I need to kill a PC, and it makes me nervous (help/advice)

[Overstrike]

I'll start with a little background info, and follow up with questions that I have:

First up the group I am in is playing through the Out of the Abyss campaign. I am playing as a lvl 3 CG Cleric, and the player in question rolled a lvl 3 LE Warlock during our last session (his previous character died). The DM is now regretting letting him play an evil character as he has so far killed 2 npc's that may or may not have been important. Since I am playing the only "Good" character in the group (everyone else is different shades of neutral), and I was the only one to really make successful insight checks against his lies, my character knows he's evil.

I have read too many stories were good and evil characters are in the same group and no one is willing to do anything about it, or react as there character would, and it destroys the party. At this point during our next session I'm going to try and RP how my character react as best as I can, given everything he witnessed the warlock do. Which mean the warlock has to die, or I die in the attempt.

The plan so far, with the DM's approval, is I have convinced the groups fighter, who has a background as a mercenary, to help me kill him in his sleep. I promised him whatever he found on the body, which is a good amount of gold, as his payment to which he agreed. During our next long rest, the merc will offer to be on watch while the rest of us sleep, this shouldn't arouse any suspicion from the warlock. During the night the merc will wake me up, and I will then cast silence on the warlock. This should encompass the other players as well so they will not hear what is going on and shouldn't wake up to help or hinder. The merc will then attack the warlock with his great sword, which should give him advantage, and be an auto crit. We roll for initiative, and the only actions I can see the warlock taking is a move to stand up from prone, and an action to make a basic attack, disengage or run away. Then we should be able to finish him off on our next turns.

My first question is, the Warlock has an ability called armor of shadows that he can cast at will, that doesn't require a spell slot or material components. Does he still have to meet the V and S requirements in order to cast it?

Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?

Third, is it a good plan? The DM doesn't want to come off as playing favorites but she does realize that the characters are going to have to RP this out. Do you guys have any suggestions to increase my chance of success? *note the other players may or may not side with the warlock, and would probably not join me in killing him which is why I didn't recruit them in on the plan*

[kyoryu]

Personally, I'm a fan of the idea that any PC-on-PC combat is resolved as thus:

1) Both players agree to it.
2) Flip a coin. Since this one's 2-1, I'd probably go for a 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 split on a d6.
3) Whoever loses the roll/flip dies. Roleplay out how you will.

The other option is to talk to the player out of character and say "hey, this new character isn't working out. Let's do something different."

[Draco4472]

My party had a similar problem in Out of the Abyss. In my group at least, we all knew we were simply playing our characters, and there was no hate or spite afterwards. I'm sure your group would understand that you're roleplaying your character's actions and the only drama would be among the PC's, not they players themselves.

[AmayaElls]

While I understand the reasoning, I believe you should warn the other player (explaining your concerns). I know you have talked to the DM and another player about this but if you don't talk to the player of the warlock he might feel a little bitter. OOC you can discuss with him whether he wants his character to leave because all these girly goody-two-shoes are cramping his style or whether he is happy to go forward with the attack. Make it clear however that his play is too disruptive and there will be consequences, however if he chooses not to pvp these should originate from the DM. For example, he's killed important NPC's? Their friends come to avenge them and the rest of the party decides to stand back because what he did really was evil and they didn't agree with it. (I don't know Out of The Abyss but if there is city settings he could also be arrested the others do not rescue)

[Zman]

I really think this should be resolved by talking OOC about the problem the character is posing for the group. PvP, IMO, is detrimental to game health unless it is friendly and for sport. I see this situation going poorly in many different ways.

[NewDM]

First off, how is he killing important NPCs while maintaining the 'Lawful' part of his alignment? Unless there is a clear reason why the killing is lawful (such as killing certain criminals or in self defense) then the Lawful part of his alignment should stop him in his tracks.

A Lawful Evil character will:

Repossess a families home without a twinge of guilt.
Slay anyone they are legally allowed to slay.
Use the law to get their way even if it hurts others.


A Lawful Evil character won't:

break the laws of the land to do something evil (or at least very rarely and only if they are sure to get away with it).
Do things that are good even if they are within the law unless they somehow benefit from them.


This character isn't playing their alignment. The DM should talk to the player about changing the alignment or explaining the alignments better to the player.

[Overstrike]

Out of the Abyss takes place in the underdark, and we are nowhere near a city at this point. The party is currently lost and we are trying to find our way to some type of city while trying to lose our pursuers.

As for the Warlock player he always makes "problem" characters (mostly for the dm), that don't last more then a few sessions b/c they always end up dying. We have a good laugh about how he dies and he rolls another character. But this is the first time he has ever made a character that the PC's would be the cause of his death. So I don't know if that is the outcome he is seeking this time or he is trying to play a legit character. Either way I don't think it will cause drama but there is still the possibility.

[AmayaElls]

Out of the Abyss takes place in the underdark, and we are nowhere near a city at this point. The party is currently lost and we are trying to find our way to some type of city while trying to lose our pursuers.

As for the Warlock player he always makes "problem" characters (mostly for the dm), that don't last more then a few sessions b/c they always end up dying. We have a good laugh about how he dies and he rolls another character. But this is the first time he has ever made a character that the PC's would be the cause of his death. So I don't know if that is the outcome he is seeking this time or he is trying to play a legit character. Either way I don't think it will cause drama but there is still the possibility.

Definitely talk to him then, ask him if he planned to be in conflict with the group and tell him that he basically is. He'll probably take it well and with a laugh, but if you don't talk to him he might take it poorly even if he would have agreed.

[Overstrike]

First off, how is he killing important NPCs while maintaining the 'Lawful' part of his alignment? Unless there is a clear reason why the killing is lawful (such as killing certain criminals or in self defense) then the Lawful part of his alignment should stop him in his tracks.

A Lawful Evil character will:

Repossess a families home without a twinge of guilt.
Slay anyone they are legally allowed to slay.
Use the law to get their way even if it hurts others.


A Lawful Evil character won't:

break the laws of the land to do something evil (or at least very rarely and only if they are sure to get away with it).
Do things that are good even if they are within the law unless they somehow benefit from them.


This character isn't playing their alignment. The DM should talk to the player about changing the alignment or explaining the alignments better to the player.

Well so far, we had to jump over a pit that had acid in the bottom. He created a floating disk to help some of our PC's and NPC's across. When the last NPC was going to cross over on the disk he ended the spell, and the NPC died in the acid. He rolled deception and everyone else rolled Insight, I was the only one to pass the check and none of the other players believed me.

The 2nd time he was on watch during a long rest, and saw one of the NPC's was awake, and he went over and confronted him. The NPC was lying about something and he attacked waking us up. An encounter happens and the npc ends up dying.

Those were the only evil things he had committed so far.

[krugaan]

Well so far, we had to jump over a pit that had acid in the bottom. He created a floating disk to help some of our PC's and NPC's across. When the last NPC was going to cross over on the disk he ended the spell, and the NPC died in the acid. He rolled deception and everyone else rolled Insight, I was the only one to pass the check and none of the other players believed me.

The 2nd time he was on watch during a long rest, and saw one of the NPC's was awake, and he went over and confronted him. The NPC was lying about something and he attacked waking us up. An encounter happens and the npc ends up dying.

Those were the only evil things he had committed so far.

And you plan on killing this players character? Or is the DM pushing for it?

It sounds like there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than you're telling us.

Like, IRL stuff.

[MrStabby]

Well discus with the guy how he sees the character playing out.

Having a group side story about his redemption, repudiation of his patron and a quest for alternative, less evil sources of power could be a blast. If he wants it.

[RickAllison]

Beseech the advice of your cleric's deity. Ask for a sign and talk with the DM in another room. You don't even need an actual sign from the god, just claim you saw one if they call you out!

[Misterwhisper]

So the plan for the LG Cleric is:

1. Make a deal with the fighter to keep the loot of the party member he helps kill.
2. Attack party member in his sleep so you can kill him and have a better chance.
3. Then if anyone asks questions, you lie and say your god gave you a sign.

and the Warlock is the one who is evil...

[NewDM]

Well so far, we had to jump over a pit that had acid in the bottom. He created a floating disk to help some of our PC's and NPC's across. When the last NPC was going to cross over on the disk he ended the spell, and the NPC died in the acid. He rolled deception and everyone else rolled Insight, I was the only one to pass the check and none of the other players believed me.

The 2nd time he was on watch during a long rest, and saw one of the NPC's was awake, and he went over and confronted him. The NPC was lying about something and he attacked waking us up. An encounter happens and the npc ends up dying.

Those were the only evil things he had committed so far.

Yeah, you could just call him on the breaking the law bit. See a Lawful evil character is more like a lawyer that defends guilty criminals or a politician legally selling out his country for profit. That character is more toward the Neutral Evil end of the spectrum as he will kill just to kill regardless of the consequences.

[RickAllison]

So the plan for the LG Cleric is:

1. Make a deal with the fighter to keep the loot of the party member he helps kill.
2. Attack party member in his sleep so you can kill him and have a better chance.
3. Then if anyone asks questions, you lie and say your god gave you a sign.

and the Warlock is the one who is evil...

That sounds like a plan to me!!!

[Misterwhisper]

Yeah, you could just call him on the breaking the law bit. See a Lawful evil character is more like a lawyer that defends guilty criminals or a politician legally selling out his country for profit. That character is more toward the Neutral Evil end of the spectrum as he will kill just to kill regardless of the consequences.

Nowhere does it mention obeying the written law of a land in being LE, it means he has a code for himself.

An assassin who kills for money but will not kill the innocent, women, or children, can be LE.

[smcmike]

Yeah, you could just call him on the breaking the law bit. See a Lawful evil character is more like a lawyer that defends guilty criminals or a politician legally selling out his country for profit. That character is more toward the Neutral Evil end of the spectrum as he will kill just to kill regardless of the consequences.

A lawyer who defends guilty criminals is not (necessarily) evil.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

First off, how is he killing important NPCs while maintaining the 'Lawful' part of his alignment? Unless there is a clear reason why the killing is lawful (such as killing certain criminals or in self defense) then the Lawful part of his alignment should stop him in his tracks.

A Lawful Evil character will:

Repossess a families home without a twinge of guilt.
Slay anyone they are legally allowed to slay.
Use the law to get their way even if it hurts others.


A Lawful Evil character won't:

break the laws of the land to do something evil (or at least very rarely and only if they are sure to get away with it).
Do things that are good even if they are within the law unless they somehow benefit from them.


This character isn't playing their alignment. The DM should talk to the player about changing the alignment or explaining the alignments better to the player.

Wrong, but a perfect example for why I wish they'd used different words instead of 'law' and 'chaos'.

The 5e definition of Lawful Evil is thus:


Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.

Firstly, it says nothing about 'the law of the land', and secondly, it says a code, not any code. A Lawful Evil character has his rules, and he sticks to them. But they are not necessarily the same rules as society at large, and if his rules say one thing and everybody else's rules say something else, then everybody else can go hang, it's his way or the highway.
Furthermore, alignment is a description, not a straightjacket. Except in the cases of certain outsiders (Angels, Devils, Modrons etc.) that are literally certain alignments embodied, a character does not always act according to his alignment, and will indeed be inconsistent with regards to it. Good characters sometimes do bad things, but unless these actions are egregiously nongood, their alignment does not change. Nor does a Lawful Evil character cease to be lawful or evil because he sometimes acts in a nonlawful or nonevil manner. It is not that a character of a certain alignment will and will not do certain things, it is that he will tend or tend not to do certain things. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

To the OP: I strongly suggest talking to the player in question first. If nothing else, make it clear to them that your character will take action if his character continues to act in such an evil manner. PVP isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you should always give fair warning OOC.

Edit: Oh, and look, I got ninja'd by a mike and a whisper. At least it kindasorta rhymes.

[Overstrike]

So the plan for the LG Cleric is:

1. Make a deal with the fighter to keep the loot of the party member he helps kill.
2. Attack party member in his sleep so you can kill him and have a better chance.
3. Then if anyone asks questions, you lie and say your god gave you a sign.

and the Warlock is the one who is evil...

My character isn't LG he is CG. If he was LG I would probably go about it differently, by convincing the others of his crimes or perhaps getting a higher authority involved.

as for the IRL stuff, the DM allowed him to roll a LE character b/c she said his backstory would fit well within the story. She wasn't counting on him to start killing off NPC's. As far as what everyone knows about the character at this point is that he came to the underdark seeking power b/c his patron wills him to. The DM is kinda regretting letting him make the character now but will allow him to continue playing.

I also took the advice and contacted him through FB asking if he is expecting a confrontation between both of our characters, so we will see what he says.

[MaxWilson]

I'll start with a little background info, and follow up with questions that I have:

First up the group I am in is playing through the Out of the Abyss campaign. I am playing as a lvl 3 CG Cleric, and the player in question rolled a lvl 3 LE Warlock during our last session (his previous character died). The DM is now regretting letting him play an evil character as he has so far killed 2 npc's that may or may not have been important. Since I am playing the only "Good" character in the group (everyone else is different shades of neutral), and I was the only one to really make successful insight checks against his lies, my character knows he's evil.

I have read too many stories were good and evil characters are in the same group and no one is willing to do anything about it, or react as there character would, and it destroys the party. At this point during our next session I'm going to try and RP how my character react as best as I can, given everything he witnessed the warlock do. Which mean the warlock has to die, or I die in the attempt.

I find it disturbing that your next move, after what the warlock has done, is to go straight to "the criminal must die without a trial. In his sleep."

There are other ways to deal with evildoers besides murdering them in their sleep. You can do this thing if you want, but let's be clear about the fact that you're being as bad as he is from the perspective of the other members of the party. I think organizing a conspiracy to murder another PC in his sleep is far more likely to destroy your party than anything else you have read about in these "too many stories" you mention. For one thing, what do you expect the player to do once his PC is dead? It's like having a vengeful ghost hanging around.

That doesn't mean you have to take this lying down. For one thing, you're a cleric, which means you have access to Zone of Truth (or will, at 3rd level). You're in a perfect position to persuade everyone in the party of this guy's guilt. The question you need to ask yourself is, what do you want to do next? Do you really want him dead, or do you want him to behave, or do you want some sort of revenge on either the PC or the player? What's your ideal outcome and what is your BATNA and what is the ZOPA?

ObGitp: imagine if Roy felt compelled to murder Belkar early on just because Belkar is evil. Then Roy or Belkar or both are dead by strip #50. You'd miss out on 90% of the humor of the comic, and the party would probably just get slaughtered by Xykon the first time they face him, and this forum wouldn't exist. Your game will be much better if you find a way to leverage the tension between your guy and the LE wizard into a good story rather than an excuse to go vigilante.

[krugaan]

My character isn't LG he is CG. If he was LG I would probably go about it differently, by convincing the others of his crimes or perhaps getting a higher authority involved.

as for the IRL stuff, the DM allowed him to roll a LE character b/c she said his backstory would fit well within the story. She wasn't counting on him to start killing off NPC's. As far as what everyone knows about the character at this point is that he came to the underdark seeking power b/c his patron wills him to. The DM is kinda regretting letting him make the character now but will allow him to continue playing.

I also took the advice and contacted him through FB asking if he is expecting a confrontation between both of our characters, so we will see what he says.

I think you should allow him to continue playing too. Nothing you've said indicates he needs to die other than "the DM regrets it".

Again ... is there some other IRL dynamic that's going on here?

[Tanarii]

First off, how is he killing important NPCs while maintaining the 'Lawful' part of his alignment? Unless there is a clear reason why the killing is lawful (such as killing certain criminals or in self defense) then the Lawful part of his alignment should stop him in his tracks.

A Lawful Evil character will:

Repossess a families home without a twinge of guilt.
Slay anyone they are legally allowed to slay.
Use the law to get their way even if it hurts others.


A Lawful Evil character won't:

break the laws of the land to do something evil (or at least very rarely and only if they are sure to get away with it).
Do things that are good even if they are within the law unless they somehow benefit from them.


This character isn't playing their alignment. The DM should talk to the player about changing the alignment or explaining the alignments better to the player.None of that has anything to do with Lawful Evil in 5e.

Lawful Evil in 5e means their typical, but not consistent or perfect, behavior is:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

That's it. Anything else is your own personal interpretation of the words Lawful and Evil.

Edit: Guess I should have kept reading. TheTeaMustFlow beat me to it by 40 minutes lol


I find it disturbing that your next move, after what the warlock has done, is to go straight to "the criminal must die without a trial. In his sleep."Yeah that jumped out at me too. Especially given that he's claiming his character is the good one. OTOH CG is about acting as your conscience directs, with little regard to what others expect. Whether or not his conscience directs he slay the evil doer in his sleep is up to him (taking into the account the rest of his personality). And I assume his DM's input.

[mgshamster]

Which NPCs do you have remaining? What city are you trying to get to?

I am GMing this campaign for my own group, so I may have some insight for you.

[Overstrike]

There is no IRL conflict between me and him or the DM. I'm just try to figure out how a Chaotic Good Cleric trapped in the underdark would deal with a Lawful Evil Warlock. The cleric witnessed him murdering an innocent npc (a clearly evil act) but he was the only one to not believe it was an accident.

Chaotic Good is described as someone who acts as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

So I don't see my character being above killing him in his sleep if he feels it is for the greater good. Or his god feels that he should destroy evil in all its forms.

Also I spoke with him about it and his response was:

"I understand, I never get to attached with characters like this one but if it does come down to a battle.....it will be legendary!!"

also "PvP is never a bad move if its warranted sir"

so he seems fine with it, I'm just trying my best to RP my character as best I can. I have never played a "good" character before I always use to play neutral.

[Overstrike]

Which NPCs do you have remaining? What city are you trying to get to?

I am GMing this campaign for my own group, so I may have some insight for you.

I think there is about 3 npc's left. Sheushar(sp?) the fishman is taking us to the dark lake as he says there is a village there that can help us. that is about the extent of what we know.

[krugaan]

There is no IRL conflict between me and him or the DM. I'm just try to figure out how a Chaotic Good Cleric trapped in the underdark would deal with a Lawful Evil Warlock. The cleric witnessed him murdering an innocent npc (a clearly evil act) but he was the only one to not believe it was an accident.

Chaotic Good is described as someone who acts as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

So I don't see my character being above killing him in his sleep if he feels it is for the greater good. Or his god feels that he should destroy evil in all its forms.

Also I spoke with him about it and his response was:

"I understand, I never get to attached with characters like this one but if it does come down to a battle.....it will be legendary!!"

also "PvP is never a bad move if its warranted sir"

so he seems fine with it, I'm just trying my best to RP my character as best I can. I have never played a "good" character before I always use to play neutral.

Protip: Good people don't murder other people in their sleep, unless they're really, really, really evil.

Chaotic Good embraces the overall good: does this character help your survival and otherwise provide more benefit than not?

On the other hand, if you both want PVP, then go for it. Game is about having fun, after all.

Getting basically assassinated while you sleep is not what i'd call "fun" though.

If I were him i'd be sleeping pretty lightly from now on. And having my invisible familiar guarding my back while I slept.

Edit: what flavor of lock is he?

[MaxWilson]

Yeah that jumped out at me too. Especially given that he's claiming his character is the good one. OTOH CG is about acting as your conscience directs, with little regard to what others expect. Whether or not his conscience directs he slay the evil doer in his sleep is up to him (taking into the account the rest of his personality). And I assume his DM's input.

To clarify: what I find most disturbing about it is not related just to the OP. I'm disturbed by the idea that someone may be partaking so deeply of The Promise of D&D (https://stirgessuck.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/the-promise-of-dd/) (short version: "Let it be resolved that: The [brand] promise of D&D is that all the important problems in life can be solved with violence.") that it influences even the way they deal with other players at the same game table.

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that in a game like GURPS or Dresden Files, the OP's first reaction might have been more along the lines of "I'm going to try to get this guy arrested/I'm going to try to frame him for bogus crimes if I can't prove his real ones, and get him kicked out of the party." But if your whole game is about making attack rolls and depleting HP, maybe it isn't so surprising if HP depletion becomes your tool for social interactions with other players also.

So maybe it makes sense, but I find it disturbing anyway, in the exact same way that I find it disturbing when people talk about having 6-8 fights to the death per game session.

[NewDM]

Protip: Good people don't murder other people in their sleep, unless they're really, really, really evil.

In reality good people wouldn't murder someone for any reason unless there was no other choice at all and several lives (including their own) were at stake. They'd rather be really suspicious and not trust them, and try to convert them. Killing them would almost not be an option.


Chaotic Good embraces the overall good: does this character help your survival and otherwise provide more benefit than not?

On the other hand, if you both want PVP, then go for it. Game is about having fun, after all.

Getting basically assassinated while you sleep is not what i'd call "fun" though.

If I were him i'd be sleeping pretty lightly from now on. And having my invisible familiar guarding my back while I slept.

Yeah, but I'd be doing that anyway as an intelligent caster.

[Belac93]

Well, since he is cool with it, make it awesome. Don't just kill him in his sleep, do something really cool. If you need to, at the end of a battle on flimsy spider webs, drop his down a chasm after a monologue, do it! At least give him a fighting chance. Even if the odds are about 3x in your favour, its nice to have more than just; "you're dead."

[Overstrike]

Well, since he is cool with it, make it awesome. Don't just kill him in his sleep, do something really cool. If you need to, at the end of a battle on flimsy spider webs, drop his down a chasm after a monologue, do it! At least give him a fighting chance. Even if the odds are about 3x in your favour, its nice to have more than just; "you're dead."

yea that's true, I want everyone to have fun, but I also don't want to ignore how my character would act. I think it just depends on how the next session goes and what he does. If I see him do something evil, LG would probably try to make the others see it, NG would probably try and convert him, but CG just seems like he would be a zealot who would see no redemption in him, or am I wrong on that?

[wunderkid]

Ive played characters like this evil warlock many many times. And part of the fun is player baiting, seeing how far you can push the goody two shoes before a fight breaks out.

Murder in sleep is a lame way to go though.

Challenge him under the eyes of your God to honourable combat. The winner being the one who was right. Unless he confesses and repents of course.

Makes for a fun spectacle.

A sleep kill isn't fun for anyone and also not 'good'

(Remember an evil character can be 'good', sacrificing a child to save a village is an evil act but for a good cause, likewise an assassin who went around killing people to gain enough power to overthrow an evil emperor is 'evil' but to himself it's a necessary evil but for the greater good)

I disagree with talking to the player before hand ooc. Do it in character. Otherwise he won't be able to help but meta game.

Like I said my advice is in front of everyone confront him. Gives him a chance to explain. You know he lies. So even if he passes his deception roll against you that just means it sounds like the truth not that you automatically believe him. It is a small distinction but an important one.

[NewDM]

yea that's true, I want everyone to have fun, but I also don't want to ignore how my character would act. I think it just depends on how the next session goes and what he does. If I see him do something evil, LG would probably try to make the others see it, NG would probably try and convert him, but CG just seems like he would be a zealot who would see no redemption in him, or am I wrong on that?

The zealot part is a personal choice. They can choose to redeem people or kill them. the only requirement for CG is that they do whatever they want in order to do good. In this case good might mean converting the character to be good, or at least minimizing their evils.

[mgshamster]

I think there is about 3 npc's left. Sheushar(sp?) the fishman is taking us to the dark lake as he says there is a village there that can help us. that is about the extent of what we know.

Shuushar.

Your other options are Bupiddo the Derro, Sarith the Drow, Topsy & Turvy the deep gnome twins, Eldeth the Dwarf, Ront the Orc, Prince Derrendil the Elf/Quoggoth, Jimjar the deep gnome (gambler), and Stool the Myconid Sprout.

If I were in your position, I'd talk to Shuushar and get his opinion about what to do. He's wise and is able to resolve conflicts without violence. Your best bet will be to probably abandon him. Maybe tie him up and leave him behind, or send him down an alternate cavern to find the way on his own. Or, when you get to Sloobludop, have Shuushar's people arrest him. Good people don't execute others in their sleep without a chance to defend themselves, but you can use your group of people to kick him out or to render judgement upon him. Even though you're "chaotic" good, t doesn't mean you completey abandon the principles of society, you can allow yourself to use you small society of 3 NPCs and the rest of the party to stop him. If the others don't care that he's literally murdering people, then you should talk to the good people amongst the NPCs and abandon all the rest of them for better prospects.

[wunderkid]

A discussion with a friend put the d&d morality system into perspective for me.

The main point was basically this:

If a child was raised in a society where stealing was allowed and even encouraged as a test of skill while within that culture he would be 'good'

Joining normal culture he would be evil.

Same could be applied to murder and so on.

The only way to apply the morality system is to set absolutes. Murder in someone's sleep is an evil act.

A good character will find a different way to deal with the same situation.

Evil does not mean you're trying to take over the world or have evil plans. It means you're willing to undertake evil acts to achieve your goals.

Being good means you're not willing to take those acts.

Even if the end goal is the same.

[Overstrike]

The zealot part is a personal choice. They can choose to redeem people or kill them. the only requirement for CG is that they do whatever they want in order to do good. In this case good might mean converting the character to be good, or at least minimizing their evils.

you guys gave me a lot to think about, I don't know how it will all go down in the end, but I will try and at least make it exciting.

[Overstrike]

Shuushar.

Your other options are Bupiddo the Derro, Sarith the Drow, Topsy & Turvy the deep gnome twins, Eldeth the Dwarf, Ront the Orc, Prince Derrendil the Elf/Quoggoth, Jimjar the deep gnome (gambler), and Stool the Myconid Sprout.

If I were in your position, I'd talk to Shuushar and get his opinion about what to do. He's wise and is able to resolve conflicts without violence. Your best bet will be to probably abandon him. Maybe tie him up and leave him behind, or send him down an alternate cavern to find the way on his own. Or, when you get to Sloobludop, have Shuushar's people arrest him. Good people don't execute others in their sleep without a chance to defend themselves, but you can use your group of people to kick him out or to render judgement upon him. Even though you're "chaotic" good, t doesn't mean you completey abandon the principles of society, you can allow yourself to use you small society of 3 NPCs and the rest of the party to stop him. If the others don't care that he's literally murdering people, then you should talk to the good people amongst the NPCs and abandon all the rest of them for better prospects.

The NPC's that are alive are Shuushar, Sarith, and Jim Jar. The Warlock killed Prince Derrendil, and Bupiddo. Topsy & Turvy ran off during our escape and Eldeth, Ront, and Stool died.

[MaxWilson]

yea that's true, I want everyone to have fun, but I also don't want to ignore how my character would act. I think it just depends on how the next session goes and what he does. If I see him do something evil, LG would probably try to make the others see it, NG would probably try and convert him, but CG just seems like he would be a zealot who would see no redemption in him, or am I wrong on that?

There's a number of personalities that could fit within the "CG" portion of the alignment spectrum, so it really depends. Do you want to be a zealot? I mean, yeah, unapologetically taking matters into your own hands definitely smells chaotic, and the fact that you're doing it to save other people instead of to benefit yourself smells good. But there's a number of other ways you could handle this, if you wanted.

You could take it upon yourself to ensure that the warlock is never left alone with an NPC.
You could try to frame him for something and get him arrested and/or thrown out of the party.
You could confront the guy, ask him what his beef is, and threaten his gizzard if he kills anyone else on your watch.
You could confront the guy, ask him what his beef is, and offer him something he wants if he will leave the innocent NPCs alone.
You could confront the guy, make small talk with him and get to know him, listen to what he says, try to get him to confide in you and lay whatever demons make him murder people. (Or who knows, maybe he even had a good reason to kill the NPCs he killed. For all you know, he thinks one of them was a murderer and he was just taking pre-emptive action against them the way you wanted to take preemptive action against him!)
You could knock him unconscious while he's asleep and then hide him from the rest of the party until you all move on. Now he's having a solo adventure, and if he's lucky maybe a riddle contest (and then the One Ring of Power will wind up in his pocket!).
You could challenge him to a duel to "prove" who's telling the truth.
You could Command him to "Confess!"
You could interrogate him in a Zone of Truth.

