PDA

View Full Version : Kobold-murdering PC. How would you handle it if you were DM?



Pages : [1] 2

gadren
2015-07-26, 04:53 PM
So, I'm currently running a level 6 game with a massive semi-sentient dungeon that is self-sustaining: it summons monsters and traps, and monsters and traps in this massive dungeon get stronger over time if left alone (Gaining about +1 CR for every ten days left alone). Many adventuring parties have come and gone, exploring and looting the place (or, more frequently, dying).

During this weekend's session, two party members (a neutral shadowdancer and a lawful good crusader of Moradin) went to scout a bit while the rest of the party rested. They came across a cavern that had apparently already been hit by another adventuring party. The remains of dead monsters were around, and piles of copper pieces, glass gems, and low-quality jewelry were strewn about... because of adventurers messing up the local economy, copper coins aren't worth much and these were left behind. The room was now populated by four unarmed kobolds with wheelbarrows, collecting what they could.

The crusader immediately started cutting the kobolds down. The kobolds screamed and plead for mercy and fled, but he 1-hit killed each one. The last one was taken out as it had reached the exit: the crusader threw his hammer and hit the fleeing kobold in the back. The shadowdancer was highly distressed by this and tried to physically restrain the crusader, but was not terribly successful.

Afterwards, the shadowdancer and the crusader had a big argument. The shadowdancer called the crusader a murderer. The crusader rationalized his behavior because he assumed the kobolds were creations of the sentient dungeon. If they'd been left alone, they'd have grown into bigger threats and wandered into the nearby city, possibly hurting innocents. However, the kobolds were NOT creations of the dungeon, they were scavengers picking the scraps left behind by adventurers. The crusader made no actual attempt to discern if they were creatures created by the dungeon or not.

If he was a Paladin, I would've immediately stripped him of his paladin powers until he atoned. However, Crusaders only lose their powers if their alignment changes, and I wasn't sure this one act merited a full alignment change. I warned the player that making such behavior a habit would result in an alignment slip, and the player was a bit defiant and said he didn't think Moradin would really care about him killing a few kobolds.

If you were DM, how would handle it?

I don't like to tell players how to play their characters, but I just don't get why 95% of the time someone plays an LG character, they play them as a bigger ****head than even some of the evil PCs I've had. When the rest of the part found out, most of them were also upset with the Crusader. The only one who wasn't was the party's actual paladin, who agreed with the crusader's greater-good reasoning.

UPDATE 1:

Interesting conundrum. I would err on the side of the crusader, as he didnhave any way of knowing the kobold's origins. As a DM, there should be clear demarcations that something is spawned by the dungeon or not especially if playes will be interacting with outsiders while in it. Maybe have the dungeon-spawned monsters turn to ash when they die?

They actually do start to slowly turn to into a distinctive goo after they die.
Also, anyone from the outside of the dungeon would have to have obtained a special key to get into it. If he'd asked the kobolds about it, they could've shown it to him.
Also, monsters inside the dungeon know nothing of the outside world. Some questioning could've determined that they were not, in fact, summoned creatures.
Also, summoned creatures interact with a variety of spells differently than planar natives. So a variety of spells could be used to determine their origin.

It literally would've taken 6 seconds for him to stop and determine if the kobolds were summoned monsters or not, but he chose not to "waste time".

UPDATE 2:
Man, I love it when a topic I post becomes hot, but at the same time its really hard when I've got dozens of questions/accusations for me and a new post in the thread literally every 1-5 minutes.

Anyways...

I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"
This pretty much sums it up. It was a chaotic evil act. I wasn't really looking for input on that. You can tell me it wasn't chaotic evil til you're blue in the face, but that is my ruling as DM.

My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.

Some points that I didn't bring up before but seem important now:
-The campaign is very much about old-school D&D dungeon delve style both played very straight (to the point of satire) but also subverted. The dungeon is borderline silly, and it's supposed to be viewed that way. But in town it's already been communicated that there's more going on. The people living there, even veteran NPC adventurers, think the whole setup is very strange, and have communicated this in previously RP encounters. The economy is royally f'ed up by the all the treasure coming in. And the town is filled with all sorts of strange NPCs that are bit of a parody of special-snowflake PC types.
-The same day of the incident, the crusader was in the Temple of Moradin, where the clergy was grumbling and quietly bickering among themselves about some of the new members of the clergy that had showed up from out of town - including a fire giant cleric of Moradin, a half-orc paladin of Moradin, and an elf favored soul of Moradin. The dwarven high priest of Moradin had declared that they had proven themselves to indeed be loyal Sonnlinor, but some of the clergy are ready to mutiny.
-The crusader in question has also been borderline deceptive with the rest of the party on multiple occasions. When he thinks they'll hinder something he wants to do, he'll invent some excuse to separate or even straight-up lie (on two occasions). Its not enough on its own for me to think it'd put his lawful alignment in jeopardy, but combined with the kobold incident...

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-26, 04:59 PM
Point out to him that his character's Lawful Good alignment would care, since Lawful Good people don't murder the unarmed.

And that's not just a paladin thing. It's a common sense thing. If he's Good, he doesn't murder (in the sense of unjustified homicide). And if he's really Lawful, he believes in fair fight and due process. Murdering unarmed opponents of questionable guilt as they beg for mercy is neither due process nor a fair fight.

As for alignment change? If a Neutral Good wizard drops an Empowered Meteor Swarm in the middle of a residential area, does he stay Good? Hell no. One act is all it takes to be a war criminal.

Brendanicus
2015-07-26, 05:03 PM
Interesting conundrum. I would err on the side of the crusader, as he didnhave any way of knowing the kobold's origins. As a DM, there should be clear demarcations that something is spawned by the dungeon or not especially if playes will be interacting with outsiders while in it. Maybe have the dungeon-spawned monsters turn to ash when they die?

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-26, 05:08 PM
Interesting conundrum. I would err on the side of the crusader, as he didnhave any way of knowing the kobold's origins. As a DM, there should be clear demarcations that something is spawned by the dungeon or not especially if playes will be interacting with outsiders while in it. Maybe have the dungeon-spawned monsters turn to ash when they die? What kind of Good guy executes people without gathering enough information towards their guilt? You do realize killing people because they might be bad is not Good, right?

gadren
2015-07-26, 05:09 PM
Interesting conundrum. I would err on the side of the crusader, as he didnhave any way of knowing the kobold's origins. As a DM, there should be clear demarcations that something is spawned by the dungeon or not especially if playes will be interacting with outsiders while in it. Maybe have the dungeon-spawned monsters turn to ash when they die?

They actually do start to slowly turn to into a distinctive goo after they die.
Also, anyone from the outside of the dungeon would have to have obtained a special key to get into it. If he'd asked the kobolds about it, they could've shown it to him.
Also, monsters inside the dungeon know nothing of the outside world. Some questioning could've determined that they were not, in fact, summoned creatures.
Also, summoned creatures interact with a variety of spells differently than planar natives. So a variety of spells could be used to determine their origin.

Keltest
2015-07-26, 05:14 PM
I would say that he would become Lawful Neutral and suffer through the consequences until he can achieve redemption and earn back an LG alignment. Slaughtering the unarmed while they plead for mercy is not something a good character would do unless he knew beyond a doubt that it was the only way to eliminate a major threat.

erikun
2015-07-26, 05:16 PM
It sounds like the PC was not expecting (or not interpreting properly) the setting that the DM had presented.

The DM has presented a situation where a dungeon constantly generates monsters, continuously makes them stronger, and presumably presents a danger to neighboring towns. The PCs are people living in and presumably protecting those towns. The PCs went into a dungeon. The PCs met some monsters.

What did you really expect to happen?

It is entirely reasonable for the crusader to suddenly cut down the monsters in the monster-spawning and monster-strengthing dungeon. This is doubly true if the campaign features creatures like succubi, fey, or anything else that may rely on mimicry or trickery; there is no reason why someone should believe that these were innocent kobolds trying to save their skin rather than dungeon-spawned kobolds trying to save their skin so that they can get stronger in one week. Besides, if these trinkets were worthless, then why in the world would a kobold go into a monster-infested and adventurer-infested dungeon (any encounter of which might likely prove fatal) just to collect some pretty trinkets?



If I was DM in this situation, I would either make it quite clear if the kobold are NPCs or monsters - either have a friendly kobold trading caravan in town, perhaps with the PCs hired to make sure it travels safely to hammer the point home, or I would have the kobolds as clear monsters spawning from the dungeon. I don't see a very good way to implement both, especially with the setup in the setting: even IF there was just a single village of friendly kobolds different from the dungeon-spawned ones, there's still a problem of the village-kobolds getting immensely stronger if they visit the dungeon. Perhaps you could establish a distinction between the two, showing that the village-kobolds are reasonable and capable of thinking for themselves while the dungeon-kobolds are mindless aggressive drones, but that seems like it.

If you wanted to establish a village of kobolds as non-violent, then be sure to present it in a way which the PCs don't have a good reason to attack it. That is, they are travelling with some friendly NPCs which include a friendly NPC kobols, or which are going to the village and hail them as friendly. Don't just allow the PCs to wander upon the village and act surprised when they start attacking.

And don't try to cause PCs to lose class powers because they attacked something appearing from the Monster Manual in your "everything in the Monster Manual" dungeon.


[EDIT]

They actually do start to slowly turn to into a distinctive goo after they die.
Also, anyone from the outside of the dungeon would have to have obtained a special key to get into it. If he'd asked the kobolds about it, they could've shown it to him.
Also, monsters inside the dungeon know nothing of the outside world. Some questioning could've determined that they were not, in fact, summoned creatures.
Also, summoned creatures interact with a variety of spells differently than planar natives. So a variety of spells could be used to determine their origin.
Offer the PC the option of redemption. No penalty this time, although consider it half-a-ping towards LN if they ignore it and full LG redemption if they take it.

The crusader had no way of knowing that they were not monsters when attacking, even with the begging - see the succubus example, above. Afterwards, though, it would've been quite clear the mistake which was made. Any Good-aligned character would be in remorse and inclined to make right, even if such action is meaningless to the ones affected. If the PC doesn't care about that and remains defensive, then their Good-alignment is looking shakey. At this point is isn't enough to change their alignment, although they should be wary about too many more of these technically-not-Evil actions on their part.

Elbeyon
2015-07-26, 05:17 PM
How I would answer depends on the kobolds of the world. Are they monsters or people? If they're monsters people can kill them without remorse. I'm not saying they should be monsters, but if they are then murder is justifiable. If they are people then wth. I'd give a strong warning about killing people, no mechanical punishment, and probably no rp hick-ups either since they murdered something in a dungeon and no one will ever find out (probably). Dungeons kill people, yo. It's kind of an expected outcome of a death trap.

gadren
2015-07-26, 05:23 PM
Well, here's the other thing.
The kobolds' mom is a relatively high level adept living nearby. One of the options was supposed to be if the PCs convinced the kobolds that scavenging for leftovers there was a really bad idea, they'd have been rewarded by mama kobold. But instead, they murdered them...

I'm tempted to have mama kobold come looking, use speak with dead on her kids, and then try to track down the dwarf and demand compensation.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-26, 05:25 PM
I would give the player the full benefit of the doubt that he thought he was playing his character's alignment correctly.

I would give him a heads up that allowing sapient creatures to surrender to him is part of the Good alignment, and that if he kills opponents in the name of expediency, then I will rule that he is going to shift alignments sooner than later.

I would make it clear to him that he decided to play an alignment dependent character, and that I am obliged to consider alignment during gameplay.

I would tell him that if his character persists in this conduct, then that character will, at the very least need to be subject to an Atonement spell, or lose access to the character's class features.

I would point out that if a character's action is informed by what the most optimal tactical response at all times, then that is aggressive self-interest in a way that is a better fit for Neutrality than for Good.

erikun
2015-07-26, 05:29 PM
I'm tempted to have mama kobold come looking, use speak with dead on her kids, and then try to track down the dwarf and demand compensation.
Sounds like a bad idea, and just a way to provide the crusader PC a motivation for having killed the kobolds.

If you missed my edit from above, I recommended offering the crusader an option for redemption: just a one-time thing, either in a dream for the character or something a local clergy mentions. Something like "Several have fallen in the dungeon and come to me that you, brave soul, are best able to retrieve them. Will you accept?" Something as simple as going back, collecting the bodies and wheelbarrows/trinkets and returning them to the town should be sufficient to scrub their "Good record", as it at least shows that the character wants to set things right. If he drops in a few GP as well, all the better.

Of course, the kobold mama finding out what happened and being resentful is an interesting angle to take things in. Just make sure that something interesting can happen: don't just have her up and attack the party for just one more random combat encounter.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-26, 05:30 PM
How I would answer depends on the kobolds of the world. Are they monsters or people? If they're monsters people can kill them without remorse. I'm not saying they should be monsters, but if they are then murder is justifiable. If they are people then wth. I'd give a strong warning about killing people, no mechanical punishment, and probably no rp hick-ups either since they murdered something in a dungeon and no one will ever find out (probably). Dungeons kill people, yo. It's kind of an expected outcome of a death trap. While I understand that kobolds are fantasy creatures and not real, that sounds really racist.

What's stopping the elves from labeling dwarves as monster and killing them on sight? Rather strange justification for murdering sentient beings...

Keltest
2015-07-26, 05:43 PM
While I understand that kobolds are fantasy creatures and not real, that sounds really racist.

What's stopping the elves from labeling dwarves as monster and killing them on sight? Rather strange justification for murdering sentient beings...

Depending on the setting, it can be a reasonable idea. In the Dresden Files, all red court vampires are killers. it is literally a requirement for becoming a vampire. Black Court vampires are more like the classic undead, and are magically compelled to be evil. In Lord of the Rings, orcs were alternatively magically twisted and compelled to be evil by nature, or were capable of being good or evil like all other races depending on when in Tolkien's notes you read. However in either case, the orcs in Sauron's armies (ie all the ones on the surface) are explicitly evil, as the good ones would not join him.

Elbeyon
2015-07-26, 05:49 PM
While I understand that kobolds are fantasy creatures and not real, that sounds really racist.

What's stopping the elves from labeling dwarves as monster and killing them on sight? Rather strange justification for murdering sentient beings...It's a question being asked outside of the game. A place where no justifications need to be made one way or the other. Where a creature can, or maybe not, be labeled with perfect accuracy. If they're the monsters of the story then they should be treated that way. If they are like humans, elfs, and dwarfs they should be treated the same way as those races. It seems like in this case that they are not in fact the demons of the story, but people. Treat the case like he just murdered a bunch of humans.

Xefas
2015-07-26, 05:50 PM
How would you handle it if you were DM?

I'd probably say something like, "Woah, the preconceived notions that you, I, and the other party members brought into this game about its setting, characters, classes, and alignment seem to be incongruous. Perhaps we should talk about everyone's expectations, considering everyone is dedicating their leisure time to this, and no one's opinion is any more valuable than anyone else's because we're all adults and friends here, so that we can all be on the same page and have a fun time together in which everyone enjoys themselves."

Yukitsu
2015-07-26, 06:00 PM
I just ran a session where my players refused to kill ghosts, vampires, vrocks and other such things because they didn't think there was any real reason to, even though they were blocking the gigantic piles of loot. I'd give my left arm to get a party that would be willing to fight a bunch of kobolds.

gadren
2015-07-26, 06:02 PM
I'd probably say something like, "Woah, the preconceived notions that you, I, and the other party members brought into this game about its setting, characters, classes, and alignment seem to be incongruous. Perhaps we should talk about everyone's expectations, considering everyone is dedicating their leisure time to this, and no one's opinion is any more valuable than anyone else's because we're all adults and friends here, so that we can all be on the same page and have a fun time together in which everyone enjoys themselves."

You'd say it exactly like that, eh?

Xefas
2015-07-26, 06:12 PM
You'd say it exactly like that, eh?

No. I have that discussion before the first session, when we build characters together.

Believe me, it saves so many headaches when you have three people state very plainly, "I do grueling labor 60 hours a week. I just want to roll this die and pretend to murder things and not feel bad about it. I don't want puzzles. I don't want to talk to anyone who isn't going to give me money or a bigger sword." and then the other two people are like "Well, let me get out my binder with the entire genealogy of my character's family for the past 800 years, and how I hope to interweave that with a prospective political marriage with-"

And I can say, "Lets compromise. And if we can't compromise, we'll do something else equally fun together."

emeraldstreak
2015-07-26, 07:40 PM
You should stop leaking authoritative information and let the PCs figure it for themselves. The Crusader didn't know if the Kobolds are a creation of the Dungeon (and probably couldn't know at the time). You cannot jump in and as DM OOCly declare that he was wrong, that knowledge has to come ingame.

The_Tentacle
2015-07-26, 07:41 PM
The kobolds' mother coming along and looking for revenge or compensation is a good one. Essentially you just want to make the player face the consequences for their actions. Make sure the mother is either powerful enough or in a good enough position to be able to state her purpose to the party and not be easily slaughtered. Since LG likes to have people pay the correct price for their actions, have the mother offer him an out that doesn't involve anyone dying (like a quest, maybe to resurrect the kobolds) and then, if he refuses, have him fall for no longer being lawful good. THEN have the mother beat him up if you want to.

dream
2015-07-26, 07:58 PM
It sounds like the PC was not expecting (or not interpreting properly) the setting that the DM had presented.

The DM has presented a situation where a dungeon constantly generates monsters, continuously makes them stronger, and presumably presents a danger to neighboring towns. The PCs are people living in and presumably protecting those towns. The PCs went into a dungeon. The PCs met some monsters.

What did you really expect to happen?

It is entirely reasonable for the crusader to suddenly cut down the monsters in the monster-spawning and monster-strengthing dungeon. This is doubly true if the campaign features creatures like succubi, fey, or anything else that may rely on mimicry or trickery; there is no reason why someone should believe that these were innocent kobolds trying to save their skin rather than dungeon-spawned kobolds trying to save their skin so that they can get stronger in one week. Besides, if these trinkets were worthless, then why in the world would a kobold go into a monster-infested and adventurer-infested dungeon (any encounter of which might likely prove fatal) just to collect some pretty trinkets?



If I was DM in this situation, I would either make it quite clear if the kobold are NPCs or monsters - either have a friendly kobold trading caravan in town, perhaps with the PCs hired to make sure it travels safely to hammer the point home, or I would have the kobolds as clear monsters spawning from the dungeon. I don't see a very good way to implement both, especially with the setup in the setting: even IF there was just a single village of friendly kobolds different from the dungeon-spawned ones, there's still a problem of the village-kobolds getting immensely stronger if they visit the dungeon. Perhaps you could establish a distinction between the two, showing that the village-kobolds are reasonable and capable of thinking for themselves while the dungeon-kobolds are mindless aggressive drones, but that seems like it.

If you wanted to establish a village of kobolds as non-violent, then be sure to present it in a way which the PCs don't have a good reason to attack it. That is, they are travelling with some friendly NPCs which include a friendly NPC kobols, or which are going to the village and hail them as friendly. Don't just allow the PCs to wander upon the village and act surprised when they start attacking.

And don't try to cause PCs to lose class powers because they attacked something appearing from the Monster Manual in your "everything in the Monster Manual" dungeon.


[EDIT]

Offer the PC the option of redemption. No penalty this time, although consider it half-a-ping towards LN if they ignore it and full LG redemption if they take it.

The crusader had no way of knowing that they were not monsters when attacking, even with the begging - see the succubus example, above. Afterwards, though, it would've been quite clear the mistake which was made. Any Good-aligned character would be in remorse and inclined to make right, even if such action is meaningless to the ones affected. If the PC doesn't care about that and remains defensive, then their Good-alignment is looking shakey. At this point is isn't enough to change their alignment, although they should be wary about too many more of these technically-not-Evil actions on their part.


No. I have that discussion before the first session, when we build characters together.

Believe me, it saves so many headaches when you have three people state very plainly, "I do grueling labor 60 hours a week. I just want to roll this die and pretend to murder things and not feel bad about it. I don't want puzzles. I don't want to talk to anyone who isn't going to give me money or a bigger sword." and then the other two people are like "Well, let me get out my binder with the entire genealogy of my character's family for the past 800 years, and how I hope to interweave that with a prospective political marriage with-"

And I can say, "Lets compromise. And if we can't compromise, we'll do something else equally fun together."
+10 both of these.

I remember when kobolds were monsters the party killed for X.P. Wait --- they're still monsters the party kills for X.P. If you want snowflake monsters that aren't X.P. opportunities, you (the Gamemaster) have to communicate that to the players at the table. Otherwise, you can't blame your players for doing what makes (at the time) perfect sense. Seems to me, you owe the Crusader's player an apology.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-26, 08:15 PM
Did the OP hand out XP awards for the killing of these kobolds?

gadren
2015-07-26, 08:16 PM
Did the OP hand out XP awards for the killing of these kobolds?

No. They were unarmed kobold commoners that didn't fight back and he's a level 6 crusader.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-26, 08:19 PM
No. They were unarmed kobold commoners that didn't fight back and he's a level 6 crusader.

Thank goodness. That establishes that you are not inclined to reward this sort of action, and were not sending a mixed message.

Hawkstar
2015-07-26, 08:39 PM
What kind of Good guy executes people without gathering enough information towards their guilt? You do realize killing people because they might be bad is not Good, right?

Kobolds are mine-dwelling Monsters, not people. They just happen to have the [humanoid] type in D&D because they don't have any special/inherent bonuses, resistances, etc. and are vulnerable to Charm and Dominate Person.

Keltest
2015-07-26, 08:43 PM
Kobolds are mine-dwelling Monsters, not people. They just happen to have the [humanoid] type in D&D because they don't have any special/inherent bonuses, resistances, etc. and are vulnerable to Charm and Dominate Person.

That they are often antagonistic NPCs does not mean that they are undeserving of mercy or restraint.

Hawkstar
2015-07-26, 08:51 PM
That they are often antagonistic NPCs does not mean that they are undeserving of mercy or restraint.
That they are mine-haunting monsters, though, does.

NichG
2015-07-26, 08:56 PM
Alignment makes it messy, because you are in some sense asked by the mechanics to step out of character and tell the player directly 'you did a bad thing'. That immediately negates all the impact of the event, because now rather than the player saying to themselves 'oh crap, what did I do?' they're going to say 'oh, so this was just a DM trap so he could persecute my playstyle and preach at me'. As long as the Crusader's player believes that you are punishing him, rather than just playing out the consequences of his actions, then whatever happens won't actually have any impact. So my advice would be, intentionally leave the alignment issue unresolved. Neither say 'its okay, you're still good' or 'bad Crusader, lose your powers' - leave it ambiguous and refuse to give the player the peace of mind of having a concrete answer.

The thing about setting up a situation as a DM is that you have to step back and let the PCs do what they choose to do and then let the consequences flow from that. Essentially, you set up a situation in which the PCs had a choice, and this one PC made their choice. This is actually a good opportunity to really show how the consequences of evil play out, but you have to do it in character, not through OOC editorialization.

What I would probably do is at first have it appear that there are no consequences (except for, it seems, the other PCs being a little leery of the Crusader from then on). But then have the PCs get indirect reports of some kobolds asking around town about something or other. Then let it rest for a session or so if the PCs don't pursue it. Then have there be a diplomatic issue between the kobolds and the town when more of the story is discovered by the kobold mother (but still have it so that she doesn't directly meet the PCs unless they pursue the subject). Furthermore, don't have the town be unified in its response - have it become a divisive issue, where actually there's a large group containing some prominent LG figures that support the Crusader's judgement and style, and calls for a more hard-line response to the kobolds, while other prominent people oppose that.

The Crusader is, after all, a representative of his chosen ideals. He's a powerful individual who spearheads the cause within a dangerous maze, risking his life for the good of others. So others will naturally seek to follow his example of LG.

Never at any point say 'okay, your alignment got dinged' or 'I think what you did was unreasonable' or make the consequences of the choice strictly negative. Whenever it seems like you're starting to punish the behavior, reverse and provide a silver lining. Make the situation complex, and let the players decide what they think.

And then, as this plays out, if you want to draw alignment back into it, my advice would be to find some way for the Crusader's allies to be the ones to judge him, and make it a concrete IC event (the Crusader's deity summons the party to a shared dream and asks each party member to speak their mind and finally render a decision as to if the Crusader must atone, and if so, how) rather than an arbitrary OOC judgement.

noob
2015-07-26, 08:56 PM
" are mine-dwelling Monsters, not people. They just happen to have the [humanoid] type in D&D because they don't have any special/inherent bonuses, resistances, etc. and are vulnerable to Charm and Dominate Person"
You could say the same thing from dwarfs this judgement is subjective.

erikun
2015-07-26, 09:11 PM
You could say the same thing from dwarfs this judgement is subjective.
True. A lot of this is going to be subjective. It is subjective when players consider orcs to be people. It is subjective when vampires are considered people. It is subjective when mind flayers are considered people. It is subjective when rust monsters are considered people.

However, unless you want the game to turn into a diplomacy mission with combat only considered the last resort, there is a bit of subjectiveness which ends up getting ignored. (And to be fair, that can be an interesting and great campaign - just not the one which everyone might desire.) Players are going to assume that sometimes it is okay to just attack some things considered "monsters" without worry about moral reprocussions. And unless it has been established otherwise, either that kobolds are a "Good" race or that all humanoids in this setting are different, it is assumed by default that kobolds fit in the "monster" category.

It is a little bit silly and a little bit gamey, but it's a matter of gamey which keeps things moving and keeps everyone on the same page. If some of the players want to change those base assumptions, then there needs to be an understanding there so that players can react appropriately - either a previous understanding that the base assumptions have been changed, or an understanding that the players are likely going to leap to the incorrect conclusion as a result. And even worse, using this as a GOTCHA moment against one of the players feels especially underhanded, because it was presented in such a way as to play to those basic assumptions.

gadren
2015-07-26, 09:19 PM
True. A lot of this is going to be subjective. It is subjective when players consider orcs to be people. It is subjective when vampires are considered people. It is subjective when mind flayers are considered people. It is subjective when rust monsters are considered people.

However, unless you want the game to turn into a diplomacy mission with combat only considered the last resort, there is a bit of subjectiveness which ends up getting ignored. (And to be fair, that can be an interesting and great campaign - just not the one which everyone might desire.) Players are going to assume that sometimes it is okay to just attack some things considered "monsters" without worry about moral reprocussions. And unless it has been established otherwise, either that kobolds are a "Good" race or that all humanoids in this setting are different, it is assumed by default that kobolds fit in the "monster" category.

It is a little bit silly and a little bit gamey, but it's a matter of gamey which keeps things moving and keeps everyone on the same page. If some of the players want to change those base assumptions, then there needs to be an understanding there so that players can react appropriately - either a previous understanding that the base assumptions have been changed, or an understanding that the players are likely going to leap to the incorrect conclusion as a result. And even worse, using this as a GOTCHA moment against one of the players feels especially underhanded, because it was presented in such a way as to play to those basic assumptions.

I've fought more than my fair share of humans in a "typical" D&D game as a PC. Typically you attack them for what they're doing. When you attack a group of unarmed defenseless sentient creatures, ignoring their screams for mercy and effectively shooting them in the back as they try to run away, and consider it a GOTCHA moment when the DM even mentions that such behavior might not be cohesive with a lawful good alignment, because they are "just kobolds"...

noob
2015-07-26, 09:28 PM
Why did you never attacked an human children because it is "just an inoffensive weaponless human children which is fleeing and crying"?
You know for some players the main argument for attacking something(including inanimate objects) is "it move" or "it does not move meaning that later it will back stab us" and they might do this as long as it is not someone promising him wealth.
Maybe that player simply through "it move and thus it must be killed fast"
Did you made a long speech about the fact that killing sentient creatures was evil before the player started playing?

Shadowsend
2015-07-26, 09:42 PM
What kind of Good guy executes people without gathering enough information towards their guilt? You do realize killing people because they might be bad is not Good, right?

Anyone living in Ysgard...

gadren
2015-07-26, 09:58 PM
Chnage kobolds to Kenders.

The player has a history with kenders in a previous campaign. Pretty sure he'd come up with an excuse to execute them on sight.

"Clearly, he was possessed by an Old One."

Shadowsend
2015-07-26, 09:59 PM
Whether the act was good or not, the act wasn't *lawful*. I would not shift that character to Lawful Neutral. That implies that a character respects customs, and that would include customs of warfare. Honoring surrender is a custom of warfare.

I'm not sure that I would penalize the player too much though, because the idea of the dungeon set him up far more than the events. I don't think that it's particularly fair to have noncombatants wander into such a place without ample warning to *all* the PCs. If they have ideas about this place from a reliable in character source, they would have known in character that commoners who are down on their luck sometimes brave the place looking for loose change. (It seems that this part wasn't explained or given evidence with stories about it. "Pa went in looking for gold and never came out..." or fresh corpses clinging to valuables.) Without that caveat, the player's actions were fairly reasonable. However, if that caveat was there, it's possible the player forgot.

I would allow a "retcon" in this case.

I think the actions happened so fast that as a DM the response needed to be quicker. In the future, I recommend saying things like "the light seems to have dimmed considerably, as if the world has suddenly lost color" or some other indication of divine disfavor. (Symbols and portents showing up, etc.)

