|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question on how everyone would judge this act, morally speaking. I have tried to give a very bare bones assessment, but if you feel you need clarification in order to decide, please do ask.
A magic-linked disease is striking country, and a group of PCs send a messenger to neighboring town to recruit a magical expert. The messenger is killed by bandits. The PC's set out themselves to collect the expert and are set upon by an armed group two hours from their destination. It was an ambush, so no words are passed between the PC's and NPC's. A skirmish unfolds, with the PC's victorious. The count at the end is one dead armed man, 5 injured/unconscious, 1 merely unconscious, and 1 escaped magic user. The PC Cavalier (noble, human, CG, order of the sword) states he is going to kill the unconscious men. The PC Alchemist (noble, human, LG, chirurgeon) says not to kill them, but instead wants to stabilize them and take them to the city guard en route so they can be put on trial. The Cavalier claims they don't have enough time. The Alchemist responds that they do and volunteers to stay behind while the Cavalier goes ahead. (other members of the party can split up as they like). The Cavalier responds that it is unacceptable, and heads towards the first unconscious man again. The Alchemist stands in his way. The Cavalier refuses further discussion, and instead demands a formal duel. The Alchemist reluctantly agrees and sets the terms as 'to submission'. The Cavalier beats the Alchemist into unconsciousness. He then kills the NPCs, gathers firewood, builds a pyre, and burns the bodies. The PC's continue to their goal. The Alchemist remains unconscious until they arrive.
The player of the Cavalier insists that these actions were justified and within the bounds of his alignment, his order, and the code of chivalry. Since I am still relatively new to GM'ing, I thought I'd get a reading from the community. Are his actions justified by his alignment, order, and chivalry? And what circumstances (since I might accidentally be leaving out something crucial) would change your mind?
Order of the sword demands Mercy to those who have wronged him, so that might be an issue. Is there a particular reason he gave that he wanted to kill the men and burn their bodies? He is absurdly honorable about the whole demanding duels thing isn't he?
Anyways, one option is to just not make it a big deal unless someone in the party makes it a big deal. Were other players bothered by his reaction?(Killing people and burning their bodies sometimes does that.)
CG and chivalrous order seems a bit of odd combo. Who does he serve?
Edict: The cavalier must show courage in the face of danger, mercy to those who have wronged him, and charity to the poor and the meek. He must be just and honorable at all times and in all things. He must defend his honor and, above all else, the honor of those he serves.
The part I bolded seems quite against being merciful, in any way shape or form. Did he honor those he served by killing the unconscious men? Was it part of his order? So far, I would say that what he did really wasn't within his edicts.
Remember that, if you decide he was against his edicts...well, edicts are like the rules of the paladin. Howso? See the quote of the order section that follows and remember that you, in the end, are final say.
At 1st level, a cavalier must pledge himself to a specific order. The order grants the cavalier a number of bonuses, class skills, and special abilities. In addition, each order includes a number of edicts that the cavalier must follow. If he violates any of these edicts, he loses the benefits from his order’s challenge ability for 24 hours. The violation of an edict is subject to GM interpretation. A cavalier cannot change his order without undertaking a lengthy process to dedicate himself to a new cause. When this choice is made, he immediately loses all of the benefits from his old order. He must then follow the edicts of his new order for one entire level without gaining any benefits from that order. Once accomplished, he gains all of the bonuses from his new order. Note that the names of these orders might vary depending upon the campaign setting or GM’s preference.
So my vote is that he did not act merciful in the least, and that, per RAW & RAI, he should lose the benefits of his challenge ability for 24 hours.
Order of the Sword
Cavaliers who join the order of the sword dedicate their lives to the code of chivalry, living a life of honor, valor, and fairness. Cavaliers of this order tend to swear service to a lord or a lady. Of all the orders, the order of the sword is perhaps the broadest in terms of its focus and ideals.
