Playing a Paladin in a party of murderhobos

[King539]

Well, a Sorcadin.

So, I'm playing through Storm Kings Thunder, and it's great, except for one thing. Several of my fellow characters are terrible people (characters, not players.) We're playing at a game store, so the people there from session to session, but 3 of the regulars have characters who are... morally questionable. Let's call them A, B, and C.

A for Asmodeus:
-Is an LE cleric of Asmodeus. Literally walks around with the guy's holy symbol on a shield on his back.
-Has encouraged murder of slaves. Yeah. Long story.
-My character has the least problem with this guy, surprisingly. He hasn't done anything *that* blatantly evil.

B for Bard:
-Works for Harpers, is CG bard.
-Murdered a helpless prisoner out of nowhere, for no reason. Apparently, they were a "threat."

C for Chaotic Stupid:
-CN (read: CE) Fighter/Bladesinger
-Has cold-heartedly murdered 3 fleeing, CR 1/8 enemies. While we were level 8. Then he looted their dead bodies. His excuse was that he didn't want to waste his Haste spell.

Does anyone know what to do? I'm not trying to play my character as Lawful Stupid, just as a genuinely good person. I honestly cannot see a good reason to not just betray them.
/end of rant.

EDIT: The nest session is today, I'll talk to the DM about it.

[Pex]

Talk to the DM to see if this is the type of game he wants to run or agrees with you preferring a more heroic game. If the latter then he should lead the discussion with the others to change their characters or their game, i. e. play with other people. If the DM doesn't mind or wants to run a game like this, then you'll need to change your character or your game.

[Sigreid]

Fall to oathbreaker, subdue your party, claim the Storm King's throne, smash the ordining and rebuild it around subservience to you. Do all of this while brooding over the connection to the light and hope for a better world that your party stole from you.

[Eladain]

Obviously I'm sure there is more to each of the listed situations, but the only one I see a real issue with is B.

A - LE Cleric of Asmodeus encouraging the murder of slaves? Not really out of character there. It does bode the question, were the slaves actually murdered?

C - Killing fleeing enemies? This could be dependent upon the type of enemies, but typically fleeing enemies return with fighting friends. I can't really fault this one at face value.

B - This is the one that just seems like blatant murder-hoboism, especially given his alignment.

I agree with Pex though. Talk to the DM, see how he viewed each situation and how he plans on running his game. It could be that it isn't the game for you, or maybe as mentioned you go oathbreaker or roll up a character with a bit more moral ambiguity.

[Bohandas]

something somethimg Pact Primeval

[djreynolds]

You must get them into trouble. Paladins are known for this. Every wrong doing, every silly quest, but don't tell them. See if they are loyal to you, see if they run when they find out you are there for the dragon... and not the loot.

[Randomthom]

Wait until you are back in civilised society then report the bard's murderousness to the authorities. Tell them you would be prepared to testify against him (be prepared for an epic charisma battle in a courtroom!)

Perhaps report the activities of the Cleric to your own temple/order. The GM could use this as an opportunity to assign you the task to keep a close eye or similar.

[Herobizkit]

Fall to oathbreaker, subdue your party, claim the Storm King's throne, smash the ordining and rebuild it around subservience to you. Do all of this while brooding over the connection to the light and hope for a better world that your party stole from you.Sounds like something the Asmodeus guy could get behind. If not the Ruler of All, Grand Vizier is a worthy title.

[Arial Black]

Sounds like something the Asmodeus guy could get behind. If not the Ruler of All, Grand Vizier is a worthy title.

Hmmm...."Grand Vizier of All"....it does have a nice ring to it!

[ClintACK]

Out of Character... what Pex said. There are all different kinds of games -- make sure you're all on the same page about what kind of game this is.

In Character... I'm imagining how Captain Malcolm Reynolds handles Jayne. I'm imagining a conversation with the Bard about murdering prisoners in cold blood, for apparently no reason and without discussing it with the rest of the party. That's not okay with Paladin Captain Reynolds. He'd calmly explain that it's not okay, make serious threats about what will happen next time, and conclude with: "Is there an understanding between us?" -- not letting it go until the Bard acknowledges that the next time this happens he's rolling initiative for PvP.

[Geddy2112]

I had this problem once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?401751-Paladin-in-a-group-of-CE-psychopaths-(Pathfinder)). I second talking to the DM and the players. Also, good sport for keeping this in character-it is fine if John's Paladin hates Jim's necromancer, but not if John hates Jim.

That said, based on the limited information, I don't think they are that bad or you are that screwed...yet. If these were isolated incidents then drop it, and even if they were not context is a huge deal.

