PvP: What to do?

[Kafana]

My party has come to an impass with one of its members. We have been in a room with a dragon who said that each of us can offer him something and if he like it that someone can leave. A few of us got creative and I gave him a riddle, two others gave him minor items and two gave him major items. The last guy, a fighter sworn to fight for us fled and the dragon promised to kill us all if he didn't return within 15 minutes and sent me after him. Now, my character had more to lose than his own life because his girlfriend was with us, as well as a slaymate he had been traveling with for several months, who died of neglect from his father, something my character sympathized with. Not only that, but our mission was to stop a powerful death knight (we got lost and side tracked a bit) and if we were to fail, several thousand people would be dead within the first week of his assault.

So I ran to get him and caught up. The dragon was interested in his +1 glaive and the guy had 2.5k in gold saved up. I also promised him that my order would reward him with a better glaive (which was the truth) and when he continued to run I pleaded him that these were good people (one was practically a paladin) yet he ran anyway. I managed to shoot him witha ray of exhaustion so he couldn't get far and returned to help e others get out. We managed to drive off the dragon long enough to escape, and now we're catching up to the betrayer.

It is clear that we can't travel with someone like that, but the question is should we kill him? He put us and our very important mission at GREAT risk, even though e only thing that would happen was that he would lose the glaive for a few weeks.

[HammeredWharf]

In this case, it doesn't matter much OOC. The player would have to make a new character anyway. So just do what you think your characters would do. If one of you is practically a paladin and wants to stay that way, killing a deserter would be questionable.

[Kafana]

In this case, it doesn't matter much OOC. The player would have to make a new character anyway. So just do what you think your characters would do. If one of you is practically a paladin and wants to stay that way, killing a deserter would be questionable.

That's why I'm asking :D
The guy is a lawful semi-good knight, with a keen interest in history, and he's practically military. While he gravitates towards good he's not pure good but he still wouldn't approve of killing, but the thing is, the military side of him would kill a deserter.

I realize that, as far as the bottom line goes, the outcome is the same, but we're really big on roleplay and if we don't kill him we allow him to become an NPC in a further campaign, as we usually do with retired PCs who survive, sort of an "easter egg" thing.

[HammeredWharf]

If the knight is indecisive, the rest of the party could choose. That being said, even LG characters could have a reason to kill this guy. After all, his desertion was caused by greed, not by panic, and endangered a lot of people.

[Harlot]

Assuming this is no big deal OoC and that the player is fine with the consequences of his actions, could you maybe consider what he wants as a player?
Did he do what he did because he hoped for (actively sought) an epic battle against the rest of the group?
Is there some ulterior motive, the rest of you are missing?
Is he cursed in some way?
If indeed an awesome death is he wants, then give it to him and you could all have a blast wiping him out.

(I realise that this is metagamey-ish. But the party killing af fellow PC is heavy stuff and you should all be in agreement before you pull it off, so no-one will bear grudges afterwards.)

And if his (stated) motive for doing what he did was indeed greed, I too see no problem with the knight. Everyone would kill a traitor. Even LG's.

[Rebel7284]

Killing a deserter is a lawful evil act.

[Zanos]

Killing a deserter is a lawful evil act.
Lawful maybe, but deserting puts a lot of people in danger and can cause even more death by causing an army to panic in a situation, resulting in massive losses and perhaps even turning a battle. In this case, the desertion put a lot of people in danger and was motivated by greed, in addition to the fact that the deserter in question was sworn to the party as mentioned by OP.

Justice is not Evil.

[Rebel7284]

Lawful maybe, but deserting puts a lot of people in danger and can cause even more death by causing an army to panic in a situation, resulting in massive losses and perhaps even turning a battle. In this case, the desertion put a lot of people in danger and was motivated by greed, in addition to the fact that the deserter in question was sworn to the party as mentioned by OP.

Justice is not Evil.

Cruel and unusual punishment in guise of justice is evil. While executions for desertion have been historically common because that helps keep the soldiers in line. Killing for refusing to inflict violence is, in my system of ethics, completely evil.

Edit: of course, nothing in my personal system of ethics is against finding him, taking any of the things he directly or indirectly obtained due to participation in this quest, and breaking his jaw for good measure. :smallbiggrin:

[Agincourt]

Cruel and unusual punishment in guise of justice is evil. While executions for desertion have been historically common because that helps keep the soldiers in line. Killing for refusing to inflict violence is, in my system of ethics, completely evil.

If this Fighter has qualms about inflicting violence, the time to mention that would have been before he started adventuring.

[dascarletm]

However, in this particular case, this guy isn't deserting because he's afraid to fight or doesn't want to hurt people.

