Act of evil? Or just taking out the trash?

[jbear]

I think your interpretation of his acts as DM should come through the voice of his superiors. Tell him that if he continues acts like this he could alter his alignment, which could affect his relationship with his deity, give him a small penalty on his divine skills in the mean time to show his orders and deity's displeasure and use it as an adventure hook for him to atone for his lack of self control and dignity...

 

[mlund]

Bahamut is the god of Justice, Honor, Nobility, and Protection.

How is it Just to torture a man to death before his trial?
How is it honourable or noble to torture a man to death at all?
Who -exactly- is he protecting by doing this?

Dragging a man to death behind a horse wasn't considered "torture" - it was considered to be a means of execution.

Furthermore, presumably those who are protected are the same people who were to be protected by killing the man in combat had either he not asked for quarter or his foes refused to grant him such - plus the innocents now "on the radar" due to pursuit of vengeance.

Granting quarter and surrender usually involves a two-way agreement between captor and prisoner. Threatening to escape justice and murder your captor's family is typically a gross violation of such terms and absolves the captor of any obligation towards the prisoner.

You're right, Paladins aren't stupid, so why would they react so feverishly to the insults of a broken defeated man, hoping to rationalize it later?

Sorry, but "the insults of a broken defeated man," are not part of the equation. We're talking about a criminal who sought quarter, was granted it, and then proceeded to promise to visit death (and possibly worse) upon innocents while in the care of his captors.

We don't let guards or cops get away with it in OUR Lawful society.

Paladins are neither guards nor "cops." This is not "OUR Lawful society." Most D&D settings have nowhere near the kind of modern justice system you'd find in modern nations. They don't have the economy, literacy, or security to support it in the first place. That's why most felony-level crimes in such societies are punished by banishment, bodily mutilation (hobbling, losing a hand), or execution - while lesser crimes are typically punishable by use of stockades or a whipping post.

- Marty Lund

 

[ScottS]

The unspoken purpose in getting rid of alignment in 4e, was to eliminate arguments between the DM and players about whether their characters are acting 'correctly' (the same reason for the 'gods can't strip your powers' rule). Pretty much you're supposed to 'say yes' and let him do what he wants and interpret his character's religion however he wants. At worst, you can hit him with social consequences (e.g. other paladins coming after him if and when he truly goes off the deep end), but that's it. If you, the DM, have issues with a party member acting like a psycho, that's cause for an out-of-game discussion, not an in-game punishment. Either let him know that you don't appreciate what he's doing, or just stop playing with the guy...

 

[That One Guy]

See, if he had just killed the prisoner quickly... that would be okay with me. That would be defending the paladin's honour (and his deity's) and attempting to deal with an evil threat. The execution via dragging after being cut at the knees is without honour. It is more in line with a follower of Tiamat. I don't think there'd be any mechanical consequence, but I think the paladins will not just let him go with a slap on the wrist.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

Okay, so what 4E did is it removed the game-mechanic consequences for ethical actions.

It effectively said, "Okay, you don't suddenly unlearn the "Monkey Claw Maneuver" just because you slept with some strange person last night!"

Now, that being said ... there is nothing that says that the people who go around in your game world training up young paladins, teaching them their skillsets, then giving them their armour and sending them out in the world with their own good name forever-more tied to the consequences of their young protege's actions are completely ambivalent towards the uses that their heretofore young padawan is putting the Monkey Claw maneuver towards!

Some people teach you things and don't care what you do with them. Some people teach you things and feel responsible for what you do with that knowledge. Some people feel that if you're out there as a force of chaos in the world, and they're responsible for putting you out there, then it is their responsibility to fix that. Gentle reminders at first. A quiet intervention. Sanctions. But eventually, they'll go so far as to permanently remove you from the equation, so you don't increase the chaos in the world any more.

There have been lots of fun, famous stories and movies based upon this premise! Usually we're supposed to root for the guy trying to stop the maniac, but sometimes you get a well-written story of redemption with the maniac as the protagonist.

Your player just handed you a great sub-plot on a silver platter, if he keeps this kind of thing up!

