Are Troglodytes people?

[fishyfishyfishy]

In a recent game session my party did something that my character, a Lawful Good Abjurer, found abhorrent: they killed a bunch of troglodytes who did nothing to us except attempt to defend their home from invasion; basic murder-hobo activities. Up until this point of the campaign we have not been in this type of situation before. Most enemies that we have killed have been obviously evil/undead/unintelligent monsters. We are searching a massive underground complex of tunnels dug out by Dwarves centuries ago; looking for a McGuffin. We were informed by the Dwarven community nearby before we set out that the Trogs have been performing raids. During our exploration we stumbled into their community and announced ourselves as peaceful. The Trogs shouted “kill them!” and attacked. I attempted-mid battle-to persuade my party members to use non-lethal measures against them. The Crusader (he was formerly a Knight, but recently underwent a character rebuild to be more effective) was the only reasonable person. He went total defense and only killed the chief after being charged at with a big club. The Neutral Good Cleric advocated killing them all as an appropriate response. The Dragonborn Wu-Jen (not sure of alignment) stated out of character that she views “uncivilized races” as being worthy of slaughter, and would never even consider a parlay. The Neutral Rogue wanted to kill things, and deliberately tried to splatter blood on my character with the intent of irritating me. The last player was not present and as a group we decided his character would likely just shoot the threats down until the Trogs were either all dead or backed down. I used an illusion to scare the majority of the Trogs away and they kept their distance while the rest of the PCs raided their homes for loot. I was unhappy with my party and expressed my concerns about their lack of compassion. The Dragonborn and I had a short confrontation (in character) about how I felt the Troglodytes are no different from she or I.

My question then is this: How should my character respond to this? My companions clearly place more value on the lives of Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Dragonborn, Gnomes, and Halflings than the perceived “lesser” races and I do not agree. My character is an advocate of equality and justice. How do I bring justice in this situation?

[atemu1234]

Tell them if they don't pay to get the trogdolytes rezzed, you'll get your order to hunt the other PCs down and burn them into fine holy ash.

[fishyfishyfishy]

We are level 7, and that level of magic is a bit beyond us at the moment.

[darksolitaire]

In a recent game session my party did something that my character, a Lawful Good Abjurer, found abhorrent: they killed a bunch of troglodytes who did nothing to us except attempt to defend their home from invasion; basic murder-hobo activities. Up until this point of the campaign we have not been in this type of situation before. Most enemies that we have killed have been obviously evil/undead/unintelligent monsters. We are searching a massive underground complex of tunnels dug out by Dwarves centuries ago; looking for a McGuffin. We were informed by the Dwarven community nearby before we set out that the Trogs have been performing raids. During our exploration we stumbled into their community and announced ourselves as peaceful. The Trogs shouted “kill them!” and attacked. I attempted-mid battle-to persuade my party members to use non-lethal measures against them. The Crusader (he was formerly a Knight, but recently underwent a character rebuild to be more effective) was the only reasonable person. He went total defense and only killed the chief after being charged at with a big club. The Neutral Good Cleric advocated killing them all as an appropriate response. The Dragonborn Wu-Jen (not sure of alignment) stated out of character that she views “uncivilized races” as being worthy of slaughter, and would never even consider a parlay. The Neutral Rogue wanted to kill things, and deliberately tried to splatter blood on my character with the intent of irritating me. The last player was not present and as a group we decided his character would likely just shoot the threats down until the Trogs were either all dead or backed down. I used an illusion to scare the majority of the Trogs away and they kept their distance while the rest of the PCs raided their homes for loot. I was unhappy with my party and expressed my concerns about their lack of compassion. The Dragonborn and I had a short confrontation (in character) about how I felt the Troglodytes are no different from she or I.


That should teach Troglodytes to abandon their racist manners and attacking peaceful humanoids on sight. What's done is done. Just do your best to minimize casualties.

[Deadline]

We were informed by the Dwarven community nearby before we set out that the Trogs have been performing raids.

Trogs are raiding nearby communities. This is not exactly behavior that you should support.


During our exploration we stumbled into their community and announced ourselves as peaceful. The Trogs shouted “kill them!” and attacked.

I ... I'm at a loss as to why you tried to reason with them at all. They were the aggressors before you arrived (i.e. they were raiding), and they tried to kill you after you announced your peaceful intentions. I'm having a hard time why you think your party members were wrong for defending themselves.

Is there more to the story that you forgot to add, or are you upset with the party for killing aggressive creatures that attacked them first?

[fishyfishyfishy]

I had no problem with them defending themselves, but they could have easily done so in a non lethal way. I would also like to say that I'm not upset out of character about this at all. I'm merely trying to role play this somewhat naive wizard coming to terms with the way the world works. Its not an easy thing for me to do.

[Deadline]

I had no problem with them defending themselves, but they could have easily done so in a non lethal way. I would also like to say that I'm not upset out of character about this at all. I'm merely trying to role play this somewhat naive wizard coming to terms with the way the world works. Its not an easy thing for me to do.

