Who was justified in this scenario?

[Hitaro9]

So, I'm going to avoid being biased in my description of what happened.

A town is being hassled by a group of Ogres a few miles north. Two characters, let's call them A and B, who had just recently met, were assigned to stop these ogres.

Upon arriving at the Ogre camp, the two characters begin negotiation with the chief. In a language that Player B does not understand, Player A offers to sell player B as a sex slave if the chief will stop attacking the town. Player A accidently insults the Chief, and the Ogres get angry. Player A tells Player B to stay and fight. Player B says they are out numbered and should run. Winning initiative, Player B runs away, while Player A is left to fend for himself. Player A makes it out vitorious, and returns to the Mayor (arriving around the same time as Player B).

Player A, angry that Player B had left him, tells Player B to agree that Player A is the leader. Player B refuses, and the two characters exchange insults. Player A declares that Player B may no longer work with him, and that the party must split. Player B follows Player A back to the house that the mayor had granted the players as temporary shelter. Player B tells Player A that they must stay together, even if Player A does not like it. Player A tells Player B to leave the house. Player B refuses. Player A says that if Player B does not leave the house, player A will kill Player B. Defiant, player B stays in the house. Going into initiative, Player B kills Player A.

So, who is justified in this scenario?

[tyckspoon]

Neither of them. That's a pretty textbook example of why some DMs simply do not permit intra-party conflicts, and both personalities involved were being huge jerks about various things.

(My sympathies are with Player B, because it started with
Player A offers to sell the rather strong player B as a sex slave if the chief will stop attacking the town which is just WTF Player A.)

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, nobody looks good there, but Player B is slightly more sympathetic, what with Player A trying to boss him around so much (particularly since it was his fault they had to fight to begin with). Oh, and the sex-slave thing is, yes, WTF.

[navar100]

Player A is a donkey cavity female hygiene product sack of feces.

[bloodtide]

In this scenario your talking about two Evil people. When your dealing with Evil, there is no justice, so nothing that any of them do will ever be 'justified'. So your question is a bit pointless. A and B are just against each other the whole time, so it does not matter.

Out of the game, it's quite bad to have two players in a game like this....if the two of you can't play the game, together, then why bother playing at all. And if you both agreed to play an evil game with the whole ''lets see how can have the most fun screwing over the other guy and/or killing them'', they why are you complaining....mission accomplished.

[kaomera]

Player B killed Player A??? I'd say that makes Player B justified, at least until I can get somewhere safe and call the police.

[Talakeal]

Both people are in the wrong.

If player A where speaking a language player B could understand, player B would be justified to kill player A. But as he did not speak the language, player B seemed to kill player A over minor offenses.

[Marnath]

Both people are in the wrong.

If player A where speaking a language player B could understand, player B would be justified to kill player A. But as he did not speak the language, player B seemed to kill player A over minor offenses.

"I will kill you if you don't leave this house." does not sound like a minor offense to me. :smallconfused:

[Serpentine]

HOkay, let's see now...
In a language that Player B does not understand, Player A offers to sell the rather strong player B as a sex slave if the chief will stop attacking the town.Unless done with Player B's OOC permission, extremely low of A. Immediately puts the pair on an adversarial footing OOC as well as IC (even if one character doesn't know it), which rarely bodes well I expect.

Player A tells Player B to stay and fight. Player B feels they are out numbered and should run. Winning initiative, Player B runs away, while Player A is left to fend for himself.Depends on a lot of things, including but not limited to: does A reasonably believe they can win the battle? Does B reasonably believe they cannot? Are both beliefs and actions consistent with the characters' personalities? Did they discuss the matter OOC at all? Mostly this bit looks like roleplaying to me, with no one at fault - or both equally at fault for lack of communication and cooperation.

Player A, angry that Player B had left him, demands that Player B agree that Player A is the leader.A strange thing to desire, after the person you just tried to sell as a sex slave left you to be slaughtered. A discussion on the decision making process of the partnership might be in order, but demanding to be the leader? That's a bit rich.

Player B refusesReasonable.

