My Paladin Variant Question

[Perpetr8r]

Ok not saying this happened... but it may have.

My Avenger (A Paladin Variant Dragon Mag 310) was faced with a noble who used the power of prima nocta to torment and torture the people who he ruled. Well this ticked my Paladin right the heck off. To torment someone like that, to degrade a person so completely as to treat them as property, to stripe them of their humanity for your own pleasure sent him over the edge.

So taking an idea from Dishonoreds Non-Lethal takedowns he took to the nobles home in the middle of the night, his thief buddy opened the door for him and he found the man sleeping. He woke him before beginning to ask him questions using his Goliath Greathammer as a strong incentive to speak with him. After finding out this man had driven his own daughter to suicide via torment and abuse and he had a 5 year old Granddaughter who was thankfully in a boarding school of sorts my paladin grew tired of this man's evil.

He considered all he had on hand, searched for scrolls of magic to better do this but found nothing of use. So he had to perform some.. cosmetic surgery on his own. Taking a shaving razor he shaved the mans head bald, then taking hot coals he used it to deform his face before removing the man's tongue. After this he healed the man with the mans own cure moderate wounds and his own heal check. Making sure the man lived. He then had a friendly NPC take the man and drop him off in the low income part of the city. With the knowledge that with these actions the Paladin had now striped him of his former life, no one would know it was him, recognize his face, etc. That he would know have to rely on the goodness of others to support him and in turn be kind to them to survive, as this man was weak and unlikely to be a threat to anyone physically all his terror and might came from his wealth and status.

Was this too extreme/Out of line? He did not kill him, and he did not enjoy harming the man for his own pleasure, if he had the means to permanently transfigure the man's appearance with a scroll he would have used it, but none where available and time was becoming an issue. He did this out of vengeance which is the Avengers thing, he did not take Sadistic pleasure in the pain he caused, and he met out punishment he felt fit the crime.
EDIT:
What an Avenger (Paladin) is:
The Avenger is a guardian of the downtrodden and champion of the victims of the world. She is a loner, wandering from town to town in constant search of wrongs to right and oppressive dictators and rulers to overthrow. Yet despite the avenger's obsession with vengeance and punishment of those who do evil to others, she is not a cruel or sadistic person. She aims to temper her acts of vengeance so that the punishment fits the crime. Execution is a punishment of last resort, reserved only for the truly evil and despicable.

That is part of the flavor text, I will not write it entirely for fear of getting in trouble but you get the fluff

[Nerd-o-rama]

Damn.

I'd say he's not a Paladin anymore, but he gets bonus points on Avengerness.

More specifically, meting cruel physical and psychological torture onto someone as punishment for cruel physical and psychological torture, and not only that but unilaterally and outside the bounds of the law, is a pretty flagrant violation of what it means to be a Paladin, without bringing alignment into it.

With bringing alignment into it, this sort of crap is why the Evil entries on the Batman Alignment Chart exist.

[Captnq]

Yeah. Way out of line.

Just kill the dude. If anyone asks you say, "Paladin." Then walk off dramatically.

[Nibbens]

Paladin's have a "code of conduct" to follow, and while it is possible to do some bendy things with the rules, I'd say the act of allowing some else to break into the home, while he trespassed himself is enough to throw a paladin's alignment into "unlawful" territory. Not to mention everything else. lol.
I'd say seek an Atonement spell, sir knight.

[Perpetr8r]

Well to be fair Paladin/Avenger was more to point out what the Avenger is.
Avenger is a type of Paladin that is Chaotic Good, and is all about Vengeance and making the punishment fit the crime. But not using lethal force unless it is absolutely deserved.

So if I am understanding some of this... its better to kill people then to not kill people?
EDIT: I also added in the first post information on the Avenger

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well to be fair Paladin/Avenger was more to point out what the Avenger is.
Avenger is a type of Paladin that is Chaotic Good, and is all about Vengeance and making the punishment fit the crime. But not using lethal force unless it is absolutely deserved.

So if I am understanding some of this... its better to kill people then to not kill people?

I thought you meant this Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a), which is just an Assassin that remembered the Assassin Order's religious/political roots in real life and is non-Chaotic instead of Evil.

And it's less Evil to execute someone than torture them, in my opinion. Would your Palavenger have been so incensed if this noblemen had merely been spuriously executing his subjects rather than abusing them?