It seems as though he has some motive, as Harlot said.

Or

He decided giving up his glave is worth risking the life of everyone he's sworn to protect, and has been traveling with.

If he is just greedy I don't think killing him would be evil. Especially after he has tried to be reasoned with.

[Segev]

Cruel and unusual punishment in guise of justice is evil. While executions for desertion have been historically common because that helps keep the soldiers in line. Killing for refusing to inflict violence is, in my system of ethics, completely evil.

Edit: of course, nothing in my personal system of ethics is against finding him, taking any of the things he directly or indirectly obtained due to participation in this quest, and breaking his jaw for good measure. :smallbiggrin:
Technically, the execution would be for refusing to give of his property to protect others. It's only "desertion" in that he got away and didn't stay and fight when he was going to refuse to let himself be extorted of his possessions.

This is probably Neutral, ethically, because you can make a "he's a deserter" argument but you're likely justifying a "he left us when he could have given of himself to save us" sort of expected-theft. IT IS theft (or condoning it) to demand property from somebody unwilling to give it up.

It's fuzzy enough, and with enough of a not-quite-military-situation vibe that executing him is morally at BEST neutral, and possibly leaning towards evil. I can see the LG guy justifying it to himself, and wouldn't ping him on his alignment for it this time, but it would be something I'd keep an eye out for a pattern of and start him slipping if he continued to exhibit it.

Just letting the PC go after kicking him out of the party seems the most appropriate response, to me. He did not directly endanger the party, nor did he refuse to fight when the rest of the party wanted to. He fled and refused to be robbed. While that's poor teamwork, it's not desertion. (The rest of the party could have fled, too, for one thing, and this wasn't a mission-critical battle to win.)

So no, I wouldn't suggest executing him is the right choice. I can see why the party might decide to do it, but it would be ethically neutral and morally neutral-or-evil.

[StoneCipher]

I don't think what he did was evil, otherwise rogues would be evil all of the time. He didn't know what was going to happen as a circumstance of him leaving for sure, all he knew is he wanted to keep his stuff.

As someone who often plays clerics of Helm/St. Cuthbert, I can tell you that justice is not always good.

Is it good to slaughter a town of helpless vecna worshipers? Perhaps. But I can tell you it's definitely not lawful if all they are doing is singing him praises. (Unless there's actually a law dictating who you can and cannot worship).

[Kafana]

He did not directly endanger the party, nor did he refuse to fight when the rest of the party wanted to. He fled and refused to be robbed. While that's poor teamwork, it's not desertion. (The rest of the party could have fled, too, for one thing, and this wasn't a mission-critical battle to win.)

Actually, I did call him to come back and at least help us escape. The thing is, most of us were pinned behind a set of pillars and he was lucky enough to be on the other side of the room, near the door. We barely made it out, and in all honesty I'd say the DM gave us a pass because he too didn't expect the desertion. When your main DPS and secondary tank chooses that his glaive is more precious than the rest of the party the whole table is stunned. The thing is, the player was the coward here, not the character in and of itself.

[Red Fel]

As a rule, I would argue that a Good character only kills because it accomplishes a Good purpose - protecting the innocent, self-defense, stopping Evil, and so forth. Good characters don't generally just kill because it's the easy route; that's, at best, a Neutral perspective.

So, ask yourself this: What purpose is served by killing this guy?

Okay, he's a deserter. Wanna call him scum? Fine, he's scum. Being scum isn't a capital offense, generally speaking. Wanna punish him? There are ways, sure. But what is accomplished by killing him that isn't accomplished by, say, ditching him? Using harsh words, stripping him of his valuables, and setting him by a well-traveled road? Will his continued existence pose some kind of threat to the party?

This isn't a case of a prisoner who, upon escape, intends to flee to his superiors and report your actions. This is a former ally who did a phenomenally stupid and selfish thing, proving himself no longer trustworthy and endangering the party and the mission in the process; but what does that say about future actions?

If you can come up with a reason to kill him that forwards your noble goals, kill him. If killing him forwards your goals, but isn't a noble or virtuous act, it's probably Neutral. If killing him does not forward your goals in any way, but would make you feel better, it's Evil, and you probably don't want to do it.

[Engine]

The last guy, a fighter sworn to fight for us

This is important. Did the fighter swore to fight for the group, or did she swore to serve the group in other manners?

Because the Fighter, IMHO, was in her rights to refuse to surrender her property if she just swore to fight for the group; it's clear that the group didn't want to fight the dragon. In this case I don't think that the Fighter should be considered a deserter and killing her wouldn't be a Lawful nor Good action.