Player A declares that Player B may no longer work with him, and that the party must split.Also reasonable.

Player B follows Player A back to the house that the mayor had granted the players as temporary shelter. Player B tells Player A that they must stay together, even if Player A does not like it.Is there a reason B thinks they must stick together? Frankly I see no in-character reason, and out-of-character it seems clear that a character personality rethink/scenario reboot/character change/player compatibility consideration is in order.

Player A demands that Player B leave the house. Player B refuses. Player A says that if Player B does not leave the house, player A will kill Player B. Defiant, player B stays in the house. Going into initiative, Player B kills Player A. Escalation. Fairly reasonable in both cases.

So, who is justified in this scenario?Mostly B, I think, but it looks to me like there needs to be a big OOC conversation about what happened.

[Xuc Xac]

So, I'm going to avoid being biased in my description of what happened.

Your choice of vocabulary and phrasing is slightly biased in favor of Player B. If I had to guess, I would say that your character was Player B and you're looking for people to tell you that B was in the right and A was a jerk.

[Talakeal]

"I will kill you if you don't leave this house." does not sound like a minor offense to me. :smallconfused:

Reading it again, it doesn't really say who initated combat. I assumed player A made a boastful threat and then player B took it at face value and attacked player A. I suppose if player A actually initated the combat then yeah, player A is totally at fault.

[nedz]

It sounds like a classic breakdown of trust.
I don't think either is 'justified', but A comes across as a bit of a jerk.

[Fatebreaker]

So, who is justified in this scenario?

The ogres.

[--Lime--]

If character A was the sort that would insist on leadership, based on backstory and events up to this point, it's okay to ask. Of course, it's okay for character B to refuse.

Player A is the one that introduces the ultimatum of death. Player B should be allowed to defend himself, and winning initiative (there wasn't a surprise round?) did that with extreme prejudice.

The party was never going to be able to function normally once the threat of death was introduced. Up to that point, A and B could have slept on it and carried on. Of course, there would have had to have been a good reason to stay together.

But if -and it's a pretty strong if - the players were staying true to the characterisation that had been going throughout (prone to escalation and violence and acting without much forethought, as well as a lack of trust between the two) then the game reached a natural conclusion, and the campaign is over. New sheets, roll 'em up. DM hints that maybe the two players would have more fun working together this time.

[Calanon]

Experience tells me that the only way to unite 2 evil characters is by giving them both a common goal... Evil people of the same alignment always seem to meet up together or they all eventually conform to the same side of the ethical spectrum :smallconfused:

Seems like the DM didn't give the players enough intensive to actually work together, Been working in a bunch of Evil games with my friends for a while and the only time we've ever killed each other is near the end of the entire game... Evil stories usually end in betrayal with one member of the party trying to obtain the "artifact of doom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtifactOfDoom)" for themselves... :smallsmile:

[Averis Vol]

man this story is all to familiar with me, except the murdering your teammates in your house and thats always a bad thing....winner always has to clean the mess... but on topic close to this same situation happened to me in my last game
it was me the warchanter and the party sorcerer. we had some downtime mid-game so we decided a little sword for hire action was necessary. so we go to the local adventurers guild and get commissioned to recover.....a lost axe i think? hells if i remember anything past wednesday. well we cleared up until the last room of the cave were upon we got ambushed by a dragon. well immediately upon seeing it hanging on the ceiling after that first delicious face full of breath-weapon the sorcerer pops invisibility and says "**** this bro" then leaves, as i expected. so i ended up staying to kill the dragon, and i did but afterwards the sorcerer comes back and demands half the hoard. so i sit there laughing for a good 5 minutes and when i finally gain my composer i look him dead in the eye and tell him no way. he makes some obscure threat that if i died in here no one would question who did it. so, this character is very nice, but his biggest pet peeve was direct threats on his life (not surprising ofcourse) so as were sitting there grinning at the table i just let the d20 in my hand drop to the table, he says what was that for, and i say "initiative". so long story short he doesn't stand a chance within arms reach of me at half hp from that dragon so i end up killing him. he was astounded i attacked him and a little pissed but all that needed to be said was, don't threaten your teammate. now you don't have to read the story but what i mean from it is that sometimes you don't need to start **** with your party, even if its in character its never the right choice. so no both people are in the wrong and they should feel bad for trying to split the party like that. they're adults (?) they can settle these things in better ways.