And actually, it's not really a matter of degree of moral Evil so much as it is the complete opposite of what a Paladin is meant to be - a straightforward, exemplary, honorable executor (and sometimes arbiter) of justice. Apparently an Avenger is something completely different.

[Perpetr8r]

Well this comes with pros and cons.
He cannot kill someone, unless they are unabashingly evil to a point that letting them live would be an evil act or roughly thereabouts.

So he cannot kill any bandits or anyone he fights no matter their alignment. Honestly my DM has said that killing monsters is also a no go unless they are mindless like Constructs or Undead. I must give them a chance to change their ways, which has been a pain in the butt because its an odd not to be able to kill or let those around him needlessly kill.

So unless he kills someone in one hit he cannot kill and even then he will feel bad for this action. I cannot even attack if they are at 10-5% of their full HP because the risk of death is too high so I have to go hand to hand to deal non lethal to knock them out and detain them.

He cannot cause undue pain needlessly or for sadistic pleasure and must make the best attempts to do things such as what he did in the above post with as little pain as he can muster and must attend to the wounds he inflicts to be sure his actions do not kill needlessly.

But he does not need to abide by mens laws, he can be a bit more cruel and wicked, he can partner with anyone of good Alignment, but must limit his interactions with Lawful characters and must not join a lawful group or organization unless undercover.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is this a pathfinder game?

By 3.5 RAW there's a -lot- of houseruling going on there, in regards to alignment.

What the "paladin*" did there is both torture and bringing despair. It was a -very- evil thing to do, even if the motive behind it was to protect people from him. Good has -no- problem with killing as long as it's justified. If the "paladin" genuinely believed this man couldn't be redeemed he should've just planted that hammer on the guy's head and been done with it.




*I shudder to even call a character that would be willing to do such a thing a paladin. An avenger or an inquisitor, maybe, but not a paladin.

[Grayson01]

Well to be fair Paladin/Avenger was more to point out what the Avenger is.
Avenger is a type of Paladin that is Chaotic Good, and is all about Vengeance and making the punishment fit the crime. But not using lethal force unless it is absolutely deserved.

So if I am understanding some of this... its better to kill people then to not kill people?
EDIT: I also added in the first post information on the Avenger

In some cases yes it most certainitly is better to kill then not kill them, when not killing them is maiming them and psycologically shattering/scaring them for the reast of their life. And you are no longer a Paladin.

[atomicwaffle]

Do you know what the 'lawful' of 'lawful good' means?

On this note, i allow paladins to be other alignments so long as their alignment matches their deity exactly.

[Sir Chuckles]

Yop, going with the general consensus that you are in dire need of an atonement spell, Hat of Disguise, and possibly a good attorney. Or something to make your mount go faster.

Maybe you can convince a handwave and claim Freedom Paladin, and later take levels in a PrC that would go along with this.

[Cikomyr]

While I cannot comment on your conduct as an Avenger, I definetly say you fell of the Paladin wagon.

You have effectively used psychological and physical torture to try and punish the wicked, without the knowledge of anybody else. You have established yourself as judge, jury and execution, done it in the cover of darkness. Just because you think you have do it to do good in the world does not mean your character hasn't acted like a psychopath.

At times, being a Paladin means not going for the thing satisfactory to YOU. Yes, this man was a horrible wretch of a human being. But did you try to redeem his ways? Did you make him understand the horrors he has committed? Have you used him as an example of corrupt tyrants for the eyes of the world to see?

What you have done is create a new tortured soul on this world. In the name of doing good, you have turned yourself in one of Hell's Minions, who take upon themselves to torture and torment the wicked souls in Hell.

[Cikomyr]

Yop, going with the general consensus that you are in dire need of an atonement spell, Hat of Disguise, and possibly a good attorney. Or something to make your mount go faster.

Maybe you can convince a handwave and claim Freedom Paladin, and later take levels in a PrC that would go along with this.

Atonement spell is not a generic FixIt.

Not everybody is suited for redemption. Maybe the OP poster is meant to be more an Avenger than a Paladin, in the end.

[JungleChicken]

That's a fallen paladin if I ever saw one

[Spore]

As a DM I would present you with the following solutions:

Redemption: Accept your lawful duty and seek atonement
CG Paladin variant: You did something for someone vigilante style. Maybe freedom is more important to you than abiding of law.
Avenger: You did something very zealous and extreme for a principal. You're the perfect candidate for this class. Find a god who supports your life style and get your paladin classes switched.