Diamondeye
2015-07-26, 10:10 PM
I don't like to tell players how to play their characters, but I just don't get why 95% of the time someone plays an LG character, they play them as a bigger ****head than even some of the evil PCs I've had. When the rest of the part found out, most of them were also upset with the Crusader. The only one who wasn't was the party's actual paladin, who agreed with the crusader's greater-good reasoning.

I wouldn't deal with it at all. Kobolds are evil per the rules. It sounds to me like some RL baggage is being imposed on the actions of the character. In fact, I think by even describing it as "murder" in the thread title there may be some issues there that really don't belong.

AvatarVecna
2015-07-26, 10:16 PM
-snip-

Let me see if I've got this straight...

---A Lawful Good character and a True Neutral one) come across a group of unarmed creatures who have not threatened or attacked anybody in their presence, and who are no threat to either of these characters on their own (even if they had actually been armed and hostile).

---The LG character proceeds to begin killing these people who haven't done anything other than "be a kobold in a dungeon near adventurers"; the people he is attacking for some reason beg the LG character for mercy and, when that fails, attempt to run away.

---This continues until every last one of the people is dead due to the LG character's weapon, a process that was apparently so horrendous it offended the sensibilities of the Neutral character, who attempted (and failed) to stop the LG character from killing them.

---No attempt at communication was made. Their guilt is assumed because of their race and their location, not their personally witnessed actions, and no attempt to determine their guilt was made.

---The LG character ignored their request for mercy, dealing lethal instead of nonlethal damage.

---Four unarmed noncombatants who begged for mercy since the start of the fight are now dead at the hands of the LG character.

---My understanding of racial deities that have a directly conflicting interest is that each God hates the other, but not necessarily the others followers; their hatred of the followers (at least on the part of the Good deities) is that the followers follow that god and attempt to fill the world with Evil. Thus, while Moradin may hate the kobold race as a whole, especially when they gather together to make the world a worse place, these four people haven't done anything to deserve this kind of treatment, at least not to the crusader's knowledge.

Even in a world where black and white morality is a game mechanic, there are shades of gray, and LG characters should not assume people to be guilty until they're proven innocent. Continuing this kind of behavior will cause 20d6 class features of falling damage. Paladin's at least have the vague excuse of being able to sense evil creatures magically and being strictly evil-intolerant, and even then it's a paper-thin excuse; this Crusader didn't even have that.

That said, it won't teach him anything to just go "lol you fall", cause he'll either think you're criticizing his playstyle, or he'll think it was a set up. You've got to be subtle about these things. Here's what I would do if I decided to be a complete butt about it:

--Don't do anything right now; never answer whether or not the kobolds were made by the dungeon (if you've already done this, it doesn't ruin this method).

--Later on in the dungeon (long enough that the incident is behind them but not quite forgotten), have a dungeon room set up like a James Bond Villain death trap...only instead of a sexy spy guy, there's a sobbing puppy strapped to the whatever, and it's gonna get hit by all the traps.

--If the puppy is rescued, it turns out to be a higher-level adventurer temporarily Baleful Polymorph'd into a puppy, who will be so overjoyed when the players discover the scrolls of Break Enchantment hidden away nearby and free him from his puppy-fied body that he'll tell them about another part of the dungeon that they need to get to, and maybe give them a low-level magic item.

--if the puppy is never rescued (or worse, is deliberately killed), never answer any questions about the puppy's origin with anything other than a wistful "We'll never know now..."


Interesting conundrum. I would err on the side of the crusader, as he didnhave any way of knowing the kobold's origins. As a DM, there should be clear demarcations that something is spawned by the dungeon or not especially if playes will be interacting with outsiders while in it. Maybe have the dungeon-spawned monsters turn to ash when they die?

The moral pitfalls of the world are not so conveniently color-coded; doing so to make doing the right thing and avoiding the wrong thing easier when there are already methods available to determine your action's inherent morality is just as unethical as the player's decision to use hypocritical hindsight and a one-dimensional personality to justify murder.


They actually do start to slowly turn to into a distinctive goo after they die.
Also, anyone from the outside of the dungeon would have to have obtained a special key to get into it. If he'd asked the kobolds about it, they could've shown it to him.
Also, monsters inside the dungeon know nothing of the outside world. Some questioning could've determined that they were not, in fact, summoned creatures.
Also, summoned creatures interact with a variety of spells differently than planar natives. So a variety of spells could be used to determine their origin.

Oh, so not only could the Crusader have done some investigating to determine the creature's origins (and therefore their relative guilt), but there were three immediately-available methods of doing so he should've been aware of by this point and would've taken 1 round of waiting to check? That's...impressively ignorant.


The crusader had no way of knowing that they were not monsters when attacking, even with the begging - see the succubus example, above. Afterwards, though, it would've been quite clear the mistake which was made. Any Good-aligned character would be in remorse and inclined to make right, even if such action is meaningless to the ones affected. If the PC doesn't care about that and remains defensive, then their Good-alignment is looking shakey. At this point is isn't enough to change their alignment, although they should be wary about too many more of these technically-not-Evil actions on their part.

Other than asking them about the key, casting a non-combat spell on them, or asking them anything about the outside world, nope! No way of knowing!


I'd probably say something like, "Woah, the preconceived notions that you, I, and the other party members brought into this game about its setting, characters, classes, and alignment seem to be incongruous. Perhaps we should talk about everyone's expectations, considering everyone is dedicating their leisure time to this, and no one's opinion is any more valuable than anyone else's because we're all adults and friends here, so that we can all be on the same page and have a fun time together in which everyone enjoys themselves."

Seconding this. Either there is a major disagreement on the nature of alignment and morality, or their is a major miscommunication; either way, OoC solutions should be attempted before IC solutions; IC solutions should be the last resort, and even then, actions like this still deserve some kind of consequence; either he falls to LN, or he's warned that he's close, or the whole thing is retcon'd.


No. I have that discussion before the first session, when we build characters together.

Believe me, it saves so many headaches when you have three people state very plainly, "I do grueling labor 60 hours a week. I just want to roll this die and pretend to murder things and not feel bad about it. I don't want puzzles. I don't want to talk to anyone who isn't going to give me money or a bigger sword." and then the other two people are like "Well, let me get out my binder with the entire genealogy of my character's family for the past 800 years, and how I hope to interweave that with a prospective political marriage with-"

And I can say, "Lets compromise. And if we can't compromise, we'll do something else equally fun together."

Again, seconding this. This guy knows what he's talking about.


-Absolute brilliance

Yes, yes, yes. Seconding this as well.


True. A lot of this is going to be subjective. It is subjective when players consider orcs to be people. It is subjective when vampires are considered people. It is subjective when mind flayers are considered people. It is subjective when rust monsters are considered people.

I'm in total agreement in general; in this specific case, the LG PC should have at least paused when they started begging for mercy; continuing to kill them when they might be innocent is pretty cold-hearted.


Did you made a long speech about the fact that killing sentient creatures was evil before the player started playing?

Should such a speech be necessary? Should mindless violence, even in the face of terrified surrender, be the only assumed behavior from a purportedly sane, just, and moral being who holds himself to the highest moral standards?

icefractal
2015-07-26, 10:18 PM
Let me be honest - being set in a massive self-regenerating dungeon implies rather strongly "this a dungeon-crawling type of campaign; hack and slash is encouraged, and in fact we're lamp-shading anything unrealistic about that"

It doesn't have to be! And it sounds like yours isn't. But I'm not surprised at all that a player would think otherwise, because a lot of the time, "dungeon focused" means "combat/tactics focused, RP secondary".

So I think if that's not the case, you should make that clear to the players, OOC. And not penalize them for slips caused by the disconnect in communication.

Diamondeye
2015-07-26, 10:24 PM
I would also point out that this "regenerating dungeon with helpless kobolds" sounds suspiciously like it's supposed to trip up LG PCs based on their alignment. Would you have posted this thread if he were CG?

I'm not sure why LG PCs receive this so frequently, but it shouldn't happen.

gadren
2015-07-26, 10:33 PM
I wouldn't deal with it at all. Kobolds are evil per the rules. It sounds to me like some RL baggage is being imposed on the actions of the character. In fact, I think by even describing it as "murder" in the thread title there may be some issues there that really don't belong.

I would also point out that this "regenerating dungeon with helpless kobolds" sounds suspiciously like it's supposed to trip up LG PCs based on their alignment. Would you have posted this thread if he were CG?

I'm not sure why LG PCs receive this so frequently, but it shouldn't happen.

I find it interesting you have accused me of having "baggage" when it seems that perhaps you have an issue related to previous experience playing an LG PC.

I didn't set up the encounter to "trip up" anyone. The point of the encounter was to show that it wasn't just other adventurers and monsters and traps that might be encountered within, there are opportunists as well. I also wanted to create a connection to a later NPC, the kobold adept.
If I'd known the LG was going to react that was just because they were kobolds, I would've made them halflings or something instead. I suspected, worst case, that they might open with an attack but would stop once the kobolds started pleading for mercy.

Diamondeye
2015-07-26, 10:52 PM
I find it interesting you have accused me of having "baggage" when it seems that perhaps you have an issue related to previous experience playing an LG PC.

I find it interesting that you need to respond to me suspecting an issue by suspecting an issue of your own. Has it ever occurred to you that people might observe things that they do not themselves experience?


I didn't set up the encounter to "trip up" anyone. The point of the encounter was to show that it wasn't just other adventurers and monsters and traps that might be encountered within, there are opportunists as well. I also wanted to create a connection to a later NPC, the kobold adept.

Was there any indication that they were anything but book kobolds? If so, why did you fail to describe that in your OP? Why should the Crusader have picked up on it? Are you maybe just annoyed that your tie-in didn't work out?


If I'd known the LG was going to react that was just because they were kobolds, I would've made them halflings or something instead. I suspected, worst case, that they might open with an attack but would stop once the kobolds started pleading for mercy.

Maybe you should have. Kobolds are not humans and certainly not RL humans. They're evil. They have an MM entry that says so. The PC is also using a mechanic of LG to describe himself. These are known to be opposed. Are you using alignment as described in the manuals? If not, please describe the applicable houserules prior to taking issue with people's opinions.

gadren
2015-07-26, 11:14 PM
This is going to be the last time I'm going to respond to you, as you are becoming increasingly disrespectful and belligerent with each post, and it is not actually constructive in any way, shape, or form.

I find it interesting that you need to respond to me suspecting an issue by suspecting an issue of your own. Has it ever occurred to you that people might observe things that they do not themselves experience?
Indeed. However, in your case you seem to be projecting.


Was there any indication that they were anything but book kobolds? If so, why did you fail to describe that in your OP? Why should the Crusader have picked up on it? Are you maybe just annoyed that your tie-in didn't work out?
Define "book kobolds". If you mean: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm then, well, they weren't carrying spears or slings or wearing armor. They're seriously, no exaggeration, "by the book" less of a threat than a bunch of angry housecats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm).


Maybe you should have.
Then I would be a pretty terrible DM. I can't imagine anyone with any imagination having fun in a game where the DM stops the narrative at every encounter to inform the PCs of the stats of everything they run into.


Kobolds are not humans and certainly not RL humans. They're evil. They have an MM entry that says so. It says "usually lawful evil". Emphasis on "usually", which is different than "always". There are kobolds of every alignment, and I know the PC in question has played the game long enough to know this.

The PC is also using a mechanic of LG to describe himself. Yes, an alignment that, by the book says "Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion." Killing a group of defenseless sentient beings as they beg for mercy and shooting them in the back as they try to flee is neither honorable nor compassionate.


These are known to be opposed. Are you using alignment as described in the manuals? If not, please describe the applicable houserules prior to taking issue with people's opinions. No, I'm using it EXACTLY as described in the manuals.

Geddy2112
2015-07-26, 11:27 PM
Based on what I have read, I assume the PC did nothing to attempt to figure these Kobolds out other than smash them into paste. If evil was detected, then maybe I could see it as justified. Or maybe there was an illusion and he passed/failed the save to disbelieve. Barring incredibly extreme circumstances, hamming a surrendering and cowering enemy to death is not even close to LG, and doing it more than once or twice is going to shift alignment.

How I handle this as a DM is to prevent it from happening, as in, I prevent any PC restricted by a code or alignment from falling without warning that their actions are going against their faith/creed/whatever. I hardwire one of these (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/phylactery-of-faithfulness) in the brain of every Paladin/cleric/warpriest/druid or anyone else who could lose their powers based on actions. It is important to note that certain classes can lose powers without shifting alignment, and they should be warned when these actions would happen too.

Most of the time, my PC's have learned to ask their respective whatever for guidance. I use this to not only guide them away from the wrong choice(I.e. LG paladin should not burn the orphanage down and kill the ones who escape with their bare hands) but I try to provide answers and guidance that gives the PC some agency and several better options. Maybe killing the first kobold is no harm, no foul, but once they surrendered its time to stop. Maybe the PC should figure out their motives and go from there. Maybe they are inherently bad, but violence is not the only solution. Regardless, if the class has some form of alignment/action restriction and gets powers from any divine source(that can be revoked) then make sure you have a system that warns them when they are on the slippery slope.

Diamondeye
2015-07-26, 11:38 PM
This is going to be the last time I'm going to respond to you, as you are becoming increasingly disrespectful and belligerent with each post, and it is not actually constructive in any way, shape, or form.

If you want to say "I wish you'd just stop saying things I don't like" you can just say that. I might or might not, but it would be basically the same thing.



Indeed. However, in your case you seem to be projecting.

You seem to have arrived at that conclusion on almost no information whatsoever.


Define "book kobolds". If you mean: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm then, well, they weren't carrying spears or slings or wearing armor. They're seriously, no exaggeration, "by the book" less of a threat than a bunch of angry housecats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm).

A book kobold is a bipedal, tool-using creature and clearly has the ability to drop weapons, or take off their armor so not having those things does not make them any less a book kobold. I don't see what the level of threat has to do with it.


Then I would be a pretty terrible DM. I can't imagine anyone with any imagination having fun in a game where the DM stops the narrative at every encounter to inform the PCs of the stats of everything they run into.

I am pretty sure you could provide some generalized information on alignment or common monsters in your world in advance of the campaign, or some clues that the kobolds were not evil beyond "not wearing weapons and armor." Being unarmed does not make a monster less evil. What if it were a black dragon? It can't drop it's weapons or armor; but had it pled for mercy would that be different? Is it automatically a legitimate target because it has natural weapons?

It says "usually lawful evil". Emphasis on "usually", which is different than "always". There are kobolds of every alignment, and I know the PC in question has played the game long enough to know this.

Does the character know this? More importantly, so what? "Usually" means "usually". What other alignments might they be? Maybe if they aren't lawful evil they're neutral evil or chaotic evil?


Yes, an alignment that, by the book says "Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion." Killing a group of defenseless sentient beings as they beg for mercy and shooting them in the back as they try to flee is neither honorable nor compassionate.

I do not believe that is the entire extent of game material discussing LG. According to some definitions of honor, kobolds are inherently unworthy of it, and compassion means compassion for creatures that are generally good or at least neutral. Kobolds can pretty easily plead for mercy to day and do who-knows-what tomorrow, to say nothing of this "Regenerating dungeon" thing. If the dungeon just "generates" them, how are they anything more than constructs of the dungeon?

If a player were to argue that Kobolds are evil and the compassion and honor is found in butchering them to protect the community I don't see the problem. They're just game monsters.


No, I'm using it EXACTLY as described in the manuals.

Then I still don't see the problem.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-26, 11:41 PM
Kobolds are mine-dwelling Monsters, not people. They just happen to have the [humanoid] type in D&D because they don't have any special/inherent bonuses, resistances, etc. and are vulnerable to Charm and Dominate Person. Whatever helps you sleep at night... :smalltongue:

Murdering sentient creatures capable of language, logic, reason, and diplomacy simply because they happened to be located within the same geographic region as you is the behavior of a psychopath. And while I realize the professions of psychopath and adventurer have numerous overlaps, psychopaths and Lawful Good should not. At least theoretically...

But, you know, players and stuff...


I do not believe that is the entire extent of game material discussing LG. According to some definitions of honor, kobolds are inherently unworthy of it, and compassion means compassion for creatures that are generally good or at least neutral. People holding this view are Lawful. They are not, however, Good.


True. A lot of this is going to be subjective. It is subjective when players consider orcs to be people. It is subjective when vampires are considered people. It is subjective when mind flayers are considered people. It is subjective when rust monsters are considered people.

However, unless you want the game to turn into a diplomacy mission with combat only considered the last resort, there is a bit of subjectiveness which ends up getting ignored. (And to be fair, that can be an interesting and great campaign - just not the one which everyone might desire.) Players are going to assume that sometimes it is okay to just attack some things considered "monsters" without worry about moral reprocussions. And unless it has been established otherwise, either that kobolds are a "Good" race or that all humanoids in this setting are different, it is assumed by default that kobolds fit in the "monster" category. The classification of a race of clearly sentient humanoids capable of language, linked to a super powerful race of beings with explicitly varying alignment, as a "monster" to be killed on site is a morally dubious claim.

And these assumptions we keep talking about with regards to "book kobolds" reeks of metagaming on the part of the player.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-26, 11:57 PM
*Reads through thread*

There's two distinct camps I've seen. What [I think] is a slightly smaller but very vocal 'They're evil! Therefore this isn't an evil act!' and a slightly larger 'Duh! Evil! Hit him but warn him!'


Based on this, I'd talk to the PC's out of character, to ensure they know that Race doesn't decide if you can freely kill the walking chunks of maybe xp, or come to the conclusion that you can only use standard races or good aligned monsters for such things in the future. If the former comes to pass, allow him to atone for it in game, and then drop it unless you want to use the event as a plot point for whatever reason. [Perhaps the mother describes it in a way that makes the Crusader look like a vile fiend while putting up a bounty.] If he doesn't atone, it's definately a step towards chaos and evil in my books, and in BoED [If used], and in what [I think] most people read of the base DnD alignment system.

If it's decided not to use monstrous races as non-xp chunks, and it's feasible, I say roll back to the encounter and replace them with gnomes/halflings/dwarves. If it's not feasible, then the event didn't occur.


Edit:

Murdering sentient creatures capable of language, logic, reason, and diplomacy simply because they happened to be located within the same geographic region as you is the behavior of a psychopath.
Have you read most of human history? :smallconfused:
I'm pretty sure it's been fairly common behaviour until recently, as long as one can distance yourself from the thought they are, or convince yourself they're not capable of it... The human mind is extremely good at lying to itself.

Diamondeye
2015-07-27, 12:01 AM
Whatever helps you sleep at night, racist... :smalltongue:

Murdering sentient creatures capable of language, logic, reason, and diplomacy simply because they happened to be located within the same geographic region as you is the behavior of a psychopath. And while I realize the professions of psychopath and adventurer have numerous overlaps, psychopaths and Lawful Good should not. At least theoretically...

But, you know, players and stuff...

You should not impose real-life concepts on the game. "Sentient creature" doesn't mean anything in the game - lots of sentient creatures are irredeemably evil. Evil is a real, quantifiable force. There is also no such thing as "racism" in the game, and the word basically should not even be used - it has inappropriate real-life connotations and carries the appearance of an ad hom.

More importantly, humans have historically killed each other for just that reason, often both sides of a conflict at the same time. This is not because humans are generally psychopaths - humans define psychopathology and it's relative to the human norm. Rather, modern humans, especially Western ones are very spoiled. We don't have to live that way, so we look down on it - and forget that the ability to be as non-violent as we are, overall, is a privilege of our technology and advancement.


People holding this view are Lawful. They are not, however, Good.

They certainly can be good. Protecting good creatures against evil ones is certainly a valid interpretation of good.


The classification of a race of clearly sentient humanoids capable of language, linked to a super powerful race of beings with explicitly varying alignment, as a "monster" to be killed on site is a morally dubious claim.

Not particularly. You can play it that way if, as a DM you want more moral ambiguity, but by the default alignment system where evil can be empirically measured and has actual effects, it's not. "Sentient" doesn't even enter into it. D&D morality does not work like real morality - in fact, the concept of "morality" essentially doesn't exist in an alignment system.


And these assumptions we keep talking about with regards to "book kobolds" reeks of metagaming on the part of the player.

The DM in question evidently expects him to be metagaming, since he just pointed out that kobolds are "usually chaotic evil and the player has been playing long enough to know that" or words to that effect. Moreover, kobolds are generally a very common monster. It is hardly unreasonable for a PC to know their disposition.

JenBurdoo
2015-07-27, 12:04 AM
Not having played a great deal, I haven't much to say to the OP, but I find the conversation quite interesting because it's one of the things Order of the Stick is about. Rich Burlew, according to his own posting, doesn't seem to be particularly enamored of the alignment system... see the conversation about whether it's acceptable to kill dragons if they're not shiny, or Redcloak's entire character arc... it's something I'm struggling with in my games as a new GM with completely new players, most of whom have not been exposed to tabletop before and just want to kill stuff.

Grek
2015-07-27, 12:18 AM
I wouldn't deal with it at all. Kobolds are evil per the rules. It sounds to me like some RL baggage is being imposed on the actions of the character. In fact, I think by even describing it as "murder" in the thread title there may be some issues there that really don't belong.

As a reminder, "murder" literally means "illegal killing". Murder can be a Good act (example: killing Hitler) or an Evil act (example: most other murders), but it can't be a Lawful act. If it were a lawful killing, it wouldn't be a murder, it would be an execution, killing-self-defense, part of a military attack or some other kind of killing that is endorsed by law.

That said OP, your Crusader player seems to be working on the (not unrealistic) assumption that his character's Goodness and Lawfulness are being judged by Moradin, and that as long as he does things which would be judged as good and just by the God of Dwarves (who cares not about kobold lives) he is Lawful Good enough to remain a Crusader. If that's now how things work in your campaign (or if it does work that way, but Moradin actually does care about killing kobold civilians) you should tell your player that.

gadren
2015-07-27, 12:18 AM
Not having played a great deal, I haven't much to say to the OP, but I find the conversation quite interesting because it's one of the things Order of the Stick is about. Rich Burlew, according to his own posting, doesn't seem to be particularly enamored of the alignment system... see the conversation about whether it's acceptable to kill dragons if they're not shiny, or Redcloak's entire character arc... it's something I'm struggling with in my games as a new GM with completely new players, most of whom have not been exposed to tabletop before and just want to kill stuff.

I'm honestly not entirely enamored with the alignment system either. It only really becomes a concern for divine classes for the most part. The situation actually struck me as very similar to when Miko lost her powers when she murdered Shojo. She thought she was in the right, but what you think is right or wrong doesn't really matter for a paladin.

My only question was how I should handle the same sort of thing for a Crusader, another divine class with a similar though less stringent Code of Conduct.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 12:22 AM
You should not impose real-life concepts on the game. "Sentient creature" doesn't mean anything in the game - lots of sentient creatures are irredeemably evil. Evil is a real, quantifiable force. There is also no such thing as "racism" in the game, and the word basically should not even be used - it has inappropriate real-life connotations and carries the appearance of an ad hom. Theoretically, holding a prejudice against a genus of individuals based on your expectations of that genus' average behavior is definitely a form of racism. Mind you, its a fantastical form of racism only present in an imaginary world, but it is racism nonetheless.

The crusader, who I'm guessing is a dwarf because I've not seen it explicitly stated and Moradin, is definitely racist toward kobolds. Which I understand is a dwarf thing, but doesn't mean it's right.


They certainly can be good. Protecting good creatures against evil ones is certainly a valid interpretation of good. Only if those creatures are actually evil. In this case, they very obviously were not. Believing you did good doesn't make it so.


Not particularly. You can play it that way if, as a DM you want more moral ambiguity, but by the default alignment system where evil can be empirically measured and has actual effects, it's not. "Sentient" doesn't even enter into it. D&D morality does not work like real morality - in fact, the concept of "morality" essentially doesn't exist in an alignment system. My point here was to point out kobold's relationship with dragons. Dragons, who explicitly in the rules vary widely in alignment. Theoretically, so can the little humanoids who worship them...


More importantly, humans have historically killed each other for just that reason, often both sides of a conflict at the same time. This is not because humans are generally psychopaths - humans define psychopathology and it's relative to the human norm. Rather, modern humans, especially Western ones are very spoiled. We don't have to live that way, so we look down on it - and forget that the ability to be as non-violent as we are, overall, is a privilege of our technology and advancement.

Have you read most of human history? :smallconfused:
I'm pretty sure it's been fairly common behaviour until recently, as long as one can distance yourself from the thought they are, or convince yourself they're not capable of it... The human mind is extremely good at lying to itself. Is-Ought fallacy. Just because we as human's have done it for centuries, doesn't mean it's right.


As a reminder, "murder" literally means "illegal killing". Murder can be a Good act (example: killing Hitler) or an Evil act (example: most other murders), but it can't be a Lawful act. If it were a lawful killing, it wouldn't be a murder, it would be an execution, killing-self-defense, part of a military attack or some other kind of killing that is endorsed by law.

My only question was how I should handle the same sort of thing for a Crusader, another divine class with a similar though less stringent Code of Conduct. If you believe the Crusader's actions were "murder" than the killing was unlawful. Have momma kobold take her concerns to the appropriate authorities. See how well the Crusader defends his action when the local lord arrests him for murder.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 12:44 AM
Is-Ought fallacy. Just because we as human's have done it for centuries, doesn't mean it's right.

Never said should, and that wasn't what I meant to imply. I meant to imply that it doesn't require sociopathy.

Shackel
2015-07-27, 01:06 AM
If it's possible for this dungeon to spit out sentient, living beings, the argument on killing them is all but moot, in my opinion. Depending on how "smart" this dungeon is, that could have been a ploy, and really once you start shaming a character for killing four common dungeon foes because they weren't "fake" sentients, it's easy to go down a slippery slope.

With Moradin not being so fond of kobolds, it's even further in-character.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 01:28 AM
Meh, soldiers do dumb stuff in war all the time, I wouldn't get too concerned. Trap someone in a claustrophobic, sentient deathtrap for long enough, and killing anything that is vaguely monsterish seems reasonable. You could consider some therapy for his character, to get him to not respond to killing everything so quickly, if you're going with a modernized setting where killing a bunch of goblins is considered morally wrong.

If he didn't understand the details of the sentient dungeon, it makes a lot of sense to kill first and ask questions later. Normally, you don't have the luxury of inquiring first, when men with swords and monsters with teeth and attacking you at every turn.

It might be better to accept your players will sometimes do immoral things with their characters, unintentionally or otherwise.

gadren
2015-07-27, 02:07 AM
You know. I haven't statted Mama Kobold yet, or had the PCs meet her or anything. I've been considering making her an urband druid instead of an adept.

Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

Bucky
2015-07-27, 02:08 AM
I had a recent campaign with a similar incident. A few sessions later, the party was confronted by a grief-mad kobold druid. They killed him, of course, but not before he had a chance to rant at them about their murderous ways.

If you really want to rub in the alignment-vs-race issue, you could send a kobold paladin instead.

hamishspence
2015-07-27, 02:10 AM
It is subjective when rust monsters are considered people.

Considering they're only INT 2:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rustMonster.htm

they'll probably be treated as "animals" in most games, except those where all aberrations, even animal INT ones, are considered abominable.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 02:20 AM
You know. I haven't statted Mama Kobold yet, or had the PCs meet her or anything. I've been considering making her an urband druid instead of an adept.

Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

Considering she can't, yes. Baleful polymorph maybe, but that would require an encounter that at their level would still make you a bad DM.

Edit: Actually, baleful couldn't do a kobold now that I think of it.

gadren
2015-07-27, 02:25 AM
Considering she can't, yes. Baleful polymorph maybe, but that would require an encounter that at their level would still make you a bad DM.

Edit: Actually, baleful couldn't do a kobold now that I think of it.

I was speaking of Polymorph Any Object, and wasn't thinking of a combat encounter in the strictest sense. More like a "hey, you killed of my kids, do you know how expensive the spell components are to raise them, pay up." and then if he balks at paying a kobold then he gets to be one for a week.

JenBurdoo
2015-07-27, 02:34 AM
Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

I think that's an awesome idea. I must steal borrow it.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 02:40 AM
I was speaking of Polymorph Any Object, and wasn't thinking of a combat encounter in the strictest sense. More like a "hey, you killed of my kids, do you know how expensive the spell components are to raise them, pay up." and then if he balks at paying a kobold then he gets to be one for a week.

I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

gadren
2015-07-27, 02:44 AM
I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

Eh, their mom was already supposed to be a relatively powerful caster before I knew her kids were going to get killed off.

But it was just a thought. The irony seemed kind of delicious.

Shackel
2015-07-27, 02:58 AM
I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

I agree; being spiteful as a DM for not agreeing with a character or player's opinions does not say good things about their style.

gadren
2015-07-27, 03:00 AM
I agree; being spiteful as a DM for not agreeing with a character or player's opinions does not say good things about their style.

It's not spite.

But after more thought I'm agreeing it's a poor idea.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 03:05 AM
If you did do it, I'd emphasize a self-serving or less than totally moral side of the kobold mother. Make it like a fairy tale, where you annoyed the fairies and now bad things are going to happen, so you either have to appease them, trick them, or possibly kill them. Give the players a chance to get her drunk and steal her stuff later.

Doing it as a form of karma and enforcing your will on the player will just leave a bitter mood for the affair. So I'd say if you teach him a lesson, give him good opportunities which come from it.