[Kafana]

Will his continued existence pose some kind of threat to the party?

This is tricky. The thing is, the guy was responsobile for the slaughter of 9 innocent people, along with another party member. Now, we didn't bare witness to this, but the other guy told us. It wasn't random slaughter, it was for a greater purpose, but the fact of the matter is he knows where the bodies are burried and might decide to pin the blame on us.

Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we're the ones to blame and not him, not likely, but it would impede our quest significantly, and the longer we wait the more the death knight advances.

[StoneCipher]

Maybe he's secretly the Death Knight.

DUN DUN DUNNnNNNNNNNNnnNnNnnnNNn

[Sebastrd]

There's a whole lot of room between "kill the guy" and "let bygones be bygones".

Killing the deserter would be evil. However, that doesn't mean anyone should trust the guy at this point. It's probably best for everyone if they just go their merry way without him.

[Segev]

"He might frame us for a crime" is not sufficient to warrant execution.

"He all but certainly will try to kill us, or go out and kill other innocents, if we let him go," is the minimum bar. This could include such things as, "He'll go tell the bad guys we're coming and get us killed that way."

But "he might, if he chooses, try to frame us for murder" is not sufficient reason for Good or even mostly-Neutral-aligned people to kill him. It would be murder at that point. Killing people for what they MIGHT do, when you don't have reason beyond distrust of them to think they would, is neutral AT BEST.

[Kafana]

But "he might, if he chooses, try to frame us for murder" is not sufficient reason for Good or even mostly-Neutral-aligned people to kill him. It would be murder at that point. Killing people for what they MIGHT do, when you don't have reason beyond distrust of them to think they would, is neutral AT BEST.

I suppose that's fair. I've been watching the Walking Dead a bit too much, so I might have had my view distorted a bit :D

[SVamp]

Capture him, tie him up, sunder his glaive in front of him, then the rest of his equipment, and tell him you're going to let him go so he learns his lesson.

Afterwards, you can kill him :smalltongue:

[Andezzar]

Capture him, tie him up, sunder his glaive in front of him, then the rest of his equipment, and tell him you're going to let him go so he learns his lesson.

Afterwards, you can kill him :smalltongue:Nah capture him, tie him up, giftwrap the glaive and the resto of his stuff and bring him and the equipment to the dragon. Now he can choose whether he wants to try to escape from the dragon again or give the dragon what he wants.

I don't know about the rules established for the group IC, but I doubt that any of the members have the right to summary execution of other members. So in addition to being morally questionable it would be unlawful.

[Atanvarno]

Well, first, you probably deal with the dragon.

After that, everyone can have a nice chat (*in* character) about how his cowardly behaviour almost got you all killed, and none of you can trust him to fight with you anymore, and explain that he won't be travelling with you anymore.

Then you let him go.

Killing him makes you a murderer, taking his stuff makes you a thief, treating him with contempt highlights that he's a coward who abandoned his allies in battle.

If the character shows up as an NPC later, he should be a guilt ridden drunkard whose life is in shambles, no one wants a comrade in arms who doesn't have your back.

EDIT: It also, incidentally, opens up the option for the player to roleplay the guy as feeling bad about the whole thing, and decide to do his best to make amends. That could be a pretty cool story.

[Segev]

To be fair, as well...

It is possible that the character's thought process was, "Screw giving up our stuff; we can take this thing. ...what? The others won't fight? Those weak cowards! I refuse to give up my stuff because they're too afraid to stand up for themselves; I'm out of here. ... Oh, so they'd rather ATTACK ME and try to force me to submit to theft by this bully of a monster rather than face the monster? What a bunch of cowardly jerks!"

Note that I'm not casting aspersions on the rest of the party in an objective sense. I am just trying to point out that he need not have been a selfish coward for doing what he did, and has room to logically view the rest of the party as the selfish and cowardly lot.

[Kafana]

To be fair, as well...

It is possible that the character's thought process was, "Screw giving up our stuff; we can take this thing. ...what? The others won't fight? Those weak cowards! I refuse to give up my stuff because they're too afraid to stand up for themselves; I'm out of here. ... Oh, so they'd rather ATTACK ME and try to force me to submit to theft by this bully of a monster rather than face the monster? What a bunch of cowardly jerks!"

Note that I'm not casting aspersions on the rest of the party in an objective sense. I am just trying to point out that he need not have been a selfish coward for doing what he did, and has room to logically view the rest of the party as the selfish and cowardly lot.