Basically you get either your Paladin stats back or change it to one of two different classes. I'd make sure that this is embedded in an quest on its own and go on with things.

By the way: Punishment without the chance to redeem yourself is very cruel imho. This action alone with would be CE for my taste. But as so often the case in D&D alignment debates, the intention is the most important thing not the deed itself.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yop, going with the general consensus that you are in dire need of an atonement spell, Hat of Disguise, and possibly a good attorney. Or something to make your mount go faster.

Maybe you can convince a handwave and claim Freedom Paladin, and later take levels in a PrC that would go along with this.

Atonement won't work if the character doesn't actually regret what they did.

[Maginomicon]

The other repliers in this thread seem to misunderstand avengers. An avenger does not follow the standard paladin's code. They follow a different code.


Avengers (Dragon Magazine #310 page 49; Chaotic Good a.k.a. “Path of Liberty”) lose all class abilities if they ever willingly commit an evil act or willingly ally with a lawful government or affiliated agency. While the avenger’s life is based around achieving vengeance and retribution for the oppressed and downtrodden, she must temper this vengeance appropriately. Killing should be the last resort of the avenger when a more appropriate and less destructive form of vengeance will do, and even then, slaying an oppressor should be reserved only for the most evil villains. Avengers must aid and assist anyone who asks for help (within reason) and must not join any organized association, order, or group. She may attend the services of her church but is encouraged to worship in private.

Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) aside, I'd call the OP's actions solidly neutral, showing the villain exactly what his actions had wrought.

P.S. It might be relevant for replies to this post to note that the OP referenced "prima nocta" and look up what that was.

[TuggyNE]

OP, you forgot to mention that you were asking this question "for a friend".


P.S. It might be relevant for replies to this post to note that the OP referenced "prima nocta" and look up what that was.

I assumed that was fairly obvious, but since execution is the Avenger's preferred method of last resort in cases of extreme evil, and since the entire reason for this torture session was because the noble was extremely evil, it seems that something got messed up along the way.

There is, as far as I can tell, no reason for CG to choose this antiheroic or even evil course of punishment when it would be kinder and more effective to execute the villain.

[Perpetr8r]

Ok I guess I was not more clear, I will edit the OP to show this.
I used Paladin/Avenger as a way to show Avenger as the Paladin type, the one from Dragon Mag 310 as listed in the post above this one. He is not a normal paladin combined with that class or else it would seem silly to have a Paladin and a Paladin Variant. Which by the rules shouldn't be allowed als Paladin requires LG and Avenger requires CG.

Also Prima Nocta, if you have seen Braveheart lately remember the scene with the british governor or lord who came to the wedding and took the new bride away? Yeah.. thats what this guy did.

Avengers are strongly against Lawful alignments in fact they Ping Chaotic, and can detect and smite Lawful normally my DM switched it to Evil because Lawful seems like a weird alignment to target for a smite, as that means if you abide by the law I can smite you and be permitted it freely so she switched it Evil.

EDIT: Huh? When did I say this was for a friend?

[Perpetr8r]

See I disagree on the killing is better then virtually any other answer.

If you kill them they cannot see the pain they have caused nor experience it and understand what it means to show empathy to another creature.

This noble is alive, yes mute and no longer looking as he once did his features changed somewhat to mask his identity. He is now forced to live among the people whom he abused, disguised for his own protection from them. He now must live on their kindness, see their struggles to survive in a world where he has abused and tormented them. He is forced to either face what monster he once was, or perish as that monster.

So as quoted in a rather bad movie. "But if we kill him he won't learn nothing."
So killing someone who pings evil is stupid and evil in most regards. This man is alive and has the opportunity to to better himself, to seek redemption after seeing the horrors he has inflicted on others returned onto himself and can now see if from their point of view.

Perhaps he will seek to rebuild himself, see that these people he saw as worthless trash are human beings and deserve the same respect as himself. Killing him just sends his soul to hell, doing this gives his soul one last final chance to find the error of his ways. How is that worse?

[Cikomyr]

The other repliers in this thread seem to misunderstand avengers. An avenger does not follow the standard paladin's code. They follow a different code.


Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) aside, I'd call the OP's actions solidly neutral, showing the villain exactly what his actions had wrought.