Id also be careful about railroading him into it. It's hard to accept a situations you feel you're forced into, so if bad things happen, try to make it so the player causes them himself throughout the next encounter, not that everything is set up against him so he couldn't have escaped.

gadren
2015-07-27, 03:07 AM
If you did do it, I'd emphasize a self-serving or less than totally moral side of the kobold mother. Make it like a fairy tale, where you annoyed the fairies and now bad things are going to happen, so you either have to appease them, trick them, or possibly kill them. Give the players a chance to get her drunk and steal her stuff later.

Doing it as a form of karma and enforcing your will on the player will just leave a bitter mood for the affair. So I'd say if you teach him a lesson, give him good opportunities which come from it.

Id also be careful about railroading him into it. It's hard to accept a situations you feel you're forced into, so if bad things happen, try to make it so the player causes them himself throughout the next encounter, not that everything is set up against him so he couldn't have escaped.

Right. I only had the idea because I was thinking more as a writer than a DM. If I was writing a fantasy story, it's the kind of thing I'd do, but then I come back to Earth and remember not to deny the players their agency.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 03:13 AM
That's fair enough. It's easy to fall into that trap.

Keltest
2015-07-27, 04:33 AM
That they are mine-haunting monsters, though, does.

as a rule of thumb, trying to claim that monster races, especially sapient ones capable of making their own moral decisions, are not worthy of being treated as an intelligent being, is a good way to lose your good alignment in any campaign with more depth than sheer murderhoboing.

Hawkstar
2015-07-27, 07:31 AM
as a rule of thumb, trying to claim that monster races, especially sapient ones capable of making their own moral decisions, are not worthy of being treated as an intelligent being, is a good way to lose your good alignment in any campaign with more depth than sheer murderhoboing.

What makes you say they're actually capable of making their own moral decisions in any significant capacity? The [Humanoid] type just indicates hit dice size, proficiencies, skill ranks per HD, saves, and global immunities. It says nothing about the actual moral decision making ability. (And the mental stats don't either).

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that humans aren't really capable of making their own moral decisions, and just act according to their individual natures (And an illusion of free will/thought/choice is made by trying to fit all those different human natures into a single potential person)

Socksy
2015-07-27, 07:35 AM
That they are mine-haunting monsters, though, does.
They're not always evil. They don't always mine (and what would be the issue if they did? They own their own mines or work honestly! +2 to Profession (Miner)!). They're a flipping playable race! There are rules for Kobold PCs!


Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

That would be hilarious and perfect.
Or maybe whichever dragon this clan worships isn't too pleased about this, especially if it's actually good-aligned, and polymorphs him.
Try having some metallic Dragonwrought kobolds around. Or a Dragonborn kobold.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 08:31 AM
What makes you say they're actually capable of making their own moral decisions in any significant capacity?

No modification to mental stats, and the alignment descriptor being 'Usually'.
Compare that with Human, no standard alignment, no mental stat mods.

After that, you then have to look at whether you consider morals inherent or extrinsic. If you believe they're Inherent, than they have limited capability, but so does everyone else, and then Kobolds are truly no better than Humanity, which have 1/9th of their population in every alignment slot.
If you believe morals are extrinsic, than it looks like they've only got a little less than humanity, but then you have to ask yourself how much is due to circumstantial pressure, such as constant ruling over by evil dragons, being the very bottom of the monster food chain, and being near-universally hated.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 09:18 AM
We are speaking about a professionnal killer...

1: As an adventurer, he kills things to get gold
2: As a Crusader, one of his jobs is to kill evil and beings considered unholy by his religion.
3: As a Dwarf, he hates Kobolds.

You can't apply your own moral code to a professionnal killer in a violent world where species war is a thing... Kobolds are usually malevolent, which means they are usually natural enemies (mortal enemies) of almost all others species.

You arbitrarily decided that it's not ok for a professionnal killer in a monster-empowering dungeon to let monsters live. It can be ok in a setting with grey morality, but in those settings the alignment system should not be a thing.

If he murdered a not-evil vampire (a wierd exceptionnal vampire), would it be different? How would you react? Would you "accept" it better because he's a undead and can't be murdered? If so, then "sentience" has nothing to do in the debate. If you think the vampire is different, then the problem is that things YOU consider abominations and things your player considers abominations are different.

On experience, I find it's because some GMs prefer to give most living evil creatures "free-will" and a reasonable capacity for good. I know I do. But, in the D&D system, they are usually "destined" to be evil. They are sadistic psychopaths, or future sadistic psychopaths. Those who aren't are rare exceptions and are considered "weak", "broken" "aberrant" and "wrong" by their own.

It's ok and interesting to give evil species the potential for good, BUT D&D was made on the assumption that you could kill those creatures without feeling guilt because they are agents of destruction, greed and violence, NOT human-like creatures with a vast array of feelings and motivations.

The best way to let your players be on the same page is just to let them know that in your setting, all creatures with "usually evil" and "usually good", are in fact "usually neutral", because that is the reasonning you are making anyway, even unconsciously.

You decided that the kobolds had a reasonable and plausible capacity for good and were not monsters and agents of evil. Henceforth, they are not "usually evil". Just let your players know that in your setting, living beings are neutral by default, until their actions proves otherwise.

goto124
2015-07-27, 09:23 AM
Above post explains it well.


Let me be honest - being set in a massive self-regenerating dungeon implies rather strongly "this a dungeon-crawling type of campaign; hack and slash is encouraged, and in fact we're lamp-shading anything unrealistic about that"

I'm going with this too.

It's an OOC miscommunciation, really. If I killed orcs (or pretty much anything) in a dungeon, and was then told it was an evil thing and I've been stripped of my powers, I would be realllly confused.

Heck, if I saw a pretty girl in the dungeon, my first assumption is that she's a succubus in disguise, and attack immediately. Because dungeon.

The 'acceptable races to kill on sight' tradition is (meant to be) a form of good metagaming, such that the DM doesn't have to spend time convincing the players that 'no you really can kill them without your alignment going sideways'.

If the DM is not going this direction, it has to be communciated clearly.

Preferably, not with a dungeon.


EDIT: Firstly, there's this weird glitch that causes me to hit the larger-than-it-looks delete post button when I try to edit it.

Also, if I'm not wrong, the DM tried to change the tone of the game, from murderhoboing to something with more depth. I'm not sure if he's communciated that with his players yet, since it'll be the first thing to do.

Assuming that the entire group's on board, and the DM's explained that 'killing is wrong if the other guy hasn't done anything wrong', a shift in thinking can still be difficult for the players (even if they've agreed to it). As noted previously, a phylactery of faithfulness can help, by warning the PCs beforehand, along with a short non-angry explanation on why it's wrong if need be.

Give it time. Don't purposely insert moral dilemmas, especially when the players haven't even gotten a grasp on applying morals to a game setting.

Hawkstar
2015-07-27, 09:26 AM
No modification to mental stats, and the alignment descriptor being 'Usually'.
Compare that with Human, no standard alignment, no mental stat mods.No modification to mental stats means nothing, because Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma have no bearing on moral decision-making (But do apply to other decisions made).

The difference in Alignment descriptors tells you that Yes, Kobolds are Monsters. Humans, by having no standard alignment, are absolutely free to choose. You might have had a case if it said "Often", but "Usually" means that they're strongly aligned with that alignment, with drift toward neighboring alignments. And yes, Elves and Dwarves are also Monsters. They just happen to be Good-aligned monsters. There are a lot of Non-evil Monsters that are still absolutely monstrous, even without any fancy subtypes.


After that, you then have to look at whether you consider morals inherent or extrinsic. If you believe they're Inherent, than they have limited capability, but so does everyone else, and then Kobolds are truly no better than Humanity, which have 1/9th of their population in every alignment slot.
If you believe morals are extrinsic, than it looks like they've only got a little less than humanity, but then you have to ask yourself how much is due to circumstantial pressure, such as constant ruling over by evil dragons, being the very bottom of the monster food chain, and being near-universally hated.Kobolds are above Humans in the very bottom of the food change, are ruled over by Evil Dragons by choice, and are universally hated because of their natures.

The few Kobolds that aren't Lawful Evil are either Neutral Evil or (Monsttrous) Lawful Neutral.

hamishspence
2015-07-27, 09:41 AM
No modification to mental stats means nothing, because Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma have no bearing on moral decision-making (But do apply to other decisions made).

The difference in Alignment descriptors tells you that Yes, Kobolds are Monsters. Humans, by having no standard alignment, are absolutely free to choose. You might have had a case if it said "Often", but "Usually" means that they're strongly aligned with that alignment, with drift toward neighboring alignments.

There's considerable variation though. The PHB actually gives Kobolds and Beholders as an example - both are Usually LE, but, the "inborn tendency" is much greater in Beholders than in Kobolds.

Races of the Dragon discusses "kobold power centres" and while most are LE, and a large portion of the remainder are LN and NE - there's still a reasonable percentage that are not any of those three.

Cityscape discusses "monsters that can make their living in human-dominated cities" and kobolds were an example.

NichG
2015-07-27, 09:45 AM
Heck, if I saw a pretty girl in the dungeon, my first assumption is that she's a succubus in disguise, and attack immediately. Because dungeon.

And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'.

Segev
2015-07-27, 11:09 AM
The Crusader was mistaken as to the facts, but acted reasonably given what he believed. It is fitting if he feels guilt after the fact, realizing that these were not the dungeon-spawned monsters he thought they were. It is concerning if he does not, since they never fought back and pled for mercy. Keep an eye on his behavior and whether he consistently ignores things which don't excuse him committing murder-first approaches. Have him roll Wisdom and, if he rolls well enough, give him a warning next time he's about to make a similar mistake.

Have the world react appropriately to his actions. If the kobolds' mother will do something, let her do it. But be sure you don't make it a DM-spite-move; make it real and reasonable within her abilities and decision-making process. And don't be surprised if the PCs (particularly the Crusader) decide to just kill her. If you want her to be in any way sympathetic, she should not appear before them in snarling rage, but should be presented in a non-kill-inducing environment. Perhaps she even hires the adventurers (or tries to) to go find her lost boys.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-27, 11:11 AM
While I understand that kobolds are fantasy creatures and not real, that sounds really racist.

What's stopping the elves from labeling dwarves as monster and killing them on sight? Rather strange justification for murdering sentient beings...

Simply put, if they're evil monsters, then they're evil monsters. One of the frequent assumptions of the game, especially earlier editions, is that many monsters as simply that... monsters. They're bad guys, who can be killed with impunity, because they are evil. Killing them reduces the amount of evil in the world, so killing them is good.

If elves label the dwarves monsters and start killing them, well, the elves are wrong because the dwarves are LG. Killing dwarves reduces the amount of good in the world, and is therefore evil. (Now, they might label the dwarves monsters because they're LG, and be killing them to increase the amount of chaos in the world, which the CG elves would favor. But that still makes their actions evil, just in service of Chaos).

When you start considering kobolds to be people, then you start getting on different ground. If kobolds are people, then they have a larger degree of moral freedom, and can choose to be good or evil (or lawful or chaotic), though culture and genetics might send them a certain way (consider, after all, that 3.x kobolds are apparently related to dragons, which have Always alignments... kobolds may have a hereditary disposition towards evil because of this). If they're people, then you can consider their killings to be murder, and the murder to be evil.

However, then we have to look at the specific case he was in... a semi-sentient dungeon that summons monsters for you to kill. He had a pretty good reason to suspect that these creatures WERE monsters set here for him to kill, and that their cries for mercy were feints. He's TRYING to be Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). He had good reason to suspect they were magical speedbumps. So, I would not bump his alignment for this... might bruise it a bit, but not going to cause actual alignment trouble.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 11:29 AM
Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold? This would be wonderful. But it would make you a bad DM, as the encounter would be overleveled and unfair.

Like I suggested, if momma kobold is a powerful spellcaster, she might have a reputation with the local authority. If the authority attempts to arrest the Crusader for murder, it would impress upon the character, and the player, that the Crusader's actions were wrong. Maybe even frame it up so that the authorities believe the Crusader murdered the kobolds for the minor treasure they were collecting, painting the Crusader in a worse light so he has to not just atone, but also clear his name. This gives you a big hook with which to pursue a number of potential new plots. Use it as an opportunity to advance the plot in a new direction, not punish the player.


We are speaking about a professionnal killer...

1: As an adventurer, he kills things to get gold
2: As a Crusader, one of his jobs is to kill evil and beings considered unholy by his religion.
3: As a Dwarf, he hates Kobolds.

You can't apply your own moral code to a professionnal killer in a violent world where species war is a thing... Kobolds are usually malevolent, which means they are usually natural enemies (mortal enemies) of almost all others species.

You arbitrarily decided that it's not ok for a professionnal killer in a monster-empowering dungeon to let monsters live. It can be ok in a setting with grey morality, but in those settings the alignment system should not be a thing.

If he murdered a not-evil vampire (a wierd exceptionnal vampire), would it be different? How would you react? Would you "accept" it better because he's a undead and can't be murdered? If so, then "sentience" has nothing to do in the debate. If you think the vampire is different, then the problem is that things YOU consider abominations and things your player considers abominations are different.
However, then we have to look at the specific case he was in... a semi-sentient dungeon that summons monsters for you to kill. He had a pretty good reason to suspect that these creatures WERE monsters set here for him to kill, and that their cries for mercy were feints. He's TRYING to be Lawful Good (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html). He had good reason to suspect they were magical speedbumps. So, I would not bump his alignment for this... might bruise it a bit, but not going to cause actual alignment trouble.
Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.

As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

We can blather on about what assumption might occur when one encounters kobolds, but if that assumption was wrong, the Crusader is still responsible for his action. He isn't atoned by his unwavering sense of self-righteousness. And his action was killing a group of unarmed, non-Evil kobolds as they begged for mercy. Just because he thought it was right, doesn't mean it was.



When you start considering kobolds to be people, then you start getting on different ground. If kobolds are people, then they have a larger degree of moral freedom, and can choose to be good or evil (or lawful or chaotic), though culture and genetics might send them a certain way (consider, after all, that 3.x kobolds are apparently related to dragons, which have Always alignments... kobolds may have a hereditary disposition towards evil because of this). If they're people, then you can consider their killings to be murder, and the murder to be evil. As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 11:30 AM
The comic works as a comic. I wouldn't honestly want to experience that one as a game at the table.

MrStabby
2015-07-27, 11:56 AM
This has the risk of being a bit of a ramble but...

You can obey the laws of your Race/God and be lawful but if those laws are evil you cannot be good. I would argue that a law that requires you to kill other walking taking creatures with no evidence they have committed a crime, intend to commit a crime or to harm you in any way is not a good law.

If you have two conflicting codes, one saying "kill all Kobalds" and another saying "don't kill those that are no threat/have not been found guilty by due process" then priority is a valid choice for the player to make. Deciding that the good aspect supersedes the lawful aspect pushes towards neutral good alignment and allowing the divine/racial command to overcome the good points towards the lawful neutral alignment. The player made the choice to have a character with a conflicting set of beliefs (and potentially a very interesting character) and if the character IS conflicted by this then there is perhaps greater grounds for leniency.

I think arguing Kobalds are evil and deserve to die is possibly too metagamey (on the tiny chance it is just simply stupid and wrong). Even if Kobalds are largely evil in your world then the character should at least have a reason for being so certain. Faith can be a reason for this. Blindly following the doctrine of an evil god in the belief it is good is plausible - fundamentalism is not uncommon.


My answer would be to allow the crusader to atone. Have the Kobalds' grieving mother beg the party to return the bodies of her children so she can bury them. This should give an opportunity for the player to display which way their alignment goes. Given that this would happen outside the dungeon there is no confusing ambiguity. No acts of revenge, only expressions of regret and grief means only a seriously delusional player would think that in the eyes of a lawful good god that the killing of this matriarch would be justified.

On that note I would argue that the crusader's god does not care about the Kobalds but that they do care about the crusader. No matter how expendable the god considers the Kobalds to do so, they have tested the alignment of the paladin. Crusader's gods may not care about the Kobalds themselves but will care that their representative shows no compassion, no desire for justice, no requirement for any justification for killing creatures beyond their proximity.

If it were my game the crusader would atone or fall. You gave them every chance to stop. You showed they were unarmed, helpless, powerless to resist. You showed them begging for mercy and then fleeing. You made it clear with every stroke of that player's sword that what they were doing was not Lawful Good. Yes there are mitigating factors, the dungeon environment, the character's faith based hatred of Kobalds etc. so there should be a chance to atone.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 11:59 AM
Crusaders aren't paladins, they can't fall.

MrStabby
2015-07-27, 12:07 PM
Crusaders aren't paladins, they can't fall.

Yeah sorry. I was taking about an alignment change/alignment based consequences. Poor choice of words.

Comet
2015-07-27, 12:08 PM
A crusader acting out in a combat high and slaughtering a bunch of innocent creatures that he perceived as a threat should, absolutely, be a problem. There should absolutely be consequences for doing so, it should absolutely make the crusader's life difficult, if just for a moment.

I'm not seeing the problem. This is how stories in roleplaying games are made. The GM prepares stuff, the players come in and turn that stuff upside down and then the GM extrapolates from that and presents any probable consequences of the players' actions. Nobody's done any wrong here. You shouldn't be offended that the player couldn't read your mind, the player shouldn't be offended that the world has the potential for twists and turns.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 12:17 PM
Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.


The OOTS comic is not relevant, but even if we go by it:

Miko only fell when she killed Shojo, a human aligned with the gods that was giving her powers.

She didn't seems to have any trouble being an evil-slaying inquisitor when she directed her killing urges towards enemies of her diety.



As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

If Kobolds are not evil in this setting, the character should know about that. Unless specified otherwise, he can be excused to think the Kobold were evil, because they are supposed to be in the default D&D setting. If this is the case, then it was miscommunication, but you can't blame the player.

The level of threat evil poses to you has no bearing on if it's ok to kill it or not. Would a level 30 adventurer be unjustified to kill some (armed or not) orcs because they can't possibly pose a threat to him?

And what if those orcs wanted to go slaughter a village right after?

Grey morality has no place in the default D&D setting. I'm not saying grey morality is not interesting and compelling, I use it myself.

But I can justify the player's actions if he was not warned beforehand that the game didn't use black and white morality.


We can blather on about what assumption might occur when one encounters kobolds, but if that assumption was wrong, the Crusader is still responsible for his action. He isn't atoned by his unwavering sense of self-righteousness. And his action was killing a group of unarmed, non-Evil kobolds as they begged for mercy. Just because he thought it was right, doesn't mean it was.

Again you assume the Kobold were non-evil. But Kobold ARE evil and a natural mortal enemy of the dwarves. I'm sure default-setting Moradin think as much too.


As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

PCs can be evil.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 12:19 PM
Looking more at the scenario, what tools did you give them to determine that they weren't spawned by the dungeon? You've implied that they could have checked, but how?

I'm also curious as to why those kobolds would want to go into a place that periodically spawns dangerous monsters while unarmed and evidently incompetent at combat. The location itself is dangerous and it doesn't sound like they had any way to know that a section of it had been cleared out recently. Do they stalk adventuring parties to see when it gets cleared? But even then if a monster pops out, what do they do then?

There are enough little holes I feel in the plot that I'm not sure how I would respond to it as a player. The little inconsistencies would very likely add up in my head and make me suspect that this is a trap which kobolds are notorious users of.

Elricaltovilla
2015-07-27, 12:30 PM
Had the party ever encountered Kobolds before?

If yes, were these non-hostile interactions or was it a combat situation (specifically party vs. kobolds)?

If no, was the party given the opportunity to identify the kobolds? Did they succeed or fail at that identification check? If they succeeded, did the DM make it clear that kobolds weren't part of the dungeon's normal monster spawning?

Whether or not the crusader is in the wrong depends on the answer to all of those questions. If the party has fought kobolds as dungeon monsters before, then the crusader acted entirely appropriately for the situation. If he failed to identify the creatures in a hostile environment, then his actions came from ignorance, not malice. If he wasn't given the opportunity or information necessary to make an informed decision, then the problem lies with the DM as much as the player.

Only in a situation where the PC knew kobolds weren't monsters, knew they weren't hostile and recognized them as such and then still proceeded to kill them would his actions constitute an act of willful evil.

Eisenheim
2015-07-27, 12:34 PM
The particular scenario isn't really the issue. I would not do anything in game in specific reaction to it. The issue is, as some have already said, the group all being on the same page about the place and nature of morals and moral dilemmas in the game. There's not a right or wrong answer to whether what the crusader did was inappropriate for a heroic and good character. The answer varies between games and settings. You just all need to talk things out and agree on what kind of game you're playing.

I don't wish attack, OP, but it does seem reasonable to assume that, in a game focused on a dungeon full of magically spawning monsters, moral questions of monster slaying won't be an issue.

dream
2015-07-27, 12:37 PM
Based on how the Crusader dealt with her "kids", if the mother confronts him, she'll end up in the same graveyard.

This is obviously a problem for the GM, but, it's a GM-created problem. There was no pre-game establishment of gaming and setting expectations. It doesn't mean he/she is a bad GM, but that is a mistake. It gets corrected by NOW establishing gaming expectations. If kobolds are "people" instead of the evil monsters described in the Monster Manual, make sure you communicate that. If the GM has a problem with trad alignement, have the talk about alignment with the players. Good Gamemasters communicate with their players.

When you assume .....

+: when a person asks for advice, gets advice, then argues with the person who provided it, was advice really what was wanted? Maybe that person was looking for others to reinforce their thoughts and actions? In which case, any advice that opposes those thoughts and actions may be a waste of time. Few of us are here to argue. Most of us are here to discuss TTRPGs and share ideas in a mature, respectful manner.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-27, 01:12 PM
Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.

As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

I'd point out the Paladins of Azure City in Redcloak's background, who went into a goblin village and slaughtered all the goblins, including the young, without apparent alignment, or even class, consequences. They went out of their way to slaughter "innocents", and merrily road back as paladins. And that Miko, as she was dying, was told she was going to go to the LG afterlife, regardless of her recent actions.



As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

An optional book for an edition I don't play doesn't have a lot of authority with me. I mean, I can point that the 1e MM lists kobolds as evil, without mention of exception, but I don't expect that to carry a lot of weight with you, either.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 01:18 PM
Grey morality has no place in the default D&D setting. I'm not saying grey morality is not interesting and compelling, I use it myself.

But I can justify the player's actions if he was not warned beforehand that the game didn't use black and white morality.
Kobolds of variable alignment is not "grey morality". You can have clear cut moral principles in a world where kobolds possess the ability to discern them.

While a good point was made about the strength of the word "Usually", "Usually" and "Always" are conceptionally very different things. And that only makes sense if kobold are "always" evil, but it is not as clear cut as you're trying to make it if they're just "usually" evil.

If we're gunna metagame about the intended alignment of kobolds, let's remember that they are a playable race as well, and thus explicitly capable of variable alignment.


Again you assume the Kobold were non-evil. But Kobold ARE evil and a natural mortal enemy of the dwarves. I'm sure default-setting Moradin think as much too. OP has made it quite clear that this was the case. Regardless of what the Crusader knew or thought on the matter.


PCs can be evil. Yeah, just like the Crusader. Who slaugthered innocent people as they begged for mercy.



An optional book for an edition I don't play doesn't have a lot of authority with me. I mean, I can point that the 1e MM lists kobolds as evil, without mention of exception, but I don't expect that to carry a lot of weight with you, either. It should hold authority during a conversation specifically about 3.x D&D containing prominently a base class from an optional book...

Given 1e MM has no authority in 3.x, if you made that point it would be completely moot.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 01:44 PM
Kobolds of variable alignment is not "grey morality". You can have clear cut moral principles in a world where kobolds possess the ability to discern them.

While you made a good point about the strength of the word " Usually", "Usually" and "Always" are conceptionally very different things. And that only makes sense if kobold are "always" evil, but it is not as clear cut as you're trying to make it if they're just "usually" evil.

If we're gunna metagame about the intended alignment of kobolds, let's remember that they are a playable race as well, and thus explicitly capable of variable alignment.

Yes, and Good Kobold pcs will be seen as pariah, abominations and traitors by other Kobold... Going by default D&D setting. If they aligned themselves with other Kobolds with evil intent, then they would be doing evil-acts and become evil, and a good aligned character in a black and white morality game would be justified to kill this evil-doing Kobold.

Now, 4 Kobold? The odds of them all being good is almost as good as the odds of a Vampire being good.

If they were, they could have told the dwarves, the Kobolds WOULD KNOW if they weren't like other Kobolds. "We are not like our evil kin, we are pariahs, hunter from our homes because we refuse to kill dwarves and humans". That would probabbly initiate a discussion at least.

Like a good Vampire would do if threatened by a Paladin.



OP has made it quite clear that this was the case. Regardless of what the Crusader knew or thought on the matter.

No, op made his case on the fact that they were unarmed and asked for mercy. Making no point if they were actually evil or not. It's not important though. The Kobolds are trapmasters. If a Demon/Vampire was "apparently" unarmed and asked for mercy, would you spare it?

You see, the only problem here is that you and OP disagree with the Crusader on what IS and what is NOT a evil monster that needs to be killed. So miscommunication.

Since Kobold are mortal enemies of the Dwarves, the dwarf could easily assume letting them live would mean the death of a fellow dwarf later, even if they were not evil. Even good Kobold would have every reason to hate and kill dwarves since they fight for the same ressources and territories. I doubt Moradin would disapprove in most incarnation of him.

UNLESS IT WAS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE IN THE SETTING.

If the setting is different, the dwarf would know. The GM has to give out all information the crusader would know. That's my whole point. Miscommunication.

There would be nothing wrong to tell him: "Wait, before you go, I have to tell you that in my setting, Kobolds are people, have no defined alignment, and are not in any war with your people... You have no real reason to hate them, and Moradin would think killing them, unarmed when they surrender, would be murder"



Yeah, just like the Crusader. Who slaugthered innocent people as they begged for mercy.

Kobold are not "people" in default D&D setting. They are evil monsters that want to bring upon all others mass-destruction-by-dragon. Good people kill them to rid the world of their taint.

Grey morality is very cool, but if you don't specify your are using it, situations like those WILL arise.

neonagash
2015-07-27, 01:48 PM
Even if in this setting kobalds aren't always evil the PC had no reason to assume these dungeon dwelling kobolds werent evil.

1 They were unarmed and unarmored ..
So what? Evil creatures certainly put down weapons and armor sometimes.

2. They weren't a combat threat...
Again so what? Evil creatures can lose fights too.

3. They begged for mercy..
Evil creatures can beg mercy when they realize they are losing. In fact evil creatures often surrender as a way to live another day and plant a knife in your back later.

I'd say the crusader was fine.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 02:08 PM
Yes, and Good Kobold pcs will be seen as pariah, abominations and traitors by other Kobold... Going by default D&D setting. Kobolds are not drow. Good kobolds are not necessarily pariah. Read Race of the Dragon's chapter on kobolds. All if takes is a very powerful chromatic dragon in the region to turn kobolds into minions of Good.


You see, the only problem here is that you and OP disagree with the Crusader on what IS and what is NOT a evil monster that needs to be killed. Because OP and I don't mistake "usually" for "always". And call into question the "Lawful Goodness" of killing those who cannot defend themselves.


Since Kobold are mortal enemies of the Dwarves, the dwarf could easily assume letting them live would mean the death of a fellow dwarf later. Since even good Kobold would hate dwarves and years of hatred won't be ignored, so I doubt Moradin would disapprove. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. No 3.x literature I'm aware of explicitly states that Moradin hates kobolds. You're extrapolating the dwarves' conflict with kobolds unnecessaryly to their gods. In fact, the only race he explicitly opposes are the orcs.


Even if in this setting kobalds aren't always evil the PC had no reason to assume these dungeon dwelling kobolds werent evil.

1 They were unarmed and unarmored ..
So what? Evil creatures certainly put down weapons and armor sometimes.

2. They weren't a combat threat...
Again so what? Evil creatures can lose fights too.

3. They begged for mercy..
Evil creatures can beg mercy when they realize they are losing. In fact evil creatures often surrender as a way to live another day and plant a knife in your back later.

I'd say the crusader was fine. Why is the burden of proof on the kobolds, but not the Crusader? The Crusader is the one acting. The responsibility lies with the Crusader, not the kobolds. Innocent til proven guilty, if you will.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 02:12 PM
Because when people sit around a gaming table, a hell of a lot of us aren't up to date with that "but monsters are people too" camp. It's why you hear DMs chronically complaining that their players killed XY or Z harmless monster people, but you never hear players complaining that they had to kill an orc instead of engaging in intelligent discourse with it.

Slipperychicken
2015-07-27, 02:27 PM
You made a dungeon. You told the players to go in and kill small monsters, lest the monsters grow bigger and do bad things to people. They went in, found small monsters, and killed them. What did you expect?

Red Fel
2015-07-27, 02:28 PM
Because when people sit around a gaming table, a hell of a lot of us aren't up to date with that "but monsters are people too" camp. It's why you hear DMs chronically complaining that their players killed XY or Z harmless monster people, but you never hear players complaining that they had to kill an orc instead of engaging in intelligent discourse with it.

But again, these were unarmed scavengers, and they begged for mercy and fled. They did not attack first. Or at all. They sobbed and ran.