[Corran]

Out of the Abyss takes place in the underdark, and we are nowhere near a city at this point. The party is currently lost and we are trying to find our way to some type of city while trying to lose our pursuers.
This bit is very important. Your group is in a dangerous place, and survival must come first. Taking out one of your party members reduces not only your own chances of survival, but those of your comrades as well. And a good and wise person like your cleric would not likely follow that course of action. My suggestion, confront the warlock in front of your party about his action and his lies, saying that you will no longer tolerate any further evil behaviour, all while stretching how important it is for all of you to stick together and pull through the many obstacles that lie ahead. If the warlock contiues with his evil deeds (or if the ones he has already commited are beyond redemption according to your character), then promise him that you will see that he will pay for his actions once you are all safe outside the underdark, but not before. And again, stretch how important it is to be united as long as you are in the Underdark. Naturally, none of this is the smartest thing to do, and it might be sth that will put your character in mortal danger from the warlock, but at least that is what a wise (perhaps ommit the part about promising him that he will pay for his crimes) good aligned character would do. Hopefully, your allies will stick by your words and actions and will defend you from the warlock, should he try to inflict any harm upon you. Murdering an ally (however fragile this alliance might be) in his sleep, is definitely not a good act, and I dare say in the case of your character, it would even be an alignment-changing kind of act.




......
Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?
.....

Well, since you asked, and since I felt like sharing, here...

There was this time, during the playtesting phase of 5e. I was playing a female human paladin, who had begun to acquire quite the reputation as the campaign unfolded, as one who zealously tried to find and punish corrupted members of the church she served (first campaign arc had the Bishop of the city the party was in to be secretly the villain behind everything, so thats how it started at least). We were some way into the campaign, when I invited a friend of mine who was completely new to dnd, to join our group and give it a try. He created a cleric of the same diety as my paladin, that was sent to help me with the mission of infiltrating a ruined fortress filled with undead, in order to find the source of this evil and eradicate it. The new player was a fresh wind as he offered a very entertaining rp, accompagnied ofc by all the randomness and chaotic evil actions that most new players bring with them. During the mission in the keep of undeads, he accidentally confessed one of his crimes. Upon hearing that, my relentless character became furious, and swore that she would make him go through a trial by the faith, and that she would see him hunged for his crimes, once ofc they were through with the mission that she was given by her church (all while expecting as if it was crystal clear that he would continue helping her with the mission like nothing was wrong - low intelligence score, you see). When another party member pointed out that the cleric might not provide his help, or he might even try to kill her in her sleep, she just replied that he is a coward who wouldnt dare to make anything that would make his position even worse (I think my int was 9 and my wis was 11). The cleric tried many tricks during the rest of the mission, all of them discrete and indirect, like trying to bribe me, or try to turn the rest of the party memebers against me either by the promise of gold or by trying to blackmail them. Fun times. Well, dont get me wrong, we were really having quite a fun time all of us, especially me and the cleric who kept on bickering each other about having the other person's character killed, we really enjoyed roleplaying this interparty conflict and everyone was ok with it, as it just spiced up and gave some extra depth to the campaign. After the mission, on our way back to our home city, we camped in the wilderness for the night, and during that night the cleric tried to flee when it was his time to stay on watch. The group's ranger who was secretly keeping an eye on him, chased after him and brought him back in handcuffs. When we eventually reached the city, and after several interations with the appropriate NPCs, the DM concluded the matter in a very compromising and dare I say, satisfying manner for all parties involved. You see, the cleric was coming from a very prominent family with a lot of influence over everyone that was important in that city (my idea :p), so the superior officer of my paladin gave her the bollocking and forced her to drop all the charges. At the same time, the cleric was treated accordingly by his family, who made it clear that this was a one-time thing that they would not take the trouble doing so ever again, all that while he was disinherited or sth like that. And ofc, he was forced to follow our group and serve at my character's pleasure. That way, she would keep him from bringing any more shame to his family, either by managing to change his ways or by taking his head if he repeated his past mistakes. Else, it would be her head. So......... the DM managed to keep the party alive without pushing the limits of his word to incomfortable lengths, all while keeping the party together. And boy did the campaign profit from it! Looking back into this, I cant exactly say if it was my paladin that changed the cleric towards the better, or the cleric that changed my paladin towards the worse, as the campaign progressed. But we did finally met up somewhere in the middle, and our party had some really good times for as long as the campaign lasted, before life finding a way once more to get in the way (until ofc several months later when we started our new campaign!).

[mgshamster]

The NPC's that are alive are Shuushar, Sarith, and Jim Jar. The Warlock killed Prince Derrendil, and Bupiddo. Topsy & Turvy ran off during our escape and Eldeth, Ront, and Stool died.

Shuushar is your best asset for advice on peaceful solutions. He's also your guide around Darklake. Jimjar is a good all around asset, and a decent person in general - so long as you engage in a bit of gambling. :)

Sarith is a mixed bag; he's confused and a bit concerned about survival, which you can use to your advantage, but he's also a drow and will betray you for personal gain if he feels he's in a position to do so. Alternatively, Sarth is a good asset for violence if you want someone to do your dirty work for you.

The three of them are actually good team mates to have to kicking the warlock out of the group.

[Overstrike]

Shuushar is your best asset for advice on peaceful solutions. He's also your guide around Darklake. Jimjar is a good all around asset, and a decent person in general - so long as you engage in a bit of gambling. :)

Sarith is a mixed bag; he's confused and a bit concerned about survival, which you can use to your advantage, but he's also a drow and will betray you for personal gain if he feels he's in a position to do so. Alternatively, Sarth is a good asset for violence if you want someone to do your dirty work for you.

The three of them are actually good team mates to have to kicking the warlock out of the group.

Actually we have kinda neglected interacting with the npc's much during the last session, and my character tended to favor shuushar most, so I think that would be the better course of action. No one really trusts Sarith, and I think everyone tends to forgets about Jim Jar.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'll start with a little background info, and follow up with questions that I have:

First up the group I am in is playing through the Out of the Abyss campaign. I am playing as a lvl 3 CG Cleric, and the player in question rolled a lvl 3 LE Warlock during our last session (his previous character died). The DM is now regretting letting him play an evil character as he has so far killed 2 npc's that may or may not have been important. Since I am playing the only "Good" character in the group (everyone else is different shades of neutral), and I was the only one to really make successful insight checks against his lies, my character knows he's evil.

I have read too many stories were good and evil characters are in the same group and no one is willing to do anything about it, or react as there character would, and it destroys the party. At this point during our next session I'm going to try and RP how my character react as best as I can, given everything he witnessed the warlock do. Which mean the warlock has to die, or I die in the attempt.

The plan so far, with the DM's approval, is I have convinced the groups fighter, who has a background as a mercenary, to help me kill him in his sleep. I promised him whatever he found on the body, which is a good amount of gold, as his payment to which he agreed. During our next long rest, the merc will offer to be on watch while the rest of us sleep, this shouldn't arouse any suspicion from the warlock. During the night the merc will wake me up, and I will then cast silence on the warlock. This should encompass the other players as well so they will not hear what is going on and shouldn't wake up to help or hinder. The merc will then attack the warlock with his great sword, which should give him advantage, and be an auto crit. We roll for initiative, and the only actions I can see the warlock taking is a move to stand up from prone, and an action to make a basic attack, disengage or run away. Then we should be able to finish him off on our next turns.

My first question is, the Warlock has an ability called armor of shadows that he can cast at will, that doesn't require a spell slot or material components. Does he still have to meet the V and S requirements in order to cast it?

Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?

Third, is it a good plan? The DM doesn't want to come off as playing favorites but she does realize that the characters are going to have to RP this out. Do you guys have any suggestions to increase my chance of success? *note the other players may or may not side with the warlock, and would probably not join me in killing him which is why I didn't recruit them in on the plan*

If you are intent on doing this despite the out of character hazards consummate with killing another players character, then I would advise you to take the first watch, have the mercenary volunteer for the second watch, and be the one to wake him up.

If you really have no fast allies, I wouldn't rely on the good will of a mercenary willing to kill another ally for a little money.

I think your best move would be to wait for a combat situation and screw the warlock over then.

[Beowulf DW]

you guys gave me a lot to think about, I don't know how it will all go down in the end, but I will try and at least make it exciting.

I tend to see zealotry from LG characters more than CG characters, mostly because LG characters hold themselves to standards and codes that may cause more extreme behavior if they cling to those codes too tightly.

But that is ONLY my own experience. All alignments are capable of "going off the deep end" but some are more prone to it than others. The fact is, killing somebody that hasn't even threatened you isn't so easily justifiable. Your character doesn't even seem to know WHY the warlock killed those people. It could be a perfectly...well, not good, but reasonable explanation.

Which brings me to another point: resorting to lethal force right off the bat is not something generally associated with "good." Chastise him, accuse him, sure. But paying a mercenary to kill him in his sleep...You've strayed into evil tyrant territory.

Sorry if that came off a bit strong.

[Nisheri]

(Hello everyone it's my first time posting here. I have been lurking around here for some time now, it's my first time feeling I have to post something, other times my options pretty much aligned with the others or at least with some people.)

I have a bit different option about the matter.

I think your character's inital method was a very good take on the matter. You are in a grim dark place, death lurks around every corner while slavers are at the party's tail, newly joined person starts killing the members of the group, he is a threat. Killing him in an efficient, quick and safe way is the most reasonable way of doing thing. It's completely within the alignment of your character.

For alignment point of view, cheap dirty tactics are the tool of the CG characters, the generally CG elves wouldn't give up a chance of swooping down on a sleeping orc party that just raided the village they live in, might actually wait for an opportunity like that to arise, especially if they are outnumbered. Even a LG vengeance paladin would do something like that against the creatures he sworn her oath against. A confrontation might fraction the party too much or may lead to more infighting, and thats bad for survival, he was clearly manipulative after all (from the characters point of view).
Killing someone is evil, but sometimes necessary, LG person might try to do it the most fair way like a duel. A CG doesn't care about what is fair, stabby stabby in the back is no worse then cracking someone's skull with a mace from the front.
If your character decides to confront him why take chances? You can tie him up, take away his weapons...

From a philosophical point of view an evil deed can be measured by how much you need to do it to ensure survival or victory if we are talking about things like warcrimes. Do the your character fear the consequences of letting him fall into Drow hands? If you just let him go: is it possible he might shadow the party and slay you all one by one? Your character should decide such things... or just act on the whim he just had, and he doesn't need to overthink it, he is chaotic after all.

From the story point of view its very good. The RP after the deed can be very good RP, if the characters or the NPCs actually care, or if they do not then the just another one bites the dust attitude can set the tone very well. A confrontation with him can be actually even better RP if your character is willing to take the risk (how persuasive can he be against a very manipulative evil vile demonic warlock, if he feel confident in his victory he might do so).

From an actual player satisfaction point of view, quick one sided fights (or assassinations) or DM's narration of the actual murder are the least painful ways to the actual player, the less dice roll the better. Actual duels are too long, depend too much on luck (caster save or suck spells mainly), or feel one sided from the start. This is actually the worst when the out come is inevitable and take a long time anyway, like a formal duel to death between a fighter and a rogue both with high AC.

The main problem with this act is that the player if not talked to beforehand have to roll a character on the spot after the murder, and that can be frustrating for the player. I would advise your DM to tell any player who bring such an evil character to create a secondary character if such issue might happen ever again. If he is okay with PVP then he should tell the players, so they know it from the beginning not just when they are already dead. Asking another player if you can kill his character feels very immersion breaking for me, better set the rules first, so it can be no problem later.

My group usually does infighting, intrigue and PK quite often, in round DM sandbox campaigns (every session someone else is the DM) it can get extremely bloody (one of my player's character have killed half of the other PC he ever met). Mailing around even if no actual PVP is happening. Its good for creating constant tension, its absolutely wonderful for very dark campaigns (like Out of the Abyss). People usually even leave the room to go smoke and chat or make some food if their characters are not present in the scene, even if its something trivial like someone talking to a bartender when their characters are already passed out. It feels less meta-gaming than talking about everything OOC.

[djreynolds]

Zone of truth is a spell on your spell list. Cast it, and just happens to be in it. 15ft radius vs a charisma save he is proficient in


2nd-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action; Range: 60 feet; Components: V, S; Duration: 10 minutes

You create a magical zone that guards against deception in a 15-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range. Until the spell ends, a creature that enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius. You know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw.

An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Here's my thoughts on this:

So he has killed two presumably innocent people in cold blood? And hidden it from almost everyone, showing no remorse?
Then you should think; would he do it again? I imagine the answer is yes.

So considering that if he were an NPC, would you kill him? Would your other party members? I imagine the answer is also yes.
A LG might attempt to do it by trial, a CG would probably take the course you are considering, but that NPC would end up dead.

So, should you give his character special treatment over other people, simply because he's controlled by a player?

Work out that one out for yourself.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Zone of truth is a spell on your spell list. Cast it, and just happens to be in it. 15ft radius vs a charisma save he is proficient in


2nd-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action; Range: 60 feet; Components: V, S; Duration: 10 minutes

You create a magical zone that guards against deception in a 15-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range. Until the spell ends, a creature that enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius. You know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw.

An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth.

The charisma saving throw and the target's awareness of the spell are something of a problem, but they can be alleviated if you get the rest of the party's backing for a proper interrogation. Since you know whether he passes or fails, just either cast it until he rolls badly or have the fighter put a sharp implement to his head and demand he does not resist.

Another option might be to challenge him to a duel. But whatever you do, don't murder him in his sleep without warning. Firstly, it's not a very Good thing to do (now, as I've said, this doesn't necessarily mean your Good character wouldn't do it, but cold-blooded murder should give you some pause), and far more importantly, it isn't fun. If nothing else, give the character a chance to speak his peace and die standing.

[krugaan]

Here's my thoughts on this:

So he has killed two presumably innocent people in cold blood? And hidden it from almost everyone, showing no remorse?
Then you should think; would he do it again? I imagine the answer is yes.

So considering that if he were an NPC, would you kill him? Would your other party members? I imagine the answer is also yes.
A LG might attempt to do it by trial, a CG would probably take the course you are considering, but that NPC would end up dead.

So, should you give his character special treatment over other people, simply because he's controlled by a player?

Work out that one out for yourself.

THAT is not fair criteria. NPCs are murderhobo fodder.

[djreynolds]

The charisma saving throw and the target's awareness of the spell are something of a problem, but they can be alleviated if you get the rest of the party's backing for a proper interrogation. Since you know whether he passes or fails, just either cast it until he rolls badly or have the fighter put a sharp implement to his head and demand he does not resist.

Another option might be to challenge him to a duel. But whatever you do, don't murder him in his sleep without warning. Firstly, it's not a very Good thing to do (now, as I've said, this doesn't necessarily mean your Good character wouldn't do it, but cold-blooded murder should give you some pause), and far more importantly, it isn't fun. If nothing else, give the character a chance to speak his peace and die standing.

He's gotta find away to catch him in a lie that is irrefutable, and the warlock would have a good chance to make the saving throw... that's even better, because now he has a chance to get away with it... especially if does make and then lies that he didn't do it and throws off the cleric and murders him, the cleric, in his sleep.

That would be great.

Yeah evil!!!!!

[KorvinStarmast]

Killing someone is evil, but sometimes necessary
Only half of that sentence is correct.

I keep seeing the sentiment "Killing someone is evil" and would remind everyone that this is a game that involves a great deal of killing by design. Within game context, killing is not inherently evil. Every class is built with killing as a primary purpose, regardless of alignment, and built as adventurers so the blanket "but it's in self defense" does not work.

That sentiment ignores two things:

the game isn't simulating real life in 20th century or 21st century Europe
in fiction and movies and TV (which is where D&D originates, stories) a great many people and things get slain who most often would not in real life in a civil society. Why do they die? Because it's part of the narrative. (Westerns are replete with this, as are samurai movies).


To give you an idea of how out of context this sentiment is, thieves were frequently hanged in medieval England, a time and context far closer to the Swords and Sorcery genre this game fits into. (Heck, the 19th century American west saw horse thieves hanged)

In fictional settings, killing is less of a taboo.

As an example, take a look at all of the cop buddy movies out there. The amount of gunplay and dead people is orders of magnitude greater than actual use of weapons and deadly force by cops (though there are still shootings, and on occasion they are wrong and get cops sent to jail). Were any of those RL scenarios, every one of them (*even Dirty Harry) would be off the force or even serving time. (My Brother in Law, IRL, is a career cop. His disdain for movie and TV cop shows is pretty deep).

If the simple act of killing is inherently, evil close up the box and go play something else: you've just eliminated about half to two thirds of the gameplay and about a third of possible alignments.
=============================================

Back to the discussion of PvP: if you want to kill the warlock, monster kill might be a better way to do it. (What happens if the warlock gets held (hold person) while a monster is attacking the warlock?)

Since you have inter-character disputes (an old trope in stories/films/shows) I'd suggest the alternate approach previously mentioned: you are all in the Underdark, a very dangerous place, so as a TEAM you can't afford to have this kind of friction. The route ahead is some In Character RP to confront the Warlock and make the appeal to teamwork while on this mission. One character arbitrarily killing of whomever puts the entire party at risk if whomever could be an ally/aid to the party.

The RP challenge for you? Get all of the rest of the party on your side. That's step 1.

[Gtdead]

Don't kill him. Restrain him and keep him under guard. He does everything under guard, he marches with his hands tied (his eyes too). And if you get attacked, throw him to the wolves. Eventually he will either come around and start being helpful instead of murdery, or he will die.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

He's gotta find away to catch him in a lie that is irrefutable, and the warlock would have a good chance to make the saving throw... that's even better, because now he has a chance to get away with it... especially if does make and then lies that he didn't do it and throws off the cleric and murders him, the cleric, in his sleep.

That would be great.

Yeah evil!!!!!

You know whether he passes or fails the save. And it really shouldn't be hard to catch him in a lie, or force him to not give a straight answer, at which point you have the fighter cut his throat or knock him out, gag him and bind his hands. Being chaotic and a long way away from any civilised authorities that might object is never having to say 'presumption of innocence'.

[Archmage_Storm]

I also run Out of the Abyss. But we have had little character conflict. Aside from the fact that the players killed the insane NPC's, inner party conflict is at a minimum. That however doesn't mean that it's peaceful. 5 PC's have already died. But from natural causes of course (monsters). If a PC needs to go, I do not recommend targeting him/her specifically. I learned from previous campaigns that you should not actively try to kill them. Nor should you bend fait in their way to survive. I am a player and a DM, and in my DM's campaign for a long time he didn't want PC's to die and would bend things in our way to keep us alive. Unless you were stupid, you were guaranteed to survive.

A few months later I ran princes of the apocalypse. The final battle of the campaign was intense. It eventually came down to the closest odds I have ever seen. 3 players dead, 2 unconscious (but stable), and 1 standing with only 1 HP. The remaining bad guy was a servant of the main threat, and only had 2 HP. It was the PC's turn. Needless to say he got a 1 and a 2 on an advantage roll. I could have let him succeed. But simply said the attack misses, because it did. Bad guy rolled 2 attacks, but he also rolled a 1 and a 2. So the PC attacked again, hit, killed the BBEG, and saved the unconscious members of the party.

My advice is be fair. They rated it as my best session yet. Even though 3 PC's died, they succeeded because they did their best, and it worked.

Although, if a PC is causing problems and needs to go, give him/her a reason to leave the party. Death isn't always the solution to a DM's problems. If it escalates have him/her make that character a villain. Whether you or the player control the character is up to you.

[Tallis]

To the people who have suggested party survival as a reason to keep him alive: I have to ask, what if he was an NPC and the 2 he murdered were PCs? Because IC that's about what the situation is. Someone they just met has killed 2 people that have been with the group for (probably) weeks. The PC/NPC divide is an OOC one.

As for killing him in his sleep being worse than killing him face to face? I'd say that's an ethical issue not a moral one. The point is to remove the threat. Killing him in his sleep is the most efficient way to do that. Confront him face to face and lose? Then you're dead and the threat to your allies is still there.
I also wonder if the characters in the game world know that he's a warlock and that that most likely means he's sold his soul to some great evil.

I'm not saying there aren't other options. You could try to confront him and channel in his murderous impulses for the greater good of the group but I'd never trust him and I'd be ready to take him out whenever it became necessary.

I'd also talk to the group and see how everyone feels about intragroup conflict. Is this kind of thing cool with everybody or would you all prefer to stick to characters that work together and focus on the storyline? It doesn't have to be the same for every campaign you play but it makes things easier if everyone knows what kind of game to expect going in.

[Nisheri]

Only half of that sentence is correct.

I keep seeing the sentiment "Killing someone is evil" and would remind everyone that this is a game that involves a great deal of killing by design. Within game context, killing is not inherently evil. Every class is built with killing as a primary purpose, regardless of alignment, and built as adventurers so the blanket "but it's in self defense" does not work.

That sentiment ignores two things:

the game isn't simulating real life in 20th century or 21st century Europe
in fiction and movies and TV (which is where D&D originates, stories) a great many people and things get slain who most often would not in real life in a civil society. Why do they die? Because it's part of the narrative. (Westerns are replete with this, as are samurai movies).


To give you an idea of how out of context this sentiment is, thieves were frequently hanged in medieval England, a time and context far closer to the Swords and Sorcery genre this game fits into. (Heck, the 19th century American west saw horse thieves hanged)

In fictional settings, killing is less of a taboo.

As an example, take a look at all of the cop buddy movies out there. The amount of gunplay and dead people is orders of magnitude greater than actual use of weapons and deadly force by cops (though there are still shootings, and on occasion they are wrong and get cops sent to jail). Were any of those RL scenarios, every one of them (*even Dirty Harry) would be off the force or even serving time. (My Brother in Law, IRL, is a career cop. His disdain for movie and TV cop shows is pretty deep).

If the simple act of killing is inherently, evil close up the box and go play something else: you've just eliminated about half to two thirds of the gameplay and about a third of possible alignments.


By design its not that easy to kill someone if we are not using some quick death rule. It's just easier that way, consider a party taking out some cultists in a dungeon. They take them down, they start dying you might help them survive or at least when they finish the dungeon pick up the ones that didn't bleed to death and take them to a city and give them to the authorities. You can easily DM like that, PC-s built for defeating enemies in combat not outright killing (well except from some like assassin).

The main point of killing something like an evil dragon, wizard or ogre, is long time survival or protection of the weak. Usually these creatures are soo powerful it's hard to imagine imprisoning or restraining them, and evil beyond the hope of redemption (but paladins should at least give them a chance, as the usual epic speech :smallsmile:).

I feel most human in DND world is leaning toward neutrality, and don't view slaying evil as an evil thing, everyone being good is more like a illusion. We are dealing with some very powerful creatures here after all, we can consider it like a long time self defence.

But how average people view things (or powerful ones) doesn't make a wrong right. Devils are Angels that became evil, after too much war with the Demons after all. And Devils don't view themselves as evil, and mainly fight against chaos (their original goal) not the heavens. This is why it's so easy to make a Paladin break her oath, you give him only bad choices. The world doesn't care every choice was bad.

The world of DnD deals with extreme alignments, the creatures that live in it don't.

[Corran]

To the people who have suggested party survival as a reason to keep him alive: I have to ask, what if he was an NPC and the 2 he murdered were PCs? Because IC that's about what the situation is. Someone they just met has killed 2 people that have been with the group for (probably) weeks. The PC/NPC divide is an OOC one.

Well.....playing the devil's advocate here, if the benefits (help the warlock can offer) outweight the negatives (fear of the warlock going on a killing spree again), the rational thing would be to postpone any drastic action until you are safe on the surface. Ofc, how can you trust that the warlock wont murder you next after what you have come to understand about his actions? Hmmm, maybe a zone of truth every day could ensure that you are safe from any premeditated murder.

But yes, tbh, you are absolutely right, if the roles of PCs and NPCs were reversed in this case, there wouldnt even be a discussion right now. Still, you can just convince the party to abandon this crazy murderer, instead of killing him on his sleep, how hard would that be? Unless ofc you are fearing that he will chase after you with evil intentions, or unless you really want to exact justice/vengeance for his crimes.

[tieren]

Kill him in his sleep.

If you try to confront him you will become the next target of the LE murderer in your midst.

[krugaan]

Kill him in his sleep.

Yes... yes...

/handrub
/cackle

...then his PC won't even be an issue anymore.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/lightning
/cue ominous music

(this is, of course, a joke. don't do this in real life, ever.)

[Jarlhen]

Tell him to bugger off? I'm not sure why you have to kill him per se. I mean if the rest of the party doesn't realize that he's evil and you murder him why wouldn't they turn on you? I'd get the rest of the team on board then tell the warlock to **** off and go back to wherever he came from. Not your problem he's in the underdark. But I can't help but feel that a Chaotic Good character wouldn't hesitate a bit about committing cold blooded murder when there are other options. Up to you of course but I'd definitely consider simply voting him off the island. There'd be no difference other than that the DM can bring him back later in the campaign to mess with you guys.

[Rhaegar]

Things you will want to consider in your plan: What happens if he manages to break your concentration on silence before you can kill him? What can you do to minimize the chances of him breaking your concentration? It will look really bad if he gets a spell off, breaks your concentration, the silence falls, and the party wakes up before you can kill him. You will have some awkward explaining to do.

Him breaking your silence and screaming for help from the rest of the party is the only thing i can see that could seriously ruin your plan, prevent that and you should be good.

[Fighting_Ferret]

If you do attack him... he will most likely suffer from the unconcious condition for at least the first blow... and the prone condition until he gets a turn. Given that you are initiating a surprise round... you will get at least 2 rounds of hits on him before he can act. The first attack which is an automatic critical hit.

Also keep in mind that you don't have to deal lethal damage and can instead knock him into unconsciousness, then make a DC 10 healing check to stabilize him, restrain him and then ask your questions in a ZoT that he can't walk away from.

[Segev]

Murder-like execution is an awfully drastic measure. Have you not challenged him over this already? Call him out, and never be willing to have him awake when you're asleep. If it's really so bad that it's him or you...tell the party so.

And yes, discuss this OOC. I know it's hard to do, sometimes, because it means that a recalcitrant player of a problem PC will take that as a metagame warning and ramp up his defenses or try to strike first, but if he's that big of a problem...this is why you hash it out OOC. Either the problem is solved by OOC agreement (with IC follow-up), or it means something needs to be done about changing the OOC composition of the gaming group.

[MBControl]

Not sure of the environment of the campaign, but if possible, I would alert the authorities of his crimes, and set him up to be captured, and brought to trail, and perhaps executed. You may even have the group put him on trail themselves. Good old fashioned outlander justice.

This should keep you true to your GOOD alignment, and create more story lines in the process.

I think the only time it would make sense for a good PC to murder another, is if the evil PC was in the act of evil, not asleep at camp. That's just premeditated murder.

[mgshamster]

Not sure of the environment of the campaign, but if possible, I would alert the authorities of his crimes, and set him up to be captured, and brought to trail, and perhaps executed. You may even have the group put him on trail themselves. Good old fashioned outlander justice.

