How Do I Not Immediately Resort to Violence?

[Bohandas]

And the most important question from my point of view is - would a paladin value a spellbook more than a life of a person, whose motives are unknown to him?

Or, for that matter, the law of the land. Paladins are also supposed to be paragons of order and probably shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff without a deputization or letter of marque or something unless legal government in the region is either absent, overwhelmed, or corrupt.

[GanonBoar]

This is a strange case for me

So I have a Paladin travelling around with some people, and a thief randomly takes my wizard pal's spellbook. Having recently played the roguelike Pixel Dungeon and the method for dealing with thieves in that game still in my mind, I get on my horse and dash after the thief, warning her if she didn't yield, I would impale her with my lance. I impaled her, and she survived (somehow) and now everyone is mad at me, including myself. for attacking an unarmed person. First off, how do I make amends (she's still alive, I don't know how) and avoid doing this kind of stuff in the future? I covered up why I attacked earlier by saying that my character has on and off episodes of PTSD from his previous adventures from losing close friends (he''s pretty high level) but that doesn't change the fact that I dishonorably attacked someone.

IMO, depends what kind of Paladin you are. I'm going to use 5e terminology for a sec so please forgive me if you use a different system, but if you're a law-abiding or generic Devotion Paladin then go all in. Atonement, Penances, the whole shebang. If you're like the Vengeance Paladin and ultimately just want to destroy evil, then just don't care.

In all fairness, it isn't really your fault. If someone steals something and then refuses to return it even when you warn her that you will resort to violence, if you resort to violence it's their fault. Personally, I would try to knock the thief out and not outright kill her, but I'd still attack her. The person playing that PC can't expect you all to be fine with their character stealing something from a fellow party member. That kind of thing needs to be worked out OOC beforehand so you can make a situation that lets you RP to your heart's content but that everyone is happy with and won't result in such outcomes.

And even if you do try to atone, I wouldn't apologize to the thief. Apologize to your deity, church, and pantheon for this crime. The thief doesn't deserve it if they were the one that stole something.

[AMFV]

Luckily, that's not true. There are a few important details: first of all, law enforcers don't have special killing rights. The kill will be deemed acceptable in cases in which they are supposed to have considered the killing necessary according to some well set principles, which apply to all citizens. Secondly, there's the definition of weapon: a car is much more dangerous than a knife. Third, there's the problem of how possible it is to use the weapon: if I go around with a hunting rifle in its container and it is stolen, the thief cannot be killed just like that, because the weapon isn't dangerous until it's out of the envelope. Fourth, even if I stole a fully loaded, action ready AK-47 and didn't show any intention to use it, I wouldn't be killable, unless the situation were such, that simply taking the weapon could be reasonably read as an intention to use it.

Unless you are at war, which is when everything turns arbitrary. Or in a land with an unusual legislation. Or on a ship, or other in conditions in which law administration belongs to a very small group.

Anyway, I fully agree with everything else you said.

All they need to use deadly force is a belief that there is risk of immediate harm to others. But somebody stealing a rifle is a pretty indicator of that. And if I cannot stop him short of killing him, that's what I would I do, and I guarantee you, it would not get me in any trouble. Because, that's a pretty clear sign of intent to harm somebody in the near future.

If you're being pedantic the call is always on the officer, they are allowed to use deadly force when they believe that there is imminent danger to themselves or others, theft of a powerful weapon, definitely counts as imminent danger. If you stole a car and were driving erratically in a neighborhood, deadly force would likewise be authorized. If you stole a car after threatening somebody, deadly force would be authorized. In the case of a car theft, this is less clean cut since the purpose of a car is not intrinsically violent.

Stealing the AK is demonstrating intent to use it. Period.

[Vinyadan]

All they need to use deadly force is a belief that there is risk of immediate harm to others. But somebody stealing a rifle is a pretty indicator of that. And if I cannot stop him short of killing him, that's what I would I do, and I guarantee you, it would not get me in any trouble. Because, that's a pretty clear sign of intent to harm somebody in the near future.

If you're being pedantic the call is always on the officer, they are allowed to use deadly force when they believe that there is imminent danger to themselves or others, theft of a powerful weapon, definitely counts as imminent danger. If you stole a car and were driving erratically in a neighborhood, deadly force would likewise be authorized. If you stole a car after threatening somebody, deadly force would be authorized. In the case of a car theft, this is less clean cut since the purpose of a car is not intrinsically violent.

Stealing the AK is demonstrating intent to use it. Period.

