Act of evil? Or just taking out the trash?

[Bigwilly]

Killing him I could see (as this would likely have been his fate anyway) but not torturing him. I would expect some serious consequences from the church. Atonement might not be in the books as a spell anymore, but if this PC is not willing to atone for what was an evil act, then he is on his way down. Could be a lot of fun if handled correctly.

 

[Parlan]

I think this is where you're going wrong. The church of Bahamut (god of honor, good and righteousness) shouldn't just be giving this guy a slap on the wrist. He lost his cool, tortured a prisoner to death, circumvented the rightful authority structure of the church and otherwise acted in a very dishonorable and ignoble way. The fact that his friends and allies, people who should be able to trust a Paladin of Bahamut implicitly are instead intimidated by him says a lot.

The 4e rules suggest using NPCs in the church as a disciplinary device in these situations and I think it's entirely applicable here. A higher level NPC Cleric or Paladin of Bahamut (perhaps even a metallic dragon) should make this character's life hell for a while. If he chooses not to change his ways, he should become public enemy #1 for every follower of Bahamut in the area.

I don't think the church of Bahamut should make his life "hell", but I also don't think they'd want to permit this kind of behavior.

Actually, I see it as a great chance for an interesting story.
The church sees the body, and *individually* and *privately* ask all of the players what happened. Maybe just casually at first.

They realize what happened (the Pally might just tell them himself).

They tell him to start upholding the ideals of the church, or leave it.

That doesn't mean he has to stop being a pally, he could leave the faith of Bahumut and join a church less concerned with honor etc that would be willing to permit this activity.

And maybe followers of Bane also ask him to join them as other posters mentioned.

That gives him three options:
-shape up and uphold the ideals of Bahamut
-join a less idealist church
-go full-on evil

That way, the player can pick the option that allows him to play the character he wants and tell the story he wants, but maintains world consistency.

 

[Ravingdork]

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.

Actually, I think now would be a good time to mention exactly what his orders were. *Digs up GM notes*

Church Superiors: "This heretic has been roaming the countryside for weeks, openly speaking out against our church, our faith, and our ideals. He has publicly and brutally put to death anyone who would dare refute his claims. He must be stopped. We leave that in your hands. Do not fail us in this. Bahamut go with you."

It was left kind of open ended. This is why he would get a slap on the wrist I am thinking, and also...

...I was kind of hoping the paladin or one of the other party members (also servents of the church, but in vastly different capacities) would question their superior or at least ask for evidence of their bounty's crimes. Being blindly loyal, apparently, they never once suspected that their patron is corrupt and is using them as a tool to rid himself of political rivals (they all failed passive Insight checks). Once they have outlived their usefulness, he intends to dispose of them like he does with all things that may threaten his personal power.

Make no mistake, the man they captured WAS comitting a great many foul deeds against their church, but was he truly evil and worthy of being "stopped?"

I can't wait to see the party's reaction once they find out they are being used for "less than devout" purposes. For all I know they will just shrug their shoulders in the end and continue following their patron anyways (perhaps they really are that blindly loyal?). On the other hand, they may seek to displace their patron by seeking aid from other church leaders and making an active stand against their former patron. If they try to kill their patron in the end (which, given their history, they may well attempt) the church will not take kindly to the "heretical assassins who committed foul deeds in the name of Bahamut and then tried to implicate/assassinate devout and honorable church leaders."

Just awesome plot hooks and story angles all around, no matter what the characters do from here.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah. Altho, he'd end up swapping Armor of Bahamut for something more appropriate if he switches to Bane. But let's face it, giving him the option of choices that fit his character is better than saying 'Can't do that!' That said, if he wants to say 'But I want to be of Bahamut AND torture prisoners' then he's asking for something unrealistic, in my view point.

 

[DracoSuave]

utter win

This, plus the paladin's actions, make for story awesome.

 

[Bigwilly]

Just awesome plot hooks and story angles all around, no matter what the characters do from here.

Absolutely brilliant! Just the sort of campaign I would love to be playing in.

 

[Fenes]

That's why I don't play with modern alignments, but medieval ones. Death by torture is a just sentence according to those values.

 

[samual]

That's why I don't play with modern alignments, but medieval ones. Death by torture is a just sentence according to those values.

I agree with this. The heretic needed to be punished for his crimes and as visibly as possible. It would be best if the Paladin had announced and read his crimes loudly to all passersby (perhaps they could throw garbage at the murderer in true medieval fashion). But we cant have everything I suppose .

 

[Ravingdork]

I agree with this. The heretic needed to be punished for his crimes and as visibly as possible. It would be best if the Paladin had announced and read his crimes loudly to all passersby (perhaps they could throw garbage at the murderer in true medieval fashion). But we cant have everything I suppose .

Um, they passed through a number of populated villages on the way back to the church.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Well he certainly would have lost his paladinhood in 3e. You could make an argument for killing him, but certainly not for tortuting him to death. That's both evil and chaotic.

4e though has no hard and fast rules. Asking if something is evil in the game would be similar to asking if something if evil in the real world. You just have to make a judgement call, or just think about what others would think of his actions and what judgement calls they would make.

Personally I think the church of bahamut would be pretty horrified, but that's just me.

I disagree. Paladins in 3.5 are allowed to fight evil without Mercy reread the 3.5 PHB if you disagree. Says so in the alignment section. Allahndra fights evil without mercy.

Really, I'm not surprised the Pally did this. I'm more surprised this was in 4th.
Either way, stays good in my book. As long as he isn't killing innocent townsfolk or something.