This should keep you true to your GOOD alignment, and create more story lines in the process.

I think the only time it would make sense for a good PC to murder another, is if the evil PC was in the act of evil, not asleep at camp. That's just premeditated murder.

They're in the underdark. Mile's below the surface through a network of caves. They're lost. They're alone (except for whoever is in their small band - the PCs plus a Drow accused of murder, a pacifist fishman monk, and a deep gnome with a gambling obsession). And they're being hunted by Drow after escaping a slavery ring.

The only reason they're able to survive is because some of them are able to use magic or skill to find food and water (mostly comprised of edible fungus and whatever meat they can scavenge from encounters with monsters). And the only reason they're free is because they've managed to, this far, keep ahead of their Drow slaver hunters.

It's this situation that another player feels it's perfectly fine to start killing off the others in the group. It's this situation where a CG cleric feels it's acceptable to fight fire with fire and murder the murderer for the survival of his companions.

[Rakoa]

Why are people so upset about this plan? It sounds perfectly Chaotic Good to me. Kill an Evil person (Good) in their sleep (Chaotic) and lie about it afterwards (Chaotic) to keep the group on track and moving towards survival (Good). What MBControl suggests above is just Lawful, not Good.

[krugaan]

Why are people so upset about this plan? It sounds perfectly Chaotic Good to me. Kill an Evil person (Good) in their sleep (Chaotic) and lie about it afterwards (Chaotic) to keep the group on track and moving towards survival (Good). What MBControl suggests above is just Lawful, not Good.

Most people would balk at killing someone in their sleep.

[Rakoa]

Most people would balk at killing someone in their sleep.

Most people would balk at adventuring. Being an uncommon practice doesn't make it Evil.

[Beowulf DW]

Most people would balk at adventuring. Being an uncommon practice doesn't make it Evil.

Condemning without knowing all the facts certainly is, though.

[RickAllison]

Condemning without knowing all the facts certainly is, though.

He murdered two people. That might be proof enough to justify it.

OP, what is the alignment of your deity? Your plan may get you booted to Chaotic Neutral (Good person, Evil means, etc.) and that may or may not fly at your table for a NG god though it is just fine for a CG.

[krugaan]

Most people would balk at adventuring. Being an uncommon practice doesn't make it Evil.

You're comparing apples with murdering someone in their sleep.

[hmjesus]

Good luck with your assassination. You can play it out as greater good or some form of internal conflict, just so long as it doesn't alienate the player. Silencing the Warlock sounds like a solid plan, and I daresay you could ready an action to follow up after the Fighter's attacks to get a couple of extra cheap shots in before the warlock can respond.

[RickAllison]

You're comparing apples with murdering someone in their sleep.

Why not murder him in his sleep with apples? Be creative!

I'm thinking of spring-loaded barbs inserted into the core. Shove it in his mouth and he will be barely able to scream, much less cast a spell.

Oooo or hollowed out apple slices filled with Greek Fire!!

[krugaan]

Why not murder him in his sleep with apples? Be creative!

I'm thinking of spring-loaded barbs inserted into the core. Shove it in his mouth and he will be barely able to scream, much less cast a spell.

Oooo or hollowed out apple slices filled with Greek Fire!!

Hah, or, for a simpler application, insert apple in mouth, cast enlarge.

There's also the little known wizard spell, Drown in Applesauce

[hmjesus]

Do you have Create Water and a barrel? Because you could just drown the Warlock in a silenced barrel full of holy water.

[krugaan]

We should try Underdark methods of elimination.

Give him tons of precious gems until he attracts a wild xorn!

[hmjesus]

Could throw him in a sack with a Svirfneblin?

Or feed him to a Myconid?

[Ewhit]

First the DM should talk to him before the game and resolve the issue.
Your not really playing lawful evil but more neutral evil or chaotic evil.
Explain a little bit on what le would do
If that doesn't work the DM should give the character a dream see him being sacrificed by demons abd have them exclaim his evilness caused the demons to win.
If that doesn't work then have him get captured abd out most of the game. He will get the hint.
If not then have his party judge him fir his crimes. Kick him out or kill him if he fights.
The last thing you should do is kill him and if you do not in a secret evil plan

[Rakoa]

You're comparing apples with murdering someone in their sleep.

You're comparing the rarity of a practice with the morality of a practice. Killing an Evil person for their Evil actions is a Good act, regardless of whether it is performed Chaotically or Lawfully.

[krugaan]

You're comparing the rarity of a practice with the morality of a practice. Killing an Evil person for their Evil actions is a Good act, regardless of whether it is performed Chaotically or Lawfully.

Not in my book it's not, especially not while their sleeping, defenseless, and only on the judgement of one person.

edit: and wait a minute, you're the one who started comparing rarity :smallannoyed:

[Rakoa]

Not in my book it's not, especially not while their sleeping, defenseless, and only on the judgement of one person.

How many times do I have to tell you? Murder while sleeping is Chaotic, not Evil.

[mgshamster]

Not in my book it's not, especially not while their sleeping, defenseless, and only on the judgement of one person.

Let's not forget that the other characters don't actually know he's murdered anyone. All they know is some of their companions died or went missing, the the cleric claims he knows that new guy is evil and is lying about what he knows regarding their dead/missing companions.

No one else knows anything. The good aligned cleric only knows this guy is evil (but so is Sarith, another one of their companions, and that he believes the guy is lying. Everyone else has to view it as a he-said-she-said situation, as none of them passed their insight check when the guy lied.

[mgshamster]

How many times do I have to tell you? Murder while sleeping is Chaotic, not Evil.

Considering it's just an opinion and that it runs contrary to his opinion, you can assert it as many times as you like. Your opinionated assertion won't change his mind.

[krugaan]

Considering it's just an opinion and that it runs contrary to his opinion, you can assert it as many times as you like. Your opinionated assertion won't change his mind.

This.

You can tell it to me more, if you like, but it won't change anything.

[Rakoa]

There's no opinion here. Lawful alignments are associated with codes such as honour. To kill a defenseless opponent is an honourless act. That doesn't make it an Evil one. I've established reasons to support this act as a firmly Chaotic Good one. Just because you want to say "nuh uh" does nothing to prove your point or disprove mine. He's taking this extreme action to benefit his deceived party members and free them all from his influence. There's nothing Evil here.

[The Glyphstone]

There's no opinion here. Lawful alignments are associated with codes such as honour. To kill a defenseless opponent is an honourless act. That doesn't make it an Evil one. I've established reasons to support this act as a firmly Chaotic Good one. Just because you want to say "nuh uh" does nothing to prove your point or disprove mine. He's taking this extreme action to benefit his deceived party members and free them all from his influence. There's nothing Evil here.

Killing the helpless/defenseless is one of the defining traits of Evil, for most people. Someone who is asleep qualifies for both of those, even if they are also Evil.

[krugaan]

There's no opinion here. I disagree.

Lawful alignments are associated with codes such as honour. Lawful alignments are associated with whatever set of cultural laws you choose to follow. "Honour" may be one of them.

To kill a defenseless opponent is an honourless act. I'd say so.

That doesn't make it an Evil one. I disagree.

I've established reasons to support this act as a firmly Chaotic Good one. Not good ones, by my reckoning.

Just because you want to say "nuh uh" does nothing to prove your point or disprove mine. So what? This is unprovable. It's nice that you think the issue is so black and white. I wish things were that simple.

He's taking this extreme action to benefit his deceived party members and free them all from his influence. There's nothing Evil here.I disagree.

In short ... I disagree.

[Rakoa]

Killing the helpless/defenseless is one of the defining traits of Evil, for most people. Someone who is asleep qualifies for both of those, even if they are also Evil.

I'm afraid I just don't see it. There's no malicious intent, just the dispatching of a dangerous murderer. He's not torturing the man, or taking joy in his deed, and he tried everything he could already to convince his party of the threat sodo it be handled by other means. Quickly finishing him off, with a minimal amount of pain as he sleeps, seems to be the best option to keep the party safe and eliminate the threat.

As for you, krugaan, feel free to disagree all you want if that makes you happy. There's no value to be gained from responding further to one so obstinate and yet unwilling to engage in debate.

[krugaan]

As for you, krugaan, feel free to disagree all you want if that makes you happy. There's no value to be gained from responding further to one so obstinate and yet unwilling to engage in debate.

The irony is so thick here it's attracting rust monsters.

Anyway, I do believe this statement to be factually correct.

I hope the OP tells us what happened?

If i were the warlock, i would have a specific counter in mind for such an eventuality...

[RickAllison]

The irony is so thick here it's attracting rust monsters.

The kicker is that while he is obstinate, he is at least engaging in a debate about it, defending his points and calling out the flaws he sees in those of others. This is opposed to comments like... Well, like the one I'm replying to. These serve to insult without contributing anything beyond irritation to the discussion.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm afraid I just don't see it. There's no malicious intent, just the dispatching of a dangerous murderer. He's not torturing the man, or taking joy in his deed, and he tried everything he could already to convince his party of the threat sodo it be handled by other means. Quickly finishing him off, with a minimal amount of pain as he sleeps, seems to be the best option to keep the party safe and eliminate the threat.

As for you, krugaan, feel free to disagree all you want if that makes you happy. There's no value to be gained from responding further to one so obstinate and yet unwilling to engage in debate.

It's still an Evil act, or at the very best a dark grey shade of Neutral. This is the cold-blooded butchering of a helpless, defenseless person, who if confronted openly and permitted to defend themselves could cause additional pain and suffering/death before being brought down. The thing about Chaotic Good is that they look to the 'greater good', and are willing to occasionally slip into immoral behavior as long as the net outcome is worth it. So it can be both Neutral/Evil and perfectly appropriate for CG to do as long as they don't make a habit of it, under the 'alignment is not a straightjacket' clause.

[krugaan]

The kicker is that while he is obstinate, he is at least engaging in a debate about it, defending his points and calling out the flaws he sees in those of others. This is opposed to comments like... Well, like the one I'm replying to. These serve to insult without contributing anything beyond irritation to the discussion.

Yeah, it was short because i had to leave work.

I thought i had voiced my concerns about this much earlier, but in short:

- he has done nothing to harm the party, so any claim that it is being done for the benefit of the party is questionable or null, or, given their current location and predicament, outright false
- all the blah about murdering someone during sleep is evil
- judgement of "death penalty", particularly by only a single party who is acting on a good deal of out of character information from the DM, is very questionable

Noone is arguing about chaotic, that is quite clear. The definition of good is in question, especially who gets to decide the status of a person, under what conditions, and particularly how valid one's claim to ultimate moral authority.

To keep this discussion on topic, I shall eliminate the source of the conflict on my end and pose the two important questions:

1) what is "good" in terms of DnD alignment?
2) who gets to decide if you are "good"?

My answers:

1) Good in terms of DnD is the focus of one's efforts. Evil focuses on self, good focuses on others.
2) The DM, naturally, since s/he is the present adjudicator of the world.

I would like to point out that alignment in DnD is almost the opposite of "alignment" in the real world. Good and evil are entirely cultural constructs, and thus those labels can only properly be applied by those other than yourself. On the other hand, your actions are as you choose. In the fantasy world, all too often we pick alignment and let it dictate our actions, as this case clearly shows.

Thoughts?

[RickAllison]

It's still an Evil act, or at the very best a dark grey shade of Neutral. This is the cold-blooded butchering of a helpless, defenseless person, who if confronted openly and permitted to defend themselves could cause additional pain and suffering/death before being brought down. The thing about Chaotic Good is that they look to the 'greater good', and are willing to occasionally slip into immoral behavior as long as the net outcome is worth it. So it can be both Neutral/Evil and perfectly appropriate for CG to do as long as they don't make a habit of it, under the 'alignment is not a straightjacket' clause.

I think this is a good point. It isn't really Chaotic Good to kill him in his sleep, but it's something a CG person can do.

I had a NG rogue who was willing to torture a man for information by dripping acid on his forehead. Was it Good? Heck, no. Was it for Good purposes? Oh yes. We saved the population of two villages because of it, but he knew that it was an awful thing to do for the sake doing Good.

[Tallis]

- he has done nothing to harm the party, so any claim that it is being done for the benefit of the party is questionable or null, or, given their current location and predicament, outright false

He has killed 2 members of the party.


- all the blah about murdering someone during sleep is evil

I tend to take the side that says if it is acceptable to kill someone at all then doing it the smart way does not make it less acceptable. Executions are preformed on helpless people. (If you're anti-death penalty that's another discussion)


- judgement of "death penalty", particularly by only a single party who is acting on a good deal of out of character information from the DM, is very questionable

He witnessed the 2 murders. In character in the game.


Noone is arguing about chaotic, that is quite clear. The definition of good is in question, especially who gets to decide the status of a person, under what conditions, and particularly how valid one's claim to ultimate moral authority.

As a cleric of his deity he is the only authority from his church on site. He could very well consider it his duty to his god to see justice done in these extreme circumstances.


1) what is "good" in terms of DnD alignment?
2) who gets to decide if you are "good"?

My answers:

1) Good in terms of DnD is the focus of one's efforts. Evil focuses on self, good focuses on others.
2) The DM, naturally, since s/he is the present adjudicator of the world.

I would like to point out that alignment in DnD is almost the opposite of "alignment" in the real world. Good and evil are entirely cultural constructs, and thus those labels can only properly be applied by those other than yourself. On the other hand, your actions are as you choose. In the fantasy world, all too often we pick alignment and let it dictate our actions, as this case clearly shows.

Thoughts?

The problem here is that we each have our own morals and we use them to define what each alignment means so every one of us will have a slightly different definition of each alignment. That lead to the never ending discussions of alignment that keep popping up.
In this particular case though he tried to show his companions the threat that the warlock poses but failed and is now taking extreme measures to protect the group. In other words he is focused on others which by the definition above is good. The methods he uses are not relevant.

[krugaan]

He has killed 2 members of the party.

NPCs, not PCs, random people they met in the Underdark. One was "accidental" (cough) and the other was lying.


I tend to take the side that says if it is acceptable to kill someone at all then doing it the smart way does not make it less acceptable. Executions are preformed on helpless people. (If you're anti-death penalty that's another discussion)

That's fine, but the "if it is acceptable" part if whats under debate here. At least for me. The "while you are sleeping" and "on my sole authority" parts are just icing on the cake.

He witnessed the 2 murders. In character in the game.

He witnessed one "accident" and one "encounter" which "woke him up", which means he could not know the prior events. At least that's what he says.

As a cleric of his deity he is the only authority from his church on site. He could very well consider it his duty to his god to see justice done in these extreme circumstances.

This is probably true ... so what's his diety?

The problem here is that we each have our own morals and we use them to define what each alignment means so every one of us will have a slightly different definition of each alignment. That lead to the never ending discussions of alignment that keep popping up.
In this particular case though he tried to show his companions the threat that the warlock poses but failed and is now taking extreme measures to protect the group. In other words he is focused on others which by the definition above is good. The methods he uses are not relevant.

Well, technically the book defines alignments but notes they are not nooses. The quote from the book is "act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect." So, yes, the act is evil (i believe, anyway) but alignment might be upheld ... if the reasoning is solid enough. This might not be technically correct, but NPCs and PCs are different. Noone cares when some random redshirt on the away team dies, but Spock gets two whole movies devoted to his death.


I guess it could be seen as splitting hairs, but doing bad deeds could still be good. However, the deed itself is still bad, sooo .... it depends what question you're asking. And then ask yourself if that's the right question.

[unwise]

This is not regarding the OPs situation in particular, but I'm personally pretty sick of "good" characters clubbing their companions to death in their sleep. Why is it always the good guys that resort to this first? They seem to forget that they have traveled with these people for a long time, shared meals with them, even fought side by side, putting their life in the other persons hands. Then they just murder them. In their sleep. The person is sleeping while you are on guard, exactly because they have a belief in the social contract of the adventuring group, one which the good person signed up for. It is betrayal and treachery.

I'm not saying that good guys have to be chivalrous, but I do think that betrayal and murder should exclude them from the adventuring group forever. Who in their right mind is going to trust the murderous zealot to guard them in their sleep ever again? If disagreements can be solved, not through talk, or just going your separate ways, but by pretending that things are OK then betraying them in combat or sleep, then I don't think many people would sign up for that adventuring crew.

What ever happened to walking away? Just saying "this guy is evil, I won't hang out with him, either we vote him out or I leave" you can even kill him without it being a betrayal of a companion. Just say "after we part ways, at sun up the next morning I will consider you an enemy and act accordingly". You can then sneak into his camp and kill him in his sleep to your hearts content. No breach of social contract, no stain to honour and group cohesion is maintained for good or ill.

[RickAllison]

I guess it could be seen as splitting hairs, but doing bad deeds could still be good. However, the deed itself is still bad, sooo .... it depends what question you're asking. And then ask yourself if that's the right question.

I haven't played the module, but aren't the PCs also just people who might have just met? The difference between NPCs and PCs is very blurry when a history isn't established. It might be one thing for someone who has been an ally for 7 levels, but what about when the NPC has been around for almost as long?

[krugaan]

I haven't played the module, but aren't the PCs also just people who might have just met? The difference between NPCs and PCs is very blurry when a history isn't established. It might be one thing for someone who has been an ally for 7 levels, but what about when the NPC has been around for almost as long?

I don't know either. I guess it is kind of tricky. Hmmmm, almost like it's ambiguous...

[Tallis]

I guess it could be seen as splitting hairs, but doing bad deeds could still be good. However, the deed itself is still bad, sooo .... it depends what question you're asking. And then ask yourself if that's the right question.

The NPC/PC split is a metagame concept and not relevant to whether the act is good or evil. more attached to them. Plus the cleric character has actually known those "random" NPCs longer than he's known the warlock so he would be inclined to be more attached to them.

To put it in real-life terms. You are a soldier in enemy territory with a group guys that you first met a few months ago when you were captured and imprisoned with them. You worked together to escape and have been in some firefights since then. You've had each other's backs. A couple days ago you ran into another person and let him join up with you.
Twice now he's been involved in the deaths of guys you've been travelling with. You know one of those times he intentionally let the guy fall and the other time was really suspicious. Do you just blow it off because they were just random guys that you met?


That's fine, but the "if it is acceptable" part if whats under debate here. At least for me. The "while you are sleeping" and "on my sole authority" parts are just icing on the cake.

So basically you're just anti death penalty. That's would be fine but why are you okay with the warlock murdering random people? Seems a bit inconsistent.

[Tallis]

This is not regarding the OPs situation in particular, but I'm personally pretty sick of "good" characters clubbing their companions to death in their sleep. Why is it always the good guys that resort to this first?
How often does this happen in your groups?!? I've been playing since I was a kid and it has never happened in any group I've played with.

They seem to forget that they have traveled with these people for a long time, shared meals with them, even fought side by side, putting their life in the other persons hands. Then they just murder them. In their sleep. The person is sleeping while you are on guard, exactly because they have a belief in the social contract of the adventuring group, one which the good person signed up for. It is betrayal and treachery.

Valid point.


I'm not saying that good guys have to be chivalrous, but I do think that betrayal and murder should exclude them from the adventuring group forever. Who in their right mind is going to trust the murderous zealot to guard them in their sleep ever again? If disagreements can be solved, not through talk, or just going your separate ways, but by pretending that things are OK then betraying them in combat or sleep, then I don't think many people would sign up for that adventuring crew.

Definitely something the OP should consider before taking drastic action.


What ever happened to walking away? Just saying "this guy is evil, I won't hang out with him, either we vote him out or I leave" you can even kill him without it being a betrayal of a companion. Just say "after we part ways, at sun up the next morning I will consider you an enemy and act accordingly". You can then sneak into his camp and kill him in his sleep to your hearts content. No breach of social contract, no stain to honour and group cohesion is maintained for good or ill.

Could be a solution but it also means the group will have to watch their backs to make sure the lock doesn't keep targeting them or the cleric might be left alone in the underdark.

[NewDM]

Why are people so upset about this plan? It sounds perfectly Chaotic Good to me. Kill an Evil person (Good) in their sleep (Chaotic) and lie about it afterwards (Chaotic) to keep the group on track and moving towards survival (Good). What MBControl suggests above is just Lawful, not Good.

Nah, a Chaotic Good character would tie him up in his sleep drag him off away from the party and hold a personal trial where he gets the reasons, maybe paying the fighter to stand watch and make sure the evil guy doesn't try something. Maybe the evil guy had a good reason?

The evil guy isn't really playing lawful. They might kill to cover up a crime, steal something, or get preferential treatment, maybe even if they thought they could get away with it, but they would need some underlying reason. To randomly kill an NPC 'just because I felt like it' falls more into the chaotic territory. Most peoples 'moral codes' include something about not killing trusted allies unless they get in the way. It almost seems to me that the killings were senseless and random, which doesn't make sense for a LE character.

[hmjesus]

Why would somebody who is chaotic by nature require a trial and "due process"?

Why not just beat a confession out of him then kill him?

[NewDM]

Why would somebody who is chaotic by nature require a trial and "due process"?

Why not just beat a confession out of him then kill him?

Beating a confession out of him IS due process. Without knowing the motivation though, it wouldn't be a good act to kill him.

[Barbarian Horde]

Fudge the roll use the DM screen.

[dev6500]

There is no IRL conflict between me and him or the DM. I'm just try to figure out how a Chaotic Good Cleric trapped in the underdark would deal with a Lawful Evil Warlock. The cleric witnessed him murdering an innocent npc (a clearly evil act) but he was the only one to not believe it was an accident.

Chaotic Good is described as someone who acts as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.

Um, you still have to have a conscience in order to be a good character. Killing someone in their sleep sounds like your character doesn't have a conscience. If you are really playing a Chaotic Good character, try to find a way to RP this that stays true to at least being good instead of going punisher on him.


So I don't see my character being above killing him in his sleep if he feels it is for the greater good. Or his god feels that he should destroy evil in all its forms.

Also I spoke with him about it and his response was:

"I understand, I never get to attached with characters like this one but if it does come down to a battle.....it will be legendary!!"

also "PvP is never a bad move if its warranted sir"

so he seems fine with it, I'm just trying my best to RP my character as best I can. I have never played a "good" character before I always use to play neutral.

Sounds like you are not currently playing a good character. The second anyone starts talking greater good, you are probably playing a villain in denial.

[Malifice]

The plan so far, with the DM's approval, is I have convinced the groups fighter, who has a background as a mercenary, to help me kill him in his sleep.

What a good and noble act for you to particpate in. (Not). Blatant murder makes you just as evil as he is. Does this sound like the sort of thing a good person would do? Murder someone as they sleep?

What kind of a psychopath is your character anyway? Imagine a military unit, or buddies on a camping trip, wake up and find one of their buddies had murdered another one as he slept. Seriously, imagine it. What kind of person does that? How could you travel (or sleep) with or near that person again? As a DM I would change your alignment to Evil then and there on the spot.

Plus, its a total douche move OOC.

Confront him in character. Tell him (in character) that you disaprove of his evil ways, and demand he change his ways or else you'll exile him from the party or leave yourself. If he attacks you and the other characters just sit around doing nothing at all, then they werent your friends to begin with. No sane person just sits around while a person murders a friend, and they certainly dont continue to hang around with that person afterwards.

Your group sounds awfully immature by the way, but thats not for me to judge. I love evil characters, but I highly doubt your group has the maturity to handle them. This is your DMs fault though and not yours.


I promised him whatever he found on the body, which is a good amount of gold, as his payment to which he agreed. During our next long rest, the merc will offer to be on watch while the rest of us sleep, this shouldn't arouse any suspicion from the warlock. During the night the merc will wake me up, and I will then cast silence on the warlock. This should encompass the other players as well so they will not hear what is going on and shouldn't wake up to help or hinder. The merc will then attack the warlock with his great sword, which should give him advantage, and be an auto crit. We roll for initiative, and the only actions I can see the warlock taking is a move to stand up from prone, and an action to make a basic attack, disengage or run away. Then we should be able to finish him off on our next turns.

Mecahnically this is not how it works. As soon as your Fighter buddy declares his attack, initiative is rolled. The Warlock starts round one surprised (and incapacitated, unconscious, blinded and prone) and cannot take actions on turn 1.


Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?

Dont attack him in his sleep. If a PC did that to a PC in my group, he'd be expelled from the party by the rest of us (if he's lucky) or executed on the spot. If he stole from one of us, he loses a hand (first offence) or is executed (second offence).

I play LE characters obviously, but thems the rules.

Could YOU trust such a monster as your character who murders people in their sleep?

[djreynolds]

I'll start with a little background info, and follow up with questions that I have:

First up the group I am in is playing through the Out of the Abyss campaign. I am playing as a lvl 3 CG Cleric, and the player in question rolled a lvl 3 LE Warlock during our last session (his previous character died). The DM is now regretting letting him play an evil character as he has so far killed 2 npc's that may or may not have been important. Since I am playing the only "Good" character in the group (everyone else is different shades of neutral), and I was the only one to really make successful insight checks against his lies, my character knows he's evil.

I have read too many stories were good and evil characters are in the same group and no one is willing to do anything about it, or react as there character would, and it destroys the party. At this point during our next session I'm going to try and RP how my character react as best as I can, given everything he witnessed the warlock do. Which mean the warlock has to die, or I die in the attempt.

The plan so far, with the DM's approval, is I have convinced the groups fighter, who has a background as a mercenary, to help me kill him in his sleep. I promised him whatever he found on the body, which is a good amount of gold, as his payment to which he agreed. During our next long rest, the merc will offer to be on watch while the rest of us sleep, this shouldn't arouse any suspicion from the warlock. During the night the merc will wake me up, and I will then cast silence on the warlock. This should encompass the other players as well so they will not hear what is going on and shouldn't wake up to help or hinder. The merc will then attack the warlock with his great sword, which should give him advantage, and be an auto crit. We roll for initiative, and the only actions I can see the warlock taking is a move to stand up from prone, and an action to make a basic attack, disengage or run away. Then we should be able to finish him off on our next turns.

My first question is, the Warlock has an ability called armor of shadows that he can cast at will, that doesn't require a spell slot or material components. Does he still have to meet the V and S requirements in order to cast it?

Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?

Third, is it a good plan? The DM doesn't want to come off as playing favorites but she does realize that the characters are going to have to RP this out. Do you guys have any suggestions to increase my chance of success? *note the other players may or may not side with the warlock, and would probably not join me in killing him which is why I didn't recruit them in on the plan*

So did you kill him yet?

Kick him out of the party?

Or turn evil yourselves and embrace being a murderhobo?

Kicking him out could be very cool, if the warlock and the DM are willing to side adventure and perhaps the warlock is seeking vengeance on you.

This could be a way to allow everyone to sort of get what they want. The DM could make some side adventures for him and he has to join another band or ally with drow, or goblins, or whatever. Could be very exciting.

[Segev]

Regarding the D&D-alignment ethics and morals of it, given the full circumstances (alone, on the run from what passes for the local authority, with only the party - including NPCs - to rely upon to survive), this is definitely a CN act. A CG character can take it without impacting his alignment.

It is Chaotic because it takes no regard for any sort of due process; it cares not what the rest of the party thinks or believes, and is concerned only with the judgment of the person taking action and how to take said action most expeditiously.

It is non-Evil because the victim is not only a murderer, but one who is endangering the party's overall survival by killing off potentially useful allies, and is a reasonable retaliation (eye for an eye) as well as a sensible precaution (kill the one who's already purposely killed two others, and you ensure the murders stop at 3, rather than going on to become 4, 5, 6, or more, until there's not enough left in the party to avoid capture by the pursuing slavers).