So in your character's opinion, should non-lethal methods always be used? Because again, when someone is trying to kill you, being worried about hurting them should really be the last thing on your list.

[fishyfishyfishy]

So in your character's opinion, should non-lethal methods always be used? Because again, when someone is trying to kill you, being worried about hurting them should really be the last thing on your list.

Unless they are unredeemable, yes. I don't employ any spells that deal damage and I always try to resolve things peacefully before resorting to fighting. Even when being attacked by things trying to kill me I would rather scare them away or subdue them. I specialized in Abjuration for a reason.

[Coidzor]

In a recent game session my party did something that my character, a Lawful Good Abjurer, found abhorrent: they killed a bunch of troglodytes who did nothing to us except attempt to defend their home from invasion


We were informed by the Dwarven community nearby before we set out that the Trogs have been performing raids. During our exploration we stumbled into their community and announced ourselves as peaceful. The Trogs shouted “kill them!” and attacked.

You just contradicted yourself. :smallconfused: Raiding others and trying to murder people who announce peaceful intent is not "defending their home from invasion."


The Dragonborn Wu-Jen (not sure of alignment) stated out of character that she views “uncivilized races” as being worthy of slaughter, and would never even consider a parlay.

Racist, but justified. They already rejected parley by trying to murder you on site and on sight.


The Neutral Rogue wanted to kill things, and deliberately tried to splatter blood on my character with the intent of irritating me.

Yeah, not the best sort of IC expression of OOC annoyance, but you kinda walked into that one by trying to derail the session like you did.


I was unhappy with my party and expressed my concerns about their lack of compassion.

Well, yeah, someone tries to kill you, as an adventurer, you kill them and take their loot, that's just how it works.


My question then is this: How should my character respond to this? My companions clearly place more value on the lives of Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Dragonborn, Gnomes, and Halflings than the perceived “lesser” races and I do not agree. My character is an advocate of equality and justice. How do I bring justice in this situation?

Obviously your character should leave the party and be replaced by one that's more in tune with the necessary killing of being an adventurer if they can't get over the fact that sometimes adventurers have to kill people.

Perhaps by taking control of the remaining Trogs and teaching them how to not make a nuisance of themselves that leads to their being exterminated and also how to deal with that atrocious scent of theirs.


Tell them if they don't pay to get the trogdolytes rezzed, you'll get your order to hunt the other PCs down and burn them into fine holy ash.

That's, uh, that's a good way to get one's character killed and possibly break up the gaming group, I suppose. :smallconfused:

Exacerbating the problem is not a good idea if one is interested in playing with this group in the future. :smalltongue:


I had no problem with them defending themselves, but they could have easily done so in a non lethal way. I would also like to say that I'm not upset out of character about this at all. I'm merely trying to role play this somewhat naive wizard coming to terms with the way the world works. Its not an easy thing for me to do.

Considering you're disrupting the game, you'll need to decide to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), so that you're not disrupting the game with your character, as well as have a conversation with the rest of the group OOC about what kinda game you all want to play.

[Svata]

Eh, its D&D, they tried to murder 'till you you were dead, and they'd been raiding local dwarven communities. Self-defense, and the protection of innocents (especially that second part) is totally within the confines of LG behavior.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I can see how you might interpret what I've said as trying to disrupt the game, but I assure you that is not what happened and it was not my intent. The other players were amicable to my role play and there were no hard feelings one way or the other. A little bit of inter party conflict can be fun.

That said, from my characters perspective these Troglodytes don't deserve death without a fair trial. We have no real proof they are the Trogs who performed these raids or even that it happened at all. Only one person, the leader of the Dwarf community, mentioned it to us. And his motivations are suspect. He had us arrested on trumped up charges as soon as we stepped in town! After a lengthy trial process with lie detection spells we were released but that's only because our story held up. For all I know he works for the league of dwarf assassins that want us dead.

[Nibbens]

What's really funny is that a month ago my friends ran into the exact same encounter. They were clearing out a derelict mine that was being used as a bunch of Trog's homes. After killing several trogs himself, the party barbarian started to see (in character) similarities between himself and his backstory and the things he was gleefully killing and bathing in their blood.

So, he stopped attacking the trogs, tried to start finding a common language and reason with them... All while the party was fighting them.

In a matter of 2 turns, 1/2 the party was taking the defensive and yelling for the others to stop slaughtering them.

It was beautiful and seriously made a few of the newer players realize that D&D isn't all kill-things-get-loot. Sometimes, it's more.

...

As far as the OP is concerned (Sorry to derail)


My character is an advocate of equality and justice. How do I bring justice in this situation?

I'd say your Wizard should try to appeal to any backstory the others may have provided. Show them to be in similar situations, etc etc. Create the connection.

If you can't relate the situation - then try to find a way to deal with the encounters the way you did personally (Scaring them off/using illusions). Out of character this should result in the same XP gain as killing them. In character, this fulfills the characters desire to do no harm and does not compromise the integrity of the party (You're still dealing with the monsters - if not killing them.)

