative.  The paladin wasn't "sneaking up" on the guy; he just happened to catch him by surprise.  

Anyway, I'd commend a paladin for behaving that way in such a situation.  It would be downright stupid for him to lose his powers or have to atone for killing a child molester, especially with such clear evidence of habitual offense sitting right in front of him.  A paladin who DIDN'T do that IMC would have to atone.


----------



## Torm

Reading through this thread, I'm surprised at how many of you are *overthinking* this situation - though it is horribly symptomatic of Gen X ers to do so. Let me lay this out one more time, and you try to think as basic and simple as possible:

Sweet little girl has been horribly hurt.

Molester CAUGHT IN ACT.

My conclusion: kill kill kill kill kill.

Law = logic. Logic is excellent for when there's time for it to kick in. If this were real life, there wouldn't have been time for someone to BE "lawful" or "chaotic", there would have been a gut, lizard-brain response. A round is six seconds, people. Would YOU have had time for all this rationalization I'm seeing you type to go through your heads? It sounds to me like ROLEplay was achieved.

Oh, and in case you missed it, I *AM* the *God of Paladins* in the character's campaign world, and I already spoke what I thought and gave the Paladin a quest to redeem what little bit of error there was in his zeal. 'Nuff said.

So speaks Torm the True.


----------



## Zimri

6 seconds is long enough to decide to swing a sword, or decide to throw him away from the girl.

My gut reaction would honestly be to get perp as far away from victim as possible as quickly as possible. hauling him away does that and saves her from seeing me gut the bastard when he tries to run.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Ok, Kid. Here's the problem. His Faerun is not your Faerun is not my Faerun. In my game I've rule zeroed that the charm spell doesn't automatically make you a friend it just gives you a high cha mod. Second, you can only be possessed if you allow it. ie. you have done many evil things and have walked down the path to possession. Domination only happens to the weak willed or in other words those who allow it to happen to them. See where the trouble lies between our thinking.




Well exactly, all games are different.  I tried to qualify my points by noting that this only applies to my game - which is why these paladin threads never, ever come to any resolution.  All we can do is offer the alternatives that apply to our games and hope that the original poster can make some use of it.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> These are both good ways to completely hamper any paladin in any game by neutralizing his ability to do anything but show angst. It's too easy for a DM to come up with impossibly difficult situations like these to hold the paladin accountable for them all. Good intentions have to count for something even if the road to hell is supposedly paved with them.




There's a reason that quote is so well-known, and this instance is exactly that reason.  The key tenet to being a paladin is to always act correctly, even if it puts you at a disadvantage.

True, it's very easy to screw a paladin over - I certainly wouldn't use such a thing often - maybe not even once over a paladin's entire career.  On the other hand, if the party was up against a demon known as a deceiver, well, that's what's called for.  I'm playing a paladin in a game right now - I personally will feel let down if I am _never_ given the chance to make those tough decisions.  I don't want to have to do that every sessions, though.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Based on this impression, I'd consider you probably as a DM who makes playing a paladin impossible. Your regular campaign may be different, but by coming up with examples like this (and I'm not sure how striking down an illusion could incorporate commiting evil since nothing would have been killed by it in this circumstance) you're telling me that you make life impossible for paladins to do anything decisive.




Withe the illusion, I was thinking something along the lines of "illusion of man about to molest girl over actual father arriving to save daughter."  And again, in that instance, the transgression is minor - the paladin has a valid excuse, and the punishment would be correspondingly less.  

Again, as I said above, a DM shouldn't do this kind of thing ALL the time, but I feel that every paladin should have one or two opportunities to show his shining example, or to blow it entirely.  Again, my view, my game.  YMMV.

It all comes down to this, however:  Every player intending to play a Paladin should talk to their DM in order to be sure that both parties are on the same page when it comes to this kind of thing.  The more detail the better.


----------



## edbonny

Change this paladin's alignment to "lawful hasty."

Killing the bad guy so soon, the paladin never found out about the bad guy's other victims or learned about the harem of young things locked away beneath the tavern that are now starving to death.

Paladin = judge, jury, executioner
OR
Paladin = cop on the beat

You decide!

Ed


----------



## Quasqueton

> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a *Blackguard*, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my *Blackguard* followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my *Blackguard* in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.



What would a blackguard do in this situation? If he killed the molester, would he loose his powers?

Quasqueton


----------



## edbonny

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> If he killed the molester, would he lose his powers?




Not if the blackguard was going to pick up where the molester left off. Is the blackguard saving the girl or just saving her for himself?


----------



## edbonny

A post of doubles


----------



## tarchon

It's a minor infraction, deserving some minor penalty.

The arguments for this being a lawful act by nature sound a lot like Judge Dredd-style "lawful - "I am the law!" so whatever I think is just must be lawful.

If you need an argument for why justice is better served with a trial, public trials and executions are usually much more effective as a deterrent than a summary private execution in an abandoned warehouse.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> The paladin is a religious warrior.
> 
> He is a defender of innocents, slayer of evil, and symbol of justice.
> 
> Not local laws...  JUSTICE...
> 
> He is the sword of his god.  He's built to be the hand of his lord's retribution.
> 
> He is not a police officer.
> 
> HE IS THE LAW!
> 
> It comes down to this:  Ask your game master if the character's god advocates turning over the defiler to a MORTAL COURT, as opposed to his hand-picked paladin for justice.
> 
> Now local law might run him in, but all religions get persicuted sooner or later...




The paladin can throw himself upon the mercy of the court to decide his fate thus fulfilling this 'lawful' side everyone keeps bringing up. Yes he did kill a man but what the man did was far worse and good is FAR more important than order / chaos. That trial could dredge up more filth as other victims step forward to testify in the paladin's defense. A paladin should defend those who cannot defend themselves as they are champions for the Forces of Good (not necessarily gods).

*If the sword don't fit, you must acquit!* 

Ok that didn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Carpe DM

An excellent discussion. I will add to it, I hope, rather than repeat the many excellent points made so far.

The paladin acted neither lawlessly nor evilly, and thus retains his powers.

I think that people are right to distinguish Medieval Law from Modern Law.  Yet the distinction does not create a difference.  Both societies permitted the Paladin's actions here:

1. Lethal force is, in modern societies, authorized to prevent rape.

2. A party is authorized to use lethal force on behalf of someone who cannot, IF that person is authorized to use lethal force.

A. Lethal force is, in medieval societies, authorized to prevent rape.  In fact, lethal force was permitted to oppose far lesser crimes, including theft.

B. Nobles and (to some extent) Knights in medieval societies were possessed of the Low Justice and the High.  The killing of a commoner was lawful on the facts as the Paladin knew them.  This presumes the Paladin was part of a church hierarchy or knightly order.

Under the facts as given, the paladin's acts were in fact lawful, no matter the temporal context.  Perhaps people were not aware of the modern legality of lethal force on behalf of a third party, but we can put that to rest now.


----------



## Zimri

Yes legally he was probably eight to do what he did. That doesn't show me that attacking a much weaker foe, that is unaware of your presence from behind is honorable, and paladins are supposed to be honorable. Robin Hood wasn't a paladin, neither is Nomad (from marvel) Wolverine is close but acts to rashly. Under most circumstances Cyclops and captain america act most paladin-like as does aragorn (if I remember my tolkien correctly)


----------



## takyris

Ditto the "No Punishment" folks.

Mostly for the same reasons Henry mentioned: the paladin is the representative of his Lawful Good god.  As long as he's a paladin, he isn't going to smite anybody who doesn't (in his judgment at the time) deserve it.  As long as he still has his powers, everyone in the world will know that he acted in a faithful way.

Cowardice: No.  He didn't sneak in.  He just didn't announce himself.  He is allowed to announce himself, but not required to do so, especially if he believes that the situation would become bad by him doing so -- the paladin entering the evil wizard's lair doesn't have to ring the bell.  Stealth is a completely valid option, and striking by surprise is honorable unless you're talking about duels.  Paladins have the option of delaying their initiative to wait until attacked, but they also have the allowance of making their own judgment.  A kid's life could have been at stake.

Unarmed: You know, if this were true, then the best way for an evil cleric to defeat a paladin is to have one his his suicidal henchmen run up to the paladin with a greatsword and then, as the paladin begins to swing, the henchman drops his weapon and turns around.  Bam!  Instant loss of paladinship.  The unarmed thing is just good tactics on the paladin's part.  Again, he had the OPTION of attacking unarmed as well, or letting the molester get a weapon, but he is not required to do so.

Minimal Force: I agree with the person that says that the DM wants to play both sides, here.  If you're playing in a gritty world where graphic evidence of sexual assault is presented, then the paladin shouldn't be given lip about killing those evil people when they are clearly caught in the process of beginning to commit the same crime again.  You want a Lawful Good person who specialized in subdual damage?  Play a monk.  Monks can do subdual all over the place.  Unless you're playing in a modern-ish low-death world where
the PCs aren't supposed to ever try to kill the bad guys, then there's no problem here.  (Note: My PCs are in a d20 Modern world.  They're government agents.  They do Treat Injury checks after shooting bad guys.  The difference between this and a fantasy world is huge.  And Forgotten Realms is a fantasy world.)

So, no.  No punishment.  Sure, it would have been better if the 5th level paladin had True Seeing active, so that he could clearly make sure that the bad guy wasn't actually a celestial, and the kid wasn't a demon using an illusion to throw the paladin off.  It would have been better if the 5th level paladin used all his powerful divination abilities to make sure that the guy wasn't mind-controlled or under the suggestion that the kid is actually his girlfriend, who likes it rough.  You know what would've been fantastic?  If the paladin had cast Wish to go back in time and stop the bad guy from doing this in the first place!  That would have been awesome!

Except that, like all the other options, it wasn't really within the paladin's abilities at the time, so he had to go by the evidence he saw.  And he believed at the time that killing the guy was the most righteous action.  Case closed.  If the paladin is consistently or egregiously wrong, overlooking clear evidence or compelling arguments to the contrary, then that becomes a different issue.  But I don't see it here.


----------



## Torm

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> What would a blackguard do in this situation? If he killed the molester, would he loose his powers?




It seems to me that Blackguards, evil though they are, are individuals like anyone else. One might walk back out "not having seen anything", one might watch and enjoy and go brag about it, one might back out quickly, wait a while, and then go brag to his acquaintances that he watched and enjoyed it (even though he didn't - reputation, you know), one might kill him because he's breaking the law and here's an opportunity to kill someone slowly and painfully, one might kill him for being sloppy enough to get caught, and one might even kill him for the very same reasons a Paladin would - even some people who are extremely evil have the same gut reactions as decent people about certain things. Or put another way, you DON'T want to be a child molester in prison - even the other inmates regard you as scum, and a good number don't come out alive.

Remember, even some Nazis loved puppies.

As far as whether he'd lose his powers or not, I suspect it depends on what he did and who he's in thrall to. Heck, some Evil gods might take his powers even if they agreed with what he did, just to make him beg and "quest" to get them back. Evil so-and-sos.


----------



## Epametheus

I've read up to page 10 of this thread.

I vote "keeps powers."  Taking care of the child and dealing with the townspeople should be messy enough.  At worst, he might deserve a slap on the wrist for acting on impulse; I'm picturing the pally drawing his sword and whacking the guy in one motion.  Modern day cops are trained to take people alive, but knights sure as hell aren't, and simply not thinking to deal subdual damage doesn't surprise me.

The fact that the molester had his back turned is damn near irrelevant, since I'm sure the paladin would've charged no matter which way the guy was facing.  The pally wasn't thinking of terms "he's dangerous, so I'll take him from behind;" he was thinking more in terms of "WTF DIE."  Impulsive? Yes.  Dishonourable? Arguably, but I'll go ahead and say no.

Also, keep in mind that executions were public spectacles in medieval societies.  It would be very unlikely that that was the first person that the child ever saw die violently.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with the paladin's player lumping pedophiles into the "kill on sight" category along with demons, devils, trolls, and red dragons.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> One of the reasons I don't like paladins, beyond the arguements they spawn, is that once a situation occurs that creates an arguement, someone invarably accusses the DM of "kick-the-paladin" or some such.
> 
> That in and of it self, the idea that in every game, every situation should be solvable using a very rigid code of behavior or else the GM has it out for the player really gets my goat. [...]
> 
> I don't think that every encounter must be solvable without breaking a paladin's code just because a paladin is part of a group especially when, when a paladin isn't part of a group, such requirements aren't necessary.



I think this line of argument falls apart when you stop to think that the only reason any character encountered the rapist in the first place was because the GM wanted _the paladin_ to encounter a rapist, to see what he would do, and to slap him down if he didn't follow the unwritten, unspoken, and (as the argument with the paladin's player shows) apparently unknown paladin's code that the GM felt he should.

In other words, this whole scenario sounds like a trap set by the DM for the paladin.  If there hadn't been a paladin in the group, probably this whole thing wouldn't have happened at all...and by that comment I don't mean that there wouldn't have been an argument over whether it was acceptable to slice the rapist's head off, I mean there probably wouldn't have been a rapist in the first place.

And I don't begrudge GMs who look at a class like paladin and think that it would be fun to see how that character would react to morally challenging situations.  It _is_ fun, and within the context of the game I think it's perfectly acceptable for there to not be a solution that allows the paladin to obey both his code and his heart.  You can do some really cool stuff with those situations.

But before you can do that, I think the GM and the player need to sit down OUT-OF-CHARACTER and establish exactly what the paladin's code is, or the GM needs to give VERY EXPLICIT WARNINGS about actions that the player doesn't seem to think will get him kicked out of the paladin club but the GM does.  (Just saying "Are you sure?  Because you can kill him in one hit..." doesn't do the job as effectively as "Are you sure?  Because that goes against the code your order taught you..." in this situation.)  Otherwise, you might as well just play three-card-Monte with the paladin's player and take away his character's paladinhood any time he can't pick out the queen.

If you don't give an explicit warning or otherwise make the code clear to the player ahead of time, if you instead get mysteriously coy when the paladin is on the brink of making a huge mistake and then spin around after the mistake is made and say "Uh, no, in _my setting_, that's grounds for losing paladinhood, and I don't care what _you_ think your character's code allows"...well, that's kick-the-paladin.  It's unfair to the player, because the player can't read your mind and know all the paladin-code revisions you've concocted for your setting automatically; you need to actually tell the player what those revisions are if you expect them to be followed, or accept that you will create arguments and bad feelings and pick up the "Don't play paladins in my game, because I will screw you over" tag on top of all that.

That's all worst-case scenario stuff, obviously.  I'm willing to believe that in this case it was an honest mistake, but I also stand by my belief that the entire rapist thing was thrown in specifically to take a poke at the paladin's ethics and thereby endanger his paladinhood, and that the critical gap between what the player thinks those ethics are and what the GM thinks they are is just going to lead to more catastrophes like this unless they both sit down and actually discuss in detail what standards this character is going to be expected to live up to.

--
and i'd hate to game with anyone who disagreed with that


----------



## Philip

The way the situation is set up gives the impression the decision of the Paladin to kill the guy was brought about by personal (and self-interested) motives. I think the challenge to play a Paladin is not to make decision based upon your emotions but one based upon your principles.

That's why it's difficult when your enemies surrender to you, because some part of you desires to trounce them (a well known Paladin problem).

You can take the moral high ground when you offer people you think of as evil and undeserving a chance to surrender themselves and repent. When you treat them as you would like to be treated by them.

This guy was not even offered the chance to surrender and repent. Approving this would condone pre-emptive strikes: kill the bad guy before he has the chance to surrenders and repent and then it will be okay.

Any commoner seeing the Paladin behave in this way will understand him. Most will have done the same. They will certainly not think of it as a holy or divine act. If the Paladin had spared the man despite being easily able to kill him, and tried his best to make this man atone for his evil act, then they would be suprised, then they would think of the Paladin as a special man, maybe even a man with the blessing of the divine.

This behaviour is clearly CG.


----------



## Sejs

> What would a blackguard do in this situation? If he killed the molester, would he loose his powers?




Actually, funny thing really.  You'll laugh.  


Blackguards are not held to any code of conduct what so ever.  They can do whatever the hell they choose, and as long as they remain even marginally evil (enough to retain the evil alignment that is one of the prc's pre-reqs) then they can keep on blackguardin.


----------



## S'mon

It wasn't very Lawful, was it?  Kinda Chaotic Good, in fact...


----------



## S'mon

Carpe DM said:
			
		

> 1. Lethal force is, in modern societies, authorized to prevent rape.




That's a big generalisation - English law doesn't even have a defence of 'necessity', just 'duress' and 'reasonable self defence', neither of which fit here.  I expect US states' laws my be much keener on this kind of thing, but US law is unusually CG in ethos compared to that of most western societies.


----------



## Agemegos

Al said:
			
		

> It is largely uncontested that the paladin committed a Good act.  Protecting the innocent from an almost certainly Evil man is Good.




Doing so with wholly unnecessary lethal force is not good.


----------



## Scharlata

I've had to vote "yes" as a DM (lose the 'hood) because in my opinion and in my campaign you (the paladin) would be responsible to show that your are an example of grace, goodness, honor and mercy "per excellence". If you wouldn't, you were just a law-enforcer (ranging form LG to LE). As a paladin you would be responsible to show mercy on someone that probably didn't have a chance to be otherwise because he hasn't had another chance in life.

Besides, what would be the learning effect a) for a wrong-doer or criminal if you kill him before he/she had very much time to think about his/her offense or crime; and b) for all others who view a paladin to be an opportunity to lean on or to report crimes of relatives or family if the know that the paladin would be the FIRST to kill a criminal loved one?

Kind regards!

P.S.: Nice cut and I hope the "NOs" win!


----------



## takyris

You know, I've been thinking, and I've reconsidered.  The paladin should get a visitation from his deity telling him what he could have done differently. It should go something like this:

God: So, that could have been a guy under mind control.

Paladin: Er, I hadn't thought of that.

God: Could've had accomplices that you don't know how to find now.

Paladin: Oh.

God: Could've given him a trial and then executed him to show it to everyone.

Paladin: Well, I could also have carried out his severed head and made an announcement.

God: Okay, granted, but he didn't get any opportunity to be redeemed.

Paladin: Oh.  Oh, yeah.

God: And you didn't give him a fair challenge and chance to defend himself, and even though the little girl was there, you should have done that, because, remember, even flanking can sometimes bring dishonor.

Paladin:  Oh, right.

God: In atonement, you must perform strenuous physical labor while meditating upon your actions and thinking of the ways in which you might improve your behavior in the future.  Please assume push-up position.

Paladin: I will not fail you, my lord.  (drops into push-up position)

God: Alright.  Now, give me... two.

Paladin: Er, what?

God: You heard me.  Two!  Two good ones!  Nose to the ground!  Straight back!

Paladin: Um, okay.  One... and... two.  (finishes push-ups)

God: Good.  I hope you've learned your lesson.  (gates back up to heaven)


----------



## Agemegos

Carpe DM said:
			
		

> 1. Lethal force is, in modern societies, authorized to prevent rape.




Not in the modern society I live in it isn't. And unnecessary use of lethal force is never authorised. The paladin could _easily_ have prevented that rape without any force whatsoever, and he could have prevented the rape and captured the perpetrator without using lethal force.


----------



## epochrpg

GM, if you allow this guy to keep his powers, you would be actively aiding and abetting munchkinism.

Pretty soon, this person will be able to get away with the stuff that the paladin in KOTDT did:

"Hey, A white flag!  I kill Him!"  
"What?  He is surrendering!"
"No, to my order of paladins, a white flag is the gravest of insults to my god, who has urged us to slay whoever wields them"
"Oh, well if your god wants you to kill people with white flags, go ahead"

That is what it is leading up to.
Pretty soon, there will be no difference between lawful good paladins ans chaotic good barabrians I suppose.  Just let everybody do whatever they want right?  

Give your pcs all the bonuses of being a paladin, and make sure you don't enforce ANY of the restrictions.  Sounds good to me, Mr. Haul.


----------



## S'mon

Personally I'm not that keen on removing Paladin powers as long as he _thinks_ he's acting LG.  Paladins in 3e are kinda weak anyway.  >


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> What about the childs wellbeing? Do you think a public trial would do good to her? The right thing for the paladin would've been to kill the man quietly and hide the body, that the stories of what were done to the girl wouldn't haunt her in the village for the rest of her life.




On the other hand, an open, public punishment of her rapist with the approbation of the community is going to do her more good than thinking for the rest of her life that punishing him was a guilty secret. What is it going to do to her to have to lie when the missing man's relatives start investigating his disappearance? Is she going to live on forever in fear that the body will be found?


----------



## pogre

It's a shame no one is interested in this topic - so I will chime in to clear the air  

Rule Zero.  

Shouldn't this thing have a poll?

As to the argument about what if this was an orc? Please refer to Wulf Ratbane's excellent exposition on the virtues of baby orc killings - _Ahhhhh, righteousness!"_


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

You know the whole "Could have been an illusion/under mind control/whatever" thing reminds me of a scene from one of David Gemmel's Druss books. Coming upon a similar scene, Druss kills two men. He's asked a number of similar questions:

Questioner: But what if it was an illusion
Druss: But it wasn't.

Questioner: But what if she was a witch and they were justicars who had captured her and violating her was the only way they could take away her powers (which is true in Gemmel's books because magical power for women and sexual activity are usually mutually exclusive).
Druss: But she wasn't. And they weren't.

Questioner: What if they were just playing a kinky sex game and it just looked like rape?
Druss: But they weren't

Etc. I'm paraphrasing but you get the point.  You can ask "what if" forever getting more and more farfetched but it doesn't change the facts at hand. The paladin acted upon the information he had and everything was (as it often is) as it appeared. Now, I think his action was dubious on other grounds: the level of violence he used was unnecessary and a public execution would have served the town far better than summary execution in private. I don't think it's worth revoking paladinhood over and I definitely don't think the "what if it was all an illusion?" line of questions is very productive.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> You know, I've been thinking, and I've reconsidered.  The paladin should get a visitation from his deity telling him what he could have done differently. It should go something like this:
> 
> God: So, that could have been a guy under mind control.
> 
> Paladin: Er, I hadn't thought of that.
> 
> God: Could've had accomplices that you don't know how to find now.
> 
> Paladin: Oh.
> 
> God: Could've given him a trial and then executed him to show it to everyone.
> 
> Paladin: Well, I could also have carried out his severed head and made an announcement.
> 
> God: Okay, granted, but he didn't get any opportunity to be redeemed.
> 
> Paladin: Oh.  Oh, yeah.
> 
> God: And you didn't give him a fair challenge and chance to defend himself, and even though the little girl was there, you should have done that, because, remember, even flanking can sometimes bring dishonor.
> 
> Paladin:  Oh, right.
> 
> God: In atonement, you must perform strenuous physical labor while meditating upon your actions and thinking of the ways in which you might improve your behavior in the future.  Please assume push-up position.
> 
> Paladin: I will not fail you, my lord.  (drops into push-up position)
> 
> God: Alright.  Now, give me... two.
> 
> Paladin: Er, what?
> 
> God: You heard me.  Two!  Two good ones!  Nose to the ground!  Straight back!
> 
> Paladin: Um, okay.  One... and... two.  (finishes push-ups)
> 
> God: Good.  I hope you've learned your lesson.  (gates back up to heaven)


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> Whats the relevance of the man being helpless? Dropping your weapon (and pants) shouldn't let you escape justice.




Of course not. But it wouldn't have, so that is beside the point. The paladin could have struck for subdual damage.



> The Paladin quickly acted as a Jury and Judge…




No he did not.

He did not make sure and demonstrate in public that a due process of law was observed, and therefore he did not act as a judge.

He did not listen to and impartially consider any evidence and argument that might have been made for the defence, and therefore he did not act as a jury.


----------



## Darklone

Henry said:
			
		

> No offense meant by this, Darklone, but I can understand why you don't -- that's a VERY high standard to set, and I would say impossible to live up to.
> 
> Would you say, Darklone, that a paladin in a Realms campaign that you ran could expect to turn over a molester, and see justice done? Would be he strung by the yardarm, or at least jailed?



I just hope I don't miss anything important in the next three pages of posts I didn't read yet ... 

As a DM, I like paladin players who don't simply try to use the gameplay advantages a paladin has. E.g. I like to push them into situations similar (usually not as bad as) this one here and check how they react. If the player reacts in a way that shows he's thinking about the typical paladin problems ... he wins. If not, I take care to counteract extensive munchkinism due to Divine Might/Spirited Charge builds... and go on. 

If he reacts positively, he will usually end up as the center of the campaign. Favoritism by my side, I have to confess, but there's not that much that fascinates me more.

I do try not to set traps for him and I will certainly not screw. I see myself as a DM who offers each player his time as superman. 

Sooo... in a FR campaign that I would run... weow. Long time ago I ran my last FR game. But yes, the last time a PC showed (in my terms) heroic behavior, he was awarded by a shortcut in the campaign difficulties which the group would have not achieved in any other way (e.g. one of the BBEGs was out of order for good). Of course, I introduced a new one... but one without all the connections of the old one, so the players HAD an advantage.


> I don't see Paladins as 1950's versions of Superman - apprehend the evildoer and trust that the courts will always see justice through - nor are they Modern-Day policemen, whose primary responsibility is enforcing the law regardless of whether the common good is served.



Me neither. But they are supposed to try. If it doesn't work, they will work against the greater evil... e.g. setting things right in town, not only molesting small molesters.


> A Paladin by PH definition is a ROVING arbiter of justice, hence the "punish evildoers" statement in the PH. a Judge is someone who metes punishment for a crime, and by saying the paladin punishes, he is by nature set up as judge.
> 
> Would this be a power we gave a modern human being? HECK, NO! Not by himself, at least. But a paladin is a different case, because he is a DIRECT representative (same as the will) of his god, just as a cleric is. He has the right and wrong of it, because he not only has the deity's teachings to fall back on, he has the deity's influence to fall back on.



Right. But that does not mean IMC that the PLAYER acts as the representative if the DM has another opinion. I had this problem in two of my own campaigns and in one where I was a player (not the paladin). Luckily in my own campaigns, I was able to solve it before it actually occured... by talking.


> Now, it's one thing if a DM warns you, "this does fly directly in the face of your god's teachings," but another if the DM makes it a guessing game as to the correct action. In this case, there is a direct precedent of Paladins in the Realms acting as both judge and executioner (no need for a jury, this is god's wills we're talking about here) in difficult circumstances.



By the DMs reaction, I didn't have this feeling. I understood the DMs words as a statement that he understood his paladins different. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense to me (e.g. the player should have been awarded for slaughtering the molester). OTOH, that would be a game that's less interesting to me because human interactions are simplified to a CRPG level 


> Would it have been better for the paladin to find the circumstances first? Possibly; but it also would have been just as evil to let the courts dispense justice (which in cases of sexual assault were not as severe a crime as some seem to  think, especially against a commoner), and then have the man exact retribution on a helpless target.
> 
> As I said before, depending on which god this is, the outcome would have not only been "not wrong," but celebrated. Tyr doesn't suffer fools for paladins, and he also doesn't suffer people making fun of his servants; they have a hard enough job trying to stop all the rampant evil in the realms AS IT IS.



I have to admit: One of the reasons I don't play the realms (in that way). A world like this doesn't make sense to me... And I do like to see some sense or realism in the actions of NPCs.


----------



## Agemegos

Malar's Cow said:
			
		

> I think what's more in question in this scenario is the law/chaos axis.  The question of context has to be addressed.  First, did the crime take place in a frontier town where there is no effective legal structure, a la American west in the 19th century?  What about a land torn by civil strife where the governing legal body has either disintegrated or is powerless to enforce its own laws?  Is the land governed by a morally ambivalent (neutral on the good/evil axis) or downright evil rulership?  What about if the government is chaotic in nature, and believes that justice is determined by individual moral compasses rather than by an unyielding legal structure?
> 
> If any of the above circumstances were in effect in the town where the crime occurred, the paladin would not be able to rely on effective justice being doled out by the authorities.




Okay, I agree so far. Now the question is "what would have been the Lawful thing to do in this case?"

1. Kill the guy in secret without allowing him to  say anything.

2. Subdue or otherwise arrest the guy, tie him up, drag him out into a public place, announce openly what you had caught him doing, give him a chance to put up any defence he might have (likely to be pathetic, but you lose nothing by allowing for the chance that something unexpected was going on), consider the evidence, announce a verdict, ask the locals what the usual punishment is, in accordance or otherwise pronounce a sentence, and carry it out.

I think it is pretty clear that even in a situation in which there was no legitimate or dependable local authority, the paladin acted unLawfully. However, a paladin does not lose his powers for a single unLawful act, even a willing one. So this act puts the paladin's alignment in question, but ought not to result in an immediate loss of powers.


----------



## Darklone

satori01 said:
			
		

> What really disturbed me about this thread is the still continuing "lawful stupid" mentality when it comes to Paladins.
> 
> The Paladin is a martial class, why wouldnt a Paladin take a stategic advantage.
> This "cant attack from behind" dogma is a bit silly.  Why not? Does this mean a Paladin can not flank, or take a suprise round, or have numerical superiority?...



Sorry to cut the rest of your post, this is not supposed to mean I didn't read it ... But the paladin "position" I tried to describe has nothing to do with lawful stupid. It has something to do with knowing that you already lost all you're fighting for if you use the same methods as your enemies. 

If the paladin is only fighting to kill evil things, he might as well kill himself cause he's not different or better than them. He just thinks he's better.


----------



## Darklone

> By Henry:No offense meant by this, Darklone, but I can understand why you don't -- that's a VERY high standard to set, and I would say impossible to live up to.



Again... forgot it in the first post: 

For me being a paladin is not necessarily fulfilling all these extremely high expectations, but TRYING to do it. If you fail on the way while trying to be good... no problem. Repenting will bring you insight and wisdom to act better next time. But acting rashly because "you know it was better to kill him fast"... is not what I would deem wise, holy or good.


----------



## Haloq Jakar

1st let me say that I disagree with the DM because as long as you didn't slay an innocent then you were in the right. I seem to remember an old DRAGON article in which EGG said lawful good does not equal stupid. And regardless of what your DM said you as the PC didn't know if that might not have been a ? level rogue etc,so why should you have given him the chance to slay you.  It sounds to me like he wants to be rid of your paladin.  But my main concern is that he would even put a situation like that in his game. I really don't care how "gritty" the game is some things are just plain wrong.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Of course not. But it wouldn't have, so that is beside the point. The paladin could have struck for subdual damage.




No he couldn't have. He decided that the penalty for molesting a child is death, and you can't kill with subdual damage, now can you?




> No he did not.
> 
> He did not make sure and demonstrate in public that a due process of law was observed, and therefore he did not act as a judge.
> 
> He did not listen to and impartially consider any evidence and argument that might have been made for the defence, and therefore he did not act as a jury.




Look, in FR the Paladins are noted to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner of Divine Law. Thus due process was observed because all were present in the form of a single Paladin. Why should the paladin put more weight on a secular court of some backwater town? 

Evidence? The guy was caught as red handed as possible! 

Should a Paladin wake up a dragon for medical tests before attacking to make sure it isn't really an albino brass dragon living in an ice cave instead of an evil white dragon? Perhaps gather some more evidence, get a warrant to enter it's lair? Paladins aren't defense attorneys for the bad guys. The burden is on the enemy to not stand before a little girl with wang out talking about lessons..

For the Paladin in capital cases the divine law is the best option. Secular courts come in to play when capital punishment isn't an option and Paladin isn't intrested in building a cell for the perps.


----------



## Numion

Damn, where's SHARK when you need him?


----------



## Stone Angel

Wow this thread really evoked some emotion from the community. If it were me and I was playing the paladin, I would have done the same thing. There are obviously a lot of variables here. What is the lawful state of said community, what deity does the paladin serves. But I mean come on  the Paladin acted in the best intrests of the community(no more molester), the girl(obviously), and I would say his religion(what deity with a good descriptor would punish the man for this, it makes them sound like buereaucrats..sp?..) 

All this back stab stuff come on, just because he acted swiftly didn't wait for the scum to use the girl as leverage, or harm her. What would the paladins superiors and conscience have to say about this. You let filth touch an innocent child and live in order for a fair child, was it fair to the child where was the law for her? How could he sleep at night, how could he walk away from that room in order to summon the watch.  

Not during my session, *applause*

The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## Toras

"Now for a little planar pespective, for this I have drafted friendly solar by the name of Ocsalus the Lightgiver "

"Thank you Toras, Glad to Be here

"What do you think of this little debate?"

I find it quite thought provoking, and I am glad people are finally talking about the virtues of Law and Good as applied to a paladin

"What is your opinion on the issue at hand?"

The Paladin's choice could have been better, as others have already pointed out.  But I do not find sufficent wrong for anything more than a scolling .  His diety should , in my most humble opinion,  use a much lighter touch.  After all Paladins while men and women of great virtue, but they are not exemplars, at least not yet.  They do not see things quite as clearly as we do and they have the natural tendacy of their race to neutrality to deal with.