[Sidmen]

Nobody was "justified". Player A was a bit of a jerk in the beginning when he tried to sell B as a slave (though, did B just get to sit there listening to the conversation being had in a different language? He should've been sent out of the room for this part so it wouldn't have spoiled the "what are you saying?" thing.). But was completely reasonable in every other step of the story.

Player B retreated while A stood his ground - Player B's character could no longer be trusted to have A's back, so he should have left the group willingly. Insisting on sticking together as a group would be called "stalking" (if not worse things) IRL.

Then Player B loses all sympathy when he murders Player A. There is such a thing as non-lethal damage and he could have made a healing check to stabilize the guy you just refused to leave alone - or even going and getting help while Player A's character laid there bleeding to death. Player B should probably be arrested by the town guard and executed, then the group can completely start over with new non-homicidal characters.

[Starbuck_II]

The ogres.

This man knows what he is talking about. I mean, the ogres are innocent victims to Player A's sex trafficking.

[Ashtagon]

Unless there was an ooc agreement to be douchbags to each other, player A was in the wrong, sine they started it first.

Seriously, selling another PC into sex slavery? And people wonder why D&D has/had a reputation for being a boys club?

[RandomNPC]

If B made a fighting retreat A would have no ground to stand on asking B to leave group. B flat out called for a retreat, A knew what was about to happen.

If B* knew A tried to sell him, A wouldn't have any right to be upset about B taking off.

If the Ogres* knew what was going on they would have offered to help A and B ransack the town, and then stopped A and B, becoming local heroes.

In town, Mayor should have called B a coward for running, with potential punishment seeing as A made it back after fighting by himself, see? They could have been beaten.

If somehow selling team members came up, A should have been jailed, they were sent to stop the Ogres, not sell them friends. Even if slavery is ok in the game world, trying to sell team members to the opposition? come on A.

It looks like B* tried to keep the party together more than anything by going back to the house, and A stayed in character asking him to leave.

Becoming overly violent was just a failure of the game coming to a close.

* (at that point, name by the * is/would be, crossing ooc/ic knowledge)

[Hitaro9]

Sorry for the late post guys, but here's a response to any questions/ things I found interesting.


Your choice of vocabulary and phrasing is slightly biased in favor of Player B. If I had to guess, I would say that your character was Player B and you're looking for people to tell you that B was in the right and A was a jerk.

Yeah, I tried best to avoid that. Are there any phrases in specific that would make you believe that? I'll see if I can make the retelling more neutral. As for the second part, I was kinda hoping for some fixes to what could have happened for when we did discuss it later. I know that I am biased, and don't want to appear so when we talk about it later.


Reading it again, it doesn't really say who initated combat. I assumed player A made a boastful threat and then player B took it at face value and attacked player A. I suppose if player A actually initated the combat then yeah, player A is totally at fault.

Player A called for initiative, saying he was going to attack Player B. Player B ended up winning initiative. So, Player B acted first, attacking Player A even though Player A had not actually done anything yet.



Player B retreated while A stood his ground - Player B's character could no longer be trusted to have A's back, so he should have left the group willingly. Insisting on sticking together as a group would be called "stalking" (if not worse things) IRL.

Then Player B loses all sympathy when he murders Player A. There is such a thing as non-lethal damage and he could have made a healing check to stabilize the guy you just refused to leave alone - or even going and getting help while Player A's character laid there bleeding to death. Player B should probably be arrested by the town guard and executed, then the group can completely start over with new non-homicidal characters.

Very good points. I'll be sure to bring these up.


Is there a reason B thinks they must stick together? Frankly I see no in-character reason, and out-of-character it seems clear that a character personality rethink/scenario reboot/character change/player compatibility consideration is in order.