[Svata]

Sure, sure. They still tried to kill you.

[Flickerdart]

You said you were peaceful, they tried to kill you, you killed them first. It doesn't matter whether or not the dwarves were telling the truth. The kind of character to use non-lethal means here would be the kind to do so anywhere - Exalted types, basically. And the worst way to play an Exalted character is to force your morals on the rest of the group.

[Svata]

I'd say your Wizard should try to appeal to any backstory the others may have provided. Show them to be in similar situations, etc etc. Create the connection.

If you can't relate the situation - then try to find a way to deal with the encounters the way you did personally (Scaring them off/using illusions). Out of character this should result in the same XP gain as killing them. In character, this fulfills the characters desire to do no harm and does not compromise the integrity of the party (You're still dealing with the monsters - if not killing them.)

Sure, but then whose fault is it when the trogs (because, lets face it, how likely is it that it is was some other group of troglodytes that was raiding them?) raids the dwarves the next week, and kill 25 of them, including seven babies?

[fishyfishyfishy]

You said you were peaceful, they tried to kill you, you killed them first. It doesn't matter whether or not the dwarves were telling the truth. The kind of character to use non-lethal means here would be the kind to do so anywhere - Exalted types, basically. And the worst way to play an Exalted character is to force your morals on the rest of the group.

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. How did you come to that conclusion? We talked about it and I tried to convince them that my way was better, they disagreed and we continued on as normal. I'm seeking role play advice on how to show them the good path, not retribution.

[TheIronGolem]

So in your character's opinion, should non-lethal methods always be used? Because again, when someone is trying to kill you, being worried about hurting them should really be the last thing on your list.

A party of 7th-level characters certainly has the means to nonlethally incapacitate a bunch of of weaker foes. It's not unreasonable for some Good-aligned characters to prefer that option since it causes the least amount of death and injury overall. It's a bit like if an eight-year-old was attacking me with a knife; I'm going to do my damndest to avoid seriously hurting him even if it means I take a few cuts.

Granted, such a character may not be able to get along with a classic murder-hobo party. So if the OP can't figure out a way to reconcile things in-character, he may do best having his character leave the party in disgust and roll up someone with more flexible morals.

[Deadline]

It's a bit like if an eight-year-old was attacking me with a knife; I'm going to do my damndest to avoid seriously hurting him even if it means I take a few cuts.

Sure, but your analogy only holds if that 8-year old were 5-6 feet tall, had a tough leathery carapace, had the strength of a reasonably well-muscled adult, hunted and ambushed people in the dark, and could release a toxic smell that had roughly similar effects to tear gas.

And again, the character will likely be in for either a rude awakening as to how the world works, or a long haul effort to try and get their companions to face foes with kid gloves all the time. That's going to be a tough sell. Appealing to humanity and compassion will probably be the best bet, and even then it may not work.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. How did you come to that conclusion? We talked about it and I tried to convince them that my way was better, they disagreed and we continued on as normal. I'm seeking role play advice on how to show them the good path, not retribution.
That's what I'm saying, though - it's not the good path, it's the ultra super incorruptible pure pureness path, and the best thing to do might be to just let it go.

[fishyfishyfishy]

That's what I'm saying, though - it's not the good path, it's the ultra super incorruptible pure pureness path, and the best thing to do might be to just let it go.

I don't think that would make for a very interesting character development story. I'd rather try and either make a difference or have my character change over time.

[Nibbens]

I'm seeking role play advice on how to show them the good path, not retribution.

In that case - lead by example. In combat, do the things to make enemies flee, or otherwise incapacitate them, rather than killing. In roleplay, always vote for the compassionate route.

Sure, you'll become the party's "goody-two-shoes" and will be chided in game as such, but it'll create interesting interactions! And make for a head turner if/when your character becomes disillusioned.

[Arbane]

What's the big deal? I mean, it's not like killing someone is the end of their existence, right? It's more the metaphysical equivalent of being forced to sit in the corner.

[fishyfishyfishy]

And again, the character will likely be in for either a rude awakening as to how the world works, or a long haul effort to try and get their companions to face foes with kid gloves all the time. That's going to be a tough sell. Appealing to humanity and compassion will probably be the best bet, and even then it may not work.

It has been so far. We've been gaming for months now and my character has a reputation with the PCs at this point. Then again our main foes have been blatantly evil undead and dwarf assassins (who I attempted to subdue as well).

[TheIronGolem]

Sure, but your analogy only holds if that 8-year old were 5-6 feet tall, had a tough leathery carapace, had the strength of a reasonably well-muscled adult, hunted and ambushed people in the dark, and could release a toxic smell that had roughly similar effects to tear gas.

Those things are not sufficient to make trogs a real threat to a party of the OP's caliber. If anything, my analogy is understating the power difference between the party and the trogs, compared to that between me and a kid with a knife. After all, that kid might get lucky and kill me. Those trogs, almost certainly not. And that greater difference in power means that it's more feasible, not less, that the party could deal with the trogs without killing them all. As such, a character like the OP's would not be unreasonable to say that they should.