Stripping powers, even a few from a Paladin sends the wrong message, bother to the Paladin in question, and society at large.  It might seem like such a hanus act was did not merit such act or that the paladin acting much more wrongly than he did.  Perhaps making the Paladin responsible for catching the cohorts of the villian or if the girl possesses no family, to take care of her personally and raise her in virtue.  

"And about the difference between doing this to a human commoner and say an orc or other such humaniod?"

I had hoped that we would be beyond this.  But there is something I must emphasize, no creature save fiends are born evil.  Each race simply has tendacies based on their instincts and social structures. If your suitability for live and your moral imperative were predestined for everyone else, why are humans the only ones with the ability to choose.
Moralistic arguments based on race lead only to racial hatred and no one wants that.


"Thank you for your time, and we will see you next week on Toras talk."


----------



## Brian Chalian

Vindicator said:
			
		

> His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act."



As the premier defense attorney for paladins from the Wizards boards, I am compelled to post.

There are three and only three ways a paladin may be stripped of her magic.  
1.   Ceasing to be lawful good.
2.  Willful commission of an evil act.
3.  Grossly violating the code of conduct.

I will show that the defendant has done none of those.

*Ceasing to be lawful good.*
The defendant attacked the rapist on sight, correct?  I refer you to Core Rulebook III, Revised, page 165, which implicity states that such behavior is lawful good.  

*Willful commission of an evil act.*
The Book of Exalted Deeds clarifies that there are four criteria which must be met before violence can be considered "good".  It must be directed against evil (the rapist), it must have good intentions (to stop the rape of the child), it must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants (the sword only struck the rapist), and it must not use torture or evil magic (one clean blow).

[BTW, I did read the libel against the BXD.  The quote taken out of context about "...the outbreak of violence is a victory for evil."  It is the last line of a paragraph explaining why good shouldn't fight itself, not a blanket condemnation of violence.  Now I'm left to wonder if that poster was simply misinformed or lying.]

*Grossly violating the code of conduct.*
Respect legitimate authority--Stopping a rapist caught red-handed is not disrespectful of legitimate authority.
Act with honor--The paladin didn't sneak in _invisibly_, wearing _elven boots_.  He marched boldly in.
Help those who need help--The child was rescued.
Punish those that threaten innocents--The rapist will not harm innocent people again.

It is not the paladin's fault the rapist failed his Spot and Listen checks, and he should not be penalized for it.


----------



## Dragonblade

Damn, we need to get SHARK in on this one! 

I'll see if I can get him to post a response but basically here is his paladin code. Posted in its entirety for both its elegance and eloquence. SHARK's paladin code defines the paladin in my own games 

------------
Greetings! 


(1) The Paladin is charged with bringing war and death to the forces of Darkness, wherever they are found! 

In pursuit of this goal, it is generally expected that the Paladin will bring open war and forthright attacks against such opponents. 

(2) The Paladin is charged with defending the faithful: This means fellow worshippers of the Paladin's gods; Temple priests, brother Templars. This also includes guarding the persons of pilgrims while on holy pilgrimmages to holy sites; Guarding the grounds of the sacred temples and holy sites of the gods. 

(3) The Paladin is to generally--though some, are more introverted by nature--expected to provide dynamic, bold leadership to all of those around the Paladin. 

(4) The Paladin is expected to be prepared to sacrifice his life as a Holy Martyr, should the situation require it, or, of course, under divine inspiration. 

For example, this can include, but is not limited to: 

In a desperate siege, where things are depressingly grim, the Paladin may martyr himself by riding boldly forth from the besieged fortress or encampment, and heroically charging into the enemy, thus, dying in righteous combat. Also, though, the Paladin's certain, conscious death serves as a living example of open defiance of the powers of Darkness, and may serve to encourage and inspire the remaining beleagured defenders with righteous fury and determination. In addition, it serves as an implaccable statement to the forces of Darkness, that here, there shall be no mercy, no compromise, no surrender. For such, Paladins have been honoured in hymns of praise, and their names inscribed within the Book of Faith. (This is a huge series of beautiful books which record the stories of great heroes of the faith. The master set is maintained within the Great Temple, which is a fortress-temple in the capital.) 

The Paladin may martyr themselves by insisting on staying behind, and forming a formidable rear-guard, fighting the pursuing enemy to the death, so that wounded party members, fellow soldiers, or just common folk, may escape, and yet live. For such, Paladins have been honoured in hymns of praise, and their names inscribed within the Book of Faith. 

The Paladin may martyr himself by willingly leading a raid deep into the territory of the forces of Darkness, where the purpose may include the retrieval of an item; the death of a leader, or specific individual; or simply to bring fire and steel to the enemy, all the while knowing that their own death is highly likely. In this instance, aside from the specific goal as outlined above, the general goal is to serve as a constant source, a constant reminder to the forces of Darkness, be they Lich, Dragon, Vampire, or Orc King, it doesn't matter--The message sent, over and over again, is this--THE FORCES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ARE COMING FOR YOU!--There is no escape. The Forces of Darkness are not the "Hunters"--but the hunted! It is not for good, righteous folk to live in fear of Darkness, but it is they, the spawn of Chaos, the monsters, the servants of the dark gods who must live in fear! Though the forces of Darkness may slaughter millions, the forces of Righteousness shall march as one, and continue to march, and bring judgement, fire, and death, to all the forces of Darkness, wherever they hide, wherever they can be found! 

(5) The Paladin is expected to be a champion of Righteousness and Good, within the community, and wherever he travels. For example; 

The Paladin is ready to preach to others about his faith; The Paladin is ready to offer counseling to those in need, be they in mourning, discouraged, or fearful. The Paladin stands ready to offer words of wisdom, advice, friendship, or just a listening ear, or a warm embrace. 

The Paladin is expected to generously make offerings to his Temple; In addition, the Paladin is expected to be willing to help other party members in need, for example. For the Paladin, "Gold" isn't terribly important. Some Paladins are good at saving, and it is encouraged to have plenty in order to help those in need; However, it is also common for many Paladins to be very low on "Gold" and such, because in truth, they value it so little. They can always get more, either by conquest, by honest labor, or by the Temple, if they are in need. Furthermore, many Paladins need only go to any Temple to find much of what they need; In addition, if in need, many farmers and peasants will come up with something; and in the city, Taverns and restaurants often feed and house them for free. Businesses, like armourers, weaponsmiths, or ranchers selling horses, will provide the Paladin with what he needs for free, or, simply on the Paladin's word to pay later. The Paladin's word is everything. Once pledged, only death, or the most extreme of circumstances will prevent the Paladin from fulfilling his word of honour. 

While travelling the countryside, it is not uncommon for Paladins to stop by a farm and assist with putting in a new fence, or help by bringing in the harvest, all for free. The Paladin may offer some instruction in weapons practice, or warnings of monsters in the area, or simply praising his gods, and their righteous King. The Paladin may also inquire to the farmer and his family about news of any brigands or monsters in the area, in which the folks KNOW that "HELL IS COM'IN!" to such enemies. They KNOW that the Paladins are not like slick merchants, or demagogues, or petty nobles--Always talking, promising the world, but somehow, never delivering. The fact is, that should the farmer say, 

"well, yes, there are some Gnolls up in the hills, just over the other side o'the river there!" 

The farmer, and his family may see the Paladin return within a few days to a week, with others with him. The Paladin will then drive the evil Gnolls out into the open, or slaughter them in the caves. The Paladin will seek to absolutely crush the Gnolls, and be very willing to heroically pour his life's blood out right there, on the field of battle! Should the paladin fail, and lay there sprawled in the field dead, well, in a week, more will come. And should they fail, more will come. Even in death, the Paladin's commitment is made good. Soon, one way or the other, the Gnolls will be nothing more than a memory. And the farmer's family will be safe. That fact, and that kind of unflinching courage and self-sacrifice in the face of horrible danger and frequent death, is why the Paladins are respected so much, and why they enjoy unprecedented authority and power. The people KNOW that the Paladins really care; They KNOW that the Paladins keep their word of honour; They KNOW that Paladins will sacrifice themselves to protect them, any of them, regardless of their birth, status, or wealth. Rain or shine, in good times and bad, the people can take that to the bank! Guaranteed. 

Paladins encourage sexual restraint, and self-discipline. Some Paladins are celibate; others may have respectable girl-friends; marriage is strongly encouraged; In all cases, keeping company with whores or even a series of girlfriends is not acceptable. It is seen as displaying an inappropriate image of the Paladins, and furthermore, is viewed as morally undisciplined. In public, they drink only moderately, if at all. In private celebrations and such, they may be more free with drinking. However, should chronic drunkenness become a routine, disciplinary counseling will be in order. Likewise, no hallucinogenic drugs and such are acceptable. That is seen, again, as morally undisciplined. Pipes, cigars, and such, can be used freely, as they don't inhibit or impair the Paladin's judgement. 

Unless overtaken by age, or injury, the Paladin is expected to remain in top physical condition. The Paladin needs to have all of his physical strength and endurance, to be able to fight against the forces of Darkness. 

Paladins are expected to uphold, champion, and where applicable, enforce the laws of the King, and Church. For example, Paladins are not expected to be full-time law-enforcement officers. Thus, they don't go around town, looking for thieves or drunks to "arrest." However, should a Paladin witness a thief, he is expected to pursue and arrest the thief. Should the Paladin witness a domestic quarrel, he is expected to attempt to mediate, and/or, call the Watch. Should the Paladin witness a murder, or attempted murder, full assault is totally permissable. The Paladin may "arrest" the criminal, if the Paladin judges that that is practical. If the Paladin witnesses, or hears of either schemes of violence or sedition against the Faith, or the King, the Paladin is charged with all legal and ecclessiastical authority to root out traitors, heretics, cultists, assassins, or rebels, as deemed appropriate and necessary. In those cases, the paladin may arrest them, should vital intelligence be needed, or some other purpose is desired. The Paladin, however, is not required to do so. Good faith and judgement are entrusted to him. If the paladin says that he thought about bringing the cultist in for further interrogation, but at the time, he decided it was too dangerous, and so proceeded to cut the cultist down, no one is going to second guess the Paladin. His word, and his own good judgement, are sufficient. 

The Paladin, where possible, is expected to attend Temple services once per week. The paladin is expected to encourage others to do so as well. The Paladin is expected to be knowledgeable in Church Doctrine, Ecclessiastical Law, as well as the King's Law. The Paladin is expected to be knowledgeable about history, customs, heraldry, and spiritual knowledge, about the forces of Darkness. Demons, Necromancers, Orcs, whathaveyou. The Paladin is expected to know some skills of the land, and of labor. The Paladin is expected to embrace a vigorous work ethic. It is never seen, no matter his prior station in life, as somehow "beneath" him to chop word, or lend a hand in any kind of labor. The Paladin is expected to continue his academic studies, and continue to grow in knowledge and spiritual wisdom. Stupid Paladins are not looked upon with favor, nor are lazy ones, or Paladins who can only swing a sword. The Paladin is expected to act with courage, decisiveness, boldness, integrity, honor, and faithfulness in all things. 

The Paladin is expected to dress appropriately for whatever occasions, if possible; The Paladin is expected to assist law enforcement in broader ways, if needed; The Paladin is expected to stand up to tyranny, corruption, and moral decay. He is expected to bring such to the attention of all proper authorities; Should they be slack in observing such, the Paladin is expected to boldly challenge them in righteous chastisement. The purpose is to shame them into fulfilling their noble duties. Should they resist, a knightly challenge to combat is in order. Should they be too large, or unwilling to face such noble judgement by the sword, then the Paladin is charged with first making a public announcement, either in person, or in writing, or by Bard;-- that Judgement and Wrath shall come upon the evil, corrupt people, and all who follow them. Then, bold, decisive action can be launched against the evil noble, merchant lord, or whoever. 

In general, the paladin seeks to always minimize civilian casualties in any actions. The Paladin may not pretend to parley, and then ambush the enemy. However, there is no restriction on attacking at night, or using terrain or suprise, to ambush a numerically stronger opponent. If the opponent is willing, the Paladin is always ready to enter into single combat. Naturally, the paladin isn't supposed to engage in lying, cheating, or stealing. That is a PRINCIPLE that is followed by all Paladins. However, that doesn't mean that the Paladin cannot say whatever while in an effort to save someone, or serve some greater purpose. 

Likewise, in the constant struggle against the forces of Darkness, the Paladin is expected to keep the "Big Picture" in mind. The most good, in the long run, for the most people. That means that sometimes, innocent civilians may die. That means that some troops may have to be sacrificed, so that more mmight live. That means that if your best friend, even a brother Templar, is a werewolf, he dies. If your brother becomes a vampire, he gets staked and burned. Period. 

Does that mean that the Paladin should never attempt, as in the case of the werewolf, to "cure" him? No, it doesn't. Nor does it preclude some thought for reversing, if possible, vampirism. But once again, common sense, grace, and good judgement, are entrusted to the Paladin. It is entrusted, with the knowledge that Paladins are HUMAN or (IMPERFECT) and thus, may on occasion, may make mistakes. It is thus entrusted to the Paladin by the Paladin's gods, by the Church, by the King, and by the People. The benefit of the doubt is given to the Paladin. He is not second-guessed for each and every decision he makes, or fails to make. It is assumed that if the Paladin had thought it was reasonable to save whoever, he would have done so. If the Paladin thought it was possible to take so and so prisoner, he would have done so. The fact that the Paladin didn't, it isn't therefore assumed that he is wrong. People assume that the Paladin executed Judgement, Wrath, or Mercy, as needed, and as the Paladin thought best. 

Thus, the burden, the challenge, the divine calling, to be a Paladin is indeed difficult, and trying. Only the best need apply. And many of them will die in the holy, righteous cause. As it is taught to the Paladins while in the Monastary; 

"Seek ye to follow the narrow path, which leads to the gate of Righteousness; For the broad way, choose not, for it leads to the way of destruction, the gates of damnation." 

In my campaign, the common Fighter, lives under no such requirements, or expectations. 

Thus, then, in my view, are the ways of the Paladin. 

Of course, any thoughtful questions or analysis is indeed welcomed! 

Semper Fidelis, 

SHARK 

------------------ 
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but doing what you have to, despite the fear."


----------



## Plane Sailing

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> With grim certanty.  A child, with that situation?  He runs quite a bit deeper than you think.  In fact, I think vimes stopped him from that path once already if I remember correctly.  Vimes knows that carrot could not handle the after-effects of such an act very well.




Just the opposite in fact. At the end of Men At Arms Carrot offs the chief bad guy with a sword straight through his chest and into a stone pillar, startling Vimes with the suddeness of it.


----------



## dead

A paladin is allowed to show emotion. He is not just an automaton rigidly following Law. He is human and if his god teaches forgiveness, some trangressions can be forgiven without stripping him of paladinhood.

This sounds like a case of GM entrapment.

Besides, a campaign this dark is gonna send a poor paladin on edge!


----------



## Humanophile

I skipped from the first page to the last, so if this issue has already been raised and dealt with, pardon me.

My big question here is, what is the DM doing expecting the paladin to softpedal in an admittedly gritty game?  If this were a high-fantasy heroics game, even a superhero style one, I'd have no problem with holding the paladin to a higher moral standard than usual; Batman never kills people, but then, his foes are relatively straightforwards and comparatively moral.  Fiends and dragons may cackle and fight to the death, but human baddies usually surrender to be lead away in chains.

But in such a game, even the fiends usually have a hands-off policy on kids.  Blind heroism is allowed because the enemies follow a code of sorts too, so it balances.  In a "grittier" game, justice isn't even assured for the heinously guilty, so the good have to be judge, jury, and executioner all on their own, which is as it should be.  High fantasy heroes have their perks and drawbacks, as do gritty ones, but it's best to avoid giving all the benefits (or penalties) of one without the other.

So I'm all for the paladin keeping his powers, and the DM asking what sort of tone he wants to set.  If villians are obligated to boast their plans before placing the heroes in overly elaborate deathtraps, heroes are obligated to announce their attacks and hold mano-a-mano fights.  If villians diddle little kids, heroes should take every tactical advantage they can, provided no innocents are harmed in the process.  High fantasy cuts both ways.


----------



## Torm

Wow. I agree with EVERYTHING Shark had to say on what it is to be a Paladin. (Except that he's being the _tiniest_ bit hard on them about the sexual relations - a Paladin may enter into any relationship of the flesh that is entered into in complete understanding and honesty, and does not violate the more specific laws of his god.)

So, where is this guy, anyway?


----------



## SkidAce

I think the paladin may have been hasty, but that depends on his deity.  As read...I see no grounds for losing his powers.

An interesting point...consider the impact on all the other child molesters in town...if he did lose them.

"Hey guys, what we are doing must be ok!  Cause Tommy the Wonderboy lost his powers when he killed Bob! Hooray!"


----------



## dead

It also depend on what god the paladin follows.

If his god is a god of LG god of War and Chivalry, maybe he does kill wrong-doers he deems evil on the spot.

If his god is a god of LG Peace and Reason, then he probably subdues wrong-doers and makes them stand trial.


----------



## Dragonblade

Torm said:
			
		

> Wow. I agree with EVERYTHING Shark had to say on what it is to be a Paladin. (Except that he's being the _tiniest_ bit hard on them about the sexual relations - a Paladin may enter into any relationship of the flesh that is entered into in complete understanding and honesty, and does not violate the more specific laws of his god.)
> 
> So, where is this guy, anyway?




SHARK used to be a regular but hasn't posted on EN world for about a year or so. He is a very eloquent writer. His long posts about D&D (especially paladins) inspired a lot of people, including myself. They also polarized board members into two camps.

Those who felt paladins were glorified social workers or some sort of fantasy cop subject to modern notions of jurisprudence.

And those who felt paladins should be Holy Warriors, ordained by their gods to bring righteous war against the forces of darkness!

The first camp hates SHARK's paladins. I love SHARK's paladins!


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

I see alot of rule and philosophical arguments in this thread, yet alot of folks seem to be ignoring that this Paladin became enraged, pure and simple. I know at times that D&D is a hard thing to view as emotional, but I really picture this Paladin coming upon the situation and just becoming utterly enraged. 

Can a Paladin become enraged at an act so despicabl vile and evil that he can't control himself? Is that a good reason to take away his Paladin powers if he has served faithfully and honorably up to this point? I don't think that it is a good reason. 

Paladins are still human. They are allowed to exhibit rage. What holy warrior worth a damn wouldn't be enraged to come upon such a sight? Some may control themselves better, but I hardly think that most would not do the same thing. 

It's really a question of how understanding is the deity towards one of his Paladin servants who lost his temper at the sight of such an extremely evil act? I just don't see any particular good deity in the Forgotten Realms being all the unhappy with this Paladin's act of raging justice. Slap on the hand bad at worst for losing his temper.

It's not even a question of honor. The man had no honor. He was a child molester. He was beneath contempt and was dealt with like a piece a vermin. Why would the Paladin in anyway conduct himself as though this man were deserving of the honor of face to face combat?

A great example of a Knight treating an oppnent differently because of the person's nature is when Launcelot killed Sir Bruce sans Pit the rapist. Launcelot defeated him and didn't even offer mercy as he would an honorable knight. He unlaced his helm and beheaded the scum without even a fight. I think Sir Bruce fell from his horse while being chased. Launcelot never intended to give Sir Bruce an honorable fight. He never intended to grant Sir Bruce mercy. Sir Bruce was a rapist, and the only thing he was going to receive was death at the first available opportunity even if he was on his knees begging for mercy.


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> Look, in FR the Paladins are noted to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner of Divine Law. Thus due process was observed because all were present in the form of a single Paladin.




The judge and jury were present, but they didn't do their job. The judge didn't public demonstrate a due process and fair trial. The jury didn't hear the defence or impartially consider the evidence.



> Evidence? The guy was caught as red handed as possible!




Not quite, fortunately. But red-handed enough.

So why this unseemly haste to make sure that he died before he could talk?

Why make sure he is dead before the public could hear what he might have to say?

This smacks of a cover-up. It brings the law into disrepute. It promotes suspicion and discourages trust in justice. It encourages feuding.

It is irregular, undisciplined, and relies on the personal over the institutional. It is Chaotic.



> Paladins aren't defense attorneys for the bad guys.




Neither are judges nor juries.



> The burden is on the enemy to not stand before a little girl with wang out talking about lessons.




Indeed. And this guy deserved everything his got. But from the Lawful point of view the community deserved more.



> For the Paladin in capital cases the divine law is the best option. Secular courts come in to play when capital punishment isn't an option and Paladin isn't intrested in building a cell for the perps.




Okay, fine. By all means let the paladin institute an ecclesiastical court consisting of himself. But let it proceed Lawfully, in public, by a due process. A divine law that proceeds in secret, without formal process, judges on superficial appearance without performing any investigation, does not allow any defence to be presented, and has a 'jury' consisting of a "GUILTY!" stamp is going to commit gross injustices, even though this may not have been one of them. And even if it didn't convict any considerable number of innocent people, it would never be able to create a lawful attitude in any community.


----------



## Dragonblade

Celtavian said:
			
		

> It's really a question of how understanding is the deity towards one of his Paladin servants who lost his temper at the sight of such an extremely evil act? I just don't see any particular good deity in the Forgotten Realms being all the unhappy with this Paladin's act of raging justice. Slap on the hand bad at worst for losing his temper.




Yep. Remember paladins aren't Jedi with their Vulcanesque notions of anti-anger and cool logic.

There is nothing wrong with paladin bringing the weight of his righteous wrath upon the head of some evil scum!


----------



## Dragonblade

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> They also polarized board members into two camps.
> 
> Those who felt paladins were glorified social workers or some sort of fantasy cop subject to modern notions of jurisprudence.
> 
> And those who felt paladins should be Holy Warriors, ordained by their gods to bring righteous war against the forces of darkness!




It looks like the polarization has already begun!


----------



## Agemegos

Celtavian said:
			
		

> It's not even a question of honor. The man had no honor. He was a child molester. He was beneath contempt and was dealt with like a piece a vermin. Why would the Paladin in anyway conduct himself as though this man were deserving of the honor of face to face combat?




Honour is not what we owe to others. It is what we owe to ourselves.


----------



## Dragonblade

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Honour is not what we owe to others. It is what we owe to ourselves.




Therefore, the paladin should be the final arbiter on who deserves to be treated honorably, and who does not.


----------



## DarkMaster

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Letting society decide its fate : take a look at medieval society : is it not really doing the world a service ? Such a guy would likely walk free in medieval society. besides law was inefficient, and known criminals walked all over Europe unmolested, because they were either nobles (ruled by "divine" right), or known (valuable to the nobles) mercenaries.



The base of a lawful society is organisation, no single being should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for the society in question. The paladin in this case acted as a CG. He knew that it was wrong and did what he taugh was the right thing to do, even if society do not agree with this type of justice.
Clearly from the DM advice this was not socially accepted, the paladin being part of this society should have conform to it. as for your example in this case it is completly irrelevant the man was neither a nobles or known. The end result would probably have been the same. The man would be dead but the decision would come from the society and not from a single individual. And if the man would have been found not guilty, the paladin misinterpreted the situation, would it still be ok to kill him?

If you want to play such a knight I strongly recommand the Paladin of Freedom in UA.


			
				Stereofm said:
			
		

> In such a case letting society decide is a bit of hypocrisy. By the time society decides anything, if ever, the guy has so many years to escape and continue to hurt innocents. Clearly not desirable for a paladin. IMO at least



No, why is the Paladin a better judge than a counsil of seven man(for example) expert with matters of law? 

And what is desirable for the paladin, he is good but he is also lawful and preaching by example. If he give himself a license than everybody can do it too and quickly it becomes anarchy and that is not desirable for the paladin. Paladin are not Good at all cost like CG characters are.


----------



## DarkMaster

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Therefore, the paladin should be the final arbiter on who deserves to be treated honorably, and who does not.



And why the pretended molester cannot do the same, allowing a single individual to take such descision can only lead to one thing Chaos. Any metagaming answers like it's different he his a paladin is like saying that I could kill someone in real life because I am lawful good, metagaming is not good


----------



## DarkMaster

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Yep. Remember paladins aren't Jedi with their Vulcanesque notions of anti-anger and cool logic.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with paladin bringing the weight of his righteous wrath upon the head of some evil scum!



Control of yourself, self discipline is a major part of being lawful the paladin being the pinacle of lawfullness should reflect this in his behaviour


----------



## ruemere

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Or it could have not turned into a very ugly hostage situation.




Betting a remote chance of a criminal acting nice (and submitting oneself to justice) against a high probability of bringing further harm to a child... I don't buy it, sorry.

When it comes to this choice, I'd still choose child's welfare.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> You do realize that with this logic, the Paladin can literally justify anything? "I did it because he could have been a monk and it would have been worse if I didn't do it." "I did it because he detected as evil and I know that means he's done evil in the past. It's justice!"




Lack of a decisive action can be very bad. Furthermore, the sword is not meant as a subduing weapon, therefore, were the paladin to strike to stun the offender, it could be argued that the hero was taking too many chances.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Just because something may get worse (nevermind that the guy was unarmed and didn't have his pants on) doesn't justify using secretive lethal force. It's situations like this that have caused our refinement of our laws to determine when and when not to use lethal force.




As I said, all it takes to kill a helpless innocent child is one strong push. In other words, the criminal could have been considered both armed and dangerous.

The criminal in question has taken steps to renew molesting the child. In other words he had to be in a striking distance from his prey. Also, the paladin was not secretive, merely, unnoticed - for all we know the molester might have heard him and was pretending not to notice the paladin in order to gain access to a hostage.

Again, when faced with a choice between further edangering a child (by either warning the criminal or taking chances with a weapon unsuitable to subduing or by engaging a criminal in a wrestling hold [the paladin need not have to be a professional wrestler]) or risking accidental killing of innocent commoner, I would choose the latter. After all, the molester could be only wounded (and incapacitated) instead of being killed on spot.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> And the paladin is both obligated to his code and beliefs and to defend the innocent. He must do *both* to be a paladin. That's why it's hard.




Hardly in this case. Paladin is a warrior, a killing machine dedicated to eradicating evil. If he refrains from doing his duty, it means that he grants evil a second opportunity to strike. And such an obvious evil at that.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> No blackguards? Never a paladin proven to be less than holy? For your campaign, I'm sure this works, but we're talking about a different situation.




When a paladin makes a mistake, he is stripped of his powers. And because he stops being a paladin, he is judged as any normal person would be. However, as long as he retains his powers (see the conduct in PHB), he's the law.

Also, I fail to see why this situation, being so obvious, would require the paladin to act in any other way. 



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I think being required to do good ends with good means is what a Paladin really is.




Hah, that's the paladin's ideal. However, that's were the life (not the real life, merely my campaign's) comes in. Paladins strive to attain higher ideals, but they are human, they have their flaws - they just strive much harder than anyone else. They make mistakes, but they make up for them. They also do not waste their time with scoundrels.

Finally, returning to the situation, nothing the paladin did was final. The criminal can be brought back from the dead and properly tried.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Do you think he would have been "more right" if he would have turned the guy over to the locals?




Turn the criminal over for what? A trial and execution, perhaps?
If you consider a paladin to be a merely a divine pawn without any right to mete punishment, well, you're taking away everything from the class, both its role (a divine champion and judge) and its powers (by restricting them).

Not good. 

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## nonamazing

This has certainly become an interesting thread, with a large variety of different opinions.  I happen to have some strong feelings about this situation, and I hope you will not mind if I share them here.  I apologize if I come across as harsh or elitist--that's not my intention.

   Here's how I feel: this group should _not_ be adressing these sorts of mature issues.  Can you really take something as serious, disturbing, and ugly as the forced rape of a child and turn it into a question about the _rules_ of a fantasy game?  Can you do justice to the importance of these themes by complaining about how your 'character' lost his 'powers'?  And instead of sitting down with your group and talking over things, should you post this scenario to a bunch of strangers to make a ruling about?

   You know, if something like this happens in a game and your only response is to argue with your DM about whether or not you broke a 'rule', then I really don't feel as though you have the level of maturity needed to handle these morally complex sorts of serious situations.  If you're going to veer away from a high fantasy game, if you're going to choose to confront serious real world problems, than you owe it to yourself--and to your entire group--to do these things in a mature and respectful fashion.  This goes for your DM as well.  A group has to be able to trust and understand one another in order to roleplay serious ideas and concepts such as this.  From what I'm seeing, your DM and you do not have this level of trust or respect.

   To sort of bring this to a larger level (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I do feel passionately about this), think for a moment about what someone from outside the gaming community would think upon reading this thread.  They would be _apalled_ and _horrified_.  To discuss this so coldly, to turn this into an issue of either "the DM screwed the player" or "well, there's this rule on page X of the whatever book that says _this_", completely makes light of the situation taking place in this scene.  I'm certainly not saying that you can't use role-playing games to address mature themes--you most certainly can and it can be very rewarding to do so.  But to turn such things into arguments about the mechanics of the game seems to rob it of its emotional power.  I guess I'm saying that at a certain point, it becomes less important to consider the _how_ of the rules and more important to look at the _why_ of the story.

   Look at the title of the thread.  "and now the DM wants to take away my powers!"  _That's_ what is foremost in your mind?  Why?  Why not, "My character is suffering through a terrible crisis of faith at the moment" or "I feel as though my DM is creating uncomfortable scenarios" or even "I feel as though I have a greater understanding of the enormity of this issue and how it affects lives"?

   I think I've sort of gone off on a rant, and I'm sorry.  But seriously, carefully reflect on your group and the sorts of games you play.  Is this really what you want to be doing?  Are there perhaps other sorts of situations you might have more fun with?  Do you feel as though you are showing proper respect to these issues?  It might be a good idea to change the tone a bit.

   Again, I apologize for ranting.  I have the utmost respect for the posters here and I appreciate all of your intelligent points of view.  Perhaps I'm taking all of this too seriously.  But I do feel that some things are too serious to make a rules argument out of.


----------



## Dragonblade

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> And why the pretended molester cannot do the same, allowing a single individual to take such descision can only lead to one thing Chaos. Any metagaming answers like it's different he his a paladin is like saying that I could kill someone in real life because I am lawful good, metagaming is not good




But he is not just some individual. He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Modern jurisprudence does not apply. In the D&D universe, his god is good and his god grants him the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. 

That is enough. No mortal secular authority can trump that.


----------



## DarkMaster

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But he is not just some individual. He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.
> 
> Modern jurisprudence does not apply. In the D&D universe, his god is good and his god grants him the power to be judge, jury, and executioner.
> 
> That is enough. No mortal secular authority can trump that.



So this discussion should end right away, because all paladin whatever they are right and therefore can never lose their power. 

If they are never wrong why is there a specific rule in the book saying that if they do not follow the path they lose their power?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Exactly. The effect of a public trial and execution is to instill respect for the law, confidence in its ability to exact justice, and fear in those who would break it. All of those are good things. The effect of a secret execution is to instill fear in all (who knows what actually happened; two men went into the back and one came out with blood on his sword), to reduce confidence in the ability of the law to exact justice (after all, this had to be taken care of privately), to promote disrespect for the law (especially the notion of due process which is important for preventing injustice in many cases that _look_ obvious but aren't), and emboldens those who might break the law (for good or bad reasons).

I think the law and chaos alignments are incoherent so I won't say it's Chaotic or that it's not Lawful. This particular action would be expected more of a Holy Liberator than a Paladin, and more of a Ghostwalker than either a paladin or a Holy Liberator. It is not unjust but it will have bad effects unless it is isolated. The paladin's god may be able to ignore it for now. The society in which it occurred should not. And neither should the paladin.

A paladin needs to do more than simply act justly. A paladin needs to act in a manner that will promote justice in a community as well.

And, on the Paladins as defense attorneys for monsters vs. SHARK paladins, sign me up for neither. (Though if I had to choose, I'd take SHARK paladins in a heartbeat. Given the choice between foolish weakness and perhaps overzealous strength, I'll take strength any day). The defense attorneys for monsters are aiding and abbetting evil. SHARK style paladins have it seems overly inquisitorial tendencies. However, in this case, even the SHARK paladins would act differently. After beheading the guy, they'd drag his corpse out into the town square, announce his crime, pronounce a judgement, and burn him at the stake posthumously thus effecting the public's edification.



			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> Okay, fine. By all means let the paladin institute an ecclesiastical court consisting of himself. But let it proceed Lawfully, in public, by a due process. A divine law that proceeds in secret, without formal process, judges on superficial appearance without performing any investigation, does not allow any defence to be presented, and has a 'jury' consisting of a "GUILTY!" stamp is going to commit gross injustices, even though this may not have been one of them. And even if it didn't convict any considerable number of innocent people, it would never be able to create a lawful attitude in any community.


