"Is this Evil? Or Just Taking Out The Trash?"

[Leliel]

I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?

[shadow_archmagi]

That is evil. A quick decapitation would be debatable, but two DAYS of murderous pain?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Eh, it depends on the exact nature of the threat. I'd probably change him to neutral no matter what, but if the guy is promising that he will get off due to powerful allies and then hunt down and murder innocents, it would be ambiguous whether killing him is a bad thing. Torturing him, which is what happened here, is evil, but probably not enough to force a fall.

[Dode]

What about casting Holy Rain on evil goblin babies?


yes I've seen a RSoP actually do this.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

What about casting Holy Rain on evil goblin babies?


yes I've seen a RSoP actually do this.

"I move all the babies into a circle 10' in radius. I then get a longspear and remove the point. I take the -4 for nonlethal damage, and use Smite Evil and Whirlwind attack. The only ones that died deserve it."
*smack*
"What was that for?!"
"YOU deserved it."
Yes, that doesn't work by RAW, I'm really tired, gimme a break.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's LN at the very least. Presumably his faith allows for the execution of heretics by designated members of the faithful, and Paladins count as potential executioners. Draining him to death may be cruel, but it may also be the correct penalty for blasphemers. A lot depends on whether the Paladin was acting within his Code or not.

It's only LE if he did it out of personal spite - he was deliberately and excessively cruel to feed his own personal vendetta. Or if he broke the spirit of the church's regulations. NE if he broke the letter of the regulations too.

Of course, one act does not an alignment change make, but a 3e Paladin would likely have fallen for that... though not as bad a fall as, say, killing your liege lord

[Fri]

You should ask why he didn't just decapitate the heretic.

[RukiTanuki]

To me, that goes against everything being a paladin is supposed to be about. You're supposed to be the better person. A captured enemy throwing taunts at you should have no effect, or at the very least, not cause you to act out of anger.

The heretic's words did no harm, not to anything but the paladin's pride. If there was harm in his words, a gag would have sufficed. As it stands, the paladin hobbled a prisoner and dragged the man to his death... because the paladin wasn't thick-skinned enough.

This is Anakin and the sandpeople, padawan, take heed.

[Enlong]

You should ask why he didn't just decapitate the heretic.

"I was only charged with bringing him to trial, not with execution. Any injuries he sustained on the way there were not mine to treat."

But yeah. Definately cruel and evil, in my opinion. Punishment... I'm not sure, it deptends of whether or not the church is as radical as this Paladin.

[RebelRogue]

This is no doubt an Evil action. Certainly Evil enough that the a paladin of a LG deity should at least have a serious talk with his church superiors in case they'd find out.

[chiasaur11]

Jeeze.

Couldn't you just kick him into a nearby engine?

It'd be quicker.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

You can't tell me you allowed a LG Paly in your game act like this and keep his alignment.
There's a difference between a vengeful paladin and a paladin who makes everything into a crusade/genocide.

[Dode]

"I move all the babies into a circle 10' in radius. I then get a longspear and remove the point. I take the -4 for nonlethal damage, and use Smite Evil and Whirlwind attack. The only ones that died deserve it."
*smack*
"What was that for?!"
"YOU deserved it."
Yes, that doesn't work by RAW, I'm really tired, gimme a break.

Such is the folly of a world with an objective, hereditary morality.

[snoopy13a]

Alignment shift: yes

Reprimand from superiors: possibly but only if they know about it first

[BRC]

I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?

I don't know about 4e alignments, but in 3.x I would consider that a falling action, or at least somthing that would require a deed to redeem himself in the eyes of his superiors. A "Fall Lite" as it were.
It's been established that killing an evil person is a good act, the question was, is it a lawful act. In this case, he had been given orders to bring the heretic in for trial. He killed him, violating those orders. Therefore, this was a chaotic act. Now, had he been given orders to stop the heretic, or had the heretic been actively doing somthing that his paladin code, or other orders, told him to stop, it would have been a lawful act.