The reasons for Player B's actions here were mostly out of game. The game already had two different partys going on. He explained that he didn't want 3 different campaigns going on.


Player B killed Player A??? I'd say that makes Player B justified, at least until I can get somewhere safe and call the police.

This actually made me laugh in real life. You sir, are amazing.

[KillianHawkeye]

Player A called for initiative, saying he was going to attack Player B. Player B ended up winning initiative. So, Player B acted first, attacking Player A even though Player A had not actually done anything yet.

I would say that if Player A called for initiative, then he was at least going for a weapon or spell component pouch or about to do some other obviously hostile action for Player B to react to. You don't roll initiative for no reason. Player B just reacted faster then Player A could act.

[Eloel]

Player A should've been granted a surprise round.
Anything else, you guys go along with ethics :smallsmile:

[FearlessGnome]

Surprise rounds and when they apply is an awkward subject. Ambush? Fine, it takes a few seconds to take in the situation and react properly. But two people who are hostile to each other, death threats have been made, and both are armed? Yeah, I would be very hesitant to give anyone a surprise round there.

[Marnath]

Then Player B loses all sympathy when he murders Player A. There is such a thing as non-lethal damage and he could have made a healing check to stabilize the guy you just refused to leave alone - or even going and getting help while Player A's character laid there bleeding to death. Player B should probably be arrested by the town guard and executed, then the group can completely start over with new non-homicidal characters.

I don't agree. A initiated combat, he was just a little too slow on the draw. When someone threatens to kill you and is willing to act on it, you get to defend yourself. The fact that A didn't get a chance to do anything before the first attack came doesn't make B the aggressor, it just makes him fast enough to stay alive. B should never have forced the issue but well, hindsight is 20/20. :smalltongue:

As far as using non-lethal and trying to save his life afterwards: an exalted character might do that, but I really can't see anyone else doing that. Even good characters are allowed to kill, and I seriously doubt these guys were good considering their antics. Getting arrested and executed? Even if the authorities do find out, there's a thing called self defense.

[Serpentine]

I would say that if Player A called for initiative, then he was at least going for a weapon or spell component pouch or about to do some other obviously hostile action for Player B to react to. You don't roll initiative for no reason. Player B just reacted faster then Player A could act.A drew first. B shot faster.

[The Glyphstone]

The ogres.

OKay, this made me laugh.

[Starbuck_II]

A drew first. B shot faster.

Come on, this is too Han Solo.
Really I agree that it should been a Surprise round.
B only knew OOC that he was attacking.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Come on, this is too Han Solo.
Really I agree that it should been a Surprise round.
B only knew OOC that he was attacking.

Unless Player A said I'm going to kill you, in character. Then Player B technically has the right to defend himself.

As far as my view point goes, this would make a great background for Player B's next game.

On the run from the law, Player B was accused of the unlawful murder of Player A, hero of the towns people and defeater of the Ogres. Now he must try and prove his innocent as the Mayor tries to bring him to justice. Staring Bruce Willis as Player B.

[Lord Tyger]

Come on, this is too Han Solo.
Really I agree that it should been a Surprise round.
B only knew OOC that he was attacking.

I don't think so. Player A: I'm going to kill you if you don't leave.
Player B: I'm not leaving.
Player A: (goes for weapon, steps forward, whatever)
Now, Player B could have one of two reactions

1) He just said he's going to kill me if I do exactly what I'm doing, he's probably now going to try and attack me.
2) Hmm. What's he up to? Is he trying to hug me? That seems reasonable. He probably wants to make up and be friends again. Huzzah! Wait, what's this? A sword in my spleen? How unexpected!

[Xuc Xac]

Yeah, I tried best to avoid that. Are there any phrases in specific that would make you believe that? I'll see if I can make the retelling more neutral.

Here's the red flags I saw:

"A town is being haggled by a group of Ogres a few miles north. Two characters, let's call them A and B, who had just recently met, were assigned to stop these ogres.