----------



## DarkMaster

nonamazing said:
			
		

> This has certainly become an interesting thread, with a large variety of different opinions.  I happen to have some strong feelings about this situation, and I hope you will not mind if I share them here.  I apologize if I come across as harsh or elitist--that's not my intention.
> 
> Here's how I feel: this group should _not_ be adressing these sorts of mature issues.  Can you really take something as serious, disturbing, and ugly as the forced rape of a child and turn it into a question about the _rules_ of a fantasy game?  Can you do justice to the importance of these themes by complaining about how your 'character' lost his 'powers'?  And instead of sitting down with your group and talking over things, should you post this scenario to a bunch of strangers to make a ruling about?
> 
> You know, if something like this happens in a game and your only response is to argue with your DM about whether or not you broke a 'rule', then I really don't feel as though you have the level of maturity needed to handle these morally complex sorts of serious situations.  If you're going to veer away from a high fantasy game, if you're going to choose to confront serious real world problems, than you owe it to yourself--and to your entire group--to do these things in a mature and respectful fashion.  This goes for your DM as well.  A group has to be able to trust and understand one another in order to roleplay serious ideas and concepts such as this.  From what I'm seeing, your DM and you do not have this level of trust or respect.
> 
> To sort of bring this to a larger level (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I do feel passionately about this), think for a moment about what someone from outside the gaming community would think upon reading this thread.  They would be _apalled_ and _horrified_.  To discuss this so coldly, to turn this into an issue of either "the DM screwed the player" or "well, there's this rule on page X of the whatever book that says _this_", completely makes light of the situation taking place in this scene.  I'm certainly not saying that you can't use role-playing games to address mature themes--you most certainly can and it can be very rewarding to do so.  But to turn such things into arguments about the mechanics of the game seems to rob it of its emotional power.  I guess I'm saying that at a certain point, it becomes less important to consider the _how_ of the rules and more important to look at the _why_ of the story.
> 
> Look at the title of the thread.  "and now the DM wants to take away my powers!"  _That's_ what is foremost in your mind?  Why?  Why not, "My character is suffering through a terrible crisis of faith at the moment" or "I feel as though my DM is creating uncomfortable scenarios" or even "I feel as though I have a greater understanding of the enormity of this issue and how it affects lives"?
> 
> I think I've sort of gone off on a rant, and I'm sorry.  But seriously, carefully reflect on your group and the sorts of games you play.  Is this really what you want to be doing?  Are there perhaps other sorts of situations you might have more fun with?  Do you feel as though you are showing proper respect to these issues?  It might be a good idea to change the tone a bit.
> 
> Again, I apologize for ranting.  I have the utmost respect for the posters here and I appreciate all of your intelligent points of view.  Perhaps I'm taking all of this too seriously.  But I do feel that some things are too serious to make a rules argument out of.



I guess this must touch you, but what about the molester who got killed with almost no proof an not a single chance to defend himself. Or the thousands of soldier that might be fathers that were killed by the barbarian in my campaign when the group I DM invaded an enemy citadell. These events never occured for real. If we were to stop at every single attrocity that this game can bring we would be playing a RPG about the Teletubbies


----------



## jgbrowning

How does one deal with these apparant contridictions from different D&D books? 

"Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates from the celestial planes and crushes evil. Good is selfless, just, hopeful, benevolent, and righteous." BoED
"Attacks evil on sight" Lamassu (always LG alignment)
"Fights evil without Mercy" Alahandra under LG in PHB.
"Violence against evil is acceptable when it is directed at stopping or preventing evil acts from being done."BoED
"The means of violence must be as good as the intention."
"Practices that inflict undue suffering upon the victims goes beyond the pale of what can be considered good."
"Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants" BoED
"Subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable" BoED
"Tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless. A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds" BoED
"A good character approaches every encounter with orcs, goblinoids, and even the thoroughly evil drow with heart and mind open to the possiblity, however remote, that his opponents might some day be transformed into allies. Creatures that are "usually evil" can be redeemed. This is not to say that a good character's first thought in an ambush should be, "How can I redeem these poor orcs?" However, if the ambushing orcs end up surrendering, there is ample opportunity to seek their redeption"


To me, these quotes mean that good has to try and be *all* of these things. If any aspect of being good is ignored, the overall goodness of the creature is diminished. It's all right to attack evil, but you should try to deal with the problem in other ways per the "good code" before attacking *even though attacking evil is good.* I don't view these as contridictions, but as complementary goals that aim towards a single higher goal: That of *"Killing Evil by turning Evil into Good."* Or I guess, more simply, redemption. Killing evil is easy, turning evil into good (and therefore *really* killing evil) is hard.

It's a constant tug-of-war between protecting the innocent and attempting redemption though actions of mercy, kindness, and honor. If a good person smites evil but is is never mercyful, never redemptive and never kind, that person is perhaps not good, but neutral. Being merciful is just as important as smiting evil, just as important as protecting the innocent. There is no aspect of "being good" that is more important than the others because "being good" is the whole package.

This is why I think being a paldin should *be damn hard* and full of tiny missteps. The paladin will never be perfect, but should always strive to that perfection. To me, that means he'll lose his powers now and then and atone to get them back. He'll do this a lot, because the world is an *evil* place and he's got a code that he must follow that doesn't make his path one that's easy to follow. His goal is not to just smite evil, but to increase good. Smiting evil is only one aspect of being a paladin.

What the paladin should be punished for is his failure by immediately using lethal force when presented with an "evil" that was easily and acceptably overcome without. Many arguements hang on the immediate need to protect the child as if the *only* method of doing so was through lethal force. This is not true, there were other ways, but none of those ways were as *satisfying* to the player and hence the PC. Even when we agree that the perp deserved death, his death is as least as just, if not more so, at the *hands of the community* than it is at the hands of the paladin because of all of the many associated benefits as stated by others throughout this thread.

In otherwords there were many other ways of using the good code to deal with the situation. Chosing to use lethal force means that there is no posiblity for mercy, forgiveness, and redeption to the perp. That means that although the paladin supported one aspect of his goodness (protecting the innocent girl) he failed to support several other aspects of his goodness *even though he had the opportunity to do so.* Hence, he suffers a small setback, makes his atonement, and in the future tries to find ways of dealing with circumstances that support *as many aspects of good* without opposing other aspects of good as possible.

In the end, although a paladin has the right and the goodness to kick butt and ask questions later when need be, that is far from SOP. A Paladin's normal behavior should be one primarily of Helping Others, Charity, Healing, Personal Sacrifice, Mercy, Forgiveness, Bringing Hope, and Redeeming Evil. It is only within these considerations that "attacking evil on sight" should be performed. It is only *with all of these other aspects in mind at the same time* that lethal punishment should be meeted out to the deserving.

joe b.


----------



## DarkMaster

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> How does one deal with these apparant contridictions from different D&D books?
> 
> .



You just made me think of something, was killing this guy the priority, no. The priority was to protect the little girl. What could the paladin do to help the little girl after such a trauma, serious psychological help will be needed. So yes the first thing is to make sure that the molester would not contact the little girl again but there are many more ways to do that than killing him, but after that the paladin should not simply walk away and say job well done, he should make sure that the little girl will be taken care of properly (not that he has do to it himself) Killing the molester was rewarding only for the paladin not the little girl.


----------



## shilsen

shilsen said:
			
		

> Nice example (that's from "Men at Arms" incidentally). I'm pretty sure Vimes might have done exactly the same thing in the same situation as Vindicator's paladin. But do you think Carrot (pretty good example of a paladin, IMO) would have?






			
				mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> With grim certanty.  A child, with that situation?  He runs quite a bit deeper than you think.  In fact, I think vimes stopped him from that path once already if I remember correctly.  Vimes knows that carrot could not handle the after-effects of such an act very well.




Actually I'm very sure the opposite has occurred (Carrot stopping Vimes from killing someone, as he did in "Men at Arms"), but never a case of Vimes stopping Carrot. 



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Capt. Carrot is far more than simply a paladin, he's so utterly and fundamentally GOOD that evil undead probably get negative levels just from being in the same room as him. Remember this is a guy with such charisma and force of personality that he's been able to single-handedly stop two armies from fighting and got them to play soccer instead (Okay, maybe it's not peace, but it's still an improvement). He IS a four color comic book character essentially. Also if I remember "Men at Arms" correctly at the end of the book, he cut down the BBEG without a moments thought or hesitation.




He stops Vimes from killing the BBEG when the latter is unarmed and helpless. And Carrot kills him without hesitation when he has re-armed himself and is about to shoot Vimes.


----------



## jgbrowning

ruemere said:
			
		

> Hardly in this case. Paladin is a warrior, a killing machine dedicated to eradicating evil. If he refrains from doing his duty, it means that he grants evil a second opportunity to strike. And such an obvious evil at that.




It's here that I see our fundimental disagreement. To me, Paladin's aren't killing machines. They are proponants of good who know how to use violence in that persuit. The goal isn't the eradication of evil through killing. The goal of being good is much greater than that.

joe b.


----------



## Toras

Half the arguements could be silenced by a little bit more information.  We need to know the full scenario if you want to rely on the concensus of this body.

For all we know, they could have been in Thay for Oa's sake, or he might worship and serve a god (NG or LG with the empasis on Innocence) than someone who favors redemption. 

And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions.  How do we even know that their such a thing to be respected, how do we know that this man and his family might have wouldn't have been put to death for this crime (It happened in some of our earlier societies). Or even that this was a crime in secular terms. Honestly we are all assuming that the Law exists as we proceive it there.

Also does the Church have a codified set of laws? Many LG churches do, and those who serve them will place that law beyond all others.  What does that say about such things?


----------



## Agemegos

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Therefore, the paladin should be the final arbiter on who deserves to be treated honorably, and who does not.




No. The correct conclusion from that premise is that the paladin's obligation to honourable conduct depends only on his involvement in the situation, and not on any quality of other people involved.


----------



## nonamazing

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> I guess this must touch you, but what about the molester who got killed with almost no proof an not a single chance to defend himself. Or the thousands of soldier that might be fathers that were killed by the barbarian in my campaign when the group I DM invaded an enemy citadell. These events never occured for real. If we were to stop at every single attrocity that this game can bring we would be playing a RPG about the Teletubbies




I didn't mean to say that we need to avoid such things.  In fact, I very strongly believe that roleplaying _benefits_ in a very significant way from dealing with serious issues.  Every story we tell needs to have some level of conflict in it.  My belief is that the level of your reaction to these ideas should be equal to the level of respect and seriousness the idea deserves.  To be playing in a campaign with such mature concepts, and to turn this sort of situation into a complaint about the loss of 'powers' seems foolish.  I'm not seeing a lot of maturity coming from this group.

Yes, certainly bring violence into your games.  Use serious situations, and make your players think about the consequences of their characters' actions.  Make your story vibrant and alive and as realistic as you want it to be.  And then treat it with the level of respect it deserves.  There's a lack of compatability between the player who wants to roleplay through adult situations but also feels the need to quibble over an essential unimportant rule mechanism.

My problem isn't with the seriousness of the depicted situation, but with the way this particular group had reacted to it.  I don't feel that they trust one another, or that they really understand what one another want from the game  (Of course, I'm not really speaking about the whole _group_ per se, just the relationship between this particular player and DM).


----------



## Zimri

Celtavian said:
			
		

> It's not even a question of honor. The man had no honor. He was a child molester. He was beneath contempt and was dealt with like a piece a vermin. Why would the Paladin in anyway conduct himself as though this man were deserving of the honor of face to face combat?




The Paladin needs to be honorable because society ESPESCIALLY in a grim and gritty campaign needs to see that there are HEROES out there standing for them. That not everyone is out to be self-serving and making back room deals.

The Paladin needs to hold himself to a higher standard and not take the easy way out.



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> A great example of a Knight treating an oppnent differently because of the person's nature is when Launcelot killed Sir Bruce sans Pit the rapist. Launcelot defeated him and didn't even offer mercy as he would an honorable knight. He unlaced his helm and beheaded the scum without even a fight. I think Sir Bruce fell from his horse while being chased. Launcelot never intended to give Sir Bruce an honorable fight. He never intended to grant Sir Bruce mercy. Sir Bruce was a rapist, and the only thing he was going to receive was death at the first available opportunity even if he was on his knees begging for mercy.




No question about it there. Sir Bruce (from the example given) KNEW he was caught and Knew justice was going to come to him if he didn't get away and he umm didn't. Had the Paladin in question flung the evil rapist from the room walked up to the prone villian and pronounced justice upon him to his face I would be on the other side of the argument. Striking an unarmed foe from behind without warning, in secret is NOT HONORABLE. A paladin doesn't need to accept surrenders in my opinion. "Armed or not you will gain no quarter from the justice My Lord and I have passed villian" is completely acceptable.



			
				ruemere said:
			
		

> Betting a remote chance of a criminal acting nice (and submitting oneself to justice) against a high probability of bringing further harm to a child... I don't buy it, sorry.
> 
> When it comes to this choice, I'd still choose child's welfare.
> 
> Lack of a decisive action can be very bad. Furthermore, the sword is not meant as a subduing weapon, therefore, were the paladin to strike to stun the offender, it could be argued that the hero was taking too many chances
> 
> Hardly in this case. Paladin is a warrior, a killing machine dedicated to eradicating evil. If he refrains from doing his duty, it means that he grants evil a second opportunity to strike. And such an obvious evil at that.




Not so much a remote chance if the un-noticed paladin grabs him and extricates the perpetrator from the vicinity of the girl. Remember the perp didn't even know he was there. The paladin had surprise on his side. No more harm comes to the girl. Espescially not the "harm" of being splattered by the torrents of her rapists blood as his head falls into her lap and his eyes stare up at hers.



			
				dragonblade said:
			
		

> But he is not just some individual. He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.




Right and as such is held by himself, his church, his deity, his companions, and society as a whole to a stricter moral, ethicl and philosophical standard. We can't have paladins acting in secret and dispensing back room justice. That is simply not honorable.


----------



## Agemegos

Toras said:
			
		

> And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions.




Scream, then. These things are not modern constructs: they were well established in ancient Greece and Rome 2,400 years ago (think of the trials of Socrates and Verres). Also, they were common in the Middle Ages and the good guys struggled for them where they did not prevail.


----------



## Squire James

I think the crux of the matter is this:  Is a Paladin Law's Master or Law's Slave?

My personal opinion is that a PC in a D&D game should, as a default, have multiple "right answers" to nearly any situation.  I shouldn't have to turn to the DM in every dilemma and say, "I do that One Right Thing that will preserve my Paladin status.  Do I know what that is, or do I have to guess?"  So my view's about in the "90% Master" range, I suppose.


----------



## DarkMaster

Toras said:
			
		

> Half the arguements could be silenced by a little bit more information.  We need to know the full scenario if you want to rely on the concensus of this body.
> 
> For all we know, they could have been in Thay for Oa's sake, or he might worship and serve a god (NG or LG with the empasis on Innocence) than someone who favors redemption.
> 
> And I swear I am going to scream if I see one more post about rights to defense, right to a trial, and all that other modern constructions.  How do we even know that their such a thing to be respected, how do we know that this man and his family might have wouldn't have been put to death for this crime (It happened in some of our earlier societies). Or even that this was a crime in secular terms. Honestly we are all assuming that the Law exists as we proceive it there.
> 
> Also does the Church have a codified set of laws? Many LG churches do, and those who serve them will place that law beyond all others.  What does that say about such things?



In all case the descision was taken too quickly. What if the paladin misunderstood the situation and the man was simply correcting her child, or that having sex with your children was a respectable behavior, then would the paladin lose his paladinhood? Like Elder Basilik say this kind of attitude doesn't lead to a lawful society


----------



## PoppaGunch

As a player I would have dragged the bad guy out of the tavern into the street by his hair, thrown him to the ground, and made him confess to his crimes in front of everyone in the street. Then I would have made him beg the gods to forgive him for his horrible transgression, and make him say he will atone.

If he went along with it, I would then ask the crowd what they thought? I would let them judge him. The idea is, if he had done good stuff in the town other than what he was doing, he might be redeemable. But usually when people do screwed up crap like he was doing, they are also B***ards. So the townspeople would most likely say to the pit with him, or somesuch thing.

Hopefully he would fight back though, cause then I could dispense righteous justice. Combat before my god and all that. If I were wrong I would lose the combat, and he would be vindicated.

Now if I were the DM here, I would not strip his powers right off the bat, but I would have his god warn him in some way that he was screwing up. Like his healing abilities wouldn't work correctly, or once I had a paladin detect evil in front of him all the time, and he discovered it was his hands that were evil, because he had tainted them. He got the hint.


----------



## Talath

While not honorable, the paladin performed a chaotic act, not an evil one. He fulfilled his duty by purging the world of evil scum. He shouldn't lose his paladinhood.


----------



## Agemegos

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> He is paladin, chosen by his god. And by the grace of his god, is given the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner.




He is also given an _obligation_ to be judge and jury, not just executioner.

And remember that paladin's gods are lawful as well as good. They believe that it is best to do things in an orderly, open fashion, and that wider issues must be considered in judging particular instances. They believe that it is not enough to do justice on a case-by-case basis, but that it is essential to establish a regular, orderly process whereby justice is not only done but seen to be done.


----------



## DarkMaster

Talath said:
			
		

> While not honorable, the paladin performed a chaotic act, not an evil one. He fulfilled his duty by purging the world of evil scum. He shouldn't lose his paladinhood.



Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?


----------



## Talath

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?




Yes, he is required to be lawful and good, but he is to specifically avoid evil acts. Chaotic ones, while antiethical to his oath, are not as severe as evil ones. If he performs a chaotic act once, it doesn't make him chaotic good; why should it cost him his paladinhood?

If he routinely performs chaotic acts, that is a totally different story.


----------



## Graf

This thread has been useful for me. 

I have a reputation for being excessively severe on paladins. The paladin in my last game still complains about my hyper-strict rullings on falling from grace.
[I made one fall from grace for attacking a good ally who was trying to help him, when he was as drugged, hallucinating and under mind control. His god (who was NG and not the god of who arbitrates on Pally matters) appeared to him, told him she still loved him and he would always had a place in heaven and told him about a quest that would help him reclaim his paladin hood.]

We still talk about what happened and I think that it really depends on your world and some discussion of allignment.

People in the thread have made some interesting assumptions. I think you DM needs to decide certain things.
1. Does lawful mean you are a legal representative of the government? 
If you are, and you broke the law killing someone (either without a fair trial, or because child molestation isn't punishable by death in your world) then you probably fell from grace.

2. Does lawful mean "extremely honorable". I.e. you will never attack a foe from behind because you feel that it is dishonorable -regardless-. Do you feel that all crimes are ultimately arbitrated by the gods, who make their will known by allowing one person to walk away from a dueling match alive (I think this is a greek concept, but I could be wrong).
If so you're probably cooked too.

3. Does lawful just mean that you want their to be order, for people to stay in their roles?
If so then you have a criminal, who is deviating from their social role and disrupting harmony. And killing him is just fine.
(Though people with more expertise in the setting will probably step in to comment: this, btw, was the LG as represented by the you-will-conform Harmonium in Planescape).


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?




Then why not turn himself in to the local authorities? What he did was a good act even if it did involve killing a 'defenseless' man. Likewise, any parent with a child in the same situation probably would've reacted the same. With the victim's testimony, he shouldn't have anything to worry about except maybe a ruler across his knuckles. Perhaps even a diety or at least a representative pops in as a character witness.

In any case, the act of going on trial should counter his chaotic act.


----------



## Zimri

Talath said:
			
		

> While not honorable, the paladin performed a chaotic act, not an evil one. He fulfilled his duty by purging the world of evil scum. He shouldn't lose his paladinhood.




No not forever, not even for very long, perhaps not even all of it, and perhaps he should be the only one to know. Some sort of penance, prayers, atonement (not necessarily the spell). Perhaps some bad dreams showing him the possible outcomes of rash activity, perhaps an "audience" with his diety. He should be made aware that he should not continue to act rashly and fly off the handle.


----------



## Talath

The DM or the Player should probably pipe in and say if the DM has required the PC adhere to additional or different codes of conduct in his game. Otherwise, the paladin did no wrong as stated in the Player's Handbook. You can speak all you want about honor and such; however, if the DM runs his paladins out of the book, the PC did nothing wrong.

Well, that isn't entirely true. He did perform a chaotic act, but like I've stated before, one chaotic act does not a chaotic character make.


----------



## Agemegos

DarkMaster said:
			
		

> Paladin must be good and lawful. Where it is written than one has precedence over the other?




It is so written in the PHB chapter 3, in the section on the paladin class, under the heading "Class features", sub-headings "code of conduct" and "associates", and under the heading "ex-paladins". In my PHB 3.0 that is page 43.

A single Chaotic act does not make a character Chaotic, any more than a single Evil act makes a character Evil. Only a sustained tendency to act Neutrally, Chaotically, or Evilly would challenge a paladin;s status through the alignment requirement. But a paladin loses his or her powers and class membership if he or she willfully commits a single evil act. Also, a paladin is forbidden to associate with evil characters but not with chaotic ones. That clearly establishes the primacy of Good over Lawful in the constition of the paladin.

While we are citing the rules, let's point out to those people who claim that a paladin is necessarily an emissary of his or her god, responsible only to his of her god, or that the continuation of his or her powers depends onthe judgement or even whim of that god, what is says under the heading "Religion" in the paladin class description:

"Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity. Devotion to Righteousness is enough for most."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I'd say the paladinhood loses the status due to attacking an unarmed, unaware person from behind.

BUT, depending on his diety, I'd also say the atonement quest wouldn't necessarily be all that bad.


----------



## dead

The Law and the Church aren't gonna worry about one dead pervert, so I don't think his god will either.


----------



## Sejs

> "Tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless. A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds" BoED



  As an aside, this has got to be the quote from the BoED that I have the most problems with.  

_...no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds..._

Now if they're saying 'villians in general' that's one thing.  But damn near sounds like they're saying that no matter how many times Sul-Gar the Reaver has tricked you in the past by surrendering and then getting away later, you always, always have to keep falling for the same trick if he presents it.  Like saying because you're good, you must be a sucker.

That annoys me to no end.


----------



## Hypersmurf

The paladin's gleaming blade arced into the man's neck, separating head from body in a spray of crimson blood.

"_Damn_ it!" the little girl cried, as the lifeless body slumped to the ground.  "Not again!"

Reaching up into her hair, she pulled loose a rumpled, stained ribbon... and with the shimmer of a desert mirage, the child's form shifted, settling on that of a nude woman holding a nondescript hat.

The woman pushed herself to her feet, snatching a dress from the floor and beginning to struggle into it.  Through the entire process, she muttered a running dialogue to herself, apparently oblivious to the paladin in the doorway torn between staring in horror and averting his eyes in embarrasment.

"Every time, Cynthia," she said, "every time, you say to yourself 'No more priests.  This was the last one.'  But then another one comes along, with his 'I have these urges, and I'm afraid I'll hurt some poor child, and so if you could just...'  And you think 'Well, if it will keep him from doin' it for real, and it ain't like you don't need the money...'  And every time, wham!, some bloody paladin comes stickin' his nose in."

Running her hands down her body to smooth out the wrinkles in the dress, Cynthia sighed.  "I gotta start insisting on a room with a lock."

"Hey, honey," she added, finally taking notice of her 'saviour' with his dripping sword, "would you mind checkin' his purse for me?  He owes me a hunnert-fitty for the hour, but I don't wanna get blood on my dress..."

"Heh," she chuckled, as she noticed the symbol proudly emblazoned on the paladin's tunic.  Her eyes flicked to the corpse.  "Now _that's_ irony for you."

-----

Now here's a question.  Who are all these people who play paladins, and don't think to shell out a thousand gold for a _Phylactery of Faithfulness_?

In any even remotely shades-of-grey game, that would be on my paladin's wish-list _well_ ahead of a magic longsword...

-Hyp.


----------



## Zimri

I would go a tad harsher than the "two pushups" scenario and somewhat less than "take this ring to the fires of Mt. Doom"


----------



## Alynnalizza

Man this thing keeps going, and going, and going.

While I still don't think I agree with the Paladin be stripped of his powers. Let's think about what is next.

If you were said paladin and you thought you were doing a great service, and your god took away your paladinhome, What would you do?

Try to atone. 
Wonder if you could better serve mankind by not being a paladin. 
Look into another religion.
Other.

This could lead to some great Role-Playing, but unnecessary rp'ing, IMO.

I have a NPC in my current game that is Half-Orc. His mother was orc, his father was human. The human raped the orc on a wild binge of raping and pillaging. All the children were killed in the orc village. When the half-orc was born, he was given up to the city of humans. A Brave relative, (A retired paladin), tookt he half-orc child as his own. This half-orc grew up very knightly in his ways. (He is now a LG Fighter). He roams the region, looking for any children in need, and goes out of his way to aid any he can. He is barred from being a Paladin within the city, though he strives for 'atonement' even when none is needed. My feeling is he may be better at this job as a fighter, only because of what some here say about paladins. Perhaps as a fighter worrying more about the safety of a kid is more important than honor and turning suspects into authority, as some would suggest Paladins do.

Of course, Alignment in this game has always been suspect at best. Good vie Evil should always be the caveat.

One is not refused entry to 'heaven' for being chaotic, but they sure are for being evil.

Sorry for rambling.


----------



## Agemegos

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The paladin's gleaming blade arced into the man's neck, separating head from body in a spray of crimson blood.
> 
> "_Damn_ it!" the little girl cried, as the lifeless body slumped to the ground.  "Not again!"




Nice scenario. But if Vindicator's GM tries to pull one like that _after giving an OOC warning that the villain was a lowly commoner_ I'd call it really raw.


----------



## Agemegos

Alynnalizza said:
			
		

> If you were said paladin and you thought you were doing a great service, and your god took away your paladinhome, What would you do?




A god _can't_ take away a paladin's paladinhood. So long as the paladin obeys the restrictions of that class it is his or her righteousness, not the whim or favour of his or her god, that provides paladin abilities. Contrariwise, a god is not able to grant paladin powers to a character who does not qualify for the class.

See the PHB, chapter 3, "Paladin" section, under the heading 'religion'. A paladin doesn't need to have a [particular] god, only to be righteous.


----------



## babomb

1.) Always talk to your DM before playing a paladin: What are paladins in general like in his game? What is different about paladins of this specific god? Would it be okay if I made a paladin who acted this way? In some games, all paladins are primarily soldiers who eradicate evil (a view, I might add, probably closer to the historical models such as the Knights Templar and Hospitaliers); in others they are compassionate and merciful, seeking to redeem evil when possible. Put another way, some paladins emphasize Law and some emphasize Good. Or as Velendo might put it, some have bricks of smiting; others, bricks of protection. My personal preferrence is for somewhere in the middle, but with Good over Law.

In some campaigns, both interpretations are equally valid, depending on the players and gods in question. One interesting concept that I saw recently on the boards was a paladin who, upon seeing a guy attacked in a bar fight, would heal the guy to full, hand him a table leg or other such weapon, and send him back into the fight with a shove and a word of encouragement. Sepalchrave's story hour has another interesting view; it should be required reading for paladin players and philosophy students.

2.) I wish Gary Gygax had used the term "Orderly" instead of "Lawful".

3.) Did your paladin act in a Good manner? Sure.

4.) Did your paladin act in a Lawful manner? Nope. 

Suppose a modern police officer came upon a molester in a similar situation. He wouldn't shoot the man first, and certainly not to kill. First he'd pull out his gun and warn the guy to stop. If the molester didn't comply, he'd warn a second time, possibly adding a warning shot. If he still refused, the cop could wrestle him down or maybe beat him with the tonfa and cuff him. Only if the molester tried to attack the officer or the girl would it be okay for the officer to fire, and he would shoot to maim if possible. (Forgive me if the procedure's a little off, but you get the general idea.)

Granted, the psuedo-Medieval police and courts probably are much less fair and efficient compared to modern ones (except maybe in a high-magic setting). However, your paladin should at least warn him first or knock him out. After all, the molester poses no credible threat to you, and little to the girl with the threat of your sword on him. And after all, your paladin's not supposed to be Dirty Harry. After that, what you should do depends on your campaign and your god. It may be okay to execute him then and there, but probably not.

5.) Is this bad enough for a one-way ticket to no-paladinville? No. It could be the first step down a slippery slope, but a slap on the wrist should be enough to make your paladin see his error. I wouldn't even make you get the _Atonement_ spell. If your paladin has a mentor or some kind of superior, I'd have him gently reprimand you and remind you take greater care in the future. Otherwise, I'd give your paladin a dream where he sees some of the consequences of his actions or a possible future with an evil him if he continues, possibly followed by a short verbal reprimand, and he would temporarily lose his ability to smite until he learned to use it more responsibly.

If your DM ends up taking your paladinhood, he's being unreasonable. You might as well go all the way and become a blackguard. You get an extra 2 smite goods/day, Lay on Hands for yourself and you fiendish servent, and sneak attack +1d6 for your paladin levels.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Nice scenario. But if Vindicator's GM tries to pull one like that _after giving an OOC warning that the villain was a lowly commoner_ I'd call it really raw.




A priest doesn't have to be a Cleric.

-Hyp.


----------



## Kareyev

Though I do not agree with the DM's view of paladins, he gave an OOC warning and this is the path the character chose.  Think of it as the world paused, the deity told the paladin "This isn't a good idea", and the paladin still went ahead with it.  For that reason I agree with your DM.  I also agree there should be consequences.

Now being alumni of Rat Bastard U I cannot understand why DM is throwing away such a great opportunity.  Take away your powers?  That's being much too nice.  Will the church have some sort of trial or review the paladin's actions?  What will the community think of the god now knowing of his swift justice?  Will the church have a conflict between the lawful and good fractions?  Will it tear the church apart?  How will the paladin handle knowing he was the source of this conflict?  And why won't the god give a clear direction to either group?  Is it that he is caught up in his own duality?

All of the arguments needed for multiple fractions within and outside of the church are laid out in this thread.  There is enough material here for an entire campaign!  Actually this is very similar to Sepulchrave's story hour, which if I remember correctly started due to a question about a paladin and his actions....

Good gaming to ya!


----------



## zodiki

The Paladin gets his powers from somewhere. In the FR, it's from his deity not from general concensus. The best way to handle this is to roleplay the deity. Did the Paladin's act satisfy the mandate given to him by his deity.  It doesn't matter if the Paladin waited or didn't wait, warned him or didn't warn him, brought him to local justice or not or even killed the molestor in front of the victim. Is the Paladin's Deity satisfied? A careful paladin will take certain steps to ensure guilt etc, but if the Paladin's kill was righteous as ruled by his deity all else is irrelevant.

If this was my campaign, and the situation is exactly as described - no subterfuge -- the Paladin doesn't lose his powers. At the core, the Paladin rid the world of an evil man and the world is indeed better off for it. No sucker Paladins for me.


----------



## Torm

Okay. I've read all of this thread, and there seems to be a wide variety of opinions - entirely too much information, it seems to me, for what that thread was started for. What Vindicator and his DM seemed to be looking for was a trial, of sorts, so I propose we give it to them:

First, go reread the initial post in this thread. Think it over well. Then go to the other thread in the character of one of your Paladin characters. State your character's name, alignment, and God of allegiance.

The first twelve LG Paladins (I am aware of variant rules and others who call themselves that - only LGs, please.) that come in and sign in will act as a jury.


----------



## Sejs

The fact that this took place in the Forgotten Realms kinda throws a wrench into the paladin not needing a god thing, though normally that flies just fine.  

Faerunian paladins must be devoted to a god, as outlined in the FRCS.  Realms clerics do too for that matter.


----------



## Agemegos

Sejs said:
			
		

> The fact that this took place in the Forgotten Realms kinda throws a wrench into the paladin not needing a god thing, though normally that flies just fine.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A priest doesn't have to be a Cleric.




Fair enough. Consider my comments retracted.


----------



## FireLance

You know what, I think the main reason why discussions like this keep recurring is that we don't have an objective system of determining how well a paladin resolves moral dilemmas.  With that in mind, have a look at Firelance's Moral Dilemma Resolution Mechanic over in House Rules.


----------



## SirEuain

I maintain my earlier beliefs: the paladin's wrong not directly because of violation of code of conduct (depends on his god, IMO), but because he had all the evidence in the world to believe that the perp was not acting alone, evidence now wasted with the guy's death.

Now, about GM entrapment...

If this was entrapment, it was hamfisted and should have been wholly expected. Grim and gritty settings shouldn't be magically easier for paladins than for anyone else. Shining armor's not an easy effect when wallowing in filth.

It's also not a real entrapment. I ran a campaign where, after the party thwarted the villainous bard three times straight (first time, he didn't know them; second time, he didn't remember them - really ticked them off, too), the villain did something entirely villainous. While the party was out celebrating their victory, the villain quietly broke into the paladin's home, uncovered the paladin's journal, and read through it. He discovered the paladin had an oh-so-cutesy crush on a woman he'd grown up with, and was trying to wring out the courage to do more than the passive, unrequited love gambit. The paladin had written epic sonnets about how beautiful her eyes were, and had made sure that what little earnings he'd made wound up anonymously on her doorstep. The paladin waxed on and on about how, once the villain lay defeated, our hero would set aside his sword and retire with her. The villain than left the journal open on the beside, to the page he had torn from it, and set a trademark dagger over the book.