I don't care if you're a Paladin or not. I don't care if you deal in "these are usually monsters, so it's fair for me to assume they're monsters." That's not the point. If you ran into them in a dark tunnel and had no time to think, I'd understand attacking them. If you couldn't see what they were holding or doing, or hear what they were saying, I'd get it. I'd even understand if your home was destroyed by Kobolds, if your people had been at war with the Kobolds for centuries, if you had recently encountered a Dragon boasting about its treacherous Kobold thralls. Any of that, I would get.

But in this case, they were absolutely no threat. They begged, pleaded, and fled. They were not violent, they were not aggressive. And at the first sign that they are no threat, that they are terrified and want no fighting, you pause. I'm not saying you drop your weapons and invite them home for tea and introduce them to your wife and daughters. I'm saying you pause, weapons at the ready, and let them explain themselves.

If you can't do that, I'm sorry, but you have no business calling yourself Lawful Good.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 02:33 PM
Kobolds are not drow. Good kobolds are not necessarily pariah. Read Race of the Dragon's chapter on kobolds. All if takes is a very powerful chromatic dragon in the region to turn kobolds into minions of Good.

You cannot use your own Knowledge of Kobold from a optionnal book as a morality guide and impose it as truth for everyone at the table. The monster manual, a core book, makes it clear Kobold are evil trapmakers that should not be trusted.

What is the difference between Kobold and Drows in regard to the right of killing them or not, exactly?

They worship an evil god, have an evil society. There is nothing that suggest you are less justified in killing Kobold than Drows.



Because OP and I don't mistake "usually" for "always". And call into question the "Lawful Goodness" of killing those who cannot defend themselves.

Yet you are absolutely UNABLE to express this to the player who might not share your view on it?
That whole thread it about miscommunication.

I for one interpret "usually" in that they are driven to evil naturally, and only rare exceptions diverge from that. I think I can also be justified to think that those who are NOT evil would be pariah, because all other LAWFUL EVIL members of the races would probabbly act that way agaisnt their kin who rebel and show "weakness", with them being Lawful Evil and all.

Those pariah knowing that their kin are in a mortal conflict with dwarves, SHOULD explain as such when confronted with dwarven warriors.

Why would this whole assumption be wrong?


No 3.x literature I'm aware of explicitly states that Moradin hates kobolds. You're extrapolating the dwarves' conflict with kobolds unnecessaryly to their gods. In fact, the only race he explicitly opposes are the orcs.

Since he is all about the protection and prosperity of dwarves. I would think one can assume he is against all races that wish them harm. And would forgive an unlegitimate act done agaisnt those natural enemies, as that act was made to defend the dwarven race.

But hey, the Ways of Moradin are imprenetrable, with us being mortals and all, so I don't think we should continue arguing on that point since any GM could rule as he wanted on this.


Why is the burden of proof on the kobolds, but not the Crusader? The Crusader is the one acting. The responsibility lies with the Crusader, not the kobolds. Innocent til proven guilty, if you will

Default setting D&D is not about having moral dilemnas when encountering Kobold in a dungeon. If you want to do so, just tell it to the players. Miscommunication.

Again, why can't you just say: "Wait, before you go, I have to tell you that in my setting, Kobolds are people, have no defined alignment, and are not in any war with your people... You have no real reason to hate them, and Moradin would think killing them, unarmed when they surrender, would be murder"

NichG
2015-07-27, 02:33 PM
Metagame considerations of whether the crusader or DM was 'at fault' here aren't really useful either way they fall. It isn't the DM's job to determine the correct way for a player to play their character. If the action was evil or good or chaotic or lawful in terms of alignment is one thing, but none of that makes it a 'wrong' action for the player to have chosen. The choice can have consequences and those consequences can be undesired, but as long as it remains as IC consequences then that's fine. It's just the IC consequences of a choice like any other that happens in the game.

But OOC judgement against an IC act just destroys trust at the table - the trust that people can play characters different than themselves without fearing that they'll be judged as a real person on the basis of their fictional choices, and the trust that the DM will be impartial.

YossarianLives
2015-07-27, 02:33 PM
I find the opinion of many in this thread horrifying. OK, let's say that kobolds are evil 99.9% of the time. Good kobolds are almost nonexistent.

That still isn't justification to murder four unarmed kobolds who have surrendered and are pleading for mercy, even if they are all evil. The thought of doing so makes me feel sick.

EDIT: Red Fel knows what he's talking about.

Red Fel
2015-07-27, 02:41 PM
I find the opinion of many in this thread horrifying. OK, let's say that kobolds are evil 99.9% of the time. Good kobolds are almost nonexistent.

That still isn't justification to murder four unarmed kobolds who have surrendered and are pleading for mercy, even if they are all evil. The thought of doing so makes me feel sick.

This. This is the point.

I hear people arguing, "But Kobolds are usually Evil, and there's no time in a dungeon to sit down and discuss these things and play detective." And that's fair. That's not an unreasonable point. It's perfectly reasonable, in the absence of other evidence, to assume that most monsters you'd encounter in a dungeon - particularly those which are generally Evil - are a threat to be eliminated.

Here, however, there was evidence to the contrary. They were unarmed. They were nonviolent. They were pleading for mercy - which shows that they were intelligent and capable of communication. Rather than fighting, they tried to flee. These factors strongly support a conclusion that, even if they're not necessarily non-Evil, they're no threat.

This isn't about killing monsters who are generally Evil. This is about kicking a quartet of intelligent puppies capable of speech. They committed no wrong except to be there. They were no threat to anybody, and this was visible.

Now, you may argue that a PC is immediately justified in killing anything Evil. That topic has been discussed to agonizing detail in other threads. And if you choose to go that route - and I won't stop you - I will say that the burden is therefore on you to determine that things are Evil, in order to determine that you are justified in wholesale slaughter. Keep a Paladin with you at all times, or an item of Detect Evil. If being Evil is sufficient to carry a death sentence, then your burden is to make sure that a thing pings as Evil before you attack. If it does, go nuts.

If, on the other hand, the Kobolds were not killed simply because they were Evil, but because they were perceived to be a threat, I submit to you that there was ample evidence that this was not the case. I've stated it plainly. These Kobolds had enough time and opportunity to prove that they were no threat; any responsible LG character would have seen that.

This Crusader did not, or chose not to. Make of that what you will.


EDIT: Red Fel knows what he's talking about.

Darn skippy I do.

Comet
2015-07-27, 02:55 PM
A lot of people seem to be upset about the crusader's actions. Is this a thing where you feel that the player is "playing wrong" or a reaction to the character's in-fiction morality? Because the latter can be incorporated into the story, but the former is definitely a sign of having to sit down and talk about the kind of game you want to play.

As for me, I love these kinds of moments. D&D is a game about violence, so looking at the consequences of that violence feels super worthwhile. I'd only draw the line at truly despicable acts of abuse, everything else is fair game as long as these things are taken seriously enough and with proper consequences. This is a personal view, of course.

All in all, I feel like people need to give the player the benefit of the doubt. No one comes to the table to ruin everyone's fun, they just want to explore a world and react to it in the way they see fit. The GM's job is, in turn, to react to the player and present them with consequences. Again, I think this whole situation is proceeding exactly as the game is supposed to. I don't think anyone's done any wrong here. If the GM feels uncomfortable about the player's, not the character's, actions they should definitely talk it out. Otherwise, game on.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 03:02 PM
I hear people arguing, "But Kobolds are usually Evil, and there's no time in a dungeon to sit down and discuss these things and play detective." And that's fair. That's not an unreasonable point. It's perfectly reasonable, in the absence of other evidence, to assume that most monsters you'd encounter in a dungeon - particularly those which are generally Evil - are a threat to be eliminated.

Here, however, there was evidence to the contrary. They were unarmed. They were nonviolent. They were pleading for mercy - which shows that they were intelligent and capable of communication. Rather than fighting, they tried to flee. These factors strongly support a conclusion that, even if they're not necessarily non-Evil, they're no threat.

Is the fact that they are a threat even relevant? If you are level 30 wizards and encounter 5 orcs armed to the teeth... They are no threat to you, they notice your flying Ioun Stones and Dragon Mount and ask for mercy, but they were on their way to slaughter a village. Aren't you justified to kill them?

If so, then the threat level is a non-factor.

Would you give mercy to a Vampire/Demon who asked for it and was unarmed? I personnaly think a Crusader would be justified to refuse mercy and kill the monster.

So belonging to "evil", in those case, is a good reason enough to kill.

So again, the problem is that the creatures you see as aberrant abominations and the creature the crusader sees as them are not the same. Communication will solve that.

The only point i'm trying to make is: If in YOUR setting killing unarmed Kobold is unjustified by a Dwarf Crusader of Moradin, why not tell him before he kills them? The character would probably KNOW that, he lives in the world in question.


This isn't about killing monsters who are generally Evil. This is about kicking a quartet of intelligent puppies capable of speech. They committed no wrong except to be there. They were no threat to anybody, and this was visible.

Kobold are also trap makers and mortal enemies of dwarves... I could argue a Dwarf would be justified to think they could comeback with 200 other Kobold later.


Now, you may argue that a PC is immediately justified in killing anything Evil. That topic has been discussed to agonizing detail in other threads. And if you choose to go that route - and I won't stop you - I will say that the burden is therefore on you to determine that things are Evil, in order to determine that you are justified in wholesale slaughter. Keep a Paladin with you at all times, or an item of Detect Evil. If being Evil is sufficient to carry a death sentence, then your burden is to make sure that a thing pings as Evil before you attack. If it does, go nuts.

I actually PREFER grey and complex morality. But if you choose to delve in it, just make sure everyone knows it.

In a black and white morality game, the burden of assessing if the creature is evil or not seems out-of-place...

Afterall, even "unique" demons or vampires could be good. So i'd say the burden of expressing they are NOT evil belong to the evil-tagged creature. Unless tagging them as "usually evil" or "always evil" in the first place was useless.

Im not saying it's the RIGHT way to play. But it's a legitimate way to play.


If, on the other hand, the Kobolds were not killed simply because they were Evil, but because they were perceived to be a threat, I submit to you that there was ample evidence that this was not the case. I've stated it plainly. These Kobolds had enough time and opportunity to prove that they were no threat; any responsible LG character would have seen that.

This Crusader did not, or chose not to. Make of that what you will.

The Crusader could have been justified if in the setting killing evil-creatures is not an evil act. This is an assumption many players makes. It's not like he's the only player to ever interpret it that way.

Just communicate with the player and there will be no more problems.

Slipperychicken
2015-07-27, 03:11 PM
l
This isn't about killing monsters who are generally Evil. This is about kicking a quartet of intelligent puppies capable of speech. They committed no wrong except to be there. They were no threat to anybody, and this was visible.

[...]
If, on the other hand, the Kobolds were not killed simply because they were Evil, but because they were perceived to be a threat, I submit to you that there was ample evidence that this was not the case.

The dungeon's monsters gain +1 CR every ten days they're alive. Assuming the kobolds were part of the dungeon (they are monsters in the dungeon, after all), they would become godlike in power within a year. Any monster in that place is a long-term existential threat to the whole setting.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-27, 03:11 PM
Maybe you should have. Kobolds are not humans and certainly not RL humans. They're evil. They have an MM entry that says so. The PC is also using a mechanic of LG to describe himself. These are known to be opposed. Are you using alignment as described in the manuals? If not, please describe the applicable houserules prior to taking issue with people's opinions.

You're the one not using alignment correctly, here. It's Evil to murder what are effectively unarmed civilians even if those civilians do ping Evil. That's why Paladins can't just go Detecting Evil in random bars and impulse-Smiting everyone who pings... At least, unless they want to Fall.

Lurkmoar
2015-07-27, 03:14 PM
If the fact that they are a threat even relevant? If you are level 30 wizards and encounter 5 orcs armed to the teeth... They aren't no threat to you, they notice your flying Ioun Stones and Dragon Mount and ask for mercy, but they were on their way to slaughter a village. Aren't you justified to kill them?

A wizard that powerful would probably Geas them to do something useful... like clean his latrine. A level 30 wizard against 5 armed orcs is like a combat tank against drunk teenagers.

OP, never put anything in front of your players that you don't them breaking. Just roll with it... and let their actions catch up with them in unexpected ways.

Also, don't be surprised if the player has completely forgotten that he killed the kobolds in a few sessions.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 03:14 PM
But again, these were unarmed scavengers, and they begged for mercy and fled. They did not attack first. Or at all. They sobbed and ran.

I don't care if you're a Paladin or not. I don't care if you deal in "these are usually monsters, so it's fair for me to assume they're monsters." That's not the point. If you ran into them in a dark tunnel and had no time to think, I'd understand attacking them. If you couldn't see what they were holding or doing, or hear what they were saying, I'd get it. I'd even understand if your home was destroyed by Kobolds, if your people had been at war with the Kobolds for centuries, if you had recently encountered a Dragon boasting about its treacherous Kobold thralls. Any of that, I would get.

But in this case, they were absolutely no threat. They begged, pleaded, and fled. They were not violent, they were not aggressive. And at the first sign that they are no threat, that they are terrified and want no fighting, you pause. I'm not saying you drop your weapons and invite them home for tea and introduce them to your wife and daughters. I'm saying you pause, weapons at the ready, and let them explain themselves.

If you can't do that, I'm sorry, but you have no business calling yourself Lawful Good.

Want to know what a lot of players think about all that outside of a forum theoretical setting?

"Oh my god, I don't care! Just let me hit the stupid kobolds!"

The DM may have tried to communicate something in the game, but that knowledge doesn't really excuse him. He does still need to get it through to the players, not the characters that he doesn't want it to be a brainless hack and slash adventure without moral consideration, and if the players don't want that, which one player obviously doesn't, he needs to come to some agreement. That's the DMs responsibility, not the players.

And if he really wanted to play that out properly, he needed to give the players some sort of out, some way to realize these weren't kobolds generated by the strange dungeon. That it can happen has to be explained and how they do needs to be explained.

Keltest
2015-07-27, 03:19 PM
Want to know what a lot of players think about all that outside of a forum theoretical setting?

"Oh my god, I don't care! Just let me hit the stupid kobolds!"

The DM may have tried to communicate something in the game, but that knowledge doesn't really excuse him. He does still need to get it through to the players, not the characters that he doesn't want it to be a brainless hack and slash adventure without moral consideration, and if the players don't want that, which one player obviously doesn't, he needs to come to some agreement. That's the DMs responsibility, not the players.

And if he really wanted to play that out properly, he needed to give the players some sort of out, some way to realize these weren't kobolds generated by the strange dungeon. That it can happen has to be explained and how they do needs to be explained.
First of all, there are a great many players who consider roleplaying in a roleplaying game to be part of the fun.

Beyond that, if a person wants to play a murderhobo, they should probably pick a class without alignment-based restrictions specifically designed to appeal to the roleplaying group more than the murderhobo group.

As for the DM, he did give the players an out. He gave them several outs. The murderhobo bludgeoned them to death.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 03:26 PM
A lot of people seem to be upset about the crusader's actions. Is this a thing where you feel that the player is "playing wrong" or a reaction to the character's in-fiction morality? Because the latter can be incorporated into the story, but the former is definitely a sign of having to sit down and talk about the kind of game you want to play. The butchering of four seemingly innocent individuals, however fictional, by someone who quickly judged them has a way of igniting the natural empathic capacity in some people.

Don't believe me, replace "crusader" with "police officer" and "kobold" with "black kid" and feel the same horror you get watching the evening news.

The issue isn't so much the player at fault. It's that the character is. The player or their character may not believe an Evil was done, but that fact does little to change to objective realities which call the judgement into question. Killing unarmed creatures who flee and beg for mercy because they're Evil is a rather dubious action when no proof of their Evil exists save their identity in Genus Dungeon-dwelling Kobold.


As for me, I love these kinds of moments. D&D is a game about violence, so looking at the consequences of that violence feels super worthwhile. I'd only draw the line at truly despicable acts of abuse, everything else is fair game as long as these things are taken seriously enough and with proper consequences. This is a personal view, of course. Me too. This is where I stand on the whole thing. Something happened, the character reacted. Now there are consequences. Those consequences present an opportunity for the DM to present the players with choices which inform the direction of the campaign. And that is exactly what drives good games forward.

In the end, this is an opportunity for the DM. But it's an opportunity that should be in part informed by how the action is morally perceived by others. Who knows, OP could turn it into a whole adventure only to ultimately vindicate the Crusader.

noob
2015-07-27, 03:27 PM
"You're the one not using alignment correctly, here. It's Evil to murder what are effectively unarmed civilians even if those civilians do ping Evil. That's why Paladins can't just go Detecting Evil in random bars and impulse-Smiting everyone who pings... At least, unless they want to Fall. "
nope there is a monster manual where they describe an always lawful good specie where each individual must kill absolutely everything evil they met because being evil means that you must be killed and also they must research all evil creatures and kill them systematically.
So this crusader is totally lawful good according to this specie if those kobolds had the evil alignment.

dream
2015-07-27, 03:29 PM
Killing monsters clearly defined in the system's bestiary as EVIL is not an evil act. It's Pest Control. Period.

Plus, the problem with calling it murder is it has never been called murder in D&D. The premise of the game for over thirty years has been to go into dungeons, kill monsters, and take their stuff (that they stole from humans, usually). This GM/the OP has changed a very long-standing pillar of D&D without informing the players, then gets upset over it? :smallconfused:

If I go over my friend's place and I see roaches everywhere, I start smashing them. Now, he may say "Hey man! Roaches are people. Don't smash them!" Then I'll probably say, "Oh! I didn't know you felt that way about roaches. Well, I'll see you later then."

It's a matter of communication. The player thought killing evil monsters (again I didn't label kobolds evil, the Monster Manual did) was an good act. Most people who play D&D would agree and I challenge anyone going to GenCon here soon to take a poll at the door. Just hold up a sign;

"Kobolds: Monsters or People?" You can even wear a cute kobold costume. :smallsmile:

Segev
2015-07-27, 03:30 PM
*cough*

While I fully understand those who wish to state that the behavior of this Crusader was not LG, and may in fact have been Evil, I think it important to remember that this is, in the end, a game. It is quite possible that the player misunderstood the situation. I agree, it's probably not as forgivable as some of us have suggested it be treated, but in the end, using alignment as a bludgeon just isn't the right way to go about it.

If there's serious concern that the player honestly thinks all kobolds are kill-on-sight, that he really thinks it's LG behavior to slaughter indiscriminantly, then an OOC discussion about setting expectations is in order. However, his reasoning was fairly sound, and while stopping to investigate may not have been unwise, it's not something to completely throw IRL horified reactions at. He screwed up. He did wrong. Hopefully, his character will learn from it (and, if necessary, so will the player).

But unless this is a pattern of Evil behavior that is being insisted upon as "Good," then I think those who are suggesting moderation and erring on the side of supporting the player's actions to some degree are more concerned that this not be a "gotcha" and less saying "killing them was okay because kobolds."

noob
2015-07-27, 03:37 PM
there is manuals saying that the crusader patter is totally LG and is there is even a LG specie acting like this crusader(I said this some posts ago)

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 03:39 PM
Good way to test that. Have some kobolds appear in town, outside of the magic sentient dungeon that lures adventurers to their deaths. A claustrophobic place where everyone is trying to kill you, everything exists to kill you, yet apparently people take objection when you treat it like a place where everything is trying to kill you.

What you'll probably find, is the adventurers aren't going to kill kobolds if they're in a peaceable setting, like they're merchants or playing hopskotch. But if your job is to hunt down goblins for whatever evil they've done, and you catch some off guard, generally that's an opportunity.

If you're really concerned the player is racist against kobolds, and they'll even attack them in town, go ahead and have some complications chase them, for both incidents. But really, that's interesting. Use that to make a more interesting game and story. Have it that the player finds a kobold-made artefact which suits his character build, but it's so covered in kobold propaganda that he feels disgusted by it. Have it be that the players need to contact a kobold who knows something useful, but he's afraid of them due to their kobold slaying habits--you could even have the kobold require the character to wait outside while the others talk (even little details like that, where the player is still in the room, they give atmosphere and can work as "punishments").

The_Tentacle
2015-07-27, 03:42 PM
I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"

Because yes, the act was evil. It does not matter what alignment the kobolds were, since even if they WERE evil, which they were not, they were attempting to escape after begging for mercy. Killing ANYONE under those circumstances is both evil and chaotic.

Again, the point of this thread is not, I believe, to debate the rightness of the crusader's actions. It is to help the DM decide what to do about them.

With that in mind, I think that a metagame address of the issue would not work. In my earlier post I said that the player should face the consequences of their actions, in game. To do this, I would recommend the PCs running into a distraught female kobold back in town, asking local authorities about her missing children, who went into the maze and didn't come out. When she learns the PCs just came out of the maze she will eagerly ask them if they saw her four children. From there, it depends on the PCs responses. If they relate that the crusader killed them, everyone there will react with shock and disgust, and perhaps the authorities will attempt to arrest them. Whatever happens, it should be a lesson to the PCs and the players, whether they are actually punished in game or not.

AxeAlex
2015-07-27, 03:50 PM
I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"

Because yes, the act was evil. It does not matter what alignment the kobolds were, since even if they WERE evil, which they were not, they were attempting to escape after begging for mercy. Killing ANYONE under those circumstances is both evil and chaotic.

Again, the point of this thread is not, I believe, to debate the rightness of the crusader's actions. It is to help the DM decide what to do about them.

With that in mind, I think that a metagame address of the issue would not work. In my earlier post I said that the player should face the consequences of their actions, in game. To do this, I would recommend the PCs running into a distraught female kobold back in town, asking local authorities about her missing children, who went into the maze and didn't come out. When she learns the PCs just came out of the maze she will eagerly ask them if they saw her four children. From there, it depends on the PCs responses. If they relate that the crusader killed them, everyone there will react with shock and disgust, and perhaps the authorities will attempt to arrest them. Whatever happens, it should be a lesson to the PCs and the players, whether they are actually punished in game or not.

But what if the player who plays the Crusader thinks he did no evil? Which is for sure the case here.

You assume that Kobolds can actually go into a human town without being killed. I could also assume Kobolds are NOT allowed in human/dwarf/elf villages because they are evil monsters kidnapping people to offer them as sacrifices to dragons.

You and the Crusader player are not using the same morality system.

I think communication with the PLAYER is in order before punishing his in-game actions. Punishing his character for what he thinks is a "unlegitimate" reason could lead to OOC tension or resentment if the player doesn't believe he did any evil act.

Once the GM and the player are on the same page about morality in the setting, THEN the player will accept what is and what is not an evil act. But he will do so KNOWING what is and what is not "evil".

Strigon
2015-07-27, 03:53 PM
And if he's really Lawful, he believes in fair fight and due process. Murdering unarmed opponents of questionable guilt as they beg for mercy is neither due process nor a fair fight.

Not necessarily.
Lawful means the character is methodical, might have a personal code, and probably has strict personal rules (Though someone who plans very carefully, but doesn't have personal rules to follow all the time would still be leaning toward lawful.)

That aside, however, murdering 4 innocents is certainly an evil act - and a chaotic one, at that.
4 murders - while they're pleading for their life - is more than enough to justify an alignment change. Let him have it.

Comet
2015-07-27, 03:54 PM
I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"

Agreed. My personal way of handling this would be to introduce the mother kobold as a genuinely peaceful, mournful character that is able to articulate her lament in a way the crusader can understand but also understands the circumstances in which the crusader acted and does not seek revenge. Not a punishment, just an opportunity for a mutual character moment and an exploration of this weird, monster-filled world and how it might not be as simple as it looks.

Maybe if the crusader continues to shoot first and question later we could look into an alignment change or whatever. But it's important to let the player process this information first.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 03:54 PM
First of all, there are a great many players who consider roleplaying in a roleplaying game to be part of the fun.

Beyond that, if a person wants to play a murderhobo, they should probably pick a class without alignment-based restrictions specifically designed to appeal to the roleplaying group more than the murderhobo group.

As for the DM, he did give the players an out. He gave them several outs. The murderhobo bludgeoned them to death.

A lot isn't all, and crusaders don't have any alignment restrictions, and there was no in game reason I saw that would stop me from believing that it was a trap (because that's literally what kobolds do) and that they weren't generated by the strange monster spawner. From the DM point of view he made it obvious to himself and since we take things at face value on these forums, he made it clear to us. If I were in the player's shoes, the information he gave would not have clarified anything.


But unless this is a pattern of Evil behavior that is being insisted upon as "Good," then I think those who are suggesting moderation and erring on the side of supporting the player's actions to some degree are more concerned that this not be a "gotcha" and less saying "killing them was okay because kobolds."

Personally, I'm 100% on the camp of "killing them was okay because kobolds" because a lot of players go into the game with that idea already in their head. Some don't but tons do. I'm not entirely sure why DMs have started doing the peaceful goblin villages or the orcs that are exactly as interesting as humans with green body paint but it's really not for me.

Keltest
2015-07-27, 03:56 PM
A lot isn't all, and crusaders don't have any alignment restrictions, and there was no in game reason I saw that would stop me from believing that it was a trap (because that's literally what kobolds do) and that they weren't generated by the strange monster spawner. From the DM point of view he made it obvious to himself and since we take things at face value on these forums, he made it clear to us. If I were in the player's shoes, the information he gave would not have clarified anything.

Of course it wouldn't clarify anything, because he didn't bother to back off, even for a moment, when the kobolds started pleading for mercy like a good character would normally do.

HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-27, 03:58 PM
Want to know what a lot of players think about all that outside of a forum theoretical setting?

"Oh my god, I don't care! Just let me hit the stupid kobolds!"

The DM may have tried to communicate something in the game, but that knowledge doesn't really excuse him. He does still need to get it through to the players, not the characters that he doesn't want it to be a brainless hack and slash adventure without moral consideration, and if the players don't want that, which one player obviously doesn't, he needs to come to some agreement. That's the DMs responsibility, not the players.

And if he really wanted to play that out properly, he needed to give the players some sort of out, some way to realize these weren't kobolds generated by the strange dungeon. That it can happen has to be explained and how they do needs to be explained.

There's a really easy out for the player in completely plain sight.

It's so incredibly, amazingly easy that even the "I don't care, I just want to hit the kobold!" player should be fine with taking like fifteen seconds tops to shrug and do it.

First five seconds: Ask the DM for the name of a generic neutral or evil war deity in their setting.

Second five seconds: Erase Moradin, write new deity name.

Final five seconds: Erase letter G, insert letter E in its place.

There. It was that easy. No big character changes, no stat alterations, and the best part is, no worries about whether you kill the helpless kobolds, and no worries about RP implications of the beliefs of your deity!

(Seriously, there's something to be said for avoiding the "rollplay or roleplay" fallacy, but if you "just want the DM to let [you] hit the kobold," you don't care about the roleplaying aspect.)

Deadline
2015-07-27, 04:03 PM
I would agree with Red Fel if we weren't talking about Kobolds specifically, because they are known to employ devious tricks and traps. I don't think I'll ever play in a game where I see four apparently unarmed kobolds loading up cheap trinkets and assume that they are friendly. At best, I'll assume they are workers and that the guards or overseers are nearby where I can't see. At worst, I'll assume that their friends already know I'm there and are currently sneaking up behind me. And despite your argument about what Lawful Good looks like, you're going to be hard pressed to show me how that is anything but acceptable to RAW Moradin. Heck, I'd especially assume all of those terrible things about Kobolds if I was playing a Kobold PC.

That said, my answer to the OP would be, "I'd gauge how much fun everyone was having and roll from there. I have yet to meet anyone who likes to have an alignment change happen suddenly for something like you describe, so no alignment change. Also, I'd verify that the other players weren't upset by this. If it's just an in-character thing, I'd move on with a note to the Crusader's player that in this world not all monsters he runs into are necessarily ok to kill on site, and that if he continues to do so he'd likely see his alignment start to slip. If the players are all legitimately upset, I'd bring everyone together for an OOC discussion on what they are looking to get from the game, because clearly the players have differences and those need to be addressed to bring everyone to the same page."

I would NOT:
Punish the Crusader's player in any way for what clearly seems to be a misunderstanding.
Continue to put weird moral situations in their way without informing the players OOC that the game world operates like that.
Get angry or defensive with anyone, because good gravy it's just a game.

My suggestions for future steps would be two-fold, talk with your players (not just the Crusader player) and explain how things work. Let them know that their characters will likely have to deal with those actions IC. Then have them meet the mother. Maybe even have a scene or somesuch where the Crusader can speak with Moradin's clergy on the matter. Maybe combine them and have the mother petition the local temple of Moradin for justice. Bonus points if the local temple clergy generally agree with the Crusader's actions, but are forced to hold him accountable by law anyway ("This isn't the Deep Caverns of Karak Bokar, brother. Here these vile things have rights, and Moradin requires that we respect that."). That way he can see that while some of the in-world dwarves hold strong opinions about Kobolds, the surface world treats them as something other than threats to be eliminated.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 04:08 PM
There's a really easy out for the player in completely plain sight.

It's so incredibly, amazingly easy that even the "I don't care, I just want to hit the kobold!" player should be fine with taking like fifteen seconds tops to shrug and do it.

First five seconds: Ask the DM for the name of a generic neutral or evil war deity in their setting.

Second five seconds: Erase Moradin, write new deity name.

Final five seconds: Erase letter G, insert letter E in its place.

There. It was that easy. No big character changes, no stat alterations, and the best part is, no worries about whether you kill the helpless kobolds, and no worries about RP implications of the beliefs of your deity!

