Act of evil? Or just taking out the trash?

[robertliguori]

Torturing the guy to death was rather extreme.. I think a more appropriate response would've been something like what Quentyn did here and here.

Don't kill him, just punch him in the face and remind him that if he even hints at giving you an excuse to kill him, you will...

In the above example, he did give the paladin said excuse, and doubtless would have continued with graphic examples as to the retribution that would be inflicted for that specific blow.

Really, there are two reactions I see as appropriate in this kind of circumstance. One: Assume the heretic is lying. Chuckle darkly at his obviously-misaimed attempt at threatening you, and point out that when you say Bahamut protects, you are not speaking in parable.

Option two: He's making practical threats he intends to carry out. He's a threat. Treat him as such. This involves a single clean bladestroke, not prolonged and pointless agony.

That being said, I say that if these actions are of sufficent import to draw the attention of one greater being, they are enough to draw the attention of two. If you do go the route of having a metallic dragon take an interest in his life, you should also have a servitor of another power (such as Bane, as suggested below) show up to the paladin at his darkest hour of chastisement, and say "Hey, you know that dude you killed? Bahamut thinks that you were wrong. And rather than tell you this face-to-face like a man, he pulled this passive-aggressive gorgon-droppings to 'teach you the error of your ways'. But Bane doesn't think you've erred. Bane thinks that you are bringing forth order and structure and justice, and has the respect for you to tell you to your face that he supports you. And if you ever decide that you might want to believe in a god that believes in you...well, you know where to find us."

 

[Saeviomagy]

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).

I'm not judging, I really wanted to know whether the paladin did it intending that his victim die, or merely(!) torturing a prisoner.

Now we can see that it's torturing a prisoner without regard to whether he lives or dies.

While this certainly seems like a dark character, he's not all that much worse than the typical "kill them and take their stuff because we're on a quest!" style adventurer.

 

[Ravingdork]

While this certainly seems like a dark character, he's not all that much worse than the typical "kill them and take their stuff because we're on a quest!" style adventurer.

LOL! Yeah, it amazes me how many people have their characters fall into that ideology in their own games and then they turn right around and spout off about "horrible" scenarios such as this.

 

[jadrax]

Do the people who object to the paladin Torturning the prisoner, still hold that objection if the authoritys he handed the prisoner over too intended to torture that prisoner on and off for the next ten years?

 

[Stogoe]

I agree with Wormwood. Whether or not this is "lawful good" behavior or not does not really matter like it used to-- there are not mechanics attached to alignment anymore. Frankly, that is a good thing-- it creates a freedom to play truly different characters. And, that is the root of good stories. You might argue that Dirty Harry was not "good" or maybe "lawful" either, but most would agree that he is an interesting character! Just have NPCs react to him as you think best, and let the pieces fly fall where they may. It should be fun to watch in any case. "Go ahead-- make my day."

Oh, I agree. I don't think an appropriate NPC response should be viewed by you as out-of-game 'punishment' for this behavior particularly. Your shared tale has the chance to become all the more interesting and engrossing for his cruelty.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'm of the opinion that the criminal broke his parole.

I might not've hamstrung him, because I'm kinda soft-hearted. But hey.

Brad

 

[Keenath]

A dragging death is definitely evil. Running a bound prisoner through the heart would be less than valorous, but could be construed as "taking out the trash" and appropriate to a real hardass hero or even Knight Templar type. Slowly beating him to death over 48 hours is most definitely not. That's just evil.

That said, one act isn't an alignment change. And come to that, I agree that alignment is up to the player, not the DM.

But hey, look, is the player TRYING to build a story about a paladin who goes over the edge? Is he just a vicious player who probably shouldn't be doing the paladin thing, or is he intentionally playing Anakin Skywalker?

Talk to the guy. Find out if he was intentionally being over-the-top. If so, offer to incorporate his falling paladin concept into the overarching story -- I like the suggestion that he's shifting towards Tiamat. If he wasn't intending it, let him know that he jumped off the slippery slope there, and he's gonna have to change his alignment if he keeps it up. And then it's up to him to either be repentant and do better in the future, or refuse to apologize for anything and continue his slide towards evil.

 

[ppaladin123]

Do the people who object to the paladin Torturning the prisoner, still hold that objection if the authoritys he handed the prisoner over too intended to torture that prisoner on and off for the next ten years?

He was going to hand him over to authorities of the church of Bahamut. I think most of us are of the view that a lawful good church of honor, mercy, justice, etc. would not engage in that sort of behavior. There is nothing wrong with playing a character with a cruel streak, but it is sort of silly to do so while at the same time claiming to be a representative of lawful good justice and not expect there to be some in-game consequences for one's actions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Damn it, and for a while I believed alignment debates might have gone...

My suggestion: Ask your player if he considered it an evil act. "Warn" him that some people might believe so (while others would think the opposite, or consider it unaligned).
And especially ask him: Would he like his Paladin to "fall" (and possibly redeem himself later)? The "Fall" of a Paladin is a strong theme, after all. Maybe your player would like to explore it in the campaign. You don't have to do much to accommodate it - just highlight situations where he has a choice between mercy and death/torture/brutality, or offer him situations where he can align himself with evil to fight a greater evil.

 

[DracoSuave]

Plus, let's talk about this prisoner's actions.

He's tied up, and being dragged alive on the back of a horse, which is not a pleasent experience, after being promised fair justice and a trial.

You're darn fragging right he's going to be angry, and probably spouting curses at the so-called paragon of Justice that did that. Many -Good aligned- characters would be outraged and rightfully so at such treatment.

Now, I don't know where you get your D&D from, but in my town, the 'Good' alignment indicates a measure of mercy and compassion. Good characters (and Good and Lawful Good dieties) don't look for excuses to harm people, they try to do what they can to mitigate harm when possible. The prisoner was captured, strung up, and was unarmed, and willing to be taken to justice. He was not a threat. Dragging him on the back of a horse was unnecessary and cruel, and certainly was not merciful nor compassionate.

I could see Erathis' lot being a bit vengeful at a foul mouthed villain not behaving in captivity, as the rules are a cornerstone of civilization. Perhaps the Raven Queen would see no wrong in it, depending on the orders to the Paladin.

But, Bahamut's men gave orders the prisoner be brought in for justice, which the player did not accomplish. He did not accomplish his mission because he chose to abandon his nobility and his protection for a ward he promised protection too. And he did it the moment the torture (dragging him behind the horse) began.

The character is a sadist looking for excuses to visit his trade, and is willing to bend or break his word to do so. There are other church hierarchies that will welcome him in. Bahamut is not likely one of them. Perhaps he should be approached by Banites looking for another to add to the Lord of Tyranny's ranks. This sort of thing is -expected and admired- in Bane's flock.

Let's remember the order that things happen. Prisoner surrenders, partially due to the promise of fair justice inherent in the teachings of a god one of the characters is part of the clergy for. Torture begins with the dragging behind the horse for -no reason- by said clergy. Prisoner figures (and rightly so) that he's not being given the fair justice that the clergy of Bahamut promise in their holy scriptures, and so he rebels -verbally-. Torture is escalated with the hamstringing because of this. Over days the prisoner dies.