When the party found the poor woman, she said that as the bard read her the passages, the paladin's pure words had moved the villain to tears, even as he was cutting out her eyes.

At this point, the paladin was apoplectic. Who wouldn't be? He swore vengeance, asked for (and received) permission from his church to have an extended sabbatical to hunt down this vile fiend. The paladin invited his maimed lover to his stronghold, and set his cohort as her protector in his absence. He sent many messages to her, and all the gold he could spare.

Eventually, of course, he caught up with the bard. By this point, the paladin had sullied but not stained his honor, performing questionable but wholly understandable acts such as threatening one of the bard's accomplices. The bard congratulated the paladin on the journey, then pointed out that while the paladin had been so obsessed with vengeance, he'd ignored dozens of the bard's other operations (incidentally, the bard's motivation for ticking off the paladin was to distract him). Moreover, he pointed out to the paladin that the reason the beloved woman had not written any answering posts was simple: she had hanged herself mere days after the paladin's departure on his quest for vengeance. While the bard may have maimed her, it was the paladin's loving words followed by a callous departure in a time of grief that actually killed her. The paladin refused to believe that he would be responsible for her death in such an event, and reached for his holy avenger, only to find a longsword +2.

In this case, the paladin fell because he attempted to absolve himself of the consequences of his own actions. The paladin picked vengeance over protection, and refused to believe that he was wrong to do so. After all, killing evil is good, right?

It can be, of course. It can also be evil - I don't think anyone here really thinks that a Mafia don orders a rival whacked out of the goodness of his heart. It's simple pragmatism, and that's not the watchword of the heroes.

In all honesty, I don't think it's enough to fight evil, it's more important to protect good, and paladins especially have to take the big picture into account. Vindicator killed one man to save one girl, but by letting this vile, contemptible fiend live, he might have saved hundreds. It's not that he definitely would have or not, it's that he didn't even consider it, he didn't try.

Perfectly understandable, but it fits my definition of an unwillful breach anyday.


----------



## nonamazing

A very good point, SirEuain.  And a very interesting story as well.


----------



## Zimri

So Sir Euain, What was the right way through for the paladin in your story ? Persue the bard by more lawful means (not threatening his associates and what not) but his beloved still dies ? Stay with her and let the bard go free (in this case the bard "wins" because he has removed the Paladin as a threat) ? The Bard was fleeing there was no reason to assume he would be back to cause her harm. Chasing the Bard helped him fulfill his vow (defeat villain marry girl and retire). The paladin didn't cause her to die, he didn't share his secret words with her then cut out her eyes, which lead to the depression that caused her death. Would she have still committed suicide had she heard those words and not been victimized and the paladin still went out on his last quest ?

Don't get me wrong I like the story and I think there would be some very interesting things that could have followed in a campaign if you were to devote the time, and be willing to let the paladin be the "star"


----------



## Herremann the Wise

SirEuain,

Excellent story and excellent adaption to the heart of this thread.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## SirEuain

Zimri said:
			
		

> So Sir Euain, What was the right way through for the paladin in your story ? Persue the bard by more lawful means (not threatening his associates and what not) but his beloved still dies ? Stay with her and let the bard go free (in this case the bard "wins" because he has removed the Paladin as a threat) ? The Bard was fleeing there was no reason to assume he would be back to cause her harm. Chasing the Bard helped him fulfill his vow (defeat villain marry girl and retire). The paladin didn't cause her to die, he didn't share his secret words with her then cut out her eyes, which lead to the depression that caused her death. Would she have still committed suicide had she heard those words and not been victimized and the paladin still went out on his last quest ?




The proper thing could have been any number of things, but the point of the story wasn't that the paladin had a relatively obvious way out that he didn't take. It was that real entrapment is when the DM lets the player have all the rope in the world to hang his PC with. While I threw out token bones to give the PC a chance to save himself, it didn't really matter. I knew the player would act as I (and most of you, I'm sure) predicted, and an evil bard is precisely the kind of villain that would go for such an under-handed method of dealing with a foe. Therefore, I (and the bard) were the ones who ultimately forced the issue - the entrapment in question. 

IF this other DM is guilty of entrapment, he didn't do a very good job. That whole "you're gonna kill him" thing is a warning if ever I saw one.



> Don't get me wrong I like the story and I think there would be some very interesting things that could have followed in a campaign if you were to devote the time, and be willing to let the paladin be the "star"




Heh.

What do you mean, 'if'? I'm not on this thread to shill my stuff, so I won't go into any specifics. Suffice it to say that this and other cruel tricks are the mainstay of the game I write for.

I believe Bart's camp counselor said it best: "Gentlemen, to evil."


----------



## argo

babomb said:
			
		

> Suppose a modern police officer came upon a molester in a similar situation. He wouldn't shoot the man first, and certainly not to kill. First he'd pull out his gun and warn the guy to stop. If the molester didn't comply, he'd warn a second time, possibly adding a warning shot. If he still refused, the cop could wrestle him down or maybe beat him with the tonfa and cuff him. Only if the molester tried to attack the officer or the girl would it be okay for the officer to fire, and he would shoot to maim if possible. (Forgive me if the procedure's a little off, but you get the general idea.)




He most certanly WOULD NOT!   

The first thing they teach you at the academy is that you only draw your weapon if you are prepared to shoot and you ONLY shoot to kill.  Period, end of story.  "Shoot to maim" is pure holywood fantasy.  There are two very good reasons for this mindset.  One: the idea that every cop should be expected to be enough of a marksman to hit the knee of a moving man-sized target under combat conditions is absurd: center of mass is difficult enough.  Two: they do not want the cop underestimating the seriousness of his weapon and the lethality of the situation nor do they want him thinking about all sorts of wacky comic-book scenarios when he has enough to worry about trying to decide weither or not to kill another human being in a split second.

You are correct that a cop faced with an unarmed suspect would perfer to use non letheal methods to subdue him.  But then again, police recieve a great deal of tranning and specalized equipment for non letheal force, the only core class that can say that is monk, not paladin.  Fruthermore if a police officer were confronting the suspect alone, as this paladin was, he would probably choose to draw his weapon instead of rush in and wrestle him because he has no idea if the suspect has accompliaces elsewhere or if there is some other unknown factor (there is a posibility nobody has brought up in this thread: the paly didnt' know if the guy had friends.  Could he take the chance?) and if the suspect so much as twitched towards the girl or made any kind of threatening gesture towards the officer he would probably shoot the suspect.  Once again, officers are trained to shoot even an unarmed man before letting him close the distance with him.  Why?  Because a gun is a liability in melee.  You would not believe how many officers are killed with their own weapon every year.


I apologize for this little thread hijack but the whole "shoot to maim" thing is a pet peeve of mine.  The more people who believe that garbage the fewer who understand what an officer-involved shooting really looks like.

[/RANT]


----------



## ThoughtBubble

sidenote: JG, if a marathon runner is unable to run marathons, obviously he's not a marathon runner. 

There's another level that the conversation needs to hit. And that's the stae of the game. Especially when engaging in a debate like this, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that this is, in it's essence, a way for friends to have fun.
Thus, for any major task, the question must be asked "does this make the game fun?"

I've got one character who is currently in a somewhat paladinsh dillema. He's strongly ruled by Valor, but also by his good sense. He's been challenged to a duel by an imperial knight.  The knight doesn't know the PC's true identity, but would be hunting the PC if the he did. Now, valor dictates that the PC go and beat the knight soundly and show his skill. However, if he does that, his identity will be revealed. So sense dictates that he can't do that. Either way, he's going against one of his primary virtues, and will then be penalized. When he realized this, he looked at me, laughed, and said "****! Guess I'm going to be hitting my limit a lot."

Another player in my game could be put into a similar situation. However, I actively avoid putting them in any personally ambiguous situations with negative outcomes. The player would just fold up for the evening. 

So, in each case, I do what I feel is best for making a fun game.

And I think that's likely my answer to every paladin arguement that ever was or ever will be "Well, what's more fun for the game? Does that choice make things better?"


----------



## Amal Shukup

I've been lurking and ruminating on this for a while.

As a DM, I might very well have stripped the Paladin of powers (with the understanding that reflection and atonement would be sufficient for reinstatement). Particularly if the 'execution' occurred within a civilized area of 'competent jurisprudence' *

*1. It is not enough that justice be done. It must be SEEN to be done*
The good people of wherever probably don't want to live in a society where a (self?) appointed arbiter of justice can execute a member of their society in a back room away from the public view. That way lies star chambers and the like. Justice (which the Paladin should care deeply about) is not thereby served.

*2. Execution is a bell that can not easily be un-ringed. * 
Of course, it is a fantasy environment where a wrongful execution can be discovered and reversed, but such occurences erode society's faith in the dispensers of law and justice - who should exercise all sorts of due diligence in the pursuit of their calling. Again, justice is not served.

Granted, the evidence presented (slim tho it be) seems to indicate that an eventual execution is fully warranted - but why the unseemly haste? Better by far to capture, investigate (what if there are accomplices or demonic influences etc?), try and punish the perpetrator(s) in the full view of society, and with that society's imprimateur. 

* If this occured way out in back and beyond (where the Paladin is the ONLY reliable source of justice), or in a land that lacks justice or is likely to allow justice to be miscarried, things become a bit grayer - but no matter how you look at it, the execution was unseemly in its haste. Also, the 'execution' was undoubtedly motivated (quite understandably so) by outrage and anger - NOT the state of mind best suited for administering justice (and the Paladin's deity or supervising mentor should issue a stern warning against carrying out sacred duties while ruled by baser emotions).

Note, however, I would have NO PROBLEM with a Paladin (out in the back and beyond, say) capturing the perp, interrogating him (magically etc.), and upon determining his actual and unalloyed guilt, pronouncing sentence and summarily hacking his head clean off (give him a weapon and duel? Please...)


A'Mal


----------



## Zimri

SirEuain said:
			
		

> The proper thing could have been any number of things, but the point of the story wasn't that the paladin had a relatively obvious way out that he didn't take. It was that real entrapment is when the DM lets the player have all the rope in the world to hang his PC with. While I threw out token bones to give the PC a chance to save himself, it didn't really matter. I knew the player would act as I (and most of you, I'm sure) predicted, and an evil bard is precisely the kind of villain that would go for such an under-handed method of dealing with a foe. Therefore, I (and the bard) were the ones who ultimately forced the issue - the entrapment in question.
> 
> IF this other DM is guilty of entrapment, he didn't do a very good job. That whole "you're gonna kill him" thing is a warning if ever I saw one.
> 
> Heh.
> 
> What do you mean, 'if'? I'm not on this thread to shill my stuff, so I won't go into any specifics. Suffice it to say that this and other cruel tricks are the mainstay of the game I write for.
> 
> I believe Bart's camp counselor said it best: "Gentlemen, to evil."




Let me start off by way of an apology. I truly enjoyed the tale, I may even attempt to remember it and use some of those same tricks myself. I don't think the DM was trying to entrap the character and I do agree that if he was he did so really badly.

I fear that my asking what the way out was may have inadvertantly put you on the defensive and that was not my intent. I was simply wondering if there was one way that you had forseen the villian getting royally smited by the paladin and his crush not dying.

I apologize if the tone of my post or my previous posts has caused you to think I was in anyway saying the situation you described was "bad". Heck if at all possible I would love to hear more. Your game seems quite intriguing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The paladin defended a helpless child in imminent danger of bodily harm (and possible subsequent killing) by killing the assailant.

In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another."  There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made.  In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be _potentially_ within the scope of lawful activity.

The one concern-he didn't warn the predator.  On the other hand, he had no way of knowing or acertaining quickly if the guy was alone.  Delay could have resulted in unneccessary harm to the child or himself.

It isn't cinematic- Lancelot DuLac in most movie portrayals would have drawn his sword and laid it upon the miscreant's shoulder *TAP TAP*-but this was described as being a "gritty" campaign.  That move could have earned Lancelot a sap to the cranium in such a campaign.

This is EASY.  The Paladin keeps his powers.  In no way did he violate his oath as published in the PHB.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*



			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> Honour is not what we owe to others. It is what we owe to ourselves.




That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station. The Paladin need not show much honor towards a peasant raping a girl. He could grab the guy with no explanation and behead him. Then walk out of the room with the little girl and say to the barkeep, "Clean up the mess in that room. This little girl needs attending."

It is the conventions I play with which may be the reason I disagree so vehemently with some of the folks trying to make claims of right to trial and right to accusation. In medieval times near as a I can tell, if a holy knight found a peasant comitting a reprehensible crime, he could put that peasant down without a second thought.

In my mind, Paladin's and priests of gods of like Tyr and Torm are the law of the land. Deities wield immense and visible power, and very few would challenge their servants save for perhaps wizards.  If they decide you've done a crime, even if they do so arbitrarily after walking into a room, then that law is respected.

A deity will know if the criminal is true or not. If the criminal was truly a criminal and the deity with his ominiscence is aware of it, then why would he punish his paladin for carrying out justice? D&D, and more specifically the Forgotten Realms, is not a world of ambiguous justice where we are unsure of whether or not a perp committed the crime or not. The Paladin was sure to the best of his knowledge, and carried out a fitting punishment while in a state of righteous rage. 

Unless that child molester was not really a criminal, then the God has no reason whatsoever to punish his faithful servant for executing immediately an evil criminal. Maybe a slap on the hand for now speaking to the vermin first, but certainly nowhere near a removal of his paladin powers for properly carrying out justice.

Honor is a matter of station. A Paladin need not give honorable combat to a lowly commoner. If the commoner is so evil that he molests children, he is probably viewed truly as vermin, beneath even words. He is like stamping out a rat on the ground: killed and forgotten.


----------



## FireLance

Celtavian said:
			
		

> That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station. The Paladin need not show much honor towards a peasant raping a girl.
> 
> It is the conventions I play with which may be the reason I disagree so vehemently with some of the folks trying to make claims of right to trial and right to accusation. In medieval times near as a I can tell, if a holy knight found a peasant comitting a reprehensible crime, he could put that peasant down without a second thought.
> 
> Honor is a matter of station. A Paladin need not give honorable combat to a lowly commoner. If the commoner is so evil that he molests children, he is probably viewed truly as vermin, beneath even words. He is like stamping out a rat on the ground: killed and forgotten.



Well, I guess this is the crux of our disagreement.  When I play, I try to apply modern standards of morality despite the medieval setting.  Even though its is probably more "realistic" to apply medieval standards, my players and I know the modern ones best, and instinctively apply them.

Perhaps because of my background, I am also more inclined to treat all creatures with respect, not only those that "deserve" it according to some criteria.




> In my mind, Paladin's and priests of gods of like Tyr and Torm are the law of the land. Deities wield immense and visible power, and very few would challenge their servants save for perhaps wizards.  If they decide you've done a crime, even if they do so arbitrarily after walking into a room, then that law is respected.
> 
> A deity will know if the criminal is true or not. If the criminal was truly a criminal and the deity with his ominiscence is aware of it, then why would he punish his paladin for carrying out justice? D&D, and more specifically the Forgotten Realms, is not a world of ambiguous justice where we are unsure of whether or not a perp committed the crime or not. The Paladin was sure to the best of his knowledge, and carried out a fitting punishment while in a state of righteous rage.



Again, by modern standards, (as said by Amal Shukup) it is not sufficient that justice is done, it must also be seen to be done.  While I would not want to second-guess a paladin or his god, it would be preferable, in my view, if I did not need to.


----------



## Darklone

I do get the impression that for some paladin posters here being good means to kill faster than the bad guy...


----------



## Drakmar

The way I see it is that this whole mess could be sorted out if we all had an understanding of the "Culture" of the Paladin in question.  What I mean by this is that whether or not this causes the paladin to lose his status depends on the cultural background of his "Order"

In a campaign I was playing in, my PC was a Viking warrior/Paladin.  He was NOT a Knight in Shining Armour.  He was from a country that's overall alignment was Chaotic Neutral.  His country didn't have Laws, just Traditions... So as a Paladin with NO church, and No Laws, the only things he could do was follow his Code (the Traditions) and put a Good bent on all of them.  Amongst his people, if Hrothgar had snuch up on a sleeping White Dragon and crushed it's skull before it awoke, he would still PROUDLY boast that he did, and still get call Dragonslayer.

But... in the same Party, we had another paladin.. who was of the Shining Armour, Honourable loon, variety of Paladin.  In her home country she would have needed to put him through the courts.  Other countries. dunno.  But there still would have been some violence coming that baddies way.  My Viking Paladin would not have lost his status or powers.  Her Knightly Paladin might have depending on where this occured.


----------



## Numion

Sejs said:
			
		

> As an aside, this has got to be the quote from the BoED that I have the most problems with.
> 
> _...no matter how many times villians might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds..._
> 
> Now if they're saying 'villians in general' that's one thing.  But damn near sounds like they're saying that no matter how many times Sul-Gar the Reaver has tricked you in the past by surrendering and then getting away later, you always, always have to keep falling for the same trick if he presents it.  Like saying because you're good, you must be a sucker.
> 
> That annoys me to no end.




This sounds strange. I always thought that while Paladin should be honor bound to accept surrender, he wouldn't be honor bound to let the surrendees go free. He might even decide after them surrendering that the capital punishment is right for them, and then execute them. 

Like if Paladin 'arrests' a band of thieves with numerous murders on their conscience, he could execute the lot.


----------



## Agemegos

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The paladin defended a helpless child in imminent danger of bodily harm (and possible subsequent killing) by killing the assailant. In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another."




It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.


----------



## Agemegos

Celtavian said:
			
		

> That is a really false idea of honor. Honor was generally something dependent on station.




According to Edward I it was. According to Simon de Montfort it wasn't. One of them is remembered as 'Simon the Righteous, Father of Parliament' and was revered as a saint. The other is remembered as a cruel, cold, methodical giant, a tyrant, oathbreaker, and warmonger.


----------



## Numion

Darklone said:
			
		

> I do get the impression that for some paladin posters here being good means to kill faster than the bad guy...




Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.

Sometimes it's just best to take it as you see it, and act swiftly. 

Maybe it was not honorable, but still I wonder if sticking to your honor further endangers a child, is it really honor or personal hubris and a little too big ego for a Paladin? Anyway, it wasn't an evil act, and so shouldn't lead to loss of powers.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.




The child appeared molested, remember? Well, Paladins only duty is not to prevent harm from happening, but also to punish evildoers. That he did. Killing the man served two purposes: prevented the next rape and punished for the previous one. 

If secular courts decide that the Paladin is a murderer for doing his duty .. then so be it. It's the price for being a Paladin. The secular law is wrong and unjust then, and Paladin is not obliged to follow it. Just like in Thay being a Paladin could be illegal.

It's pointed out that Lawful doesn't really mean that you're law-abiding. It means you work in an organized fashion.


----------



## nick2

Wouldn't the Paladin know if he was committing an evil act or not?  In his mind he was simply defending someone.  If he was told that killing this person was an evil/unlawful act, he would have found a different means to stop the person.  

The DM probably picked the most despicable crime there is.  I think most characters in this situation, paladin or not, would have done the same thing.  
Having consequences for these actions, like a trial or a vendetta against the paladin is reasonable enough.  Have the commoner be resurrected, or tainted by an evil god/spirit, and let him continue doing evil deeds.

I also agree that applying modern laws and ideals to fantasy worlds does not work all that well.  Suddenly the characters are charged with trespassing, breaking and entering, assault, murder, uttering threats.  Then they have to use all of their adventuring money to pay for legal fees.  

Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?


----------



## Numion

nick2 said:
			
		

> Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?




And for commoners the standard was guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## AuraSeer

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.



You're making a big assumption with that word "justifiable." In most places, for lethal defensive force to be legal, it must be apparent that there is no alternative.

The paladin didn't need to use lethal force, because he so obviously overpowered the commoner. He could very easily have struck with the flat of his blade, incapacitating the opponent but not killing him. Even striking with bare hands would have done the job. In a modern analogue he might very well find himself arrested for manslaughter, because his use of force was so far in excess of what was necessary.  (It might be legal to shoot a mugger, but probably not if you're also carrying a tazer.)


----------



## Wormwood

"Yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell!"


----------



## Samurai

Add my vote to "the paladin should be praised for enacting swift justice, not punished."  IMHO, the child molester is far more evil than your common orc or goblin, or even undead.  They simply are trying to survive, while the rapist chose to inflict harm on the helpless for sheer pleasure.  I'd be far more likely to warn a paladin who ran into an orc encampment swinging his sword than I would in this case.  Justice was done.


----------



## Fenes

I think we have many different definitions of Honor. IMHO, a paladin is not required to challenge commoners to honorable combat - in fact, doing so could be dishonorable in itself, a mocking of the honorable duel between knights. In that view, striking a knight from behind would be dishonorable in most circumstances, striking down (evil) rabble down from behind would be perfectly ok.

IMC, I try to apply medieval views, not my modern views, though it took me some time. It just feels more right to me to have characters who do not behave like they memorized modern penal codes, but live medieval values.


----------



## FireLance

Numion said:
			
		

> Being an efficient Paladin requires that you do not hesitate. It would be easy to hamstrung the class with all the remote possibilities (child was an illusion, the man was just a wanker - evil white dragon was really a good albino dragon - Captain of the Black Pearl just had a teeerrible curse on him), but even those work two ways. Hesitating on the spot could've let the mans possible cronies free him and go unpunished.



For the sake of focusing the arguments, can we keep all remote possibilities out of it?  For every argument not to strike because it could have been an illusion or the man could have been possessed, there is a counter-argument to strike because the man could have had accomplices or could have caused more harm to the girl if he was not put down immediately.

I don't think it is very productive or persuasive for either side to base arguments on what if.

Thanks.


----------



## pawsplay

Quick observation: the act was neither evil nor chaotic.  It might not have been good or lawful, but it's understandable, and delivering summary justice is no violation of a Paladin's code.  I can see strong arguments that killing the man was both Lawful (administering justice) and Good (killing what is probably an irredeemable man).  If the man truly repented, he would probably wish he was dead.  

There is nothing in the Paladin's code that prohibits wrath, nor any prohibition against killing someone, even from behind, if they are in the process of committing an evil act.  If the man had a sword raised, the Paladin would kill him.   Is he *less* justified in killing the man because the man was only about to molest a young girl?

Some Paladins may choose to knock out the man and bring him to trial, but I would actually consider it possible grounds to strip the Paladin's powers if he did so, uncertain the man would actually be tried and executed.

In any case, it's a complex situation, and a Paladin should never lose his powers over an arguable case.  

Facing an armed man in combat is a matter of personal valor.  Striking in this situation is not a matter of cowardice, but of believing that something more important is at stake than his personal valor.

I think the question arises: would the deity strip a LG cleric of his spells for the same act?  If the answer is no, he has not committed an evil or lawless act.


----------



## Deadguy

Agemegos said:
			
		

> According to Edward I it was. According to Simon de Montfort it wasn't. One of them is remembered as 'Simon the Righteous, Father of Parliament' and was revered as a saint. The other is remembered as a cruel, cold, methodical giant, a tyrant, oathbreaker, and warmonger.




I have stayed out of this thread, since little good ever comes of these Paladin discussions other than increasingly shrill words as game and reality become blurred in the posters' replies.

But since this a pure historical point, I wanted to say that I have _never_ come across this description of Simon de Montfort, and the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of _Braveheart_! I'd be the first to say I am not an historian, but having played an _Ars Magica_ campaign that ran right through the reign of Edward I, I read widely around its history.

Was Edward a hard man? Yes, most certainly. But every successful monarch of this age had to be pretty damned ruthless if they were going to have a kingdom left. There's little sense of national identity and patriotism, and most magnates were interested only in what personally improved their station. Likewise, your characterisation of the de Montfort's rebellion is, I think, coloured by looking backwards and knowing what happened to the governance of England. de Montfort was not, I feel, a man acting to aid the common weal; he was a powerful noble who was concerned with controlling his king (Henry III, Edward's father) to prevent him from draining further power and authority away from the magnates.

Clearly in mediaeval historical matters, there is much scope for disagreement, even from primary sources. But it did sound that you were stating as fact to support an unrelated thesis.

Sorry, now to return you to your previous Paladin Animosity.


----------



## Majere

Just my 2c from a completely unrelated source.
Baldurs Gate 2 (Convenietly set in Forgotten realm)

One ok the missions you are sent to help a baron evict squatters. 
It soon becomes clear that the baron is trying to steal their land. 
The baron refuses stop so you kill him.

Is the killing of a noble lawful and good ?
The Order of theHeart seem to think so, infactI bevelie the quotes is something along the lines of:
"Im sure your actions were justified"

And that is kinda the point (in a roundabout way)
The actions were justified.
None can argue the man shouldnt have been punished. Very few will argue that under normal law he wouldnt have been executed. 
Perhaps the method was not the most "noble" but thats almost besides the point. The paladin did the right thing for the right reasons. Possibly in the wrong way, but ultimately a paladin is accountable only to his god. 

One way to do this might be just to have th paladin go on trial in the local courts.
If nothing else this teaches the character that his actions are not without repercussions and that he should apply thought.

And then cut the infidels head off 

Majere


----------



## DarkMaster

Majere said:
			
		

> And then cut the infidels head off
> 
> Majere



Be careful with that one.


----------



## Khaalis

Lets please not being to debate over semantics...


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> It's pointed out that Lawful doesn't really mean that you're law-abiding. It means you work in an organized fashion.




Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.

So this was not a Lawful act. But the question remains open whether it was the act of a Chaotic personality, or an abberration on the part of a Lawful one acting under the stress of circumstances.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus

Kem said:
			
		

> Everyone that is saying its was unjust and he should lose paladinhood.
> 
> Would it have been different if it was an Orc in the same situation with a human girl in a dungeon?




What about going the other direction? Suppose the girl was someone the paladin knew (or even related to). The paladin was acting as any good father would, protecting his daughter, as well as a religious leader protecting a (potential) member of his 'flock'.


----------



## Agemegos

Deadguy said:
			
		

> the Edward Longshanks you describe is the Longshanks of _Braveheart_!




Just so. Asked to arbitrate between the claims of the rivals for the throne of Scotland, he sold his justice to the one who agreed to swear fealty to him. And then claiming a suzerainty that he had obtained by extortion, he invaded and attempted to conquer.

Are you aware that in 1265 he robbed a bank (the Temple in London)? That as a youngster he had a commoner's eyes gouged out becasue the man was not in his opinion quick enough to get out to the road to let him pass?


----------



## Agemegos

Deadguy said:
			
		

> I wanted to say that I have _never_ come across this description of Simon de Montfort




As "Simon the Righteous"? It is mentioned in Chambers Biographical Dictionary (ISBN 0550 100512) on page 1071. And it is discussed by the historical novellist Sharon Kay Penman in her novelised biography of de Montfort "Falls the Shadow".


----------



## Agemegos

nick2 said:
			
		

> Also, wasn't the court reserved for nobles during the medieval times?




Trial in the _Curia Regis_ was. But the manor courts, hundred courts, assizes, and other Royal courts were certainly available to commoners. Indeed, the escheat of property from commoners convicted of felony was an important source of revenue to whomever owned the right of high justice and managed to catch the gulty party. High justice in England belonged originally to the earl, but was gradually reclaimed by the Crown except in a few anomalous cases such as the Duchy of Cornwall, the Bishopric of Durham, and (I think) the Duchy of Lancaster.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> You attacked an unarmed opponent from behind without warning. The fact that he was in the act of commiting a grievous offence did not demand lethal action when a stern warning to cease followed by subsequent "punishment" if your orders were not followed was more appropriate.




Sorry, but the act did demand lethal action.  A stern warning fails to protect the innocent.  After all, it is doubtful that the paladin is staying in town forever.

IMC, the paladin wouldn't lose his paladinhood.

In too many cases (though I don't think this one), the paladin alignment code is seen as an opportunity by DMs to create no-win situations.  If the paladin slays the guy, he overreacted.  If the paladin delivers a stern warning, he underreacted.

Was it cowardly to attack the commoner with his pants down?  No.  This wasn't the BBEG, and (as was pointed out by the DM in this case) the commoner had no real chance under any circumstances.  It would have been cowardly to walk away.

Was it unjust?  Absolutely not.  

Raven Crowking


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *but he deliberately chose to disrespect the legitimate authority* by using lethal force immediatly. He doesn't have that right.




And how do you know that? You don't. We simply don't know enough about the game in question to make statements so surely.
This is the problem with people that ask the boards for a decision or opinion on their situation; they never give enough details.



> *Even if the man had a knife to the girls throat.*



And that's just insane.

I don't see where paladins have to respect local authority, and you don't even know if there are local authorities in this case, or if they aren't perhaps corrupt like the molester. Once again, we just don't have enough info to be setting answers in stone the way you seem to be.
Also, it sounds like some people have a bad case of "1st/2nd edition-itis". The symptoms of this sickness include mistaking the Lawful alignment for meaning that the PC always obeys the law. This is overly simplistic and was cast aside years ago. Lawful characters abide by a set of rules. Those rules might be the local law, but they are far more likely to be the character's own personal code of ethics, or a code of chivalry, or the precepts of their religion, or simply "don't go against _the family_". Most paladin's will abide by a combination of their own personal code of conduct and the expectations/goals of their religion. Not all paladins even have patron deities, in which case their own code of conduct is the only law they have to answer to (in regard to losing their powers).
Now a paladin wouldn't go out of his way to flout local authority, but he's not going to hamstring himself for it either. Conflicts with secular authority would be regrettable, but not a cause for atonement.

That the man's back was to the paladin when he struck is of little consequence. Might does not make right, so why would the paladin engage in a contest of strength and skill with a guilty perp?
_"Have at thee rapist! If you win you must be in the right, though I do not wish it so. I'd execute you since you're obviously guilty, but honor requires that I give your molesting ass a fair shot."_
What the $%*#?
Fighting an obviously guilty perp for the sake of honor or fairness or whatever only sullies the paladin. He isn't supposed to be equal to purveyors of evil, he's above them, so treating them as worthy opponents is just wrong-headed.
And before anyone says it, because I know they will; beheading an evildoer caught unawares does not mean he's sinking to their level, it means he's simply not recognizing the evildoer as being worthy of such niceties.
FYI: Honor is often neither good nor evil, but rather a product of the ego. It might be lawful, if you are bound to a code of honor and follow it, but honor codes are followed by evil and good alike, and sometimes the "honorable" thing to do according to that code, is misguided and silly. Certainly putting a child at risk for the sake of not tarnishing his honor would be selfish and careless.

In my opinion it was a righteous kill. The only thing that was unfortunate is that he hastily killed the man without finding out whether the brute was acting alone. 
If the local authorities are just and aren't soft on molesters, they should see things the paladin's way and then suggest that he turns such mundane criminals over to them, instead of his sword arm in the future. 
If the locals are mostly evil, he should try to get the hell out of there with the girl.
Either way, I think he should see to it that the girl is cared for, and if that means she has to come along with him until he can find suitable guardians for her, so be it.

Just remember, this could all be an elaborate ruse designed to saddle him with a succubus, a polymorphed evil wizard or other foul creature in the guise of a child in need. The counterfeit child could then encourage this rash behavior, slowly leading the paladin to "the dark side".
"Strike him down with your anger and your path to the Dark Side will be complete!"

*Note:* Without more information, all of the above is speculation. If such information has been furnished in the later posts, I apologize, but I haven't the time to go through all 21 pages of posts right now!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.
> 
> So this was not a Lawful act. But the question remains open whether it was the act of a Chaotic personality, or an abberration on the part of a Lawful one acting under the stress of circumstances.




The purpose of a trial would have been what?  To determine guilt or innocence?  In this case, that is a foregone conclusion.  To determine correct punishment?  Again, if the paladin has the right to mete justice, it is a foregone conclusion.

What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice.  He acted in a back room only because a back room was where he found the problem.  No different than acting in a dungeon, as others have pointed out.

Raven


----------



## mythago

(Okay, I'm going to assume this really happened and is not just a troll.)

 The thing the original poster is not getting at is: what, exactly did the GM expect the paladin to do?

 Was the GM setting up a trap in order to "get" the paladin? Did the GM have an expectation in mind that the paladin would drag the guy off to The Law? If I were the player, I'd want to know what the GM expected me to do, and what he considered an appropriate course of action in those circumstances. If the GM's answer was vague or unrealistic, I'd wonder if the GM was setting me up for a fall, and there really was no course of action that was either a) stupid or b) going to be used to deprive my character of paladinhood. In that case, the GM is being a jerk.

 If the answer were something mildly sensible ("I expected you to subdue him and bring him to the courts for justice, and take the girl to the Healing Temple") then we have a starting point to discuss exactly why what my PC did was, or wasn't appropriate.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Quick observation: the act was neither evil nor chaotic. It might not have been good or lawful, but it's understandable



 In what part of the paladin's code does it say "acts that are neither good nor lawful but understandable don't count"?

