01. The orc prisoner was knocked out with a sleep spell and subdual damage from a cudgel.
02. He woke up in captivity.
03. The party discussed its concerns before (and during) questioning ... in the Damaran tongue.
Did these concerns include what to do with the orc after the questioning was done (in other words, kill or let go)?
04. The paladin did not voice any objections at this point.
If what to do after was discussed - and "let the orc go" was the conclusion reached by those discussing - did the paladin
1)say nothing/give no input at all one way or another during the discussion about what to do after the interrogation was completed?
2)suggest the orc should be dispatched after questioning - and then say nothing when others didn't agree?
Also was she the only one who voiced no objections?
05. Nigel and Mival then conversed in Aragrakh, regarding interrogation strategy.
06. The paladin was angered by our "clandestine" discussion, but said nothing about the orc or the Q&A session.
07. Without knowing our reason for speaking Aragrakh, she verbally threatened me for talking " ... behind her back."
08. I stood my ground, and asked if she was prepared to strike me down. She backed off.
Why did you and another player decide it was necessary for your characters to discuss interrogation strategy in a language not all the other characters could understand?
09. We resumed the interrogation without protest; the orc told us everything he knew about the citadel.
10. The paladin did not take action against the orc ... until we were about to release him.
I get the impression that the paladin's player had already decided what was going to happen to the orc when your characters were done interrogating and didn't tell you because you had had your characters leave her character out with your private discussion.
IMO the paladin still didn't do anything wrong (as in evil) but may have been a little chaotic (depending on the exact way things were played out). No one ever states the mage is evil because the fireball she just cast on the BBEG kills all his helpless, unconcious minions the party waded through to get to him. In a game where the good guys routinely kill the bad guys - I have no problem with paladins offing the bad guys.
By the way, our paladin is Tyrran ... although she venerates the entire Triad.
It may be that the paladin's player has been looking at this from the description of the Tyrran faith from Faiths and Pantheons
"Tyrrans tend to view all affairs in clear cut moral terms, preferring to see the world ordered by just laws that provide the greatest benefit to all. They tend toward intolerance, sometimes violently so, and seldom tolerate mockery, parody, or questioning of their faith.
Clerics of Tyr bring law to lawless lands, often serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgements, they often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