For example, had the heretic been summoning a demon in the middle of the town square, his paladin oaths would have said to protect the townsfolk at all costs. Therefore, he could have killed him while being lawful.

Personally, I don't think a blackguard is quite right for this situation. If I was going to assign him the 4e equivilent of a 3e PRC it would be the Grey Guard, a paladin who can break his paladin oaths to a limited extent. A paladin who is given permission to combat great evils by performing small ones.

Edit: Yeah, just re-read the OP. That was definetally an evil act. If he had just chopped off his head, it would be different, but hacking off his legs and letting him drag to death is Evil with a capital E.

[Riffington]

Draining him to death may be cruel, but it may also be the correct penalty for blasphemers. A lot depends on whether the Paladin was acting within his Code or not.

It's only LE if he did it out of personal spite - he was deliberately and excessively cruel to feed his own personal vendetta.

Um, regardless of the "correct" penalty for blasphemy, torturing a man to death is evil.
If he did it out of personal spite, it's chaotic evil.
If it's the law as written, it's lawful evil.

[Occasional Sage]

I'd certainly call it an evil act, but a single act doesn't change your alignment; whether this shifts his alignment would depend on the paladin's pattern of actions.

Really, a captive's threats aren't grounds for execution by torture, which makes this gratuitous and personal. The group was charged with capturing and returning the heretic to the church leadership. That makes this a violation of both Good and Lawful behavior.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Um, regardless of the "correct" penalty for blasphemy, torturing a man to death is evil.
If he did it out of personal spite, it's chaotic evil.
If it's the law as written, it's lawful evil.

But that doesn't mean the character is strictly Evil. A LN code may have draconian punishments for various crimes (drawing and quartering, cutting off limbs, etc.) and if the Paladin carried out the letter and spirit of the law, then it is a LN act.

However, you are right that even a LG character would not inflict the cruelest penalties, even when authorized by the Law, unless all other options have been exhausted. A LG Paladin would have taken the Heretic to his superiors, dispassionately listed his crimes, and waited for judgment. If his Commander ordered a LG Paladin to torture the Heretic to death, as the Code dictates, then the Paladin may ask once again for clemency for the Heretic, but if the Commander is firm, the Paladin will do what he must, by the Code.

Now, if the Paladin was authorized to torture the Heretic to death at any time, but it was implied that such decisions should really be made by the Commander, then it was a LE act, since the Paladin put his own desires above the spirit of the law. If the Code didn't even permit the Paladin to torture Heretics without explicit authorization, then it was a NE act. If the Code forbade the Paladin from torturing a captive to death, and the Paladin did so out of pure spite, that was a CE act.

[Moff Chumley]

I suppose it depends on the flavor of your game. If this is heroic fantasy, change the Paly's alignment to Unaligned or evil, and have him banned from the church, at the least. If this is more gritty, I suppose just a slap on the wrists from the church might be appropriate. But then, it might not. It's really your call, and unless you give us more details, it's hard to say.

[EvilElitest]

I found another thread, this one by RavingDork, about one of his 4E pallies:

"We have a paladin of Bahamut in our group who is absolutely ardent about battling evil without mercy. Now, I know paladins can no longer lose their powers in 4th Edition, but if they break their vows/code/whatever, their church might seek to punish them for their transgressions. Their alignment might change to match their continuing deeds as well. Hopefully, you see where this is going by now.

After a successful adventure involving the tracking down and capture (via a vicious battle followed by an Intimidate check) of a known killer and heretic, the party is traveling back to the church on their horses with the prisoner in tow (being pulled along by the paladin's horse with hands bound). The heretic called out to his captor, tha paladin, and insulted his faith and threatened death and dismemberment to his loved ones (something about having powerful friends).

Suddenly, the paladin stopped his horse, dismounted, drew his sword as he made his way to the captive (who began to scream for mercy) and then brutally hacked at the tendons in the captive's legs. The paladin then remounted and began DRAGGING the now crippled heretic behind his horse. He did not survive the two day journey to the church for trial.

The other characters were too feaked out by the deed and too intimidated by the paladin to do anything about it.