The "social contract" argument, that the act is Evil for taking advantage of the target's helplessness due to trusting in the social contract of watch duty, is flawed: violating a social contract is not inherently Evil; it's Chaotic. Morally, this particular killing is neutral, for reasons already discussed. Besides, the fact that this character has already violated that same "stick together and protect each other" social contract by murdering fellow party-members and then lying to the rest of the group about it means that it's bordering on ethically Neutral, as well: having violated the social contract, the N*-aligned character would typically see the person as not deserving of the benefit of said social contract.

It is a decidedly Lawful trait to treat somebody as deserving of the protections of social convention, contract, tradition, or law when that person has violated that same code of behavior he seeks to rely upon to protect him from retaliation.

That said, doing it clandestinely and lying about it to the others rather than doing it openly - or at LEAST doing it clandestinely they telling everybody else WHY afterwards - is Chaotic. Because hiding it from the others is also a violation of the bond of mutual interest, continuing to not only value your judgment above theirs, but to feel no need to honor the social contract enough to let them know it has been violated.

[Malifice]

Regarding the D&D-alignment ethics and morals of it, given the full circumstances (alone, on the run from what passes for the local authority, with only the party - including NPCs - to rely upon to survive), this is definitely a CN act.

Rubbish. Murdering a person (who considers you a friend and an ally) in their sleep is evil.

Seriously. I am never going trekking through the Andes with you if you think killing your sleeping adventuring companion is 'neutral'.

[Segev]

Rubbish. Murdering a person (who considers you a friend and an ally) in their sleep is evil.He clearly doesn't, if he's murdering our group and lying to the rest of us about it.


Seriously. I am never going trekking through the Andes with you if you think killing your sleeping adventuring companion is 'neutral'.Given that it's only "neutral" if you're already murdering other people in our traveling group, if you're worried about me killing you and calling it "neutral," I don't want to trek anywhere with you, either.

Note that this act being neutral is predicated on the target having committed the evil act of unjustified murder. This creates the justification that makes it neutral.

[Ronnoc]

Rubbish. Murdering a person (who considers you a friend and an ally) in their sleep is evil.

Seriously. I am never going trekking through the Andes with you if you think killing your sleeping adventuring companion is 'neutral'.

The arguement here is that by killing some of your allies the warlock no longer counts as an adventuring companion.

[Malifice]

Note that this act being neutral is predicated on the target having committed the evil act of unjustified murder. This creates the justification that makes it neutral.

So by this logic, I can break into a prison and murder the inmates as they cower and beg for mercy and its a 'neutral' act?

What other atrocities can I perform on evil people and it be 'neutral'? What about a savage beating or a rape or some other henious crime?

Your targets alignment or actions doesnt make your killing of them (or your treatment of them) any less evil. If the Warlock attacked the CG person (or anyone else for that matter) and the CG person had to use force to stop them, then fine. Murdering him in his sleep is not.

How about talking to him first? Showing mercy compassion kindness etc. You know, being a good person.

Good people dont murder people in their sleep. Thats what evil people do. Thats what makes them evil in fact.


The arguement here is that by killing some of your allies the warlock no longer counts as an adventuring companion.

So? That doesnt make him a valid target for murder. Presumably its the Warlocks murderous nature that the CG person finds so abhorent.

This PC is planning outright murder of a defenceless person (who trusts them) as they sleep.

Thats evil. Think about it IRL for a second.

I get the situation is dire, and I wouldnt slap an E on his character sheet for it straight away, but its clearly an evil act.

Kick the guy out of the party. That sounds more CG to me. 'Each to their own, and good luck on your travels you psycho' - that kind of thing.

[Ronnoc]

So by this logic, I can break into a prison and murder the inmates as they cower and beg for mercy and its a 'neutral' act?
The difference is that the inmates are not a present danger. They are incarcerated and if your penal system is functioning in the process of reformation. The warlock however is a clear threat to the survival of the party. Now you can make an argument that eliminating a threat is not a moral act but that is not the default assumption of D&d.


So? That doesnt make him a valid target for murder. Presumably its the Warlocks murderous nature that the CG person finds so abhorent.

This PC is planning outright murder of a defenceless person (who trusts them) as they sleep.

Thats evil. Think about it IRL for a second.

I get the situation is dire, and I wouldnt slap an E on his character sheet for it straight away, but its clearly an evil act.

Kick the guy out of the party. That sounds more CG to me. 'Each to their own, and good luck on your travels you psycho' - that kind of thing.

Personal opinion here but the capacity of the warlock to defend himself is completely irrelevant to the morality of the situation. If we've already crossed the line where violence is necessary then I'd view ending the conflict in a manner that puts as few people at risk as possible to be the moral imperative. As far as kicking him out of the party is concerned that boils down to the joker problem. Which is not something I'm going to argue here as it really has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I will say that the biggest flaw with exile is that from the op's description it sounds like he won't be able to convince the party to banish him given the warlock's bluff check.

[Trum4n1208]

Kick the guy out of the party. That sounds more CG to me. 'Each to their own, and good luck on your travels you psycho' - that kind of thing.

Is it really though? Think about it in real life for a moment. You've been traveling with someone, and you've discovered that they're a murderer, Furthermore, you know that they've murdered one person in your presence, and they fought and killed another under suspicious circumstances. Would you, as a good person, just let that person walk away to potentially kill again? Or would you accept that sometimes, a bad thing must be done for a greater good. That strikes me as very chaotic good. I could see a Lawful Good person taking them prisoner and then turning them in to the nearest representative of the Law, but Chaotic Good strikes me as someone who acknowledges that the world isn't perfect, and sometimes Justice needs to be done. Good doesn't have to be nice, and just because he's a PC doesn't mean he can avoid justice and be sent along his merry way.

Also, let's consider the environment. Leaving someone alone in the Underdark doesn't strike me as a merciful/kind thing to do.

[Segev]

So by this logic, I can break into a prison and murder the inmates as they cower and beg for mercy and its a 'neutral' act?You're deliberately changing the context. This is known as "moving the goal posts." It is a logical fallacy. I have been very precise as to the context in which this analysis applies. I am not making sweeping philosophical statements.

I can, using your same argumentation, assume that you are 100% opposed to the death penalty for any crime, under any circumstances. (I am not making that claim in any seriousness, and I have no idea if you are or are not.) Since it seems that your sole criterion is whether the target is "helpless" or not, clearly an unrepentant mass murderer who unquestionably did kill every person he's accused of killing cannot be executed, since he's been caught and rendered helpless and is pleading for mercy.

More generally - and here I am making some more sweeping philosophical statements than I was before - the distinction between your attempted moral equivalence of murdering prisoners in jail and killing the murderer traveling with your party that has killed multiple party members already is one of active danger.

Through his own, willful actions, this particular target endangers the party, both as a whole and as individuals. There is no reason to assume he will do anything other than continue the pattern of murder; who knows who will be his next victim? It could be the OP's character, or the fighter he's allied with for this act. Or anybody else in the party who becomes easy prey.

This justifies killing him: he is a threat to the OP twice over (once as a personal possibility of being the target's future victim, and once again as the target's activities weaken the group and make them more likely to die as a whole), and he is a threat to those with whom the OP is allied. He cannot be counted as an ally any longer, since he is a traitor whose betrayal is (to the best estimation) ongoing.

It is therefore not an evil act. It is neutral, because it is not inherently good, either.

Since it is not an evil act to kill him, the fact that he's helpless is irrelevant to the morality of it. His death is warranted enough to make killing him morally neutral.


What other atrocities can I perform on evil people and it be 'neutral'? What about a savage beating or a rape or some other henious crime?Are these preventative measures to ensure your evil target is not going to engage in activities which you're otherwise all but certain he'll perform, which are harmful to yourself or others (particularly others upon whom you rely or who rely upon you)? (For argument's sake, given the situation we're examining, let's assume that he is NOT morally justified in whatever acts we're considering; if he were, they wouldn't be evil, and we'd start chasing our metaphorical tails.)

You are morally justified in a savage beating if it is the best way to prevent him from perpetrating harm upon you or your cohorts. Keeping a dangerous, murderous water mage dehydrated is cruel, but necessary to prevent him from having power sufficient to harm you while you keep him from going out and doing more evil.

I can't think of any circumstance where raping somebody would genuinely be the least cruel preventative measure, so no, I don't think you can morally justify that one. Though who knows; some fetish-fuel fiction might be contrived to arrange so that it is. I question the author's motives for writing the story that way, however.


Your targets alignment or actions doesnt make your killing of them (or your treatment of them) any less evil. If the Warlock attacked the CG person (or anyone else for that matter) and the CG person had to use force to stop them, then fine. Murdering him in his sleep is not.False. The target's actions are highly relevant to whether this act is morally justified or not. Again, unless you're going to claim that execution is always evil, as well. Which is consistent, if definitely not a position with which I agree. I believe it is morally neutral to kill when the person being killed has abrogated their right to life through willful denial of said right to others and it is likely they will continue to perpetrate such evil if not stopped permanently. Execution is a preventative measure, and is morally neutral.

Their ability to fight back is irrelevant.


How about talking to him first? Showing mercy compassion kindness etc. You know, being a good person.This has been brought up multiple times. The context, however, of this character's lies being such that nobody else in the party believes he did it suggests "talking to him" has been tried and doesn't work.

You're right; doing so - particularly at risk to yourself that he might murder you in your sleep since you tip your hand that you know what he did - would be a Good act.

Not all non-Good acts are Evil. This killing that is being contemplated is Neutral. Not Good.


Good people dont murder people in their sleep. Thats what evil people do. Thats what makes them evil in fact."In their sleep" is irrelevant. The reason for the killing is all that matters, morally. Not whether the killing is easy or hard, risky or safe (for the killers).


So? That doesnt make him a valid target for murder. Presumably its the Warlocks murderous nature that the CG person finds so abhorent.No, it's the fact that he's murdered other members of the party. He has made himself an enemy. If you discover a viper sleeping in your shirt, do you wake it up and hurl it away, hoping it doesn't spin around and bite you, or do you very carefully and quietly try to kill it before it can wake up and strike?


This PC is planning outright murder of a defenceless person (who trusts them) as they sleep.So... if the guy doesn't trust the OP, does that make it better? If so, why?


Thats evil. Think about it IRL for a second.

I get the situation is dire, and I wouldnt slap an E on his character sheet for it straight away, but its clearly an evil act.

Kick the guy out of the party. That sounds more CG to me. 'Each to their own, and good luck on your travels you psycho' - that kind of thing.Yeah, that sounds wise.

CG PC: "You have to leave the party, because you killed those other two people."

*E Warlock: "I did not! Why are you making such baseless accusations!?"

Other party members: "We believe him! How could you say something so cruel?"

CG PC: "He has to go! He's a danger to us all!"

Other party members: "Kicking him out is a death sentence! And if he's caught and not killed, it'll be because they tortured information out of him to find us!"

*E Warlock: "Yeah. Tortured. We wouldn't want me to be forced - totally against my will, of course - to endanger the rest of you by telling the drow where we're traveling, right?"


Yeah, that totally will work. If the CG PC convinces the party to kick him out, he either goes and tells the drow, or he just follows them and kills them in their sleep. If he doesn't, the party might demand HE leave, if he's so worried. They don't want a distrustful guy who might backstab one of them, after all! And even if he doesn't leave, the Warlock now knows the CG PC knows, and will likely seek, if not to murder him outright, arrange his...disappearance. "Woops, looks like I didn't get to him in time with that healing potion," he might say while wiping his knife clean of totally-not-the-CG-PC's-blood.


What you're demanding is Lawful and actively-Good behavior. Getting the group on his side and enforcing a lawful punishment. (Honestly, it would not be wise to kick the evil Warlock out, for reasons already established, anyway.) CG can behave with Neutral morality without slipping towards Neutral. Certainly without slipping towards Evil.

[paddyfool]

Pages and pages of debating what he should do, and nothing on what he did do.

Tell us, OP. We wait in anticipation...

EDIT:

As for what a CG character should do, it massively depends on the character. You could variously claim characters from Robin Hood to Sherlock Holmes to Malcolm Reynolds to the Weasley twins as CG, and all of them would respond differently. Robin Hood in most incarnations would confront and duel (possibly ambush, confront and duel). Sherlock Holmes would set out to prove the character's guilt without doubt to the group. Mal would, if he could, likely ambush and trial, as he did with Jayne, then could either go for kill or redemption. But he might go straight for ambush and kill as expedience demanded. And the Weasley twins... Probably either try to trick him into admitting guilt, or Ambush and Leave Behind.

It all depends on who the OP's character is as a person.

[Sigreid]

I haven't read all the responses, but if I understand the situation, your CG character is upset that a LE character occasionally commits murder so you are hiring another player's character to murder him? How exactly are you CG?

[Malifice]

Or would you accept that sometimes, a bad thing must be done for a greater good.

No Godwin but I recall Hitler saying the same thing.

Every act of evil is done for the greater good. The Tiefling himself is probably murdering poeple for this very reason.


That strikes me as very chaotic good. I could see a Lawful Good person taking them prisoner and then turning them in to the nearest representative of the Law, but Chaotic Good strikes me as someone who acknowledges that the world isn't perfect, and sometimes Justice needs to be done.

That to me sounds more LE.

[Trum4n1208]

No Godwin but I recall Hitler saying the same thing.

Every act of evil is done for the greater good. The Tiefling himself is probably murdering poeple for this very reason.



That to me sounds more LE.

Okay, so I'm Hitler because I'm trying to look at this from a real life equivalent? I would say that letting a dangerous, murderous person go free isn't a Good act. It's letting them go to potentially commit other evil acts. given that the CG cleric doesn't have the full support of the party, he can't kick the Warlock out, there's no guarantee of that solving the problem. While I agree that killing a defenseless person isn't a good thing and shouldn't be considered such, I tend to believe in combat pragmatism, so I get that. It's the kind of plan I would consider if I were in the OP's shoes. It's good roleplaying in my mind, and, since the other guy has already said no hard feelings, I'd consider it acceptable in any game I'd play in or run.

What this comes down to is that you and I have very different ideas and interpretations on D&D alignments. Because of that, I don't see us resolving this, so I'll just agree to disagree here.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

No alignment has any sort of claim over eliminating threats. Any character will do that. The why and how of it inform your characters beliefs, which in turn inform your alignment. Not the reverse.
Does the warlock need to be eliminated because he is a personal threat to you or to some one or thing you care about? It is simply because their behavior is repulsive to you? These aren't "Good" motivations, they are just ones based on survival, utility or personal aesthetics.
Good characters fight for those they don't personally know, and for justice to the victims.

The how is also important. Even without a code of honor or laws, a Good character would prefer redemption to destruction, and if destruction is the only viable option, then pain and suffering are to be avoided, not only that of the judged, but for everyone.

You'll also need to be prepared for the fact that even if you are performing a just act, your character may never the less be perceived as being unjust. The truly Good don't care about the appearance of being just, only the actual being.

[krugaan]

The NPC/PC split is a metagame concept and not relevant to whether the act is good or evil. more attached to them. Plus the cleric character has actually known those "random" NPCs longer than he's known the warlock so he would be inclined to be more attached to them.

I'll agree this is partially, maybe even probably true. However, I don't feel that this makes it less relevant, but ymmv.


To put it in real-life terms. You are a soldier in enemy territory with a group guys that you first met a few months ago when you were captured and imprisoned with them. You worked together to escape and have been in some firefights since then. You've had each other's backs. A couple days ago you ran into another person and let him join up with you.
Twice now he's been involved in the deaths of guys you've been travelling with. You know one of those times he intentionally let the guy fall and the other time was really suspicious. Do you just blow it off because they were just random guys that you met?


Do you kill him without confronting him about it? Or are you going to murder someone out of fear and no proof?



So basically you're just anti death penalty. That's would be fine but why are you okay with the warlock murdering random people? Seems a bit inconsistent.

Actually I'm not. I just don't like the circumstances or the "evidence". In campaigns the bad guys and good guys are almost always clearly laid out; that is one of the greatest things about it, in my opinion. I mean, sure, they may be hiding under a different persona or whatever, but once found out and confronted, they always "aw shucks, now we must kung fu fight", and let the initiative rolls begin. I have never seen or heard of an npc villain who would continuously lawyer themselves into reasonable doubt, although they might exist. Moral quandaries in DnD are usually in the Spiderman vein of "do I save the train car of innocents or my girlfriend gwen stacy?" Sophie's choice is heroic and tragic and all the good stuff. Judge, jury, and executioner is not fun at all, at least to me.

[krugaan]

No Godwin but I recall Hitler saying the same thing.


You can't call "No Godwin" and then Godwin literally four words later!

[Rakoa]

What krugaan said. No Godwin!

[Temperjoke]

Is yet another alignment argument really necessary? I feel the thread is starting to diverge from the original subject. Regardless of whether we agree with his justification and the relative morality of the situation, he's made a decision and has gotten the DM buy-in on it.

As to the original questions posted, yeah, there's going to be drama. But it doesn't have to extend beyond IC into OOC drama. Assuming the assassination succeeds (yes, you attacking a sleeping person with the intent to kill him as swiftly and as silently as possible is assassination. After all, you didn't challenge him to a fair fight.), your character is going to have to be able to explain his reasons why he murdered (from the perspective of the others) a fellow member of the group; no matter how recent a member, the warlock is a part of the group. From what you've described, to me this would be difficult, since in character they only know of one, potentially accidental death. (remember, he passed the deception check)

Out of character, it'll only cause as much drama as the person being killed wants to start. You stated they had a history of creating problem characters that died frequently. He might shrug this off as being a unique thing, or he might see that a PC killing his character as a violation of the social group. You may be placing more value on the NPCs than he is, so this could cause an argument because to him, the npcs that he's killed don't matter, while you killed *his* character.

I don't have a solution for you, since you've made your decision to act, since I don't know your group and how they'll react. Personally, I would have had my character pull the other characters aside, one by one, and explain what I saw and thought. If everyone started watching him closely, there would be less of a chance of another "accidental" death, and being more closely watched might keep him in line, or push him to reveal his hand by attacking you as the instigator.

[denthor]

I'm sure I'm jumping In very late this is a LE character we're talking about where is Red Fel not take a simple course of action. Draw up a written contract and have him sign it as a character he would then be bound to his exact words.

No need for player vs. Player until after his word is broken then you have the legal right to off the character

[Tallis]

Assuming the assassination succeeds (yes, you attacking a sleeping person with the intent to kill him as swiftly and as silently as possible is assassination.

You could become a holy assassin dedicated to eliminating the enemies of your faith!!!!! :smallsmile::smallbiggrin::smallcool:

[Malifice]

You can't call "No Godwin" and then Godwin literally four words later!

Its not Godwin when the thread is discussing 'the use of evil to achieve a greater good'. Its one of the exceptions to the law.


Okay, so I'm Hitler because I'm trying to look at this from a real life equivalent?

Im not equating you to Hitler mate. Im saying Hitler (and every other genocidal monster) has engaged in their genocide for a self proclaimed 'greater good'. More acts of evil have been done in the name of a 'greater good' than for any other reason.


I would say that letting a dangerous, murderous person go free isn't a Good act.

By becoming a dangerous murderous monster yourself.

You're advocating murder here... as a solution to murder. This PC becomes a murderer himself. According to his own logic, he's now a valid taget for murder. This Tieflings friends or family could murder the CG Cleric in his sleep and be 'justified' for doing it and be comitting a 'good' act.

Get it? Good people (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Cyclops etc from comics or Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Leia Orgiana from SW etc etc) dont murder people as they sleep. Robin Hood the poster boy of CG doesnt sneak into the Sherrifs keep and murder him as he sleeps. If such a character encounter a murderous villian, they challenge him, try to redeem him (using force - including lethal force - if needed in response to being attacked or to save the lives of others) and triumph via acts of good.

I have nothing wrong with an Evilly aligned anti-hero doing such an act (the Punisher, Rorsarch, Deadpool, Azrael from comics etc). Evil people use evil methods (effective but brutal) to achieve their ends. They would certainly see such tools as murder, torture and genocide as valid weapons against 'evildoers'.


It's letting them go to potentially commit other evil acts.

So what? What is this; Minority Report? Are we murdering people because of what they might do in the future and calling this a 'good' act now?


Given that the CG cleric doesn't have the full support of the party, he can't kick the Warlock out, there's no guarantee of that solving the problem.

He does have the support of the party. The parties Fighter is literally prepared to murder the Warlock in his sleep for a few coins for Gods sake (incedentally, this makes the Fighter clearly evil for mine, and I would change his alignment in an instant if I was the DM of this campaign).

The two of them then approach the other PCs in private and raise their concerns. Like actual good people would do.

What is stopping him from confronting the Warlock (with the Fighter standing over the 'lock as extra insurance) and demanding an explanation for his murderous ways? Demanding the 'lock cease with his murderous ways, or face exile from the party or worse? Trying to bring the Warlock back to the light or redeem him from his evil ways?

You know. Not automatically resorting to blatant murder.


While I agree that killing a defenseless person isn't a good thing and shouldn't be considered such, I tend to believe in combat pragmatism, so I get that. It's the kind of plan I would consider if I were in the OP's shoes.

Youre probably not a 'good' aligned person (in DnD terms) then. You agree murder is not a good act (thankfully) but conceed you would at the very least consider murder in the same position as the OP. Sounds like you (like myself) are probably Neutral in alignment.


It's good roleplaying in my mind, and, since the other guy has already said no hard feelings, I'd consider it acceptable in any game I'd play in or run.

Youre conflating roleplaying with the social contract of PvP at the table. Theyre seperate things entirely. Just because a player is a good sport about PvP, doesnt make it 'good roleplaying' for a CG cleric who has never raised an objection to a fellow companions murderous behaviour (but quitely opposes muder) to suddenly murder him as he sleeps.


What this comes down to is that you and I have very different ideas and interpretations on D&D alignments. Because of that, I don't see us resolving this, so I'll just agree to disagree here.

Oh agreed on this point. In my campaigns, murdering a colleague in his sleep is lextremely ikely to get you a big fat E plonked on your character sheet. The fighter in this situation certainly gets it (he happily sits by why the 'lock murders people, and now has accepted money to murder the 'lock as he sleeps - he is clearly evil with a capital E).

In games where I am playing and my character wakes up with a fellow companion murdered in his sleep the perpetrator either gets (depending on my PCs alignment and personality) as a rough starting point one of:


Executed or sold into slavery to pay for the dead PCs ressurection (LE)
Congratulated and carefully watched from then on (CE)
Exiled, with his gear stripped to pay for the dead PCs ressurection (CG)
Brought to justice (LG)


Of course, I usually play LE PCs, and I often rely on (fairly draconian) party charters to regulate this sort of thing.

From a meta perspective murdering another PC as they sleep is one of the gravest breaches of the social contract you can engage in (both in game and out of it). It will almost cetainly lead to tit-for-tat and the campaign will grind to a screeching halt in all but the most mature of parties (and this grounp sounds extremely immature).

OP: Youre a cleric that values things like compassion, mercy, freedom, kindness and liberty. Have a word to the other PCs, explain your concerns and get them onside. Then confront the 'lock with an ultimatum - change your ways or leave the party. If he attacks you, then you are free to blow him off the face of the earth in legitimate self defence.

[RickAllison]

And this is why every character I had before my LG wizard had an N on their alignment. TN rogue (assassin with morals, supportive of his community, etc.), LN monk (not a nice person), and CN sorcerer (and on the tipping edge of CE).

Generally, I prefer the term Practical instead of Evil :smallwink:

[Tallis]

I'll agree this is partially, maybe even probably true. However, I don't feel that this makes it less relevant, but ymmv.

Why do you feel it makes a difference?

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Out of the Abyss. All the NPCs mentioned are allies of the party that have been with them since the start of the adventure. So in game the cleric has a real reason to be protective of them. On the other hand the warlock is a brand new character that they just met.




Do you kill him without confronting him about it? Or are you going to murder someone out of fear and no proof?

My interpretation of the story is that he did confront him about it. He witnessed the warlock killing a member of the group. How much more proof does he need? Any fear he may feel, both for himself and his allies, is completely valid. He definitely at least brought it up to the party:


we had to jump over a pit that had acid in the bottom. He created a floating disk to help some of our PC's and NPC's across. When the last NPC was going to cross over on the disk he ended the spell, and the NPC died in the acid. He rolled deception and everyone else rolled Insight, I was the only one to pass the check and none of the other players believed me.




Actually I'm not. I just don't like the circumstances or the "evidence".

Again: he personally witnessed the warlock committing murder. He's not some lawyer trying to prove it t a jury that wasn't there. He saw it himself. This isn't a courtroom drama, it's a slasher flick and the warlock is the slasher.


In campaigns the bad guys and good guys are almost always clearly laid out; that is one of the greatest things about it, in my opinion. I mean, sure, they may be hiding under a different persona or whatever, but once found out and confronted, they always "aw shucks, now we must kung fu fight", and let the initiative rolls begin. I have never seen or heard of an npc villain who would continuously lawyer themselves into reasonable doubt, although they might exist. Moral quandaries in DnD are usually in the Spiderman vein of "do I save the train car of innocents or my girlfriend gwen stacy?" Sophie's choice is heroic and tragic and all the good stuff. Judge, jury, and executioner is not fun at all, at least to me.

That may be true in your games and I'm sure they're lots of fun but you can't assume that all campaigns are run the same way. Regardless; in this case I think it's pretty clear that the warlock is a bad guy even if he is run by a player.


Get it? Good people (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Cyclops etc from comics or Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Leia Orgiana from SW etc etc) dont murder people as they sleep. Robin Hood the poster boy of CG doesnt sneak into the Sherrifs keep and murder him as he sleeps. If such a character encounter a murderous villian, they challenge him, try to redeem him (using force - including lethal force - if needed in response to being attacked or to save the lives of others) and triumph via acts of good.

Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Leia Organa killed thousands of people. Remember the first and second Death Stars? Do you think everyone on those stations was a combatant and nobody was sleeping off-duty? Good does not mean stupid. Taking what ever advantage you can get in combat doesn't make you evil, it makes you smart. It's the reasons for killing and the guilt or innocence of the target that determine if it's evil or not. Context is important.


So what? What is this; Minority Report? Are we murdering people because of what they might do in the future and calling this a 'good' act now?

This isn't just some prophecy. The cleric has witnessed him murdering allies. There is a clear and present danger. In the real world letting him go and not reporting him would make the cleric an accessory after the fact. Since there are no other authorities to report him to it's up to the cleric to stop him.


He does have the support of the party. The parties Fighter is literally prepared to murder the Warlock in his sleep for a few coins for Gods sake (incedentally, this makes the Fighter clearly evil for mine, and I would change his alignment in an instant if I was the DM of this campaign).

Being able to hire one mercenary member of the party is not the same as having the support of the party. He has the support of one person and that's only so long as he can pay. Incidentally I agree with you, the fighter is clearly evil since he's only doing it for the money.


The two of them then approach the other PCs in private and raise their concerns. Like actual good people would do.

What is stopping him from confronting the Warlock (with the Fighter standing over the 'lock as extra insurance) and demanding an explanation for his murderous ways? Demanding the 'lock cease with his murderous ways, or face exile from the party or worse? Trying to bring the Warlock back to the light or redeem him from his evil ways?

You know. Not automatically resorting to blatant murder.

1-He has already raised his concerns to the party. They didn't believe him.
2-The fighter would be a very unreliable ally since he's just doing it for the money that he only gets if the warlock dies . The lock could easily pay him to switch sides since it was his money being used to pay the fighter in the first place.
3-Killing him was not the clerics first choice it's his last resort.