Edicts: The cavalier must show courage in the face of danger, mercy to those who have wronged him, and charity to the poor and the meek. He must be just and honorable at all times and in all things. He must defend his honor and, above all else, the honor of those he serves
Does not like he showed mercy to those who wronged him. So I would do this
Order (Ex): At 1st level, a cavalier must pledge himself to a specific order. The order grants the cavalier a number of bonuses, class skills, and special abilities. In addition, each order includes a number of edicts that the cavalier must follow. If he violates any of these edicts, he loses the benefits from his order's challenge ability for 24 hours. The violation of an edict is subject to GM interpretation.
It is within the CG guidelines though.
It is within the CG guidelines though.
At least that part he was within the guidelines there.
|
Personally I would have said he didn't uphold the code of his Order. How is killing unconscious captives honorable?
The cavalier must show courage in the face of danger, mercy to those who have wronged him, and charity to the poor and the meek. He must be just and honorable at all times and in all things. He must defend his honor and, above all else, the honor of those he serves.
Bolded mine.
...and I also just saw I was ninja'd three times and will stop here and agree with everyone else. Lost his challenge for 24 hrs.
I agree with those above that he 1) did not show mercy, and 2) did not act honorably, and should therefore lose his challenge ability.
In addition, I believe he committed an evil act by killing intelligent free-willed beings who posed no threat to anyone (by virtue of being incapacitated) and should immediately lose his "good" alignment, becoming chaotic neutral.
The alignment-systems sucks. But, having said that;
I'd say both players acted within the alignments. You can argue about the 'Good' in killing surrendered enemies, but these are brigands who ambush people within warning, and who have previously killed a messenger carrying a vital message. My guess is that the brigands in question were evil. Furthermore, the laws of the land proparbly would have them executed.
Lawfull means upholding the laws, so the LG character was perfectly reasonable in demanding them brought to trial. Chaotic means not caring about the laws, but the Good-part of CG also means that he does care about society and the people around him. So in order to remove a threath, it makes sense to kill the prisoners.
Would it be different it it was orcs instead of humans? Or CE goblins making the roads dangerous? By their actions, the brigands have placed themself in the same category as intelligent monsters, and should expect to dealt with as such.
Even if you feel he violated his alignment, warning is in order before you force-change it.
From what the original poster stated the cavalier was a noble, and more than likely a knight. If he is actually a knight that gives him the right of low justice. Since most bandits were not members of the nobility it is his responsibility to pass judgment on them. The idea of separate branches of the government is a modern idea. Unless the alchemist outranked the caviler then what the caviler did was legal. From a medieval standpoint the highest ranking noble is the one who has the authority to decide the fate of common criminals.
The fact that the alchemist is lawful means that if the cavalier outranked him he should have abided by the cavaliers judgment. If the alchemist was the ranking noble then it he was the one with the responsibility to pass judgment. The cavalier is not lawful so can decide to take matters into his own hands and that looks like what happened. So far neither player is acting out of first part of their alignment.
Killing bandits is not in itself an evil act. Was killing the bandit in combat evil? If the bandits had been executed by the town executioner after a trial would that be evil? If you answer no to both questions then the cavilers killing the bandits cannot be considered an evil act. If you answered yes to the first question then it is impossible to play a good character in the game.
Also consider what is going to happen to the bandits if they are brought to trial. If the penalty for their crimes is a death sentence what is the point? How will they be executed? If the penalty for banditry is death by hanging then a clean execution by the sword may be merciful.
I will agree that he should have at least waited till they were awake before killing them. Securing them so they cannot escape before they wake up would be fine. He should also have done more than just chop off their heads. Maybe a formal declaration of their crimes and passing judgment in the name of the king.
If the cavalier issued a formal challenge to a duel the choice of weapons goes to the alchemist. What he should have done is chosen mudballs for the weapon and go for first hit. The cavalier does not have throw anything but the alchemist does. The Alchemist also probably has a higher DEX so will have the advantage.