P.S. It might be relevant for replies to this post to note that the OP referenced "prima nocta" and look up what that was.

There is nothing "neutral" about the OP's action. He willfully tortured and maimed someone to enforce a moral code. That falls squarely in the "Evil" category.

[TuggyNE]

EDIT: Huh? When did I say this was for a friend?

That was a joke, referring to a common method of trying to disguise the purpose of a request for advice, hence the use of blue per my sig.


See I disagree on the killing is better then virtually any other answer.

If you kill them they cannot see the pain they have caused nor experience it and understand what it means to show empathy to another creature.

This noble is alive, yes mute and no longer looking as he once did his features changed somewhat to mask his identity. He is now forced to live among the people whom he abused, disguised for his own protection from them. He now must live on their kindness, see their struggles to survive in a world where he has abused and tormented them. He is forced to either face what monster he once was, or perish as that monster.

So as quoted in a rather bad movie. "But if we kill him he won't learn nothing."
So killing someone who pings evil is stupid and evil in most regards. This man is alive and has the opportunity to to better himself, to seek redemption after seeing the horrors he has inflicted on others returned onto himself and can now see if from their point of view.

Perhaps he will seek to rebuild himself, see that these people he saw as worthless trash are human beings and deserve the same respect as himself. Killing him just sends his soul to hell, doing this gives his soul one last final chance to find the error of his ways. How is that worse?

It's worse when you use torture and maiming to force someone to "learn their lesson" through extreme and unnecessary suffering.

The idea of "here, see what it's like", if properly handled, can be Good. This … wasn't that proper handling.

[Maginomicon]

There is nothing "neutral" about the OP's action. He willfully tortured and maimed someone to enforce a moral code. That falls squarely in the "Evil" category.

An avenger does not have legal recourse. An avenger has only retribution and vengeance.

]If an avenger cannot kill except as a last resort, what is the next to last resort?

That is what makes his actions neutral, not evil.

[Drachasor]

I think the whole disfigurement with a razor was pretty evil.

I think an even bigger problem is that the Paladin has the insane belief this will somehow force Super Evil Guy to be good.

It seems far more likely that such cruelty is going to encourage future evil behavior. Further, no one will recognize this guy as being Super Evil Guy so they don't even know to be wary of him! And there's no particular reason to think he won't be able to recover his fortune, make a new fortune, get healed (if needed), or otherwise recover from his current position.

He perhaps has motive to manipulate people into helping him. He has very little motive to be a good person. Being homeless with very few resources does not encourage generosity. (Which isn't to say generosity is impossible, but when you are barely scraping by you don't have much to spare for others).

Redeeming someone actually takes a lot of work. Either the Paladin has to put in that work or someone else. There's no shortcut, at least not one like the OP did.

[Cikomyr]

An avenger does not have legal recourse. An avenger has only retribution and vengeance.

]If an avenger cannot kill except as a last resort, what is the next to last resort?

That is what makes his actions neutral, not evil.

Like I said in my previous post; the character could have tried to redeem the evildoer. The Avenger could have helped create a revolt to overthrow the tyrant (find a pretender? support local good religious power?).

I will flat-out refuse to tolerate cold-blooded torture as a nonevil act.

[Maginomicon]

Like I said in my previous post; the character could have tried to redeem the evildoer. The Avenger could have helped create a revolt to overthrow the tyrant (find a pretender? support local good religious power?).What ECL are we talking? The OP stated that time was of the essence. To an avenger, the ends justify the means, and the OP spent a lot of time in vain trying to find some way to show the villain what he's wrought without resorting to torture, but his time ran out.


I will flat-out refuse to tolerate cold-blooded torture as a nonevil act.That's D&D for you. D&D alignment as-is functions in terms of absolutism and assumes that a Lawful Good perspective is the best perspective. That's a significant part of why I tried to rewrite alignment as a whole with the Real Alignments Handbook.

[tyckspoon]

That's D&D for you. D&D alignment as-is functions in terms of absolutism and assumes that a Lawful Good perspective is the best perspective. That's a significant part of why I tried to rewrite alignment as a whole with the Real Alignments Handbook.