OP: Youre a cleric that values things like compassion, mercy, freedom, kindness and liberty. Have a word to the other PCs, explain your concerns and get them onside. Then confront the 'lock with an ultimatum - change your ways or leave the party. If he attacks you, then you are free to blow him off the face of the earth in legitimate self defence.

How do you know what he values? We don't even know what god he worships.

[The Glyphstone]

Would you also, to provide a hypothetical counter, consider it Good to lace the water supply of a village with poison if that was the easiest and lowest-risk method of guaranteeing the death of an otherwise untouchable high-status Evil member of the leadership there? Not trying to provide some sort of loaded question here, but establishing if you really believe that the only factors to determine whether or not a killing is Evil are reasons for killing and the guilt or innocence of the victim.

[Tallis]

Would you also, to provide a hypothetical counter, consider it Good to lace the water supply of a village with poison if that was the easiest and lowest-risk method of guaranteeing the death of an otherwise untouchable high-status Evil member of the leadership there? Not trying to provide some sort of loaded question here, but establishing if you really believe that the only factors to determine whether or not a killing is Evil are reasons for killing and the guilt or innocence of the victim.

Presumably most of the village is innocent so targeting them would be evil. It's really not the same thing at all. The discussion so far has been about targeting one person who we know is guilty and dangerous. Attacking him in his sleep is a simple tactical advantage.

[Segev]

Would you also, to provide a hypothetical counter, consider it Good to lace the water supply of a village with poison if that was the easiest and lowest-risk method of guaranteeing the death of an otherwise untouchable high-status Evil member of the leadership there? Not trying to provide some sort of loaded question here, but establishing if you really believe that the only factors to determine whether or not a killing is Evil are reasons for killing and the guilt or innocence of the victim.


Presumably most of the village is innocent so targeting them would be evil. It's really not the same thing at all. The discussion so far has been about targeting one person who we know is guilty and dangerous. Attacking him in his sleep is a simple tactical advantage.

Exactly what Talis said.

No, it's not okay to indiscriminately kill (as a general rule) just to get one specific needs-to-be-killed target.

(I will assume we are not discussing a situation where actual war is going on. That's an entirely different subject, and way off-topic.)

[The Glyphstone]

Presumably most of the village is innocent so targeting them would be evil. It's really not the same thing at all. The discussion so far has been about targeting one person who we know is guilty and dangerous. Attacking him in his sleep is a simple tactical advantage.

You brought up destroying the Death Star as good despite all the non-combatants on board (there was in fact an entire Legends novel about this), so I thought the comparison was warranted. Though for that matter, I think Segev's right in that actual war has different parameters, so the entire initial comparison is a bit flawed.

[Malifice]

Presumably most of the village is innocent so targeting them would be evil.

Lol. Its not evil to murder, torture or rape an 'evil' person? So methods matter not, only the status of your victim?

Sounds like fighting fire with fire... and thus evil.

I have nothing wrong with this archetype by the way. People using evil to fight evil. The Punisher for example.

But they (and he self admittedly) are still evil.

Anyway, agree to disagree. You have your ethics and I have mine. I view the murder or torture of a helpless person an act of evil (and I dont care how vile your victim is).

So do most legal systems, but hey. What would they know?

[mgshamster]

In campaigns the bad guys and good guys are almost always clearly laid out; that is one of the greatest things about it, in my opinion. I mean, sure, they may be hiding under a different persona or whatever, but once found out and confronted, they always "aw shucks, now we must kung fu fight", and let the initiative rolls begin. I have never seen or heard of an npc villain who would continuously lawyer themselves into reasonable doubt, although they might exist. Moral quandaries in DnD are usually in the Spiderman vein of "do I save the train car of innocents or my girlfriend gwen stacy?" Sophie's choice is heroic and tragic and all the good stuff. Judge, jury, and executioner is not fun at all, at least to me.

This isn't really true in Out of the Abyss.

You start the campaign having to make friends with "lesser evil" folks in order to escape being enslaved by the Drow. Then, as the campaign progresses, you often have to make deals and interactions with very evil folks. Sometimes you have to make those deals just for personal survival (and to prevent being recaptured by your slavers), sometimes you have to make those deals to stop something even more evil than the person you're dealing with. Sprinkle in a bit of insanity and madness, and you have the gist of the campaign.

Right and wrong, good and evil have very fuzzy lines in this campaign.

There are times when you have a legitimate good guy. Most of the time, you have a bad guy and a worse bad guy. It's like GI Joe and Cobra teaming up to fight drug addiction.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

You brought up destroying the Death Star as good despite all the non-combatants on board (there was in fact an entire Legends novel about this), so I thought the comparison was warranted. Though for that matter, I think Segev's right in that actual war has different parameters, so the entire initial comparison is a bit flawed.

The Death Star was an armed military platform. Destroying it was no different from destroying a warship.


Lol. Its not evil to murder, torture or rape an 'evil' person? So methods matter not, only the status of your victim?

Sounds like fighting fire with fire... and thus evil.

I have nothing wrong with this archetype by the way. People using evil to fight evil. The Punisher for example.

But they (and he self admittedly) are still evil.

Anyway, agree to disagree. You have your ethics and I have mine. I view the murder or torture of a helpless person an act of evil (and I dont care how vile your victim is).

So do most legal systems, but hey. What would they know?

Firstly, no-one has actually suggested torture or rape. Either engage with the arguments people or making, or cease to argue.

Secondly, yes, what the person in question has done or is likely to do matters. Killing a vicious random murderer who has killed several of your friends and his own, and thus presents a clear and present danger to you* and everyone around him is justified in a way that killing Joe Drow the generic guard would not be (as even if Joe Drow is evil, he is not a proven threat. Warlock McSerialKiller is). Yes, dealing with him in a more honourable way would be preferable**, but one's ability to do so is limited in extreme circumstances, like being in an incredibly hostile environment where the nearest authorities are weeks away and either don't care or actively want to kill or enslave you. Dealing with him legally might be the best option, but when one is in a place with no law, one must look for another.

Thirdly, your impression of most legal systems is inaccurate. All legal systems make a distinction between unprovoked and provoked killing, even if not in self defence. And the legal systems of the majority of the world population expressly sanction the killing of helpless people, because they use the death penalty.***

*Yes, out of character he is less likely to kill a PC. But the PC/NPC divide does not exist in-universe.
** And I would once again recommend doing so, but again for out of character reasons.
*** More countries have abolished the death penalty than use it, but the countries that retain it tend to be bigger.

[Temperjoke]

It's like GI Joe and Cobra teaming up to fight drug addiction.

I'm pretty sure this was an actual thing back at the height of the 80's.

[mgshamster]

I'm pretty sure this was an actual thing back at the height of the 80's.

It was. I pulled a reference out of the archives. There was lots of dust. :)

[Temperjoke]

It was. I pulled a reference out of the archives. There was lots of dust. :)

Nice.

Anyways, it seems this thread has fully derailed into a morality discussion instead of the original topic, which always ends up the same way of everybody agreeing to disagree except for a few people who continue to argue until the thread gets locked.

[Trum4n1208]

Tallis nailed pretty much any point I'd raise, but I do have one more thought. I'd consider bad roleplaying to be treating a Player Character differently from an NPC purely because he's a player character. If you're traveling with an NPC and he blatantly murders someone and your character would fight him over it, but not a PC who does the same thing, then yeah, that's bad roleplaying. You're treating the player character differently from anyone else in-game, when that divide doesn't exist in-game.

And again, if you're in a life-and-death situation, and one member of your group is murdering other members of your group, I'd call that extreme circumstances that could call for extreme actions. The Cleric raised his concerns to the party, and they didn't believe him. The Fighter is only in it for the money, and won't have the Cleric's back in any kind of reliable manner (The Fighter is Evil as Hell, I agree with you). The Warlock knows the Cleric is on to him. Whats to stop him from offing the only member of the party who is on to him? At this point, the Warlock is a danger to the party. There is no Law Enforcement in the area. Exiling him into the Underdark without any gear is just as Evil as killing him ("We won't kill you, so we're going to send you into this desert without any water or sun protection until you die out there") and potentially creates yet another foe sniping at the party's flanks. It sounds like the OP has made every reasonable move he can make and is now going to the final resort to protect himself and the rest of the party. I get where he's coming from. If I were in a hostile environment and being pursued by enemies, then a member of my party who is offing other members of my party is too dangerous to leave be. Honestly, if it were you, would you reach any other conclusion, if it was your life on the line, and the lives of other party members? That's how I'm approaching this, and from that viewpoint, it makes sense.

And again, both players and the DM are fine with it. So out of character, there wouldn't be any issues. I wouldn't let this happen without discussing it with everyone first, but that hurdle has already been cleared.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Nice.

Anyways, it seems this thread has fully derailed into a morality discussion instead of the original topic, which always ends up the same way of everybody agreeing to disagree except for a few people who continue to argue until the thread gets locked.

Personally I'm enjoying the general debate on ethics and alignment much more than the case of a specific table's drama.

[Trum4n1208]

Personally I'm enjoying the general debate on ethics and alignment much more than the case of a specific table's drama.

It's been an interesting read, that's for sure.

[Tallis]

You brought up destroying the Death Star as good despite all the non-combatants on board (there was in fact an entire Legends novel about this), so I thought the comparison was warranted. Though for that matter, I think Segev's right in that actual war has different parameters, so the entire initial comparison is a bit flawed.

Actually I didn't say that it was good, though I can understand where you'd get confused. Malice used 3 characters from Star Wars as examples of good while saying that good people don't kill people in their sleep or with out confronting them and giving them a chance to repent. I was pointing out that they have in fact killed a lot of people in their sleep without giving them a chance to repent. I never made any judgment on whether it was good or evil.


Lol. Its not evil to murder, torture or rape an 'evil' person? So methods matter not, only the status of your victim?

You're the only person that has suggested torture or rape. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I, for one, would consider those methods wrong.
Also: it's not just the fact that the lock is evil that makes killing him acceptable. He is a clear and present danger to the group. He would still be a clear and present danger if they kicked him out of the group since he could easily track and kill more of them (or at least attempt to). There are no authorities around, so turning him in or reporting him is not an option. Removal of a danger to yourself and your friends is a reasonable course of action.
Methods definitely matter. I just don't see why letting him see it coming so he can spend his last moments in fear or starting a fight in which other people can be hurt or killed is more good than killing removing the threat quickly and quietly with a tactical advantage.

If you play a good character in your game do you forgo surprise rounds to tell your enemy you're coming? Do you talk to every goblin and give him a chance to join your side before you cast a spell or swing a sword at him? I don't, because that would just be silly and I'd probably end up dead very quickly. These are adventurers. They make a living by killing things. If they're not smart about it their careers aren't likely to last long. If it were a monster or an NPC we were talking about killing I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

[The Glyphstone]

Actually I didn't say that it was good, though I can understand where you'd get confused. Malice used 3 characters from Star Wars as examples of good while saying that good people don't kill people in their sleep or with out confronting them and giving them a chance to repent. I was pointing out that they have in fact killed a lot of people in their sleep without giving them a chance to repent. I never made any judgment on whether it was good or evil.

You say tomato, I say mass murder...

[Tallis]

You say tomato, I say mass murder...

Tomatoes are clearly evil. I think we can all agree on that.

Destroying the Death Star was a wartime action. I wouldn't term it as good in and of itself (I can think of very few examples of killing that could actually be termed as "good") but it certainly served the greater good. In war bad things are an unfortunate necessity.

[JoeJ]

Destroying the Death Star was a wartime action. I wouldn't term it as good in and of itself (I can think of very few examples of killing that could actually be termed as "good") but it certainly served the greater good. In war bad things are an unfortunate necessity.

Tell that to the families of the children in the Sunshine Death Star Play and Learning Center (http://www.theonion.com/article/death-star-to-open-day-care-center-19913).

edit: corrected typo.

[krugaan]

Tallis nailed pretty much any point I'd raise, but I do have one more thought. I'd consider bad roleplaying to be treating a Player Character differently from an NPC purely because he's a player character. If you're traveling with an NPC and he blatantly murders someone and your character would fight him over it, but not a PC who does the same thing, then yeah, that's bad roleplaying. You're treating the player character differently from anyone else in-game, when that divide doesn't exist in-game.


I admit, in a way it is. I play with friends where the focus of the story is very clear. Yet, PCs and NPCs are still different, because the gods of the universe have chosen to focus their attention on the PCs and not vice versa. You know the PCs thoughts and feelings, frustrations and joys in a way you can only guess from the DMs descriptions of the NPCs, who are rarely fleshed out because that would be waaaaay too much work.


If it were a monster or an NPC we were talking about killing I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

Yeah. The discussion is interesting though.


This isn't really true in Out of the Abyss.

You start the campaign having to make friends with "lesser evil" folks in order to escape being enslaved by the Drow. Then, as the campaign progresses, you often have to make deals and interactions with very evil folks. Sometimes you have to make those deals just for personal survival (and to prevent being recaptured by your slavers), sometimes you have to make those deals to stop something even more evil than the person you're dealing with. Sprinkle in a bit of insanity and madness, and you have the gist of the campaign.

Right and wrong, good and evil have very fuzzy lines in this campaign.

There are times when you have a legitimate good guy. Most of the time, you have a bad guy and a worse bad guy. It's like GI Joe and Cobra teaming up to fight drug addiction.

Lol, love the reference. OOA sounds pretty amazing, not sure it would fly with my current group though. We play strictly for fun in a very certain kind of way (kill things, get XP, get loot).

So, reading through, my brain has softened on the whole "murder the guy while he's sleeping" thing, but my gut still doesn't like it at all. And any CG character I played would probably not do it.

[Trum4n1208]

So, reading through, my brain has softened on the whole "murder the guy while he's sleeping" thing, but my gut still doesn't like it at all. And any CG character I played would probably not do it.

I completely get that. Like I said, it would be far from my first choice of action, and not a decision I would make easily. I'm only good with it because the players and the DM appear to be fine with it in this case.

[Malifice]

Firstly, no-one has actually suggested torture or rape.

Ah cool. So its only OK to murder 'evil' people. Torturing or raping them is out.

Check.

Care to explain why? Apparently I can murder an 'evildoer' simply on account of his being 'evil'. That makes my evil act, no longer evil for some reason.

Why cant I torture it out of him? Or rape it out of him? Surely if murdering him in is sleep is OK, If I can torture or rape him to force him to stop, this is also a good act.

He's evil remember. Legitimate target. If my torture or other crimes makes him stop, its a 'good' act. By the logic presented above.


Secondly, yes, what the person in question has done or is likely to do matters.

Rubbish mate. It only matters in that one needs to use lethal force in response to a threat that is imminent and no other optiion avails itself to you.

Its morally repugnant (and evil) to murder an 'evildoer' just as its morally repugnant to rape them or torture them. Its an evil act and I dont care what the targets 'alignment' is.

If its evil when they murder people, its evil when you do it.


Killing a vicious random murderer who has killed several of your friends and his own, and thus presents a clear and present danger to you*

He's not a clear and present danger to you. Hes sleeping. Short of 'battered wife syndrome' where murdering a bastard thats been torturing you while he sleeps is the only way to save yourself (and this isnt; heck, there is zero evidence the 'evildoer' has been anything but a trusting and loyal companion to this supposedly 'good' PC - he seems to consider the cleric a friend; if a bit soft) he in no way presents such a threat.

Dont get me wrong; there is nothing evil about using force (including lethal force) in self defence or the defence of innocents as a last resort.

This isnt a last resort though.


More countries have abolished the death penalty than use it, but the countries that retain it tend to be bigger.

Every enlightened country in the world barring the US has banned it. Its an abhorrent and barbaric practice. YMMV however.

This happened in game and I would either execute the (clearly) evil, murderous and treacherous cleric and fighter if I was a fellow PC (and LE) or force the cleric and fighter to pay for the warlocks ressurection (G) and then exile them. Of course If I was G aligned, I would never have sat back and let the Warlock murder anyyone himself in the first place.

If he killed a NPC and I was good aligned and nearby I would be all 'I draw my sword and demand the warlocks surrender. Roll initiative'.


You're the only person that has suggested torture or rape. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I, for one, would consider those methods wrong.

Murdering an evildoer is OK but torturing them till they stop is not? Murder is morally neutral or even good to commit on an evil person but rape isnt?

Youre getting this all wrong. Its not the alignment of your target that justifies force, its the necessity of doing it to protect innocent life.

Cops arent evil for shooting robbers who are shooting at them or civilians. The Punisher is evil for breaking into the robbers house and murdering and torturing them as they sleep.

See the difference?


He would still be a clear and present danger if they kicked him out of the group since he could easily track and kill more of them (or at least attempt to).

A good person doesnt murder someone on these grounds. An evil person certainly does though.

'He might pose us a threat and he cant be trusted. Hence we must kill him as he sleep' (is what an evil person says).


There are no authorities around, so turning him in or reporting him is not an option. Removal of a danger to yourself and your friends is a reasonable course of action.

Bulldust. Give me this clerics character. I assure you I could chat with the Fighter and other PCs and resolve this issue without resorting to murder.

If the Warlock fights me on it, then I respond with as much force as is needed. Im a good guy. I dont resort to torture, rape or murder.


If you play a good character in your game do you forgo surprise rounds to tell your enemy you're coming?

Nope. But I dont attack anyone unless they pose me a direct threat, and I try and resolve every conflict withoout resorting to violence. If there is no other option then I respond with violence.

I dont expect a police officer to knock on the door before conducting a raid on an armed bad guys house. But I equally ont expect them to sneak in the house at night and murder the bad guy as he sleeps.

See the difference?

The OP (and you) are engaging in immature murderhobism and some pretty twisted subjective moral relativism. If these kind of justifications for outright murder work in your campaigns for your 'good' aligned PCs then more fun to you.

They wont fly in my campaign. Good luck in yours.

[krugaan]

If he killed a NPC and I was good aligned and nearby I would be all 'I draw my sword and demand the warlocks surrender. Roll initiative'.

This, even if I don't agree with the rest of it. Although the problem is ... what if the warlock does surrender? What then?

[smcmike]

This happened in game and I would . . . force the cleric and fighter to pay for the warlocks ressurection (G) and then exile them. Of course If I was G aligned, I would never have sat back and let the Warlock murder anyyone himself in the first place.

If he killed a NPC and I was good aligned and nearby I would be all 'I draw my sword and demand the warlocks surrender. Roll initiative'.

This all sounds sort of ok in theory, but...

Force them to pay for resurrection how? From what I understand of the campaign, resources for this sort of thing are scarce, even if you could gain power over them.

You would have never sat back and let the warlock end his Tenser's disc? How does that work?

After his surrender, then what?

[Malifice]

This, even if I don't agree with the rest of it. Although the problem is ... what if the warlock does surrender? What then?

You use as much force as is reasonable to make him surrender. Win initiaitive and ready an action. Lose it and respond to what he does in response to your command to surrender. If he throws down on you (or is about to) and you have no other option reasonably open to you take him down with extreme prejudice.

Youre a good person trying to avoid bloodshed; youre not a pacifist who avoids it at all costs.

Remember in 5E anyone can declare the final hit to 0 HP to be a KO and not a kill.

Personally I would instantly have exiled him. Importanlty I would have told the warlocks player about my characters intent and that if he carried on with the action (his NPC murder) it would lead to some irrepairable inter party strife and conflict before he did it too. It would lead to either his PC being removed from the party, or mine.


After his surrender, then what?

Depends. An allied NPCs murder is no different to a PvP. A friend has just attacked (and killed) another friend in my (good aligned) PCs presence. Id do everything in my power to stop it, and if I couldnt I would NEVER want anything to do with the evil murderous psycho from that point on.

Its either he leaves, or I do.

I highly doubt a good PC is going to shrug his shoulders and ignore a friend killing another (would you?), but equally I (as a good person) am certainly am not going to murder the killer as he sleeps either.

Im a good person. Good people dont murder people. Or if they do (by their actions) theyre no longer a good person.

[smcmike]

You use as much force as is reasonable to make him surrender. Win initiaitive and ready an action. Lose it and respond to what he does in response to your command to surrender. If he throws down on you (or is about to) and you have no other option reasonably open to you take him down with extreme prejudice.

Youre a good person trying to avoid bloodshed; youre not a pacifist who avoids it at all costs.

Remember in 5E anyone can declare the final hit to 0 HP to be a KO and not a kill.

Personally I would instantly have exiled him. Importanlty I would have told the warlocks player about my characters intent and that if he carried on with the action (his NPC murder) it would lead to some irrepairable inter party strife and conflict before he did it too. It would lead to either his PC being removed from the party, or mine.

You kind of answered a different question than what was asked.

Surrender!

Um, ok?

I will throw down on you with extreme prejudice!

Hey, man, I'm not trying to fight you.

You are exiled!

Says who?

Me.

What will you do if I just, you know, don't go away?

Kill you!

Interesting.

[krugaan]

You use as much force as is reasonable to make him surrender. Win initiaitive and ready an action. Lose it and respond to what he does in response to your command to surrender. If he throws down on you (or is about to) and you have no other option reasonably open to you take him down with extreme prejudice.

Youre a good person trying to avoid bloodshed; youre not a pacifist who avoids it at all costs.

Remember in 5E anyone can declare the final hit to 0 HP to be a KO and not a kill.

Personally I would instantly have exiled him. Importanlty I would have told the warlocks player about my characters intent and that if he carried on with the action (his NPC murder) it would lead to some irrepairable inter party strife and conflict before he did it too. It would lead to either his PC being removed from the party, or mine.

No, I mean this:

Warlock murders someone. You whip out your sword, hold it to his throat, and demand his surrender.

He smirks, drops his weapon, and complies.

What now?

Do you hold him prisoner for the rest of the adventure? That would definitely weaken the party more than just killing him, particularly if you have to protect him against lynchings from the rest of the party.

Do you exile him with food and water, having to be on your guard for the rest of the adventure, not knowing where he is or what he's doing, maybe even, as Segev suggested, telling the drow your movements?

Do you exile him without food and water, which is tantamount to a death sentence itself?

The best case scenario is he shouts "you'll never take me alive" and the rest of the party happily obliges. But there is no end to the amount of chaos a clever evil character can sow by abusing moral weakness (or strength).

[Malifice]

You kind of answered a different question than what was asked.

Surrender!

Um, ok?

I will throw down on you with extreme prejudice!

Hey, man, I'm not trying to fight you.

You are exiled!

Says who?

Me.

What will you do if I just, you know, don't go away?

Kill you!

Interesting.

You strip him of his gear, and send him packing. If he returns you tie him up and take him with you, knock him out and leave him (safe but KOed), intimidate him, take him to the allies of the person he just murdered and let them dish ou the punishment or seek resititution. or whatever.

Hes a murderous monster. He cant be trusted.

You're not though.

The Player here is to blame (or the 'locks is). I would have immediately spoke up (BEFORE the blatantly evil act from the lock) and informed the player that if he continues with this action its going to lead to a likely irreconcilible inter party conflict that will see either his character kicked out or dead, or mine.

If the lock does it anyway, then so be it.

[JoeJ]

You strip him of his gear, and send him packing.

Alone and unarmed in the Underdark. That's different from murdering him how?

[krugaan]

Alone and unarmed in the Underdark. That's different from murdering him how?

Clean hands.

edit: also, less XP.

[Tvtyrant]

Alone and unarmed in the Underdark. That's different from murdering him how?

There is no government to issue out punishments, ergo justice is preventing him from committing further acts of violence in the most effective way possible.

I would actually just talk to the DM and player about having the Warlock become a recurring villain and having the player roll up a new character. That way you are not arbitrarily wiping out a member of the party, but actually increasing the other players level of interaction.

[smcmike]

You strip him of his gear, and send him packing.

Under the circumstances this is either murder or asking for revenge.



If he returns you tie him up and take him with you, knock him out and leave him (safe but KOed),


Effectively slow murder.



take him to the allies of the person he just murdered and let them dish ou the punishment or seek resititution. or whatever.

this assumes there are such allies, and may be killing him as well.


You
Hes a murderous monster. He cant be trusted.


Agreed



You're not though.

The Player here is to blame (or the 'locks is). I would have immediately spoke up (BEFORE the blatantly evil act from the lock)


Again with the magical ability to step in before something bad happens. That's not how time usually works.



and informed the player that if he continues with this action its going to lead to a likely irreconcilible inter party conflict that will see either his character kicked out or dead, or mine.

If the lock does it anyway, then so be it.

Ok, so now we are onto OOC solutions. Player B says "oh yeah?"

All of the above also assumes you have the rest of the team on your side. Given all of the information we have, this doesn't seem to be justified. The high charisma evil-dude's first response will be to deny everything and try to win everyone else over.

[krugaan]

There is no government to issue out punishments, ergo justice is preventing him from committing further acts of violence in the most effective way possible.

So why not just kill him in his sleep?

[Malifice]

No, I mean this:

Warlock murders someone. You whip out your sword, hold it to his throat, and demand his surrender.

He smirks, drops his weapon, and complies.

What now?

Depends. For one thing you almost certainly cant adventure with him anymore (would you?).

I'd demand answers. Starting at: Why did you kill that person (maybe there was some valid reason)?


Do you hold him prisoner for the rest of the adventure? That would definitely weaken the party more than just killing him, particularly if you have to protect him against lynchings from the rest of the party.

Depends on how the roleplaying went and the character I was playing. A LG Paladin of justice and honor would handle it differently to a CG Ranger who values freedom and liberty.

It could be a fair trial followed by lawful punishment, a group vote on what to do with him, letting him go in exile (on pain of death of he attempts to harry or delay or attack your party), tying him up to come with you as a prisoner, making him demonstrate genuine remorse and repentence, handing him over to the NPCs allies for restitution or whatever.

Rick kicked Carol out of the group when she went full Evil in TWD. Something like that. If Carol comes back and to kill Rick afterwards, or looks to attack the others, she gets popped.

I mean play your characters maturely for Gods sake. This to me sounds like an immature 'evil' PC with an ewually immature good one. Its just douchery for the evil PC to screw over the group dynamic like this, and I see no reason why he would bother IRL if he was warned that any attempt to return to the group and hassle or hamper them would be met with getting exiled again - only this time tied up.


The best case scenario is he shouts "you'll never take me alive" and the rest of the party happily obliges. But there is no end to the amount of chaos a clever evil character can sow by abusing moral weakness (or strength).

Good people arent stupid. They have mercy, compassion and kindness. These arent weaknesses - theyre strengths.

And your reasoning isnt justification for good people to do evil. We all know evil methods are quicker, easier and sometimes more effective, but theyre still evil.

There is no need in this scenario for this cleric to resort to murder. He hasnt even talked this through with the 'lock in game yet. He's approached the fighter and hired him to murder the 'lock (which the fighter is - disturbingly - all too happy to do, for the lower price of a few gp).

If I was watching this unfold in a movie, I'd call the lot of them evil.

[JoeJ]

So why not just kill him in his sleep?

That would seem to be both more humane and more certain to work. Once you've decided that you have to kill somebody you should do it as quickly as you can.

[Tvtyrant]

So why not just kill him in his sleep?

Because it would be unfair to the other player.

[Malifice]

Under the circumstances this is either murder or asking for revenge.

Its neither. Youre not obligated to help a person who has just murdered one of your friends.

He can go it alone. This isnt murder, its 'Get lost you psycho'. If you cant see the difference here we tallk a different language.

If he comes back seeking revenge, he gets a sword in the face. Force is OK in response to force.


Effectively slow murder.

Rubbish. He made the decision to ostracise everyone else when he started killing them.