Umm, waiting until the bandits wake up seems less merciful than just ganking them right there and then, unless the Cavalier had some painless sleep poison on the ready.
From what the original poster stated the cavalier was a noble, and more than likely a knight. If he is actually a knight that gives him the right of low justice. Since most bandits were not members of the nobility it is his responsibility to pass judgment on them. The idea of separate branches of the government is a modern idea. Unless the alchemist outranked the caviler then what the caviler did was legal. From a medieval standpoint the highest ranking noble is the one who has the authority to decide the fate of common criminals. . .
That's a boatload of assumptions about the society in which the game is taking place. Also, all that stuff about rank and social order addresses lawfulness, not goodness.
There's a lot of room for interpretation in the simplistic alignment system. (Does a lawful character follow a personal code, the official law of the land, or the de facto law of the land? Is it a good act to kill a demon who isn't hurting anyone? What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?) But, in nearly every moral system, killing an unconscious person is evil.
What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?)
If he's a bandit who ambushed the players, would it be safe to assume he tried to stab them and therefore was hurting someone? Stabbing people usually hurts them.
From what the original poster stated the cavalier was a noble, and more than likely a knight. If he is actually a knight that gives him the right of low justice. Since most bandits were not members of the nobility it is his responsibility to pass judgment on them. The idea of separate branches of the government is a modern idea. Unless the alchemist outranked the caviler then what the caviler did was legal. From a medieval standpoint the highest ranking noble is the one who has the authority to decide the fate of common criminals. . .That's a boatload of assumptions about the society in which the game is taking place. Also, all that stuff about rank and social order addresses lawfulness, not goodness.
There's a lot of room for interpretation in the simplistic alignment system. (Does a lawful character follow a personal code, the official law of the land, or the de facto law of the land? Is it a good act to kill a demon who isn't hurting anyone? What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?) But, in nearly every moral system, killing an unconscious person is evil.
The original poster stated that both characters were noble. He also stated that the cavalier was of the order of the sword which focus on the code of chivalry. Given those facts I assume the society is similar to medieval Europe. I may be wrong but that is the information I have to work with.
Also if you had read my entire post that section is focusing on the law vs. chaos portion of the alignment. My argument on the good vs. evil comes after that.
As to it being more evil to kill someone who is unconscious than killing someone who is awake, that is false. It is often considered more merciful to kill someone who is not awake. The first drug in modern executions render the person unconscious so the person does not feel any pain or suffer. Killing a someone for no reason is what makes it evil, not the state of consciousness.
What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?)If he's a bandit who ambushed the players, would it be safe to assume he tried to stab them and therefore was hurting someone? Stabbing people usually hurts them.
I intended the word "hurting" as present tense. Killing someone who is attempting to harm you is self defense, while killing someone who harmed you in the past is revenge. That's the distinction I was attempting to make.
What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?)If he's a bandit who ambushed the players, would it be safe to assume he tried to stab them and therefore was hurting someone? Stabbing people usually hurts them.I intended the word "hurting" as present tense. Killing someone who is attempting to harm you is self defense, while killing someone who harmed you in the past is revenge. That's the distinction I was attempting to make.
No, it's just planning ahead and being genre savvy. "Do we really need this guy to follow us around trying to get revenge? Screw that." Blam.
The original poster stated that both characters were noble. He also stated that the cavalier was of the order of the sword which focus on the code of chivalry. Given those facts I assume the society is similar to medieval Europe. I may be wrong but that is the information I have to work with.
Yes, we both know you were using a set of assumptions. (A society like medieval Europe, nobles of sufficient authority to dispense low justice, acting in an area where their authority holds, etc.) I was just pointing out that fact.
Also if you had read my entire post that section is focusing on the law vs. chaos portion of the alignment. My argument on the good vs. evil comes after that.
I did, in fact, read your entire post, and the entire thread before it, but I only had something to say about the section I addressed. First, that it's based on cultural details that we don't have access to. Second, that arguments based on properly serving cultural order are largely irrelevant to a chaotic character.