This might be the case, were it not for the clear intermezzo moment where I clearly explained what's going on and what will happen if he flees, and also offered him FULL COMPENSATION for his sacrifice. He would literally have to part with his possession for a week or two, and I clearly stated that. My character has the honest trait, +18 on his diplomacy and zero tolerance for unfulfilled contracts and promises. My character is law incarnate, and the fighter knew this.

[Engine]

This might be the case, were it not for the clear intermezzo moment where I clearly explained what's going on and what will happen if he flees, and also offered him FULL COMPENSATION for his sacrifice. He would literally have to part with his possession for a week or two, and I clearly stated that. My character has the honest trait, +18 on his diplomacy and zero tolerance for unfulfilled contracts and promises. My character is law incarnate, and the fighter knew this.

Diplomacy works only on NPCs.
I'll ask you: what were the terms of the contract? Because in your first post you said the Fighter was sworn to fight for you. Swearing to fight for someone doesn't mean that you have to serve in every manner.

[Threadnaught]

Beat him up, highest priority is keeping him alive.

Once he's down, restrain him and take the Glaive and give it to the Dragon.

Then dump him somewhere in the wilderness without untying him. Justice is balance, he left you to die without the gear you gave to the Dragon, leave him to the same fate. Don't leave him with the Dragon, that would be a tad unfair, leave him somewhere where there's no wildlife around to give him the same chance you had against the Dragon and once he wakes up, he can begin making Escape Artist checks and complain about those jerks who he almost killed in a similar way.


Punishment for desertion? Banishment.

[Vattic]

Well, first, you probably deal with the dragon.

NO.

Never Deal With Dragons.

[Andezzar]

Wasn't the rule never cut a deal with a dragon?

[aleucard]

Wasn't the rule never cut a deal with a dragon?

The only rule involving dragons that I am aware of is as follows;

"Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and quite good with ketchup."

This is true even in 3.5, since if played smart they routinely squish equal-CR PC parties in all but the higher-Op tables despite them being supposed to be worth 1/4 daily resources, and even then they can just take PC classes. I wonder which would work best?

[Andezzar]

It's a "rule" from Shadowrun. The whole proverb goes:"Watch your back, shoot straight, conserve ammo, and never, EVER cut a deal with a dragon." I think it's from the Secrets of Power Trilogy but I cannot confirm it right now.

[atemu1234]

This is a bad situation. Maybe just hand him by his toes from the ramparts for a bit?

[Zrak]

I would go for keeping the guy alive but coming up with a really humiliating punishment. If his glaive is important enough to risk all of your lives and the lives of thousands and thousands of people, help him "protect" it. Make him wear a chain "leash" and locked gauntlets that only one of you can unfasten. See how he feels after weeks of trying to sleep holding a glaive, soiling himself because you won't unlock his gauntlets to let him use the bathroom, and so on. When time he asks you to unfasten the gauntlets, for any reason, remind him how important his glaive is. Do this until he admits that maybe, just maybe, the glaive wasn't worth everyone else's life and apologizes for his cowardly betrayal.

[Rebel7284]

I would go for keeping the guy alive but coming up with a really humiliating punishment. If his glaive is important enough to risk all of your lives and the lives of thousands and thousands of people, help him "protect" it. Make him wear a chain "leash" and locked gauntlets that only one of you can unfasten. See how he feels after weeks of trying to sleep holding a glaive, soiling himself because you won't unlock his gauntlets to let him use the bathroom, and so on. When time he asks you to unfasten the gauntlets, for any reason, remind him how important his glaive is. Do this until he admits that maybe, just maybe, the glaive wasn't worth everyone else's life and apologizes for his cowardly betrayal.

Torture isn't particularly "good" either.

[Sith_Happens]

Wanna call him scum?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3dpNHiSfyeM/TcilvPk4QdI/AAAAAAAAAM4/ObTx0hFeqGE/s1600/Obito-statement-by-yuhaya.jpg

[Pan151]

Just let the guy go. He has no obligation and no desire to aid you anymore, and unless you're evil or Inevitable-Level-Hardcore-LN, or the deserter is an actual danger to the party/society, you have no reason to pursue him. You have more important things to do than chasing after some random guy for petty revenge.

[emeraldstreak]

Kill him. Thank me later.

[Harlot]

Sorry, it is still quite unclear to me whether this whole issue is also a problem OoC?

I know that the original question was simply whether the party could/should kill him or not, alignment-wise, and obviously there are lots of very diverse opinions on that.
I'd say you must find out the PC + character's reasons for doing running off like that/making that choice.

Because the PC might get miffed if he loses his character on actions he found reasonable or even fair while doing so, as Segev stated? And as I stated earlier, killing another PC should not be taken lightly...