The cleric of Asmodeus is actually probably on your side. He might condone murder, but no cleric of Asmodeus worth their salt wants random wanton violence. It creates disorder-homeboy is openly flaunting that he wants order through force. Sure, killing slaves (or damn near anyone) is on the table, but not without a damn good reason. Show of force, restore order, gain power, prove a point-all good, but wanton violence is not a LE/Asmodean thing.

You have to parlay with the devil's advocate. He probably hates their stupid murderhobodom as much as you. Professional criminals don't want amateurs. A mob boss can't have a random thug enforcer just doing whatever they want. If their actions start getting the party in trouble, he is going to be quicker on the draw to smite those other two knuckleheads than you will. He will fill their bodies with negative energy till their eyes leak out of their skulls. The only reason he has probably not cared is that the party is getting away with it. Appeal to his professional attitude and that their wanton chaotic stupid murderhobodom is going to mean trouble for him. You can get on his side and play good cop bad cop. Explain to the other two bozos that you disapprove of their actions, but you have to give them another chance...the cleric of Asmodeus is looking for a reason to use them in a ritual sacrifice.

The bard probably just messed up. If it was a one time thing, let it go. Good people make mistakes, and if somehow he legitimately believed the prisoner was a threat alive...well, hear them out. Verbally express disapproval and call it good.

Killing enemies that are running is sometimes the best play-this really depends on the situation. If he murdered surrendering humanoids then maybe a bit much, but if they were monsters or psychopath cutthroats that would run and get more, maybe not. He won't get any experience, and his character did not glee kill them, so I am sure he thought it was the best play given the circumstances.

[Douche]

I too believe that, if I'm the one that thinks differently from the majority, then everyone else should change their behavior to appease me.

[Arial Black]

I too believe that, if I'm the one that thinks differently from the majority, then everyone else should change their behavior to appease me.

In real life, if you're with a group of mates and they all started to attack random innocents while you were all wandering about town, should you:-

* tell them all that your lone opinion is worth more than all of theirs put together, so they have to stop because you say so?

* realise that in a democracy the majority rules and join in by attacking random people yourself?

* do and say nothing, because even though you think it is wrong to attack innocents for no reason it would also be wrong to tell your friends what to do?

[Mellack]

We are talking about a game, not actual harm to people. It is more like you are playing baseball, and the majority decide to have 12 players on the field. If that is how the majority want to play their game and you do not, it is up to you to find a different game.

[Douche]

In real life, if you're with a group of mates and they all started to attack random innocents while you were all wandering about town, should you:-

* tell them all that your lone opinion is worth more than all of theirs put together, so they have to stop because you say so?

* realise that in a democracy the majority rules and join in by attacking random people yourself?

* do and say nothing, because even though you think it is wrong to attack innocents for no reason it would also be wrong to tell your friends what to do?

I'd probably find new friends, and consider the path my life has taken that led me into hanging out with a bunch of guys who attack random people.

[Malifice]

Well, a Sorcadin.

So, I'm playing through Storm Kings Thunder, and it's great, except for one thing. Several of my fellow characters are terrible people (characters, not players.) We're playing at a game store, so the people there from session to session, but 3 of the regulars have characters who are... morally questionable. Let's call them A, B, and C.


Whats your Paladins alignment, Oath and Deity? From your OP, I'm going to assume LG and Devotion.


A for Asmodeus:
-Is an LE cleric of Asmodeus. Literally walks around with the guy's holy symbol on a shield on his back.
-Has encouraged murder of slaves. Yeah. Long story.
-My character has the least problem with this guy, surprisingly. He hasn't done anything *that* blatantly evil.

Depending on the campaign world, the open worship of evil gods is often a crime (even a capital offence). My Paladin of Bane gets this problem and rarely wears his (un)holy symbol openly depending on local laws (or the willingness of the locals to enforce them in any event).

He's playing to alignment, but you should obviously oppose any such murder and probably be keeping a close on him to say the least. You can work to together (you're both Lawful) but clearly you're both opposed morally (G v E). It's only a matter of time before conflict happens. You're not breaking any tenet by hanging around with him, and indeed you may (and should) be seeking to be an example to him.


B for Bard:
-Works for Harpers, is CG bard.
-Murdered a helpless prisoner out of nowhere, for no reason. Apparently, they were a "threat."

His character sheet says CG, but he clearly isn't CG. No LG person would tolerate open murder of a helpless prisoner for no reason. If I had have been playing a LG Devotion Paladin in this situation I would have demanded his surrender on the spot (assuming it was safe to do so), and taken him into the lawful authorities for punishment and restitution. If he resisted, I would use as much force as necessary to affect the arrest, including lethal force if he attacked me with same or threatened to do so.

Here are the tenets of the Oath of Devotion:

-Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
-Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
-Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
-Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
-Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you

Obviously the murder of a prisoner entrusted to your parties care is a violation of your Oath. If you sat by and did nothing, I would have you break your Oath and 'fall'. You are expected to do something if its within your power to do so.