Your arguments about good/evil differ from mine, but are totally relevant. Your arguments about medieval law, while an interesting historical tangent, are not relevant in this case. I should have done a better job separating my response on that point from my statement about the alignment system.
If the cavalier issued a formal challenge to a duel the choice of weapons goes to the alchemist. What he should have done is chosen mudballs for the weapon and go for first hit. The cavalier does not have throw anything but the alchemist does. The Alchemist also probably has a higher DEX so will have the advantage.
I really like that suggestion! The part of the OP's story that bothered me wasn't that a character may have acted outside of his declared alignment. Frankly, I couldn't care less what a character's morals are, so long as the way he behaves is moderately consistent and he writes something bearing a resemblance to that behavior on his character sheet. I detest in-party fighting, however, and would love to have seen it subverted into a mud fight!
The question though: is it merciful to kill bandits who have wronged you? Or to let them live and be brought to justice? That part doesn't seem to fit with the edicts. Alignment for a cavalier is all well and good but the edicts are the part that can really screw over a cavalier.
Maybe it's merciful compared to the justice they'll face, depending on the part of the world they're in. There is such a thing as mercy killing.
|
I hardly think it's dishonorable to kill enemies after combat much less evil and not everyone ever signed up to play a fluffy bunnies campaign, doesn't make him wrong just a pragmatist.
Killing unconscious enemies when there is no immediate danger and without judgement is NOT honorable. And it is not showing mercy to the enemy either.
This guy signed for it when he chose Order of the sword.
Killing unconscious enemies when there is no immediate danger and without judgement is NOT honorable. And it is not showing mercy to the enemy either.
Depends on what you consider honor.
Anyways, might be best to talk about what people are comfortable with and how to deal with his order's edicts. It might be easier if you changed the order's edicts more to something his character would do, if that's what it takes for everyone to get along to have fun. What to do with hostages is always a fun question, but I've always preferred to throw the moral dilemma part to the wind for the sake of moving the game along.
|
|
Thanks everyone. I saw that some are acting for more information. I think the best way to answer some of these is to give you the Cavalier player's justifications with some minor information as necessary.
1. Efficiency: This was the only argument given in game/character. The cavalier had to kill the men because the team was in a rush, and stabilizing the men and transporting them would take too much time. Factually, they were in a hurry, but not to the extent that an few hours one way or the other would be remarkable. The characters knew this. Furthermore, the duel, immolation, and transport of the unconscious Alchemist took about at least as much time (if not significantly more) as the stabilization and transport plan.
The rest of these arguments were given after the game, so many of them reflect incomplete information or faulty assumptions. However, since these are arguments he is putting forward as to why the order should not censure him, I am including them.
2. Mercy: Since the NPC's were injured, it was more merciful to kill them to let them linger.
3. Safety: He claimed that stabilizing and restraining the NPC's would have taken the Alchemist at least a full day, putting himself and his original patient at risk. This was factually incorrect given the equipment the alchemist carried (manacles, healing potions/extracts, sedatives, etc.)
4. Public Safety: He argued that putting the NPC's in jail would have caused the escaped magic user to invade the town killing much of the populace.
5. Justice: As a knight, he argues it is his duty to hand out sentence in the absence of the city guard or a magistrate. He judged them guilty; he had to kill them immediately. The Alchemist had time broach the possibility of mind control (a town had been taken over by such means, in a previous adventure); the Cavalier stated that there wasn't time to investigate. The challenge occurred almost immediately after. This is more complicated by the fact the Alchemist is of equal rank, of the same family (cousin), under the same Queen's command, and has actually served as a Magistrate (I think the Cavalier player, missed that aspect).