  I mean, if *I* were one of those GMs who gets off on playing Stick the Pally, I'd have real child molester nearby using some kind of possession magics on the poor schmoe who the paladin killed. Perfect way to commit a crime, no? Control another person's body, force them to commit your evil acts, then let them be arrested or killed by impulsive do-gooders while you go on your merry way.


----------



## Agemegos

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The purpose of a trial would have been what?




To demonstrate to the public that justice had been done, and not some sordid private murder. To demonstrate to the public that the law is just, and that they can rely upon the authorities to deliver justice even when appearances are misleading. Thus to enable the community to respect the law and to encourage them to settle their disputes, obtain vengeance for their wrongs, and defend themselves from false accusations in a regular, peaceful orderly manner--and not to resort to feud or flight. In short, to bring law to a lawless land.



> What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice.




I disagree. I think it would give rise to exactly the same sort of suspicions as occur when the police gun down some unarmed person in a private home. The masses wonder what he had to say that the police did not want them to hear.

It would be much more useful to have the malefactor make his pathetic excuses in public, and to demonstrate that they were untrue.


----------



## historian

IMHO - and I apologize if this has already been posted (ton of replies) is that the paladin should be set on a path of atonement for the act (which was good, in my definition, but not lawful).

The line betwee vigilantism and the defense of a third party (which is similar to self defense) must be drawn here.  Your paladin was present to witness an apparent crime (kidnapping) and another about to happen (violation, etc.) but he acted before the violating (or physical harm) ocurred.  Think of it this way, under the circumstances, a police officer would not have been able to use deadly force to subdue the offender, nor would a citizen, even if the citizen were a family member of the victim (though the outcome might have been different if the defender were in the process of torturing the victim).  Your paladin had an opportunity to subdue the offender using non-deadly means before he was able to harm the child.  Thus, by slicing the bad guy's head off, your paladin crossed the line between legitimately defending a third party to vigilantism.  As unjust as this may sound, your paladin likely gets charged with murder in modern America, and pleads to some lesser manslaughter charge.

Of course, the laws in your campaign world may allow for more expansive measures to be taken on behalf of third parties.  In sum, if you can justify your paladin's behavior as legal, then no stripping and atonement.  Otherwise, the bad news.  Tough call, but it sounds like your DM is being fair (imagine if he had thrown you a nasty curveball like tricking your character into killing an innocent who just seemed guilty of this unspeakable stuff).

BTW and FWIW, your campaign sounds awesome and your paladin would meet my standard for morality (but I'm caught between NG and N, not LG).  

Good luck!


----------



## Agemegos

historian said:
			
		

> Your paladin was present to witness an apparent crime (kidnapping) and another about to happen (violation, etc.) but he acted before the violating (or physical harm) ocurred.




I don't think that is right. My understanding is that the girl had already been raped at least once. Which makes it clear that condign punishment was in order, but no clearer that lethal force was needed to prevent any crime that could, at that stage, be prevented.


----------



## DarkMaster

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The purpose of a trial would have been what?  To determine guilt or innocence?  In this case, that is a foregone conclusion.  To determine correct punishment?  Again, if the paladin has the right to mete justice, it is a foregone conclusion.
> 
> What the paladin did will certainly promote confidence in justice.  He acted in a back room only because a back room was where he found the problem.  No different than acting in a dungeon, as others have pointed out.
> 
> Raven



I personally would find unacceptable to have police officer kills people because they decided that they were evil and only deserved to die, no matter how certified or trained or whatever. Justice for a chaotic character is based on himself and his perception, Justice for a lawful character is dicted by the whole society. If society says we know there are a evil necromancer in the dungeon and they must be killed because we judge so then yes the paladin can go and kill those guys, but here he decides what is good or wrong without asking too much question and take a descision based on his impulse (extremely chaotic). I like Hyp example about the prostitute with a hat of disguise. That obviously would have the paladin loose his paladinhood. 

since most of you are american I don't understand why most of you say it was ok to kill the guy on the spot, but in the US when a police officer just hit a robber there are massive manifestation (like in LA a few years ago). Or a few Iraqui terrorist are pictured with underwear on their head and you see massive indignation. I personnaly agree with those attitude and I am very surprised that most people here simply say: The guy looks guilty, let's kill him on the spot and consider that a LG action, No need for CE enemy when your LG PC act like that. Very disturbing, wonder if I would like to hang with you. 
example: I go to your place play DnD, next morning you notice that a small statue that was placed near the place I was sitting just disapear, You take your gun drive to my place and kill me on the spot. You go back home thinking that justice has been done just to notice that your 2 years old just took it to play.


----------



## historian

Agemegos said:
			
		

> I don't think that is right. My understanding is that the girl had already been raped at least once. Which makes it clear that condign punishment was in order, but no clearer that lethal force was needed to prevent any crime that could, at that stage, be prevented.




As to the fact, I believe you are right, it was clear that the girl had been violated.

The point though, is that it is not within the purview of citizens (nor police officers) to do the punishing (at least not under the American system - noticed that you are from Australia  ) be they paladin or otherwise.  As a citizen or police officer, there are instances under which deadly force can be invoked to _protect_ a third party (though its applicability is different than self defense), however, the situation as set forth wasn't one of those.

By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights.  I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Yes it does. I don't think that Forgotten Realms is usually one of those places and this isn't consistant with the Book of Exhalted Deeds take on honor and criminals in which "subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable to killing them and possibley being forced to stand trial for murder."




You could try adding an "In my opinion" to the beginning of that first sentence.
One of my problems with your arguments in this thread is simply that you are *so* adamant that you are right. It almost seems like you think there is no other right way to play than your own. Granted, the original poster asked for your opinion and that's what you're giving; you just don't act like it's an opinion as much as fact/religious canon.
I suppose poster #1 and his DM opened the door for that sort of thing.
I'm not trying to pick on you personally, I'm sure there are others in this thread who have acted the same way, it's just that it's your name and avatar I've seen three or four times on nearly every page of the thread I've read so far...

Also, keeping in mind that we have only the barest details to base our decisions on is a good thing. It stems the embarrassment that inevitably occurs when the original poster returns and says, "Aw shucks, I should have mentioned that this took place in Villain Junction where there's not a lawfully appointed magistrate for 100 miles.", and turns everyone's understanding of the situation on its head.

And for everyone worried the locals doubting the justice system because of this unannounced execution; If the authorities are that worried about their image they can bring the guy back to life, try him, and kill him again. It's the Realms after all, there should be a guy in the nearest bar or privy who can rez someone and will keep silent for the right price.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Indeed. And my very point is that Vindicator's paladin did not carry out his duties in an orderly, organised fashion. Conceding tht he had the authority to hold a trial and execute a sentence, I maintain that he did so in a shoddy, slipshod, disorganised, disorderly fashion. The character has authority: he ought to treat that authority with respect, to use it in a way that will promote confidence in justice and respect for the law. instead he treated his own authority as a shameful, scurrying, surreptious thing, a thing of back rooms and dark alleys.




If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful. His inner rules tell him to dispatch all molester at first opportunity. There isn't anything disorganized in single unhesitant swipe of the sword.

Let me back that up with the PHB page 88:

"Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness and a lack of adaptability"

Sounds like this was the paladins close adherence to dispatching evildoers about to commit evil  Lawful behaviour requires systematic actions - not necessarily complicated lawroom actions.


----------



## Agemegos

historian said:
			
		

> By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights.  I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.




Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.

In treating authority with disrespect, in dispensing justice in a summary, personal, private fashion, the paladin has acted out of accord with a lawful alignment, and (in the lawful point of view) to the harm of society. But it is just a single act. I think that the paladin is due a stern caution for Chaotic behaviour, but that o strip him of paladinhood or it powers in not warranted underthe rules unless a continual tendence to Chaos is manifest in his acts in general.

I think that part of the reason that we are seeing so much controversy is that people think that 'Lawful Good' means 'extra-specially righteous', even though their own personal standards of righteousness tend more to the individualistic case-by-case Chaotic Good than the institutional due-process Lawful Good. They judge that according to their own standards the paladin has done the right thing, and fail to take into account the gap between their own standards and the ones by which the paladin is correctly judged. Me, I am apparently Neutral Good, but I recognise that a paladin has to be judged by lawful Good standards, not my own.


----------



## Numion

historian said:
			
		

> By taking the role of judge, jury, and executioner into his hands, the paladin, in effect, the offender subjugated the proper authority of the executive and judicial offices and, as perverted as this may sound, circumvented the offender's due process rights.




It has been noted many times that the more "Paladinny" Gods of the FR (Tyr, Torm) want their Paladins to, and grant them power to, wait for it, act as a roaming _Judge, Jury_ and _Executioner_. So the Paladin didn't have to take that right into their hands, but it was rather demanded of them by their God. It should be noted that with such authority at their hands any secular courts decision, while noteworthy, is secondary. 



> I say all of this, with the disclaimer, that I am projecting an 'American' jruisprudence onto the situation, which may be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the campaign world.




Paladins would have hard time avoiding the lethal injection in modern day america. Mercilessly vanquishing evil by long sharp instruments isn't going to last


----------



## jgbrowning

Bran Blackbyrd said:
			
		

> You could try adding an "In my opinion" to the beginning of that first sentence.




Anything I write I always only my opinion.



> One of my problems with your arguments in this thread is simply that you are *so* adamant that you are right. It almost seems like you think there is no other right way to play than your own. Granted, the original poster asked for your opinion and that's what you're giving; you just don't act like it's an opinion as much as fact/religious canon.




I don't remember who it was earlier in this thread who had paladins be representitives of their monothesistic god. I quickly agreed that in his world, that's how they work. In a bigger view, I'm argue what a paladin should be genericlly based upon all of the D&D WoTC sources as to what good means. I don't think paladins are intended to be as simplistic as "If they detect evil or If I catch them in an evil act that means I can kill them and still be a paladin. I don't need more than that." I think there's a lot more to being a paladin, who's supposed to try and be the pinnicle of lawful good, than choosing to kill evil when found as opposed to trying to end evil



> I suppose poster #1 and his DM opened the door for that sort of thing.
> I'm not trying to pick on you personally, I'm sure there are others in this thread who have acted the same way, it's just that it's your name and avatar I've seen three or four times on nearly every page of the thread I've read so far...




I usually don't get involved with paladin threads. I got suckered in on this one. If nothing else, I think the thread continues to show how paladins are not really suitable for core class material. They're too arbitrary and unlike other classes their powers depend upon that arbitrariness. There's an utter lack of portibility between gaming groups.



> Also, keeping in mind that we have only the barest details to base our decisions on is a good thing. It stems the embarrassment that inevitably occurs when the original poster returns and says, "Aw shucks, I should have mentioned that this took place in Villain Junction where there's not a lawfully appointed magistrate for 100 miles.", and turns everyone's understanding of the situation on its head.




I have a great ability to never really get embarresed. I say things that are wrong, stupid, and probably shouldn't have been said but I just go, "I'm wrong, your right," or "Sorry, that was stupid," and don't worry about it anymore. I'm too old to worry about people's opinions of me as long as I think I'm behaving, uhem... honorably to everyone involved.



> And for everyone worried the locals doubting the justice system because of this unannounced execution; If the authorities are that worried about their image they can bring the guy back to life, try him, and kill him again. It's the Realms after all, there should be a guy in the nearest bar or privy who can rez someone and will keep silent for the right price.




Hehe... yeah, i don't think the locals worrying about the system is so much an issue (although that could be important) as much as the paladin should go out of his way to support the local authorities as long as those authorities aren't doing evil. The paladin is always better served by *not* taking the law into his own hands (even if he has that capability) because an inportant part of being lawful good is supporting systems that increase the lawfull goodness quotient in the world.

The paladin should have just knocked the guy out and let the natural workings of the society take place, as long as those natural workings didn't include torture or some such, which he has to not associate himself with.

It's always seemed to me that paladins acting as many people suggest paladins can act aren't any different than a simple fighter who's lawful good. I think paladin's have to be *more lawful good* than other classes because they're supposed to be paragons, supposed to be shining beacons of lawful goodness in the world.

But in the end, tying class abilities to an alignment is bad game design. But you can blame *that* on the gamers who simply can't give up the "Paladin Class" even though you can easily role-play the same thing without the game-alingment resistrictions by playing a "holy warrior" without worrying about alignment because "holy warriors" could be of any alignement.

Very little is gained by trying to keep the Paladin "special."

joe b.


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> If he dealt with every child molester the same way, that would be orderly and thus lawful.




Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.



> "Lawfulness can include .. reactionary adherence to tradition"




So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a _tradition_ that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Nope. There is no way that striking someone down on the basis of superficial appearances without even considering the possibility of a defence qualifies as an orderly trial, nor as a respectful approach to the authority and duties of a judge and jury.




And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin _does_ have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.



> So now you are trying to tell me that in Vindicator's GM's game world there is a _tradition_ that paladins behave in this way. I am sorry to have to say this, but I doubt you.




No, I'm not, thats why I put the winking smiley there. I was just pointing out that a lot of behaviour you don't consider lawful, really are. Like that Paladins rules require him to protect innocents, and this can lead to him sometimes circumventing secular laws, because he's so used to it. That's lawful as per the examples I gave you. Not necessarily a tradition in the game at hand.


----------



## jeffh

Agemegos said:
			
		

> Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Someone will be along soon to quote sourcebooks and expansions. My reply to this has been that Vindicator's paladin acted as executiner right enough, but that he did not discharge the roles of judge or jury, and that in omitting to do so he failed in his duty and treated his own authority with disrespect. That is, he may have had the authority of a judge, but he treated the duties with contempt, ditto for the duties of the jury.





He saw him doing it.  The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence; that has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.

Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense, and/or that something like idealized Western European medieval chivalry is hardwired into the Paladin's code, also not true.  Read the CoC, folks - it ain't there!


----------



## jgbrowning

Numion said:
			
		

> And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds? I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin _does_ have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.




Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was *absolutely no other acceptable way* for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.

If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?

And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify *always* killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?

joe b.


----------



## Ferret

Sejs said:
			
		

> Lawful means disciplined and organized, not follows local legal structure.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining the paladin walking up to whatever local constabulary is in the area and telling them "Hey guys, I walked in on this man about to rape this 10 year old girl ... again.  She can testify to what happened.  I killed the man in defense of the child." and having their response being anything other then "Oh. Alright then.  Nicely done there, citizen.  Thank you."  And that's to say nothing of the fact that on the good/evil end of things it was the morally _right_ thing to do.  Defending the weak and innocent from the depredations of the wicked.  The paladin was justified in what he did.




On the lawful side, it only means that every one would have the same punishment, and need the same evidence.

On the good side, if she had beed tied up and he found her, he got pointed out on street, I wouldn't have let him go lopping his head off.


----------



## Numion

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Numion, you seem to imply through several posts that there was *absolutely no other acceptable way* for the paladin to protect the child without lethally attacking an unarmed man who wasn't aware the paladin was there.




I'm saying that this was the safest way. Paladins aren't required to give initiative to the very evil they're about to vanquish - which is acceptable as long as the Paladin doesn't resort to trickery. Busting through a door in a platemail with sword in hand is not trickery.

Maybe there could've been other ways, but as per Paladin Coc in PHB Paladin is required to punish those who harm innocent _or are intent_ to do so. And there were the marks of previous abuse. So he was fully within his CoC to dish out capital punishment. 

So let me be clear: it wasn't the only way, but this way the Paladin did it in a safe and swift manner, and shouldn't be punished. Which was the original point of this thread, IIRC. (Although the true point of the thread tends to get lost in 20 pages). 



> If you think so, what reasons do you have for this belief?




I don't think so, but I'll give reasons for my interpretation of the Paladin class nonetheless:

Reasons for my beliefs are the PHB feel they give for Paladin, which isn't that of a defense lawyer for the bad guys, and the intent of keeping the Paladin as a playable character class. The driving force of the Paladin in PHB seems to be very martial - Alhandra vanquishes evil without hesitation, etc. IMO the Paladin in this case was played within the rules set in the PHB.



> And if you're basing you argument on expediancy (things could get worse, the man could have a hidden knife, etc), cannot this argument be used to justify *always* killing first and asking questions later? And do you think that doing so is what a pladin should chose as his primary method of dealing with problems?




I just gave these 'what if' possibilities after the other side said that the man could've been possessed, the girl could've been an illusion, and let me clear on the iffing: it's completely worthless and can only be used to hamstring the class completely.


----------



## historian

> Well, others have pointed out upthread that in some settings and under some circumstances a paladin is empowered, sometimes even obliged, to act as judge, jury, and executioner.






> It has been noted many times that the more "Paladinny" Gods of the FR (Tyr, Torm) want their Paladins to, and grant them power to, wait for it, act as a roaming Judge, Jury and Executioner. So the Paladin didn't have to take that right into their hands, but it was rather demanded of them by their God. It should be noted that with such authority at their hands any secular courts decision, while noteworthy, is secondary.





These are certainly fair points and, generally speaking, I don't disagree one iota.  Another way of thinking about this is that paladins should obey the laws of the land so long as they do not conflict with the paladin's code.  Indeed, I could imagine a situation where a paladin found himself in an entirely lawful, but evil setting (one that promoted forced servitude, etc.) where a paladin was constantly running afoul of the law.

Put another way, the standard by which the paladin should be judged should be put forth by his (her) order and supplemented by general notions of morality.  Otherwise (if the paladin were held to both the order's and the laws standard) a paladin would be subject to an undue amount of "catch-22" scnarios where he is unable to adhere to the order's code and the law which, could in effect make the character unplayable.

However, close calls still arise, and paladins (almost by definition) are held to high standards.  What if the character had slain a teenager for stealing chickens, or mistakenly punished the wrong person despite all the evidence that that person is the wrongdoer (ex. the real molester, having discovered the presence of the paladin, coerces a mentally handicapped blind man into the room with instructions to unzip his pants and say something incriminating)?

But I digress, if the paladin was acting pursuant to an established code, then he's probably ok w/in the order (but nevertheless may be subject to local punishment).  However, if the paladin was acting in the service of a deity who takes a more rigorous view of procedural justice, then he's out.



> Paladins would have hard time avoiding the lethal injection in modern day america. Mercilessly vanquishing evil by long sharp instruments isn't going to last




He he  , no arguments here.  I also think many paladins wouldn't avail themselves of all the applicable Constitutional rights.


----------



## mythago

A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.

What if the punishment for the molestor's actions, in the paladin's world, is being forced to marry the girl and pay her father her bride-price? What if, instead, the man was from an 'untouchable' social class, the girl was a noble, and the punishment for an 'untouchable' even raising his eyes to a noble is death? 

Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.


----------



## Driddle

HappyMage said:
			
		

> As long as the paladin character is acting on the orders of his gawd, then I'd there's no real problem.




Well, sure, assuming we can trust the nutcase to actually be connected to the deity in question. But how are we to assume he's not just imagining justification for his righteous killing spree?


----------



## historian

> A lot of people here seem to be placing the paladin's actions in the context of the modern American judicial system. Without knowing more about the campaign, that's a bad idea.




I absolutley agree that the customs of the campaign should be controlling here (sorry if it wasn't clear from my earlier posts).  I brought forth what I could offer in re: "how this would play out in most modern American jurisdictions" in the event default rules were needed.  With that said, I'm not even sure it's the best of possible defaults because the modern American views differ vastly from previous counterparts.



> Again, I think the controlling factor in Who Was Right Here would be knowing what the heck was going on in the GM's head.




And the PC's head.    Hopefully, in character creation the DM and PC can agree on a general outline for which of the good principle the paladin's order stands for and the means by which that good can be served.


----------



## jgbrowning

Numion said:
			
		

> I'm saying that this was the safest way. Paladins aren't required to give initiative to the very evil they're about to vanquish - which is acceptable as long as the Paladin doesn't resort to trickery. Busting through a door in a platemail with sword in hand is not trickery.
> 
> Maybe there could've been other ways, but as per Paladin Coc in PHB Paladin is required to punish those who harm innocent _or are intent_ to do so. And there were the marks of previous abuse. So he was fully within his CoC to dish out capital punishment.




A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?

Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he *deserved* capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.

Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.



> I just gave these 'what if' possibilities after the other side said that the man could've been possessed, the girl could've been an illusion, and let me clear on the iffing: it's completely worthless and can only be used to hamstring the class completely.




Don't you think the paladin should have *at least* detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.

To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be *better* suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a *better opportunity* for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.

I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?

joe b.


----------



## Agemegos

jeffh said:
			
		

> The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence.




I disagree. The role of the judge is to ensure that there is a fair and open trial, in which the every effort is made to discover the truth. The role of the jury is to hear both sides impartially and to render an impartial verdict. The point of doing it that way is not just to reach a verdict, and not even just to reach a correct verdict. The point is also to demonstrate openly that the authorities are not abusing their power, to assure the community that if they have any complaints that the authorities will settle them fairly so that the principals need not seek private vengeance, and to reassure anyone who is accused in misleding circumstances that he or she will be able to establish his or her innocence, and need not resort ot flight or other desperate measures. And I maintain that belief that these things are very important are what distinguishes the Lawful Good from their Neutral Good and Chaotic Good fellows.



> That has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.




Most unlikely. It will not have been done to the satisfaction of the rapists friends and relatives, and there may be a great many other people in the community who are generally suspicious of authority figures: they will not have been convinced either. Perhaps some of these suspicions can be laid if the paladin stands his trial for manslaughter (and although the victim may mercifully be considered too young to bear witness, there is no hope in the event of that trial that the secret of her rape will be concealed). But as long as the event is remembered some people will wonder "what did he know that They were afraid he would tell us?".



> Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense




Well, I am not one of the 'nerf the paladin' posters, and I have not made that erroneous supposition. So let's not reply to my post on the basis that I concur with a view expressed by a mere majority of a group that I am not in this case a member of.


----------



## Mr Gone

Well, the act in and of it self would be best defined as a Neutral Good act. Its a good act that defys the rule of law, but it is a just act, so its not a chaotic good act. Now, can a Paladin lose his status by performing a single Neutral Good act? no, only if a number of act indicate an alignment shift. a warning, sure. censure, sure. loss of paladin, I dont beleive so.


----------



## Numion

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A paldin is required to give punishment. Is not the paladin's kocking the guy out and handing over to the authorities who then hang the man not also giving the same punishment, but in a manner which also provides other additional "good" benefits to the action. Such as finding out if the man was actully mind-controled, finding out if there was associates of the man... etc?




Huh, investigating whether the man was controlled to hold out his wang in front of an already raped girl? Yeah .. um, let's say we do that. But if thats what the Paladin is required to do in a simple case like this, I'd hate to see what is required of him in more dangerous and subtle situations. 

But I see no need to give the man to authorities which aren't as trusthworthy as the Paladin to carry out what needs to be done.



> Also, this is avoiding the question about whether or not he *deserved* capital punishisment without being allowed to defend his actions to his peers and the laws/customs of the land.




What need is there for defense when the Paladin saw him in-action? Are you saying that the Paladin should trust the man more than his own eyes? And consequently, should the Paladin extend that courtesy to all evildoers he encounters .. thats what lawfulness is too - consistent actions. Is the next Red Dragon going to be put to trial of peers? 



> Knocking out the guy is a better choice than killing instantly. Killing instantly made doing any further good that much more difficult.




In my stanrdards safer for the innocent is the better way. Knocking him out would require the Paladin to take a -4, which is most of his BAB at that level. Not so overwhelming for the Paladin anymore. 



> Don't you think the paladin should have *at least* detected evil to make sure that there wasn't some sort of magical hocus-pocus involved? If the man actually turned out to be magicaly mind-controled, the paladin would be in mega-uber trouble and the GM would even be more accused by the paladin supporting members of this board of "kicking the paladin" just because he decided to create a situation that would be better suited to non-instantaneously-lethal problem solving methods.




I guess it's good to use the evil-radar(tm) as much as possible, but are you going to stand there for a couple of rounds concentrating when evil is about to happen? I would not.

Besides, a Paladin shouldn't let the remote possibilities hamstring his ability to act efficiently. I'd rather use Evil-Radar to find new evil rather than to waste time from acting against already identified evildoers.



> To me, it's hard to think of a situation that would be *better* suited for a paladin to try and subdue. A situation that was so very low-risk as a peasant who doesn't know he's there and who has his pants down. It's hard for me to imagine creating a *better opportunity* for the Paladin to demonstrate Paladiny goodness and problem solving that doesn't involve butt-kicking.




Again, you seem to think that this is indeed a situation which the Paladin should approach like a puzzle. "Activate evil-radar, maybe knock out". Thats all good, and I bet the DM intended that too, but in reality there was an innocent about to be harmed. At that point I'd say it's not outside the Paladins Code of Conduct to vanquish the evil swiftly, even if you should (god forbid) sidestep the DMs supposed moral puzzle.

If it happened in a dungeon with an Orc standing there no questions would've been asked. I don't think Paladins code encourages double standards for different sentient races. I might be wrong on that though. 



> I mean really, if the paladin can't behave without immediate lethal action is this situation, what situation does his think would be "safe" enough to do so?




Any situation where there's not an innocent child in the room.


----------



## billd91

jeffh said:
			
		

> He saw him doing it.  The point of the judge and jury is to determine guilt and innocence; that has been done to what should be anyone's satisfaction.
> 
> Besides which 90% of the posts in this debate on the "nerf the paladin" side (that I've read, which is nowhere near all of them) have presupposed the "lawful = obeys laws" view, which is utter nonsense, and/or that something like idealized Western European medieval chivalry is hardwired into the Paladin's code, also not true.  Read the CoC, folks - it ain't there!





Actually, paladins being generally law abiding is not at all utterly nonsense. Lawful characters are predisposed to respect authority according to the description of Lawful in the PHB. Paladins also have it in their code to respect authority. 
The way I look at this, a paladin or any other lawful character really tries to respect ALL legitimate authorities (and organizational and cultural traditions) when he or she can and they is not in direct conflict with a higher authority. That's why they're lawful and not chaotic. Chaotic character use their own personal judgement to pick and choose which authorities will have their hard won respect. 
The paladin should try to obey the law, but I'd be hard pressed to see any society that would significantly punish the paladin for hacking down a child molester about to attack some child again. It may be illegal in most modern, Western countries, but I think it would still be met by little more than a bit of disapproval. I can't imagine many prosecutors who would take up the charges against such vigilantism.


----------



## am181d

I'm confused. Would everyone still be having this conversation if the child molester was an orc? We can argue real world morality all day, but this is D&D. If you can't kill someone in the process of doing evil, then the entire game falls apart.


----------



## billd91

Mr Gone said:
			
		

> Its a good act that defys the rule of law, but it is a just act, so its not a chaotic good act.




??? Chaotic good doesn't equal just? It certainly could. If the villain deserved punishment and the chaotic character metes it out, it isn't any less just. The difference is the chaotic character metes out justice based on his or her own ideas of justice, which might be very personal or at least less collective than general society.
Lawful characters rely on external sources of justice (like society, custom, and the law) when deciding what is just or not. It doesn't they are any more just or that chaotic characters mete out less justice. 
It's all about the source of judgement and how collective or individual it is.


----------



## Savage Wombat

I want to add this thought for consideration: is it truly justice if the recipient doesn't know he's being punished, or why?  It reminds me of a comment in the Cask of Amontillado (E.A.Poe) that said that a good revenge will have the victim knowing what you are doing to him, and why.

In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead.  Wouldn't the paladin at least want the criminal to know what's coming?  "Wretch! Your crimes against this innocent child have not gone unnoticed!  Face the righteous steel of Torm the True!" <stab>


----------



## Khaalis

Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> I want to add this thought for consideration: is it truly justice if the recipient doesn't know he's being punished, or why?  It reminds me of a comment in the Cask of Amontillado (E.A.Poe) that said that a good revenge will have the victim knowing what you are doing to him, and why.
> 
> In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead.  Wouldn't the paladin at least want the criminal to know what's coming?  "Wretch! Your crimes against this innocent child have not gone unnoticed!  Face the righteous steel of Torm the True!" <stab>





This is the difference between Justice and Vengeance.

"Justice" as punishment is dealing out a righteous punishment.
"Vengeance" is retribution, usually with great violence or taken to an extreme.

Justice demanded that the perp die. It did not demand that the per be taunted or given a chance to further disgrace himself before death. Just as it was a merciful killing compared to a fate he would have suffered in most cases if tried, which border on evil (mutilation, draw and quarter, hanging, etc.).

JMHO


----------



## jgbrowning

Numion said:
			
		

> Any situation where there's not an innocent child in the room.




I guess this is another basic difference. I see the child, as long as the paladin is there, as in very little real danger. Simply stepping between the unarmed perp and the child while holding a drawn sword would usually send most people heading the other way.

A situation where the man had a weapon, would seem to me, as to be much more deserving of more hasty action than one in which he didn't have a weapon. Again, it seems like there was little actual need to use a lethal attack. The -4 to hit against a flat AC of 10 would seem to me as to be around 75% probability of hitting. Also, he could always grapple.

I think this is my last post on this subject. But I thought you deserved a response. Also, someone above pointed out that I'd misread the BoED concerning violence and evil. He was right. I think it was rumene?

joe b.


----------



## Henry

Savage Wombat said:
			
		

> In many game systems and worldviews, the aforementioned molester is about to arrive on the Fugue Plain, or the endless desert, or whatnot, with no understanding of why he's suddenly dead.




I'd like to think that if no one else, Kelemvor would let him know while he's stuffing him into the wall of souls. 

Otherwise, he'll have Bane or Cyric's devils showing up, saying, _"good job, worm! Pity that paladin caught you with your trousers down, though. Now, come on - those larvae pits aren't going to fill themselves, you know! A-HA-HA-HA-HA!"_

Or if, being a farmer, he gave lip service to someone like Chauntea, she might just grind his little wormy soul down for plant food.


----------



## Ace

d4 said:
			
		

> i must have a different view of paladins than others.
> 
> in every campaign i've run, paladins (and clerics of lawful gods) _are_ considered "judges, juries, and executioners." it's the role they play in society. i've always GMed it that paladins have the right to mete out justice themselves when they witness a crime. they are not required to turn over criminals to some other "legitimate authority" because the paladin himself _is_ a legitimate authority.
> 
> so, if this paladin were playing in my campaign, not only would he not lose his paladinhood, he'd get a hearty "Well done!" from me, both as GM and through the NPC leadership of the town.




Same here. Other than Necromancy there is no worse affront to law and good than child molesting 

If the diety is a "fair play" diety I might give the Paladin a stern lecture but otherwise killing a pedophile was both lawfull and good in game context


----------



## Arnwyn

Holy sweet mother-of-pearl. 23 pages?

No, I didn't read this entire thread (normally I do!)... but I find it completely laughable that people are still burbling out the "I'm right and you're wrong!" comments when it comes to both alignment and expected behavior of paladins.

D00ds - you can (obviously) only make such a decision in your own campaign. DM says that he loses his paladin abilities, and gives a reason? DONE. Discussion over.

[Wow, normally I'm not one to add the inane "obvious argument" in threads... but after 23 pages, who'll notice? ]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: my post:



> In an analogous situation in the modern world, that would be termed "justifiable homicide in the defense of another." There probably wouldn't even be an arrest made. In other words, it is something considered by legislators, judges, and police to be potentially within the scope of lawful activity.




Others have responded:



> It might be. Or it might be termed 'excessive force', if the investigators and the court think there was a way to prevent the rape without killing the rapist. I would guess that shouting "Freeze, malefactor!" would have been enough to prevent the rape, and that the force was excessive, and thehomicide therefore unjustified. That makes it murder in the second degree.






> You're making a big assumption with that word "justifiable." In most places, for lethal defensive force to be legal, it must be apparent that there is no alternative.




I'm an attorney in the gunslinging state of TX.

If there are reasonable alternatives to using deadly force in defending yourself- such as an easy escape route-you may in fact have to go to trial.  And a peace officer is usually required to identify himself before using deadly force unless there are exigent circumstances.

But the law is a little bit different for civilians, especially those acting in defense of another.  Since the average citizen isn't trained in law enforcement techniques, they aren't held to the same standard as peace officers.  And here, we have a PC who, while a shining beacon of Law and Order, is not indicated to be an actual Officer of the Law.  He is a citizen.  He is not required to assess the various possible outcomes and options to the same extent as one trained in law enforcement.  "Excessive force" is used almost exclusively a landmine for officers, not civilians.

Tx penal code
Section 8.05. of the Texas penal Code.


> (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
> proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
> imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another




Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack.  Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.

In fact, on a flow chart of the Model Penal Code (enacted with minimal variation in most USA jusrisdictions, Tx included), under Justification as a defense against a charge of any kind of homicide, it reads:



> b.  Deadly Force
> i.  Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse
> ii. Unavailable if self-provoked or can retreat
> (a) not obliged to retreat from dwelling or place of work




Other sections note that you can't use it when resisting arrest or in defense of property.