Ok, so now we are onto OOC solutions. Player B says "oh yeah?"

And you explain to him the problems its going to create. Along with the DM you come to a solution that works at the table to avoid this rubbish.


All of the above also assumes you have the rest of the team on your side. Given all of the information we have, this doesn't seem to be justified.

Given the information I have, If I was the Cleric I would simply slip away in the night and leave this party. He's travelling with a psychotic Warlock who is murdering people for no apparent reason (despite needing them for survival) and a Fighter who is all to happy to not only turn a blind eye to this crap, but perfectly fine with murdering a sleeping companion for a few GP.

There is no way in hell I (as a CG PC) would travel with such a murderous band of psychotic monsters. Screw hanging with a demon worshipping Charles Manson and a pityless and honorless contract killer.

I'd take my chances alone in the underdark and let those psychoes kill themselves after a day or two (which if they were played correctly, they surely would).

[krugaan]

Depends. For one thing you almost certainly cant adventure with him anymore (would you?).


I'd put up with it for the sake of survival, if the warlock was helpful enough. Then deal with it after we're safe. I assume the warlock isn't out to watch the world burn, but isn't above setting a few fires (or snuffing some out).



I'd demand answers. Starting at: Why did you kill that person (maybe there was some valid reason)?


Yes, this is important.



Depends on how the roleplaying went and the character I was playing. A LG Paladin of justice and honor would handle it differently to a CG Ranger who values freedom and liberty.

It could be a fair trial followed by lawful punishment, a group vote on what to do with him, letting him go in exile (on pain of death of he attempts to harry or delay or attack your party), tying him up to come with you as a prisoner, making him demonstrate genuine remorse and repentence, handing him over to the NPCs allies for restitution or whatever.

Rick kicked Carol out of the group when she went full Evil in TWD. Something like that. If Carol comes back and to kill Rick afterwards, or looks to attack the others, she gets popped.

I mean play your characters maturely for Gods sake. This to me sounds like an immature 'evil' PC with an ewually immature good one. Its just douchery for the evil PC to screw over the group dynamic like this, and I see no reason why he would bother IRL if he was warned that any attempt to return to the group and hassle or hamper them would be met with getting exiled again - only this time tied up.


This would be a great idea if the OP had any idea how. That's the whole point of the thread.



Good people arent stupid. They have mercy, compassion and kindness. These arent weaknesses - theyre strengths.

There are benefits to being good and being evil. Good people have many restrictions... the positives being other people are more willing to work with you. Reverse for evil people. That's why good and evil are social constructs. It's nice to think that good and evil are intrinsic parts of the human soul, but that's going further down the rabbit hole than I think anyone wants to discuss atm.


And your reasoning isnt justification for good people to do evil. We all know evil methods are quicker, easier and sometimes more effective, but theyre still evil.

No, it's not. It's also not my viewpoint, though.



There is no need in this scenario for this cleric to resort to murder. He hasnt even talked this through with the 'lock in game yet. He's approached the fighter and hired him to murder the 'lock (which the fighter is - disturbingly - all too happy to do, for the lower price of a few gp).

If I was watching this unfold in a movie, I'd call the lot of them evil.

Sadly, yes. Well, to quote the great Richard Adams, "he did not fall from grace so much as saunter vaguely downwards."

[Malifice]

I'd put up with it for the sake of survival, if the warlock was helpful enough.

If I was in a survival situation in a place like the Underdark, the last dude I would want anywhere near me is an evil Devil worshipping half demon serial killer.

Im probably closest to CN IRL, and I would be sneaking away in the dark and looking after my own intrestes quicker than you could say 'boo' (and before I got murdered in my sleep).

At the very least, the instant I was in a safe area (Svirfneblin settlement perhaps) we part ways for good.


Sadly, yes. Well, to quote the great Richard Adams, "he did not fall from grace so much as saunter vaguely downwards."

I prefer Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...”

Some posters in this thread could learn a thing or two from this quote.

[Tvtyrant]

The "good" or "evil" of the characters is unimportant to the scenario. Playing with other people assumes a social contract that you will actually play the game together, which is the actual issue here. The OP is asking how best to IC ebforce this contract, to which the answer is always don't.

[krugaan]

If I was in a survival situation in a place like the Underdark, the last dude I would want anywhere near me is an evil Devil worshipping half demon serial killer.

Alone in the underdark is not a good idea. Not a death sentence, but certainly not a wise survival move.


Im probably closest to CN IRL, and I would be sneaking away in the dark and looking after my own intrestes quicker than you could say 'boo' (and before I got murdered in my sleep).

At the very least, the instant I was in a safe area (Svirfneblin settlement perhaps) we part ways for good.


Again, safety in numbers. At level 3 you don't have many options for safe resting alone.



I prefer Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...”

Some posters in this thread could learn a thing or two from this quote.

I like the "abyss" version myself (and it's more applicable here, with the whole warlock thing) but, er, the quote is overused, which is why I picked a different and funnier one.

[Rakoa]

It'd be ridiculous to let him get away. Exile would either result in his slow death by dehydration or starvation, or horrible enslavement by drow. On the chance that he survives, there's now a murderer loose, free to kill innocents again. Killing him is the only humane, reasonable solution. After that conclusion is reached, the only question is how? Openly challenging him risks collateral damage, and should he not surrender, his death will be slower at your hands as he is cut up or blocked or impaled or immolated or whatever, and potentially the hands of your party as compared to a rapid and swift one during sleep. This is simple logic that eliminates his ability to commit further Evil in the most humane way possible for every party involved. Not an Evil act.

[Ronnoc]

Personal my approach if I were playing the CG cleric would be to ask the warlock (privately or publicly depends on the party) why he killed the npcs. If he gives a reasonable justification then you emphasize that we have to work as a group to get out of there etc. If on the other hand the murder was for evil kicks and giggles then you kill him in the most expedient fashion available. Which may be in his sleep or if your off having this conversation in private then silence combined with the fact that you have decent melee abilities and the lock doesn't should resolve things.

[krugaan]

Personal my approach if I were playing the CG cleric would be to ask the warlock (privately or publicly depends on the party) why he killed the npcs. If he gives a reasonable justification then you emphasize that we have to work as a group to get out of there etc. If on the other hand the murder was for evil kicks and giggles then you kill him in the most expedient fashion available. Which may be in his sleep or if your off having this conversation in private then silence combined with the fact that you have decent melee abilities and the lock doesn't should resolve things.

A reasonable approach, IMO, but what serial killer is going to admit he killed victims for fun? If I wanted to keep going about my business I would make something up, and keep making up stuff for as long as it would work.

[Ronnoc]

If I'm not planning on having fun with this sideplot? Zone of truth is on the cleric list.

If on the other hand I plan on ignoring that spell in favor of more drama I would have confronted him after the first death and switched to attack mode at the second.

[Tallis]

Personally I'm enjoying the general debate on ethics and alignment much more than the case of a specific table's drama.

Me too :smallsmile: (except for that one guy who doesn't seem to be able to debate without throwing out insults) It would be cool if the OP actually took this thread and played it out as a moral conflict in his cleric.


Tell that to the families of the children in the Sunshine Death Star Day Play and Learning Center.

LOL :smallbiggrin: The people from the Alderaan daycare center might have a different point of view...


If its evil when they murder people, its evil when you do it.

By this logic all adventurers are evil since they could've just stayed home and avoided the danger.


Torturing or raping them is out.

Yes. Sorry to disappoint you.


there is zero evidence the 'evildoer' has been anything but a trusting and loyal companion to this supposedly 'good' PC - he seems to consider the cleric a friend; if a bit soft) he in no way presents such a threat.

No evidence except witnessing him murder one of his friends... What makes you think he considers the cleric a friend? After all the Cleric did call him out on murdering the first NPC to the group. In the warlock's shoes I would definitely consider that an enemy. In a combat situation, which is effectively what they are in the whole time they're in the Underdark, having someone with your group that has already killed 2 of them is a clear and present danger. You never know when they'll kill again.


Murdering an evildoer is OK but torturing them till they stop is not? Murder is morally neutral or even good to commit on an evil person but rape isnt?

Killing a known murderer to protect your friends is an acceptable last resort, yes. Killing in and of itself is morally neutral. The reasons for doing it can easily push it to evil or in some very specific and rare cases an argument can be made for good. Inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering would also push it towards evil. Once again torture and rape= bad. I find it disturbing that you're so obsessed with them.


Its not the alignment of your target that justifies force, its the necessity of doing it to protect innocent life.

I agree with that statement.


Cops arent evil for shooting robbers who are shooting at them or civilians.

Agreed.


The Punisher is evil for breaking into the robbers house and murdering and torturing them as they sleep.

Whether or not they're asleep is irrelevant. The fact that they aren't a danger is. In this case the warlock presents an ongoing danger.


See the difference?

Yes. Do you? The robbers aren't murderers targeting the group they're travelling with and the cops and the punisher aren't part of that group. It's a completely different situation.


Bulldust. Give me this clerics character. I assure you I could chat with the Fighter and other PCs and resolve this issue without resorting to murder.

He tried talking to them! The lock lied and the group believed his lies. He didn't just jump straight to 'Imma kill im in his sleep'! He tried for a more peaceful resolution and it didn't work! You ignoring that fact won't make it go away.


If the Warlock fights me on it, then I respond with as much force as is needed

Which is what he's doing!


. Im a good guy. I dont resort to torture, rape or murder.

I really think you have a problem. You should talk to someone about this.


The OP (and you) are engaging in immature murderhobism and some pretty twisted subjective moral relativism

If you can't present your argument without throwing out insults then you might want to examine your definition of maturity. Lets just stick to the intellectual debate and leave out the name calling, shall we?


Personally I would instantly have exiled him. Importanlty I would have told the warlocks player about my characters intent and that if he carried on with the action (his NPC murder) it would lead to some irrepairable inter party strife and conflict before he did it too. It would lead to either his PC being removed from the party, or mine.

The OP did talk to the warlock's player. He said he's fine with whatever the OP feels is an appropriate response. There is no OOC conflict.


You strip him of his gear, and send him packing. If he returns you tie him up and take him with you, knock him out and leave him

Which is a death sentence in the current circumstances but that's okay?


take him to the allies of the person he just murdered and let them dish ou the punishment or seek resititution. or whatever.

The PCs ARE the victims allies.


Hes a murderous monster. He cant be trusted.

Yes. That's the problem that led to this debate.


The Player here is to blame (or the 'locks is). I would have immediately spoke up (BEFORE the blatantly evil act from the lock) and informed the player that if he continues with this action its going to lead to a likely irreconcilible inter party conflict that will see either his character kicked out or dead, or mine.

How would you know about it before he did it? He did talk to the player after it happened both in game and out. Are you not reading the thread?


It could be a fair trial followed by lawful punishment, a group vote on what to do with him

A group vote from the people that already believe his lies about what happened?


He hasnt even talked this through with the 'lock in game yet

Yes he has. The lock denied it.



That would seem to be both more humane and more certain to work. Once you've decided that you have to kill somebody you should do it as quickly as you can.

This.


Because it would be unfair to the other player.

The player has already said do what you have to do.

[Rakoa]

Tallis summed the whole issue up very nicely.

[mgshamster]

So. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if it's good or evil, lawful of chaotic. What matters for the OP is: does it make for a good story that everyone at the table enjoys? Does it make for good character development?

If the answer to both of those is "no," then the CG cleric shouldn't take any actions.

Personally, if I were playing the LE character murdering other characters (even if they were NPCs), I'd have no problem with another player/PC eliminating my character from the group. To me, that's kind of part-of-the-deal when bringing in a murder-spree character into a team based game. I recognize that if I'm murdering NPCs, and it's not a main theme of the game, then I'm playing a short term character.

[djreynolds]

This is it. Whether or not, or this or that.

You, OP, are about to commit premeditated murder. You have planned it out. Regardless of the reasons, you will commit a neutral evil act.

Are you strong enough to just kick him out of the party? You may have to look over your shoulder the rest of your life. Could be some great adventures for you and friends to play.

Are you strong enough to call him out in a duel?

Are you strong enough to defeat him in a duel, and then not kill him?

You do not have to kill him, your hand is not being forced. You can instead of killing him in his sleep, simply walk away.

But by planning this out, this is an evil act. The only thing driving you is the fear of the possibility of him turning on you. Is that a reason to murder. Evil people are sometimes themselves paranoid, and will seek out means, possibly violent ones, to appease their own anxieties.

But enough of this.

Did you kill yet or what?

[Tvtyrant]

Killing in retribution is not murder, it is justice. Murder requires a society with a social contract wherein all parties recuse their right to seek personal justice in the name of stability. The party is not currently within a larger society, and so this does not apply to them.

Do you argue that all groups of people were murderers before they gained enough population to need formal courts?

[djreynolds]

Killing in retribution is not murder, it is justice. Murder requires a society with a social contract wherein all parties recuse their right to seek personal justice in the name of stability. The party is not currently within a larger society, and so this does not apply to them.

Do you argue that all groups of people were murderers before they gained enough population to need formal courts?

I see your point, but the OP is planning it. And without the other party members involvement.
Does the other PC warlock deserve it, maybe.
But does the warlock deserve to go out like that, no.

It will cause only strife in the party. I would just kick him out. And then if you have to fight, its self defense

[Trum4n1208]

I see your point, but the OP is planning it. And without the other party members involvement.
Does the other PC warlock deserve it, maybe.
But does the warlock deserve to go out like that, no.

It will cause only strife in the party. I would just kick him out. And then if you have to fight, its self defense

It might cause in-character strife which can make for more delicious character interactions, character development, and little storyhooks (all good things), but it's already been established that it's fine OOC, which would be the only thing that would concern me.

[paddyfool]

Personal my approach if I were playing the CG cleric would be to ask the warlock (privately or publicly depends on the party) why he killed the npcs. If he gives a reasonable justification then you emphasize that we have to work as a group to get out of there etc. If on the other hand the murder was for evil kicks and giggles then you kill him in the most expedient fashion available. Which may be in his sleep or if your off having this conversation in private then silence combined with the fact that you have decent melee abilities and the lock doesn't should resolve things.

Seems reasonable, partly because motive matters: what if the warlock is doing this in service to his patron, and/or to weaken the party in advance of an ambush by unseen allies?

But the warlock's not going to just give up this information when he's denying murdering the NPCs at all. Hence why people have been suggesting zone of truth etc earlier.

[krugaan]

Killing in retribution is not murder, it is justice. Murder requires a society with a social contract wherein all parties recuse their right to seek personal justice in the name of stability. The party is not currently within a larger society, and so this does not apply to them.

Do you argue that all groups of people were murderers before they gained enough population to need formal courts?

Erm, justice is even more just as predicated on a "social contract" as murder is... You cannot decide if something is just without some form of society to create rules on what exactly that means. One cannot exist without the other.

[Tallis]

The only thing driving you is the fear of the possibility of him turning on you. Is that a reason to murder. Evil people are sometimes themselves paranoid, and will seek out means, possibly violent ones, to appease their own anxieties.

The thing is it's not paranoia. His fear is completely justified since he's already witnessed the lock betray and kill other members of the group,
I can't speak for the OP but I would be worried about the possibility of losing a straight up duel against someone of the same level as me. Especially since he has already convinced the group to take his side when I accused him of the first killing. Maybe he could also talk them into taking his side against me in a fight. It would be extremely dangerous to try to duel him.
Although I don't agree with you in this case I can certainly understand your aversion to premeditated killing but you have to admit that his fear is completely reasonable and justified.

[djreynolds]

The thing is it's not paranoia. His fear is completely justified since he's already witnessed the lock betray and kill other members of the group,
I can't speak for the OP but I would be worried about the possibility of losing a straight up duel against someone of the same level as me. Especially since he has already convinced the group to take his side when I accused him of the first killing. Maybe he could also talk them into taking his side against me in a fight. It would be extremely dangerous to try to duel him.
Although I don't agree with you in this case I can certainly understand your aversion to premeditated killing but you have to admit that his fear is completely reasonable and justified.

That's the fun of the game. But killing the warlock will set a precedence, "can we trust each other", "no honor among thieves"

Killing the warlock is unhonorable, that should be agreed upon. Whether its good or evil, I'm unsure. It is unlawful.

Call him out in a duel, kick him out of the party, or bring the warlock back into the fold. There is risk no matter the choice.

[Tallis]

That's the fun of the game. But killing the warlock will set a precedence, "can we trust each other", "no honor among thieves"

Sure it can be fun but if sounds like the OP is looking for a bit deeper RP. Not just what would be cool but what would this guy actually do in this situation. He is a good cleric, it's his job to protect the flock even if they don't recognize the threat. At least that's how I see he situation.


Killing the warlock is unhonorable, that should be agreed upon. Whether its good or evil, I'm unsure. It is unlawful.

I absolutely agree with you here. But then we are talking about a chaotic cleric here.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'll start with a little background info, and follow up with questions that I have:

First up the group I am in is playing through the Out of the Abyss campaign. I am playing as a lvl 3 CG Cleric, and the player in question rolled a lvl 3 LE Warlock during our last session (his previous character died). The DM is now regretting letting him play an evil character as he has so far killed 2 npc's that may or may not have been important. Since I am playing the only "Good" character in the group (everyone else is different shades of neutral), and I was the only one to really make successful insight checks against his lies, my character knows he's evil.

I have read too many stories were good and evil characters are in the same group and no one is willing to do anything about it, or react as there character would, and it destroys the party. At this point during our next session I'm going to try and RP how my character react as best as I can, given everything he witnessed the warlock do. Which mean the warlock has to die, or I die in the attempt.

The plan so far, with the DM's approval, is I have convinced the groups fighter, who has a background as a mercenary, to help me kill him in his sleep. I promised him whatever he found on the body, which is a good amount of gold, as his payment to which he agreed. During our next long rest, the merc will offer to be on watch while the rest of us sleep, this shouldn't arouse any suspicion from the warlock. During the night the merc will wake me up, and I will then cast silence on the warlock. This should encompass the other players as well so they will not hear what is going on and shouldn't wake up to help or hinder. The merc will then attack the warlock with his great sword, which should give him advantage, and be an auto crit. We roll for initiative, and the only actions I can see the warlock taking is a move to stand up from prone, and an action to make a basic attack, disengage or run away. Then we should be able to finish him off on our next turns.

My first question is, the Warlock has an ability called armor of shadows that he can cast at will, that doesn't require a spell slot or material components. Does he still have to meet the V and S requirements in order to cast it?

Second, I have never had to actively fight another player, which makes me nervous, and I'm slightly worried it might cause a bit of drama. Has anyone else been in a similar situation? How did you resolve it?

Third, is it a good plan? The DM doesn't want to come off as playing favorites but she does realize that the characters are going to have to RP this out. Do you guys have any suggestions to increase my chance of success? *note the other players may or may not side with the warlock, and would probably not join me in killing him which is why I didn't recruit them in on the plan*
First: no metagaming
Second: we kinda liked PVP and fought all the time :)
Third: try to talk first !

[Saeviomage]

My question(s) would be:
1. How did he end tenser's disc? 5e doesn't let you dismiss spells unless they specifically call out the ability to do so, and even then it's typically an action to do so. Tenser's disc only has two ways to end it before the hour is up: move out of range or overload it.

2. How did he talk his way out of it in such a way that the entire party are "meh, whatever" about it? Did he just say "I roll persuasion: 20! You all believe it was an accident"?

I'm all for killing him in his sleep BTW. And according to Malafice's logic, you can get out of the evil repercussions by getting the fighter to do the deed!

[Malifice]

His fear is completely justified since he's already witnessed the lock betray and kill other members of the group,

So... in response to his fear that the Warlock will betray and murder other members of the group because its convenient to do so, the Cleric decides to betray and murder other members of the group, and encourage the Fighter to participate in the same, because its convenient to do so.

Think about this for a second.


I can't speak for the OP but I would be worried about the possibility of losing a straight up duel against someone of the same level as me. Especially since he has already convinced the group to take his side when I accused him of the first killing. Maybe he could also talk them into taking his side against me in a fight. It would be extremely dangerous to try to duel him.

Spoken like a true NE person justifying murder:

'The warlock cant be trusted. I must therefore betray and murder him in his sleep. Direct confrontation is too risky, because the others could be in on it too.'

Is not something a Chaotic Good person says. Sounds veeery NE to me mate. Your solution is brutal, practical and violent, and your justification for engaging in it is self preservation and self advancement. I mean - you're not even bothering to attempt to justify your murder as 'to protect innocents' anymore. You're now justifying this murder out of sheer convenience.

Mercy, altruism, compassion, kindness, and all that stuff that is 'good' arent even a factor anymore.

Remember:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

Now tell me under which alignment category do your actions lie?

This PC doesnt give a toss about personal sacrifices. He kills people in their sleep becuase its convenient.


Although I don't agree with you in this case I can certainly understand your aversion to premeditated killing but you have to admit that his fear is completely reasonable and justified.

Have you ever considered that the reason you agree with this course of action is because you're not CG? Think about it from a CG moral and ethical perspective, not from your own code of morals and ethics. You [personally] might be able to justify betrayal and murder in this instance, but what about a Chaotic Good person?

Personally I identify as CN (if I had to peg myself on DnDs alignment scale). I'd simply slip away in the middle of the night away from this band of pscyhopaths. Im not a murderer (not being evil) but im not hanging around with one either. I'll do things my own way, and take my chances on my own (Chaotic). If I have any friends in the group, I might chat to them about it first to see if they want to come with first, but everyone else is on their own (Neutral).

If I was Chaotic 'good' I would probably do the same thing, but ensuring I protected or took any children or helpless people with me (making sure they were safe at my own expense).

Because good people make sacrifices for others, and place others welfare above their own. They dont murder people out of convenience. Thats what evil people do.

In fact its precisely why the Cleric is opposed to the actions of the Warlock in the first place.

[RickAllison]

Here is how I see it:

Wants to protect the group: neutral
Attempted to address this through dialogue: good
Doesn't want a homicidal maniac terrorizing the general population: good
Decides he must die: evil
Doesn't want to risk self: neutral
Taking action without consulting group: chaotic

Seems like a pretty CN act to me.

[Segev]

Clean hands.
Sophistry. You do not get to claim "clean hands" when you put the puppy in the sack and put the sack on the busy highway on the grounds that it was the car that killed it. You do not get to claim "clean hands" when you throw the child to the wolves, because "it wasn't me, it was the wolves."

This isn't keeping your hands clean. It's being too squeamish or dishonest with yourself to do the deed yourself, and, in the process, risking that it will come back to bite you and the people you claim the act is meant to protect (i.e. the other party members).


“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...”

Some posters in this thread could learn a thing or two from this quote.It is a good quote, from a reprehensible man whose philosophy is shallow, trite, and generally wrong. In this case, however, it does not apply, unless the cleric starts talking about killing others (like, say, the fighter) to cover his tracks.

As long as he is very specific about who he kills and why, and those reasons are good and the killings done as a last (viable) resort, the killing itself remains neutral. Those who make it necessary by their own acts surrender their moral right to have their lives be sacrosanct. More on this later in this post.


This is it. Whether or not, or this or that.

You, OP, are about to commit premeditated murder. You have planned it out. Regardless of the reasons, you will commit a neutral evil act.By that logic, all executioners are evil. They plan their executions out to the time and place, as well as method, and make sure to have overwhelming force available to subdue the subject.

He is killing somebody who has already killed two others, and denied it successfully enough to deceive everyone but the cleric. There is no reason to assume he'll do anything BUT keep killing, and that the cleric may well be high on his list now that he knows the cleric knows of his deeds and disapproves. Even if the cleric is not on his list at all, the murder of allies upon whom they rely in a life-or-death situation is a threat to the whole group.


Are you strong enough to just kick him out of the party? You may have to look over your shoulder the rest of your life. Could be some great adventures for you and friends to play."Let's respond to somebody risking the lives of the whole group by giving him more and ample opportunity to do the same, rather than actually solving the problem." Brilliant.

This isn't "good is dumb." Because this is not "good." It's self-righteousness and pride.

You do not have to kill him, your hand is not being forced. You can instead of killing him in his sleep, simply walk away.So the "good" option is to abandon your erstwhile allies to a known murderer they do not believe is a killer, and head out on your own in a dangerous situation where, with the group holding together, it's still far from guaranteed you'll survive. Oh, and now he has a justification for killing you, if he finds you, for your "treachery" in leaving. Which might get the whole party cooperating.

Why is it that the only "good" options you see are suicidal? Why does this murderer have more right to life than you do? Than your party does? This isn't Minority Report. This isn't hypothetical. This is active "he has done this, and I have every reason to believe that he will do it again, and it threatens me and everybody else in the group. The ONLY way to protect myself and everyone else is to remove this threat."


The only thing driving you is the fear of the possibility of him turning on you. Is that a reason to murder. Evil people are sometimes themselves paranoid, and will seek out means, possibly violent ones, to appease their own anxieties.No, the thing driving the cleric is the knowledge that this warlock has ALREADY turned on the party. In a life-or-death struggle. Which has resulted in him directly murdering two party members already.


I see your point, but the OP is planning it. And without the other party members involvement.Which is Chaotic, not Evil.

Does the other PC warlock deserve it, maybe.
But does the warlock deserve to go out like that, no.Why not? He deserves to be killed, and it is the only way to ensure he does not further harm the party's chances of overall survival (let alone kill another of them). The methods discussed are not designed to inflict more pain than necessary. They are designed to end it expeditiously. When good men kill, they should seek to do so in such a fashion; the death must be warranted (and this one absolutely is), and should be executed as efficiently and mercifully as is expedient to the reasons necessitating it.


It will cause only strife in the party. I would just kick him out. And then if you have to fight, its self defenseWhy is it not self-defense when you know he's done it and is lying about it and will all but certainly do it again? Why is the heat of the moment the only justified time? Why is it necessary to wait for him to have every advantage he can get, so he can try to kill as many of you as possible, possibly without even being present?


So... in response to his fear that the Warlock will betray and murder other members of the group because its convenient to do so, the Cleric decides to betray and murder other members of the group, and encourage the Fighter to participate in the same, because its convenient to do so.

Think about this for a second.I have. Thoroughly. You obviously have not, if this is how you characterize it. Because the cleric isn't "betray and murder other members of the group...because it's convenient to do so." He's killing a traitor who has already betrayed the group and murdered other members of it. He is not betraying those who trust him (unless the warlock is VERY foolish and trusts the man who he knows is the sole party member who knows of his murders). He is not killing people "because it's convenient." He's killing one specific person because that person is a clear and present threat to himself and the others, and it is not "convenient:" it is the only effective choice. Not merely expedient, but EFFECTIVE. Anything else is either impossible, suicidal (and ineffective), or likely to cause more harm in the long run by unacceptably increasing the risks to the group as a whole.




Spoken like a true NE person justifying murder:

[I]'The warlock cant be trusted. I must therefore betray and murder him in his sleep. Direct confrontation is too risky, because the others could be in on it too.'Er, no. Spoken like the C* person contemplating killing somebody. And again, you mischaracterize it. It is not merely "The warlock cannot be trusted." It's "The warlock has already killed two of us, and I'm the only one who believes it. I have no reason to believe he won't do it again, and reason to believe that he has specific motive to kill me next, now."


Is not something a Chaotic Good person says. Sounds veeery NE to me mate. Then you're wrong. Because the only way it sounds evil is if you mischaracterize the situation and remove all of the context that makes it justified and necessary. "Why would you throw that poor man in jail, just because you don't trust him!?" "Because he's already swindeled thirteen widows out of their life savings, fed their puppies to their grandchildren, and then cooked and fed those grandchildren to those widows?" "You MONSTER! He might not do it again! You should just kick him out of town!" "And when he comes back?" "Then you can kill him, but only if he's actively killing somebody right then and there. Otherwise, you have to tell him to leave again." "And if he won't?" "Tell him more sternly!"