And again, the character will likely be in for either a rude awakening as to how the world works, or a long haul effort to try and get their companions to face foes with kid gloves all the time. That's going to be a tough sell. Appealing to humanity and compassion will probably be the best bet, and even then it may not work.

I don't disagree with that. In fact that could easily be part of the appeal of playing this kind of character; you can get a lot of RP mileage out of the "trying to be the better man even when it's hard or even futile" thing. It could lead to the character compromising, or others being inspired to change their ways, and either result is interesting.

[Flickerdart]

I don't think that would make for a very interesting character development story. I'd rather try and either make a difference or have my character change over time.
Being Good isn't just about being a stick in the mud. Forgiveness is as much a demonstration of your character as anything else.

[JDL]

This is why I hate playing Lawful Good characters. Pretty much all my PCs would quite happily tromp into the Troglodyte den and murder them for no other reason than they have stuff I want and nobody I care about will get upset for me killing them. Kill the warriors, kill the elderly, kill the women and children too. Wipe them of the face of the earth and then roll the corpses for loot.

Any time I do play a Paladin, I make sure to dump their Intelligence score so they're justifiably dimwitted enough not to realize the irony of their actions.

[fishyfishyfishy]

This is why I hate playing Lawful Good characters. Pretty much all my PCs would quite happily tromp into the Troglodyte den and murder them for no other reason than they have stuff I want and nobody I care about will get upset for me killing them. Kill the warriors, kill the elderly, kill the women and children too. Wipe them of the face of the earth and then roll the corpses for loot.

Any time I do play a Paladin, I make sure to dump their Intelligence score so they're justifiably dimwitted enough not to realize the irony of their actions.

Unfortunately I'm a wizard with high mental abilities all around, with intelligence being the primary. :smallbiggrin:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by fishyfishyfishy
It has been so far. We've been gaming for months now and my character has a reputation with the PCs at this point.

I have to say, I admire your commitment to roleplaying a character like this. As you can tell from the replies here, there are some players who can't entirely fit their heads around what you're trying to do...and others who just don't think it's worthwhile.

As for your abjuring idealist, as long as your group is okay with this kind of RP, I would say your character should get a little preachy. He's been shocked; he's been horrified; he's been disappointed. Let that all come out. You can modulate the precise balance between preaching and pleading, but I would say play this as if your character is slowing approaching a watershed moment.

Ultimately it's up to the other players as to whether their characters will listen to your character's (heh) abjurations, but it sounds like your group is good enough at RP that they won't mistake your in-character hectoring for OOC complaints. So if your character wants justice, he needs to argue eloquently, persuasively, and most of all persistently. If your character really believes in his ideals, he won't give up yet.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Thank you. At least some people seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't want to get too pushy lest I do actually end up irritating the other players but I will keep that advice in mind. I imagine this character has very firm beliefs, and it will take a lot more than this to change his perspective.

[Jack_Simth]

As many, many others have noted at this point:

1) The trogs were very much not peacful before you encountered them - you had reports of raiding.
2) You made the attempt at a peaceful contact when you relatively randomly ran across their home.
3) They attacked you, and the chief ordered the attack in a language you understood - which (among other things) means that the guy giving the orders understood you at step 2 (as did everyone else, otherwise they wouldn't have understood the kill order).
4) You guys defended yourselves, successfully and mostly lethally, vs. people that attacked you with apparent intent to kill, apparently unprovoked.
5) "Loot the bodies" is a thing, more so on 'ye oldene timese', and you did so.

So... yeah. While it may not have been particularly nice, unless they afterwards started hunting down the fleeing kiddos (which I'm not seeing), this is all within line of a LG D&D character. You tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, they declined, and reaped the fruit of their deeds. As a DM, I wouldn't hit anyone's alignment away from LG for participating (it might break certain exalted vows, but that'd be specific to the vow, not exalted status in general). The Neutral Rogue is acting slightly chaotic, but unless such splashing blood actions are commonplace, it's a minor act and not worthy of a shift (not that it'd matter for a Rogue).

Mind you: Alignment is not intended as a straightjacket. You're a bit more of an idealist than most - well and good. Play it out. You'll want to watch the line between IC and OOC problems, but you're already well aware of the pitfall, it seems, and are in a better position than anyone here to judge how far you can reasonably press IC before it becomes an OOC issue.

[redwizard007]

In that case - lead by example. In combat, do the things to make enemies flee, or otherwise incapacitate them, rather than killing. In roleplay, always vote for the compassionate route.

Sure, you'll become the party's "goody-two-shoes" and will be chided in game as such, but it'll create interesting interactions! And make for a head turner if/when your character becomes disillusioned.

+1. That can be a lot of fun if done right. BUT YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOU DISCUSS THIS OOC.

[TheIronGolem]

This is why I hate playing Lawful Good characters.
It shouldn't be, because while the OP's character type is a perfectly good way to do Lawful Good, it's only one of many.