Merciful to kill them rather than transport them after the churgeon stabilized them? Doesn't sound. Convenience shouldn't outweigh a cavalier's edict, especially if someone who has held a judge position suggests they be brought to trial. That flies a lot in the face of honor, since the alchemist spoke from a place of knowledge and brought up several justifiable points that should have given the cavalier pause.
From the sounds of his order...well, might want to clarify with him what you see as the parts that got close to breaking. Chaotic good and this order's edicts can definitely work but edicts are like a paladin's code: they don't play. An edict doesn't have as many grey areas.
1. Efficiency: This was the only argument given in game/character. The cavalier had to kill the men because the team was in a rush, and stabilizing the men and transporting them would take too much time. Factually, they were in a hurry, but not to the extent that a few hours one way or the other would be remarkable. The characters knew this. Furthermore, the duel, immolation, and transport of the unconscious Alchemist took about at least as much time (if not significantly more) as the stabilization and transport plan.
”It’s just easier,” isn’t a very good moral argument for killing someone!
2. Mercy: Since the NPC's were injured, it was more merciful to kill them to let them linger.
This one is total bull. They’re not terminal cancer patients, they’re bandits with injuries. They’ll be perfectly fine in a week.
3. Safety: He claimed that stabilizing and restraining the NPC's would have taken the Alchemist at least a full day, putting himself and his original patient at risk. This was factually incorrect given the equipment the alchemist carried (manacles, healing potions/extracts, sedatives, etc.)
I don’t know how anyone could possibly read the rules of Pathfinder such that it would take more than a few minutes to stabilize and restrain a small group of unconscious humans, even with no more resources than a moderate heal skill and a length of rope. A Chirurgeon, in particular, should have no problem at all!
4. Public Safety: He argued that putting the NPC's in jail would have caused the escaped magic user to invade the town killing much of the populace.
That’s really a stretch. Not only is he assuming the guard unable to protect its jail from a single wizard, but that the wizard a) will know what happened to the other bandits, b) wants his coworkers back badly enough to jailbreak them, and c) will use a jailbreak plan that involves killing a bunch of civilians.
5. Justice: As a knight, he argues it is his duty to hand out sentence in the absence of the city guard or a magistrate. He judged them guilty; he had to kill them immediately. The Alchemist had time broach the possibility of mind control (a town had been taken over by such means, in a previous adventure); the Cavalier stated that there wasn't time to investigate. The challenge occurred almost immediately after. This is more complicated by the fact the Alchemist is of equal rank, of the same family (cousin), under the same Queen's command, and has actually served as a Magistrate (I think the Cavalier player, missed that aspect).
There’s no time to check for magic, better kill them all and burn the bodies? You, as the GM, are calling them bandits, but I doubt the men who attacked them had that as a battlecry, “For profit! Die, so that we may become wealthy!” Without even resorting to magic, the men could have attacked because someone (maybe the wizard, maybe a mastermind villain) told them the party was coming to attack their homes, or perhaps they’re a group of professional bounty hunters or mercenaries who were hired to bring in “criminals”, or perhaps their families are being held hostage, or any number of various reasons they could have been attacking, and anyone with a sense of justice must surely at least ask before executing them all!
From what the original poster stated the cavalier was a noble, and more than likely a knight. If he is actually a knight that gives him the right of low justice. Since most bandits were not members of the nobility it is his responsibility to pass judgment on them. The idea of separate branches of the government is a modern idea. Unless the alchemist outranked the caviler then what the caviler did was legal. From a medieval standpoint the highest ranking noble is the one who has the authority to decide the fate of common criminals. . .That's a boatload of assumptions about the society in which the game is taking place. Also, all that stuff about rank and social order addresses lawfulness, not goodness.
There's a lot of room for interpretation in the simplistic alignment system. (Does a lawful character follow a personal code, the official law of the land, or the de facto law of the land? Is it a good act to kill a demon who isn't hurting anyone? What about killing an evil human who isn't hurting anyone?) But, in nearly every moral system, killing an unconscious person is evil.