Having killed a heretic of the church, the paladin likely won't suffer much more than a slap on the wrist from his superiors (it is not for you to decide who is to be punished before trial!), but I'm wondering if I should change his alignment to evil. The paladin has always been brutal and merciless in his fight against evil, but this seems to me like a new height of depravity for him.

Looking for opinions on the matter. What would you, as a DM do, if anything?"

I personally suggested he homebrew a Blackguard PP for him, but what do you think?

He is hypocritical sadist, but this is 4E, he is automatically a god guy because he is a protagonist and thus the game doesn't focus on actually punishing him from a rule perspective. Through his gods might be pissed
from
EE

[Beleriphon]

Now, if the Paladin was authorized to torture the Heretic to death at any time, but it was implied that such decisions should really be made by the Commander, then it was a LE act, since the Paladin put his own desires above the spirit of the law. If the Code didn't even permit the Paladin to torture Heretics without explicit authorization, then it was a NE act. If the Code forbade the Paladin from torturing a captive to death, and the Paladin did so out of pure spite, that was a CE act.

Using 4E alignment the paladin is at best Unaligned to start with and likel well on his way to Evil. I'd never push the character into Chaotic Evil without some dramatic shifts in personality, likely torturing the guy just because he's a prisoner just because he has the means an opportunity.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Using 4E alignment the paladin is at best Unaligned to start with and likel well on his way to Evil. I'd never push the character into Chaotic Evil without some dramatic shifts in personality, likely torturing the guy just because he's a prisoner just because he can paladin.

Hmm? Oh yes, well, 4e Paladins can't "fall" because they don't have to follow a Code.

I wouldn't change his alignment unless he routinely uses excessive brutality (which it sounds like he does), in which case he would be Unaligned or Evil, depending on whether he is cruel to serve his private desires, or merely brutally efficient. If he shifts alignment from his god's, then he may have to discuss that matter with church officials or angels... but under RAW he does not lose his powers.

It certainly makes Rogue Paladins more dangerous anyhow.

[Yahzi]

He's evil.

[Neon Knight]

Hm, interesting question. Its pretty easy to say "yeah, evil," but you have to consider that a lot of supposedly "cleaner" methods of capital punishment are quite horrendous and nasty.

If the primary objection is that the response was too severe, then a label of evil is pretty much unavoidable. If the methodology is the primary objection, then I think it kind of makes the whole "punishment" aspect of many criminal justice systems evil as well.

I noted some people seem to object mostly strongly to the "torture," to the inflicting of unwarranted suffering, rather than the execution itself. That's where the above line of thought comes from.

[Beleriphon]

He's evil.

I'd again posit that under 4E system of alignment, not 3E, he's probably going to be Unaligned and well on his way to Evil. One act doesn't change anything, nor does a general attitude. There is no way I'd ever say the character is Good or Lawful Good, but without more info I can't definitively state whether the character is Evil.

[EvilElitest]

Hm, interesting question. Its pretty easy to say "yeah, evil," but you have to consider that a lot of supposedly "cleaner" methods of capital punishment are quite horrendous and nasty.

If the primary objection is that the response was too severe, then a label of evil is pretty much unavoidable. If the methodology is the primary objection, then I think it kind of makes the whole "punishment" aspect of many criminal justice systems evil as well.

I noted some people seem to object mostly strongly to the "torture," to the inflicting of unwarranted suffering, rather than the execution itself. That's where the above line of thought comes from.

Execution is lawful death penalty (from an good evil perspective) while torture is cruel and inhuman. By 3E standard, evil. As the 4E alignment system basically boils down to "Good=What ever the player wants it to be at the time" he is in the clear
from
EE

[Helgraf]

He is hypocritical sadist, but this is 4E, he is automatically a god guy because he is a protagonist and thus the game doesn't focus on actually punishing him from a rule perspective. Through his gods might be pissed
from
EE

Umm, no, 4th edition doesn't give the characters a whitewash, no matter how video-gamey you happen to think it is. The DM might, but that's a DM by DM thing, not anything to do with the edition.