[Deadline]

It has been so far. We've been gaming for months now and my character has a reputation with the PCs at this point. Then again our main foes have been blatantly evil undead and dwarf assassins (who I attempted to subdue as well).

The key thing is to, as was mentioned earlier, lead by example. Don't chide, demand, or plead with your party to do things your way, that is almost always seen as trying to force your morality onto others (because it kinda is). Your character should focus on doing things a peaceful way, and show by example that it can work. Gently encourage others to see their foes as more than just enemies, and never deliver an ultimatum to your party members unless you are prepared to make good on it.

You might also want to talk to the other players OOC to let them know what you are doing, and see if any of them have an interest in developing their character the same way.

Above all, don't expect the other characters to actually change.

[OldTrees1]

My question then is this: How should my character respond to this? My companions clearly place more value on the lives of Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Dragonborn, Gnomes, and Halflings than the perceived “lesser” races and I do not agree. My character is an advocate of equality and justice. How do I bring justice in this situation?

You could try to lead by example since it looks like you lack the social power to enact a social movement at this time.

[Deadline]

Those things are not sufficient to make trogs a real threat to a party of the OP's caliber. If anything, my analogy is understating the power difference between the party and the trogs, compared to that between me and a kid with a knife.

Except that still doesn't work. How do you know that trog over there isn't a 15th level warblade? Or that trog shaman isn't a 20th level wizard? Why should the party gamble their lives on these particular trogs not knowing which end of the spear is dangerous?

[Coidzor]

I can see how you might interpret what I've said as trying to disrupt the game, but I assure you that is not what happened and it was not my intent.

Alright, so how do you characterize what happened given that one of the other players started using it as an excuse to antagonize you into PVP?


The other players were amicable to my role play and there were no hard feelings one way or the other. A little bit of inter party conflict can be fun.

This doesn't sound like the fun form of inter-party conflict. If it were, you wouldn't be discussing it with us, now would you? :smalltongue:


That said, from my characters perspective these Troglodytes don't deserve death without a fair trial.

And why did you build a character that's an adventurer and will try to encourage his allies to not defend themselves to the fullest, risking their lives by holding back against foes that can and will kill them? :smalltongue:


We have no real proof they are the Trogs who performed these raids or even that it happened at all. Only one person, the leader of the Dwarf community, mentioned it to us. And his motivations are suspect. He had us arrested on trumped up charges as soon as we stepped in town! After a lengthy trial process with lie detection spells we were released but that's only because our story held up. For all I know he works for the league of dwarf assassins that want us dead.

Why are you taking quests from people you think are your enemy, then? :smallconfused: Especially given that this was a side-quest they mentioned in passing rather than asking you to do or offering the job to you directly.


I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. How did you come to that conclusion? We talked about it and I tried to convince them that my way was better, they disagreed and we continued on as normal. I'm seeking role play advice on how to show them the good path, not retribution.

You're not trying to show them the good path. You and your character are just plain wrong unless the DM has altered the game to make you right.

And if the DM has altered the game to make you right, you should have a very easy job indeed as they start to notice their alignments shifting towards Evil because they're not going along with what you're selling.

Edit: That said, you wanna focus on scaring foes off? Here you go (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8759.0).

Opalescent Glare in particular will be of interest because it's permanent, apparently. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?199510-3-5-Opalescent-Glare-PERMANENT-gaze-attack)


Except that still doesn't work. How do you know that trog over there isn't a 15th level warblade? Or that trog shaman isn't a 20th level wizard? Why should the party gamble their lives on these particular trogs not knowing which end of the spear is dangerous?

Trogs do advance by Character Class, after all.

[Arbane]

This is why I hate playing Lawful Good characters.

(Snip)

Any time I do play a Paladin, I make sure to dump their Intelligence score so they're justifiably dimwitted enough not to realize the irony of their actions.

That's what Detect Evil is for. As for the rest... "Kill them all, let Pharasma sort them out."

[sleepyphoenixx]

Troglodytes are usually chaotic evil. As such they are on the list of acceptable targets unless you have serious reason to assume they're unusual for their race. They did nothing to indicate they were unusual (more the opposite).
They were most likely bandits, murdering and stealing from innocents. In the pseudo-medieval standard D&D world that doesn't warrant a trial, it's reason to be killed on sight.
They attacked despite your parties attempts at a peaceful resolution, forcing you to defend yourselves.

Per D&D morality, any of the three facts would be enough to justify lethal force. You're not going to drag a bunch of bandits a few weeks through the wilderness to a trial that will see them executed anyway, assuming you were even within the borders of some place with laws.
You're also not going to spare them, because they won't suddenly see the error of their ways. Any you leave alive continue to be a threat to the lives and livelihood of the surrounding villages.

Not to say you can't play your character like you did, but you have to be aware that, objectively, they're either incredibly naive or dedicated pacifists, and most people won't agree with them and might even consider them either stupid or insane.
If the inter-party conflict persists you'll come to a point where you have to ask yourself why that character continues adventuring with the party, or even at all.