(Seriously, there's something to be said for avoiding the "rollplay or roleplay" fallacy, but if you "just want the DM to let [you] hit the kobold," you don't care about the roleplaying aspect.)

And that's absolutely true, but he should have had the player do it at the start of the campaign, not now. Although I somehow suspect the LG Moradin is pretty supportive of dwarves going around hitting kobolds.

MrStabby
2015-07-27, 04:16 PM
I think the big thing people are missing here are the other players.

Whether enough clues were given that the act was Evil can be determined by looking at the other guy. He was Neutral and thought it went too far. When someone with a more lax alignment than you wouldn't do something as a moral decision, its probably a clue. Given that the majority of other players agree that the action was Immoral its probably a sign you gave everyone enough clues that this was not simply a room to be slaughtered through in a cloud of blood.

This doesn't mean the Crusader need be a bad player. He is just a character that committed an evil act (in the eyes of his comrades if not everyone hearing the description here).


What the consequences should be should depend on the campaign. It should also be consistent with what all players want. If people want actions to have consequences, there to be a real risk of death and missfortune then glossing over consequences of actions for any player sends the message to the whole group that they can bypass the consequences of their actions. People talk about player agency - if a player's actions cannot even affect their own alignment then that is diminished. If a player chooses to refrain from slaughtering those they perceive as blameless it should differentiate them from someone who wades in. The player who chose the more peaceable option and tried to restrain the crusader should have that reflected in the game in some way (if you are worried about shifting the Crusader then maybe move this guy to lawful good instead (again if warranted - it could be more complex and obviously depends on the leaning of their other actions)).

If you are running a dungeon crawl type campaign with the focus on story and the assumption of success (so the plot is about how they succeed not about if they succeed) then its actually pretty smart to gloss over some inconvenient consequences, especially if they detract from the story you are trying to tell.

Socksy
2015-07-27, 04:17 PM
If they were, they could have told the dwarves, the Kobolds WOULD KNOW if they weren't like other Kobolds. "We are not like our evil kin, we are pariahs, hunter from our homes because we refuse to kill dwarves and humans". That would probabbly initiate a discussion at least.

I think they were too busy screaming and begging and trying to run. Even at one kobold a round, two of them are dead within six seconds of each other. As a Crusader 6, that's all four within 12 seconds.



That still isn't justification to murder four unarmed kobolds who have surrendered and are pleading for mercy, even if they are all evil. The thought of doing so makes me feel sick.

It's making me tear up how people can think it's justified because kobolds are generally evil.


If I go over my friend's place and I see roaches everywhere, I start smashing them. Now, he may say "Hey man! Roaches are people. Don't smash them!" Then I'll probably say, "Oh! I didn't know you felt that way about roaches. Well, I'll see you later then."

The roaches aren't sentient creatures.


And to all the people comparing him to Miko, no, there's a much better (http://goblinscomic.wikia.com/wiki/Kore) comparison out there.

Keltest
2015-07-27, 04:17 PM
And that's absolutely true, but he should have had the player do it at the start of the campaign, not now. Although I somehow suspect the LG Moradin is pretty supportive of dwarves going around hitting kobolds.

Unless the DM is a mind reader, he doesn't really have any way of knowing whether a player is going to be a murderhobo or not unless they specifically express intent one way or the other.

gadren
2015-07-27, 04:31 PM
Man, I love it when a topic I post becomes hot, but at the same time its really hard when I've got dozens of questions/accusations for me and a new post in the thread literally every 1-5 minutes.

Anyways...

I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"
This pretty much sums it up. It was a chaotic evil act. I wasn't really looking for input on that. You can tell me it wasn't chaotic evil til you're blue in the face, but that is my ruling as DM.

My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.

Some points that I didn't bring up before but seem important now:
-The campaign is very much about old-school D&D dungeon delve style both played very straight (to the point of satire) but also subverted. The dungeon is borderline silly, and it's supposed to be viewed that way. But in town it's already been communicated that there's more going on. The people living there, even veteran NPC adventurers, think the whole setup is very strange, and have communicated this in previously RP encounters. The economy is royally f'ed up by the all the treasure coming in. And the town is filled with all sorts of strange NPCs that are bit of a parody of special-snowflake PC types.
-The same day of the incident, the crusader was in the Temple of Moradin, where the clergy was grumbling and quietly bickering among themselves about some of the new members of the clergy that had showed up from out of town - including a fire giant cleric of Moradin, a half-orc paladin of Moradin, and an elf favored soul of Moradin. The dwarven high priest of Moradin had declared that they had proven themselves to indeed be loyal Sonnlinor, but some of the clergy are ready to mutiny.
-The crusader in question has also been borderline deceptive with the rest of the party on multiple occasions. When he thinks they'll hinder something he wants to do, he'll invent some excuse to separate or even straight-up lie (on two occasions). Its not enough on its own for me to think it'd put his lawful alignment in jeopardy, but combined with the kobold incident...

Keltest
2015-07-27, 04:38 PM
Man, I love it when a topic I post becomes hot, but at the same time its really hard when I've got dozens of questions/accusations for me and a new post in the thread literally every 1-5 minutes.

Anyways...

This pretty much sums it up. It was a chaotic evil act. I wasn't really looking for input on that. You can tell me it wasn't chaotic evil til you're blue in the face, but that is my ruling as DM.

My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.

Some points that I didn't bring up before but seem important now:
-The campaign is very much about old-school D&D dungeon delve style both played very straight (to the point of satire) but also subverted. The dungeon is borderline silly, and it's supposed to be viewed that way. But in town it's already been communicated that there's more going on. The people living there, even veteran NPC adventurers, think the whole setup is very strange, and have communicated this in previously RP encounters. The economy is royally f'ed up by the all the treasure coming in. And the town is filled with all sorts of strange NPCs that are bit of a parody of special-snowflake PC types.
-The same day of the incident, the crusader was in the Temple of Moradin, where the clergy was grumbling and quietly bickering among themselves about some of the new members of the clergy that had showed up from out of town - including a fire giant cleric of Moradin, a half-orc paladin of Moradin, and an elf favored soul of Moradin. The dwarven high priest of Moradin had declared that they had proven themselves to indeed be loyal Sonnlinor, but some of the clergy are ready to mutiny.
-The crusader in question has also been borderline deceptive with the rest of the party on multiple occasions. When he thinks they'll hinder something he wants to do, he'll invent some excuse to separate or even straight-up lie (on two occasions). Its not enough on its own for me to think it'd put his lawful alignment in jeopardy, but combined with the kobold incident...

If he's regularly being deceptive, I would say he is going to head towards neutral or chaotic territory, if nothing else.

Comet
2015-07-27, 04:46 PM
.
My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.


Yeah, seems like he's headed towards alignment shifting territory.
Again, I'd probably introduce an NPC that can, reasonably and with empathy, discuss these things with the crusader. Make it clear that these things are part of the fiction. The player isn't being punished, he's just being made aware that he needs to be aware of these morality traps as much as any spiked pit or crushing wall. The dungeon can test your philosophy as much as your health. As long as these things are clearly introduced with no preaching or authority the player should have no problem with it.

If the crusader still keeps drifting away from his crusading ways then the player is probably okay with the consequences. Accept his choice and present him with its due consequences.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 04:52 PM
Gadren: The way he sounds, you might be better to have a proper test. To the extent where a cleric or a deity of his religion essentially entraps him into showing what a weasel he is. The question is what to do.

Work out something he wants, and something he would do which is clearly wrong, to get it. Could be an axe left as an offering to his god, with an inscription that reads not to take it. He takes it, his deity removes his power, and the axe becomes useless (or maybe the axe offers some minor bonus, to dull the hurt).

If he's short-tempered and murderous, have a puzzle where there are three people, one wicked and the others innocent, where the players are meant to work out which one to kill (you don't need to frame it that way exactly--could be a pickpocket steals something important, but you can't tell which of the three is the pick pocket and all swear it isn't themselves). If he kills all three of them, then again he is struck from his place as a crusader.

If his play is too disruptive, you're better to talk to him.


Though, honestly, if the game is a satire of DnD concepts, the kobolds thing mightn't have been clear to him. If you have a weird dungeon that does weird stuff, killing things that appear in it isn't surprising. If them talking about their fifty six children that'll be orphaned if you kill them and their sick little old mother who is also a nun who'll die without them is enough to stay an adventurer's blade, they ought to consider another occupation--one where gullibility is considered a benefit.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 04:53 PM
With that in mind, I think that a metagame address of the issue would not work. In my earlier post I said that the player should face the consequences of their actions, in game. To do this, I would recommend the PCs running into a distraught female kobold back in town, asking local authorities about her missing children, who went into the maze and didn't come out. When she learns the PCs just came out of the maze she will eagerly ask them if they saw her four children. From there, it depends on the PCs responses. If they relate that the crusader killed them, everyone there will react with shock and disgust, and perhaps the authorities will attempt to arrest them. Whatever happens, it should be a lesson to the PCs and the players, whether they are actually punished in game or not. This is quit possibly the best suggestion so far. This way the players are confronted with the consequences of the crusader's action in a way that is initially nonhostile and nonthreatening. Furthermore, since mommy kobold is ignorant of the Crusader's action, it is up to the party as to whether they own up to the deed and if they do, whether the Crusader attempts to atone.

In the circumstances the Crusader's actions may have seemed, believably justified. Faced with the repercussions, it might be a different story.


But what if the player who plays the Crusader thinks he did no evil? Which is for sure the case here.

You assume that Kobolds can actually go into a human town without being killed. I could also assume Kobolds are NOT allowed in human/dwarf/elf villages because they are evil monsters kidnapping people to offer them as sacrifices to dragons.

You and the Crusader player are not using the same morality system.

I think communication with the PLAYER is in order before punishing his in-game actions. Punishing his character for what he thinks is a "unlegitimate" reason could lead to OOC tension or resentment if the player doesn't believe he did any evil act.

Once the GM and the player are on the same page about morality in the setting, THEN the player will accept what is and what is not an evil act. But he will do so KNOWING what is and what is not "evil". I'm really confused as to why a world where truly Evil creature can be justly killed under any circumstance is incompatible with a world where kobolds possess the ability to make their own decisions. Which is effectively the dichotomy you're presenting.

Usually Evil is not Always Evil. If 50.01% of Kobolds are Lawful Evil then they are technically Usually Evil. The remaining 49.99%, however, could be just about anything.


there is manuals saying that the crusader patter is totally LG and is there is even a LG specie acting like this crusader(I said this some posts ago) Those creatures possess an ability to identify alignment on sight. Which the Crusader does not.

gadren
2015-07-27, 04:56 PM
Yeah, seems like he's headed towards alignment shifting territory.
Again, I'd probably introduce an NPC that can, reasonably and with empathy, discuss these things with the crusader. Make it clear that these things are part of the fiction. The player isn't being punished, he's just being made aware that he needs to be aware of these morality traps as much as any spiked pit or crushing wall. The dungeon can test your philosophy as much as your health. As long as these things are clearly introduced with no preaching or authority the player should have no problem with it.

If the crusader still keeps drifting away from his crusading ways then the player is probably okay with the consequences. Accept his choice and present him with its due consequences.

OH! I know! The next time he visits the temple of Moradin, there could be another dwarf there, begging the high priest for help. The high priest tells him all he can do is provide an atonement spell, but only after the dwarf has changed his ways.
See, the dwarf NPCs was a cleric of Moradin, but after getting caught up to much in the typical murderhobo behavior that explorers of the delve tend to adapt, he's alignment has slipped to neutral and he's been cut off from his cleric powers.

Too anvily?

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 04:56 PM
As a word of warning, I'll walk out of any game where it's my DM trying to teach me a moral lesson. I'm just not interested in it, I've taken that nonsense for 4 years already, I don't want to hear it from an amateur at the table when I'm trying to play a game. Just tell me outright that's not how you're running it but don't try to do anything like trying to "teach" me something.

Some players are all right with it, but don't think that it isn't patronizing.

Comet
2015-07-27, 05:01 PM
OH! I know! The next time he visits the temple of Moradin, there could be another dwarf there, begging the high priest for help. The high priest tells him all he can do is provide an atonement spell, but only after the dwarf has changed his ways.
See, the dwarf NPCs was a cleric of Moradin, but after getting caught up to much in the typical murderhobo behavior that explorers of the delve tend to adapt, he's alignment has slipped to neutral and he's been cut off from his cleric powers.

Too anvily?

Sounds about right. Also make sure that the crusader is allowed to question this and explore these things as much as he wants. Really have fun with talking about the realities of violent dungeon delving.


As a word of warning, I'll walk out of any game where it's my DM trying to teach me a moral lesson. I'm just not interested in it, I've taken that nonsense for 4 years already, I don't want to hear it from an amateur at the table when I'm trying to play a game. Just tell me outright that's not how you're running it but don't try to do anything like trying to "teach" me something.

This is why I always make sure that the player has the option to say 'eff that' and actively disregard any moralising from NPCs. I need to trust the players to know what's fun for them, I just provide them with as much context for their actions as I can manage.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 05:02 PM
If 0.0001% of the time they're innocent, and 99.9999% of the time they're leading you into a trap to die, can you justify killing the innocent in order to not get killed? If not, better find a new occupation, a simple one.


Gadren: Too anvil. Tentacle's suggestion of a distraught kobold mother in town sounds better. If kobolds are the sort of creatures that take residence in town, it also makes it very questionable to kill them on sight (especially if they haven't actively attacked you before).

gadren
2015-07-27, 05:08 PM
As a word of warning, I'll walk out of any game where it's my DM trying to teach me a moral lesson. I'm just not interested in it, I've taken that nonsense for 4 years already, I don't want to hear it from an amateur at the table when I'm trying to play a game. Just tell me outright that's not how you're running it but don't try to do anything like trying to "teach" me something.

Some players are all right with it, but don't think that it isn't patronizing.

I can see it now, in the Worst DMs thread.

"My DM dropped rocks on everyone for 20d6 damage when we said he should chip in for pizza."
"My DM disregards rules whenever he feels like, usually to the PC's disadvantage!"
"My DM... *shudders*... my DM tried to get us to... LEARN THINGS"
<Cue collective gasp.>

Eisenheim
2015-07-27, 05:22 PM
Gadren, I've said it before, I'll say it again. No IC consequences directly for this event. If you and the player have different views on where morality belongs in the game, talk it out OOC and come back to a game you all agree on.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 05:26 PM
Player-DM alignment disputes 99% of the time result from players who inexplicably believe convincing and entertaining narratives can be forged from a void where causation doesn't exist.

This always fascinates me. If actions have no consequence, there is no conflict to drive the story.

I can mindlessly push you through a series of meaningless, inexplicable encounters, or I can use the fact that you accidentally killed the Wizard-Who-Did-It's third cousin to get you set up for a far more entertaining series of dungeons and encounters, culminating in a final showdown between you and the Wizard.

The former is a waste of time. I could care less about you learning a lesson, so long as you don't waste my time.

Admiral Squish
2015-07-27, 05:27 PM
I'd go with the distraught kobold mother option, but handle it with a light touch. Don't,like, have her unerringly seek out the PCs and run up, weeping and begging to know if they've seen her sons. They should have the option to not engage and just ignore her. Maybe she's asking the guards at the town gates about the kids as the PCs pass within earshot. Or maybe she's nailing up a 'have you seen me' poster on a post beside the road. The PCs can engage with the lady if they want, but even if they don't, this lady's existence should spell out for them that actions have consequences in this world.

gadren
2015-07-27, 05:30 PM
Gadren, I've said it before, I'll say it again. No IC consequences directly for this event. If you and the player have different views on where morality belongs in the game, talk it out OOC and come back to a game you all agree on.

Yes, and I disagree with you. IC actions have IC consequences. It's not about my view its about cause and effect in a convincing narrative.

Besides that, he is playing a class the explicitly loses its powers if he repeatedly does this kind of thing. Am I just supposed to ignore that too?

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 05:34 PM
^^^ Can I get a page reference to crusaders losing their class features if they change alignment? As far as I can see that isn't in there.


I can see it now, in the Worst DMs thread.

"My DM dropped rocks on everyone for 20d6 damage when we said he should chip in for pizza."
"My DM disregards rules whenever he feels like, usually to the PC's disadvantage!"
"My DM... *shudders*... my DM tried to get us to... LEARN THINGS"
<Cue collective gasp.>

A DM trying to preach his personal view point and then being punitive or preachy at anyone that acts contrary to it would in fact belong on that thread. That's what trying to teach that player could very well result in, and that's the direction a lot of your in character solutions seem to propose. The problem is an out of character miscommunication and difference of expectations, an in character solution is not going to necessarily result in something positive.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 05:47 PM
You ever notice that these kinda of problems never arise from character's doing Good, but always from Evil?

Why is it that when your clearing of a graveyard of undead minions draws the ire of a local lich, it's just fine, but clear the orphanage of orphans and that paladin who comes after you? Oh, that moralizing! You're just ruining the fun. What a jerk!

When consequences organically emerge from Good actions, no one bats an eye. Consequences organically emerge from Evil actions? Players lose their minds.

Had this problem all the time with my nephew. Assassins from the Church of Bane are after him because he took down their operations in the area? Fine. The City Guard is looking for him because of the orphans whose body parts he harvested for his flesh golem? I'm the bad guy!

Keltest
2015-07-27, 05:47 PM
^^^ Can I get a page reference to crusaders losing their class features if they change alignment? As far as I can see that isn't in there.



A DM trying to preach his personal view point and then being punitive or preachy at anyone that acts contrary to it would in fact belong on that thread. That's what trying to teach that player could very well result in, and that's the direction a lot of your in character solutions seem to propose. The problem is an out of character miscommunication and difference of expectations, an in character solution is not going to necessarily result in something positive.

A Dm doesn't have to be preaching their personal viewpoint to call out wanton slaughter as non-good.

gadren
2015-07-27, 05:54 PM
^^^ Can I get a page reference to crusaders losing their class features if they change alignment? As far as I can see that isn't in there. Crusaders have a prereq of not being allowed to be neutral on page 8. If the behavior continues, behavior that is very counter to being lawful or good, he will become neutral, which will mean he loses all crusader class abilities.
Also, I believe there is a rule somewhere that says divine character cannot be more than one step away from their patron deity's alignment and still be granted their powers. (So divine PCs of Moradin have to be LG, NG, or LN.) But that is kind of a moot point because it is redundant with the above.

Keltest
2015-07-27, 05:55 PM
Crusaders have a prereq of not being allowed to be neutral on page 8. If the behavior continues, behavior that is very counter to being lawful or good, he will become neutral, which will mean he loses all crusader class abilities.
Also, I believe there is a rule somewhere that says divine character cannot be more than one step away from their patron deity's alignment and still be granted their powers. (So divine PCs of Moradin have to be LG, NG, or LN.

I believe that is specifically clerics, as there are Lawful Good paladins of Chaotic Good gods.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 05:57 PM
You ever notice that these kinda of problems never arise from character's doing Good, but always from Evil?

Why is it that when your clearing of a graveyard of undead minions draws the ire of a local lich, it's just fine, but clear the orphanage of orphans and that paladin who comes after you? Oh, that moralizing. You're just ruining the fun. What a jerk!

When consequences organically emerge from Good actions, no one bats an eye. Consequences organically emerge from Evil actions? Players lose their minds.

Had this problem all the time with my nephew. Assassins from the Church of Bane are after him because he took down their operations in the area? Fine. The City Guard is looking for him because of the orphans whose body parts he harvested for his flesh golem? I'm the bad guy!

I don't think I've ever heard a DM complain about players burning down an orphanage and then claiming it was good. It's always players killed something which is classically an evil monster and the DM flips out over it with alignment change threats, strange consequences (he was considering giving those kobolds a level 15 mother just so she could walk up and no-save-just lose the crusader) or something to teach them a lesson.

Sure, your situation I can sort of understand if he actually killed the orphans (though if they were already dead, the town watch should really divert their attention to more important stuff). If you decided it was some kind of aboleth orphanage however, I don't particular think that it's unreasonable for the non-aboleth town watch to care.


Crusaders have a prereq of not being allowed to be neutral on page 8. If the behavior continues, behavior that is very counter to being lawful or good, he will become neutral, which will mean he loses all crusader class abilities.
Also, I believe there is a rule somewhere that says divine character cannot be more than one step away from their patron deity's alignment and still be granted their powers. (So divine PCs of Moradin have to be LG, NG, or LN.) But that is kind of a moot point because it is redundant with the above.

They aren't a divine class (and that's only for clerics) for one so that doesn't matter, and the passage is what is required for them to take crusader levels. They do not lose their crusader class features if they become neutral according to the passage on page 8. The loss of features from alignment changes are indicated in specific passages that tell you exactly what class features they lose. The crusader does not have any such passage.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 06:00 PM
You've talked about the Atoning Dwarf at the church and the distraught mother. Why not combine both.

Have them encounter the mother, or a missing person flyer, or perhaps a 'quest-board' with a quest to find and/or save her children, or accompany her on a quest to save her children.

From there, I see one of three things:
-The Crusader does nothing/lies about having seen her children and doesn't accept the quest, which likely results in the party offering a comforting lie to the mother, if not telling her the truth.
-The Crusader lies to the mother about her children's Death, for example saying he saw what could have been them, and that they were already gnawed on/killed.
-The Crusader tells the truth from his perspectives [Which may also explain his perspective.], owning up for his actions, opening up the road to atonement.


If he does the first. He get's a angel of the deity related dream, and at minimum is now neutral good, though I'd fall him personally. The second, the same, but without the fall and with atonement possible but he has to pursue it himself. The third, whatever the mother does, and he now has an atonement quest.

Edit: If taking this option, either have his god consider his allies warning warning enough for now, or have him receive an angelic dream about this when he sleeps next, but do nothing else immediately.

gadren
2015-07-27, 06:04 PM
They aren't a divine class (and that's only for clerics) for one so that doesn't matter, and the passage is what is required for them to take crusader levels. They do not lose their crusader class features if they become neutral according to the passage on page 8. The loss of features from alignment changes are indicated in specific passages that tell you exactly what class features they lose. The crusader does not have any such passage.

No, WotC issued a rule after-the-fact that if you stop meeting the prereq for a class (including alignment), you lose all abilities of that class except for BAB, Saves, and skills. It was printed in several of the books, but you'll need to give me a few minutes to track it down.

Socksy
2015-07-27, 06:04 PM
You've talked about the Atoning Dwarf at the church and the distraught mother. Why not combine both.

Have them encounter the mother, or a missing person flyer, or perhaps a 'quest-board' with a quest to find and/or save her children, or accompany her on a quest to save her children.

From there, I see one of three things:
-The Crusader does nothing/lies about having seen her children and doesn't accept the quest, which likely results in the party offering a comforting lie to the mother, if not telling her the truth.
-The Crusader lies to the mother about her children's Death, for example saying he saw what could have been them, and that they were already gnawed on/killed.
-The Crusader tells the truth from his perspectives [Which may also explain his perspective.], owning up for his actions, opening up the road to atonement.


-The crusader sees from her description that THIS ONE HAS CHARACTER LEVELS! GET IT! IS THAT A SPELLBOOK?! KILL IT FAST!



No, WotC issued a rule after-the-fact that if you stop meeting the prereq for a class (including alignment), you lose all abilities of that class except for BAB, Saves, and skills. It was printed in several of the books, but you'll need to give me a few minutes to track it down.

This leads to things like Schrodinger's Dragon Disciple, which means it's only valid for some books and not others. I thiiiiink it was in Complete... Warrior, but don't quote me on it.
It's pretty obvious that it does/should apply to your Crusader, though.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 06:07 PM
*Checks*
I meant to put in 'When they stop in town next'. My bad.
However if he does it in town, I'd immediately shift him to at least TN, if not NE. And has to deal with the consequences of murdering someone in a town.

cobaltstarfire
2015-07-27, 06:11 PM
It sounds like you've already somewhat established that "monsters" do mix just fine with demi-humans by your description of many of the NPC's, but you may need to spell it out OOC before you start your next game, that just because it's a monster doesn't mean it's KoS. Ask your players how they feel about that, and potentially apologize if you weren't clear to start. (my DM always apologizes if he feels he wasn't clear about something)

I'm going to third/fourth the momma kobold in town asking after her children as a very good solution. It's subtle but still let's the players know that their actions have consequences, even if they don't always suffer those consequences. Maybe have her turn up a session or two later. And if Mr. Crusader keeps behaving in that kind of way after a clarification of the game you're running, and the momma kobold, then you can start rolling out more serious consequences for his character.

I think also discussing it with the player, asking him how he feels about his characters story and where he'd like to go in terms of consequences, that way he doesn't feel like you're punishing him, but instead playing with him and trying to weave an interesting story that matches his play style.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 06:16 PM
I'd like to point out that the other player acompanying him at the time, and the other players, all said this was a bad thing(tm) so if there's a disconect it's only with that one player.


If however he doesn't want to change his play style, I would suggest he introduce his LE Crusader twin. Or has retroactively been LE all along.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 06:21 PM
I don't think I've ever heard a DM complain about players burning down an orphanage and then claiming it was good. It's always players killed something which is classically an evil monster and the DM flips out over it with alignment change threats, strange consequences (he was considering giving those kobolds a level 15 mother just so she could walk up and no-save-just lose the crusader) or something to teach them a lesson.

Sure, your situation I can sort of understand if he actually killed the orphans (though if they were already dead, the town watch should really divert their attention to more important stuff). If you decided it was some kind of aboleth orphanage however, I don't particular think that it's unreasonable for the non-aboleth town watch to care. He hired the rest of the party to murder the orphans to get parts. It was the most morally questionable campaign I've ever been a part of. At the end, the rest of the party ended up killing him.

Admittedly, yes there never seems to be disagreement about things when the party specifically pursues the Good.

The problem I was pointing out is how players seem to have a double standard with regards to actions and consequence. I've observed it in every group I've ever been in. If a character experiences consequences from Good actions, it's just recognized as plot building. If a character experiences consequences from an Evil action, however, suddenly the DM is accused of forcing morality on people. A lich chases you for reason A, it's plot. A paladin chases you for reason A, it's a punishment.

It's alright if our action piss of bad guys. But good guys? Don't impose your morals on me!

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 06:22 PM
This leads to things like Schrodinger's Dragon Disciple, which means it's only valid for some books and not others. I thiiiiink it was in Complete... Warrior, but don't quote me on it.
It's pretty obvious that it does/should apply to your Crusader, though.

Complete warrior and complete arcane have clauses which apply only to the prestige classes in those books (but not the base classes). That rule doesn't apply to all prestige classes either since the rule from the DMG specifies that you don't lose them (which is why the dragon disciple works).

Also crusaders aren't really a divine class. They're a martial class. Most of their abilities, though not all are EX with no input from their patron deity.


He hired the rest of the party to murder the orphans to get parts. It was the most morally questionable campaign I've ever been a part of. At the end, the rest of the party ended up killing him.

Admittedly, yes there never seems to be disagreement about things when the party specifically pursues the Good.

The problem I was pointing out is how players seem to have a double standard with regards to actions and consequence. I've observed it in every group I've ever been in. If a character experiences consequences from Good actions, it's just recognized as just plot building. If a character experiences consequences from an Evil action, however, suddenly the DM is accused of forcing morality on people. A lich chases you for reason A, it's plot. A paladin chases you for reason A, it's a punishment.

It's alright if our action piss of bad guys? But good guys? Don't impose your morals on me!

To be fair, the OP likely wouldn't have sicked a level 15 lich on them for behaving, but was considering having a level 15 druid no-save-just-lose a player. At that point yes, it is just arbitrary punishment. That's a part of it really, there does seem to be a habit of making the consequence of an evil action dramatically disproportionate to a good action. And then if the players did somehow kill the level 15 kobold he's more likely to escalate it rather than reward the players for beating something which was hostile and 9 levels above them.

Deadline
2015-07-27, 06:25 PM
No, WotC issued a rule after-the-fact that if you stop meeting the prereq for a class (including alignment), you lose all abilities of that class except for BAB, Saves, and skills. It was printed in several of the books, but you'll need to give me a few minutes to track it down.

The main place is in Complete Warrior (for prestige classes), but I think there is something in the PHB (for feats). I'm not aware of anything like that for a base class though (in fact, every base class that has something like this has it specifically mentioned in the class, including what happens when you become an ex-member of that class: Paladins, Monks, Clerics, etc.).

That said, it sounds like there is something more here than just IC actions (you're pretty hot about it, and from what you've said, it sounds like your Crusader player may have some sort of beef that is manifesting as these weird interactions. I'll echo what others have said, talk with your player OOC and see what's up. Presumably you are friends, maybe take him for a beer (if that's a thing you can do), and hash it out in private before whatever is going on builds into something more than a molehill.

gadren
2015-07-27, 06:26 PM
Complete warrior and complete arcane have clauses which apply only to the prestige classes in those books (but not the base classes). That rule doesn't apply to all prestige classes either since the rule from the DMG specifies that you don't lose them (which is why the dragon disciple works).

Also crusaders aren't really a divine class. They're a martial class. Most of their abilities, though not all are EX with no input from their patron deity.