In modern Texas, the Paladin might go to jail for carrying an illegal weapon, but probably not for what he did with it in this case.


----------



## Bendris Noulg

arnwyn said:
			
		

> D00ds - you can (obviously) only make such a decision in your own campaign. DM says that he loses his paladin abilities, and gives a reason? DONE. Discussion over.



Yep.


----------



## mythago

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack. Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.



But note that it's an affirmative defense--which means that in a campaign set in modern-day Texas, a paladin would have to prove his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the serious bodily harm. If there was a police officer standing five feet away, it would be more difficult to show that the paladin had to kill the guy, when he could have called the police officer to arrest the guy. Or if the paladin could easily have prevented the assault through nondeadly means.


----------



## Agemegos

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Section 8.05. of the Texas penal Code. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
> proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
> imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack.  Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.
Click to expand...



What does 'compelled' mean in this context?



			
				Model Penal Code said:
			
		

> b. Deadly Force
> i. Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse




What does 'necessary' mean in this context?


----------



## Agemegos

am181d said:
			
		

> If you can't kill someone in the process of doing evil, then the entire game falls apart.




Not in my experience. In my experience it becomes more interesting, challenging, and engaging as it takes on issues to deal with beyond the simply tactical. But of course other people feel differently. YMMV. YDWYDWP.


----------



## ejja_1

I figured everybody else weighed in on this, so why not.

I would have thrown the player a party and carried him around on my shoulders through town. This of course after the body of the pervert was completely dismembered defiled and destroyed.

Also, this is why I tend not to use alignment in my game......


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> And where is it said that the Paladin should have an orderly trial for every eveildoer he finds?




It isn't. If you would like to argue that this was an act of just war then make that case and I will consider it.



> I agree that 'our' side brought up the Judge and Jury statement, and while the Paladin _does_ have those powers, it says, IIRC, nowhere that they also iclude a courtroom session, or that those rights would have to be invoked every time the Paladin vanquishes an evildoer.




I am not calling for the pomp of a courtroom. Just for some sort of orderly proceeding that indicates respect for the authority of judge and jury, allows for the possibility of a defence that the hot-blooded paladin might not have thought of, and demonstrates in public that the proceeding is just, that the innocent have nothing to fear.

'Your side' brought up the 'judge, jury, and executioner' thing and the 'bring law to lawless lands' thing. They were _right_ to do so. And it is these very capacities that Vindicator's character dropped his bundle. He didn't grossly violate the paladin's code. But he did fail to discharge his duty as a paladin. And he disrespected the authority of the judge and jury (by treating it as a licence). And he acted to promote Chaos in the community. All this could be justified if there had been an urgent necessity. But there wasn't.


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> It isn't. If you would like to argue that this was an act of just war then make that case and I will consider it.




I don't know what you are talking about. PHB doesn't differentiate Paladins Code of Conduct in time of war vs. time of peace. So, war has nothing to do with the issue at hand.




> I am not calling for the pomp of a courtroom. Just for some sort of orderly proceeding that indicates respect for the authority of judge and jury, allows for the possibility of a defence that the hot-blooded paladin might not have thought of, and demonstrates in public that the proceeding is just, that the innocent have nothing to fear.




So it is your opinion that a courtroom is needed for an orderly proceeding? I beg to differ. Paladins decision about the punishment can be according to his Code whether or not there is a courtroom or witnesses present. I would even go as far to say that it would be moot for the God to appoint Paladins if they can't function outside of the secular courts - otherwise the secular courts would be all that is needed. 



> 'Your side' brought up the 'judge, jury, and executioner' thing and the 'bring law to lawless lands' thing. They were _right_ to do so. And it is these very capacities that Vindicator's character dropped his bundle. He didn't grossly violate the paladin's code. But he did fail to discharge his duty as a paladin. And he disrespected the authority of the judge and jury (by treating it as a licence). And he acted to promote Chaos in the community. All this could be justified if there had been an urgent necessity. But there wasn't.




Innocent child isn't an urgent necessity? Whatever..

DMs have a zillion ways to screw their players over. Are you sure you need this to be one of those too? Paladin executing a child molester .. yeah, sounds like a horrible violation of the Paladins code. Take his abilities away permanently. You win.


----------



## Agemegos

Numion said:
			
		

> So it is your opinion that a courtroom is needed for an orderly proceeding?




No. I have several times said not. In fact, the very piece of my last post that you quoted just before writing this made it clear that I do not.



> Innocent child isn't an urgent necessity?




An urgent necessity to do something, yes. In some circumstances an urgent necessity to use lethal force. But in these circumtances there was no necessity to use lethal force.



> Take his abilities away permanently. You win.




Actually, I don't think his paladin status ought to be taken away at all. Why don't you try reading posts instead of just flaming them?


----------



## Liolel

Although this does not contirbute to the discussion, I was very surprised when I was looking at a snippet of the thread title from the front page of the message boards and it said "My paladin killed a child" leaving out the important part.

 Just trying to lighten up a tense thread.


----------



## drunkmoogle

Liolel said:
			
		

> Although this does not contirbute to the discussion, I was very surprised when I was looking at a snippet of the thread title from the front page of the message boards and it said "My paladin killed a child" leaving out the important part.
> 
> Just trying to lighten up a tense thread.




You just rolled a one on your perform check. You cannot lighten this thead up... it's a paldin thread. You need epic level skills .

/sidenote... I originally posted that as Perform:Oral... and didn't think it weird for a few seconds...
//Tries to lighten up the crowd too
///Hates paladin threads


----------



## Torm

You've probably all seen this already, but a verdict has been reached in the other thread. Those of us who participated are eager for feedback from Vindicator and\or his DM. I figured I would ask here, directly, in case neither of them had yet been into that thread - I have not seen Vindicator post there at all, nor seen him post HERE in quite a few pages......


----------



## SALADIN THE JUST

Liolel said:
			
		

> Although this does not contirbute to the discussion, I was very surprised when I was looking at a snippet of the thread title from the front page of the message boards and it said "My paladin killed a child" leaving out the important part.
> 
> Just trying to lighten up a tense thread.




HAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Lighten a Paladin Thread???!!! Dost thee have a full grip on thy faculties, my friend? Try a Thread dedicated to the Bard, Rogue or some such. As mentioned by another, thou wouldst need an c Level Feat to Lighten a Thread dedicated to the Paladin. Carry on my breathren. As the Mighty Torm has indicated most recently, we await the feedback from the Vindicator and his DM with regard to the reasoning and the ruling that was arrived at by the hallowed council that was most recently gathered within these Halls of Justice.


----------



## Vanuslux

I don't have the threshold to wade through everything...I gave up around page 8.  Anyway, in my campaign the Paladin would have to atone for succumbing to the sin of Wrath.  It wouldn't be too big of a thing since the paladin acted with the best of intentions, but he did in fact lose his cool and use lethal violence as his first course of action.  A small atonement would be in order before he'd be able to use the powers that only a paragon of virtue has bestowed upon them.

The rapist deserved to die, but a paragon of virtue should have approached it with a little less rage.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Section 8.05. of the Texas penal Code.
> (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
> proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
> imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another
> 
> Serious bodily injury can be any flavor of assault. from an beating to sexual attack. Note, no wording of "no alternative" or requirement of taking other actions.
> 
> What does 'compelled' mean in this context?
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Model Penal Code
> b. Deadly Force
> i. Must believe it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse
> What does 'necessary' mean in this context?




"Compelled" in this context means driven to act by the acts of another.  That is, he didn't use deadly force just for the hell of it, nor did he intend to kill that guy as soon as he found him, or any other hunting scenario, but instead had a reasonable justification for doing so- namely saving the life of another.

The Paladin wasn't acting out of revenge.  He didn't follow the guy thinking "I'm gonna kill him."  Instead, he was investigating a shady character who then proceeded to commit a heinous crime in front of him.  His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.

"Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted.  The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.

Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!"  Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?



> But note that it's an affirmative defense--which means that in a campaign set in modern-day Texas, a paladin would have to prove his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the serious bodily harm. If there was a police officer standing five feet away, it would be more difficult to show that the paladin had to kill the guy, when he could have called the police officer to arrest the guy. Or if the paladin could easily have prevented the assault through nondeadly means.




Some truth there, but re-read the original post.  Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign.  No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant.  No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help.  That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.


----------



## adembroski3

It depends on your campaign.

Assuming that other than magic and answered prayers, we're looking at a basically medeival society, and that Paladins represent knighthood and carry the authority and respect of Knights, then while what you did was fine, but how you did it was not.

I don't believe it is necessary to challenge the man to an honorable dual. Being a peasant, and a child molesting peasant at that, he has no right to being treated with honor. In fact, according to some interpretations, one might consider lowing yourself to actually fighting this guy one on one might have been dishonoring yourself to a certain extent (though not a violation).

That said, the appropriate action would have been to address the man before any further action was taken, then consider your options. A quick converstaion with your DM should tell you where to go... what is the traditional penalty for this crime? Most medieval societies had yet to develop prisons... punishments were usually one time things... either an infliction of great pain or embarassment. For this type of crime, death was the likely penalty... or perhaps castration. Most knights were authorized to carry out the punishment if they witness the crime, so you were certainly justified in killing him... BUT the method which you used was not good.


----------



## Zimri

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Some truth there, but re-read the original post.  Back room of a tavern in a gritty campaign.  No mention of anyone else in the room but the victim and her assailant.  No watchman in evidence, no mention of whether he or the assailant would have the better chance of getting allies if either called for help.  That Paladin was the last hope she had- if he failed to rescue her, she's not getting rescued.




Lets go back through the initial post then.

"he is a commoner you WILL  kill him in one hit"
Paladin followed him while still armed and I assume armored and the perp didn't hear him (or failed his listen check). Pretty sure this tranaslates into what exactly the description was a commoner. Not a thief in disquise with a knife in his belt (which he had taken off)

Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.


----------



## Torm

drunkmoogle said:
			
		

> You cannot lighten this thead up... it's a paldin thread. You need epic level skills




Check *ME*, baby! EPIC epic levels.

Now, show 'em my motto:


----------



## Henry

Torm said:
			
		

> Now, show 'em my motto:




Oh, SNAP!

Oh, no you dit'n't!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Compare:


> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in. Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room. My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Our campaign is a gritty one. These issues come up.
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy." And he *undid his pants*.
> 
> With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword. My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow. The dude's a lowly commoner."




With:


> Who can get better allies faster ? The Paladin's party isn't that far away and since the paladin's weapon wasn't peacebonded theirs wouldn't be either. So there is a party of level 5 characters waiting to help at the paladin's first sound against a bar which may or may not have many other patrons of any level at all. Much less any that want to take on a party of heroes.




The condition of his party (drunk/sober) isn't mentioned.  The power level, number and general disposition (law abiding/questionable virtue) of the tavern's other patrons is unknown.  The general character of the neighborhood (good/seedy) is unknown.  Whether the assailant's or Paladin's cries for help would be heard above the noise of the tavern's common area is unknown.  How many allies the assailant might have is unknown.  Whether/how well the assailant is armed is unknown.  All that is certain is Paladin + Assailant + Victim + Active Harm In Progress = Dead Assailant

As for the DM's cautionary statement, that's hardly dispositive.

"Commoner" could just refer to his apparent status in society, not his game class or level.  No reason a commoner can't be a thief of some power.  He obviously wasn't going to say the guy's a noble in disguise or a shapechanged doppelganger or the serial child rapist the watch has been looking for over the past decade.  He's dressed like a commoner, he gets called a commoner.  What he ACTUALLY is gets revealed later.

After all, who among us hasn't had a DM use verbal misdirection to steer us from our intended course of action when it is actually the correct path?

Ever heard a DM say something like:

*
"Nothing to see here, why don't you move along?"
"He seems unconscious."
"Why on earth do you think this little kid is a demon?  Are you nuts?"
"The bridge seems safe as houses."
"He doesn't appear to have any weapons."
"The room appears empty."
"He's just a harmless old man."
"Its just an oak chest-nothing special."
"The clearing is apparently a perfect campground."
"You don't find any traps-its probably safe to proceed"*

and then been punished for believing the DM?  If not, your DMs have probably been taking it easy on you.  The DM is neither ally nor foe- he is the interface between the campaign world and the players.  If he never uses guile or misdirection, he's not using 2 of the biggest tools in the DM's toolbox.

The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.

_Edited to correct typos._


----------



## TimSmith

This is going to depend on how Paladins are portrayed in the campaign. Many people view Paladins as some kind of goody two shoes, but as someone has previously said, Tyr and others encourage their holy warriors to take responsibility and make the decision themselves-judge, jury and executioner if guilt is evident. Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"

The most I would say is that the paladin acted a little precipitately and should maybe seek a judgement from his superiors in the church to resolve a possible crisis of confidence (but that should probably be a matter for the player to decide). I thought the other thread with the jury of the Paladin's peers has the best of it.


----------



## Sejs

> The player was perfectly justified in believing the description of the assailant-"just a commoner"- as being 1) a red hering, and/or 2) irrelevant, given the situation and playing his outraged Paladin as he did.




Exactly.  Lets not go and forget the lessons that Metal Gear Solid taught us all.

"Huh. Just a box..."


----------



## Sejs

Torm said:
			
		

>



  Yoink!  New profile pic ahoy!

^_^



			
				TimSmith said:
			
		

> Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"



 Yep, he would be about as close an approximation as that setting would have to a paladin.  He is, however, not a very _nice_ paladin.  Dredd is that hard line that if you've done wrong you never, ever want to come up against, because he doesn't give second chances.


----------



## Agemegos

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "Compelled" in this context means driven to act by the acts of another.  That is, he didn't use deadly force just for the hell of it, nor did he intend to kill that guy as soon as he found him, or any other hunting scenario, but instead had a reasonable justification for doing so- namely saving the life of another.




Interesting. he doesn't have to be compelled to use lethal force to be justified in using it? He only has to be compelled to act in some way, and then he is justified in uusing lethal force?



> His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.




I note that you implicitly discount the possibility of immediately using non-lethal force. Why?



> "Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted.




Does that belief have to be reasonable? I would have thought that a reasonable paladin (there's a notion for AP Herbert) in that situation would have believed that there was another safe way to prevent the rape or other assault.



> The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.




law enforcemment officers are held to a higher standard, I take it?



> Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!"  Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?




I consider that just as speculative as the possibility that the rapist might have been acting under a compulsion or possession. Basing our judgement on chimeras is an axe that cuts both ways.  Imaginary allies, imaginary knives, imaginary demons, imaginary spells, imaginary fears: they aren't the things that a reasonable person bases his or her actions on.


----------



## Agemegos

TimSmith said:
			
		

> Question "is Judge Dredd a Paladin?"




I think not. He doesn't lay on hands, doesn't remove disease, and appears to be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil rather than Lawful Good. I guess you could treat his motorcycle as a Paladin's mount….


----------



## SirEuain

Zimri said:
			
		

> I fear that my asking what the way out was may have inadvertantly put you on the defensive and that was not my intent. I was simply wondering if there was one way that you had forseen the villian getting royally smited by the paladin and his crush not dying.




Oh, no, no, no. I wasn't feeling defensive, I was just clarifying my point - by the time I'd written it, two people had made comments about it that showed I wasn't anywhere NEAR clear enough about why I was prattling on. 

As for the crush not dying, all the player really had to do is promise to visit her often or somesuch. Paladins' promises count for a lot ;-) 



> I apologize if the tone of my post or my previous posts has caused you to think I was in anyway saying the situation you described was "bad". Heck if at all possible I would love to hear more. Your game seems quite intriguing.




Not in the slightest, and to be perfectly blunt, the situation WAS bad. It's also such that the player set himself up - the journal, for instance, was his idea, and the players seriously underestimated the villain. After all, he was "just" a bard. What harm could possibly come of making an enemy of someone who not only knows how to tug at heart strings as he sees fit, but feels it's his RESPONSIBILITY to do so, the better to separate the real heroes from the pretenders.


----------



## Sejs

Judge Dredd is far, far removed from being Lawful Evil.  I can't think of a single instance in which he twisted the system he served just for his own personal benefit.  I wouldn't discount Lawful Neutral though.


----------



## Sarmaga

As has been mentioned before, it all depends on the Paladin's god (well that and the player's GM).  Honestly, if I were the GM, I would probably elect to send down a wee bit of friction from the heavens as well.  I think there's a valuable lesson for your character to learn about keeping his cool even in the most harrowing situations.

This could be a plot device too.  Perhaps your GM needs to send you somewhere and is looking for an excuse to send you on an "atonement" quest.  

In any event, consider what your character has learned form this.  It's a good opportunity for character growth or, if he's annoyed enough with his god's poor judgement, for becoming something other than a paladin.


----------



## SirEuain

One other thought... a lot of you have said that paladins deserve some extra leeway, given their strict code of conduct and the potentially serious consequences for violating it. As a player, DM, and a writer, I have to disagree.

The paladin is a warrior for his god and/or his church. Of all the basic character classes, he's the only one inherently equipped and obligated to be a hero. In many cases, he's the leader of the party, and often the leader of the armies of good in the climactic battle against the campaign's villainous legions. His honor is more valuable to him than his life, and he would rather die than betray an oath or confidence. 

Literature is rife with heroes like this - characters who are just this side of being perfect. There's even a word for them.

Tragic.

The more "realistic" and "gritty" a campaign is, the more uphill the paladin's life. Intelligent enemies find clever ways to undermine the paladin by forcing the issue of honor. Even without such interference, temptation is always an issue - what is right is not always what is easy, or even what is best in the long run (Hamlet learned that the hard way). As the campaign wears on, the paladin's role is likely only getting harder. Where once, any failure of duty meant consequences for himself alone, as a champion any breach of the code could be potentially catastrophic. Despite all this, paladins are only human (or gnomes, or halflings, or whatever), while gods are most assuredly not - and the harsher the god's view of evil, the less forgiving he's likely to be of mortal weakness. As the pressure mounts, they become only more likely to fail. 

Paladins don't get happy endings. They die, slaughtered by superior numbers. Mortally wounded, they forgive men who betray them. In a moment of weakness, they betray someone else, and can never forgive themselves for it. They unwillingly (perhaps even unwittingly) break their vows, and are broken for it. They're the ones who leave weeping women in their wakes, the ones to whom the other party members toast in absentia. They're rookies in cop movies, and black guys in horror flicks. They can't shut up about how they can't wait to get out of Nam so they can go marry their girl back home (wanna see the photo?). 

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.

It's not entrapment to play to this. AFAIC, it's part of the package. As long as the game's enjoyable for everyone involved, it's not an issue. That said, however, the player has no more right to expect a free pass than the DM has a right to throw the paladin into an impossible situation without warning.

The essence of drama is conflict, however, and the paladins have that all over. Any player who expects anything else from me is asking for it.


----------



## Numion

I think that this thread in some ways proves hong's law about Paladins:

If your DM hates Paladins, don't play a Paladin

If your DM likes Paladins, don't play a Paladin


----------



## Numion

Agemegos said:
			
		

> No. I have several times said not. In fact, the very piece of my last post that you quoted just before writing this made it clear that I do not.




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.



> An urgent necessity to do something, yes. In some circumstances an urgent necessity to use lethal force. But in these circumtances there was no necessity to use lethal force.




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. 

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



> Actually, I don't think his paladin status ought to be taken away at all. Why don't you try reading posts instead of just flaming them?




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


----------



## Rostoff

*Paladinhood*

What will anyone bet neither he or his DM are still reading this?

Anyway, I've never played a paladin myself, but I have an excellent role player in my group who does.

I remember a time (1st level) we discovered 8 goblins and 2 orcs by the highway, split on both sides of the road, waiting to ambush us.  We decided to split the party up, sneak behind them and surprise the scum.  The Paladin refused to take part.  He insisted on challenging their leader to honorable solo combat for the right to pass.  Fortuneately, I talked him into giving us some time to set up in case they failed to agree.  We killed them all in the time allowed, and he believed they had seen us coming and we had had no choice.

You want the benefits of Paladinhood, you take the restrictions on actions that come with it.  

Your DM was correct in Stripping you of Paladin Status.  He should allow you to atone, but right now, your character is a fighter.


----------



## Krellic

Context, context , context.

I've ploughed through this skimming I'll admit the posts and I think most of the points that occurred to me have been touched on.  The definition of paladin is always a somewhat thorny and subjective business.

We don't know what god the paladin served and we don't know where in the Realms it occurred.  So we have little context to base our final analysis on.  So I think that 90% of the posters on this thread can be said to be right, from their particular perspective.

As for setting traps for characters I think there's something to be said for DM's challenging a character and challenging the player to role-play the character's convictions.  It's another way in my opinion a good DM pushes his players.  Having said that it's not fair to arbitrarily punish a player for not doing what the DM expected.

My own take is that the paladin allowed his own outrage to overcome him and that is the only bone of contention.  A paladin to me is a deeply spiritual warrior driven by his calling and a devotion to purpose.  They must be incredibly focused individuals and above the call of their own prejudices.

I'm sure everybody will agree that this makes them just about the hardest class to play right, especially given all the different perspectives on how they should be played.  It is after all easy to say how it shouldn't be done   

If I were the DM I would have made the character have to justify his actions to the local populace, who may have a different perspective on the dead man.  I might also have landed the paladin with a 10 year old girl that was now his responsibility.  I would certainly have tried to put him in the position to reflect upon his actions.

A little atonement and a lesson learned in the paladin's quest for spiritual enlightenment and perfection.


----------



## 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*



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> 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

Numion said:
			
		

> 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

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

SirEuain said:
			
		

> 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

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Gundark

Vindicator said:
			
		

> My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."




Well in all fairness your Paladin probably didn't know what level or class the rapist was. People don't go walking around with "6th level fighter" or "12th level monk" written on a sign above their heads. He could have been a powerful Blackguard for all your Paladin knew. Also I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system. In the time period which FR is set (or patterned after I should say) this sort of justice that you paladin dished out would have been fine. It also depends on the laws of where this event happened. Waterdeep? the dalelands? Thay? What would the locals have done? It has been mentioned before but also what Deity your character serves would be in effect here.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex

Maggan said:
			
		

> 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?



Well, considering that the rapist didn't even get the courtesy of a Spot or a Listen check to notice the armored, armed paladin following him back to his room, I don't know that we can assume that the rapist _wouldn't_ have carried through with his foul deed, or maybe even something fouler.

I mean, this whole event was clearly slapped together specifically for the paladin; allowing the rapist the opportunity to spot the paladin following him openly (which, honestly, even a 1st level commoner should have been able to pull off) would have derailed the entire moral-dilemma train immediately, so the rapist suddenly developed a mysteriously specific blindness and deafness to big guys carrying swords and holy symbols instead.

And when you're looking at that kind of dedication to playing a round of "let's face the paladin with a complete moral outrage out of absolutely nowhere and see what he does," who knows what could happen next?  

--
we're all smelling a lot of 'if' coming off of this thread


----------



## Agemegos

Gundark said:
			
		

> I think your DM is using 21th century morality here which says that someone is innocent until proven guilty and have to go through the court system.




21st-century morality? The presumption of innocence and the requirement of due process did not spring from nowhere during the last three years. Various law codes have been demanding orderly trials before punishment, and allowing for a defence for thousands of years.


----------



## AugurSSj

I haven't had a chance to read all 25 pages of post yet but i want to bring up a point that i haven't seen so far. 

There was a possible senario had the paladin followed forthe

Paladin gives the guy a warning
A) He is taken a back and cowers away
B) He jumps at the child uses her as a shield
C) Gets a weapon near by and kills the child
D) Uses the child as a distraction (throwing her on the ground), possibly injuring her gravely and running away.
E) Possibly kills the child out of spite(breaking her neck, knife through body)
F) Stands ready with a weapon that could kill or poison the paladin rendering his saving ability useless.

You really should not know whether he would go down in one hit, that's out of game knowledge and should not be taken into consideration. (However if you knew that subdual damage would have been better, however that could have missed due to the -4 so its tactically a worse choice)

(Good is also a reletive term and DND attempts to make it black and white for simplicity sake)
Lawful good
The best possible good for the best possible out come. This good should be the most prejidice and should always find look for ways to to elliminate evil and injustice out right.

Nautral good
The best good all the the time even if the out come is bad. They have faith that good will prevail

Chaotic good 
Understand that there are nessacary evils to get good results and doesn't rely on others perception of goods .

Many of these scenario puts the child in harms way. Based on how i belive LG is defined, it was best to minimize the possible damage and protect the greatest amount of people. If the choice was between:
 *Pessant dies and girl lives - Likely outcome (Epecially if the paladin attacked first)
 *Pessant live and girl dies - Possible outcome
 *Pessant dies girl dies - Possible outcome
 *Pessant lives girl lives - Possbile outcome

The paladin should have chosen the best and most likely out come explaing that there was little room for other outcomes or even think up a plan that could have protected the girl fully. To stand there and do nothing would have beencowardly and evil. This was a time for action and he gave the best possible mercy he could have at the time. However, the paladin should have talked to his clergy regarding the death, prayed over and tithe heavily for their digression. There was no moment of weakness, just a moment of justice at its cruelest.


----------



## Turanil

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.
> 
> Last night we were playing our Forgotten Realms campaign and my character, a 5th level Paladin, observed this shifty character go to the back room of the tavern we were carousing in.  Suspicious, my Paladin followed the guy and found that he had a 10-year-old girl tied up in the storage room.  My DM didn't get into gory description, but he told us, "It is obvious from the girl's physical appearance that she has been sexually violated."
> 
> Our campaign is a gritty one.  These issues come up.
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  And he *undid his pants*.
> 
> With no hesitation, I attacked him with my sword.  My DM cautioned me, saying, "Attacking him from behind, with your BAB and STR bonus, you realize that you will probably kill him with one blow.  The dude's a lowly commoner."
> 
> "My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.
> 
> I did so.
> 
> Long story short--now my DM has stripped me of my Paladinhood.  I'm fighting him on it.  His argument: "A cowardly, unjust, unlawful act." My argument: "A righteous, noble, just act."
> 
> My DM is a lurker but not a poster...he *will* be reading your responses to this situation.  He has agreed to abide by whatever consensus you, the jury, arrive at. (For that I give him lots of credit.)
> 
> Discuss.




IMO: Plain and simple, the evil commoner had to be punished. Death is the right, and in fact benevolent sentence. However, I think the paladin should nonetheless had first lectured the guy on his evil ways; then pronounced the sentence, and executed it. The commoner should have died knowing it, and knowing why he was being killed. In being killed so swiftly and by surprise, it's like he was not chastised.


----------



## Alhazred

Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all).  Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous.  If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts.  If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.

If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world.  (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.)  In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law).  If paladins are considered an ecclesiastical court unto themselves and are allowed to mete out justice as necessary, then the killing is justified. Although attacking from behind is still rather cowardly.


----------



## Agemegos

Alhazred said:
			
		

> If the DM is striving for a medieval flavour, law and order were crucial to the medieval world.  (As an aside, law and order is not synonymous with justice and equity, though our medieval forebearers were no less interested in the truth than are we.)  In medieval early modern England, for instance, there existed several lay and ecclesiastical prerogative courts which permitted magistrates to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., judge in accordance with the spirit of the law, rather than solely the letter of the law).




Good point. English equity courts (eg. the Court of Chancery) developed in the 13th century as a remedy for the strict legalism and ponderous procedure of the common-law courts of earlier time. That is one in the eye for those people who think that due process of the law is a strictly modern concept.


----------



## Agemegos

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> 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.




Well, there are alternatives in between a decapitating stroke and saying "Fill your hands you son of bitch!".

• The paladin could have struck for subdual damage.

• The paladin could have grappled.

• The paladin could have knocked the rapist to the floor.

• The paladin could have grabbed the rapist by the collar of the and dragged him into the public bar with his trousers around his ankles.

And for every scenario you might present in which these approaches were likely to present a danger to the girl under D&D, there is a scenario just as likely in a D&D world in which the apparent rapist was innocent of any willing and witting evil.

• The rapist might have been a high-level monk. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have had a very lethal concealed weapon. But he hadn't.

• The rapist might have been a sorceror. But he wasn't.

• The rapist might have been a powerful monster in disguise. But he wasn't.

If you are going to defend the paladins actions on the grounds that he had to consider what might have been, you have to accept that that blade cuts both ways.

• The rapist wasn't possessed. But he might have been.

• The rapist wasn't subject to a magical mind control. But he might have been.

• The victim wasn't a prostitute under an illusion acting out a sex game. But she might have been.

• The situation was not a set-up, fake from start to finish. But it might have been.

If you are going to judge the 'might-have-beens' you have to judge _all_ the 'might-have-beens'. And if you do, Vindicator's character still comes up as having done wrong. So let's just stick with the facts.

Though: one day one of those 'might-have-beens' will be a 'was'. Circumspection!


----------



## Trainz

Alhazred said:
			
		

> Vindicator, what you're paladin did was definitely good (protecting innocents and all). Whether or not it was lawful is somewhat ambiguous. If the town possesses a codified set of laws, the paladin must adhere to those laws; paladins must respect legitimate authority and, by extension, the laws it enacts. If no codified set of laws exists, then he ought to be free to mete out just in accordance with the tenets of his god.



No hard feelings, but...

Once and for all, the paladin's "Lawful" aspect has nothing to do with civil law.

A lawful evil ruler might set up a code of law for his kingdom that says "If one of your slaves speaks before spoken to, you must cut his hands and feed them to his kids". Codified code of law.

Paladins must NOT respect _legitimate authority_, they must do what's _right_ and _good_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> His options- do nothing (law doesn't require a civilian to act except under certain circumstances not met here); go for help (which may not prevent an assault which could end in murder, and the assailant might escape in the delay between departure and return); call out (which may have stopped the assault or resulted in a fight he doesn't know if he can win, after which the assault will resume); or immediate use of deadly force.
> 
> I note that you implicitly discount the possibility of immediately using non-lethal force. Why?




In the eyes of the law, "Deadly force" doesn't equal "used a weapon," it means force likely to cause serious bodily injury.  Someone who is a trained martial artist, be he boxer, savate expert, or sensei of the local dojo could be accused of using deadly force if they struck someone with only their bare hands or feet.  Even a sap or brass knuckles could be considered deadly force.  The paladin is a trained warrior.  He is wearing armor, including, presumably, gauntlets of some kind.  Almost any kind of force he brings to bear could be considered deadly unless he is *trained* in non-lethal fighting styles (submission holds and joint locks).


> Quote:
> "Necessary" in this context would mean that the person using deadly force believes that there is no other safe way to prevent the action being attempted.
> 
> Does that belief have to be reasonable?




Subjective belief is all that is required.


> Quote:
> The law does not require a civilian to put himself in harms way to prevent an injury before resorting to deadly force.
> 
> law enforcemment officers are held to a higher standard, I take it?




Yes.


> Quote:
> Here, we don't know what would have happened if the Paladin had shouted "Hold, miscreant!" Given the locale, he might have just been cruising for a bruising- who knows if the assailant had allies in the bar?
> 
> I consider that just as speculative as the possibility that the rapist might have been acting under a compulsion or possession. Basing our judgement on chimeras is an axe that cuts both ways. Imaginary allies, imaginary knives, imaginary demons, imaginary spells, imaginary fears: they aren't the things that a reasonable person bases his or her actions on




This is not overly speculative at all.  We're talking about rational human behavior.

As they say, it goes to state of mind.  A Paladin in a high-class neigborhood may have felt more at ease- theoretically he has more potential allies in a "good" neigborhood, so merely raising a ruckus as he apprehends the scumbag would be sufficient.  He would feel reasonably assured that he would have more allies in the area than the assailant- the city watch, the good people of the tavern, the law abiding taverner, etc.

If, on the other hand, the party is in a waterfront tavern frequented by ruffians, the Paladin has no expectation of assistance beyond his partymates.  The taverner?  Probably a smuggler.  The other people in the bar might not have been the rapist's allies, but the call of "Hold, Miscreant!" could very well have started a rumble that could have left many dead and dying, and DEFINITELY would have held up any help the Paladin could have hoped for.

Ask yourself- don't you alter your behavior based on where you are?  If you go into a gang-controlled neigborhood, aren't you a bit more wary of those around you?  Aren't you more relaxed where the lighting is good, the cars are expensive and the cops are in sight?


----------



## Abraxas

Well I've waited to the very end to make a comment in this thread (although I participated in the Jury thread).

Agemegos, it seems (to me at least) that your arguments that Vindicator's paladin did wrong are based on the campaign your paladin is being played in.  If Vindicator's paladin were being played in the campaign I play Abraxas in,  his actions would have been seen as a touch rash - but would be seen in no way wrong.  Paladins are judge, jury and if need be executioner in this campaign. In the campaign I play in

As Judge he weighs the evidence - he doesn't have to demonstrate this to the populace at large before he takes action.