 

[Saeviomagy]

So... Did the conversation go like this:

Player: "I hack at the guys legs to cripple him and then let the horse drag him to death!"

DM: "Uh. Wow. I guess"

or

Player: "I hack at the guys tendons to cripple him and then let the horse drag him"

DM: "He dies."

?

 

[3d6]

I think the "evilness" of the act depends on what kind of morality you want in your game.

If you're playing with a more modern moral system, torturing a prisoner to death would generally be considered a chaotic and evil act, and would probably bring the paladins down on his head.

If you're playing with a more medieval moral system, a paladin torturing a prisoner to death would probably be considered a lawful neutral act. Horrific execution for capital crimes was pretty common, after all, and the paladin is a legitimate authority figure (at least morally, if not legally). He might be chided for acting rashly, but probably not punished.

It seems to me that your player is either intended to play an evil paladin, or you and your player disagree on what kind of moral code is appropriate in D&D. It might be a good idea to discuss with your players what kind of mindset you and your players wish to operate under.

 

[Aenghus]

See, if he had just killed the prisoner quickly... that would be okay with me. That would be defending the paladin's honour (and his deity's) and attempting to deal with an evil threat. The execution via dragging after being cut at the knees is without honour. It is more in line with a follower of Tiamat. I don't think there'd be any in game rules consequence, but I think the paladins will not just let him go with a slap on the wrist.

4e paladins are not 3e paladins. That said, I think its important for the player of a paladin and the DM to work out and agree to the paladin's code of conduct.

It could be that this is a disagreement on character concept between you and the player. It sounds like he is dead set on a "Dirty Harry" PC thats acts for the greater good as he sees it but is ruthless in doing so.

So when the prisoner tried to push his buttons the PC acted abruptly to maintain his character concept.

Note that you as DM decided the prisoner died en route, escalating the issue. While this is plausible if he was being dragged behind a horse, it didn't have to happen. The prisoner could have survived, perhaps crippled. There could have been a wagon to rent/buy/commandeer to carry him.

Punishing the player or the character for his character concept won't work if the player disagrees with the necessity. It sounds like the PC will never be a shiny paladin like the 3e stereotype.

Fundamentally, if this is the way he wants to continue to play the PC, you have to decide whether you can live with this. There is plenty of room in a church for varying points of view even within an alignment. The PC sounds like he could be from a hardliner faction.

Or maybe a change of deity would help, one whose code better suits the character concept.

I remember a 2e D&D campaignI was in as the de facto commander of a military unit. My PC was LG and squeaky clean. We were escorting two prisoners back after a patrol and after an initial attempt by them to escape and alert their allies, my PC warned them they would be executed if they attempted it again.

And when the prisoners attempted to escape for the second time, unsuccessfully, it turned out the DM had forgotten about the threat. So he was surprised when the first action of my PC at the start of the next session was to order their immediate execution.

After the first prisoner was executed the second became very helpful, volunteering all sorts of information to save his neck.

Anyway, I suspect that the player of the paladin hopes that being a hardliner will get results, intimidate enemies into respecting him. Its important that you find out what he wants and seeing if it makes sense to you, so you can reach some sort of mutually acceptable compromise.

 

[Ravingdork]

So... Did the conversation go like this:

Player: "I hack at the guys legs to cripple him and then let the horse drag him to death!"

DM: "Uh. Wow. I guess"

or

Player: "I hack at the guys tendons to cripple him and then let the horse drag him"

DM: "He dies."

?

More like...

Paladin: "I hack at the guys tendons to cripple him and then let the horse drag him."

DM: "Over the course of the next day and a half the party must contend with his cries of agony during their travels. As you near your destination, his cries grow deathly quiet.

Do you wish to do anything about him?"

Paladin: "He had his chance."

Most of the other players were too shocked and freaked out to do anything other than gasp or talk amongst themselves (secretly forming their own opinions about the situation much as you all are now).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It is a tenant of Tiamat

I don't normally do this, but... what's Tiamat charging for rent nowadays? The word you're looking for is 'tenet'.