Upon arriving at the Ogre camp, the two characters begin negotiation with the chief. In a language that Player B does not understand, Player A offers to sell the rather strong player B as a sex slave if the chief will stop attacking the town. Player A accidently insults the Chief, and the Ogres get angry. Player A tells Player B to stay and fight. Player B feels they are out numbered and should run. Winning initiative, Player B runs away, while Player A is left to fend for himself. Player A makes it out vitorious, and returns to the Mayor (arriving around the same time as Player B).

Player A, angry that Player B had left him, demands that Player B agree that Player A is the leader. Player B refuses, and the two characters exchange insults. Player A declares that Player B may no longer work with him, and that the party must split. Player B follows Player A back to the house that the mayor had granted the players as temporary shelter. Player B tells Player A that they must stay together, even if Player A does not like it. Player A demands that Player B leave the house. Player B refuses. Player A says that if Player B does not leave the house, player A will kill Player B. Defiant, player B stays in the house. Going into initiative, Player B kills Player A."

We know nothing about A but B is rather superfluously described as "rather strong".
When Player A says things that B doesn't like, it's "A demands" and "A declares". When B says things that A doesn't like, B just "tells". We're told how A visibly reacts, but we know what B is thinking.
When Player B acts like a stubborn douche, it's described with the much cooler sounding word "defiant".

From the point of view of the CHARACTERS, this is what happened: A talks to the ogres. The ogres get angry. A says "They ain't buying it. We have to fight." B runs away; A stays and wins on his own. A is upset about B's sudden and inexplicable betrayal and demands that B follow his lead from now on but B refuses (even though A was--in fact--right about staying and fighting the ogres). Although B has refused to follow A's leadership (in spite of the score being A's 1 to B's 0 for making sound tactical judgments) and B showed no loyalty or support to A whatsoever when faced with danger, B still insists on following A around for no discernible reason (B mumbles something about "not splitting the party" but that's obvious BS because B had already demonstrated what he thinks of party loyalty when the ogres made frowny faces). A doesn't like being stalked like this and rejects B's sudden and inexplicable devotion and commitment to cohabitation. A and B were strangers until just recently. In their only attempt at working together, B turned tail and left A to fight for his life alone. Now that the danger is past, B is insisting on staying together with A (presumably to collect a share of the reward for A's single-handed success in their mission). A threatens B and demands to be left alone: although B has said he won't follow A's instruction, B has already shown that he knows how to leave A alone. Although B ran from a bunch of ogres, he doesn't feel like running from the guy that single-handedly defeated those ogres. When A finally makes a move to drive off B, B springs into action and takes out A with a lucky shot.

Out of character, A was a jerk for offering to sell B, but B didn't know that. Based entirely on in-character knowledge, B is a raving psychopath. A may have had bad intentions, but he didn't actually DO anything wrong (other than getting mixed up with the aforementioned raving psychopath).

In this particular case, Player B was entirely in the wrong.
However, Player A is also a jerk. It was only a matter of time before one of them screwed things up like this. It just so happens that this time it was Player B, but it could just as easily have been A if things had gone slightly differently.

Before they play again, they need to agree to ban the alignments Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil. If they insist on being jerks again, they'll have to be limited to Loyal-Team-Player Evil.

[Serpentine]

Come on, this is too Han Solo.I'm picturing a western shoot-out, actually. It's always the person who goes for their gun first who ends up getting shot, because the other person was looking for that movement and was that much faster

Really I agree that it should been a Surprise round.
B only knew OOC that he was attacking.I disagree. They were standing right in front of one another, the argument was getting heated, and A made a threat. There's nothing to suggest B would not be on the look-out for a violent action.

Overall, I basically think which of the characters is right is irrelevant. This is an out-of-character issue which needs to be resolved out-of-character.

[hobbitkniver]

Who cares if they kill eachother, sit back with some popcorn.

[Fatebreaker]

Okay, this made me laugh.

Dude, it's no laughing matter. I mean, here we have these ogres, who were just haggling with the townsfolks, y'know, like civilized individuals...


A town is being haggled by a group of Ogres a few miles north.