[KillianHawkeye]

Hi fishy,

I actually play a somewhat similar character as the one you describe (a LG Abjurer with a bit of a paladin complex), however mine is not so naive as yours. I don't personally partake in needless violence, but I also don't have qualms with doing what is necessary. I will put myself at risk if it helps my party, and I use my spells to protect my allies and hinder my enemies.

I guess what I'm saying is that the only major difference between our two characters is that I recognize that I am not responsible for the actions of others, and that while death can often be unfortunate it is also sometimes unavoidable. My priorities are more focused on protecting the innocent and the lives of my comrades than on trying to minimize the total amount of harm to all parties. Peace is preferable to war, but the choice is not always ours to make and some fights are worth fighting despite the damage done. At least, that's my character's worldview and take on the Lawful Good alignment. One man, even a wizard, cannot accomplish everything.



Now then, one thing you mentioned that I wanted to bring up was your character's desire to give the troglodytes a fair trial. That is understandable, but in many cases these kinds of "less civilized" races basically live outside the law. The one problem with law enforcement, at least in terms of the laws of the land or kingdom or whatever, is jurisdiction. In most typical D&D settings, you have your big cities with their big city problems, and then you have your lawless, "wild west" style frontiers where the only law is "might makes right." In these situations, having an actual trial with due process and innocence until proof of guilt is simply unfeasible and is the result of bringing a city-centric mentality out past the edges of civilization.



Now I'm not sure if any of this will be helpful to you or not, but hopefully some of the concepts I've touched upon can be used as milestones--lessons that your character will need to learn--in order to eventually outgrow his naivety. Good luck! :smallsmile:

[Vhaidara]

Now, you could also take this the other way: Your character was this naive idealist, but after seeing these creatures butchered by his savage comrades, something in him broke. Do it slowly, over like a year/10 levels, whichever is longer. Play him meaner. Be more likely to give to violence, and eventually be the one to suggest them. Then start doing things to cause pain instead of just killing quickly. Eventually, everyone is a lesser being than you are, and if they get in your way, they will be removed. Forcibly.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Alright, let me address a few things.


The key thing is to, as was mentioned earlier, lead by example. Don't chide, demand, or plead with your party to do things your way, that is almost always seen as trying to force your morality onto others (because it kinda is). Your character should focus on doing things a peaceful way, and show by example that it can work. Gently encourage others to see their foes as more than just enemies, and never deliver an ultimatum to your party members unless you are prepared to make good on it.

Yes this seems to be the best course of action from here. Encouraging my teammates to be better in all things.


You might also want to talk to the other players OOC to let them know what you are doing, and see if any of them have an interest in developing their character the same way.

I actually shared a link to this thread with them all. Several have already looked at it and have responded. They have only encouraged me to RP the character how I feel is appropriate.


Above all, don't expect the other characters to actually change.
Oh of course. It is a group game after all.


Alright, so how do you characterize what happened given that one of the other players started using it as an excuse to antagonize you into PVP? This doesn't sound like the fun form of inter-party conflict. If it were, you wouldn't be discussing it with us, now would you? :smalltongue:
He has assured me that he was only being playful-and I took it as such at the time. My character has established himself as being REALLY clean all the time. So he was provoking me, but not with the intention of fighting me. In character conflict has not translated into out of character problems. And I don't think it will.


And why did you build a character that's an adventurer and will try to encourage his allies to not defend themselves to the fullest, risking their lives by holding back against foes that can and will kill them?
Because I envision a person with a sense of right and wrong and core values that are central to their character. Someone who will defend the weak with everything they have and seek justice and equality for everyone.


Why are you taking quests from people you think are your enemy, then? :smallconfused: Especially given that this was a side-quest they mentioned in passing rather than asking you to do or offering the job to you directly.
You misunderstand. We were in the tunnels looking for a McGuffin. The Dwarf settlement is a mining town that is the closest civilization to the area we are searching, so we decided to use it as a base of operations for the duration of our search. The Troglodytes were encountered during our exploration and we originally had no intention of confronting them one way or the other.


Troglodytes are usually chaotic evil. As such they are on the list of acceptable targets unless you have serious reason to assume they're unusual for their race. They did nothing to indicate they were unusual (more the opposite).
They were most likely bandits, murdering and stealing from innocents. In the pseudo-medieval standard D&D world that doesn't warrant a trial, it's reason to be killed on sight.
They attacked despite your parties attempts at a peaceful resolution, forcing you to defend yourselves.

I don't necessarily disagree with this point of view. My character, however, does. And that is why I have sought RP advice.


You're not going to drag a bunch of bandits a few weeks through the wilderness to a trial that will see them executed anyway, assuming you were even within the borders of some place with laws. You're also not going to spare them, because they won't suddenly see the error of their ways. Any you leave alive continue to be a threat to the lives and livelihood of the surrounding villages.
We're a full day walk from the mining town I mentioned above, so it's not totally unfeasible. And we have encountered similar situations in the past with bandits on the highway and did exactly that; we dragged their butts back to town to be dealt with by the law enforcement. And it wasn't even my idea. The crusader I mentioned was the one who thought of it and we all went with it.