As Jury he decides sentance - This may run him afoul of local secular law, but the sentence is based on the tenents of his faith. (In fact Abraxas has run afoul of local law many times because slavery is legal in Mulhurond, where he hails from)

As Executioner (if needed) he carries out the sentance in a way that does not include undo suffering. - if death is warranted.

There is no need for a public display to prove his lawfulness and there is no need for a public display for his actions to be lawful.

In addition, if you expect that a paladin should use non-lethal means in this situation, you would have to expect him to use non-lethal means in every situation that doesn't involve a demon/devil or mindless beast.  All the possible what ifs that could have have made this go terribly wrong (possesed, mind controlled, faked, etc etc) would have to always be considered.  And carrying this to an extreme, a paladin played in such a way should use non-lethal force at all times unless sanctioned ahead of time by his God even if by doing so he could possibly lose - because shouldn't he be willing to sacrifice himself so that a potential innocent isn't harmed?

Anyways - I'm not looking to continue this thread - Vindicator has gotten his verdict.  Just something I've been meaning to say for a while and wanted to get it out of my head.

Peace


----------



## firstborne

BOO!


----------



## Agemegos

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 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.



> 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.



> As they say, it goes to state of mind.  A Paladin in a high-class neigborhood may have felt more at ease- theoretically he has more potential allies in a "good" neigborhood, so merely raising a ruckus as he apprehends the scumbag would be sufficient.  He would feel reasonably assured that he would have more allies in the area than the assailant- the city watch, the good people of the tavern, the law abiding taverner, etc.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the party is in a waterfront tavern frequented by ruffians, the Paladin has no expectation of assistance beyond his partymates.  The taverner?  Probably a smuggler.  The other people in the bar might not have been the rapist's allies, but the call of "Hold, Miscreant!" could very well have started a rumble that could have left many dead and dying, and DEFINITELY would have held up any help the Paladin could have hoped for.




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.



> Ask yourself- don't you alter your behavior based on where you are?  If you go into a gang-controlled neigborhood, aren't you a bit more wary of those around you?  Aren't you more relaxed where the lighting is good, the cars are expensive and the cops are in sight?




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.


----------



## Agemegos

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Agemegos, it seems (to me at least) that your arguments that Vindicator's paladin did wrong are based on the campaign your paladin is being played in.




I would have made a very different argument if I had been applying the standards of mediaeval England.



> As Judge he weighs the evidence




No, that's what the jury does. The judge conducts the trial in accordance with due process.



> As Jury he decides sentance




That is usually one of the duties of the judge. The jury hears evidence from both sides impartially and comes to a verdict that is based on that alone.



> There is no need for a public display to prove his lawfulness and there is no need for a public display for his actions to be lawful.




Perhaps not. But there is a need of a public display to bring law to a lawless land.



> In addition, if you expect that a paladin should use non-lethal means in this situation, you would have to expect him to use non-lethal means in every situation that doesn't involve a demon/devil or mindless beast.




No. The reason for the standard I expect in executing justice upon a neighbour does not apply in making war on an enemy. And my argument for using minimal force would not apply in circumstances where the paladin had a reasonable belief that that force would not be efficacious in protecting the girl and apprehending the rapist.



> Peace




Shalom


----------



## Abraxas

Sorry back one last time then I'm outta here  



> No, that's what the jury does. The judge conducts the trial in accordance with due process.



In a courtroom proceeding - but not in the phrase judge, jury and executioner - at least as far as the context in which the phrase is used in my neck of the woods - it means he judges the perp.



> Perhaps not. But there is a need of a public display to bring law to a lawless land.



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



> No. The reason for the standard I expect in executing justice upon a neighbour does not apply in making war on an enemy. And my argument for using minimal force would not apply in circumstances where the paladin had a reasonable belief that that force would not be efficacious in protecting the girl and apprehending the rapist.



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


----------



## DM-Rocco

Well, forgive me for not reading all 25 pages of posts, whew, this is a big one.

Really, this comes down to two things, what are the vows or code of conduct that you have sworn an oath to and what are the guidelines that the DM has laid out for you?

This is a bit old school, but a good example of the code of conduct can be found in the Unearthed Arcana, the old one written by Gary Gygax from May 1 1985.  On page 16 it has a very well written code of conduct, something that I make all Paladins in my game swear too, with a few extras of my own.

For those that don't have it, this is what it says:

*Noble service cheerfully rendered*

*Defense of any charge unto death'*

*Courage and enterprise in obedience to rule*

*Respect for all peers and equals*

*Honor to all above your station*

*Obedience and respect from all beneath your station*
*Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes knightly limitations on weapons and armor)*

*Military prowess exercised in service to your lord*

*Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)*

*War is the flowering of chivalry*

*Battle is the test of manhood*

*Combat is glory*

*Personal glory above all in battle*

*Death to all who oppose the cause*

*Death before dishonor*



I usually add a few more, but this should be a basis for the code of conduct for any Paladin.  Once more, it was written by the original creator of the game, so you get a feel for the intent behind the need for the code.



It speaks volumes about personal glory in battle and chivalry, but a few stick out at pertaining to this situation.



*Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes knightly limitations on weapons and armor)*

While fighting for a noble purpose is right and just, a Paladin must always maintain the spirit of the law.  They must lead by example.  Scorn for those who are lowly means just that, but it doesn't dictate that one should slay all of the ignoble and lowly.  As an example, it mentions including knightly limitations on weapons and armor, this meant, back in the day, that a Paladin will strive to use honorable weapons and quality armor.  No clubs or missile weapons because you cannot gain honor in combat by hiding behind a log and firing arrows.  If you take this to mean that you should slay all who use such weapons, then you will always be at war with the elves, good luck on that one.



*Death to all who oppose the cause*

This might be the one thing that could save your character, but you still have a reputation to maintain.  If this child pervert is directly opposed to your cause, which I hope he would be, then you are partially just in your action.  However, your actions are still not justifyable.  You are a man of God and law and others in society constantly look towards you for guidance, leadership and morale fibers that keep everyone from becoming a mob.  Let's take a quick note from recent history, President Bush and the prisoner scandal (note, I am not trying to be political here or trying to compare Bush with a Paladin, for any nut who wants to pick a political fight, keep it to yourself, I am just using this as an example to a recent event that I think he may be able to better relate to).

President Bush, if he were to walk into the prison and see members of his army doing these deeds that the American army is accused of, if he then picked up a gun and blew away his own men and women, he would be in the wrong, and that, to a degree, is what you did by killing this child molester without trail.  It was not for you to play the role of the judge, jury and executor (you are not Judge Dread).  You should have responded as President Bush did, place them on trail and let the courts deal with them.  

  On the other hand, you get a situation like Nick Burg, the American who had his head chopped off in retaliation for the prisoner abuse scandal.  Whether you see it or not, your actions are more akin to the terrorist than to a Paladin.  (Okay, I don't think I played any politicial card there, so let's not have any comments like, well Nader would have done this, or Kerry would have done that, okay)

About the only way you could twist this part of the code your way is if you were appointed as a magistrate for the city in question and had the political power to carry out such a one sided justice.  However, you still didn't give the man a chance to talk.  You seem to have a bit of a perverted and grim campiagn going on, so something like this might be common place, however, is that what happened really what happened.

  Perhaps the man was going to his room to make love to his girlfriend, who was a halfling (who can at times appear as small children).  Perhaps they had a kinky thing going on where they liked to role-play.  I'm sure that is not what happened, but you never gave the man the chance to talk.  You may have killed an innocent.


*Death before dishonor*

Really, you have dishonored your God and your beliefs.  You should take your own life for the disgrace, but that is part of what atonement is for.  If you did it again I would say that you are in a pickle.

*Your DM*

Ultimately it is up to your DM.  He should have laid down a code for you to follow and if you broke it then it is your fault.  If he didn't give you a code, you are still partially to blame since he did warn you that you would be killing and unarmed man from behind.  This should have sent warning bells into your head.

I am not so worried from an Alignment stand point, PHB 3.5, page 103, a lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behavior.  While this is a bit more than stealing something, as a DM of 23 years, I might over look it, at least more than the breaking of the code.

The long of it short is, you are a morale pillar to the masses and must lead by example.  You should have bound him and dragged him before a court of law.  Unless you had either the weight of the city on your shoulders by being appointed to a position where you could have such authority (but you should still bring him in rather than kill him) or you are in a lawless land where Chaotic NPCs rule the country with an iron fist and bringing him to trial would result in a dismissal of the crime (but if you don't have previous knowledge of this you should still bring him to trail, you can't go on a hunch or the actions of a few local inn patrons)

Just for the record, I was on your side when I started out, however, I see many of different solutions that you could have made.  Knowing only that fact that I saw on your first post, you have choosen poorly.


----------



## italianranma

Wow, what a touchy subject.  I read the first and last page leading up to this post.  As I see it, there are two arguements here: 1) is the act a Chaotic, and or Evil act, and 2) What should your DM do.  At first these two may seem related, but I would hold that there not. Here's my peice:  I've been rp-ing for 6 years and DMing for 4.  While I'm sure this isn't on par with some of the people posting here I at least have seen some action on all sides.  In fact in the very first game I played, the player sitting next to me was a paladin, and two gaming sessions later was disintigrated by his God for being cowardly.  The result was a huge arguement like this one that ended in the player never sitting at our table again.  I've had to sit through some troubled players, and disgruntled players, and even one guy who was a little crazy (full on mental problems).  When you get down to it this is a game, and you win if you have fun.  It's not only the players who need to have fun, it's the DM too.  What you two need to do is find a compromise.  Throw away who's wrong and right, and sit down and discuss until an agreement that is acceptable to both is reached, and finally if you can't reach one then you might try to find a new group.  If your satisfaction level ever reaches the point that you'd be happier not playing then why would you stick around to play.
As far as question 1 goes, this is a debate that likely will not end.  I'm no philosophy major (thank God) but I have taken a few classes, and the biggest thing I've gotten from them is that people (the race, not individuals in this context) have changed.  The Greeks thought differently from the Romans who thought differently from the Franks, and so on.  Good and Evil aren't objective values.  Our society is trying it's best to come up with a firm set of standards to measure these two values by, but so far have failed.  Our Chief Justices (who decide cases not only by right and wrong but by determining if such decisions are feasible) realise that they disagree not because of difference in knowledge, but by differences in opinion.  Good and Evil will always be subjective.  To make them directly objective in any context (such as a Forgotton Realms campaign) is rediculous.  Such being said you can look at them with some objectivity.
When is killing an unarmed, unaware human in the defense of an innocent victum an evil or chaotic act.  I'd say that in the 1400 the opinion at the time would vote this as definitly unhonorable.  I would say that in 2000 we would consider this act as not unhonorable, not evil, and not chaotic.  For evidence I offer the Tom Clancy hero.  Or Matt Damon in the Bourne Identity, or the russian sniper in "Enemy at the Gates."  I believe that subjectively judge the acts of these 'heroes' as not unhonorable because were they to boldly walk up to the enemy and offer them a 'fair fight' they'd not only be killed, but be ridculed for their stupid behavior.  In Medival times sniping was very dishonorable, and the Bold Paladin could valiently walk up to an evil dark knight, issue a challange, and have said dark knight meet him for fair combat (or reasonably fair, if the Dark knight is evil, he might very well cheat).  Now the next question; Does D&D emulate the modern, or the historical fantasy setting.  I would say that the majority of players and DMs and even game designers use a fantasy setting with modern ideas: the deepwood sniper, the chapter 4 of the complete warrior, the feats system.  1st edition D&D was a very different game and it used very historical ideas.  If a Player is forced to role play his paladin according to medival thought, but the rest of the world uses modern ideas, then the Paladin is rediculously underpowered and very unsatisfying to play.  However I would say that many people (including game designers) still hold that idea.  I say they are wrong.  The game has evolved, the majority of playing styles have evolved.  The Paladin has evolved.  I remember another debate akin to this one were a Paladin lost his powers because he CDG a sleeping villian.  That player was wronged.

This player;  


> President Bush, if he were to walk into the prison and see members of his army doing these deeds that the American army is accused of, if he then picked up a gun and blew away his own men and women, he would be in the wrong,



sorry to pick on you, but you're the closest post.  I don't agree with this line of thinking:  The president (btw, I just learned that if you talk about the president of the United States, it isn't capatilized) doesn't have said responsabilities on him.  Cops don't have the authority to do that.  Judges outside of court don't have that authority.  There is only one breed of American who may deal death without the due course of the law and that is a soldier in combat.  The Paladin however is empowered with the ability to lawfully deal death to the enemies of his God, Society, and the abstract notion of Goodness.  The Paladin doesn't need to hold trial: he decides.  The hard part is that he must decide correctly.  If he was wrong about the rapist, if for example it was a law abiding citizen who happened to have an S&M relationship, then the paladin would have to atone.  However I would still take offense to the ruling because the DM described it to him differently.
That's my piece.


----------



## D+1

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Let's take a quick note from recent history, President Bush and the prisoner scandal (note, I am not trying to be political here or trying to compare Bush with a Paladin, for any nut who wants to pick a political fight, keep it to yourself, I am just using this as an example to a recent event that I think he may be able to better relate to).
> 
> President Bush, if he were to walk into the prison and see members of his army doing these deeds that the American army is accused of, if he then picked up a gun and blew away his own men and women, he would be in the wrong, and that, to a degree, is what you did by killing this child molester without trail.  It was not for you to play the role of the judge, jury and executor (you are not Judge Dread).  You should have responded as President Bush did, place them on trail and let the courts deal with them.



First, the abuses being brought up are not comparable to child rape.
Second, the President doesn't walk around with a sword (or gun) nor does he have the _obligation_ to act as an avenger whereas a paladin does.


> On the other hand, you get a situation like Nick Burg, the American who had his head chopped off in retaliation for the prisoner abuse scandal.



AFAIK it is pure speculation as to whether this was in direct retaliation.  More likely is it's just militant, fascist, Islamic terrorists doing what they do.


> About the only way you could twist this part of the code your way is if you were appointed as a magistrate for the city in question and had the political power to carry out such a one sided justice.



We were not given any information that the legal code within the city had any such requirement.  In the absence of that it is safe to assume that the paladin is not just allowed, but _obligated_ to act as his morals and code direct him.  It is POSSIBLE that his morals and code would have been more specific than the PH and directed him to merely arrest and turn him over to OTHER authorities, but again, in the absence of such information it is perfectly reasonable that the paladin exercises his divine-associated authority to pass instant judgement and dispense immediate lethal punishment.


> Ultimately it is up to your DM.  He should have laid down a code for you to follow and if you broke it then it is your fault.  If he didn't give you a code, you are still partially to blame since he did warn you that you would be killing and unarmed man from behind.  This should have sent warning bells into your head.



That much is pretty much true.  Even if the DM was wrong (and he was) he informed the player of his perspective and potential penalties for proceeding.  Even so, it's pretty much just a formality to regain Paladin status at that point as it was not an evil act.


> The long of it short is, you are a morale pillar to the masses and must lead by example.



Such as child rapists deserve no quarter and death as soon as possible?  I see no problem there.


> You should have bound him and dragged him before a court of law.



Assume for a moment the city has a law stating that convicted child rapists are not to be killed but merely incarcerated for a while.  Not likely, but...  In such a case if the paladins personal and religious beliefs are that child rapists MUST be killed then the secular law is not a "legitimate authority" as far as that paladin is concerned.  He might STILL turn the rapist over but he might not.

Now assume that the city would execute the rapist.  The paladins crime is sort of just a procedural violation.  All he did was improperly speed up the process of what was undoubtedly going to happen anyway.  That STILL leaves open the question of whether the paladins greater obligation is to secular legal authority or his own code and moral judgement.  The answer is that his OWN CODE AND MORALS take precedence.  They may not DEMAND the death of the rapist, but they most certainly can, regardless of what local law demands.


----------



## D+1

italianranma said:
			
		

> There is only one breed of American who may deal death without the due course of the law and that is a soldier in combat.



Not true.  They still have legal and moral obligations - they just happen to be somewhat different in combat because combat is in and of itself a much different legal and moral environment.


----------



## mroberon1972

You know, it has occured to me we are arguing the wrong issue.

The issue is between the player and the GM, not the character and his god.

In truth, a GM has several obligations:

1.  Prepare a setting that entertains all players of the game.
2.  Make sure that both the players and the GM have fun.
3.  Abritrate the rules and setting in a way that does not prevent the fun listed in #2 for the greatest number of people.

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.


----------



## Agemegos

Abraxas said:
			
		

> 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

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

kirinke said:
			
		

> 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?*



			
				mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> 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

med stud said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Well I've waited to the very end to make a comment in this thread (although I participated in the Jury thread).
> 
> Agemegos, it seems (to me at least) that your arguments that Vindicator's paladin did wrong are based on the campaign your paladin is being played in.  If Vindicator's paladin were being played in the campaign I play Abraxas in,  his actions would have been seen as a touch rash - but would be seen in no way wrong.  Paladins are judge, jury and if need be executioner in this campaign. In the campaign I play in
> 
> As Judge he weighs the evidence - he doesn't have to demonstrate this to the populace at large before he takes action.
> 
> As Jury he decides sentance - This may run him afoul of local secular law, but the sentence is based on the tenents of his faith. (In fact Abraxas has run afoul of local law many times because slavery is legal in Mulhurond, where he hails from)
> 
> As Executioner (if needed) he carries out the sentance in a way that does not include undo suffering. - if death is warranted.
> 
> There is no need for a public display to prove his lawfulness and there is no need for a public display for his actions to be lawful.
> 
> In addition, if you expect that a paladin should use non-lethal means in this situation, you would have to expect him to use non-lethal means in every situation that doesn't involve a demon/devil or mindless beast.  All the possible what ifs that could have have made this go terribly wrong (possesed, mind controlled, faked, etc etc) would have to always be considered.  And carrying this to an extreme, a paladin played in such a way should use non-lethal force at all times unless sanctioned ahead of time by his God even if by doing so he could possibly lose - because shouldn't he be willing to sacrifice himself so that a potential innocent isn't harmed?
> 
> Anyways - I'm not looking to continue this thread - Vindicator has gotten his verdict.  Just something I've been meaning to say for a while and wanted to get it out of my head.
> 
> Peace




Hi Abraxas,

I also was part of the Hung Jury (as Herremann Mallaefor) and would wish to address some of your comments here. Firstly I understand the above comments relate to your campaign world. However your campaign would seem to be the "friendliest" to the Paladin's actions in question.

As Judge: Did he weigh all the evidence in front of him or just come to the most obvious conclusion based upon numerous assumptions that may or may not have been true?

As Jury: Did he consider alternative punishments that could have been metered out outside from death?

As Executioner: Was the transgressor aware of the sentence that had been passed and the reason for the punishment decided upon?

In all cases I would say no!

In other words, the Paladin had done a very shoddy job in terms of the "judge, jury and executioner" excuse for acting as he did. I have tried to separate this from the "honourbound chivalry" style of reasoning at which he obviously failed as well.

In regards to your final paragraph - should the Paladin therefore forego lethal action because of the doubts etc. that he will be inundated by: I think this is putting the cart before the horse.
A Paladin should never take a life without thought. This does mean that in a lot of situations, a Paladin will use his best judgment to use non-lethal force. However, if a Paladin must defend him or herself with lethal force then so be  it. Note the difference between defending with lethal force and attacking with lethal force. To attack with lethal force is surely a last resort for most Paladins.

I mentioned in my original post - post number 7 from memory - that I was Old School in regards to Paladins. In our campaign Chivalrous Paladins were given the following code - a generic Code of Heironeous:

Codex of Honor

1. A righteous warrior always observes the rules of honorable warfare. The tenets of honor and chivalry are to be upheld even in the face of enemies that do not grant the same respects. Never strike a helpless opponent or one who is down and unable to defend himself.

2. Service to ones fellow man is the highest service one can undertake.

3. Law and justice are the cornerstones of a righteous society. Never subvert the rule of law in the name of expediency or put oneself above righteous authority.

4. Relentlessly pursue evil and destroy it, but never let the desire to smite the evils of the world take one outside the rule of law and justice. The ends do not justify the means.

5. Lethal force is not always the best option for dealing with evil. Do not let wrath cloud ones mind to other options that may lead to greater good.

6. Show the power and righteousness of Heironeous in every action and word. A righteous warrior can fight evil by providing an example of courage and good to all those who know him. Changing the hearts of men by example is one of the noblest ways to spread justice and law.

7. Be careful of who one associates with, the subtle influence of less righteous companions has been the downfall of many a noble warrior. A righteous warrior never associates with those he knows to be of questionable character.

8. Treachery and deceit are the tools of Hextor. Avoid them at all costs. Better to die a thousand deaths in the name of truth than to live by lying.

9. Beware the lure of riches and worldly possessions. The desire to acquire wealth and personal power will blunt the edge of a righteous warrior and cause him to center his attentions on things that do not spread law and justice, or show the power and humility of a knight of Heironeous. A knight who tithes half of his wealth to the church is blunting the lure of gold.

Of these:
The Paladin
1. Failed miserably
2.
3. Failed
4. Undetermined
5. Failed Miserably
6. Failed - The only witness (also the victim) has only ever been shown that the mightiest survive.
7.
8.
9.

Failing one of the tenets in our campaign would be enough to breach the class - as I said, we are old school and very strict on this type of stuff. To have failed almost half of them is to show no respect to the code whatsoever.
The character decided to throw out half of what had been taught to him. Only because of the "apparent" circumstances would the Paladin have had any right to expect a chance at atonement - Atonement is always offered but is not always accepted. In the most serious cases, the former Paladin knows that they are not cut out for the Holy Knight caper.

Anyway, I never gave comment in character to the jury result so, shaking Herremann Mallaefor from his current campaign - where he has just seen his Cohort tragically plummett to her death - is the following:

"In this most desperate time of personal grief, I will momentarily adhere to the finding as laid out by Torm - Master of procedings. When my period of grief is at an end, I may appeal the decision of chaotically choosing a 13th paladin to pass sentence upon the Paladin in question. A hung jury should have been the registered result and a retrial set forth. For the nonce however, I have weightier issues at hand."


Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Agemegos

Maggan said:
			
		

> The DM might have planned a really fun campaign based on the Paladin atoning his actions.




Good point. I suspect that a lot of us are arguing under the impression that a paladin's loss of his class powers is an irremediable disaster. Whereas by the PHB in most circumstances it requires only that some cleric or druid willingly cast _Atonement_, a 5th-level spell.

Indeed one might argue that the loss of powers, realisation of sin, atonement, penance, and restoration of the paladin is an absolutely archetypal paladin story. (eg. Sir Lancelot.)

there is, however, one significant danger arising from the multi-classing restriction that prevents a paladin who gains an new class or raises another class after becoming a paladin from ever raising his paladin class level again. That rule makes long penances fraught with danger. And I don't really see that it is a good, useful rule that corrects a game imbalance or otherwise conduces to fun. I think I would Rule-Zero it.


----------



## Alhazred

Trainz said:
			
		

> No hard feelings, but...
> 
> Once and for all, the paladin's "Lawful" aspect has nothing to do with civil law.
> 
> A lawful evil ruler might set up a code of law for his kingdom that says "If one of your slaves speaks before spoken to, you must cut his hands and feed them to his kids". Codified code of law.
> 
> Paladins must NOT respect _legitimate authority_, they must do what's _right_ and _good_.




Perhaps   

If I may quote from BoED: "In an evil culture or one that tolerates evil, lawful good characters are in a difficult situation.  On the one hand, they abhor evil and cannot stand to see it institutionalized.  On the other hand, they believe in legitimate authority and will not overthrow a kingdom because of evil practices within it.  Lawful good characters usually try to work to change flawed social structures from within, using whatever political power is available to them rather than toppling those structures by force (p.12)."

(I concede that the passage does not refer to paladins specifically, nor is it the PHB, and I am undecided as to whether or not it deserves inclusion in my home-brew setting.)

IMO, "Lawful" goes beyond adherence to one's own principles, otherwise Chaotic and Neutral characters may be considered Lawful vis-a-vis adherence to the tenets of their alignment.  Lawful characters promote ordered societies, including a codified set of laws to which all are bound. Someone who simply does what is right and good is Neutral Good, or perhaps Chaotic Good.

Once again, this is IMO, and I appreciate your argument.  The group with which I am playing is split on this whole thread, my interpretation included.  And if this doesn't suit, give an ex-Montrealer a break


----------



## Raven Crowking

Agemegos said:
			
		

> To demonstrate to the public that justice had been done, and not some sordid private murder. To demonstrate to the public that the law is just, and that they can rely upon the authorities to deliver justice even when appearances are misleading. Thus to enable the community to respect the law and to encourage them to settle their disputes, obtain vengeance for their wrongs, and defend themselves from false accusations in a regular, peaceful orderly manner--and not to resort to feud or flight. In short, to bring law to a lawless land.




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.



> I disagree. I think it would give rise to exactly the same sort of suspicions as occur when the police gun down some unarmed person in a private home. The masses wonder what he had to say that the police did not want them to hear.
> 
> It would be much more useful to have the malefactor make his pathetic excuses in public, and to demonstrate that they were untrue.




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.     

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.      After all, being a paladin is often about doing what is right, regardless of the consequences!

Raven Crowking


----------



## Raven Crowking

Agemegos said:
			
		

> I think that part of the reason that we are seeing so much controversy is that people think that 'Lawful Good' means 'extra-specially righteous', even though their own personal standards of righteousness tend more to the individualistic case-by-case Chaotic Good than the institutional due-process Lawful Good. They judge that according to their own standards the paladin has done the right thing, and fail to take into account the gap between their own standards and the ones by which the paladin is correctly judged. Me, I am apparently Neutral Good, but I recognise that a paladin has to be judged by lawful Good standards, not my own.




Perhaps, but it may also be the case that your definition of "Lawful Good" is a _*specific type*_ of Lawful Good, as opposed to Lawful Good as defined by the core rulebooks.

As far as your contention that the paladin failed to undertake the roles of "judge" and "jury" (as well as that of executioner), you fail to define those roles.

I would assume that the role of "judge" in this case is to implement whatever legal conditions may exist to what evidence is admissible, to instruct the jury, and to determine what punishment (if any) is appropriate.

I would assume that the role of "jury" would be to determine innocence or guilt.  I would also note that the modern concept of a jury of one's peers is just that -- a modern concept.  For all we know, the local lord, or a tribunal, or a magistrate, or some other person or system may perform this function.

We haven't been given any indications as to what legal precedents are involved, with the exception that this is a "grim-n-gritty" setting, which implies that there may be *no* legitimate authority.

Clearly the paladin performed the "decide what punishment is appropriate" part of the judge's job.  He also did the "determine guilt or innocence" part of the jury's job.  There is no indication that he disrespected either of these functions.  There is no indication that a public trial system exists in this location.  There is no indication that he overstepped the authority invested in him by his god(s), government, and/or faith.  

All of this is even assuming that Lawful equates with a specific idea of Due Process, which is a whole 'nother area of argument....

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Numion said:
			
		

> Besides, a Paladin shouldn't let the remote possibilities hamstring his ability to act efficiently. I'd rather use Evil-Radar to find new evil rather than to waste time from acting against already identified evildoers.
> 
> Again, you seem to think that this is indeed a situation which the Paladin should approach like a puzzle. "Activate evil-radar, maybe knock out". Thats all good, and I bet the DM intended that too, but in reality there was an innocent about to be harmed. At that point I'd say it's not outside the Paladins Code of Conduct to vanquish the evil swiftly, even if you should (god forbid) sidestep the DMs supposed moral puzzle.
> 
> If it happened in a dungeon with an Orc standing there no questions would've been asked. I don't think Paladins code encourages double standards for different sentient races. I might be wrong on that though.




I absolutely agree with this.


----------



## Raven Crowking

SirEuain said:
			
		

> The more "realistic" and "gritty" a campaign is, the more uphill the paladin's life. Intelligent enemies find clever ways to undermine the paladin by forcing the issue of honor. Even without such interference, temptation is always an issue - what is right is not always what is easy, or even what is best in the long run (Hamlet learned that the hard way). As the campaign wears on, the paladin's role is likely only getting harder. Where once, any failure of duty meant consequences for himself alone, as a champion any breach of the code could be potentially catastrophic. Despite all this, paladins are only human (or gnomes, or halflings, or whatever), while gods are most assuredly not - and the harsher the god's view of evil, the less forgiving he's likely to be of mortal weakness. As the pressure mounts, they become only more likely to fail.




Hey, I don't disagree with this.  In Celtic mythology, people are screwed all of the time because honor and various geases require different things of them.  Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster, was a Red Branch Knight.  He had a specific geas that prevented him from eating the flesh of dogs, but he encountered a situation where he could not both keep honor intact and maintain his geas.  Now, C was the closest thing that setting had to a paladin (his horse even avenged his death), but this act stripped him of his special powers and brough about his downfall.

But there's a big difference between saying "A paladin must keep his word," and then having intelligent enemies try to set up a no-win scenario on the basis of this prohibition, and not having some leniency in interpreting what "lawful good" means.  Especially the "lawful" part, because the odds are that you can't put 20 random DMs (or players) in a room and get less than a dozen different intretations as to what that word means.

There is a world of difference between an objective violation of a clear tenet and a subjective violation of a rather unclear principle.

Raven Crowking


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> 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?




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.


----------



## SirEuain

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But there's a big difference between saying "A paladin must keep his word," and then having intelligent enemies try to set up a no-win scenario on the basis of this prohibition, and not having some leniency in interpreting what "lawful good" means.  Especially the "lawful" part, because the odds are that you can't put 20 random DMs (or players) in a room and get less than a dozen different intretations as to what that word means.
> 
> There is a world of difference between an objective violation of a clear tenet and a subjective violation of a rather unclear principle.




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.


----------



## sword-dancer

Vindicator said:
			
		

> Okay guys, let's open up another can of worms.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the guy (who still hadn't noticed my Paladin in the doorway) says, "Now let's teach you another lesson, missy."  And he *undid his pants*.
> .




I think this is the moment where in a pally the righteous fury would fire up.

I think the point is really in which kind of society the pally did this.
If you did this in a "good" or reasonably Neutral society, it would be against the legitimate authority part of the pally code.
But under this circumstances I would reduce his Powers about a level or take one of this Powers from him, untill he atones.
I wouldn`t make a ´true quest necessary for atonement.
The main reason for this would be, to teach9(like a mentor) the pally that this kind of road could be went into dangerous terrain.

If he died this in an evil society, no legitimate authority here, he acted right.

BTW
In an adventure, our party catched a man and his adult victim.
My Amazonpriestess wanted to bring the man back to civilisation.
Not for defense of his "rights" or such fuss.
Clerics in this world are given the legal authority to dispense justice, when no Judge is at hand.
But to get him punished with the full extend of the law, and made an official example.
Which means a slow tormenting and degrading death.
he northern Warrior slit the throat of him, after his capture.
Asked why he did this
He ansered, he didn`t want the wopman be forced to be longer fear his societey.


"My intention is to cut off his head," I (my Paladin) replied.

IDiscuss


----------



## sword-dancer

Zimri said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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?





			
				Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Abraxas said:
			
		

> 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

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> 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

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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

SirEuain said:
			
		

> 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

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Agemegos

Torm said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Torm said:
			
		

> 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

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> The correct term is Pederast.




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


----------



## Agemegos

Torm said:
			
		

> 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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 play*_ers, 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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 hoc_kery, or if the character maintained that this action was the best solution.


----------



## Agemegos

Raven Crowking 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.




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

Agemegos said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## DM-Rocco

> 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.



Raven Crowking and Agemegos, not to step on your toes, or to drag this forum onto another 28 pages, but I am assuming that in this quote that Raven Crowking is speaking for you and he in this matter in hopes of trying to wrap this up. 

I get the feeling that many people think the Paladin was in the wrong and should lose his powers, myself included.

I started out with the position that the Paladin was justified, but I can't get over the fact that he killed the man in cold blood, no warning, nothing.

If he would have warned the man, a completely different story.  If he would have at least warned him I could come over to your way of thinking.  I would still think it is wrong, but I would be more inclined to agree.  The reason I would still have my doubts, even after warning him, was because you as a Paladin should have a morale code that should not allow you to a) kill a man without announcing cause and b) there is no honor in killing an unarmed man (see my earlier posts on page 25).

Anyway, I know that doesn't help the situation, but I just didn't want you making a statement that everyone agrees that he should keep his powers, since there are a lot of people who don't think he should keep them.

Although, I am sure you are referring to the discussion between yourself and Agemegos.


----------



## Agemegos

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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."




You did, and I think you are wrong. At best, my examples would have protected the girl from all harm just as effectively as what Vindicator's character did. It is only at worst that the rapist makes a comeback: and the paladin can do something about that if necessry.



> 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.




If the Watch does nothing, the paladin can step back in.



> 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.




They can still do that when the first guy is dead, can't they?



> Your examples assume that calling the watch is as effective as killing the miscreant.