...when all of a sudden two dudes show up and want to talk. The ogres agree, 'cause, y'know, civilized, and then out comes the creepy sex trade! To top it all off, the ogres are then insulted by these wacko sex merchants, who then scuttle off in the underbrush like forest hobos.

Man, it is not easy being an ogre these days.

[navar100]

If the campaign was everyone is evil and everyone knows it out of character at least type of game, then everything is moot.

However, presuming it was a typical normal campaign the party is supposed to be the good guys or at least non-evil, then I don't care if it is out of character knowledge on Player B's part. As soon as Player A started out being a donkey cavity female hygiene product sack of feces for trying to sell Player B's character into slavery, he immediate revoked his fellow player privileges. Player A's character's opinions, ideas, and plans are worthless.

I also hold the DM as a donkey cavity by proxy for not metaphorically smacking Player A upside the head upon his first speaking to the ogres and just letting the situation derail even further. "I'm just roleplaying" "But's that just what my character would do" are never proper reasons to be a donkey cavity female hygiene product sack of feces.

[Kish]

I concur. Even if "haggled" is a typo for "hassled"...or "the town is being haggled" means the ogres are haggling with each other over who gets to own the town after their band takes it over...the ogres have an unchallenged grip on the moral high ground here, of the characters described in the OP.

[Hitaro9]

Oh, yeah, that was supposed to be hassled. lol

S and G aren't even close to each other on the keyboard. >.<

[The Glyphstone]

Still, Ogres 1, Players 0.

[Burner28]

On the run from the law, Player B was accused of the unlawful murder of Player A, hero of the towns people and defeater of the Ogres. Now he must try and prove his innocent as the Mayor tries to bring him to justice. Staring Bruce Willis as Player B.

That sounds interesting!:smalltongue:

[Jay R]

Ummm, let me get this straight.

A betrays B.
A then commands B, who doesn't obey.
A then insists that B accept him as the leader.

Why, exactly, should B accept the slaver-wannabe as a leader? And why would A want a follower that he knows flees combat against A's orders?

So they get in an argument, in which B is insisting on staying with a guy who betrayed him to their enemies. Meanwhile, A is simultaneously upset that B left him and demanding that B leave him.

Neither is logically justified.

[JonRG]

Team Ogre!

[Serpentine]

Ummm, let me get this straight.

A betrays B.
A then commands B, who doesn't obey.
A then insists that B accept him as the leader.

Why, exactly, should B accept the slaver-wannabe as a leader? And why would A want a follower that he knows flees combat against A's orders?

So they get in an argument, in which B is insisting on staying with a guy who betrayed him to their enemies. Meanwhile, A is simultaneously upset that B left him and demanding that B leave him.

Neither is logically justified.From an in-character perspective, B doesn't know A tried to betray him.

[Comet]

Both players were technically justified in their actions, as everything followed the rules of the game and neither expressed their distaste for the direction the game was taking out loud, instead preferring to go with the flow.

Both players also appear to be six years old. Six year olds should not play roleplaying games without adult supervision. They might end up taking the game fiction too seriously and causing unnecessary drama by their refusal to distance themselves from the game world and talk things out like reasonable adults.

Out of character communication is very important. If something bothers you, say it out loud. If you go with it and answer in-game instead, you are validating the sex trade and making it a part of the game.

[Rorrik]

Neither is justified and both characters are clearly insane, let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up:

Player B thought they were outnumbered and had to flee, but had won initiative and was powerful enough to kill player A who killed the ogres by his lonesome? Wow, Player B really is a coward and should have stood his ground in what seems like a clear victory.

Player A demands to be the leader? Now that's leadership, this was clearly an out of character demand that may or may not have been justified by the nature of the characters.

However, Player B killing player A seems fine in my book, given a fight broke out, but if his character was really so about party loyalty and sticking together(as claimed when following A but not when fleeing battle hoping A gets killed alone) I would think he'd patch up his dead buddy.

As to the surprise round, if Player A was attacking in a way that merited surprise(like attacking while his back is turned) he should have demanded a surprise round, otherwise he drew his sword with Player B looking right at him and Player B acted faster and dropped a train on him.