I don't think this is about Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral; it seems to me the quotes given about the Avenger's Code are just starting from the wrong end to be a Good-centric character. 'Vengeance and retribution' are not supposed to be the primary concerns of Good. Good should be looking to prevent further harm, to redress harms already inflicted, to reform and rehabilitate the perpetrator of the harm if possible. Having a primary focus on inflicting damages on the thing causing the harm instead of attempting to address the harm caused is something I would place as a Neutral priority, not Good, with a very high chance of cheerfully jumping off the edge into Evil.

[hymer]

D&D alignment as-is [...] assumes that a Lawful Good perspective is the best perspective.

It does not. In my PHB, each non-evil alignment is described as 'best' and why this is so from its own perspective.

[hamishspence]

I don't think this is about Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral; it seems to me the quotes given about the Avenger's Code are just starting from the wrong end to be a Good-centric character. 'Vengeance and retribution' are not supposed to be the primary concerns of Good. Good should be looking to prevent further harm, to redress harms already inflicted, to reform and rehabilitate the perpetrator of the harm if possible.

It should be noted that the Avenger is "Chaotic first, Good second" (it has an Aura of Chaos, Detect Law, Smite Law - whereas Paladin of Freedom - also CG, has Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil)

So, the having a nongood "primary concern" actually does make sense in that respect.

[Maginomicon]

It does not. In my PHB, each non-evil alignment is described as 'best' and why this is so from its own perspective.

That's a RAW vs RAI matter. Why else would "your PHB" only mention one kind of Paladin?

[Cikomyr]

It should be noted that the Avenger is "Chaotic first, Good second" (it has an Aura of Chaos, Detect Law, Smite Law - whereas Paladin of Freedom - also CG, has Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil)

So, the having a nongood "primary concern" actually does make sense in that respect.

If Chaotic first, good second, then just killing the tyrants would suffice. Especially if time is the essence. Just find a way to get the message across, something like "Thus End Wickeness", sending a big message across the entire land that it doesn't matter how powerful you are; your immoral behaviour is going to meet a karmic end.

But torture? No way.


You have to stand for what you believe in. And like I said, creating a new tortured soul on this earth without anyone knowing why you did what you did isn't gonna make a big case. You can be anti-lawful while pursuing popular support, you know.

especially as an Avenger; you are basically the spark of hope of wannabe vigilantes.

[HammeredWharf]

Making evil people uncomfortable is, by itself, not evil. However, in D&D, torture is clearly evil no matter why you do it. It's not like stealing. You can't say "well, yeah, I did disfigure that guy's face with a razor blade, but he like uh... totally deserved it".


An Avenger loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

That's it. The rest is up to personal interpretation, but this is a very clear case. If I were your DM, I'd take your class abilities away for a while and give you an atonement quest.

[Cikomyr]

Look at it this way. Compare the OP's behaviour with what is allegedly the character who is the main inspiration for the concept of "Avenger" as written.

http://moneyteachers.org/images/V.jpg

Would V just capture one of the corrupt government member out of context and torture him?

No. Like I said before, the Avenger should make his action resonate. His vengeful actions have to spread fear in the other tyrant's heart.

V did capture and torture government officials, but it was while the government members were aware of his existence and his objectives to bring them down. V's first action is to make a glorious public statement against the Government. He's the anti-Batman; in the sense that he uses his sense of flair and dramatic against the Government, rather than the criminals.

Just killing and hanging the Tyrant publicly while having a big message shown on the wall regarding the wickedness of his nature would have been fine. But not only did the OP went waaaay over the edge; his actions are not going to make anyone reconsider his actions. In the mind of everybody else in the world, the Tyrant has simply disappeared, for no reason

[Perpetr8r]

Disfigured with a razor? So barbers are evil?
I said he used the razor to shave his head, albiet not very neatly this does not count as torture, this counts as giving someone a bad hair cut. He used coals to redden the skin of the race, cause swelling and yes some discomfort. He also administered healing treatments to keep this from causing to much harm. To temper the discomfort or pain with medical treatment to relieve the pain of such.

By some of your views all Parents are Evil. To cause pain to teach a lesson is a very common parenting technique. Spanking and the such. But your account of 'causing pain to teach a lesson is always evil' then every character who is a parent is Evil no matter what.

I would be more likely to side with you guys if this had been cold blooded murder which oddly enough everyone is saying is a good act.. murder is never good, ever. Killing someone just because you can is not a good act or reasoning.