Yes, he made an assumption, but it was a reasonable one (ill explain that more in a moment). However, hasn't EVERY poster made their own assumptions about this situation, namely assuming a modern moral code. What is or is not moral changes over time and with society. In the Late Republic of Rome (up to the time of the Caesars), it was entirety moral to torture slaves, and sources say a slave could not be a witness in a trial unless the confession/statement was extracted with torture. What is or is not moral changes.
Now, as to why I feel Mysterious Strangers assumption was the most relevant... Because we were talking about chivalry. Chivalry was INVENTED in medieval Europe. The name itself is derived from the French word for knight, chevalier. Chevalier : cavalier. However, its important not to confuse chivalry with honor. They are similar, but distinct concepts. The original code of chivalry did not apply to commoners. Even after barons and counts and other nobles took to acting like knights and started following chivalry, commoners still fell outside the bounds of chivalry, and it was up to the individual knight to determine how to treat them.
So, to answer the OP's question:
Alignment: the cavalier PROBABLY acted within his alignment, depending on the local laws (ie, if they faced execution anyway, then he just greased the wheels of justice)
Chivalry: it depends on the definition, historical or modern pulp fantasy.
Edict: ah, now here, he may have messed up. He needs to show mercy. The key is, what were the alternatives? If the faced a jail sentence or a fine, then no, it wasn't mercy. If he faced being drawn and quartered, then yes, it was mercy. But was it showing ENOUGH mercy. I'd say probably not, but its up to you to decide.
Yes, he made an assumption, but it was a reasonable one (ill explain that more in a moment). However, hasn't EVERY poster made their own assumptions about this situation, namely assuming a modern moral code. What is or is not moral changes over time and with society. In the Late Republic of Rome (up to the time of the Caesars), it was entirety moral to torture slaves, and sources say a slave could not be a witness in a trial unless the confession/statement was extracted with torture. What is or is not moral changes.I'm just going with the morality presented in the rules. That's what the game uses.
I use modern ethics as well, because its easy and familiar, and there is no reason to complicate the game with a history lecture, but I disagree that "the game" does, because every campaign is different. Is there a page reference for where it is presented in the rules?
...the alignment section?I use modern ethics as well, because its easy and familiar, and there is no reason to complicate the game with a history lecture, but I disagree that "the game" does, because every campaign is different. Is there a page reference for where it is presented in the rules?Yes, he made an assumption, but it was a reasonable one (ill explain that more in a moment). However, hasn't EVERY poster made their own assumptions about this situation, namely assuming a modern moral code. What is or is not moral changes over time and with society. In the Late Republic of Rome (up to the time of the Caesars), it was entirety moral to torture slaves, and sources say a slave could not be a witness in a trial unless the confession/statement was extracted with torture. What is or is not moral changes.I'm just going with the morality presented in the rules. That's what the game uses.
I'm not seeing anything saying "this game assumes a moral code from culture X, time period Y.". In fact, it implies the opposite...
" Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other."
So, while I agree with you FOR MY OWN GAME, the core rules are specifically written to be generic enough to be played in different genres/styles/cultures/eras. Every table has a unique story to tell.
Hey a choatic good person taking the "law" into his own hands and executing people he percieves are murdering bandits is perfectly acceptable in that alignment. What he perceives is his reality. Even very intelligent make incorrect assumptions and act on them. It does not make them evil. Not all CG peopel will act like this but it is definately within the bounds of that alignment.
Good does not mean you will always try and not kill other people. An executioner can be a good person. An evil person would enjoy it. Did he enjoy it, did he realish in thir blood? A good person may begrudgingly do it. Keep in mind not everyone has perfect vision of possibilities and seesthe best options. Looking back and hind sighting someone for thier mistakes or poor choices at the time is silly.