Eh, I wrote a lot of stuff earlier, but I now think you are right, as long as the belief has some decent base. The only point I could make is that weapons can also be sold, but telling someone stealing a weapon for personal use from someone stealing it for selling it is pretty much impossible, if the weapon isn't divided in parts or in a crate. I do think that our countries have some different laws concerning weapons, because for us it is pretty much impossible to steal a ready to use weapon, unless you get one from an officer.

[Malifice]

Stealing the AK is demonstrating intent to use it. Period.

Im a lawyer IRL, and this is not true.

Someone stealing a weapon (and even having one in their hands) is not in and of itself enough of a reason for that person to be shot dead out of hand. You have to demonstrate a reasonable belief that there is an immediate risk of harm to others, and that you used reasonable (possibly lethal) force.

Someone standing 20m away from me with a knife and I have a drawn firearm, I cant just gun them down. They approach me, ignoring warnings, and I form the reasonable view that they pose an immediate threat to me or others, then they are fair game. I better be prepared to defend my actions as objectively reasonable to a jury of 12 of my peers though.

In my own jurisdiction (Australia) this is expressed as: "A full acquittal (from the charge of murder) is achieved if a jury finds that a person accused reasonably believed (to an objective standard - not his own subjective belief) that they were threatened with imminent death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force they used in response was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger."

In the USA it is expressed as: "A person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

There is no way that this person in the OPs example (even if we classify a spellbook as a 'weapon') presented as an apparent threat or posed an immediate risk of harm to anyone, nor can it be said that the force used in response (running him through from behind with a lance while mounted as he ran away) was reasonably proportionate.

[8BitNinja]

A police officer and a pally are two different things, I think some people forgot that.

[Malifice]

A police officer and a pally are two different things, I think some people forgot that.

Its in the context of 'Both are lawfully empowered to enforce the law'

If this Paladin does not have a lawful mandate from the local authorities, why wasnt he charged with attempted murder?

[Mutazoia]

If violence is your last resort, you are not resorting to it soon enough.

If violence is not solving all of your problems, you are not resorting to enough of it.

Remember, pillage THEN burn.

[Strigon]

Its in the context of 'Both are lawfully empowered to enforce the law'

If this Paladin does not have a lawful mandate from the local authorities, why wasnt he charged with attempted murder?

I think the metaphor went down the drain when people started saying "well, if the pally is a cop, then the spellbook must be a lethal weapon".
I meant it as a simple thought experiment; OP asked "what else could I have done?", and I answered with "what else would a police officer have done?". And then everyone took it and ran.

[Leewei]

There is no way that this person in the OPs example (even if we classify a spellbook as a 'weapon') presented as an apparent threat or posed an immediate risk of harm to anyone, nor can it be said that the force used in response (running him through from behind with a lance while mounted as he ran away) was reasonably proportionate.

The spellbook is an item not only of great intrinsic value, but of enormous utility to keep the party alive, and to allow them to achieve their missions. Bringing up morality in a tabletop RPG occasionally may keep things fresh, but wrangling with modern values while dealing with a fantasy medieval world gets old real fast. The thief went on the side of the monsters when she selfishly acted to cripple the party wizard.

The best analogy I can come up with is the Old West frontier. Horse thieves were hanged there, not because horses were weapons, but because someone who had their horst stolen was very likely to die. The thief engaged in the same pathological disregard for the lives of the party when she performed her act. From the paladin's perspective, her action may well have been just the first of many enemy actions to sabotage them or their mission.

[D+1]

So I have a Paladin travelling around with some people, and a thief randomly takes my wizard pal's spellbook. Having recently played the roguelike Pixel Dungeon and the method for dealing with thieves in that game still in my mind, I get on my horse and dash after the thief, warning her if she didn't yield, I would impale her with my lance. I impaled her, and she survived (somehow) and now everyone is mad at me, including myself. for attacking an unarmed person. First off, how do I make amends (she's still alive, I don't know how) and avoid doing this kind of stuff in the future? I covered up why I attacked earlier by saying that my character has on and off episodes of PTSD from his previous adventures from losing close friends (he''s pretty high level) but that doesn't change the fact that I dishonorably attacked someone.

Get off your high horse. :) But seriously, yes it's not exactly Marquis of Queensbury to take down a thief by lethal force, but you CANNOT overlook the fact that the thief did actually commit a crime. So I'd say what your character should do is...
apologize (I'm sure you've done so already) and promise to never do it again
pay or provide for full and complete healing of wounds inflicted
give the injured thief some additional compensation of money or a potion or something (a healing potion would be appropriate I think)
obtain an atonement from the appropriate religious organization.