No, my examples assume that if the Watch fails the paladin can make good their deficiency. The paladin can even conduct his own investigation and trial if there is no watch. Whereas if the 'rapist' turns out to be the role-playing client of a prostitute with a Hat of Disguise (or any of the other scenarios) the paladin can't superglue his innocent victim's head back on.



> I can live with that.




Fair enough.


----------



## Agemegos

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I started out with the position that the Paladin was justified, but I can't get over the fact that he killed the man in cold blood, no warning, nothing.




I agree that that is a breach of the paladin's code (though I note that many people with more modern sensibilities do not). But a paladin doesn't lose his or her powers for just any breach of the code. According to the PHB he only loses them (1) for a willing evil act, (2) associating with evil characters, (3) changing alignment away from Lawful Good, (4) or a _gross_ breach of the paladin's code.

1) I do not believe that by D&D standards is is evil to kill a person whom you honestly believe to be evil. And if you honestly believe that you are doing so to prevent a heinous crime I think that by D&D standards the act is Good. And if you turn out to be right in both beliefs you are safe as houses. Backstabbing is not itself Evil by the definitions in the PHB.

2) Associating with evil charcters simply doesn't come into it.

3) Alignment ought not to be judged on a single act, especially one performed under emotiional stress, but only on a consistent or at least general tendency of behaviour.

4) I do think that killing an unarmed man by stabbing him in the back without warning is dishonourable, and that killing a suspect out of hand without considering the possibility of a defence is disrespectful to authority and so forth. A lot of people have said that they disagree. But I agree that this act was a breach of the Code. Even so, the question remains whether it was a gross one. 'Gross' is not specifically defined for this purpose, and so we all have to draw the line where we see fit. Very likely our opinions will differ. I take into account that it is a grim and gritty campaign, and I think of some of the things that the real Templars and Teutonic knights and other crusaders actually did: herded all the Jews in a city into their synagoge, barricaded the doors, stacked fuel around it, and set it on fire; massacred the whole population of a city after it had surrendered on the grounds the "God will know his own"; tried to cheat a widow out of her house, and when she resisted, cut her fingers off; burst into a cathedral during a pontifical mass, and shot arrows into the altar to intimidte the bishop into  giving their order property; fought with one another in the streets over the right to strip the corpses of pilgrims who had died; deposed a Christian king and installed a puppet to get access to more property. In a grim and gritty campaign there will be people doing this sort of thing. If I call it 'gross' to kill a red-handed rapist in a moment of rage I am soon going to run out of superlatives.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Raven Crowking

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking and Agemegos, not to step on your toes, or to drag this forum onto another 28 pages, but I am assuming that in this quote that Raven Crowking is speaking for you and he in this matter in hopes of trying to wrap this up.
> 
> I get the feeling that many people think the Paladin was in the wrong and should lose his powers, myself included.




You are quite right.  I didn't mean to imply any form of consensus among any other parties.  Given the subject matter, real consensus seems unlikely.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Agemegos said:
			
		

> You did, and I think you are wrong. At best, my examples would have protected the girl from all harm just as effectively as what Vindicator's character did. It is only at worst that the rapist makes a comeback: and the paladin can do something about that if necessry.
> 
> If the Watch does nothing, the paladin can step back in.No, my examples assume that if the Watch fails the paladin can make good their deficiency. The paladin can even conduct his own investigation and trial if there is no watch. Whereas if the 'rapist' turns out to be the role-playing client of a prostitute with a Hat of Disguise (or any of the other scenarios) the paladin can't superglue his innocent victim's head back on.




I think the assumption that if the Watch fails the paladin can make good their deficiency is very much based upon campaign, DM, circumstances, and so on.  There is nothing that makes this automatic.

The worst case scenario is that the rapist is the Duke, and the paladin is beheaded.

Of course, we can also reasonably assume that if the paladin reached 5th level in this DM's campaign world, the player has a reasonably good idea how likely the role-playing client scenario is.  Or the Duke scenario.  Not absolute, but pretty good.  If the paladin was created at 5th level, though, the player may be making assumptions based upon other campaign worlds.

Again, if the DM wants to alter what is required of paladins, that's great.  In fact, given the current version of the game, I applaud it.  Just tell the player so that he can act accordingly.

RC


----------



## Greyhawk_DM

Zimri said:
			
		

> The difference In my opinion is honor. Striking an unarmed, defenseless, unknowing, obviously weaker foe from behind is not honorable. I wouldn't say you have to take him to the authorities, or that you have to accept his surrender to you but you can not go around smiting people from behind.




So striking an unarmed, defenseless and obviously weaker foe from the front is more honorable? I don't agree. The PHB defines honor as not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc. This was a case of Justice pure and simple...
One definition of Justice is...the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments. The paladin determined the person was commiting  an evil act...as defined under the PHB the paladin is supposed to defeat evil. And under the code of conduct the paladin is help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.
The child was definitely an innnocent, the man was and had been commiting an evil act and therefore the paladin adminstered justice. To not administer that Justice would not have been honorable and would go against everything the paladin stands for. I for one as a DM would have stripped the paladin of his status if he had not done what was done.


----------



## Zimri

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> 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"




If something is attacking a comrade of mine he is 

1) engaged in willing combat and there has yet to be a fight my group has been involved in that all of the attackers were not FULLY aware of my presence.

2) The girl had already been raped, any comrade an enemy is still fighting is not already dead.

3) Apparently you have missed me saying numerous times how I would have stopped the rape from happening while maintaining the paladin's honor and saving the girl from the trauma of having a dead body fall at her feet spewing blood all over her and the head falling in her lap to sneer, leer, and gaze at her another time.

4) Though the girl had already been raped she had not yet had a dead body fall on her, cover her in blood , and a lifeless head land in her lap.

5) The girl wasn't being killed, he had kept her around and nothing says he didn't want to keep her around for even more trysts.

6) A grapple or a punch would have worked just as effectively, a grapple would allow you to keep him from attacking the girl or using her as a hostage AND allow you to remove him from the room.

7) It may very well be matagame knowledge that the CHARACTER didn't have but the DM WARNED THE PLAYER

8) Killing from behind IS DISHONORABLE. Paladins are supposed to be honorable. And yes you give that honor to everyone because honor isn't something you do it is WHO YOU ARE. And yes everyone means DROW, ILLITHID, ORCS, And Dragons.

Actually it's not even "from behind" as I don't much care if you do it from the front if they aren't aware of you (blind, deaf, unconcious)

So you walk into a village and see an orc sleeping. orcs are usually evil so you detect and it is. You should kill it because well orcs are evil and this one will do something bad.


----------



## Zimri

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> So striking an unarmed, defenseless and obviously weaker foe from the front is more honorable? I don't agree. The PHB defines honor as not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc. This was a case of Justice pure and simple...




Yeah see in my world that etc. includes attacking an unarmed foe from behind. I would have no problems with the paladin tossing the guy from the room walking over to him making sure he faced him and saying "for crimes against (insert deity here) I sentence you to death by beheading. Make piece with whatever god you wish" *slice* 





			
				Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> One definition of Justice is...the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments. The paladin determined the person was commiting  an evil act...as defined under the PHB the paladin is supposed to defeat evil. And under the code of conduct the paladin is help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents.




Justice ,Sir, does not cloak itself in shadows and silence. Justice does not skulk or slink around corners. Justice is not done in backrooms of seedy bars.


----------



## Shard O'Glase

He needed killing.




Paladin did nothing absolutley nothing wrong.


----------



## SirEuain

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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.




And I'm arguing that, to a certain extent, this isn't necessary. A paladin who unwittingly but directly aids evil is going to get the unwilling breach smack-down from me. I think that Violator's paladin's actions justify this - he had every sign that more people were involved, but either didn't notice or didn't care. Had he not used excessive and lethal force, it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## SirEuain

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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.




Assuming, yes. Admitting the possibility, no. Paladins don't do anyone justice by killing the innocent.



> 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.




Yes, but the very guilt of the first rapist ensures that he knows something. It's entirely possible that the tavern owner might not.



> 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.




Actually, I seem to recall the PC's paladin status being the bone of contention now. As such, neither side can really use this as an argument.


----------



## kirinke

well. personally. as a chaotic type person, i believe he over-reacted.
At the very least, he should suffer some punishment from his diety, perhaps not to the extent of loosing his paladin status. 

Possible punishments bad-dreams are always good. A temporary loss in level until he atones for his actions. Temporary suspension of his spell-like abilities. 
Giving up money to the dead-man's family (humility is always a plus in paladins) 

Giving up money to the captive girl, for forcing her to watch him kill a man. Heck, if the girl has no parents, or the parents are unsuitable, make the paladin the girl's guardian. (will teach him responsibility)

any or all of these punishments would be good (and fun to roleplay out)


----------



## cdtaylor_nats

Of course the Paladin should lose his palidinhood.  At the very least he should have checked the alignment of the man he slew. Perhaps the rapist had been entranced or was possessed.

The Paladin should have checked to detect evil, then he should have challenged and if all else failed he should have subdued the rapist.

The first thing he should have heard after the head hit the floor was the sound of his warhorse galloping away.


----------



## Agemegos

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think the assumption that if the Watch fails the paladin can make good their deficiency is very much based upon campaign, DM, circumstances, and so on.  There is nothing that makes this automatic.




True. But I think that to act on the assumption that the Watch and the courts were ineffectual or corrupt can be justified only by a reasonable belief that it is so. To go around assuming without evidence that the Watch (or whatever) and the courts are corrupt or evil is disrespectful to authority. A paladin does not of course lose his powers as a resutl of a single act of unwarranted disrespect to authority, and therefore I do not opine that the paladin ought to lose his powers on the basis of this act alone. But lawful people do as a matter of definition tend to respect authority unless there is reason to believe that it is contemptible. So if this act is part of a prevailing pattern of the character assuming in the absence of evidence that authority is corrupt, then the character is in fact Chaotic. There is nothing wrong with that: I have a streak of Chaoticity myself and I am ready to defend it as right and proper. But if the character is being played as Chaotic the GM ought to adjust his alignment accordingly. The sad fact is that by the rules inthe PHB, the character would then lose his or her paladin's powers.


----------



## Sejs

> Of course the Paladin should lose his palidinhood. At the very least he should have checked the alignment of the man he slew.




*cough*  Yeah, because I mean if this was a neutral child raping kidnapper, the paladin should have just let him continue about his buisness, unabated.

Detect Evil would have taken 12 seconds (2 rounds) to confirm what is pretty obvious to even those of us who arn't paladins - that the rapist is an evil man.

Those 12 seconds would have more than likely proven the difference between keeping the man from raping the child again, and stopping him after he's begun to violate the girl.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t

Yeah, the girl might have been a demon, and the rapist could have been a paladin, so it's okay.

The paladin shouldn't lose his powers.  The paladin should receive a reward for killing a rapist.  Rapists are amongst the vilest criminals in existance, there's nothing lost by killing one.


----------



## MoonZar

I think the dm should know that no one perfect...

I think that the paladin action was not perfectly LG, he should have use stunt damage, save the girl and take the man to the justice.

This still also not honorable to attack in the back and even more a unarmed man. Also if bloodshed can be avoid, the paladin most do what he could. The situation could have been different if the paladin was on a 1v5 situation or if he doesn't have other option to save the girl.

But my point is that paladin is very hard to play and DM should be mercyfull with them. If i was the DM, i would have just say to the PC that he feel very bad to have kill the man in the back, but he feel relieve to have save the girl...

MoonZar


----------



## sword-dancer

Zimri said:
			
		

> So you walk into a village and see an orc sleeping. orcs are usually evil so you detect and it is. You should kill it because well orcs are evil and this one will do something bad.



Depends, are you in war or such situation. with the orcs, it isn`t necessarily an violation of the code to take advantage of an enemy.
Like an attack at their camp when they sleep or an ambush. 
-Or when orcs are automatically evil born and not reedeemable creatures.
If not the situation would call for less violent actions.

To clear it i don`t fence my words in, of this act

1) If your comrade is fighting against an enemy and is in danger of going down, would you think it disonorable to take his enemy out of action?

2) Yes, and this would be in most just "medival" societies reason enough for a slow painful and public execution.
if the act didn`t happen in a "just" society the pally had a duty to dispense justice as he saw fit.
A Lensman in this situation would be acting within his duties and authorisation of the law of civilisation to execute the bastard on the spot. 

3) + 6)
The other possibilities to neutralice the man, are not of first concern, the question ist  violated the pally  his code, especially enough to fall..
A pally isn`t a robot, he is a "human" being, and rieghteous holy wrath is a really approbiate reaction.
I think at worst he goes a bit over the top, but nothing more.


A Method to stop him, 
4) These are "medieval" times, with a "medival" and more hardened lifestyle.
Death is normally an accepted and normal part of life.
Add that psychological knowledge weren`t really exist in these times, were punishment was often cruel and torture was an accepted method.

5) I don`t see your  point here?

7) This is a point of the difference between the GMs/&Gods POV and the Pally point of view, and the personalty of the pally.
Would Solomon Kane have killed the man?
Yes, No doubt, No quarter asked no Quarter given.
Would he ´ve killed him from behind, most likely.

8) Honor could be defined by many things, how you fight, for what you fight.
btw a Samurai had killed the man if he thought he must test his sword, or wasn`t polite enough in the perfectest sense without a second thought.

And i know what being involved in killing, even if absolute nessecary, a human being could traumatice a man.


----------



## Zimri

sword-dancer said:
			
		

> Depends, are you in war or such situation. with the orcs, it isn`t necessarily an violation of the code to take advantage of an enemy.
> Like an attack at their camp when they sleep or an ambush.
> -Or when orcs are automatically evil born and not reedeemable creatures.
> If not the situation would call for less violent actions.
> 
> To clear it i don`t fence my words in, of this act
> 
> 1) If your comrade is fighting against an enemy and is in danger of going down, would you think it disonorable to take his enemy out of action?
> 
> 2) Yes, and this would be in most just "medival" societies reason enough for a slow painful and public execution.
> if the act didn`t happen in a "just" society the pally had a duty to dispense justice as he saw fit.
> A Lensman in this situation would be acting within his duties and authorisation of the law of civilisation to execute the bastard on the spot.
> 
> 3) + 6)
> The other possibilities to neutralice the man, are not of first concern, the question ist  violated the pally  his code, especially enough to fall..
> A pally isn`t a robot, he is a "human" being, and rieghteous holy wrath is a really approbiate reaction.
> I think at worst he goes a bit over the top, but nothing more.
> 
> 
> A Method to stop him,
> 4) And the point of this is?
> 
> 5) And the point of this is, also?
> 
> 7) This is a point of the difference between the GMs/&Gods POV and the Pally point of view, and the personalty of the pally.
> Would Solomon Kane have killed the man?
> Yes, No doubt, No quarter asked no Quarter given.
> Would he ´ve killed him from behind, most likely.
> 
> 8) Honor could be defined by many things, how you fight, for what you fight.
> btw a Samurai had killed the man if he thought he must test his sword, or wasn`t polite enough in the perfectest sense without a second thought.




Read what I wrote dancer. You walk into a village and see an orc sleeping. Don't add things to the situation. If all orcs are evil you are saying go ahead and slash his throat while he sleeps, oh and make sure to kill the women and children so no more orcs get made.

Killing that orc is wrong. Killing that orc will likely feed the hatred that orcs have for civilized people. Genocide is wrong.

1) If my ally is in agreed upon single combat then there is no way I am stepping in. IF it is group vs group (as most situations are) then the attacker obstensibly agreed to combat with the whole group of which I am part. Since it is consentual combat my attacking him doesn't break honor.

2) Just society or lawless one makes little difference. I have never said he can't exact justice. She was in no danger of being "more violated" than she already was. I have some personal experience in this regard. The stain and wounds on her psyche were already there from the first attack. The amount of psychological trauma (in my case) doesn't get much worse after the first violation. The same is not true of a comrade in lethal combat where subsequent attacks can in fact kill.

3) Other ways of dealing with the situation are very much part of the concern. And you were the one who brought up the honor in letting someone die because you wouldn't act from behind. But I would just not lethally. The damage caused by seeing a lifeless body fall at her feet would be one more trauma the girl had to deal with. Having in fact found a fresh body I feel confident in my abailty to speak to that point.

4) The point is that further violation from the same man in the same manner has a lower psycholigical affect than having a dead body fall on you and spray you with it's blood.

5) The point is HE WASN'T GOING TO KILL HER. That thought was not paramount in his mind. The point is also that further sexual violations from him are likely to not cause much more psychological trauma (again I feel imminently qualified to state that based on past personal experiences)

7) The DM warned the player. The Player probably should have taken that as a warning from the characters god to the character. I have no idea who solomon kane is but I do know that if he would kill an unarmed unaware low level commoner from behind and injure an innocents girl psyche by making her watch it (remember she can't look away), and having the head fall in her lap (not much else of a place for it to go based on how the sword would have to swing) He is not at all acting honorably.

8) A paladin isn't JUST someone that acts with honor in mind. HONOR IS his armour and shield. It isn't something he does it is who he is. WHo the paladin is doesn't change based on who his foe is. He will no more lie to a demon lord than he will to a celestial. He would no sooner cheat to win a card game than he would to win a fight. He should give no less respect to the peasant that raises the crops and cattle  than he would to the king for whose table they are bound.


----------



## FireLance

You know, after thinking over the issues for a long while, I've come to the conclusion that this thread isn't about paladins, or honor, or justice, or laws.  It is about a fundamental difference of opinion that will probably never be resolved.

Under conditions of uncertainty, any system to determine whether something is one thing or not suffers from two types of errors: the false positive (the thing is found to be something it actually is not) and the false negative (the thing is not found to be something it actually is).  In the case of a judicial system, or a paladin acting on behalf of such a system, the two types of errors are: an innocent is found guilty and punished, or a guilty party is found innocent and released.  As mentioned, under conditions of uncertainty, there is no way to avoid either type of error.  You can only choose which you would rather be wrong about, by either requiring more or less extensive proofs of guilt or innocence.

In the scenario mentioned by Vindicator, the evidence that the man was guilty was very strong, and the chance that he was actually innocent was very small.  As such, it is understandable why the overwhelming concern of those who cannot stand to let a guilty party go free is to punish the evildoer with as much certainty as possible.  On the other hand, to those who would rather allow a guilty party to go free than see an innocent man punished, even the very small chance that the man was innocent makes it too risky to kill him without finding out more.

If this is indeed the fundamental disagreement, no amount of discussion about codes of conduct, or honorable behavior, or the lawlessness of the society will ever get us anywhere.


----------



## Zimri

I disagree firelance.

No one is saying the rapist is not guilty.
No one is saying the rapist doesn't deserve to die
Heck no one is even saying the paladin didn't have the right to administer justice.

The Bone of contention is about how he rendered the verdict not what the verdict  was or that he rendered it.


----------



## FireLance

Well, I arrived at my conclusion because of the number of posts arguing whether it was an illusion, or the man was possessed (i.e. the man was innocent), and those arguing that the man may have been more powerful than he seemed, or that he might have accomplices waiting to gang up on the paladin (i.e. the man would escape punishment one way or another).

Thus, it seemed to me that the dispute was whether to take the very small chance that the man might be innocent or the very small chance that the man might escape justice. Those that would rather take the chance that the man is innocent rather than allow a guilty party to escape were in favor of the paladin striking as hard and as quickly as he could.  Those that would rather take the chance that the man might escape rather than punish an innocent man were in favor of using non-lethal means to stop him at first so that the due process of law could take place.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:
			
		

> Thus, it seemed to me that the dispute was whether to take the very small chance that the man might be innocent or the very small chance that the man might escape justice. Those that would rather take the chance that the man is innocent rather than allow a guilty party to escape were in favor of the paladin striking as hard and as quickly as he could.  Those that would rather take the chance that the man might escape rather than punish an innocent man were in favor of using non-lethal means to stop him at first so that the due process of law could take place.




I would agree with you FireLance, if I this argument was occuring outside of the context of a game.

Because of an existing relationship with the DM (and by extension the DM's campaign setting), I feel that the player has a pretty good grasp on the odds that 1) the man was innocent, 2) the local justice system would be effective were the paladin to refer the matter, and 3) whether or not the paladin could successfully refer the matter to the local system given his current circumstances.  Although it is metagame for me to say it, there is no innocent or guilty party, really.  There is a role-playing situation, and a player who has to decide what to do in that situation, knowing what the DM is likely to do in the case of various circumstances.

No one would get to 5th level in my world without knowing how far they can trust their local judiciary.  Hell, by the time they ended up visiting the local magistrate at 1st-to-2nd level and got a good glimpse of exactly how it works (in one town at least).  They could turn in a criminal and have a very good idea what would happen to him.  In some places, it would be a good idea.  In others it would not.  Similarly, they would know it wasn't a *hat of disguise  * because magic items IMC are too rare to be squandered in such a way.  I'm betting Vindicator was safe in assuming it wasn't a magic act, or a demon, or whatever.  What's likely in a campaign world becomes obvious way sooner than that.

Vinidcator was supposed to believe his DM when the DM said, "Dude, it's a lowly commoner!" but not when he said "Dude, it's a rapist."  Given what little we know, it seems likely that Vindicator was right to believe both comments.  Vindicator knows his DM.  He probably knew that his DM wanted the rapist to escape the _*NPC controlled*_ justice system so that he could inflict a little paladin angst.  It has probably happened before.

These things -- and only these things -- determine the odds that the guy was innocent, and that the guy would escape justice if the paladin didn't administer it.

Raven Crowking


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Nice theory, Firelance, but I am both anti-death penalty and pro the Paladin's actions.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

*My two cents*

I haven't read through the full length of this thread but I'm going to have to come down on your DM being right.

My first reason for this is the honour factor - Paladin's in most religions are honour bound and striking from behind for a 'kill strike' is certainly not honourable.  Obviously you'll have to take your religion's principals as a guiding factor.

There's also the magic aspect, and this will depend on how magical your campaign is.  If magic is everywhere then illusions/possessions/charms etc. must be considered.

And then there's the issue of law.  This will require a GM ruling on what the law permits your Paladin to do.  Is he part of the legal enforcement system (and please ignore comments on what a medieval knight was permitted to do - you're not in medieval Earth)?  If not does he have the right to kill/murder?  If not then he needs to try and bring the rapist to justice - not take the law into his own hands.  Otherwise he is a vigilante and that is not part of being LG.

But I think the main reason that I agree with your GM is that the story line will be so much more powerful, and your character develop more as a result of this situation.  Suddenly your character is faced with a conflict I don't think you ever envisaged when you first rolled him up.  Now you're in a position where he can either listen to his God and church superiors, take a penance and submit to a holy quest for redpemption (which is always a good story line) or he can decide that no he was right and his God has failed him - leading to a possible change in deity or even a switch to full on ex-paladin as he goes into vigilante mode.

The character development opportunities of you losing your powers are so much better than if you keep them... and this game isn't called ROLE playing for nothing


----------



## Vaxalon

SejsDetect Evil would have taken 12 seconds (2 rounds) to confirm what is pretty obvious to even those of us who arn't paladins - that the rapist is an evil man.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> No, the purpose of the DE would be to determine whether there was something beyond mere mortal evil going on.
> 
> Demonic posession would be handled much differently than mundane crime.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Someone's post:


> Detect Evil would have taken 12 seconds (2 rounds) to confirm what is pretty obvious to even those of us who arn't paladins - that the rapist is an evil man.




Someone else's response:


> No, the purpose of the DE would be to determine whether there was something beyond mere mortal evil going on.
> 
> Demonic posession would be handled much differently than mundane crime.




To which I say:

That's even worse.  It takes 3 rounds to determine aura power, which is how you would determine whether the man was an outsider or posessed by one.

By then, the second rape would have already been in full swing.  So much for prevention.

_Edited to correct formatting error._


----------



## Majere

Ok this thread is beyond silly.
The argument seems to be between people who basically hate paladins and can argue a hundred reasons why the paladin should lose his paladinhood WHATEVER he does, and those of us who actually want a playable class.

I ABSOLUTELY agree that the exact same people suggesting the paladin was wrong, and he should consider a whole bunch of rediculous circumstances would also argue he should have lost it all if this was a thread was about a paladin who DIDNT kill a paedophile about to attack a girl.

Paladins are not infallable.
The guy was evil
We can sit here until the end of time coming up with wierd and wonderful scenarios where it wasnt the guys fault, but the facts are he was RAPNG A GIRL.

The paladin killed evil. 
Paladins kill evil.
 Why punish him ?

Majere


----------



## Torm

Majere said:
			
		

> Paladins are not infallable.
> The guy was evil
> We can sit here until the end of time coming up with wierd and wonderful scenarios where it wasnt the guys fault, but the facts are he was RAPING A GIRL.




Beautiful and simple.    Only one problem here, and its not with you - I said almost the exact same thing back in, oh, say..... *POST #276!*

While it _might_ be interesting to see exactly how long this thread can go, the same arguments are being had VERY verbosely over and over again. Please, people, let it die! I'm tired of this floating back up to the top and then I have to check it to see if anything new is a response to anything I've said, so I can be polite and respond. Really, people, the guy had his day in court, and his DM made his final decision. Good grief! The whole argument really comes down to whether you see the Law part or the Good part to be the most important to the Paladin class - and you're *NEVER* GOING TO AGREE! Agree to disagree, and take it up with who really matters - the players in _your_ group and your DM (if its not you.)


----------



## kirinke

*lol*

anything with 'child molester' and 'paladin' in the post is going to get anyone's dander up.
but i am curious. what did vindicator's dm decide?


----------



## Torm

They somehow integrated the Council of Paladins thread I started into their game, and as we found him not guilty, the DM did not take his powers, but he was given a quest to rectify his haste and see that the matter had, in fact, been fully seen to. (At least, that was the quest the Council issued him. I'm not sure what the DM actually made the quest...)

DARN YOU! Now you've got ME doing it! Very well - back, little thread, back to the top you go......


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

My last contribution to this thread-

This thread has been bugging me, and not for the obvious reasons.
It took me a little while to figure out what it is, but I have it now.

Almost everyone on this thread seems to thinking about Paladins as being played/playable in only one way, so we have focused *solely* on the fact situation presented to us.

However, even in 2Ed, the game designers made explicit that Paladins could be as varied as any other class.  That is, Paladins range from "left-leaning"/"pacifistic"/"doves" (or whatever terminology you prefer) to the "right-leaning"/"Awful-Good"/"hawks," depending on their faith.  

That is, one Paladin might be a Knight Hospitaler who usually strikes to subdue (killing only in self-defense) and never strikes first, while another Paladin may have been sent by his god to cleanse the world of evil by sword and fire.  Most fall somewhere between the extremes.

If the Paladin of this fact situation was one leaning towards the peaceful extreme, then yes, his powers should have been stripped.  He should have tried to make the miscreant see the light before delivering him into it.  He failed to even try to solve the problem through peaceful methods.

If he was more of the firebrand, he should be rewarded for being his god's swift sword of justice on earth.  Unhesitating action when faced with evil, be it mundane or occult is nothing less than what his god demands- and stopping evil with finality is to be encouraged.

A Paladin in the middle range should probably not be stripped of his powers, but should face some kind of minor quest of attonement to be restored to good odor within the faith's heirarchy and community of believers.  Until he completes this task, the stigma of the attack's ferocity should make him shunned by most of the people of his faith.

When formulated this way, the question isn't whether the Paladin acted like a Paladin -under certain circumstances, he did- but whether the player played his Paladin within the confines of the PC's concept.

That is, did the player role-play his Paladin consistent with that Paladin's character concept and past behavior?
If no-penalize the Paladin, if yes, reward him.


----------



## nikolai

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> When formulated this way, the question isn't whether the Paladin acted like a Paladin -under certain circumstances, he did- but whether the player played his Paladin within the confines of the PC's concept.




I think Dannyalcatraz has it. The idea is to figure out a clear set of guidelines, so that the PC knows the limits within which he has to operate. He should have a pretty clear idea of where the line is which - if he crosses it - he'll lose his paladinhood. It's a problem (maybe even unfair) if the player genuinely thought he had the right of it, but it's later determine that he didn't. The best course is to be clear about everything in advance, so the problem doesn't arise. As for this instance, I'd define what he did as legitimate, and give him the benefit of the doubt. You may want to tighten things up for later campaigns though.

Of course, the exact how to of finding honourable ways of dealing with evil-doers is one of the old problems of chivalry...



			
				Malory said:
			
		

> *How Sir Launcelot overtook a knight which chased his wife to have slain her, and how he said to him.*
> 
> SO Sir Launcelot rode many wild ways, throughout marches and many wild ways. And as he rode in a valley he saw a knight chasing a lady, with a naked sword, to have slain her. And by fortune as this knight should have slain this lady, she cried on Sir Launcelot and prayed him to rescue her. When Sir Launcelot saw that mischief, he took his horse and rode between them, saying, Knight, fie for shame, why wilt thou slay this lady? thou dost shame unto thee and all knights. What hast thou to do betwixt me and my wife? said the knight. I will slay her maugre thy head. That shall ye not, said Sir Launcelot, for rather we two will have ado together. Sir Launcelot, said the knight, thou dost not thy part, for this lady hath betrayed me. It is not so, said the lady, truly he saith wrong on me. And for because I love and cherish my cousin germain, he is jealous betwixt him and me; and as I shall answer to God there was never sin betwixt us. But, sir, said the lady, as thou art called the worshipfullest knight of the world, I require thee of true knighthood, keep me and save me. For whatsomever ye say he will slay me, for he is without mercy. Have ye no doubt, said Launcelot, it shall not lie in his power. Sir, said the knight, in your sight I will be ruled as ye will have me. And so Sir Launcelot rode on the one side and she on the other: he had not ridden but a while, but the knight bade Sir Launcelot turn him and look behind him, and said, Sir, yonder come men of arms after us riding. And so Sir Launcelot turned him and thought no treason, and therewith was the knight and the lady on one side, and suddenly he swapped off his lady's head.
> 
> And when Sir Launcelot had espied him what he had done, he said, and called him, Traitor, thou hast shamed me for ever. And suddenly Sir Launcelot alighted off his horse, and pulled out his sword to slay him, and therewithal he fell flat to the earth, and gripped Sir Launcelot by the thighs, and cried mercy. Fie on thee, said Sir Launcelot, thou shameful knight, thou mayest have no mercy, and therefore arise and fight with me. Nay, said the knight, I will never arise till ye grant me mercy. Now will I proffer thee fair, said Launcelot, I will unarm me unto my shirt, and I will have nothing upon me but my shirt, and my sword and my hand. And if thou canst slay me, quit be thou for ever. Nay, sir, said Pedivere, that will I never. Well, said Sir Launcelot, take this lady and the head, and bear it upon thee, and here shalt thou swear upon my sword, to bear it always upon thy back, and never to rest till thou come to Queen Guenever. Sir, said he, that will I do, by the faith of my body. Now, said Launcelot, tell me what is your name? Sir, my name is Pedivere. In a shameful hour wert thou born, said Launcelot.


----------



## Prothall

Personally, I'm with Filthy Ike off the first page. Pretty much word for word my opinion.


----------



## drnuncheon

Perhaps unwise, weighing in to a 30 page thread without reading all of it, but...

I find it interesting that paladins are expected by so many people to be perfect.  Not merely adhere to the tenets of their alignment or religion, but to be absolutely perfect - something that is generally regarded as impossible, even for the children of deities.  Being human means being flawed.

No other class has this restriction.  Even a cleric, who is arguably even more blessed by his deity than a paladin is, is not held to such strict moral grounds.  Paladins apparently never make mistakes without getting kicked to the curb.

With that attitude, it's a wonder there are any paladins around to train new ones.

The paladin's solution may not have been the _best_ solution.  But then, who ever always makes the best decisions?  Nobody.  It's impossible.  Paladins are human, like everyone else.  A paladin who comes across a man trying to molest a child is going to feel revulsion and righteous wrath, and that may lead him to act hastily.

He doesn't have to be a Vulcan and dispassionately regard the situation - that's nowhere in the code or the description of the class, and I think the people that argue for that are being unrealistic in their expectations.

Aside from the unreasonableness of these expectations, they also hamstring paladin players.  If every paladin is expected to behave perfectly at all times, then there is no variation.  Every paladin is exactly the same - _must_ be exactly the same, because any flaw, anything less than perfection, results int he DM jumping on them with a gleeful "A-HA! I've got you now!" and a concomittant loss of powers.  Add to this that it's a character's flaws that make them truly memorable and interesting and you can see that playing a paladin under those expectations is not going to be enjoyable for the player.  (The GM who relishes the aforementioned 'A-HA!' will undoubtedly get his jollies, at least until the paladin's player wises up.)

To sum up: it takes a lot to make a paladin fall, IMO - one incident, one mistake is not enough.  The paladin may have acted in haste, but he acted in accordance with what he saw, to protect an innocent.  He should strive to be better in the future - but so should all paladins strive for the ideal, even though they will never reach it.

J


----------