Now his order he hands down not only broke but shattered that oathe. As a DM I would rush him with things the next 24 hours to show how much he needs his challenge
Drachasor he is chaotic. That means he is his own judge. You keep mentioning him beating up his ally as something morally wrong. That is absurd. He did something honorable to his ally and gave his ally an offered chance that the ally accept to decide what to do with differing opinions. Choatic good gave him a choice. That is all CG is about. The freedom to choose for himself. He did not force or push his ally into a fight. Then when he won the duel, and he viewed that as might is right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By very nature of the edicts of Order of the Sword, his alignment should be LG or one step there within. His actions were evil and against his very code. I would inform him that he is stripped of any class abilities related to the Order of the Sword and can take no further levels in cavalier unless he makes atonement or finds another order. Remember, the player WILLING chose his order and is refusing to play the character accordingly. It's no different if a Paladin did the same. Come to think of it, Order of the Sword edicts indicates a paladin minus the alignment restriction and worship of a deity. They practically share the same code of conduct.
If the player refuses to atone, suggest Order of the Cockatrice.
By very nature of the edicts of Order of the Sword, his alignment should be LG or one step there within.
Rather than force the player, it might be best to have a discussion over what would work best with him and possibly create an edict. Especially if its still a new character and there is sometime to shift things around.
I'm not seeing anything saying "this game assumes a moral code from culture X, time period Y.". In fact, it implies the opposite...
" Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other."
So, while I agree with you FOR MY OWN GAME, the core rules are specifically written to be generic enough to be played in different genres/styles/cultures/eras. Every table has a unique story to tell.
In my posts I referred to things like a respect for life, killing for convenience, etc, etc. My comparisons to alignment in the game come directly from how the game defines Good and Evil, Law and Chaos.
Alignment isn't a straitjacket, but it still is a jacket -- so to speak.
You can houserule all you want, of course.
As I said, I agree with you, for my game. However, I disagree that "modern" is the inherent assumption for anything in a game involving pre-steam technology. I'm saying essentially "to each his own". We are obviously not going to convince each other of anything.
So to the OP: you have my opinion, but ultimately its your table. If you don't like it, make it clear to the player, without being vindictive or retaliatory. Ultimately, EVERYONE is there to have fun, and being extra harsh on a player to teach them some lesson or another (like throwing extra, unplanned encounters at them to show them how much they messed up) is wrong. It destroys the fun.
So to the OP: you have my opinion, but ultimately its your table. If you don't like it, make it clear to the player, without being vindictive or retaliatory. Ultimately, EVERYONE is there to have fun, and being extra harsh on a player to teach them some lesson or another (like throwing extra, unplanned encounters at them to show them how much they messed up) is wrong. It destroys the fun.True, you don't want to be vindictive, but there needs to be consequences for a character that actually ignores part of his rules. If a paladin ignores his code, then there's nothing wrong with throwing undead and evil enemies so that he sees, IC, that there are consequences for his actions.
Mercy to enemies, gnomersy, doesn't require you to kill them or leave them for the wolves. Mercy can be taking them to the justice and letting the skilled healing individual stabilize them. Yeah, that's fine for you to kill them in the scenario, but this isn't about whether you'd do it or whether you wouldn't.
It's whether it is against the edict. Order of the Sword, honestly, is not very pragmatic in its mindset. It's the "I am better and more moral than my enemy. I will not fall to their level."
*shrugs* It doesn't seem a tough call, to me.
What prisoners? They kept attacking and trying to kill the characters until they were stabbed into unconscious bloody heaps they're downed enemies not prisoners.
They want to be treated as prisoners they should have thrown down their arms and plead for mercy before being stabbed into senselessness they chose to make it kill or be killed and so they face the consequences.
Hell if I were in that scenario I'd kill them in a heartbeat it's certainly more merciful than leaving their unconscious bodies out in the woods for the wolves.
The moment the bandits fell unconscious, they became non-combatants. Regardless of their actions while they were standing. The player made a willing decision to execute the bandits which is against his edicts.
Show mercy to those who have wronged him
Mercy is defined as compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
He became an executioner without just cause.