[Starbuck_II]

Neither is justified and both characters are clearly insane, let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up:

Player B thought they were outnumbered and had to flee, but had won initiative and was powerful enough to kill player A who killed the ogres by his lonesome? Wow, Player B really is a coward and should have stood his ground in what seems like a clear victory.

Isn't it possible A was wounded badly after killing all the Ogres by himself? So B took advantage of this fact to kill A (as he was low on health).

[Sidmen]

I don't agree. A initiated combat, he was just a little too slow on the draw. When someone threatens to kill you and is willing to act on it, you get to defend yourself. The fact that A didn't get a chance to do anything before the first attack came doesn't make B the aggressor, it just makes him fast enough to stay alive. B should never have forced the issue but well, hindsight is 20/20. :smalltongue:

As far as using non-lethal and trying to save his life afterwards: an exalted character might do that, but I really can't see anyone else doing that. Even good characters are allowed to kill, and I seriously doubt these guys were good considering their antics. Getting arrested and executed? Even if the authorities do find out, there's a thing called self defense.

It doesn't matter that A initiated combat on a home invader. If you stab someone in self defense (which this wasn't, since - you know - he was warned to leave and refused), and don't make any effort to save the guy - or even get help you are a Murderer, and good guys don't get to be murderers and get off scott free. He can escape the authorities (which, as an adventurer is pretty easy,) but he will forever be stained with the blood of a murder committed in an easily avoidable situation.

[Sucrose]

It doesn't matter that A initiated combat on a home invader. If you stab someone in self defense (which this wasn't, since - you know - he was warned to leave and refused), and don't make any effort to save the guy - or even get help you are a Murderer, and good guys don't get to be murderers and get off scott free. He can escape the authorities (which, as an adventurer is pretty easy,) but he will forever be stained with the blood of a murder committed in an easily avoidable situation.

The mayor granted the house to both players, so Player B was not a home invader, but a fellow owner who was refusing to have his rights trod upon. And you are not obligated to save the life of someone who wanted to kill you. Further, we aren't given the information to say that there was even a life to save after Player B attacked.

[Marlowe]

A grim but ultimately uplifting tale. One scumbag is dead, the other will be hanged for his murder. Justice for those poor, innocent, (if unpolitically homophobic) Ogres who wanted only to continue their traditional natural way of life.

[Fatebreaker]

A grim but ultimately uplifting tale. One scumbag is dead, the other will be hanged for his murder. Justice for those poor, innocent, (if unpolitically homophobic) Ogres who wanted only to continue their traditional natural way of life.

Wait, wait, wait, who said the ogres are homophobic? The only gender we know here is player A, which is described as a him, but no gender is ever given for player B or for the ogres. For all we know, this was a tribe of gay ogres, haggling over a permit to parade through town (to be fair, the town streets cannot handle the size of ogre floats, and the ogres do want to be good guests), only for the homophobic mayor to put out a call for adventurers to "negotiate" with them.

Man, an ogre just cannot catch a break!

[Lord Tyger]

It doesn't matter that A initiated combat on a home invader. If you stab someone in self defense (which this wasn't, since - you know - he was warned to leave and refused), and don't make any effort to save the guy - or even get help you are a Murderer, and good guys don't get to be murderers and get off scott free. He can escape the authorities (which, as an adventurer is pretty easy,) but he will forever be stained with the blood of a murder committed in an easily avoidable situation.

Which raises an interesting question- how much can we judge the characters, theoretically products of a very different psuedo-medieval culture, based on current cultural morals? Applying current ethical rules runs into the problem that not only does DND not model our world now, it doesn't model any world that ever actually existed. The confirmed existence of various afterlives alone massively changes things, to say nothing about the existence of healing magic that can retroactively render severe wounds irrelevant, let alone Resurrection spells. It's the difference between, "I stabbed him in the leg, now he'll have to go to the hospital, spend weeks or months recuperating, maybe with permanent loss of ability in that leg," and, "I stabbed him in the leg, now he'll have to shell some money out to the local church." And then if he doesn't have the money, it adds a massive dimension to the whole various economic standings (which are also different, because DND rules don't particularly lend themselves to either modern economy or feudalism).