In any event, I almost certainly wouldn't continue to trust and hang around with an obviously sociopathic murdering monster, just like I wouldn't in real life.


C for Chaotic Stupid:
-CN (read: CE) Fighter/Bladesinger
-Has cold-heartedly murdered 3 fleeing, CR 1/8 enemies. While we were level 8. Then he looted their dead bodies. His excuse was that he didn't want to waste his Haste spell.

He's playing to alignment with a tinge of evil (which is OK).

This one can be resolved with words admonishing him for his violence and reminding him that the men he killed were husbands, fathers and sons and that other options were available.


Does anyone know what to do? I'm not trying to play my character as Lawful Stupid, just as a genuinely good person. I honestly cannot see a good reason to not just betray them.

You're not betraying them by encouraging them to do good, and opposing them in doing evil.

Putting all this aside, you really need to chat with your DM about this. This party is going to implode sooner rather than later, and it sounds like you have at least one immature player in the group (Im looking at you Bard).

[Malifice]

In real life, if you're with a group of mates and they all started to attack random innocents while you were all wandering about town, should you:-

* tell them all that your lone opinion is worth more than all of theirs put together, so they have to stop because you say so?

* realise that in a democracy the majority rules and join in by attacking random people yourself?

* do and say nothing, because even though you think it is wrong to attack innocents for no reason it would also be wrong to tell your friends what to do?

Option 4. Stop them and almost certainly no longer be friends with them.

Im CN(ish) in real life. If I was lawful I'd also co-operate with the police in any investigation.

Mate, I don't care If Ive known you my whole life, if you started randomly stabbing people on the street, or abducted and cut the throat of someone 'for reasons' I would (at a minimum) almost certainly wash my hands of you on the spot. Hanging out with mass murdering evil sociopaths isnt how I roll.

[Arial Black]

We are talking about a game, not actual harm to people. It is more like you are playing baseball, and the majority decide to have 12 players on the field. If that is how the majority want to play their game and you do not, it is up to you to find a different game.

The creatures in the game do not know that they are just creatures in a game!

They believe they are real, and make decisions as if they are real.

The point of role-playing is to play that role, i.e. the role of a creature that believes itself to be a real person in a real world.

Such a creature would make the same decisions we would if our mates suddenly started murdering innocents for the lulz.

The paladin's player wants to have his PC act like any moral person would act in those circumstances. The other guys seem to be having their characters act as if they were not real; as if they were just...unreal avatars in a game, and aware that they are not real.

If The Deck of Many Things existed in the real world, would you take a card? "Roll up, roll up, take a card and toss a coin; if it comes up heads you get ten grand, but if it comes up tails...you die!"

Anyone? Who would take a card? You would have to be insane or in such dire straits that death was not any worse than your current condition.

So why does anyone ever draw a card?

Because the player cannot lose! It's not the player that dies, but his PC, and they are ten-a-penny! If my PC draws a bad card, no worries, I can roll up another, my new PC will walk around the corner next round and the party will instantly and without reason trust this new guy with their lives, and he might even be in time to draw a card. If he draws a bad card, rinse and repeat. If he draws a good card, I now have a ridiculously powerful PC! It's win/win.

But a real person would not risk death so casually.

So it depends if you treat RPGs as 'just' a game, or whether you actually try to play a role. It might be said that both styles are equally valid, but valid for the player, not for the character. Not for a moral person who is witnessing a random murder for the lulz.

[Arial Black]

Option 4. Stop them and almost certainly no longer be friends with them.

Im CN(ish) in real life. If I was lawful I'd also co-operate with the police in any investigation.

Mate, I don't care If Ive known you my whole life, if you started randomly stabbing people on the street, or abducted and cut the throat of someone 'for reasons' I would (at a minimum) almost certainly wash my hands of you on the spot. Hanging out with mass murdering evil sociopaths isnt how I roll.

Exactly!

And that would be the reaction of any non-psychopath/sociopath.

So the player is having his paladin act realistically. The others seem to have their PCs act as if they know that they are not real and have no free will; they are just there for the amusement of 'the player'.

It reminds me of the new Westworld TV series, where the customers go to the world full of androids and kill and rape to their hearts' content, because they know the androids are not real. But they wouldn't act that way with real people.

[Malifice]

Exactly!

And that would be the reaction of any non-psychopath/sociopath.

So the player is having his paladin act realistically. The others seem to have their PCs act as if they know that they are not real and have no free will; they are just there for the amusement of 'the player'.

It reminds me of the new Westworld TV series, where the customers go to the world full of androids and kill and rape to their hearts' content, because they know the androids are not real. But they wouldn't act that way with real people.

I think you may have missed the point of that episode. Who says the androids are not real? How are they less real than you or I?