Your solution is brutal, practical and violent, and your justification for engaging in it is self preservation and self advancement. I mean - you're not even bothering to attempt to justify your murder as 'to protect innocents' anymore. You're now justifying this murder out of sheer convenience.Actually, he's justifying it to protect himself (an innocent, and remains so after this fact because he is not killing unjustifiably) and the rest of the party (who are, at least, innocent in the sense that they've done nothing to justify internecine murder, as the warlock has already perpetrated).

And it's not "convenience." It's "survival." It's "effectiveness." The warlock cannot be effectively detained (without effectively executing him by a more painful method), can't be kicked out (the party doesn't believe he's guilty, so the only enforcement of an exile would be the cleric threatening to kill him if he didn't leave...which puts us right back here, but now with the cleric in increased danger for no moral gain), and, even if he were kicked out or imprisoned, would greatly increase the risks to the party as a whole as he could be captured by the drow or the detainment of him becomes a drain on resources the party needs to survive.


Mercy, altruism, compassion, kindness, and all that stuff that is 'good' arent even a factor anymore.Which is why this is a NEUTRAL act. Nobody's claimed it was a Good one. Stop conflating non-good with evil.


Remember:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.Irrelevant, here. Unless the "personal sacrifice" is supposed to be one's own life, and the "other" is supposed to include the person who is actually killing you. To take this to the same kind of silly extreme you've been, does this mean that Good people will willingly bare their throats to knife-wielding lunatics, to sacrifice themselves for the lunatic's personal enjoyment of killing them?


Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.None of which applies, here. Unless you're claiming that all harm and killing is evil. In which case adventurers are all inherently so, unless they do pure pacifist runs of their campaigns.


Now tell me under which alignment category do your actions lie?Neutral. We've covered this repeatedly. It is neither good nor evil.


This PC doesnt give a toss about personal sacrifices. He kills people in their sleep becuase its convenient.He kills murderers who are active threats to himself and the party in their sleep because it is the most effective way to prevent further harm to himself and the rest of the party in a life-or-death situation.

That's not about "convenience." That's about "survival" and "effectiveness." The methods here are Chaotic, absolutely. But they're not Evil. You are conflating the two inappropriately, again.


Have you ever considered that the reason you agree with this course of action is because you're not CG? Think about it from a CG moral and ethical perspective, not from your own code of morals and ethics. You [personally] might be able to justify betrayal and murder in this instance, but what about a Chaotic Good person?Frankly, the arguments you're making are tailor-made to send somebody on a slippery slope to evil. "Well, you killed somebody in a way that wasn't utterly stupid and didn't put yourself and other innocents at risk, so you're evil now. There's no difference between that and killing the fighter, now, so he can't tell the rest of the party. Go ahead and do that." When I put on my "corruptor" hat, that's exactly the kind of moral equivalence I use.

The act is chaotic, because he relies upon his own judgment in the face of disagreement from his group as a whole, and because he relies on expedient methods which respect no ethical codes that would be detrimental, and relies upon no authority other than his own personal ability to act. The act is not (inherently) Good, because it is predicated more on stopping evil that is harmful to himself and his direct allies than anything else. It is not Evil, because he is not killing for convenience, but as a matter of survival, and he is confining it to somebody who has abrogated their own life's sanctity through deliberate murder of (for purposes of this discussion) innocents.

For your argument to hold water, the murders would have to have been of people outside the party, preferably before the group got together. At that point, betrayal of trust would be enough to push it to evil. But since the warlock has already betrayed that trust, he is no longer protected, morally, by it.


Personally I identify as CN (if I had to peg myself on DnDs alignment scale). I'd simply slip away in the middle of the night away from this band of pscyhopaths.So you're suicidal, or supremely confident in your ability to survive on your own. And you don't think the party would find and kill you under this murderer's influence.


Im not a murderer (not being evil)Would you then not kill sentient monsters who were trying to capture or kill you?


but im not hanging around with one either. I'll do things my own way, and take my chances on my own (Chaotic). If I have any friends in the group, I might chat to them about it first to see if they want to come with first, but everyone else is on their own (Neutral).That is a valid choice, but it is not any less evil than executing the murderer. It is, in fact, not particularly Chaotic. It's ethically Neutral. You're valuing group judgment at least as much as your own, and respecting that their judgment has the right to stop you from taking action to stop a murderer who is a threat to them and you.

It is, by the logic you're applying, even arguably Evil: By removing yourself, and leaving the threat, you have reduced their chances of survival, valuing your own sense of pride and self-worth above the survival of those who have done no wrong by you other than failing to believe your warnings. If you do talk your friends into leaving, splitting the party, you've reduced EVERYBODY's chances even FURTHER, because now you've created a schism which could lead to violence (particularly if the warlock tricks those who stayed with him into believing your separated party are a threat), and which certainly reduces the resources both groups have available.

You selfish monster.


If I was Chaotic 'good' I would probably do the same thing, but ensuring I protected or took any children or helpless people with me (making sure they were safe at my own expense).And if they won't go because they don't believe the murderer is a murderer, and think you're crazy and paranoid?


Because good people make sacrifices for others, and place others welfare above their own. They dont murder people out of convenience. Thats what evil people do.Nobody is murdering anybody out of convenience. Except possibly the murderous warlock; I don't know if convenience was his motive.


In fact its precisely why the Cleric is opposed to the actions of the Warlock[I] in the first place.No, and this is false moral equivalence, and it is a tool of evil corruptors. It is used to weaken Good to ineffectiveness, trick Good into enabling Evil, and to convince the Good who have dared to stand up to Evil that they are now irredeemable, and thus may as well keep going since there's "no difference" between the (justified) act they took to thwart Evil and the (unjustified) act the corruptor suggests they do for "convenience," just like they did before (honest).

[Segev]

Here is how I see it:

Wants to protect the group: neutral
Attempted to address this through dialogue: good
Doesn't want a homicidal maniac terrorizing the general population: good
Decides he must die: evil
Doesn't want to risk self: neutral
Taking action without consulting group: chaotic

Seems like a pretty CN act to me.

I agree with all save the one "evil" line. Deciding somebody must die is not inherently evil. The criteria used to make that determination determine whether the decision was evil or not.

"He must die because he has already killed two members of the party for no discernible reason, has tricked the rest of the party into trusting him (thus making them easier prey), knows that I know he did it, and is very likely to kill again - possibly me - in the future."

That's not an evil list. That is, at WORST, a neutral list. Depending on how much of it is "I worry that he'll pointlessly kill more innocents who I could have saved," it might even be a GOOD list.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I think you're mixing points here. "To protect innocents" is good, and is one atom of the molecule you've constructed, the other part being "through violence and murder". This immediately puts us into "The ends justifies the means" territory, which is practically the unofficial slogan of the Lawful Evil alignment.

[krugaan]

Sophistry. You do not get to claim "clean hands" when you put the puppy in the sack and put the sack on the busy highway on the grounds that it was the car that killed it. You do not get to claim "clean hands" when you throw the child to the wolves, because "it wasn't me, it was the wolves."

This isn't keeping your hands clean. It's being too squeamish or dishonest with yourself to do the deed yourself, and, in the process, risking that it will come back to bite you and the people you claim the act is meant to protect (i.e. the other party members).

It's good you noticed that. The hands are literally clean, not figuratively, and the absurdity of the position is indeed the point I was aiming to make.

As for the rest of it ... the moral argument has already wandered into viewpoint territory.

Let me reiterate that the qualms I have of this "good" act: It is a slippery slope. Once you have a set pathway in your brain linking "murder someone in their sleep" to "for the greater good" it becomes easier and easier to justify the same behavior. However you may view parenting / religion / whatever, imprinting certain morals and social restrictions serves a purpose: it puts sometimes illogical boundaries across lines that shouldn't be crossed... because you can rationalize any action, and there will be no true proof that your logic is sound until much after the fact.

I'm sure we're all decent folk here, but the readiness and the vehemence with which people are defending their position as absolute is somewhat ... troubling.

Since we're doing quotes...

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Francois-Marie Arouet

edit: imprinting, not impounding (wat?), highlighting for emphasis

[Segev]

I think you're mixing points here. "To protect innocents" is good, and is one atom of the molecule you've constructed, the other part being "through violence and murder". This immediately puts us into "The ends justifies the means" territory, which is practically the unofficial slogan of the Lawful Evil alignment.

Slippery slope fallacy. Good can and does use violence to protect the innocent from harm. If it were not so, then Good could never fight against Evil. Good must acquiesce whenever Evil uses force, under that logic.

Good can and does use violence. It is when, how, and why Good uses violence that separates it from Evil. "The ends justify the means" is an Evil argument only when it starts to demand sacrifices from innocents, or from those whose only "crime" is not being "with the program."

When Evil uses violence and threat of violence, Good must meet it and defeat it in that arena. Evil revels in the suffering it causes, or at least is willing to cause it callously for its own ends. Good dislikes suffering, and seeks to minimize it. Foolish Good will attempt this by going to war haphazardly, with a light touch, minimizing damage to the enemy for fear of doing too much harm. Wise Good will seek to swiftly end the ability of Evil to perpetuate the violence, using whatever tactics are most effective towards that end.

In war, this means respecting that war is nasty, brutish, and terrible, and seeking to utterly break the enemy as quickly as possible so that they have no more will - or at least no more means - to fight. If you are Good, you did not START the fight. You sought means to avoid it. And Evil forced it upon you. Ending it swiftly is the most merciful thing you can do for the most people possible.

In this non-war scenario, collateral damage is less acceptable. Ironically, all the supposedly-Good suggestions we've had (exile him, talk to him, imprison him, leave the party, split the party by taking people with you) INCREASE the collateral damage. Nobody is suggesting killing other members of the party (though it is what will happen if the murderer is allowed to continue his pattern).


It is a false moral equivalence to say that the cleric is justifying acts equivalent to the murderous warlock's. The only way to equate them is to deliberately ignore and distort circumstances and remove context.

[krugaan]

Here is how I see it:

Wants to protect the group: neutral sure
Attempted to address this through dialogue: good ok
Doesn't want a homicidal maniac terrorizing the general population: good is it really good? or neutral
Decides he must die: evil yep
Doesn't want to risk self: neutral I guess
Taking action without consulting group: chaotic aye
Deciding to take advantage of someone else's mercenary nature: neutral ... or is it evil?

Seems like a pretty CN act to me.

As much as this helps, I don't think this is a equal value list.

[Segev]

Let me reiterate that the qualms I have of this "good" act: It is a slippery slope. Once you have a set pathway in your brain linking "murder someone in their sleep" to "for the greater good" it becomes easier and easier to justify the same behavior. However you may view parenting / religion / whatever, imprinting certain morals and social restrictions serves a purpose: it puts sometimes illogical boundaries across lines that shouldn't be crossed... because you can rationalize any action, and there will be no true proof that your logic is sound until much after the fact.

I disagree. This isn't "for the greater good" in the sense that the term is so often bandied about these days. This is "because he is a murderer who will murder again, and there's nobody else who can and will stop him."

This isn't some small, petty wrong he's done that the cleric is blowing out of proportion. This isn't some sleight that a mature person should set aside for the good of the party in this life-or-death situation. This is, itself, life-or-death. When you've huddled together for warmth in the arctic tundra, only to discover that one of your bedfellows is a viper who you've just watched bite and kill two of the people in the bundle, and the others won't believe you nor take action...killing that viper before he strikes again is a matter of life or death not just for his next victim (who may or may not be you), but for the group, since each death reduces the warm bodies in the pile.

Kick the viper out, and he'll just come back and bite you later, possibly bringing more vipers with him. Challenge him to a duel, and you just give him a chance to bite you. And, from a Good standpoint, you know that means that he'll then have free reign to bite others, since you're the only one with the will to stop him.


It's a CN action that a CG character should have no trouble taking. Sure, there might be "more Good" solutions, but they're all totally impractical right now, and leaning on impractical solutions invites more harm. The only one "hurt" by this is a known murderer, and the only reason he must be hurt is due to him being a murderer and the fact that he will do it again if not stopped.

The only slippery slope is the argument that morally equates this to justifying murder for other things. Good people only kill as a last resort, and then only when the ones to be killed are the ones who made it necessary by deliberate action. It ceases to be necessary if you can be sure they won't repeat that which must be prevented. If it's not their fault, killing them is wrong (though if they're not deliberately malicious, other options open up, like giving them their share of supplies and sending them on their own...hoping they can find their way alone).

It is the danger posed by this warlock's specific malice and will to harm people for no given reason that necessitates his death. That is why it is non-Evil.

There is little danger of sliding down the slippery slope as long as the very specific reasons why it is non-Evil are tracked. One key thing to examine is: "Do I want to kill him?" If the answer is "yes," double-check your motives.

[krugaan]

I disagree. This isn't "for the greater good" in the sense that the term is so often bandied about these days. This is "because he is a murderer who will murder again, and there's nobody else who can and will stop him."

This isn't some small, petty wrong he's done that the cleric is blowing out of proportion. This isn't some sleight that a mature person should set aside for the good of the party in this life-or-death situation. This is, itself, life-or-death. When you've huddled together for warmth in the arctic tundra, only to discover that one of your bedfellows is a viper who you've just watched bite and kill two of the people in the bundle, and the others won't believe you nor take action...killing that viper before he strikes again is a matter of life or death not just for his next victim (who may or may not be you), but for the group, since each death reduces the warm bodies in the pile.

Kick the viper out, and he'll just come back and bite you later, possibly bringing more vipers with him. Challenge him to a duel, and you just give him a chance to bite you. And, from a Good standpoint, you know that means that he'll then have free reign to bite others, since you're the only one with the will to stop him.

It's a CN action that a CG character should have no trouble taking. Sure, there might be "more Good" solutions, but they're all totally impractical right now, and leaning on impractical solutions invites more harm. The only one "hurt" by this is a known murderer, and the only reason he must be hurt is due to him being a murderer and the fact that he will do it again if not stopped.

The only slippery slope is the argument that morally equates this to justifying murder for other things. Good people only kill as a last resort, and then only when the ones to be killed are the ones who made it necessary by deliberate action. It ceases to be necessary if you can be sure they won't repeat that which must be prevented. If it's not their fault, killing them is wrong (though if they're not deliberately malicious, other options open up, like giving them their share of supplies and sending them on their own...hoping they can find their way alone).

It is the danger posed by this warlock's specific malice and will to harm people for no given reason that necessitates his death. That is why it is non-Evil.

There is little danger of sliding down the slippery slope as long as the very specific reasons why it is non-Evil are tracked. One key thing to examine is: "Do I want to kill him?" If the answer is "yes," double-check your motives.

I understand your arguments. I understand all the arguments.
I just don't like them. There is an abstraction of information here I don't like. The "facts" are not clear here, reported from a third party, with (to me) questionable truth.

The statement most likely to be true is the statement of intent, which is "i'm going to kill this guy while he sleeps, with the help of this other guy who is in it for the money."

As for collateral damage, the precise reason WHY killing in sleep is a terrible, terrible idea is that when the party wakes up and finds out what you've done, the whole party is now mistrustful of each other, AND, now, apparently won't be able to sleep without fear of someone killing them in their sleep (for their valuables).

[awa]

I understand your arguments. I understand all the arguments.
I just don't like them. There is an abstraction of information here I don't like. The "facts" are not clear here, reported from a third party, with (to me) questionable truth.



so your argument is to ignore the situation as presented because you don't trust the narrator?
That makes any discussion with you completely pointless because you are ignoring any information you don't like. That is to say It mildly really annoying in a debate.

[krugaan]

so your argument is to ignore the situation as presented because you don't trust the narrator?
That makes any discussion with you completely pointless because you are ignoring any information you don't like. That is to say It mildly really annoying in a debate.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion, because that is not correct at all.

[MaxWilson]

No, the thing driving the cleric is the knowledge that this warlock has ALREADY turned on the party. In a life-or-death struggle. Which has resulted in him directly murdering two party members already.

One of whom was Buppido, an insane serial killer just like both the warlock and the cleric himself.

Quis caedet ipsos caedes? Who will murder the murderers?

[krugaan]

One of whom was Buppido, an insane serial killer just like both the warlock and the cleric himself.

Quis caedet ipsos caedes? Who will murder the murderers?

Wow, the plot thickens.

[awa]

The "facts" are not clear here, reported from a third party, with (to me) questionable truth..

im quoting you again you don't like the "facts" therefor you are ignoring them to make your own narrative where the cleric is evil

so there is honestly no point in talking with you because you are not debating in good faith

[krugaan]

im quoting you again you don't like the "facts"

ok...


therefor you are ignoring them to make your own narrative where the cleric is evil

wat?


so there is honestly no point in talking with you because you are not debating in good faith

... very well then, you may believe as you choose.

[RickAllison]

I agree with all save the one "evil" line. Deciding somebody must die is not inherently evil. The criteria used to make that determination determine whether the decision was evil or not.

"He must die because he has already killed two members of the party for no discernible reason, has tricked the rest of the party into trusting him (thus making them easier prey), knows that I know he did it, and is very likely to kill again - possibly me - in the future."

That's not an evil list. That is, at WORST, a neutral list. Depending on how much of it is "I worry that he'll pointlessly kill more innocents who I could have saved," it might even be a GOOD list.

The way I see it is that taking a life is an inherently evil act. In a vacuum, all taking a life does is end that life's thread, which seems to be an evil act to me. To justify it, the good of the results of the act must be weighed against the evil of the act itself. In this case, it is fairly clean-cut: by his history, someone else will die if he lives, maybe more. If they address him, he dies, but if they don't then one or more other people will die. Mathematically, it balances out.

I know that such a list can't really be considered as representing equal values, but it helps break things up, and addresses where disconnects occur.

[krugaan]

The way I see it is that taking a life is an inherently evil act. In a vacuum, all taking a life does is end that life's thread, which seems to be an evil act to me. To justify it, the good of the results of the act must be weighed against the evil of the act itself. In this case, it is fairly clean-cut: by his history, someone else will die if he lives, maybe more. If they address him, he dies, but if they don't then one or more other people will die. Mathematically, it balances out.

I know that such a list can't really be considered as representing equal values, but it helps break things up, and addresses where disconnects occur.

I guess...

Really, if you're going to maximize benefit here, you should kill him in his sleep, quietly, then dispose of the body in such a way it will never be found, then say "he just left, I dunno where he went" or whatever.

That satisfies most of my requirements:

1) the party is removed of the murderer
2) party unity is more or less intact
3) party is as "strong" as possible

[Segev]

One of whom was Buppido, an insane serial killer just like both the warlock and the cleric himself.

Quis caedet ipsos caedes? Who will murder the murderers?Was Buppido murdering the rest of the party? Did the Warlock kill him out of fear that Buppido would kill him or others in the party? Does the cleric have any reason to suspect that the warlock's action was anything other than a murder for its own sake?


The way I see it is that taking a life is an inherently evil act. In a vacuum, all taking a life does is end that life's thread, which seems to be an evil act to me. To justify it, the good of the results of the act must be weighed against the evil of the act itself. In this case, it is fairly clean-cut: by his history, someone else will die if he lives, maybe more. If they address him, he dies, but if they don't then one or more other people will die. Mathematically, it balances out.

I know that such a list can't really be considered as representing equal values, but it helps break things up, and addresses where disconnects occur.I can see this argument, and respect it. I think we mostly only disagree semantically, here: I see killing as evil unless the one to be killed has given up his right to life. One generally does this by demonstrating that one has no respect for others' right to the same, and has intent and willingness to act on that lack of respect.

And even then, killing is a last resort for the good person. Because as long as there are Good options, the least pleasant neutral one should be left off to the side of the table.

In this case, there aren't any viable Good options. So the Neutral one is the best one. Neutral actions do not, on their own, stain Good people, nor redeem Evil ones.

[krugaan]

Argh, I wanna know what happened!

Where are you, OP?

[Wulfskadi]

First off, how is he killing important NPCs while maintaining the 'Lawful' part of his alignment? Unless there is a clear reason why the killing is lawful (such as killing certain criminals or in self defense) then the Lawful part of his alignment should stop him in his tracks.

A Lawful Evil character will:

Repossess a families home without a twinge of guilt.
Slay anyone they are legally allowed to slay.
Use the law to get their way even if it hurts others.


A Lawful Evil character won't:

break the laws of the land to do something evil (or at least very rarely and only if they are sure to get away with it).
Do things that are good even if they are within the law unless they somehow benefit from them.


This character isn't playing their alignment. The DM should talk to the player about changing the alignment or explaining the alignments better to the player.



Though this description does describe behavior from some, if not most lawful evil characters, you have to remember that alignments are not tendencies of a characters actions, but the morals they hold up to follow. If a tiefling warlock character decides humans are chaff and thus not protected by any law they recognize then they may just kill whoever they like. Similarly if a character is from another country or plane and believes the law only applies to citizens of their nation they might kill "foreigners" they come across.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Killing is a morally bad thing in almost every human culture.

There is a big exception coming though. Every culture decides how it defines the exception to those rules. It could be that killing an enemy in wartime is allowed. Or Killing a member of a differing religion. Maybe they believe in capital punishment for criminals. It could even be that killing someone who is suffering from a debilitating illness is acceptable. Suicide may be viewed as a way to regain some of your lost honor, or as one of the most vile acts people are capable of.

So it is not a matter of how an entire alignment would view killing, but how one can justify that action to themselves. That makes it a personal choice as to whether or not they would do it for any stated case. That out the way... how another individual/group views that action is entirely up to their interpretation of the morality/justification for killing.

[JackPhoenix]

I won't join the alignment argument, those go nowhere. However, nobody mentioned how would the situation looked to the other characters.

One of the NPCs died from, what I guess, the warlock claimed was an accident during crossing an enviromental danger. The cleric has accused him that it was deliberate murder, but he had no evidence and the warlock has explained the situation in a way the other characters believed. They don't know he lied. Now, some time later, the cleric has conspired with one of the other characters to murder the warlock in his sleep and steal his belongings.

From the remaining character's POV, who's the untrustworthy murderer and danger to the rest of the party?

[krugaan]

I won't join the alignment argument, those go nowhere. However, nobody mentioned how would the situation looked to the other characters.

One of the NPCs died from, what I guess, the warlock claimed was an accident during crossing an enviromental danger. The cleric has accused him that it was deliberate murder, but he had no evidence and the warlock has explained the situation in a way the other characters believed. They don't know he lied. Now, some time later, the cleric has conspired with one of the other characters to murder the warlock in his sleep and steal his belongings.

From the remaining character's POV, who's the untrustworthy murderer and danger to the rest of the party?

Ah, but what if they kill the guy in his sleep under silence, and dispose of the body before anyone wakes up?

No witnesses, no body, no crime.

[JackPhoenix]

Ah, but what if they kill the guy in his sleep under silence, and dispose of the body before anyone wakes up?

No witnesses, no body, no crime.

Ah, so blaming the murder on the mercenary fighter when he gets caught with warlock's stuff?

Evil. I like it.

[krugaan]

Ah, so blaming the murder on the mercenary fighter when he gets caught with warlock's stuff?

Evil. I like it.

Ooooo, that's another viable plan. After all, the merc isn't really a good guy, so it doesn't matter if he goes down. Can't have hired killers going walking around free.

Or killing the merc too if he threatens to reveal anything about the plot.

No evidence, no crime!

[smcmike]

Ooooo, that's another viable plan. After all, the merc isn't really a good guy, so it doesn't matter if he goes down. Can't have hired killers going walking around free.

Or killing the merc too if he threatens to reveal anything about the plot.

No evidence, no crime!

To be safe, though, maybe kill everyone.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Finally, commit suicide and leave a note saying "YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING"

[krugaan]

To be safe, though, maybe kill everyone.

Wait, now that's just counterproductive! Not everyone has to die ... just all the evil people.

[Malifice]

I have. Thoroughly. You obviously have not, if this is how you characterize it. Because the cleric isn't "betray[ing] and murder[ing] other members of the group...because it's convenient to do so." He's killing a traitor who has already betrayed the group and murdered other members of it.

So now the Cleric plans on doing the exact same thing.

He's opposed to murder and treachery remember. Thats what prompted him into action in the first place. Its awful characterisation from a (supposedly) good person to then engage in the exact same thing, and encourage others (the Fighter in this case) to join in.

He's literally paying the Fighter to murder someone. How are the Fighters actions (that the Cleric is paying him to do), any different to the actions of the Warlock?

The Fighter is murdering someone, not out of any sense of altruism, but for money. Murder for profit. Exactly as the Warlock was doing, and actions that the Cleric is supposedly opposed to.


He is not betraying those who trust him (unless the warlock is VERY foolish and trusts the man who he knows is the sole party member who knows of his murders). He is not killing people "because it's convenient."

But he is. He is murdering this man in his sleep because its more convenient that calling him out or exiling him or talking with the rest of the party about it openly.

He lacks the courage of his own convictions. He is not a good man.


He's killing one specific person because that person is a clear and present threat to himself and the others, and it is not "convenient:" it is the only effective choice.

You dont know that other options would be ineffective. For starters the Fighter has already pledged himself to the cause of the cleric. Heck; the fighter is prepared to murder a man as he sleeps for money (which is a problem in and of itself).

Instead of murdering the Warlock as he sleeps, how about they Fighter and the Cleric instead tie him up as he sleeps? Strip him of his gear and then send him on his way (with the backing of the rest of the party).


Not merely expedient, but EFFECTIVE.

The effectiveness of an action does not make it good. Evil (torture, murder etc) can be extremely effective tools. But theyre still evil.


Er, no. Spoken like the C* person contemplating killing somebody. And again, you mischaracterize it. It is not merely "The warlock cannot be trusted." It's "The warlock has already killed two of us, and I'm the only one who believes it. I have no reason to believe he won't do it again, and reason to believe that he has specific motive to kill me next, now."

'The Fighter is on my side however. Together with the Fighter we can approach other members of the party and convince them of the righteousness of my cause, and that we need to exile the Warlock from the party. Because its the right thing to do.'


Then you're wrong. Because the only way it sounds evil is if you mischaracterize the situation and remove all of the context that makes it justified and necessary.

There is no context that makes this justifed or necessary. If I was playing this Cleric I assure you I could get the Warlock kicked out of the party without resorting to murder.


Actually, he's justifying it to protect himself (an innocent, and remains so after this fact because he is not killing unjustifiably) and the rest of the party (who are, at least, innocent in the sense that they've done nothing to justify internecine murder, as the warlock has already perpetrated).

In your world, not in mine.


And it's not "convenience." It's "survival." It's "effectiveness."

Effectiveness doesnt make an act less evil. It may be more effective to betray and murder him (im not doubting this at all) but that doesnt make the act less evil.

More effective does not = less evil.


The warlock cannot be effectively detained (without effectively executing him by a more painful method),

Rubbish. He gets tied up and left to his own devices if he doesnt agree to leave of his own accord on the request of the rest of the party.


can't be kicked out (the party doesn't believe he's guilty, so the only enforcement of an exile would be the cleric threatening to kill him if he didn't leave...which puts us right back here, but now with the cleric in increased danger for no moral gain),

But there is a moral gain. The Cleric hasnt stooped to the same level of evil that is practiced by the Warlock. He took the higher moral ground. He didnt stoop to betrayal and murder. He had the courage in his convictions to be a good person when it would have been more convenient to do an act of evil.


and, even if he were kicked out or imprisoned, would greatly increase the risks to the party as a whole as he could be captured by the drow or the detainment of him becomes a drain on resources the party needs to survive.