Not to say you can't play your character like you did, but you have to be aware that, objectively, they're either incredibly naive or dedicated pacifists, and most people won't agree with them and might even consider them either stupid or insane.
Oh yes, he is very naive. I see plenty of opportunity for character growth. And the cleric of the group does think I'm insane.


If the inter-party conflict persists you'll come to a point where you have to ask yourself why that character continues adventuring with the party, or even at all.
It's friendly at this point but I can see that being a potential outcome. It really depends on many different factors.


Hi fishy,
snip
Now I'm not sure if any of this will be helpful to you or not, but hopefully some of the concepts I've touched upon can be used as milestones--lessons that your character will need to learn--in order to eventually outgrow his naivety. Good luck! :smallsmile:
I found this very helpful, thank you!


Now, you could also take this the other way: Your character was this naive idealist, but after seeing these creatures butchered by his savage comrades, something in him broke. Do it slowly, over like a year/10 levels, whichever is longer. Play him meaner. Be more likely to give to violence, and eventually be the one to suggest them. Then start doing things to cause pain instead of just killing quickly. Eventually, everyone is a lesser being than you are, and if they get in your way, they will be removed. Forcibly.
That's also an option. Right now I'm leaning more towards being a beacon for good but who knows what the future holds?


Thank you all for the replies by the way. I appreciate the insight from everyone.

[Toilet Cobra]

I once played a wizard who was like your evil mirror twin! He was also naive and didn't really understand the way things go in the gritty D&D world (tower-born, academy trained, wealthy family...). His problem was that instead of a soft heart, he was a generally nice guy with a sadistic streak. He got a rush out of the destructive power of magic.

The amusing thing is that my party also didn't like my wizard's actions, and we had the opposite of the argument you had. They were telling me to cool it, and I was the one rationalizing with "But they're evil ettercaps! They're attacking defenseless travelers!" Good times.

As for actual advice for the OP, I got nothin. Except maybe ask the party to let you take the lead on your next encounter? If you're willing to put yourself in danger, they will probably let you give it a shot. Use an illusion or Alter Self or something to look like a trog, walk up and try to parley. If it goes badly, then your party jumps out of the shadows.

[SowZ]

I also hate genocidal murder hobo games, but I'm not seeing it here. I would have reacted just as violently if they were humans. If I was backpacking through Scotland and walked into a village, asked where I can get a pint, and everyone tried to kill me? I'd do whatever I could to escape. Including kill. Yes, non lethal tactics would be preferable but are not obligatory. The Troglodytes chose to enter combat with peaceful warriors. They accepted that the consequence might be death. Their deaths are on them, not your party.

[Vhaidara]

That's also an option. Right now I'm leaning more towards being a beacon for good but who knows what the future holds?

Eh, since our resident Master of Evil the Mayor of Sunnydale Red Fel doesn't seem to be here, I felt it was my duty to offer the path of corruption.

[jedipotter]

Well, it kinda comes down too the base of ''no race is considered people''. If your going by that one sided, one mind view that all races are special and should all be treated some special way.

It's a great theory, but it's not piratical.

Take Elves. If your an elf, you might say ''elves are people'' and must be treated ''super special''. Like for example you can't just ''kill and elf'' for no good reason......


.....but, of course, if you do have a good reason and it's a reason you can get people to agree with you on....then it's OK to kill and elf.

[redwizard007]

...but, of course, if you do have a good reason and it's a reason you can get people to agree with you on....then it's OK to kill and elf.

This is sig worthy... I just couldn't help it.

[dantiesilva]

I had a situation like this about a year back in a game I played. I was playing a human DMM persist cleric with prestige paladin at the time and we were inside a small town getting ready for a ball. We had previously meet a character that was known right away to be a villain, however around my cleric she was different. Suffice to say they got close, and before the dukes ball they did the tango (I invested in dance and rolled a natural 20 so yea the DM did a great job describing everything). Later on at the ball she tried to kill the party, but again my character refused to harm her. She fled and we moved on to the next chapter of the game.

Later down the road we find an all powerful being who basically has the powers of the plane of positive energy. We stay in the village a short time and the woman shows up again with an army. She explains to us to leave or we will be killed like the rest of them in her path to kill Arrallae (the plane of positive energy person). I tell her I already did, and to prove it for her to follow me (thus removing her from combat. When she follows me I plane shift us both to the abyss where we find ourselves surrounded by a bunch of hungry demons seeing dinner time. However instead of attacking her my character continued to pled with her, and he called her out saying unleash your worst, and if I survive you will lay down your hatred and be with me.

