Act of evil? Or just taking out the trash?

[Hammerhead]

I trust in the future evildoers will be less likely to dare and threaten said paladin's loved ones. Harsh, but just. Good for the paladin.

To all those proposing such draconian punishments: does every evil act in your game bring down horrible consequences of every facet of law and order imaginable, or solely the actions of PCs? It seems like quite the double standard (and if a double standard does exist, it should surely favor the PCs: they're the main characters, after all).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As much as I love endless alignment arguments...

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT RAVEN DARK HAS DECIDED TO DO ABOUT HIS SITUATION.

TS

 

[cmbarona]

How about all of the above?

The paladin soon realizes that his loved ones are in real danger from the heretic's threat (perhaps he sees a known assassin following his wife--we have just one such reoccuring villain). As he rushes to save his family, he is picked up by the authorities of the church and detained against his will for his disobediance and lack of discression in his previous assignment. Due to his arrest and his inability to intervene, great harm befalls his loved ones.

A week later as he sits in a cell awaiting trial, having lost everything he ever cared for, he is approached by an evil cleric of a rival faith who propositions him to join "the only faith that won't ever let you down--the only faith that lets you get revenge against the men who did this to your loved ones--and against all those who allowed it to happen."

In the meantime his former church dissassociates itself from him, calling him a blackguard and heretic, while seeking to "stop him" from bringing further shame upon the church (political assassin pawn or not, not even a corrupt clergymen likes a loose cannon). Whether or not the paladin chooses it, he becomes a criminal himself. Those few members of the church who agree with the paladin (thinking him wronged) side with him, risking their very lives to do so. Those who believe in the corrupt church superiors will become the new pawns--the new assassins of the church leader's innocent political rivals.

I'm really big on kicking a PC while he's down if it means a more exciting scenario for all involved.

How's that, Tequila Sunrise?

 

[Skyscraper]

Mlund, although i share some of your viewpoints, we disagree on how to define alignment i think. Which is fine. I think we are aware of our respective viewpoints and it appears we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you have something else to add, i'll simply say that it was interesting discussing this with you.

Sky

 

[demonking1]

It's really up to you, but heres how I would approach the situation. depending on the level of the paladin, you could have him visited by the worshipers of a evil deity, preferable non-chaotic, and offer him a job as a paladin (yes there are evil paladins in 4e). If he declines, he and the cultists fight. This also gives you the option to have adventures involving the cult. If he says yes however, he could be working behind the scenes to help the cult.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

How's that, Tequila Sunrise?

That read like an idle stream of consciousness rather than a decision, which is why I'm hoping Raven Dork will chime in with his. Or better yet, his decision and how it played out in his game.

TS

 

[ScottS]

In other words, we're having fun discussing moral questions without knowing if the paladin player cares at all, but we're having fun still.

If we're just indulging ourselves, then fine. If we're supposed to be offering DM advice, then I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that alignment/religion-based character plotlines don't really "work at the table". Exhibit A: the pointlessness and circularity of this thread, and most game-related alignment/morality debates in general. Exhibit B: even if alignment is essentially a dead issue in 4e, we're trying to judge this player's in-game behavior based on how well he follows a one-paragraph, not particularly precise 'church abstract' from the PHB. The DM can point to the word 'honor' and say "ur doin it rong", while the player can point to the word 'justice', and claim said justice has in fact been served.

 

[mlund]

Mlund, although i share some of your viewpoints, we disagree on how to define alignment i think. Which is fine. I think we are aware of our respective viewpoints and it appears we'll have to agree to disagree. Unless you have something else to add, i'll simply say that it was interesting discussing this with you.

Sure thing. It was an interesting discussion.

I'll just leave you with the observation that the 4th Edition PHB defines Good and Evil in overly broad and general terms (basically: "What the intrinsic worth of other people?") for a reason. Characters can have severe disagreements about where the line is drawn with the definitions and values of virtues like "justice," "mercy," "forgiveness," and many other things while still sharing the same alignment.

- Marty Lund

 

[gizmo33]

(I just lost my post so at the risk of repeating if it turns up later...)

NPCs who were willing to surrender in the first place should probably not be running their mouths to strangers with swords when no one is around who can hear them scream. Consider that the villain is probably used to he and his friends perpetrating similar despicable acts, so why would he intentionally risk such a thing? The short answer is because it's the DM making the decision and not the NPC who is the one who's going to feel the pain of his legs getting chopped off. Only the most insanely suicidal person (the kind that probably wouldn't surrender to begin with) would take such an action.

And what about the villain knowing about the moral code of the paladin? Well, is that enough to risk being dragged through the desert for two days on bloody stumps? Do you think the pain of being tortured to death for two days is mitigated by the NPC knowing that somewhere the DM is frowning on the PCs actions?

So this things sounds like shades of DM vs. Player to me and I'd be very careful about putting the PC in this situation to begin with since it is very unrealistic - at least from what little I know that so far doesn't clarify the reason for the insanely suicidal behavior of the NPC.

As a DM I'd let it slide and look for more clear-cut examples of behavior to make judgements on.

 

[Foxman]

I know I'm a bit late to the party But...

4e *has* stepped away from the yanking of palidin's strings around with alignment and etc.

That being said...

Whatever alignment he started as, let him know that if these types of acts become the rule and not the exception you will ask him to revaluate his alignment.

What I would suggest is that "the people" who catch word of this will likely be torn up about right and wrong much like most of the people in this thread. Just take some of what was said above, print it off/write it down and let the PC 'overhear' it when walking through a market place. No black and white here - just people arguing over it.

Jed the cranky old farmer: "Serves that sucker right, I lost family to people like him!"
Joy the gosspy fishwife: "Still draging him out like that, it doesnt seem right. Why not just kill him outright! That was torture!"
John town constible: "Right or wrong at least thats one more person who won't be doing bad deeds any more"

Consider his Superioures and/or his peers having the same kinds of conversations...

On a side note: He *Added* something to the game, DO NOT PUNISH a player for adding to the game - reward them. It was a character defining moment, take it, use it, make it something of legend if you want. Heck it was a party defining moment - those are worth pure RPing gold!