[zlefin]

neither or both.
From a play perspective; it'd be neither UNLESS
both players are evil; in which, both are justified, since they're evil, and doing evil things; and roleplaying it well, and should get bonus xp.

Also, from a legal perspective; in any d&d type setting legal system; you'd be under no obligation to save the person you stabbed in self defense in any way. And while you should tell someone at some point; trying to save people isn't really part of the equation.

[Sidmen]

neither or both.
From a play perspective; it'd be neither UNLESS
both players are evil; in which, both are justified, since they're evil, and doing evil things; and roleplaying it well, and should get bonus xp.

Also, from a legal perspective; in any d&d type setting legal system; you'd be under no obligation to save the person you stabbed in self defense in any way. And while you should tell someone at some point; trying to save people isn't really part of the equation.

I don't pretend to care about legalities, THE LAW™ is wrong in many situations. I go by my own moral compass, and when you are responsible for the confrontation (he was, by not heeding a warning and running with his first initiative pass) then stab a guy till he stops moving, and THEN don't go get help for the guy - you are a murderer, and as a Paladin I would bring you to justice for your crimes, try you (you would admit to all these things being true - magic will compel you), then hang you from the neck until dead.

Player A was not a good person (his character, anyway), but we don't know if the "sex slave" thing was a ploy or not, and we don't have his side of the story. From a neutral (partially favoring B) perspective there is already reason to rail on B, so imagine if we had gotten a "neutral" (partially favoring A) perspective.

[Rorrik]

Isn't it possible A was wounded badly after killing all the Ogres by himself? So B took advantage of this fact to kill A (as he was low on health).

Yes, I thought I had mentioned that possibility, but hadn't apparently. While I suspect he healed himself in one fashion or another between returning to town, speaking to the mayor, and threatening to kill player B, it seems even if Player B killed a wounded player A, player B definitely chickened out on a fight they could have won.

If Player A was wounded and moved to kill player B, then he really does deserve the death dealt.

[Draconi Redfir]

I'm gunna say i'm on the side of B TBH. From what i've read player A was being a huge jerk about things the whole time, player B was just doing what was sensible.

[The Random NPC]

when you are responsible for the confrontation (he was, by not heeding a warning and running with his first initiative pass)
Player B is not responsible for the confrontation, Player A was because he is the one that escalated a verbal argument to a physical and most likely lethal one.


then stab a guy till he stops moving, and THEN don't go get help for the guy - you are a murderer, and as a Paladin I would bring you to justice for your crimes, try you (you would admit to all these things being true - magic will compel you), then hang you from the neck until dead.
It sounds like you're saying anyone other than a Paladin (and a little bit that only this specific Paladin) is incapable of making morally sound judgments and must run from every altercation, or face murder charges. Also, using magic to compel people is a very slippery slope to evil and unless very carefully worded can get false positives. See spoiler for my thoughts on it.

Morally, a person should probably get help for Player A, but that seems more of an Exalted deed than a good one. After all, plenty of good people don't save the life of attempted murderers.

And just in case, I don't think Castle Doctrine type defenses can apply if both parties are living there.

More on the magic compellent needing careful wording
Take your Paladin for example, all anyone needs to do is magically compel him to answer if he has ever used magic to compel anyone to confess to murder. Phrased that way it sounds like the Paladin has compelled the innocent to confess to a murder they hadn't commited, and needs just a touch of exposition to make sure it is interpreted that way. Of course the magic would force the Paladin to answer only direct questions asked of him as succinctly as possible. Now the Paladin will* either be excuted or will break out of prison, "proving" that he is a murder.
*Not guaranteed to be the only choices.
More on the magic compellent being a slippery slope
Why stop at compelling people to tell the truth when they are suspected of a crime? Why not use magic to force the truth at all times? Why not use magic to ensure the crime never happens? In fact, why not use magic to make every exactly like the Paladin? Then no one will comit crimes! Next, Mind Rape.