Well fine, then I guess I'm houseruling it, but it was something I already discussed with the player of the PC before anyway (that Crusaders can lose their class abilities if they deviate too much in alignment from their patron God).

noob
2015-07-27, 06:32 PM
You do not have to say to the player his alignment changed there is nowhere where the manuals says that people know they alignment change it is just that suddenly his power who needed to be good will not work but he is free of thinking he is whatever he is as long as someone does not use detect evil on him.
Also since the powers of the crusader comes only from himself it is perfectly reasonable to rule that if you believe you are good you have the powers of a good crusader(and that if you believe you are evil while being good you might have the powers of an evil crusader) and so he have changed alignment but since he is a crusader there is no need for trumpets saying that you had the good idea to become evil if you do many evil acts while believing you are good you will not know you are evil it is how it works in real life.

gadren
2015-07-27, 06:32 PM
The main place is in Complete Warrior (for prestige classes), but I think there is something in the PHB (for feats). I'm not aware of anything like that for a base class though (in fact, every base class that has something like this has it specifically mentioned in the class, including what happens when you become an ex-member of that class: Paladins, Monks, Clerics, etc.).

That said, it sounds like there is something more here than just IC actions (you're pretty hot about it, and from what you've said, it sounds like your Crusader player may have some sort of beef that is manifesting as these weird interactions. I'll echo what others have said, talk with your player OOC and see what's up. Presumably you are friends, maybe take him for a beer (if that's a thing you can do), and hash it out in private before whatever is going on builds into something more than a molehill.

The player in question is actually a very good friend. He was my best man at my wedding. We aren't mad at each other or anything. I don't get mad at my friends over a game.
However, I will admit to some irritation because it does reflect an ongoing trend that I HAVE talked to him about before. He almost always likes to play his PCs as immoral murderhobos. At least it is usually in character, since he tends to play rogues, bounty hunters, etc. If everyone in my group liked this playstyle, it'd be fine. However, most of the group is obviously highly annoyed by it, and it clearly subtracts from their fun. I've talked to him about it, he says he'll work on it, but the pattern continues...

Socksy
2015-07-27, 06:36 PM
Have him find a phylactery of faithfulness?
Customise it slightly if he doesn't technically qualify for it.

Yukitsu
2015-07-27, 06:37 PM
Well fine, then I guess I'm houseruling it, but it was something I already discussed with the player of the PC before anyway (that Crusaders can lose their class abilities if they deviate too much in alignment from their patron God).

Yeah, if you're houseruling it that way, that's fine. I can't say I agree with it, it makes it less interesting as a class but if that's what you want to do that is fine.

Still, listening to your next post, you still likely need to just discuss him before he does something, that he's doing that murder hobo thing again. If the players at the table have complained to you about it, then it's something you'll want to do about, but all those in character solutions are going to prove is that he should just play bounty hunters or rogues or whatever so he can get back to doing the thing that he enjoys but which the remainder of your party does not. Trying to get him to act differently is going to require some maintenance and just pointing out that you're making the game less fun for everyone else when he does it.

Deadline
2015-07-27, 06:38 PM
If everyone in my group liked this playstyle, it'd be fine. However, most of the group is obviously highly annoyed by it, and it clearly subtracts from their fun. I've talked to him about it, he says he'll work on it, but the pattern continues...

So it's definitely an OOC problem? Man, that sucks. Maybe see if you can work with him to modify his current character or create a new one? I don't know if that will solve the problem with the other Players though. Have you spoken to them about what it is he's doing that bothers them?

gadren
2015-07-27, 06:54 PM
The problem I was pointing out is how players seem to have a double standard with regards to actions and consequence. I've observed it in every group I've ever been in. If a character experiences consequences from Good actions, it's just recognized as plot building. If a character experiences consequences from an Evil action, however, suddenly the DM is accused of forcing morality on people. A lich chases you for reason A, it's plot. A paladin chases you for reason A, it's a punishment.

It's alright if our action piss of bad guys. But good guys? Don't impose your morals on me!

In the past I have lost players who don't like consequences in general. Like, actual consequences, not just ooh I get more chunks of xp and treasure to fight. For example, I had one instance where a low-level player whose party had discovered that the leader of the elite guard in town was corrupt. Keep in mind, I had made it clear that this was the ELITE guard, renowned soldier renowned for their very high levels of combat prowess. The rest of the party tried to figure out how to deal with the situation without alerting the leader, but one party member decided he was going to let the leader know that he knew and try to blackmail him. He shortly thereafter was cornered in an alley by disguised elite soldiers that were each five levels higher than him. He complained that he didn't think it was fair for a single level 5 to have to fight three level 10 NPCs, and I told him I didn't think it was fair either, but it's what happened. He quit.

In another game a player had just joined as a min-maxed level 1 half-orc barbarian. The first thing he does, before even joining up with the party, is going to the tavern most popular with adventurers, and tells me he looks for the toughest guy there. I roll randomly on some tables, and tell him there's a hobgoblin mercenary with two of his friends. He is showing them his sword, which is etched with runes and crackles with a combination of licking flames and electric sparks. The barbarian tells me he grabs a mug of ale and dumps it on the mercenary's head. The mercenary proceeds to pummel the barbarian to unconsciousness (with just his bare hands) with ease. He wakes up outside, facedown in the road. None of his gear has been taken or anything. The player throws a fit. "He was WAY too hard for me to fight!". He then knocks my dice off of the table, storms out to his car, and peels out of my driveway. We never hear from him again.

Different players have VERY different expectations about what they are supposed to get in a D&D game, and how they are supposed to act at the table. I'm sure there are people in this thread who will read the two above anecdotes and think I was being a complete ass, and others that think I was justified. /shrug.

gadren
2015-07-27, 06:57 PM
So it's definitely an OOC problem? Man, that sucks. Maybe see if you can work with him to modify his current character or create a new one? I don't know if that will solve the problem with the other Players though. Have you spoken to them about what it is he's doing that bothers them?

We've all spoken about it, as a group. He was told by one other player, point blank, "dude, can you please not do this **** again?" and he told them no, it's what his character would do.

noob
2015-07-27, 07:00 PM
And so his crusader is not good and thinks he is good which is what happens so many time in real life.
In fact he never fell he always through he was good and prayed a good god and trained himself with good aligned martial maneuvers and he was evil from the beginning but when you are evil you never think you are it is how it works.

Socksy
2015-07-27, 07:06 PM
no, it's what his character would do.

uuuuuuuugh.
That's the biggest sign of a problem player there is!
And that's NOT what his character would do! He's a Crusader, he's LG! If that's what his character would do, he isn't LG!
I just want to get my kobold expert 3/paladin 2 within five feet of this crusader. Five feet with a surprise round, iaijutsu focus, and a ton of marbles. Maybe if he saw a kobold being more lawful and more good than him, when he wakes up in a cell, he'll realise...

(Kobold's class is censored because my DM doesn't want the other players to know it for some reason, but they know who they are.)

Mr. Mask
2015-07-27, 07:18 PM
OK, that does sound pretty bad. If he refuses to be modify his character's behaviour even when asked IRL, that's not a good sign. Though, it's hard to say what you can do, if it's the player who is the problem, not his character's behaviour. I mean, you could talk with him more seriously, or you could stop playing with him, or you could punish his character as a way to show him, "mess with our fun, and the world will mess with your fun," you could even "punish" him in a way that's engaging for him and the rest of the group, so no one feels bad about it.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-27, 07:41 PM
Well fine, then I guess I'm houseruling it, but it was something I already discussed with the player of the PC before anyway (that Crusaders can lose their class abilities if they deviate too much in alignment from their patron God).

Pardon me. What house rule?

What rule are you mindfully codifying and using to overrule an existing RAW?

I don't see you using a house rule... but then... look at my signature.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-27, 07:52 PM
I think it comes down to the DM not communicating what his views were.

By way of example, I once had a group rout a group of goblins from a manor. The goblins, being cowardly, evil, creatures, abandoned their whelps, which ranged in age from 2-18 months old. And I asked them what they were going to do with them, being CG, and mostly dedicated to a deity that violently opposed slavery.

And they asked me back: Well, what's the status of goblins. Are they naturally evil, naturally neutral, or what? I had them wrangle on a few skill rolls and came back with the answer: goblins tend towards evil. Most will grow up to be evil, especially surrounded by goblin society, which is also evil. However, they are not intrinsically bound to evil like orcs are... goblins can, sometimes, become good. I further ruled that killing the goblin whelps wouldn't be an alignment infraction, but that saving them would be an alignment benefit.

Why did I answer this question? Because it's something their characters would know. They had the skills to back it up... lore of a couple religions, for the most part.

In the case here, I think the OP didn't adequately communicate his views of the world, which are things the PCs will frequently know. However, I'd also say that's its not unreasonable for a priestish of Moradin to say "You know what, Kobolds are evil, and killing them is a mitzvah." And be perfectly justified in that, and with Moradin having no trouble with where that puts him.

Shadowsend
2015-07-27, 08:13 PM
This pretty much sums it up. It was a chaotic evil act. I wasn't really looking for input on that. You can tell me it wasn't chaotic evil til you're blue in the face, but that is my ruling as DM.

I see it mostly being chaotic, and the good/evil part depending on how the kobold tribe in the area behaved around the RWCA (races we care about). You call it evil, so I'm guessing they must be on good terms.


My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.

Warnings given for the smallest infractions needed to have taken place. I'll get to that soon.


Some points that I didn't bring up before but seem important now:
-The campaign is very much about old-school D&D dungeon delve style both played very straight (to the point of satire) but also subverted. The dungeon is borderline silly, and it's supposed to be viewed that way. But in town it's already been communicated that there's more going on. The people living there, even veteran NPC adventurers, think the whole setup is very strange, and have communicated this in previously RP encounters. The economy is royally f'ed up by the all the treasure coming in. And the town is filled with all sorts of strange NPCs that are bit of a parody of special-snowflake PC types.

If it is played straight and subverted, then the players may make mistakes. Just like an audience may miss a joke at the end of a long topic they were supposed to be paying attention to.

You say communicated, but I have to ask, was it hinted at or blatantly stated? Did this player meet someone he respected who also came to that "this is strange" conclusion? Or did you take a general acceptance by the party as his acceptance?


-The same day of the incident, the crusader was in the Temple of Moradin, where the clergy was grumbling and quietly bickering among themselves about some of the new members of the clergy that had showed up from out of town - including a fire giant cleric of Moradin, a half-orc paladin of Moradin, and an elf favored soul of Moradin. The dwarven high priest of Moradin had declared that they had proven themselves to indeed be loyal Sonnlinor, but some of the clergy are ready to mutiny.

So even some of your clergy are clearly not within the range of alignments you're expecting your crusader player to be. If he's a new player, or new to playing a divine class, maybe he needs better examples, not all the trope-breaking you're trying to add to the game.


-The crusader in question has also been borderline deceptive with the rest of the party on multiple occasions. When he thinks they'll hinder something he wants to do, he'll invent some excuse to separate or even straight-up lie (on two occasions). Its not enough on its own for me to think it'd put his lawful alignment in jeopardy, but combined with the kobold incident...

Did you warn him that his actions were leading him further away from Moradin on those two occasions? Or was the party acting in a way that wasn't lawful or good? In that case, did you warn him that his company was leading him further away from Moradin?

MrStabby
2015-07-27, 08:35 PM
I think it comes down to the DM not communicating what his views were.

By way of example, I once had a group rout a group of goblins from a manor. The goblins, being cowardly, evil, creatures, abandoned their whelps, which ranged in age from 2-18 months old. And I asked them what they were going to do with them, being CG, and mostly dedicated to a deity that violently opposed slavery.

And they asked me back: Well, what's the status of goblins. Are they naturally evil, naturally neutral, or what? I had them wrangle on a few skill rolls and came back with the answer: goblins tend towards evil. Most will grow up to be evil, especially surrounded by goblin society, which is also evil. However, they are not intrinsically bound to evil like orcs are... goblins can, sometimes, become good. I further ruled that killing the goblin whelps wouldn't be an alignment infraction, but that saving them would be an alignment benefit.

Why did I answer this question? Because it's something their characters would know. They had the skills to back it up... lore of a couple religions, for the most part.

In the case here, I think the OP didn't adequately communicate his views of the world, which are things the PCs will frequently know. However, I'd also say that's its not unreasonable for a priestish of Moradin to say "You know what, Kobolds are evil, and killing them is a mitzvah." And be perfectly justified in that, and with Moradin having no trouble with where that puts him.


I think the DM did communicate his expectations pretty well if only because the other player was trying to restrain the crusader. If everyone else knew the actions were inappropriate then it seems odd to blame the DM for that.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-27, 08:40 PM
I think the DM did communicate his expectations pretty well if only because the other player was trying to restrain the crusader. If everyone else knew the actions were inappropriate then it seems odd to blame the DM for that. There's something to be said about the Crusader when the Neutral player is the moral conscience of the party...

gadren
2015-07-27, 08:43 PM
even some of your clergy are clearly not within the range of alignments you're expecting your crusader player to be. If he's a new player, or new to playing a divine class, maybe he needs better examples, not all the trope-breaking you're trying to add to the game.

I'm sorry, how did you come to this conclusion? I didn't say what their alignments are. All the oddballs listed are LG, LN, or NG. Or are you speaking of the grumbling clergy? When I said "ready to mutiny" it was a figure of speech. Though they are honestly considering declaring the high priest to be unfit or leaving.

Diamondeye
2015-07-27, 10:40 PM
In the case here, I think the OP didn't adequately communicate his views of the world, which are things the PCs will frequently know. However, I'd also say that's its not unreasonable for a priestish of Moradin to say "You know what, Kobolds are evil, and killing them is a mitzvah." And be perfectly justified in that, and with Moradin having no trouble with where that puts him.

I think this is the crux of the matter - within the idea of good and evil in the D&D system with objective, measurable good and evil that have actual properties destroying creatures that are evil, or even generally evil can be an inherently good act by some interpretations.

Looking back I don't quite get if the issue is really whether the character tends to attack everything, or whether the issue is that it's a LG player doing it. If this behavior is disrupting the game by precluding other forms of interaction with NPCs the issue is that its disruptive, not what the alignment of the character is or that he's somehow an "immoral murderhobo."

If it's a matter of the DM not having the same idea of what LG is as the player, it's a matter of the DM putting his foot down and saying "In my game, LG looks like X and you're doing Y" and pointing out that LE or something else might be more appropriate for how he wants to play the character.

It can't, however, be both. If the issue is just "Holy crap dude quit killing everything so we can talk to it" then theres no need to talk about "immoral murderhobos"; if he'd rather play an explicitly immoral alignment and that alignment dissonance is the problem then if he switches alignment there should be no issue if he wants to slaughter stuff afterwards.


It's making me tear up how people can think it's justified because kobolds are generally evil.

It might help to remember that kobolds do not really exist.

neonagash
2015-07-27, 10:43 PM
Kobolds are not drow. Good kobolds are not necessarily pariah. Read Race of the Dragon's chapter on kobolds. All if takes is a very powerful chromatic dragon in the region to turn kobolds into minions of Good.

Because OP and I don't mistake "usually" for "always". And call into question the "Lawful Goodness" of killing those who cannot defend themselves.

No 3.x literature I'm aware of explicitly states that Moradin hates kobolds. You're extrapolating the dwarves' conflict with kobolds unnecessaryly to their gods. In fact, the only race he explicitly opposes are the orcs.

Why is the burden of proof on the kobolds, but not the Crusader? The Crusader is the one acting. The responsibility lies with the Crusader, not the kobolds. Innocent til proven guilty, if you will.

PEOPLE are innocent until proven guilty, in theory, in small sections of the real world which has no bearing on a fantasy world.

MONSTERS have the burden on them to prove they are innocent.

Diamondeye
2015-07-27, 11:08 PM
As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

The problem is that while D&D has a rigid alignment system, that works both ways. It also rigidly confines the kobolds to evil, and even if these particular kobolds are not evil simply being a kobold is, in fact, evidence of evil. It's not as strong as say, being a black dragon, but it's considerable.

Calling it murder and referring to the kobolds as innocents is simply question-begging. In a world like D&D where some creatures are inherently evil the concept of "innocents" and "Evidence of guilt" is different - some creatures are guilty simply by virtue of their species. That evil can, with the right magic be directly observed and with some other magic be directly interacted with, such as Protection from Evil.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 11:40 PM
PEOPLE are innocent until proven guilty, in theory, in small sections of the real world which has no bearing on a fantasy world.

MONSTERS have the burden on them to prove they are innocent.

Ok, now define people and monsters. Neither is defined in DnD that I know of [Unless you go based on Charm monster, than it's everything with a creature type.]


Better yet, I'll do it quickly:
Person (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people)
-Persons. [Sub-Definition: A rational being/A Human.]
-Humans.
-Followers of someone.

Monster (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monster)
-A creature combining characteristics of one or more animals and potentially people.
-An Animal/Thing of Huge Size. [Huge having a DnD definition to make a cut-off.]
-Any Creature/Person so ugly as to frighten people.
-A person who "excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc."
-Anything Unatural or Monstrous
-[DnD Derived, Speels such as Charm Monster]: Anything that's a creature.

Hmm. Let's look at the above. If I consider you reeeeeally ugly, or anything about you horrifying because I consider your actions evil, based on your ruling, you have to prove you didn't say, murder a person that went missing recently. In DnD society, that would be enough for me to string you up, or at least jail you indefinitely, assuming you couldn't prove you didn't kill them.

However, if you're a Human, A rational Being [Which in DnD I believe would be Int>2 + Not insane], or a follower of Someone, than you're suddenly not a monster. Well, Sane Kobolds past the Rational Being test, and so are people, and you need to prove they're guilty first...
Unless Monster trumps Person, in which case because you're a racist person that finds them ugly you can kill as many of them as you please because 'He didn't disprove he killed some guy 10 towns over to my satisfaction.'. Of course, I might find such actions monstrous and find some excuse to kill you.

dream
2015-07-27, 11:51 PM
The roaches aren't sentient creatures.

sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
So, yeah, roaches are sentient. Where that came from .... :smallconfused:

This is about a GM punishing a player for the former's mistake. Plain & simple. What's weird (& telling) is this ;


Man, I love it when a topic I post becomes hot, but at the same time its really hard when I've got dozens of questions/accusations for me and a new post in the thread literally every 1-5 minutes.

Anyways...
My final take (not that it matters): The Same Page Tool (https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/). Pre-session communication helps avoid this kind of thing.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-27, 11:53 PM
The problem is that while D&D has a rigid alignment system,

Yes, here's what it has to say on killing:



Pg 9: "there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters much observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause,... even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation... The third considration is one of discrimination. Violance cannot be considered good when it is directed to non combatents... Placing a fireball so that it's area includes Orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatent Orcs are not a threat and comparitively defenceless.

Emphasis added. Fireball was already Italicised.

*Checks alignment of Orcs*
Huh, Orcs are often evil, often is a synonym for usually, so Orcs are at least in the same ballpark of evil as Kobolds. Orcs are also often Chaotic, so they're actively against society.
And yet, killing Orc non-combatants is still an evil act, despite how CE is normally seen as a worse form of evil than LE.

Now, the only possible response you have to make his acts non-evil is to dismiss the BoED. In which case, things come back down to DM interpretation, and the DM in this instance says the act was CE, and being the DM his word means more than yours.

neonagash
2015-07-27, 11:57 PM
He hired the rest of the party to murder the orphans to get parts. It was the most morally questionable campaign I've ever been a part of. At the end, the rest of the party ended up killing him.

Admittedly, yes there never seems to be disagreement about things when the party specifically pursues the Good.

The problem I was pointing out is how players seem to have a double standard with regards to actions and consequence. I've observed it in every group I've ever been in. If a character experiences consequences from Good actions, it's just recognized as plot building. If a character experiences consequences from an Evil action, however, suddenly the DM is accused of forcing morality on people. A lich chases you for reason A, it's plot. A paladin chases you for reason A, it's a punishment.

It's alright if our action piss of bad guys. But good guys? Don't impose your morals on me!

That's because people rarely disagree on whether something is a clearcut good action but OFTEN disagree on what is a clear cut evil action.

So yes lots of people do feel like your trying to shove your personal morality onto them. And that's about as welcome in a leasure game as missionaries waking you up early on a weekend to preach at you.

gadren
2015-07-27, 11:57 PM
sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
So, yeah, roaches are sentient. Where that came from .... :smallconfused:

This is about a GM punishing a player for the former's mistake. Plain & simple. What's weird (& telling) is this ;


My final take (not that it matters): The Same Page Tool (https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/). Pre-session communication helps avoid this kind of thing.

Despite the rest of your post, I really do like Same Page Tool, so thanks for that!

neonagash
2015-07-28, 12:18 AM
Ok, now define people and monsters. Neither is defined in DnD that I know of [Unless you go based on Charm monster, than it's everything with a creature type.]


Better yet, I'll do it quickly:
Person (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people)
-Persons. [Sub-Definition: A rational being/A Human.]
-Humans.
-Followers of someone.

Monster (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monster)
-A creature combining characteristics of one or more animals and potentially people.
-An Animal/Thing of Huge Size. [Huge having a DnD definition to make a cut-off.]
-Any Creature/Person so ugly as to frighten people.
-A person who "excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc."
-Anything Unatural or Monstrous
-[DnD Derived, Speels such as Charm Monster]: Anything that's a creature.

Hmm. Let's look at the above. If I consider you reeeeeally ugly, or anything about you horrifying because I consider your actions evil, based on your ruling, you have to prove you didn't say, murder a person that went missing recently. In DnD society, that would be enough for me to string you up, or at least jail you indefinitely, assuming you couldn't prove you didn't kill them.

However, if you're a Human, A rational Being [Which in DnD I believe would be Int>2 + Not insane], or a follower of Someone, than you're suddenly not a monster. Well, Sane Kobolds past the Rational Being test, and so are people, and you need to prove they're guilty first...
Unless Monster trumps Person, in which case because you're a racist person that finds them ugly you can kill as many of them as you please because 'He didn't disprove he killed some guy 10 towns over to my satisfaction.'. Of course, I might find such actions monstrous and find some excuse to kill you.

Define people.. easy.

Step 1. Pick up your phone.

Step 2. Download plenty of fish. Or dating app of your choice.

Step 3. Observe both genders.

Those are people.

Imaginary creatures are NOT people.

Simple enough?

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-28, 01:08 AM
Define people.. easy.

Step 1. Pick up your phone.

Step 2. Download plenty of fish. Or dating app of your choice.

Step 3. Observe both genders.

Those are people.

Imaginary creatures are NOT people.

Simple enough?

Ok, so you're positing Kobolds aren't people because they don't look like what you would call people, and are imaginary. I'm going to ignore the second one, because it's stupid and contributes nothing.

The first one however, was the reason how Europeans + people of European descent mentally got around the mental problems provided by enslaving Africans, wiping out Australian Aboriginals, and deliberately infecting American Indians with small-pox. It's a rather Human thing to do. However even if people don't look upon those acts as having been evil, I would refuse to associate anyone who thought they were right, truly justified, or OK for someone good to perform.

Yes, I feel that the equivalence needs to be made, however overexagurated. However I will however not be discussing it further because:
-It might be against Forum Rules on posting about politics.
-It's already been decided that it's a CE act, further debate is meaningless and going in circles with such arguments isn't something I find entertaining.
-RAW disagrees with you, and if you disregard that section of RAW [BoED], you're opinion is meaningless as you're not the DM.

goto124
2015-07-28, 01:08 AM
The last time I made a thread on 'why cosmic alignment', I got two answers: guidelines, or black-and-white morality.


Looks like an OOC problem. Since the other players seem to have gotten the idea of 'don't kill kobolds on sight', it's probably something to do with that one player. As OP has said, said one guy has always played murderhobos.

Personally, I wouldn't introduce IC consequences without warning the player first. 'Missing' posters are alright.

hamishspence
2015-07-28, 01:18 AM
I'd point out the Paladins of Azure City in Redcloak's background, who went into a goblin village and slaughtered all the goblins, including the young, without apparent alignment, or even class, consequences. They went out of their way to slaughter "innocents", and merrily road back as paladins.

Actually - the possibility that some of them fell - exists - they weren't shown falling as dramatically as Miko because it would have cheapened that moment:




Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

And in the 2e introductory D&D set, the very first adventure (with an ogre searching for one of the Orbs of Dragonkind) has a bunch of Kobolds warn you (without actually attacking) to leave their room or the ogre will come and get you - and the DM is encouraged to tell the players that it is not heroic to kill cowering kobolds.

tiltedwindmill
2015-07-28, 03:16 AM
Much ink has been spilled, but I think an important idea has been overlooked.

If I were in the shoes of the player in question, there are few things I would find less fun than a roleplaying session where my character was basically being shamed for his actions. Many reasonable people might consider it appropriate, but it does have a getting-sent-to-the-principal's-office feel. I could be wrong, but I don't think the players or the game will benefit from throwing the grieving mother at the crusader to deal with.

However, there is a slightly different route you can take. Throw the grieving mother at one of your other players who likes to roleplay, and feels guilty about the situation, while that player (or those players) are away from the crusader. That, too, is a good roleplaying opportunity for those who enjoy it, while not forcing your crusader into a say-you're-sorry-or-lose-your-toys situation. Additionally, it gives an in-game forum for the other players to express their opinions on the matter.

MrStabby
2015-07-28, 04:01 AM
Much ink has been spilled, but I think an important idea has been overlooked.

If I were in the shoes of the player in question, there are few things I would find less fun than a roleplaying session where my character was basically being shamed for his actions. Many reasonable people might consider it appropriate, but it does have a getting-sent-to-the-principal's-office feel. I could be wrong, but I don't think the players or the game will benefit from throwing the grieving mother at the crusader to deal with.

However, there is a slightly different route you can take. Throw the grieving mother at one of your other players who likes to roleplay, and feels guilty about the situation, while that player (or those players) are away from the crusader. That, too, is a good roleplaying opportunity for those who enjoy it, while not forcing your crusader into a say-you're-sorry-or-lose-your-toys situation. Additionally, it gives an in-game forum for the other players to express their opinions on the matter.


I see this as both the crusader and the shadowdancer made choices that distinguished them from each other in that encounter. To not treat them differently IC for what they did differently is as much denying agency to the shadowdancer as it is to the crusader. This isn't about the crusader alone, it is about the expectations of the whole group.

If the group is expecting in game moral consequences for murder then hand-waving them away will not enhance the experience for them.

Spartakus
2015-07-28, 05:58 AM
uuuuuuuugh.
That's the biggest sign of a problem player there is!


Exactly. And it is a problem that can NOT be dealt with IC. You already started a big alignment debate here and you can find reasons to put killing the kobolds in ANY entry of the alignment-scale. While I think you are right about it being CE that is our personal opinion and I can certainly see the point of every other opinion. If you try to give the Chracter consequences you can count on having the same debate on your table. You don't want that.
For now you are facing several problems that don't have one big solution.

1. A player did something you didn't expect to happen and it hurt your plot.
Get used to it. It is part of beeing a DM and to my mind it is part of the fun in DMing.

2. Your plot needed the players talking to some Kobolds. Now they are dead and left a mother.
Don't railroad it by placing an overpowerfull Kobold-sorceress or something in front of the players. But here is an idea: A nearby NSC (friendly druid/ranger or something) comes to the PCs and tells them about a friend who has recently lost her sons. He askes the PCs to help investigate the murder and then introduces them to a devestaded, griefing kobold.

3. The style of playing of one of your players hurts the style of others significantly. OOC-problem. Can NOT be dealt with IC. Talk to your player again. If the situation arises again on the table, play your "I am the DM, I decide what happens in my world"-card BEFORE anything bad happens. His charachter doesn't do what his players want simply because it is time for the other players to have their charachters save the day. And it is your friends responsibility to come up with an IC justification for his char, not yours.

I recommend reading a great article from the giant about this:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

Socksy
2015-07-28, 06:40 AM
It might help to remember that kobolds do not really exist.
It's the amount of people who think it's okay to murder a sapient creature just because in their experience, they're evil. Like if someone killed innocent German civilians in 1943 because there were Nazis about. They're all saying this would be okay.
The gap between "This race is evil! It's OK to kill them!" and "This group is evil! It's OK to kill them!" gets far too close to the real world, and real life racism, and it's generally just horrible.



sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
So, yeah, roaches are sentient. Where that came from .... :smallconfused:

It came from me confusing sentient and sapient. That's where it came from. :smalltongue:
And you've let me know I've been doing that for years.
Aaargh. I'm meant to be smart.

NichG
2015-07-28, 07:38 AM
You can have consequences without being judgemental OOC. Whether the character in question was a LG Crusader or a CE Paladin of Slaughter doesn't change that the kobolds are dead, and that they were connected to others who are going to care that they're dead.

Mr. Mask
2015-07-28, 07:43 AM
Oh, neat thought on the murdered kobold children thing.

You could have the next element of the quest given to the PC's by a friendly female kobold. She mentions that her children were looking for someone to help them with this, while they went to get gems--and asks that if the PCs see them, to tell them to stop hanging around and hurry home. She might comment that them staying out so long will turn her hairs grey--err, so to speak.

This is less anvil like, and a more interesting conflict in some ways. The mother is not yet grieving, you can't even be certain the three kobolds you killed are actually her children, but it's likely enough to drive the players crazy. She might find out, and the fact she is befriending and helping her children's killers unknowingly is simply painful--but it doesn't directly punish the dwarf.



That being said, you might want to have an IC chat first, or accept you're going to be playing rough with this player as he plays rough, or stop playing with him all together.