And then TAKE THE THIEF TO PRISON FOR THE CRIME, which has not been excused just because of the paladin's overreaction. Unless the victim of the theft is willing to settle for a similar compensation - apology, promise to never do it again, return of the property, payment of additional compensation in the form of a new spell perhaps. Obviously the thief has no atonement issues but really it needs to be established that the thief is actually getting off easy. Theft from party members is typically a worse crime than theft from strangers. The party members have taken you into their trust and by stealing from them IN ANY FASHION you betray that trust as directly as if you spit in their face - in addition to committing the crime itself. In a great many cases, were the alignments of the other party members closer to neutral then the thief would be fortunate to have escaped alive at all! Not in danger from the paladin but from the other party members. Simply being a thief gives a thief character no rights to a copper piece of extra treasure nor any other PC's property. Taking anything from other party members has consequences and any thief character needs to be aware that they take their very LIFE into their own hands when they commit such betrayals.

The paladin's reaction is excessive, but understandable. If that's how the PALADIN reacts to theft within the party - how will the other party members react who do not have such behavioral restrictions? Yeah, the thief is LUCKY not to have been justifiably killed.

[Segev]

The "it's just a book" or "only a wizard could use it" arguments keep ignoring two or three essential facts:

1) If it's just a book or only a wizard can use it, there's no incentive for a random thief to steal it; therefore, it was stolen for specific purpose, and that purpose is probably reasonably dire.

2) Stealing a wizard's spellbook is akin to stealing supplies from a camp in the wilderness: you may not be murdering them right now, but you're putting them in great danger of starving to death. Or, perhaps, it's akin to stealing a doctor's supplies (all his medicines, his tools, etc.). It's at BEST expensive to replace, and he can barely do his job and make a living without them.

The third fact is smooshed between the two, centering around the point that anybody stealing a wizard's spellbook is doing so because they know how important it is and have a definite use for it; either they're hired to target that spellbook, or they, themselves, plan to use it. And if they had to steal a spellbook, then they wanted something in it pretty badly that they're sure they couldn't have gotten without risking the ire of a highly dangerous spellcaster they've just given exquisite reason to devote all their active resources to the most efficient hunt for the malefactor possible.


In short: there's no "innocent" reason to steal a spellbook in a mugging, and it almost certainly wasn't random. And the harm done by it is much higher than, say, stealing a coinpurse or jewelry or other easily-fenced goods.

And even then? "You can't stop me without killing me" shouldn't be a reason to compel somebody to let you go, morally or ethically. If somebody is willing to force it to that point (when they're in the wrong), the guy who is being forced to choose to let them go or kill them is much more easily absolved of guilt for choosing to kill them. He still has to weigh it in his conscience whether he thinks it worth it, but you don't get to bully somebody just because their only recourse is to "suck it" or kill you, and killing you is somehow more unacceptable than your bullying.

[Democratus]

Its in the context of 'Both are lawfully empowered to enforce the law'

If this Paladin does not have a lawful mandate from the local authorities, why wasnt he charged with attempted murder?

Because the world of D&D is like the sensationalized wild west. Killing happens all the time and the local sherif doesn't want to bother with a thief who was subsequently brought to heel. That's a problem that took care of itself.

[8BitNinja]

Get off your high horse. :) But seriously, yes it's not exactly Marquis of Queensbury to take down a thief by lethal force, but you CANNOT overlook the fact that the thief did actually commit a crime. So I'd say what your character should do is...
apologize (I'm sure you've done so already) and promise to never do it again
pay or provide for full and complete healing of wounds inflicted
give the injured thief some additional compensation of money or a potion or something (a healing potion would be appropriate I think)
obtain an atonement from the appropriate religious organization.

I already did so

[AMFV]

Im a lawyer IRL, and this is not true.

Someone stealing a weapon (and even having one in their hands) is not in and of itself enough of a reason for that person to be shot dead out of hand. You have to demonstrate a reasonable belief that there is an immediate risk of harm to others, and that you used reasonable (possibly lethal) force.

Taking a lethal weapon from somebody else is certainly justification for that. If not try stealing a firearm from a police officer, and see how that works out for you. It would definitely not be unreasonable to suspect that.

Someone standing 20m away from me with a knife and I have a drawn firearm, I cant just gun them down. They approach me, ignoring warnings, and I form the reasonable view that they pose an immediate threat to me or others, then they are fair game. I better be prepared to defend my actions as objectively reasonable to a jury of 12 of my peers though.

If you're a Police Officer it is extremely unlikely that a case as clear cut as this would go to an actual court room.

In my own jurisdiction (Australia) this is expressed as: "A full acquittal (from the charge of murder) is achieved if a jury finds that a person accused reasonably believed (to an objective standard - not his own subjective belief) that they were threatened with imminent death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force they used in response was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger."