Lets take Hitler for an example. You travel back in time and find baby hitler barely a day old in his bed. You know the evil things he will do from Raping his Niece to murdering hundreds of thousands of people. Now you kill him in an attempt to perform a GOOD act. But lets examine your actions shall we? You have murdered a innocent child even though yes he will have committed an evil act he has yet to do so. That is EVIL.

Lawful Good must be the easiest possible alignment in your campaign worlds because every person breaks the law, it is just to what degree. If punishing someone for a wrong doing through force is wrong then every parent, government, etc has done so and is evil by that regard meaning a Paladin of Lawful Good should be able to slaughter anyone he damn well pleases they have committed evil acts (The punishing) and are unlawful (No one is ever lawful, from jaywalking up is breaking the law) so a LG Paladin should and would be alright under his Code of Conduct to slaughter whole villages without ever needing to worry for a moment.

you mention your belief well here is mine. Killing someone who is not an immediate threat to yourself or others (A gunmen with a gun pointed at another person for example) is EVIL and WRONG. Killing a Bandit that surrendered to you because its to hard to take them back to town for a trail is EVIL. Killing innocent creatures who Ping Evil but have yet to do an evil act (Orc Babies for example) is EVIL. Yet I am betting there are Lawful Paladins out there who have done those things claiming it was Lawful and a GOOD act.

Yes I do get your point of view about leaving another tortured soul. But if we have taken him to another land he would have been thrown in jail, his head shaved (Bald not scalped same as I did), and beaten by the local immates till his face was disfigured. So nothing I did was beyond what the local prison would have done to him if jailed. As I am Chaotic and do not hold with the laws and establishments of men why should I not punish him myself in the way that mostly he would be punished anyway.

You say that "Oh he pinged evil, just kill him" In the books it states pinging evil is not enough to kill someone and it be a good act. And he was not summoning demons, burning villages, slaughtering hundreds. He was evil for sure but he did not meet my Avengers standards for deserving death.

[Cikomyr]

"Causing swelling and some discomfort" --> you actually claimed to have disfigured him. You need to burn pretty badly for that.

I also find it funny that you completely disregard the fact that you tore out the man's tongue.

You tortured the man in cold blood.

And as far as "No killing unless self-defense", that's open to interpretation. Would an executioner be doing evil?

[Perpetr8r]

I didn't disregard it I was being more clear on something you kept repeating. Yes his tongue was cut out, and treated immediately after to the best of his medical abilities and potions available.

You seem to be under the odd impression that if you kill someone you are doing less harm. But what is more harmful then kill someone?

You seem to think torture is worse then murder where as I disagree. One can recover from torture, learn to cope, and live once again there are literally thousands in this world doing just that same thing. Murder ends any change for growth, good or ill.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You seem to think that killing, under any circumstance other than self-defense, is murder. This is not in line with RAW.

By RAW, murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. Just vengeance and the prevention of further evil by one judged irredeemable is not murder. Not by the rules of the game anyway.

As far as the alignment system is concerned, torture -is- more evil than killing in general. If your DM disagrees, he's free to rule otherwise but then we're into houserules and the forum can't really help you. There's also that small matter of death being explicitly and verifiably -not- the end of an intelligent creature's existence.

[Cikomyr]

I didn't disregard it I was being more clear on something you kept repeating. Yes his tongue was cut out, and treated immediately after to the best of his medical abilities and potions available.

You seem to be under the odd impression that if you kill someone you are doing less harm. But what is more harmful then kill someone?

You seem to think torture is worse then murder where as I disagree. One can recover from torture, learn to cope, and live once again there are literally thousands in this world doing just that same thing. Murder ends any change for growth, good or ill.

You also maimed, which you cannot recover from.

Like it's been said, this is D&D where death is not established as the final step; we know there is an afterlife. In many case and many culture, death is usually considered to be a "merciful" thing to offer the peoples suffering.

There's a reason why Drows have a reputation of wickedness; as they keep their victims alive for constant tortures over many, many years.

Like I said, did you offer redemption? Did you gave the Tyrant a chance to defend his actions, to actually understand what he did wrong? Did you warned him and his peers of the wickedness of his ways? Will the Tyrant be remembered as an example of what happens to corrupt rulers?

It's not only what you do, it's how you do it. It's the context you give. You removed an evildoer from this world without upsetting the immoral authority he was resting on, you added a suffering soul on this world. A soul who may very well become a bully or a murderer in his new social environment.