Lapsed Pacifist
2015-07-28, 09:38 AM
I would have the kobold mother complain to the local Temple of Moradin once she's found out, and that cause a schism between the kobold hating sect and the respect all sapient life sect. Then various people of both sects can applaud him and scold him respectively.

goto124
2015-07-28, 09:40 AM
I like the idea of 'don't anvil it', at least the intention behind it, just that the DM has to be careful in its execution to ensure he actually doesn't force the issue.

Segev
2015-07-28, 10:24 AM
My advice remains:

1) Do not have any alignment-based consequences of this action alone.
2) Watch him to see how he acts in the future, and warn him if he seems to be performing numerous actions that would represent a changed alignment.
3) Be careful not to create "gotcha" situations.
4) Have natural in-game consequences of this action come about. Having the mother looking for her children is a good start, particularly if you do it in a manner which should demonstrate that she's not a monster to be killed on sight (e.g. by having her be in town and not being attacked by the citizenry).

neonagash
2015-07-28, 11:55 AM
Ok, so you're positing Kobolds aren't people because they don't look like what you would call people, and are imaginary. I'm going to ignore the second one, because it's stupid and contributes nothing.

The first one however, was the reason how Europeans + people of European descent mentally got around the mental problems provided by enslaving Africans, wiping out Australian Aboriginals, and deliberately infecting American Indians with small-pox. It's a rather Human thing to do. However even if people don't look upon those acts as having been evil, I would refuse to associate anyone who thought they were right, truly justified, or OK for someone good to perform.

Yes, I feel that the equivalence needs to be made, however overexagurated. However I will however not be discussing it further because:
-It might be against Forum Rules on posting about politics.
-It's already been decided that it's a CE act, further debate is meaningless and going in circles with such arguments isn't something I find entertaining.
-RAW disagrees with you, and if you disregard that section of RAW [BoED], you're opinion is meaningless as you're not the DM.

Actually the second one is the salient point. They are not people because they are figments of your imagination.

And sorry but neither boed or bovd are RAW. They are optional splat books. And generally considered some of the very worst, most poorly thought out and useless of the bunch. So you have no real argument there either.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 12:10 PM
The problem is that while D&D has a rigid alignment system, that works both ways. It also rigidly confines the kobolds to evil, and even if these particular kobolds are not evil simply being a kobold is, in fact, evidence of evil. It's not as strong as say, being a black dragon, but it's considerable. In a court of law we'd call this circumstantial evidence.

You keep saying kobolds are Evil. But that's simply not true. You're confusing "usually" with "always". A lot of kobolds are Evil. But not all. And it is that distinction which is the crux the problem.


Calling it murder and referring to the kobolds as innocents is simply question-begging. In a world like D&D where some creatures are inherently evil the concept of "innocents" and "Evidence of guilt" is different - some creatures are guilty simply by virtue of their species. That evil can, with the right magic be directly observed and with some other magic be directly interacted with, such as Protection from Evil. OP has made it pretty clear the kobolds were not guilty. Otherwise, why would gadren be so bent up about this? Seriously, why do you keep ignoring that?

In D&D no species is guilty by virtue of their species. They're guilty by virtue of being Evil. But as has been stated many a time, the Crusader possessed no way of knowing. He acted on prejudice, not on fact.

Here's the thing. If you go around killing things for being Evil, it's fine in D&D. But the burden of proof of their Evil is on you. If you can't prove it and you choose to act, you should pay the price if you turn out to be wrong. Which, for the last time, OP has made clear was the case.


It's the amount of people who think it's okay to murder a sapient creature just because in their experience, they're evil. Like if someone killed innocent German civilians in 1943 because there were Nazis about. They're all saying this would be okay.
The gap between "This race is evil! It's OK to kill them!" and "This group is evil! It's OK to kill them!" gets far too close to the real world, and real life racism, and it's generally just horrible. Inglorious Basterds always made me cringe because this element was present, as the movie fails to differentiate between the Waffen-SS (actual Nazis) and the German Army (who are usually just Germans).

AxeAlex
2015-07-28, 12:30 PM
In a court of law we'd call this circumstantial evidence.

In a modern court... Not in a pseudo-medieval court.


You keep saying kobolds are Evil. But that's simply not true. You're confusing "usually" with "always". A lot of kobolds are Evil. But not all.

True.


OP has made it pretty clear the kobolds were not guilty. Otherwise, why would gadren be so bent up about this? Seriously, why do you keep ignoring that?

Because the fact that they are guilty or not is not the problem. The problem is that the player and the GM are not on the same page. They don't have the same view of morality in the GM's world. They need to communicate to get on the same page.


In D&D no species is guilty by virtue of their species. They're guilty by virtue of being Evil. But as has been stated many a time, the Crusader possessed no way of knowing. He acted on prejudice, not on fact.

Or so you declare, but it's not that clear in D&D. I could declare Kobolds are guilty by virtue of being Kobolds. I could also declare dwarves are justified to kill Kobold since they are mortal enemies, evil or not. That point of view would not be less valid than yours.

Gadren says that in his world, those Kobolds were NOT guilty, so that's a fact. But, that doesn't mean the Crusader's player thought so too or even realise that his actions where evil in this specific universe, especially in a "classic-subverted" setting that I think could be misinterpreted. In fact, what we know seems to reveal the player thought killing Kobolds was not an action Moradin would condemn, and not evil. So the problem is one of miscommunication. I sincerely think that OOC clarifications would be better than any in-game "vengeance".

That said, many smooth and reasonable in-game solutions have been offered.


Here's the thing. If you go around killing things for being Evil, it's fine in D&D. But the burden of proof of their Evil is on you. If you can't prove it and you choose to act, you should pay the price if you turn out to be wrong. Which, for the last time, OP has made clear was the case.

The burden of proof is on the Crusader? Why? Because your current-modern system of law says so?
In french-law, even as of today, the burden of proof is on the accused. The accused has to prove his innocence.

I'm not saying you are wrong, im playing devil's advocate. A player could very well consider the burden on proof lies on evil creatures, with them being evil. That would not mean he was a sick freak or anything. Different people can expect different things from the game. I think OP should respect that, and clarify everything OOC.

Red Fel
2015-07-28, 12:31 PM
In D&D no species is guilty by virtue of their species. They're guilty by virtue of being Evil. But as has been stated many a time, the Crusader possessed no way of knowing. He acted on prejudice, not on fact.

Here's the thing. If you go around killing things for being Evil, it's fine in D&D. But the burden of proof of their Evil is on you. If you can't prove it and you choose to act, you should pay the price if you turn out to be wrong. Which, for the last time, OP has made clear was the case.

This. If you're playing a game in which the world is black and white, a straightforward hack and slash, then Kobold-killing is probably alright. That clearly wasn't the game the OP was running, although perhaps this player didn't understand that important distinction.

In D&D, the only things that are inherently Evil are creatures with the (Evil) subtype, such as Evil Outsiders. And even those are capable of changing. (See e.g. the infamous Succubus Paladin article.) When a race's alignment entry says "Always Evil," that generally means roughly 97% of the time. "Usually" means "more often than not."

Heck, look at the entry for Drow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm). These are one of the most iconically Evil races. Their entire society is built upon the total, brutal, stupid dysfunction of Chaotic Evil. Now look at the alignment entry. "Usually neutral evil." And think about Drow for a moment. Who's the first one that comes to mind? That's right, the most famous Drow is the most famous exception to their alignment. And after him came basically every Drow PC, convinced of their own unique tragedy in turning against cultural mores. I swear, more than half of these guys live in exile for their goodness. It's sickening.

But back to the point. Look at Kobolds. "Usually lawful evil." So that's roughly the same rate of alignment as Drow. And we know that most Drow are tragically misunderstood antiheroes who have turned against their people's evil ways. Which isn't "always." It's "more often than not."

Again, if you're in a setting where Evil is cut and dried, it is or it isn't, and monsters are there to be killed, Kobolds are prey for low-level adventurers. Done. The OP has expressed that this was not the case here. And again, if you're in a dangerous situation where choosing to talk instead of act could be fatal, you'd be within rights to fight first and interrogate later. The OP has expressed that this was not the case here. And again, if you're talking about an ancient racial enemy, that's another matter. But unless you're one of those special Dwarven variants who take issue with Dragons instead of Giants, your racial enemies are Giants, Orcs, and Goblinoids, not Kobolds.

These were not inherently Evil creatures that posed such an obvious threat that communication would have been a risk. They were nonviolent scavengers who posed no threat, who attempted to flee at the first sign of danger, and who begged for mercy when flight was impossible. Saying "but they're Evil" is both wrong and irrelevant.

As others have said, at this point, the question is not whether the Crusader did wrong; he did. The question is how to deal with it. I agree that having divine consequences is heavy-handed. I agree with those who suggest that personal consequences, such as an aggrieved mother, are fitting.

TheIronGolem
2015-07-28, 12:32 PM
Actually the second one is the salient point. They are not people because they are figments of your imagination.

Kobolds aren't people in the real world because they don't exist in the real world, but they are people in the context of the OP's game.

So it's true that the PLAYER hasn't committed an evil act by having his imaginary crusader kill the imaginary kobolds, but nobody's contesting that anyway.

What's in question is whether the CHARACTER in this imaginary world committed an evil act, and that question has to be resolved as though everyone involved is a real entity - because in the game world, they are.

Hawkstar
2015-07-28, 12:43 PM
Given the OP's clarification of the nature of kobolds in the setting.

I have to say that having the Kobold's mother show up and cause problems for the one that murdered its children is entirely appropriate, even if it is a CR-inappropriate encounter. The Crusader WILL face the consequences for his actions, even if those actions were taken in ignorance.

However, as far as the possibility/understanding of how "Always Monstrous" races can still be sapient? Every defense of the "Kobolds are people too!" argument also applies to the Other K-Race. (Which is also demonstrable proof that, no, complete genocide of sapient, free-willed fantasy races is NOT always an Evil or even evil act)

Yukitsu
2015-07-28, 12:50 PM
Hell, if you're talking about Kender, they don't even have to be an always evil race for massacring them all to be appropriate.

Red Fel
2015-07-28, 12:53 PM
Hell, if you're talking about Kender, they don't even have to be an always evil race for massacring them all to be appropriate.

Agreeing completely. Kender aren't sapient, anyway; at least, they're only as sapient as, say, those birds that mimic human speech and steal shiny things.

Kender are birds, is what I'm saying. Bipedal featherless bird offshoots. They need to be served at a restaurant.

Fried.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 01:12 PM
The burden of proof is on the Crusader? Why? Because your current-modern system of law says so?
In french-law, even as of today, the burden of proof is on the accused. The accused has to prove his innocence.

I'm not saying you are wrong, im playing devil's advocate. A player could very well consider the burden on proof lies on evil creatures, with them being evil. That would not mean he was a sick freak or anything. Different people can expect different things from the game. I think OP should respect that, and clarify everything OOC. But they have to be Evil! I don't understand why that escapes your grasp. For killing things on sight to be fine, they have to be Evil! If they're are not actually Evil than what you did was just negligent homicide! Manslaughter at best. "I thought they were Evil!" doesn't change the fact that they weren't. In a world with black and white morality, what you thought was the case does not matter. In a world with black and white morality, what was objectively the fact is what matters. And if they are not objectively Evil creatures, then killing them, even if you thought they were Evil, is the same as killing any other non-Evil, nonviolent creature as it flees and begs for mercy. Objectively Evil. Your subjective belief on the matter changes nothing.

So in a world with black and white morality, ignorance of the objective moral reality does nothing to modify the morality of an action. Thus anyone who might pursue Evil creatures must necessarily insulate themselves from that eventually. Persecution of Evil in such a world requires objective knowledge that that Evil exists.

neonagash
2015-07-28, 01:28 PM
Kobolds aren't people in the real world because they don't exist in the real world, but they are people in the context of the OP's game.

So it's true that the PLAYER hasn't committed an evil act by having his imaginary crusader kill the imaginary kobolds, but nobody's contesting that anyway.

What's in question is whether the CHARACTER in this imaginary world committed an evil act, and that question has to be resolved as though everyone involved is a real entity - because in the game world, they are.

Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

This whole thing would have been avoided if the scavengers were just gnomes or halflings instead of creating a gotcha scenario.

Red Fel
2015-07-28, 01:33 PM
Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

This whole thing would have been avoided if the scavengers were just gnomes or halflings instead of creating a gotcha scenario.

The "40 years of gaming history and player expectations" were broken decades ago, when people started exploring the complexities of actually talking to the monsters instead of simply killing them. The broken bits were smashed further when, in 3.5, Kobolds - among other traditional "monstrous" races - were statted for play. And the broken, smashed bits were then violated by a passing dog when, in Races of the Dragon, WotC went into extensive detail about Kobold society, psychology, and daily life. This isn't a new, sudden invention by the DM that runs afoul of years of tradition and rules; it's a perfectly reasonable action taken by a DM who has read the books.

This wasn't a "gotcha scenario." This was a communication breakdown between a DM who assumed - reasonably, given the evolution of the game - that an intelligent creature which posed no threat would be taken as such, and a player who assumed - as you seem to - that Kobolds are walking bags of xp.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 01:41 PM
Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

This whole thing would have been avoided if the scavengers were just gnomes or halflings instead of creating a gotcha scenario. Races of the Dragon was published almost a decade ago, for the record. Since kobold PCs predate even it, it's safe to say that the player was ignoring over a decade of gaming history and player expectation when he up and killed unarmed, nonviolent kobolds as they sreamed for mercy...

MrStabby
2015-07-28, 01:42 PM
I also think that if there were any expectations that kobalds were "just monsters" then these expectations were firmly broken when they were a) non hostile and b) begging for mercy.

The behaviour and views of the other players makes it clear that the crusader's delusion that the Kobalds were nothing more than unrepentantly evil monsters was not widely shared.

A first hit on a surprised enemy is kind of justified, given the context. When they surrender and beg for mercy it is tricky just ramming them back into the role of unfeeling monsters. It isn't like they could even believe that they were high level threats that were disguised as Kobalds - given they died like Kobalds.

Yukitsu
2015-07-28, 01:52 PM
The "40 years of gaming history and player expectations" were broken decades ago, when people started exploring the complexities of actually talking to the monsters instead of simply killing them. The broken bits were smashed further when, in 3.5, Kobolds - among other traditional "monstrous" races - were statted for play. And the broken, smashed bits were then violated by a passing dog when, in Races of the Dragon, WotC went into extensive detail about Kobold society, psychology, and daily life. This isn't a new, sudden invention by the DM that runs afoul of years of tradition and rules; it's a perfectly reasonable action taken by a DM who has read the books.

This wasn't a "gotcha scenario." This was a communication breakdown between a DM who assumed - reasonably, given the evolution of the game - that an intelligent creature which posed no threat would be taken as such, and a player who assumed - as you seem to - that Kobolds are walking bags of xp.

It wasn't smashed that badly. A lot of the premades still play them as though they are just low CR encounters, so while they're trying to open the option for a more grey and grey narrative, they often still portray them as just monsters for the players to smack around.

AxeAlex
2015-07-28, 01:56 PM
But they have to be Evil! I don't understand why that escapes your grasp. For killing things on sight to be fine, they have to be Evil! If they're are not actually Evil than what you did was just negligent homicide! "I thought they were Evil!" doesn't change the fact that they weren't. In a world with black and white morality, what you thought was the case does not matter.

You are still playing in your specific universe with your moral views.

I already explained that the player and the whole universe playing in doesn't have to share your views on what is and what is not an abomination.

I'm sure you agree that destroying undead is not murder whatever their alignment. You can rationalise that they are not living in the first place but that's just a rationalisation.

Many basic (oldschool) D&D stories and settings implies evil monster are just there to be killed, and can't be "murdered". They have no rights, it's not evil to kill them. You are not even SUPPOSED to ask yourself if they are good or not, just supposed to kill them.

People who play in such universes are not "having fun wrong" in killing monsters without having to face moral dilemmas. Your view is not the only valid one.


In a world with black and white morality, what was objectively the fact is what matters. And if they are not objectively Evil creatures, then killing them, even if you thought they were Evil, is the same as killing any other non-Evil, nonviolent creature as it flees and begs for mercy. Objectively Evil. Your subjective belief on the matter changes nothing.

Monsters in D&D are quite famous to use deception and trickery. If one is to think Kobold are only monster to be killed, the fact that they are famous trap makers and tricksters can push the character to not listen to them and not give them any chance to rally their 400 evils cousins lurking deeper in the tunnels. Much like you would refuse to listen to a Succubus or Demon.

My subjective belief is as valid as yours on these forums.

The Crusader's player subjective belief was wrong in the OP's universe, but my point is the Crusader would have KNOWN Kobolds were people in this universe, and would have KNOWN he was in a world where it is morally wrong to kill Kobolds for being Kobolds, even for a dwarf. Knowing this, he should have been warned OOC, not punished in-game for an action that was (maybe) driven by lack of information or understanding.


So in a world with black and white morality, ignorance of the objective moral reality does nothing to modify the morality of an action. Thus anyone who might pursue Evil creatures must necessarily insulate themselves from that eventually. Persecution of Evil in such a world requires objective knowledge that that Evil exists.

No standard-dungeon-crawling-black-and-white module I ever saw required the Paladin to make sure creatures he was killing were evil. Im pretty sure that even if one random orc or one hobgoblin was good or neutral, the fact that it currently helped evil was enough for the Paladin to slay them without being in the wrong.

illyahr
2015-07-28, 02:02 PM
Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

This whole thing would have been avoided if the scavengers were just gnomes or halflings instead of creating a gotcha scenario.

Dude, stop arguing that Spider-Man is the best DC character. :smallwink:

erikun
2015-07-28, 02:08 PM
This pretty much sums it up. It was a chaotic evil act. I wasn't really looking for input on that. You can tell me it wasn't chaotic evil til you're blue in the face, but that is my ruling as DM.

My question was more or less how to handle shifting alignment for a character with a class dependent on alignment. If this wasn't a divine character, I wouldn't care. But divine characters lose their connection to their deity if they're more than one step away, and repeats of this behavior are driving the character toward True Neutral town, at best.
Well, alright then. If this is all you are looking for, then it seems simple enough to resolve.

Strip the character of their class features, and send some message to them from their deity that they have violated the tenants of Moradin. (In the sense of some sort of dream or something similar.) There would probably be an atonement option available as well, either at the church or even given through the dream itself.

Then be prepared as you have one very upset player at the table complaining that their expectations of a LG follower of Moradin is different from yours. I mean, the fallout of such an action is going to be a bit messy and create some hurt feelings, but if you don't care about that and are just wondering how to resolve a Crusader suddenly taking a morality swap on their character, that would be the most obvious way of doing it. You've already decided the stick moral questions involved.

[EDIT] Or you could change the rules of the game, allowing him to temporarily be a "wandering Crusader" who is without a deity for a short bit - just ensure that they need to be looking for a new one to match his new alignment, or else the class powers will leave them.

TheIronGolem
2015-07-28, 02:12 PM
Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that not literally every single ugly critter commits a capital crime by existing is not only new to D&D, but that it actually needs to be justified? If so, I hate to tell you this, but you haven't exactly been spending those last 40 years with your finger on the pulse of gaming culture.

cobaltstarfire
2015-07-28, 02:19 PM
It's pretty clear that the DM did on some level show and/or tell that monsters aren't always evil/kos in his game, from the town being sprinkled with monstrous humanoid NPC's to the other PC's reacting unfavorably to the Crusaders conduct.

It doesn't matter what history the kobolds do or don't have, or how it would have been at your table or whatever else. At this DM's table monsters are people.

TheIronGolem
2015-07-28, 02:39 PM
Now, all this being said, it's really not cool to have the character lose their class abilities over this. Yes, the character committed cold-blooded murder, but that resulted from a miscommunication between the player and the DM, and the player should have a chance to readjust the character's behavior now that expectations have been made clear (as they should have been from the start).

MrStabby
2015-07-28, 03:05 PM
Now, all this being said, it's really not cool to have the character lose their class abilities over this. Yes, the character committed cold-blooded murder, but that resulted from a miscommunication between the player and the DM, and the player should have a chance to readjust the character's behavior now that expectations have been made clear (as they should have been from the start).

Yes, don't be too harsh but certainly ensure that there are some weakening of their abilities till they atone.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 03:11 PM
You are still playing in your specific universe with your moral views.

I already explained that the player and the whole universe playing in doesn't have to share your views on what is and what is not an abomination.

I'm sure you agree that destroying undead is not murder whatever their alignment. You can rationalise that they are not living in the first place but that's just a rationalisation.

Many basic (oldschool) D&D stories and settings implies evil monster are just there to be killed, and can't be "murdered". They have no rights, it's not evil to kill them. You are not even SUPPOSED to ask yourself if they are good or not, just supposed to kill them.

People who play in such universes are not "having fun wrong" in killing monsters without having to face moral dilemmas. Your view is not the only valid one. My above argument is in no way inapplicable with a world where "monster" equates to "Evil". It was a logical deduction derived by D&D's morality.

D&D has a rigidly defined moral system, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are considered measurable, demonstrable concepts coinciding with actual reality. That is not my opinion, that is by design. It is written in black and white across the source material. It's a fundamental concept codified into character creation by the existence of the alignment system.

In such a world removing Evil things is a Good action. My above statements, however, were not conjecture or an opinion, but what logically follows from a world where Good and Evil can be explicitly known. If Evil is measurable, it can be known with certainty. In a world where knowing Evil is just a spell away, acting without that information no matter how certain of the opponent's Evil you may seem, is an action which has the probability, however small, of being wrong. It is a world where acting without certainty means leaving things up to chance. Not an opinion, the logical extension of a world where knowing someone is Evil and unworthy is just detect Evil away.

Whether DMs, players, or characters actually care about this distinction? You are correct that it is another point entirely. But the above is the logical extension of D&D's demonstrable, objective morality. Just because DMs, players, or characters might find ingoring this to be far more entertaining doesn't mean it isn't based on the real logical implications of black and white morality.

You're right. It's only my opinion that it should matter. But the DM and the rest of party seem to agree.

And for the record, there totally is such thing as "having fun wrong". You're having fun is wrong the moment it comes at the expensive of other's.


Monsters in D&D are quite famous to use deception and trickery. If one is to think Kobold are only monster to be killed, the fact that they are famous trap makers and tricksters can push the character to not listen to them and not give them any chance to rally their 400 evils cousins lurking deeper in the tunnels. Much like you would refuse to listen to a Succubus or Demon.
And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'. ^Pretty solid response to that line of reasoning.


My subjective belief is as valid as yours on these forums.

The Crusader's player subjective belief was wrong in the OP's universe, but my point is the Crusader would have KNOWN Kobolds were people in this universe, and would have KNOWN he was in a world where it is morally wrong to kill Kobolds for being Kobolds, even for a dwarf. Knowing this, he should have been warned OOC, not punished in-game for an action that was (maybe) driven by lack of information or understanding. By all accounts by OP of the world, expectations of traditional roles for monsters appears to have already been subverted.



No standard-dungeon-crawling-black-and-white module I ever saw required the Paladin to make sure creatures he was killing were evil. Im pretty sure that even if one random orc or one hobgoblin was good or neutral, the fact that it currently helped evil was enough for the Paladin to slay them without being in the wrong.

And in the 2e introductory D&D set, the very first adventure (with an ogre searching for one of the Orbs of Dragonkind) has a bunch of Kobolds warn you (without actually attacking) to leave their room or the ogre will come and get you - and the DM is encouraged to tell the players that it is not heroic to kill cowering kobolds. It would appear this dilemma is not nearly as contemporary as you would imply.

AxeAlex
2015-07-28, 03:35 PM
My above argument is in no way inapplicable with a world where "monster" equates to "Evil". It was a logical deduction derived by D&D's morality.

It's a deduction, you've just said it yourself... People making other deductions than you are not necessarily wrong.


D&D has a rigidly defined moral system, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are considered measurable, demonstrable concepts coinciding with actual reality. That is not my opinion, that is by design. It is written in black and white across the source material. It's a fundamental concept codified into character creation by the existence of the alignment system.

In such a world removing Evil things is a Good action. My above statements, however, were not conjecture or an opinion, but what logically follows from a world where Good and Evil can be explicitly known. If Evil is measurable, it can be known with certainty. In a world where knowing Evil is just a spell away, acting without that information no matter how certain of the opponent's Evil you may seem, is an action which has the probability, however small, of being wrong. It is a world where acting without certainty means leaving things up to chance. Not an opinion, the logical extension of a world where knowing someone is Evil and unworthy is just detect Evil away.

Many people interpret the black and white morality of classic D&D differently. There were many debates about this on these very forums.

Your interpretation is valid, but it is a complex matter. You can't shut down other interpretations simply because you disagree with them.


Whether DMs, players, or characters actually care about this distinction? You are correct that it is another point entirely. But the above is the logical extension of D&D's demonstrable, objective morality. Just because DMs, players, or characters might find ingoring this to be far more entertaining doesn't mean it isn't based on the real logical implications of black and white morality.

On YOUR logic on black and white morality. For example, one perfectly valid interpretation of black and white morality is that there are no grey zones like the one described by OP.

For example, Tv tropes has a line that defines (one type of) Black and White morality this way: "All major choices that the heroes are faced with are either unambiguously right or wrong. There aren't any grey areas".


And for the record, there totally is such thing as "having fun wrong". You're having fun is wrong the moment it comes at the expensive of other's.

You are 100% right. That's why I propose communication to ensure everyone has fun. Not punishment. Not imposing your own interpretation of morality like the only true way. Communication.


And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'.

Pretty solid response to that line of reasoning.

Yes, that is an awesome and cool response... But it doesn't change the fact that it can encourage to NOT spare evil monsters.


And in the 2e introductory D&D set, the very first adventure (with an ogre searching for one of the Orbs of Dragonkind) has a bunch of Kobolds warn you (without actually attacking) to leave their room or the ogre will come and get you - and the DM is encouraged to tell the players that it is not heroic to kill cowering kobolds.

It would appear this dilemma is not nearly as contemporary as you would imply.

I never said OLD modules, event recent one can avoid moral dilemmas.

Not being heroic is different from being evil. But whatever, the fact that the dilemma is comtemporary or not is not relevant to anything.

SkipSandwich
2015-07-28, 04:43 PM
Since it seems this is mostly an issue created by a problematic player, perhaps Gadren may wish to implement a Anti-Murderhobo Table Rule (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?425042-House-Rule-Murderhobo-Repellent&p=19478077#post19478077) similar to this one posted by ShaneMcRoth. Though most tables should not need to be quite as comprehensive in spelling out and defining the specifics of murderhobo behavior as Shane, every once in a while you do get players who seem so deeply attached to murderhobo as a character concept as to make it necessary.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-28, 05:29 PM
In a modern court... Not in a pseudo-medieval court.

Because the fact that they are guilty or not is not the problem. The problem is that the player and the GM are not on the same page. They don't have the same view of morality in the GM's world. They need to communicate to get on the same page.

1: They're not going before the courts/magistrates etc, they're going before an all knowing [Of actions] alignment system.

2: Did you/everyone miss the bit where the DM said he has communicated before about this problem in the past, repetitively, and his actions were annoying other players, which did get it?


The player in question is actually a very good friend. He was my best man at my wedding. We aren't mad at each other or anything. I don't get mad at my friends over a game.
However, I will admit to some irritation because it does reflect an ongoing trend that I HAVE talked to him about before. He almost always likes to play his PCs as immoral murderhobos. At least it is usually in character, since he tends to play rogues, bounty hunters, etc. If everyone in my group liked this playstyle, it'd be fine. However, most of the group is obviously highly annoyed by it, and it clearly subtracts from their fun. I've talked to him about it, he says he'll work on it, but the pattern continues...

...
So, there's been clear, repeated communication, that the player has claimed to have understood and received. Miscommunication is not the problem. The player by this point, IMO, needs to start suffering consequences until he 'gets it' instead of suffering from a variation of Afluenza, or needs to GTFO.

Telok
2015-07-28, 05:34 PM
For all we know the player could actually come from the old-school versions of D&D where kobolds where yappy little dog-men and letting them grow strong and wealthy meant that they would start raiding local towns, killing people, and attracting bigger monsters to the area.

Or we can go with 'always evil' = 97% and attacking the succubus in the bar who is seducing the mayor has a 3% chance of making the good aligned PCs 'fall'.

I came from old-school and I've made it clear to the rest of my group that I don't hold with the kobold/dragonling fetishisim of WotC D&D. If they want to do something where there are kobold paladins leading LG churches they tell me this ahead of time, otherwise my characters will be treating kobolds like the vermin they are. We generally have good OOC communication in our group.

Edit: Ah, 5ColouredWalker caught something I missed. It's not a case of making the monsters human but of unrepentant murderhoboing. In that case the character's alignment may change, which only affects a few spells, and the houserules about crusaders being able to lose their powers can be invoked. Because that's what's at issue isn't it? The houserules about crusaders being able to lose their powers that the player knew about before choosing that class.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 05:43 PM
Or we can go with 'always evil' = 97% and attacking the succubus in the bar who is seducing the mayor has a 3% chance of making the good aligned PCs 'fall'. In the 3.5 MM, succubi are listed as "always Chaotic Evil". Kobolds are listed as "usually Lawful Evil".

And because perhaps it will put this line of argument to rest, the same MM describes elves as "usually Chaotic Good", dwarves as "often Lawful Good", gnomes as " usually Neutral Good", and haflings as "usually Neutral". Yet we all make no assumption that such is always the case for any of those creatures...