Irrelevant. I could justify the murder of POW's or children on these grounds.

'These children are a drag on us all, killing them will speed the group up, and drain less resources' Its the right thing to do.


Which is why this is a NEUTRAL act. Nobody's claimed it was a Good one. Stop conflating non-good with evil.

Its an evil act. The murder of a defenceless person who trusts you is an act of evil.

About the only time context comes into the picture is if the murder was clearly necessary (battered wife syndrome type stuff) where there is absolutely no other option available to you to protect your life from a reasonably foreseeable harm.

This isnt one of those cases. The Fighter is already onside with the Cleric. The two of them now need to approach another PC and convince him to join them in kicking the Warlock out of the party.


To take this to the same kind of silly extreme you've been, does this mean that Good people will willingly bare their throats to knife-wielding lunatics, to sacrifice themselves for the lunatic's personal enjoyment of killing them?

As I have stated numerous times before, force (including lethal force) is justified in self defence (or the defence of others) in answer to a direct threat if it is proportional.

There is no self defence here. The actions are not reasonably needed in response to the threat posed by the warlock, and the actions (murder) is not proportional.

Tie the 'lock up as he sleeps. Knock him out (easy done in 5E) instead of killing him. Maybe even give him a chance to reform or redeem himself. Do the right thing even if it means putting yourself in harms way.

Thats what is meant by 'good people make sacrifices for others'. Thats what makes good people good. They show mercy and compassion. They avoid killing. They are prepared to take riskes and place themselves in harms way for others.

They dont go around murdering people because 'effective'.

And is not an effective way of stopping murder. Its just creating another murder (and another murderer - in this case the Fighter).

Get it yet? Engaging in genocide does not stop genocide. Engaging in murder does not stop murder. It doesnt work that way.


It is, by the logic you're applying, even arguably Evil: By removing yourself, and leaving the threat, you have reduced their chances of survival, valuing your own sense of pride and self-worth above the survival of those who have done no wrong by you other than failing to believe your warnings.

Dont pin the actions of others on the person who walks away. If the Warlock murders someone after you leave, thats on the Warlock and not on you (is what a Neutral person would say).


If you do talk your friends into leaving, splitting the party, you've reduced EVERYBODY's chances even FURTHER, because now you've created a schism which could lead to violence (particularly if the warlock tricks those who stayed with him into believing your separated party are a threat), and which certainly reduces the resources both groups have available.

Bull. Youve increased the parties chances of survival because youre no longer travelling with a psychopath. Youve attempted to resolve the matter peacefully and without violence. You only used violence if the Warlock attacks you or the group. You have either exiled or (if forced to) killed the Warlock.


And if they won't go because they don't believe the murderer is a murderer, and think you're crazy and paranoid?

Then with a sad face you tell the party youre leaving, and you canot travel with a murderer of innocents. You offer anyone who you trust and know to be a good person the opportunity to leave with you. You demonstrate the strength of your convictions as a GOOD person.

You dont resort to murder. Well; you can - but then youre an evil monster too.


No, and this is false moral equivalence, and it is a tool of evil corruptors. It is used to weaken Good to ineffectiveness, trick Good into enabling Evil, and to convince the Good who have dared to stand up to Evil that they are now irredeemable

Ghandi disagrees with this. So does Yoda.

Good people dont employ murder. They have the strength of thier convictions to be (and remain) good people despite the presence of evil around them. This is how the forces of good win. By being good. By setting the example. By showing tolerance, respect, mercy and compassion. By refraining from harming or killing others even if it would be quicker or 'more effective'. Murder and treachery are the tools of evil, not the tools of good people.

If good people resort to murder and torture to defeat evil, evil has already won. Good people win by using the tools of self sacrifice, charity, mercy, compassion and altruism. Not murder, torture and genocide.

Batman doesnt sneak into the Jokers house and premptively murder him. Ditto Superman and Lex Luthor. Theyre good people. They are prepared to make sacrifices for others, and they dont resort to the evil methods of those they fight, becuase then they have already lost.

[djreynolds]

Do not kill him in his sleep. If it makes you nervous, it is because it is wrong. And that is why you are anxious about it. You are committing murder, hence the jitters.

Read your Macbeth, this is how he handled his problems and the guilt tore him up. Blood from murder... does not wash off.

[RickAllison]

Follow Malifice's advice! Same plan of attacking the Warlock while he sleeps, but have the fighter knock him out instead of killing him. Now tie him up, take all his stuff (because that's why the fighter is helping), and dump him somewhere. Now the party is slightly less safe than they were before, but the cleric didn't murder anyone. Rather, he left a murderer alone, incapacitated, without supplies, in one of the least hospitable places in the Realms.

But your hands are clean, right?

EDIT: Also, when you explain to the party what happened, you can fluff it as you havin given him the ultimatum of leaving or you would prove he was a murderer in front of the party and kill him. With that, he departed.

And for extra points, mention to the fighter as you walk away from where you dumped the warlock that "We must be vigilant. He might come back for revenge one day, and he will not be helpless like he is right now. Instead of being an easy kill, he might be a difficult fight that could get both of us killed. On that day, we might very well wish that we had ended his life this day..."

Let the fighter take from that what he will...

[mgshamster]

Follow Malifice's advice! Same plan of attacking the Warlock while he sleeps, but have the fighter knock him out instead of killing him. Now tie him up, take all his stuff (because that's why the fighter is helping), and dump him somewhere. Now the party is slightly less safe than they were before, but the cleric didn't murder anyone. Rather, he left a murderer alone, incapacitated, without supplies, in one of the least hospitable places in the Realms.

But your hands are clean, right?

I don't really have much of a say in this, but I am curious for one thing (and maybe you said this before and I missed it or forgot about it):

What, in your opinion, would be a morally good way to handle this entire situation?

Im not interested in arguing or debating over it, I'm just really curious what would be a morally good way to solve the problem and I'm interested in hearing your (and others!) opinions.

[RickAllison]

I don't really have much of a say in this, but I am curious for one thing (and maybe you said this before and I missed it or forgot about it):

What, in your opinion, would be a morally good way to handle this entire situation?

Im not interested in arguing or debating over it, I'm just really curious what would be a morally good way to solve the problem and I'm interested in hearing your (and others!) opinions.

Actually, that plan didn't sound that bad with a few modifications (though I was intending it to be sarcastic).

Okay, here is my revised, practical, definitely dark Neutral way to dispose of him. Knock him out with the fighter's help, leave him some rations but take everything else, cut out his tongue and hands ("A hand for each life you have taken, a tongue for the lies and betrayal you have brought.") so it would be difficult to tell of you, then dump him into a small ravine so he can't follow.

It is far from a Good solution, but it is at least Neutral. You have simultaneously given mercy to the murderer while also (hopefully) preventing him from sabotaging the group further.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Actually, that plan didn't sound that bad with a few modifications (though I was intending it to be sarcastic).

Okay, here is my revised, practical, definitely dark Neutral way to dispose of him. Knock him out with the fighter's help, leave him some rations but take everything else, cut out his tongue and hands ("A hand for each life you have taken, a tongue for the lies and betrayal you have brought.") so it would be difficult to tell of you, then dump him into a small ravine so he can't follow.

It is far from a Good solution, but it is at least Neutral. You have simultaneously given mercy to the murderer while also (hopefully) preventing him from sabotaging the group further.

That's... incredibly evil. Mutilating someone so badly they can barely eat, let alone survive, then dumping them in one of the most hostile environments in the world? I guess that last bit's not so bad, at least you have a little hope that you'll run into something that will make it relatively quick. And that's the 'Neutral' solution? Please, I'd much rather you slice my throat while I sleep.

As regards the general question, the problem is that there is no solution that prevents the Warlock from threatening others that doesn't kill him. It's the freaking underdark - the nearest law is a) weeks away, b) doesn't care, c) if they did care would just kill him anyway (It's a medievalesque setting, did you think even the Good Guys wouldn't have the death penalty?), and d) are probably highly evil and hostile anyway. Kick him out, and he'll just go on killing - at best, he'll be doing it far away from you so you don't have to think about it. Leave him defenceless, and he's lunch for a Carrion Crawler or something - not a good way to die. Maybe you could sell him as a slave to the Duergar or the Drow, but again, that's just a slow and unpleasant way of killing someone. Give me a good honest knife in the back, any day.

[RickAllison]

That's... incredibly evil. Mutilating someone so badly they can barely eat, let alone survive, then dumping them in one of the most hostile environments in the world? I guess that last bit's not so bad, at least you have a little hope that you'll run into something that will make it relatively quick. And that's the 'Neutral' solution? Please, I'd much rather you slice my throat while I sleep.

As regards the general question, the problem is that there is no solution that prevents the Warlock from threatening others that doesn't kill him. It's the freaking underdark - the nearest law is a) weeks away, b) doesn't care, c) if they did care would just kill him anyway (It's a medievalesque setting, did you think even the Good Guys wouldn't have the death penalty?), and d) are probably highly evil and hostile anyway. Kick him out, and he'll just go on killing - at best, he'll be doing it far away from you so you don't have to think about it. Leave him defenceless, and he's lunch for a Carrion Crawler or something - not a good way to die. Maybe you could sell him as a slave to the Duergar or the Drow, but again, that's just a slow and unpleasant way of killing someone. Give me a good honest knife in the back, any day.

Hey, throughout the thread I've suggested just ending the sod. The punishment is extreme, but I could see a cleric giving it out. Let his fate be in the hands of the gods, and all that. This is a way to address the danger he poses without having to kill him.

[krugaan]

Hey, throughout the thread I've suggested just ending the sod. The punishment is extreme, but I could see a cleric giving it out. Let his fate be in the hands of the gods, and all that. This is a way to address the danger he poses without having to kill him.

Yes, the best course of action is "ending the sod", but in front of the group and not while he's sleeping. Issue a challenge, have the fighter back you up if you want. I don't think letting him go with no supplies is a particularly good act, either.

[Takewo]

I'm having a lot of fun reading this thread, because it looks as if D&D had moral standards that were somehow similar to this world's moral standards.

D&D is not about good fighting evil, it's about two sides trying to kill each other using pretty much any possible means. The only difference is that one of the sides is a bit more concerned about how much fun that should be.


Now seriously. When this sort of stuff comes up, I always think about that scene in The War of the Worlds when the father gets to a basement with his daughter and there's an old git who's gone nuts who is basically about to reveal their location to the aliens. Then, the fathers blindfolds his daughter and tells her to sing a song so that she does not hear how he kills the old git.

[krugaan]

Now seriously. When this sort of stuff comes up, I always think about that scene in The War of the Worlds when the father gets to a basement with his daughter and there's an old git who's gone nuts who is basically about to reveal their location to the aliens. Then, the fathers blindfolds his daughter and tells her to sing a song so that she does not hear how he kills the old git.

That's just pragmatism though.

And how the heck does singing not reveal their location?

[RickAllison]

That's just pragmatism though.

And how the heck does singing not reveal their location?

It is a good point, though. He killed a man because if he did not, more were going to die. Is that Evil? According to posters like Malifice, yes. Saving his and his daughter's lives by killing the man was most definitely evil. Pragmatic, effective, but criminalized. I disagree.

[Takewo]

That's just pragmatism though.

And how the heck does singing not reveal their location?

Never said it was a good act.

Well, it's a basement, underground, with doors and a ceiling and stuff. The aliens are outside, so presumably they can't hear her singing.


However, I think it is more than just pragmatism, it is the struggle between respecting that guy's life or making every possible effort to protect his daughter. That seems a much more complicated issue to me, that allows for different ways to get at the same outcome without basing the decision on pragmatism.

[krugaan]

It is a good point, though. He killed a man because if he did not, more were going to die. Is that Evil? According to posters like Malifice, yes. Saving his and his daughter's lives by killing the man was most definitely evil. Pragmatic, effective, but criminalized. I disagree.

The difference is that the man presents an immediate danger to the guy and his daughter. Ops scenario is quite a bit different.

[Trum4n1208]

The difference is that the man presents an immediate danger to the guy and his daughter. Ops scenario is quite a bit different.

Is it really though? The group is being pursued by the Drow and are in an extremely hostile environment. This guy is picking off party members one at a time, decreasing their chances of survival. And the Warlock can at least suspect that the OP is on to him and might single him out as a target. Those're pretty dire circumstances. The guy who's offing them is drastically decreasing their chances of survival. That's how we're all looking at it.

[RickAllison]

Never said it was a good act.

Well, it's a basement, underground, with doors and a ceiling and stuff. The aliens are outside, so presumably they can't hear her singing.


However, I think it is more than just pragmatism, it is the struggle between respecting that guy's life or making every possible effort to protect his daughter. That seems a much more complicated issue to me, that allows for different ways to get at the same outcome without basing the decision on pragmatism.

On reflection, it might still be an evil act. Doesn't make him evil (which might be what the cleric has to do; be good, but commit an evil act). A lawful person can steal, a chaotic person can enforce the law, an individual act doesn't define a person.

To the original topic: kill the bugger, make it look like he disappeared in the night. Tell the party you confronted him about his murders and threatened him with his life if he committed them again. His stuff will be gone, the body will be gone, life goes on.

Edit: krugaan, I thought it would go the other direction. The man from War of the Worlds should have committed a more Evil act because the guy was truly innocent, just crazy. OP has the "clear and present" part down, the guy has killed twice. I don't think we really need to wait around to see if he makes it a third to be considered a serial killer,

[krugaan]

Is it really though? The group is being pursued by the Drow and are in an extremely hostile environment. This guy is picking off party members one at a time, decreasing their chances of survival. And the Warlock can at least suspect that the OP is on to him and might single him out as a target. Those're pretty dire circumstances. The guy who's offing them is drastically decreasing their chances of survival. That's how we're all looking at it.

That's not *immediate* danger. If the guy was threatening to reveal the party to a drow patrol a few minutes away, that might be immediate. If the guy claimed he would give the party up to the next drow patrol they met, that's impending. A guy killing "random" party members for who knows what reason, who may not continue in the future, who presents no immediate threat to the party does not qualify for this rationale, at least as I see it.

Killing the warlock is also "drastically decreasing" their chances of survival, so I wouldn't count that as a great reason for killing him (there are others, though): he is good against the drow (I assume), and his tenser's allowed (most) of the party to cross the pit.

[krugaan]

Let me reiterate that the qualms I have of this "good" act: It is a slippery slope. Once you have a set pathway in your brain linking "murder someone in their sleep" to "for the greater good" it becomes easier and easier to justify the same behavior. However you may view parenting / religion / whatever, imprinting certain morals and social restrictions serves a purpose: it puts sometimes illogical boundaries across lines that shouldn't be crossed... because you can rationalize any action, and there will be no true proof that your logic is sound until much after the fact.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Francois-Marie Arouet


To the original topic: kill the bugger, make it look like he disappeared in the night. Tell the party you confronted him about his murders and threatened him with his life if he committed them again. His stuff will be gone, the body will be gone, life goes on.


While some people decry the "slippery slope" argument, I think it is entirely valid in this case.


Edit: krugaan, I thought it would go the other direction. The man from War of the Worlds should have committed a more Evil act because the guy was truly innocent, just crazy. OP has the "clear and present" part down, the guy has killed twice. I don't think we really need to wait around to see if he makes it a third to be considered a serial killer,

grunt, strange bedfellows and all that. Kill him now, up front, or deal with him after the underdark.

edit: yes, I posted the same idea earlier, so it's a little dishonest, but it was bait to prove what I think is an important point.

[Coffee_Dragon]

A guy killing "random" party members ... presents no immediate threat to the party

Hopy **** what is your definition of immediate threat

[Coffee_Dragon]

In the War of the Worlds scenario, the Warlock isn't the crazy guy. He's a tripod walking along with the party, and when the Cleric says, "Hey, hold on, did you just slurp up that guy", the Warlock goes, "Certainly not, and I am a human just like the rest of you" and holds out a tentacle with a sign reading "HUMAN JUST LIKE THE REST OF YOU", to which the rest of the party responds by going, "See? He's a human just like the rest of us, now give it a break."

[krugaan]

Hopy **** what is your definition of immediate threat

Immediate, as is if "I don't rectify this situation in the next 60 seconds there is a near 100% certainty it will lead to my demise or something equally terrible".

IMMEDIATE:
- War of the Worlds guy is going to give up my position to Martians looking to kill me.
- guy with knife raised is going to stab me or someone I care about.

NOT IMMEDIATE, BUT THREATENING
- patrol of drow is massing a short distance away, out of bowshot but clearly intending to assault the party

NOT IMMEDIATE, *POSSIBLY* THREATENING
- a guy who has killed two party members in non combat circumstances is sleeping

[Trum4n1208]

Those are valid points to a degree, but, given the knowledge available to the OP, can he afford to make those assumptions? Given what he knows, can he legitimately trust this guy with his life? Now I know that OoC, he knows that this guy probably won't turn on him, but IC, he doesn't know that. It's an issue of trust, and the OP's character has absolutely no reason to trust this guy. If you suspected/believed that the Warlock had purposefully gotten rid of his disk early, would you ever ride it again? Would you let anyone else? If you were in combat, would you be oaky with this guy standing at your back, knowing that he had killed two people who had been with you longer? I think that trust would be a detriment to the party. And again, the OP has no reason to think the Warlock is going to end his murder spree.

Now, this next bit was something that I had wanted to look at for my own curiosity, but I thought you all would find it interesting:

I work with a lot of veterans, and they humored me while I gave them the following situation: You've escaped from a POW camp and were fleeing from pursuit. what would you rather have, a larger group, but with one member whom you thought was inherently untrustworthy/dangerous to the group's survival, or a smaller group of people you trusted. Of the six guys I presented this scenario to, all of them said that they'd rather have a smaller group of people they could trust (I didn't give them the option of killing the other guy, didn't want to make it a moral issue). Now I know that that is a very different proposition from D&D, but I figured combat would be the closest relatable situation to this.

[krugaan]

Those are valid points to a degree, but, given the knowledge available to the OP, can he afford to make those assumptions? Given what he knows, can he legitimately trust this guy with his life? Now I know that OoC, he knows that this guy probably won't turn on him, but IC, he doesn't know that. It's an issue of trust, and the OP's character has absolutely no reason to trust this guy. If you suspected/believed that the Warlock had purposefully gotten rid of his disk early, would you ever ride it again? Would you let anyone else? If you were in combat, would you be oaky with this guy standing at your back, knowing that he had killed two people who had been with you longer? I think that trust would be a detriment to the party. And again, the OP has no reason to think the Warlock is going to end his murder spree.

Now, this next bit was something that I had wanted to look at for my own curiosity, but I thought you all would find it interesting:

I work with a lot of veterans, and they humored me while I gave them the following situation: You've escaped from a POW camp and were fleeing from pursuit. what would you rather have, a larger group, but with one member whom you thought was inherently untrustworthy/dangerous to the group's survival, or a smaller group of people you trusted. Of the six guys I presented this scenario to, all of them said that they'd rather have a smaller group of people they could trust (I didn't give them the option of killing the other guy, didn't want to make it a moral issue). Now I know that that is a very different proposition from D&D, but I figured combat would be the closest relatable situation to this.

This is a terrifically valid post, IMO.

Yes, trust is entirely important to the survival of a group.

Now, would you trust the guy who killed another guy in his sleep for apparently no reason, with the help of another guy (who you find out later did it for the warlocks money)?

This is why any arguments about "greater good + efficiency" are somewhat flawed.

RE: Pow scenario, with a larger group it's just harder to move quickly and stay quiet. You want to travel fast, travel alone. You want to travel far? Travel in a group.

[Trum4n1208]

And I do agree with that, I do think that going after the Warlock is going to hurt group cohesion and create trust issues (if he is found out; hiding it begins to get a bit too sneaky for me), but at this point it's kind of the best of a bad situation, at least in my mind. You can either leave the Warlock alive and risk him continuing to whittle down the party and have some trust issues, or kill him and still have the trust issues but prevent that avenue of danger/save more members of the party.

I completely get where you're coming from, but I just don't see a reasonable solution in this case. I think sending him off on his own is unlikely to happen without the party's support (it's also cruel if he doesn't survive and dangerous if he does), if you restrain him then you're using resources to keep him alive and guarded that probably can't be spared.

I also acknowledge that the POW scenario isn't quite right, but it was the closest real life example I could think of for this situation: a group of people with limited resources in a hostile area, being pursued by a hostile group with more resources and manpower.

[dev6500]

Ok, easy alternative for a cleric. Team up with the fighter to knock out and disarm the sleeping warlock. Convene rest of party and cast zone of truth. Let someone with knowledge arcana confirm that you cast zone of truth. Now let the party confirm that the warlock is guilty. If he lies it is detected by the spell. The spell effects any creatures that fail a charisma save each turn they stay in the circle. If the person suceeds on the save and lies, the caster knows. It also works on the cleric so the party can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the warlock is guilty.

Now the party can convene and make a group decision. This doesn't involve betrayal and most closely resembles a legal process as opposed to a vigilante murdering people.

If we were to take a real world parallel, then lets say the cleric is a police officer. If a police officer knew that someone was a murderer but instead of building a case against them just snuck into their house in the middle of the night and murdered them, that police officer would be condemned for being an evil murderer. If he hires a helper and pays them with the criminal's possessions, it is even worse. And to further condemn the cleric, he clearly (as shown above) has a way to confirm to the party, the guilt of the warlock.

[krugaan]

And I do agree with that, I do think that going after the Warlock is going to hurt group cohesion and create trust issues (if he is found out; hiding it begins to get a bit too sneaky for me), but at this point it's kind of the best of a bad situation, at least in my mind. You can either leave the Warlock alive and risk him continuing to whittle down the party and have some trust issues, or kill him and still have the trust issues but prevent that avenue of danger/save more members of the party.

I completely get where you're coming from, but I just don't see a reasonable solution in this case. I think sending him off on his own is unlikely to happen without the party's support (it's also cruel if he doesn't survive and dangerous if he does), if you restrain him then you're using resources to keep him alive and guarded that probably can't be spared.

I also acknowledge that the POW scenario isn't quite right, but it was the closest real life example I could think of for this situation: a group of people with limited resources in a hostile area, being pursued by a hostile group with more resources and manpower.

I think the POW scenario is close, TBH, so I like that you brought it up. There is no right solution to a problem like this. I don't think murdering him in his sleep in the manner suggested is a "good" solution, in any sense of the word.

edit: critical word correction

[Trum4n1208]

Shoot, that works for me. Knock him out and hogtie him, cast zone of truth for the confession, quick summary execution with party approval. Very little risk, everyone wins.

[krugaan]

Ok, easy alternative for a cleric. Team up with the fighter to knock out and disarm the sleeping warlock. Convene rest of party and cast zone of truth. Let someone with knowledge arcana confirm that you cast zone of truth. Now let the party confirm that the warlock is guilty. If he lies it is detected by the spell. The spell effects any creatures that fail a charisma save each turn they stay in the circle. If the person suceeds on the save and lies, the caster knows. It also works on the cleric so the party can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the warlock is guilty.

Now the party can convene and make a group decision. This doesn't involve betrayal and most closely resembles a legal process as opposed to a vigilante murdering people.

If we were to take a real world parallel, then lets say the cleric is a police officer. If a police officer knew that someone was a murderer but instead of building a case against them just snuck into their house in the middle of the night and murdered them, that police officer would be condemned for being an evil murderer. If he hires a helper and pays them with the criminal's possessions, it is even worse. And to further condemn the cleric, he clearly (as shown above) has a way to confirm to the party, the guilt of the warlock.

Pretty elaborate but probably the best solution so far, IMO.

Although people on the run don't tend to hold court, lol.

[Trum4n1208]

Pretty elaborate but probably the best solution so far, IMO.

Although people on the run don't tend to hold court, lol.

True, but it'd go quickly. Cast the spell, get the confession and then give him the Ned Stark treatment. it's not like they're presenting evidence and calling witnesses. I like it.

Edit: Now that we've found a great solution that has ended all of this arguing, how much do you wanna bet that OP doesn't have Zone of Truth?

[dev6500]

Pretty elaborate but probably the best solution so far, IMO.

Although people on the run don't tend to hold court, lol.

They may be on the run but this little tribunal will take 20 minutes tops. ;p

Also, Zone of Truth is a 2nd level cleric spell. If its not prepared all he needs to do is knock out the warlock and tie him up and then prepare it after their long rest is completed and first thing in the morning, they hold their tribunal.

[Trum4n1208]

They may be on the run but this little tribunal will take 20 minutes tops. ;p

Also, Zone of Truth is a 2nd level cleric spell. If its not prepared all he needs to do is knock out the warlock and tie him up and then prepare it after their long rest is completed and first thing in the morning, they hold their tribunal.

Fair enough, I don't think we've ever had a cleric at our table, so I wasn't sure how their spells worked.

[Misterwhisper]

What is wrong with the idea of wait for him to go to sleep and just leave.

Sneak off while he is sleeping, do not rob him, or kill him, just leave him.

Problem solved, it sounds like you are over reacting and just want to kill the guy.

[RickAllison]

What is wrong with the idea of wait for him to go to sleep and just leave.

Sneak off while he is sleeping, do not rob him, or kill him, just leave him.

Problem solved, it sounds like you are over reacting and just want to kill the guy.

You mean the cleric or the entire party?

If you mean the cleric, I'm about to get very sarcastic. Sure, let's go off alone into incredibly hostile territory because this one guy is a meany-face. You have most likely committed suicide, hooray. Oh, and your former allies are probably going to get murdered.

If you mean the party, remember that they don't believe him yet. So that's a trashed idea.

[Rakoa]

I saw someone throw out the phrase "strength of conviction" as something a good person lacks if said person stoops to murder and betrayal, and that exile is the way to go. I say the opposite. Exiling this warlock will result in very few situations, all of them bad:
A) The Warlock dies by lack of nutrition, slowly and painfully.
B) The warlock is killed by Drow, likely also slowly and painfully.
C) The warlock is enslaved by Drow, and spends the rest of his life hoping for death.
D) The warlock comes back to wreak vengeance on the party.
E) The warlock manages to escape the Underdark by himself (very, very unlikely), and continues to kill the innocent.

What a great set of scenarios! Killing him in his sleep is not only the most direct way of dealing with him and preventing his further crimes, but it is the most merciful, other than the very unlikely Scenario E. The Cleric who would exile the party member in this conditions lacks the strength of conviction to kill the warlock himself, instead allowing the Drow/environment to do so in an attempt to keep his hands clean, thereby sentencing the warlock to a much worse death than he would have met at the Cleric's own hand. This is murder either way, direct or indirect. After all, his action either way directly causes the Warlock's death. Only one method maintains a minimal amount of suffering on the warlock's half, as well as minimizing the already unlikely risk of him escaping to continue to do Evil, or the (probably very likely) risk that he will return to kill for revenge.

[Temperjoke]

I know the original post is only a side thought at this point, but I'm curious how it played out, if it has yet?

[krugaan]

I know the original post is only a side thought at this point, but I'm curious how it played out, if it has yet?

I don't think we've actually strayed very far off topic, actually. But yeah, im intensely curious myself.

[Corran]

True, someone should private message the OP and demand that he comes back here and narrate what happened. We deserve an ending!

[krugaan]

True, someone should private message the OP and demand that he comes back here and narrate what happened. We deserve an ending!

Hah hah, COME BACK AND BE JUDGED, OP!