Well six sword blades came down upon me, and I was still standing, barely but still standing, I had not lifted a finger nor healed myself to prove my characters point. Just before the last stroke hit (which would have killed my character) a Solar came down who we had saved when the game began, and rescued me bringing me back to the prime leaving her there. While the group never understood why he did what he did, they respected his choice and always allowed him to deal with her when she showed up.

Later on my character learned she once lived in the woods we traveled and loved a druid. One day Arrallae came falling from the sky, and from that moment on the druid loved and protected her instead. Well Jealous and baring a child she attacked Arrallae to gain his love and attention back. It backfired and she was banished from the woods. My character learned this from the fey who banished her, and explained to him that if he ever saw her again to let her know she was no longer banished, and forgiven. That they had made a mistake in banishing her.

I hope this helps you OP, stick to your guns, as sometimes it can be one of the most rewarding things. Especially if you have a good gaming group that will allow you to try things your way first over time.

[jedipotter]

This is sig worthy... I just couldn't help it.

Hummm...look at your location, hummmm.


The point is though that a race like elves, dragons or troglodytes ''are'' or ''are not'' people, depending on what people say at the moment.

And it kinda does not matter: say elves are people and elven bandits attack. Do you kill them or just subdue them? Does a dozen elf bandits make all elves worldwide people or not people? If you decide orcs are not people, then you can just kill them right?

[JDL]

It shouldn't be, because while the OP's character type is a perfectly good way to do Lawful Good, it's only one of many.

Oh, absolutely. The last Paladin I played would start combat shouting "Drop your weapons and lay down on the ground!"

Anyone who didn't gets a mouthful of Smite.

[Sam K]

Except that still doesn't work. How do you know that trog over there isn't a 15th level warblade? Or that trog shaman isn't a 20th level wizard? Why should the party gamble their lives on these particular trogs not knowing which end of the spear is dangerous?

This. While you can argue that trogs aren't challenging enough to "require" lethal force, your character doesn't know that. The trogs could have several combatants with class levels, access to magic items (and actually USE them) or have reinforcements flanking the party. While your average trog warrior may not be a high risk, a group of them, with possible unknown elements, is def a threat that warrants lethal force. While trying to spare them anyway is def good (perhaps even exalted) behaviour, I wouldn't say that responding with lethal force is "not treating them as people". Part of being people is being sentinent, and being able to make choices. If you chose to attack me with lethal force, you should expect lethal force to be used in retaliation.

On an RP note, perhaps your character should consider (or another member of the party might point out) that not fighting at optimal efficiency could be a betrayal of trust between party members. Adventuring with someone does generally imply that you will have their back and do your best to prevent risks to them in the pursuit of the party goals. Insisting that they limit their efficiency, or trying to stop them from fighting back when being attacked, could well put them in danger. Should lead to some interesting RP.

[Madhava]

I'm not sure about the troglodytes, but lurkers above sure as hells are! They're just minding their own business, lurking, trying to keep their ceiling a quiet, peaceful place to live; nice for maybe raising 2.5 little sucklings above. But as is wont to happen, a bunch of damned two-legs always rolls in & puts betrothed above to the sword. We all knew her as Tonya Above :smallsigh: What's a lurker to do?


This. While you can argue that trogs aren't challenging enough to "require" lethal force, your character doesn't know that. The trogs could have several combatants with class levels, access to magic items (and actually USE them) or have reinforcements flanking the party

In all fairness, if the party is up against the seasoned-veteran-troglodytes, one would probably realize this reasonably quickly. If they seem to be wearing metal suits, or twirling around acid-dripping glowing spiked chains, or if all your party members with spellcraft suddenly yell 'incoming'... now, lethal force is probably a fine idea. Or, if all the trogs look like they're doing that 'just got done talking to Paimon' drool-grin-thing.

(In other words, wielding anything more exceptional-looking than common clubs.)

In which case, those dwarves probably should have warned(enticed) the party, that they were being hired to engage trogelites.

Also, I've no argument to counter the risk of vast numbers being present, or possibly local. This typically could be an issue, damn those lesser races.

[Psyren]

Sure, but your analogy only holds if that 8-year old were 5-6 feet tall, had a tough leathery carapace, had the strength of a reasonably well-muscled adult, hunted and ambushed people in the dark, and could release a toxic smell that had roughly similar effects to tear gas.

And also was mentally an adult too. Trogs have 8 Int, hardly the short bus.

So really, his analogy doesn't work at all.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, troglodytes are people. With 8 int, that makes them sapient organisms, capable of tool use,reflection, and, most relevantly, rational decision making. Because of that last portion, they can be held responsible for any action they undertake. There's nothing even remotely evil about killing them in return for them attempting to do so. Looting there houses was probably a bit excessive, but that's a fairly minor blip (to the victor go the spoils, and all that).

[zql]

Convince the party to compromise to fight in your way for one time, if the outcome it's good enough maybe they will change their minds.
If the outcome it's terrible (someone is seriously hurt or lack of effectiveness shows that killing is suited as the only answer) that will teach your character that maybe the world it's just more complex than you thought, and your ideals need a readjustment.
Good rolplaying in any case.