In the USA it is expressed as: "A person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."

There is no way that this person in the OPs example (even if we classify a spellbook as a 'weapon') presented as an apparent threat or posed an immediate risk of harm to anyone, nor can it be said that the force used in response (running him through from behind with a lance while mounted as he ran away) was reasonably proportionate.

This is true of persons, not necessarily law enforcement officers. General people do not have an obligation to protect the well-being of others. Paladins do, police and soldiers do. You are treating this as though the Paladin was a civilian, which is not entirely accurate.

[8BitNinja]

This is true of persons, not necessarily law enforcement officers. General people do not have an obligation to protect the well-being of others. Paladins do, police and soldiers do. You are treating this as though the Paladin was a civilian, which is not entirely accurate.

A Paladin is an Errant Knight, Church Militant, and a general Soldier of the Faith

none of these say Civilian

Calling a paladin a civilian is like calling the Soldier from TF2 a civilian, he gets not happy

[Democratus]

A Paladin is an Errant Knight, Church Militant, and a general Soldier of the Faith

none of these say Civilian

Calling a paladin a civilian is like calling the Soldier from TF2 a civilian, he gets not happy

Depends on the government for that locality. In a theocracy the church enforcers can said to be government officials. Otherwise their jurisdiction is somewhat limited.

[Satinavian]

Not really.

All those arguments of civillian/police, deputization and so on rely on the pretty modern idea of the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence"]. It is a core foundation of pretty much all modern legal codes but it is absent from most medieval ones.

While the city where this happened might be modern enough to use it, but the paladin seems to come from a world where per law every free man is allowed to use violence to protect his rights. There was a time not long ago where something like a police simply didn't exist, where criminal investigations were a private matter, where city guards were responsible for manning the wall and preventing fires, not for fighting crime. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feud was actually a legal method to settle matters in the HRE until the dawn of the 16th century and was aknowledged even after that.

[Bohandas]

I think the metaphor went down the drain when people started saying "well, if the pally is a cop, then the spellbook must be a lethal weapon".
I meant it as a simple thought experiment; OP asked "what else could I have done?", and I answered with "what else would a police officer have done?". And then everyone took it and ran.

How about if we ask what Batman would do.

[8BitNinja]

How about if we ask what Batman would do.

I'm more of a Superman fan

let the fan wars begin

[Lord Magtok]

I'm more of a Superman fan

That would explain the murderous tendencies, then.

[Strigon]

How about if we ask what Batman would do.

Well, then we'd have to get into debates about which Batman, and the answer would almost certainly involve a gadget a Paladin doesn't have, and the fact that - in the universes I'm familiar with - Batman doesn't kill anybody at all. Whereas most Paladins will eventually decide "You know what? Enough's enough; you're dead."

[8BitNinja]

Well, then we'd have to get into debates about which Batman, and the answer would almost certainly involve a gadget a Paladin doesn't have, and the fact that - in the universes I'm familiar with - Batman doesn't kill anybody at all. Whereas most Paladins will eventually decide "You know what? Enough's enough; you're dead."

And Batman's morality is not one of a Paladin

[Malifice]

Taking a lethal weapon from somebody else is certainly justification for that. If not try stealing a firearm from a police officer, and see how that works out for you. It would definitely not be unreasonable to suspect that.

Context is important mate. Youd better hope a jury of 12 of your peers viewed your lethal force as a reasonable response to a threat.

If he grabs a cops gun and is holding it by the barrel (for example) there is no immediate threat. Draw a gun on him and demand him to drop his weapon, sure. But if he refuses (but doesnt otherwise attempt to operate the gun) then you are going to be in some strife if you gun him down.

You cant shoot someone for theft. You can only shoot them if they pose an immediate threat to your (or someone elses) life.

Holding an M16 by the carrying handle isnt a lisence to be shot. If your hand goes to the pistol grip then blam.

[AMFV]

Context is important mate. Youd better hope a jury of 12 of your peers viewed your lethal force as a reasonable response to a threat.

If he grabs a cops gun and is holding it by the barrel (for example) there is no immediate threat. Draw a gun on him and demand him to drop his weapon, sure. But if he refuses (but doesnt otherwise attempt to operate the gun) then you are going to be in some strife if you gun him down.

You cant shoot someone for theft. You can only shoot them if they pose an immediate threat to your (or someone elses) life.

Holding an M16 by the carrying handle isnt a lisence to be shot. If your hand goes to the pistol grip then blam.