"Usually" and "Always" have very different meanings.

gadren
2015-07-28, 05:52 PM
2: Did you/everyone miss the bit where the DM said he has communicated before about this problem in the past, repetitively, and his actions were annoying other players, which did get it?

Most posters in this thread aren't really interested in what the others are saying, they either want to make the player the bad guy or me into the bad guy (it's neither).

The posters that want to make me into the bad guy are making some pretty big assumptions about things I've done and making "points" based on those assumptions as if they are facts. The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

Anyways, this thread has still been productive for me. I have gotten a lot of feedback on ideas I've had for in-game consequences. For even having some of the ideas, it's been stated multiple times that I'm a bad DM, but the whole point was for me to bounce ideas off of others and get feedback before solidifying in my mind about whether they are good or bad ideas and before implementing them in my game.

So I'm quite thankful to all the people that've helped me here, even the ones that have been incredibly disrespectful in the process.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-28, 06:17 PM
The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

That made me giggle. Any chance I can sig this?

noob
2015-07-28, 06:21 PM
I would change the alignment of the player and not say that to the player since nobody suddenly knows his alignment changed.

Yukitsu
2015-07-28, 06:27 PM
To be fair, I didn't get a clear understanding as to why him changing alignment was important until I figured out that you were houseruling that in. And even with his particular line of question, recommending an out of character solution is good advice in context lest he wants to go from having lost 2 players to this exact issue previously, to 3 players.

YossarianLives
2015-07-28, 07:00 PM
I also like the idea of the distraught kobold mother asking the PCs to find her children.

Keltest
2015-07-28, 07:04 PM
I also like the idea of the distraught kobold mother asking the PCs to find her children.

Ditto. It would be a good way to give a hint without bludgeoning them with it.

Shackel
2015-07-28, 07:46 PM
Ditto. It would be a good way to give a hint without bludgeoning them with it.

Truth be told, I think that's just as passive-aggressive bludgeoning. I'm pretty sure there are fun ways of getting a change away from murderhoboism without needing to go all Spec Ops: The Line with it. Especially when one character/player knows full well.

gadren
2015-07-28, 08:55 PM
To be fair, I didn't get a clear understanding as to why him changing alignment was important until I figured out that you were houseruling that in. And even with his particular line of question, recommending an out of character solution is good advice in context lest he wants to go from having lost 2 players to this exact issue previously, to 3 players.

1. I have talked to him and will continue to talk to him about it OOC. However, IC actions merit IC consequences, unless he wants to retcon what he did, but I know him well and he won't.
2. I've been DMing for over 20 years, so I've lost a lot more than just two players in my time, for various reasons (scheduling, edition wars, unhappiness with DM actions, me expelling them for bad behavior). The two examples I gave I wouldn't want to have kept. I don't tolerate temper tantrums from grown men over a freakin' game in my home, especially when I usually have too many players at the table anyway. However, I've never thrown someone out of the group for IC behavior before.

EDIT: Actually I take that back I did ban someone from the group for IC actions once, though I'd forgotten about it because he never made it to the gaming table. He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

Hawkstar
2015-07-28, 09:08 PM
Races of the Dragon was published almost a decade ago, for the record. Since kobold PCs predate even it, it's safe to say that the player was ignoring over a decade of gaming history and player expectation when he up and killed unarmed, nonviolent kobolds as they sreamed for mercy...

If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

And yeah... missing a single splatbook from over a decade ago in a game almost half a century old is not unreasonable, considering that RotD is the ONLY source of "Kobolds are People!"(And even then, RotD goes to lengths to indicate how almost all kobolds are horrible monsters that need to die)

Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs are all a bunch of Kender with slightly prettier appearances and a different set of overriding socially-unacceptable behaviors.

Diamondeye
2015-07-28, 09:13 PM
Yes, here's what it has to say on killing:
Now, the only possible response you have to make his acts non-evil is to dismiss the BoED. In which case, things come back down to DM interpretation, and the DM in this instance says the act was CE, and being the DM his word means more than yours.

Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good, not merely run-of-the-mill good (and the BoED is not always in play anyhow). Semantic pedantry notwithstanding, a character that is not striving for exalted status should not be held to the standards of the BoED.

Finally, the BoED, in that respect, is at odds with the mechanical system it is attempting to support. You cannot have observable, mechanical evil and then say "well, it's not always good to eliminate it" or start carrying on about women and children as if it were the real world. Ultimately, the fact that alignments are a mechanic takes priority over the writer's idea of what constitutes any particular alignment.

As for the DM yes, clearly his views in his campaign take precedence over mine or anyone else's within that campaign. However, he came here asking for advice. Pointing out that "he's the DM" is irrelevant; if he doesn't want to hear different viewpoints he shouldn't have asked for them

gadren
2015-07-28, 09:22 PM
If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

And yeah... missing a single splatbook from over a decade ago in a game almost half a century old is not unreasonable, considering that RotD is the ONLY source of "Kobolds are People!"(And even then, RotD goes to lengths to indicate how almost all kobolds are horrible monsters that need to die)

Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs are all a bunch of Kender with slightly prettier appearances and a different set of overriding socially-unacceptable behaviors.

For the record, all 3.5 WotC books are in play at my table.

Also, I'm fairly certain RotD was not the only source of "Kobolds are People"

Diamondeye
2015-07-28, 09:27 PM
Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good, not merely run-of-the-mill good (and the BoED is not always in play anyhow). Semantic pedantry notwithstanding, a character that is not striving for exalted status should not be held to the standards of the BoED.

Finally, the BoED, in that respect, is at odds with the mechanical system it is attempting to support. You cannot have observable, mechanical evil and then say "well, it's not always good to eliminate it" or start carrying on about women and children as if it were the real world. Ultimately, the fact that alignments are a mechanic takes priority over the writer's idea of what constitutes any particular alignment.

As for the DM yes, clearly his views in his campaign take precedence over mine or anyone else's within that campaign. However, he came here asking for advice. Pointing out that "he's the DM" is irrelevant; if he doesn't want to hear different viewpoints he shouldn't have asked for them


It's the amount of people who think it's okay to murder a sapient creature just because in their experience, they're evil. Like if someone killed innocent German civilians in 1943 because there were Nazis about. They're all saying this would be okay.

You're begging the question by classifying it as "murder" in the first place. The only sapient creatures we have in real life are humans and possibly some sorts of whale/dolphin and some forms of apes. None of those creatures are inherently evil and inherent evil does not exist in real life.

In D&D the fact that a creature is "sapient" does not matter. Evil is quite real, and has real effects and with appropriate magic can be observed and even attacked directly. The fact that a creature is sapient is far, far less important to determining if a murder was committed - by itself it's barely even a starting point. Comparisons to real-life events like WWII are not appropriate and not accurate.


The gap between "This race is evil! It's OK to kill them!" and "This group is evil! It's OK to kill them!" gets far too close to the real world, and real life racism, and it's generally just horrible.

What's horrible is the presumption that one is in a position to sit in judgement of other people based on their views of a fictitious alignment system and the potential killing of creatures that don't really exist in a moral system that has real, observable effects in a way that we can't even attempt in real life.

Real life "racism" has nothing to do with it. Not only is real life "racism" itself a concept subject to abuse for purpose of ad hom political attack but it does not exist in D&D. Racism is a meaningless concept within this system.

People basically need to learn to leave their personal viewpoints and baggage in regard to real world matters aside. If "racism" against kobolds bothers you because it's "horrible" then maybe roleplaying games that involve killing lots of things aren't for you.


In a court of law we'd call this circumstantial evidence.

You keep saying kobolds are Evil. But that's simply not true. You're confusing "usually" with "always". A lot of kobolds are Evil. But not all. And it is that distinction which is the crux the problem.

I'm not "confusing" that at all. People keep relying on "usually does not mean always" and pedantry like "that could mean 50.01%" to get around this, but the fact is that it's a safe assumption that kobolds are evil.

As for "circumstantial evidence" and how it would be treated in a real court of law, that's irrelevant. D&D is not and should not be about trying to duplicate 21st century ideas of what's legally acceptable or not.


OP has made it pretty clear the kobolds were not guilty. Otherwise, why would gadren be so bent up about this? Seriously, why do you keep ignoring that?

Because OP is posting that after the fact. He's saying by DM fiat to us with 100% omniscience. That has nothing to do with the perceptions of the character at the time.

I
n D&D no species is guilty by virtue of their species. They're guilty by virtue of being Evil. But as has been stated many a time, the Crusader possessed no way of knowing. He acted on prejudice, not on fact.

Yes, as a matter of fact they are because many species are evil. It is not "prejudice" to act on that unless that species is not, in fact, generally evil either by the book or by that DM's world. Moreover, the means exist to directly detect and measure that evil. Real-world concepts of "prejudice" have no place in the discussion.


Here's the thing. If you go around killing things for being Evil, it's fine in D&D. But the burden of proof of their Evil is on you. If you can't prove it and you choose to act, you should pay the price if you turn out to be wrong. Which, for the last time, OP has made clear was the case.

There is no "burden of proof" at all. This is yet another attempt to inappropriately impose a modern concept of legal rights on the system and claim that violating our system of rights is not good in a society where not only have modern legal systems not developed, but good and evil are actual phenomenon with real power, not merely abstract moral concepts.

As to the OP, it's not even clear why he's having problems. It's not clear if he's just objecting to the character being LG and acting this way, or if he;'s objecting to his social encounter ending in a massacre. In either case there's a fairly simple solution - either explain to the player that the rest of the players would like him to NOT KILL THINGS that are clearly an opportunity to do a social encounter, or explain to him that LE or something else might be more appropriate.


Inglorious Basterds always made me cringe because this element was present, as the movie fails to differentiate between the Waffen-SS (actual Nazis) and the German Army (who are usually just Germans).

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Not only is it irrelevant, but as to the historicity of it that's a wild oversimplification. On top of that, you watch Inglorious Bastards for fun. You don't watch a movie like that to quibble over historical details.


But they have to be Evil! I don't understand why that escapes your grasp. For killing things on sight to be fine, they have to be Evil! If they're are not actually Evil than what you did was just negligent homicide! Manslaughter at best. "I thought they were Evil!" doesn't change the fact that they weren't. In a world with black and white morality, what you thought was the case does not matter. In a world with black and white morality, what was objectively the fact is what matters. And if they are not objectively Evil creatures, then killing them, even if you thought they were Evil, is the same as killing any other non-Evil, nonviolent creature as it flees and begs for mercy. Objectively Evil. Your subjective belief on the matter changes nothing.

So in a world with black and white morality, ignorance of the objective moral reality does nothing to modify the morality of an action. Thus anyone who might pursue Evil creatures must necessarily insulate themselves from that eventually. Persecution of Evil in such a world requires objective knowledge that that Evil exists.

They don't have to be evil at all. "Negligent homicide", "mansalughter" and all that never even enter into it. It escapes his graps, and mine, because it simply isn't true. Trying to fit the actions into the boc of real-world crimes doesn't work. Those are questions of pertinent law, not good and evil, and do not apply.

Objective morality in no way implies that morality is judged based on information not available to an actor at the time he acts. The belief that the kobolds were evil is not subjective; it's a judgement based on objective fact - kobolds are generally evil. That information may be insufficient to conclusively prove THESE kobolds are evil, but it's still an objective fact in the context of D&D.

Shackel
2015-07-28, 10:00 PM
What on earth has this got to do with anything? Not only is it irrelevant, but as to the historicity of it that's a wild oversimplification. On top of that, you watch Inglorious Bastards for fun. You don't watch a movie like that to quibble over historical details.


I can answer this one, actually: the reason it can be uncomfortable is that you're just supposed to assume everyone who gets killed is the most evil Nazi. This, however, conflicts heavily with the idea that every person is sapient and has their own story. Empathy, is the word, here.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-28, 10:02 PM
You're begging the question by classifying it as "murder" in the first place. The only sapient creatures we have in real life are humans and possibly some sorts of whale/dolphin and some forms of apes. None of those creatures are inherently evil and inherent evil does not exist in real life.
Murder, n., the unlawful killing of a person, especially with malice aforethought

Murder is defined not by its moral quality, but by whether it is lawful.

And for the last time, the literature does not explicitly state that kobold are inherently Evil! There is no line in any 3.5 material which states "Kobold will always be Evil and irredeemable in the eyes of the Alignment system" like there is for demons and devils. Since that is the case, you're the one begging the question by discounting the act on the supposition that the kobolds were Evil.



I'm not "confusing" that at all. People keep relying on "usually does not mean always" and pedantry like "that could mean 50.01%" to get around this, but the fact is that it's a safe assumption that kobolds are evil. The assumption is not safe if the objective reality of the situation contradicts the assumption.

Sure, statistically you might be more likely to be right, but that doesn't preclude being wrong.


There is no "burden of proof" at all. This is yet another attempt to inappropriately impose a modern concept of legal rights on the system and claim that violating our system of rights is not good in a society where not only have modern legal systems not developed, but good and evil are actual phenomenon with real power, not merely abstract moral concepts. I'm not attempting to apply any legal concept there. I'm applying common sense. In a world were it's easy to objectively prove Evil, acting without doing so is a bit lazy. You can totally do it, but if you get it wrong you've no one to blame but yourself. What consequences naturally flow from that only make sense.



Objective morality in no way implies that morality is judged based on information not available to an actor at the time he acts. The belief that the kobolds were evil is not subjective; it's a judgement based on objective fact - kobolds are generally evil. That information may be insufficient to conclusively prove THESE kobolds are evil, but it's still an objective fact in the context of D&D. But if the kobold are not Evil, than the Crusader's judgement that they were does not reflect an objective reality. Namely the objective reality that, despite his belief otherwise, the kobolds were not actually Evil. His judgement was wrong. Regardless of how the Crusader felt about it, it does not correspond to the objective reality that these particular kobolds existed within that group of kobolds not included in the qualifier "usually".

That's how objective realities work. They correspond to what actually is the case, not what we believe is.

For the record my phone now autocaps Good, Evil, and Lawful for me...

Yukitsu
2015-07-28, 10:12 PM
1. I have talked to him and will continue to talk to him about it OOC. However, IC actions merit IC consequences, unless he wants to retcon what he did, but I know him well and he won't.
2. I've been DMing for over 20 years, so I've lost a lot more than just two players in my time, for various reasons (scheduling, edition wars, unhappiness with DM actions, me expelling them for bad behavior). The two examples I gave I wouldn't want to have kept. I don't tolerate temper tantrums from grown men over a freakin' game in my home, especially when I usually have too many players at the table anyway. However, I've never thrown someone out of the group for IC behavior before.

EDIT: Actually I take that back I did ban someone from the group for IC actions once, though I'd forgotten about it because he never made it to the gaming table. He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

goto124
2015-07-28, 10:24 PM
OP's responses are kinda buried among the many other posts on *cough* alignment.

OP, if I may ask, would you say that you have, repeatedly, tried to teach That One Player to stop murderhoboing? How did you go about it, and how successful did your attempts appear to be before the whole kobold incident?

gadren
2015-07-28, 10:33 PM
Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

Eh, it probably doesn't help that when I see an adult act like a child my first instinct is to laugh at them, which in turn always sets off the types to get worked up over a game in the first place.

I AM aware of my general tendency to come across as condescending... So, working on that.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-28, 10:35 PM
Most posters in this thread aren't really interested in what the others are saying, they either want to make the player the bad guy or me into the bad guy (it's neither).


I hope that I haven't led you to believe that with my advice.

I am confident that if you and the player both give each other good and timely information, he will be able to make his character concept work within the context of your campaign.


...
EDIT:He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

Seriously? [BLEEP] that guy. [BLEEP] his character. And [BLEEP] his unfunny and literally felony-stupid puns.

gadren
2015-07-28, 10:40 PM
OP's responses are kinda buried among the many other posts on *cough* alignment.

OP, if I may ask, would you say that you have, repeatedly, tried to teach That One Player to stop murderhoboing? How did you go about it, and how successful did your attempts appear to be before the whole kobold incident?

I usually point out to him -when it's just the two of us- that "hey, the other players kind of enjoy playing a heroic game, and you know the stuff you do with your character tends to make that really difficult. I don't like to tell people how to play their characters, but if you could find a way to do stuff without causing all the intraparty conflict, I think we'd all have more fun." This typically results in a marginal change in behavior for a little while.

gadren
2015-07-28, 10:47 PM
I hope that I haven't led you to believe that with my advice.
I am confident that if you and the player both give each other good and timely information, he will be able to make his character concept work within the context of your campaign.

No, you've been respectful and polite the whole time.

5ColouredWalker
2015-07-28, 10:52 PM
Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good-

Did you read the bolded part, where it spells out that deliberately attacking a group of non-combatants with intent to kill because they were an evil race is an evil act?

Oh look, The DM even says that the BoED is in play at his table. So the DM's reading of the alignment system, and the RAW of the alignment system disagrees with this action not being evil. Depending on what sort of Lawful the Crusader is, you could argue that the action wasn't Chaotic [Say, if his rules were based off his own code, instead of Law/Religious Law.], and I'd accept that without hesitation, but the DnD universe states that his act was evil.

Where you trying to be Exalted Good, I would agree that it's irrelevent, because not showing mercy when someone surrendered would cause you to lose exalted status, but there's not evidence they weren't combatents to start with, they never attempted to fight, and you've no proof they've ever fought, making them non-combatants.

And again, this is not the point of the discussion.


As a side note to the DM, I did decide to take a quick look at the BoVD, technically what he did wasn't murder by it's definitions. If it was though, the rules would support the area creating 1-4 shades or some-such. [The area could be a 'Bad Feeling' area, an example of what creates it is a Brutal Murder (This wasn't strictly Murder, but he did beat four surrendering humanoids to death.), an example effect is an Undead arising.]. The area could also now feel wrong in some way, but it wouldn't detect as evil.

As another thought, the 'feeling wrong' may draw the dungeon to create something evil in that area to take advantage of the lingering evil, and try to make some benefit of it, say creating some 'Alway's Evil' creature which lairs in the area, that tried to increase the local evil to make more powerful effects. This could create a sub-quest where the area needs to be consecrated, and people need to hope that the Dungeon didn't permanently learn something, but was instead experimenting with the area since it felt off.

runeghost
2015-07-28, 11:02 PM
Having read the OP's Update #2, I'll try to respond to the question he wants answered: how to deal with the LG PC who committed a CE act? I think the answer depends on how you handle alignment in your game. Does intent matter, and is alignment "big" or "small"?

First, intent. The OP needs to decide if the LG crusader *knew* he was committing a CE act, or if he *thought* (wrongly) that he was doing the right thing. If intent doesn't matter, then he slides an appropriate amount to the other end of the alignment spectrum no matter what. If intent does matter, then I'd suggest that he deity try corrective action rather than just letting him fall. Send him a dream, have him denied divine power until he atones, have him lectured by a superior so that he understand what he did wrong and why it was wrong.

Second, how "big" is alignment in your world? This is going to affect how far his act pushes him.

In some games, alignment is what I call "small". LG means acting like the best of the Knights of the Round Table. There's not much room for error or variation. Stealing some bread to feed a hungry family puts you right into NG. Beating up a dryad for trying to charm a party members puts you in LN. (For just but unnecessary violence.) And killing a bunch of unthreatening, defenseless kobolds drops you right out of LG in to either LN (if you had the authority but used it wrongly, or maybe even further, into marginal NG or full neutrality. (I think pushing it farther than that for a single extended act is too much, even in a tighter alignment system.)

And that's not just limited to LG. In a small-alignment world, killing goblins, especially defenseless ones, drops you right out of good, on the spot. Stealing anything, or breaking your word means that "L" is gone, no matter what it was in front of. Any unjustified killing is Evil. (Though what constitutes justified killings varies by campaign and can include a lot, sometimes.) Most NPC peasants and villagers are LN, NG, N, or CG. Many merchants and others the PCs deal with are probably CN or LE, if not worse.

"Large" alignment has a lot of room inside each alignment. LG means doing your best to be just, merciful and benevolent. But its not perfect. The king who rules reasonably well, but has normal human failings, and even gets into wars with his fellow kings can still be LG. (And so can the people he fights!) Most NPCs will be LG, or within 1 step of it. Only people living beyond civilization are really Neutral, with those who are NG generally being friendly and welcoming, though they may have their own customs which they respect. (As an extreme case, that could even potentially include burning MUs at the stake for trafficking with demons!) CG is reserved for wandering free spirits who, while well-intentioned, will *not* hold themselves bound by arbitrary laws under any circumstances - only elves and a few solitary wanderers are CG. A greedy and selfish tax collector is likely LN. Good allows for plenty of failings, as long as ones heart is in the right place. Neutrality is manifest in selfishness and thoughtlessness, or sometimes a very active quest for balance. Evil folk are those who regularly and actively seeking to injure others. An execution-happy, power-hungry king or band of murderous bandits would be "only" LE. CE is reserved for truly inhuman depths of depravity, like demons who revel in blood, fear, pain and suffering.

This is obviously a spectrum, but I think D&D originally leaned towards the "large" side of things, and that's how I play these days. It means that there's a big different between even a LG and a neutral PC. And because LG "only" means generally following the law as best the character understand it, and trying to be a decent being, I end up with a lot *more* LG and NG PCs than I used to.

Under what circumstances murder-hoboing is acceptable depends a lot more on the reality of the campaign world than on how you run alignments. Though they are obviously connected. If orcs are literally demon-spawned monstrosities moved by hatred for life, then murder-hoboing them is probably okay. If they're just people born on a different "side", well, that's a more complicated question. And if they're just people who look and live differently, that's potentially another game entirely.

I will also throw in here at the end that there is a broad convention in D&D-flavored RPGs that kobolds *are* some flavor of inherently evil, and murderhoboing them is acceptable, if not expected. So give the player the benefit of the doubt unless you know otherwise. Which doesn't mean you can't clarify how things work a little differently in your game.

Telok
2015-07-29, 02:38 AM
That's a nice division Runeghost. I can see how it can be very relevant to alignment. I do something different.

In my games alignment isn't a moral code, it's a fundamental force of the universe, sort of like thermodynamics or atomic bonds. So an alignment is a supernatural aura that someone has if they take sides in a cosmic struggle. People take sides by becoming a champion of one of gods. The gods took sides long ago. All divine spellcasting classes and diety specific prestige classes give you an alignment. All the gods have specific codes of conduct (some of the more evil ones are just "kill stuff") and specific punishments. Transgressors go from warning nightmares and visions, to a reduction of divinely granted powers, to the punishments, to death. But your alignment does not change.

Someone who summons demons or animates the dead isn't [Evil], they might be a wicked nasty person who needs killing but just being annoying to your neighbors isn't [Evil]. An [Evil] person might actually be a pretty nice guy most of the time, but by chosing sides he's an agent in a cosmic cold war. He gets neat toys or powers from his patron but he also has a list of do's and dont's, is marked for death by the other sides, and the penalty for failure is worse than death.

NichG
2015-07-29, 05:57 AM
Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

Sometimes the player walking out is a good thing. I've been in a game with a player who got grumpy every time he was told 'no' for any reason and actively tried to socially sabotage the game each time. The DM burned out pretty quickly, and it would have been better for all involved if he had just been told 'please don't come back' or decided that on his own.

hamishspence
2015-07-29, 06:21 AM
In some games, alignment is what I call "small". LG means acting like the best of the Knights of the Round Table. There's not much room for error or variation. Stealing some bread to feed a hungry family puts you right into NG. Beating up a dryad for trying to charm a party members puts you in LN. (For just but unnecessary violence.) And killing a bunch of unthreatening, defenseless kobolds drops you right out of LG in to either LN (if you had the authority but used it wrongly, or maybe even further, into marginal NG or full neutrality. (I think pushing it farther than that for a single extended act is too much, even in a tighter alignment system.)

And that's not just limited to LG. In a small-alignment world, killing goblins, especially defenseless ones, drops you right out of good, on the spot. Stealing anything, or breaking your word means that "L" is gone, no matter what it was in front of. Any unjustified killing is Evil. (Though what constitutes justified killings varies by campaign and can include a lot, sometimes.) Most NPC peasants and villagers are LN, NG, N, or CG. Many merchants and others the PCs deal with are probably CN or LE, if not worse.

"Large" alignment has a lot of room inside each alignment. LG means doing your best to be just, merciful and benevolent. But its not perfect. The king who rules reasonably well, but has normal human failings, and even gets into wars with his fellow kings can still be LG. (And so can the people he fights!) Most NPCs will be LG, or within 1 step of it. Only people living beyond civilization are really Neutral, with those who are NG generally being friendly and welcoming, though they may have their own customs which they respect. (As an extreme case, that could even potentially include burning MUs at the stake for trafficking with demons!) CG is reserved for wandering free spirits who, while well-intentioned, will *not* hold themselves bound by arbitrary laws under any circumstances - only elves and a few solitary wanderers are CG. A greedy and selfish tax collector is likely LN. Good allows for plenty of failings, as long as ones heart is in the right place. Neutrality is manifest in selfishness and thoughtlessness, or sometimes a very active quest for balance. Evil folk are those who regularly and actively seeking to injure others. An execution-happy, power-hungry king or band of murderous bandits would be "only" LE. CE is reserved for truly inhuman depths of depravity, like demons who revel in blood, fear, pain and suffering.

I prefer to think of it this way - "Large" Good and Evil categories, mean that Good can be anything from saintly to only a little bit altruistic and self-sacrificing toward strangers - and Evil can be anything from truly vile to merely a little crueller than the average.

Socksy
2015-07-29, 06:57 AM
If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

While that's true, the Kobolds-as-PCs thing was in the Monster Manual too, and I'm pretty sure that one's in play.


Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

20 years and 3 players works out as one every 6 or 7 years.

Hawkstar
2015-07-29, 07:35 AM
That's a nice division Runeghost. I can see how it can be very relevant to alignment. I do something different.

In my games alignment isn't a moral code, it's a fundamental force of the universe, sort of like thermodynamics or atomic bonds. So an alignment is a supernatural aura that someone has if they take sides in a cosmic struggle. People take sides by becoming a champion of one of gods. The gods took sides long ago. All divine spellcasting classes and diety specific prestige classes give you an alignment. All the gods have specific codes of conduct (some of the more evil ones are just "kill stuff") and specific punishments. Transgressors go from warning nightmares and visions, to a reduction of divinely granted powers, to the punishments, to death. But your alignment does not change.This is kind of how I use alignment as well, except without Gods as middlemen in the struggle.


Someone who summons demons or animates the dead isn't [Evil], they might be a wicked nasty person who needs killing but just being annoying to your neighbors isn't [Evil]. An [Evil] person might actually be a pretty nice guy most of the time, but by chosing sides he's an agent in a cosmic cold war. He gets neat toys or powers from his patron but he also has a list of do's and dont's, is marked for death by the other sides, and the penalty for failure is worse than death.

I'd say someone who summons demons and animates dead are [Evil], or are [Neutral] (But have [Evil] support), but simply because those are powers exclusive to those of [Evil] alignment, and [Neutral] people Evil sometimes supports. And, of course, being a wicked, nasty person that needs killing generally puts someone as [Evil] not as a conscious choice, but because they embody [Evil]'s ideals and advance its cause by being an exemplar of [Evil]. "What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

Hawkstar
2015-07-29, 07:39 AM
While that's true, the Kobolds-as-PCs thing was in the Monster Manual too, and I'm pretty sure that one's in play.
Do keep in mind that the Monster Manual also has several Demons and Devils as playable characters (Non-"-" level adjustment), and it's "Kobolds as Characters" (As in "Kobolds with Classes and Class Levels"), not "Kobolds as Player Characters"

goto124
2015-07-29, 07:58 AM
"What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

I thought it would determine Lawfulness, but that's best left for another thread.

AxeAlex
2015-07-29, 08:06 AM
The posters that want to make me into the bad guy are making some pretty big assumptions about things I've done and making "points" based on those assumptions as if they are facts. The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

Point taken.

I don't want to make you into a bad guy even if I try to stand up for the guy who can't speak for himself in this thread. I don't even think you did wrong. And, for the record, I too prefer moral complexity and "monsters" with "realistic" motivations and goals.

But, honestly, i've never seen anytime a GM and a Player go into an in-game "arms-race" to see who will "win and teach the other" that ever turned out well.

You communicated with the guy, good, but his actions seems to either indicate that either he didn't care, either he didn't get it. Or even something ELSE, since he is not here to explain or defend himself. Maybe he thinks you are unfair (EX: that you favor the other players), or that your have a flawed vision of D&D (EX: Monsters are not meant to be talked to), or whatever else that makes him think he is right and your are wrong.

Now if he didn't care, I think you should explain to him that his in-game actions are ruining the experience for others, and that it is a cooperative game, a team game. And that he should make efforts to get along with the other characters JUST AS THE OTHERS GUYS ARE MAKING EFFORT TO STICK WITH HIM.

Because honestly, the rest of the group would NOT tag along his psychotic character, so they are twisting their character's personality and goals and the whole versimilitude of the universe by accepting to travel with him. Why would the burden of making the group work fall on the other players, but not him? That's unfair.

If it's anything else (He didn't get it, he thinks you are wrong, etc.), it can ALSO be solved entirely OOC without having to resort to in-game "punishment".

Now, some ideas in this thread are smooth enough to deliver a message without being confrontational or claiming moral superiority and exclusivity, but I think the problems comes from OOC issues, you seem to think so yourself.