Fail.

[EvilElitest]

Umm, no, 4th edition doesn't give the characters a whitewash, no matter how video-gamey you happen to think it is. The DM might, but that's a DM by DM thing, not anything to do with the edition.

Fail.

nice try, but 4E alignment system is basically just the cardboard cut out of the 3E one (also i didn't even mention video game, so your point doesn't make much sense). I actually mind 4E that much it it cut out alignment entirely. I would be upset, but i could understand it. However, 4E is even more vague and ill defined then 3E core (which takes some work really) an basically boils down to

Good- The good guys, who are the representatives of everything wonderful in the world. As PCs are greatly encouraged to play good characters, so it boils down to "good=The PCs"

Evil- Horrible sociopathic monsters with no empathy for anything, so killing them is perfectly ok. Evil=Enemies

Unaligned- Convient excuse for anything else=anything else in the game that is remotely grey"

Basically, if the Pcs says he is doing good, he is doing good. If you pressure him, he is unaligned, despite being both a hypocrite, a torturer and a murderer all in one

But 4E alignment is a token, as it hold no consequence any more in game it essentially doesn't matter anymore

also, rule of thumb, saying "fail" doesn't actually prove anything shockingly enough. Its just kinda silly, because its doesn't even make sense in context.
from
EE

[Neon Knight]

Execution is lawful death penalty (from an good evil perspective) while torture is cruel and inhuman. By 3E standard, evil. As the 4E alignment system basically boils down to "Good=What ever the player wants it to be at the time" he is in the clear
from
EE

So what is execution by say... the electric chair? Or hanging? Those procedures, especially when they fail to be immediately lethal, can be excruciating, rivaling and going beyond the worst tortures. Some ancient practices probably qualify as the worst of tortures, unless they kill their victims in the process.

We could also question long term incarceration and exile. Both of these can cause great suffering, perhaps even out of proportion to the original crime.

Allow me to present a scenario: Let's say a pit has been prepared for the community's convicted population, inescapable without tools. However, it is very dark in the pit. A grue might eat the prisoners when they are cast into it.

Let's suppose that by some odd circumstances a new prisoner cannot be fashioned, or at least incarceration cannot be delayed until a new one is prepared. A prisoner has to be cast into the pit. Surely the execution of this sentence brings about a horrific end, being devoured by a savage monster, to the prisoner. Can one not say that this fate is of similar horror as that enacted on the heretic in the OP's tale?

[Beleriphon]

nice try, but 4E alignment system is basically just the cardboard cut out of the 3E one (also i didn't even mention video game, so your point doesn't make much sense). I actually mind 4E that much it it cut out alignment entirely. I would be upset, but i could understand it. However, 4E is even more vague and ill defined then 3E core (which takes some work really) an basically boils down to

Good- The good guys, who are the representatives of everything wonderful in the world. As PCs are greatly encouraged to play good characters, so it boils down to "good=The PCs"

Which the game encourages the players to play. It doesn't give them a pass just for being the PCs of the game. Evil is still defined in game, and if a character behaves in an evil way, thats what they are.

Evil- Horrible sociopathic monsters with no empathy for anything, so killing them is perfectly ok. Evil=Enemies

Evil is evil in game, the basic assumption is that the players are fighting evil, so yes a good number of the monsters are evil.

Unaligned- Convient excuse for anything else=anything else in the game that is remotely grey"

Which much more useful than some variety of neutral. Because it effectively covers most of humanity, whom aren't actively being Good or Evil. Thats the point of Unaligned, somebody that hasn't take a strong stance one way or another.

Good an Evil cover those that actively behave that way as a function of their daily behaviours.

Basically, if the Pcs says he is doing good, he is doing good. If you pressure him, he is unaligned, despite being both a hypocrite, a torturer and a murderer all in one

It doesn't say that anywhere in the alignment descriptions, you're just making things up to suit your views. The PHB actively encourages the players to be good aligned, or unaligned, and play to that type of character. It doesn't say that beacuse the players states an action is good it is good by default.