Stealing a gun from somebody != walking around armed. Not even remotely similar. As a lawyer you should recognize that distinction in context, if a person steals a gun from somebody, then it would be reasonable to assume that they intend to use it for nefarious purposes. Since the function of a gun is to kill or maim, that would imply that the nefarious purpose is to kill or maim, ergo threat to others. The issue is that if he takes the weapon and starts to flee, then it's entirely reasonable to assume that he is going to use that weapon against somebody else.

[Malifice]

Stealing a gun from somebody != walking around armed. Not even remotely similar. As a lawyer you should recognize that distinction in context, if a person steals a gun from somebody, then it would be reasonable to assume that they intend to use it for nefarious purposes. Since the function of a gun is to kill or maim, that would imply that the nefarious purpose is to kill or maim, ergo threat to others. The issue is that if he takes the weapon and starts to flee, then it's entirely reasonable to assume that he is going to use that weapon against somebody else.

And again, I disagree. Stealing a gun in and of itself is not enough for the defence of self defence.

They need to be about to immenently use it. Simply stealing it isnt enough. Guns are expensive you know. Its entirely reasonable that they were stealing it to sell it, or even simply attempting to disarm you.

I can assure you If I was on the prosecution and your only defence to gunning someone down was 'he stole my gun' I could get the jury rejecting that argument pretty quickly.

[Segev]

D&D is usually not set in a civilization with modern western standards of jurisprudence. "Old West" enforcement is more common, as is "arabian nights" or "medieval town." All of which tend to recognize that if somebody steals, they're risking being beaten up or killed by their victim if caught. Thieves have surprisingly few rights in most of history.

[Strigon]

D&D is usually not set in a civilization with modern western standards of jurisprudence. "Old West" enforcement is more common, as is "arabian nights" or "medieval town." All of which tend to recognize that if somebody steals, they're risking being beaten up or killed by their victim if caught. Thieves have surprisingly few rights in most of history.

But as a Paladin, you're held to a higher standard.
In this case, the thief wasn't about to get away, and the spellbook couldn't immediately be used. Which means that forgoing all attempts at stopping them beyond a verbal warning is in a grey area at best. If the thief was getting away, or actually risking someone's life, then you could make the argument for immediate use of lethal force, but the fact is that nothing would have been lost had the Paladin tried a nonlethal approach first - which means the Paladin should have used a nonlethal approach first.

A Paladin is a paragon of both Law and Good - and not even in that order. Just because something can be justified Lawfully, it doesn't mean a Paladin has any business doing it.

[AMFV]

But as a Paladin, you're held to a higher standard.
In this case, the thief wasn't about to get away, and the spellbook couldn't immediately be used. Which means that forgoing all attempts at stopping them beyond a verbal warning is in a grey area at best. If the thief was getting away, or actually risking someone's life, then you could make the argument for immediate use of lethal force, but the fact is that nothing would have been lost had the Paladin tried a nonlethal approach first - which means the Paladin should have used a nonlethal approach first.

A Paladin is a paragon of both Law and Good - and not even in that order. Just because something can be justified Lawfully, it doesn't mean a Paladin has any business doing it.

It was pretty clear that the thief was about to get away. What nonlethal approach would you have had the Paladin use? He shouted at her to stand down, while pointing out that if she didn't he would be forced to use lethal force, she didn't stop and continued to flee. The Paladin doesn't know if she's armed, and so closing to melee distance is now extremely dangerous.

The nonlethal approach was the shouting, that's why he did that. Another class wouldn't have had to shout necessarily to be seen as appropriate in the eyes of the law. Also "being held to a higher standard" does not equal being held to our modern one necessarily. In which case "Shout-Show-Shove-Shoot" would be appropriate. He shouted, he showed that he was able and willing to use lethal force, he started moving towards her with clear intent (in this case that would be shove), then he "shot" that's everything perfect, this is not an unclear situation, and I have training on this particular sort of thing and how we deal with it in the modern world.

Now if the Paladin had effective nonlethal options (which ironically the wizard should have), then it would be a different story, but because the Paladin lacks said options then he acted appropriately given the scenario and the tools at hand.

[hamishspence]

D&D's not exactly modern - but it's not exactly medieval, either. Some, possibly even most, towns may have legal codes that don't have a "killing thieves caught in the act is Justifiable Homicide" proviso.

Shooting a fleeing pickpocket in the back might qualify as problematic - especially on a crowded street where doing so might endanger bystanders as well.

"Riding down fleeing thief and hitting them in the back with huge melee weapon" sounds very like Sandor Clegane "The Hound" in Game of Thrones. In this case it wasn't a thief, but a kid accused of hitting a prince.