[ClintACK]

The point of role-playing is to play that role, i.e. the role of a creature that believes itself to be a real person in a real world.

This is where you go wrong.

Different people play RPGs with different expectations and goals. Some people want tactical wargaming. Others want improv class and melodrama. Some want to act out unrealistically noble and heroic characters. Others want to act out unrealistically "no $#!+s given" characters. Some want to really inhabit a realistic role and some just want to make jokes and futz around while they spend time with their friends.

All valid ways to enjoy D&D.

Hence the very first and very frequent advice in this thread: Talk to the other players and DM.

[Arial Black]

I think you may have missed the point of that episode. Who says the androids are not real? How are they less real than you or I?

The androids believe they are real.

The guests believe the androids are not real.

What the actual truth may be is a separate issue; the issue is that each of them acts as if their belief is true.

By analogy, the problem for the OP is that the PCs are the androids and the players are the guests. The paladin is acting as the android should (he believes he is real and acts as a real person would act), but the others are acting as if they know that they are androids and that nothing they do has any real impact, so feel free to rape and murder with impunity.

[Arial Black]

This is where you go wrong.

Different people play RPGs with different expectations and goals. Some people want tactical wargaming. Others want improv class and melodrama. Some want to act out unrealistically noble and heroic characters. Others want to act out unrealistically "no $#!+s given" characters. Some want to really inhabit a realistic role and some just want to make jokes and futz around while they spend time with their friends.

All valid ways to enjoy D&D.

Hence the very first and very frequent advice in this thread: Talk to the other players and DM.

All are valid ways to play the game, but while they may be playing a game, they are not actually role-playing.

[Temperjoke]

I too believe that, if I'm the one that thinks differently from the majority, then everyone else should change their behavior to appease me.

If I understand correctly, these 3 may not constitute a majority, merely some of the regulars that can meet due to all the other players availability in the public group. So, while we only know that this individual's character has issues with these 3, it's also possible that he's not alone in this.

[Douche]

Exactly!

And that would be the reaction of any non-psychopath/sociopath.

So the player is having his paladin act realistically. The others seem to have their PCs act as if they know that they are not real and have no free will; they are just there for the amusement of 'the player'.

It reminds me of the new Westworld TV series, where the customers go to the world full of androids and kill and rape to their hearts' content, because they know the androids are not real. But they wouldn't act that way with real people.

Regardless, it's still a game. If 3/4 of the players want to be murderhobos and you're the odd one out - that's your problem, not theirs. You can roleplay your lawful good paladin to try and stop them, but then don't be mad when you're shut down. Because you're ultimately the one ostracizing yourself.

In real life scenarios, yes it's important to stand up when people are wrong. If your coworker says something racist & your other coworkers laugh, then the right thing to do is to call him out & let it be known that it's wrong. And even in the game, you can go ahead & say that it's wrong... but in either scenario you should be ready to deal with the consequences. If you're going to try & get your coworker fired or something (because the OP stated that he wants to betray his party), then there might be a chance that you're going to get fired yourself, or perhaps just passed over on a promotion, for being a pot stirrer around the office. Similarly, if OP is going to betray his party somehow, then in all likelihood he's going to be the one who's left behind.

Or, he could just stop being a killjoy to peoples pretend playtime fantasy & get rid of his goody two shoes paladin.

Although, in my opinion, those people who get twisted satisfaction from pretend torture, murdering innocents, joking about slavery, etc are generally unsavory people. I wouldn't associate myself with them. But the point I'm trying to make is that, if you don't like those people (or your character doesn't), then don't be around them. When my Jewish grandfather was in Europe during the Holocaust, he didn't stick around & try to change society to fit his views. He mother****ing stowed away on a train & lived in Africa for 10 years. If you don't like the atmosphere you're in, then get out of it!

[Millstone85]

Assuming that..
* You have no problem with these players, as real people.
* You are willing to participate in a game with evil PCs.
* Your character, a good-aligned paladin, wouldn't stand for it.
* You do not want to bring any sort of PvP to the table.

I would ask the DM to NPCify the paladin right away, so he can turn on the evil characters at no further expense for yourself.

Plus, even if the most wicked deeds came from supposedly good or neutral PCs, the one whose character sheet says evil gives you the perfect excuse to go that route.

[ClintACK]

All are valid ways to play the game, but while they may be playing a game, they are not actually role-playing.

Sure they are.

They're just playing roles that you don't like or don't find realistic.

[RickAllison]

Sure they are.

They're just playing roles that you don't like or don't find realistic.

Here are two examples that illustrate why this is:

1) Eric plays Grathnag like he is just an avatar to interact with the world with little care for RP, at least on the surface. Grathnag acts like everything is part of some greater game.

2) Vlepontas, a wizard of divination, is convinced he is merely a pawn, a plaything of a mysterious entity known only as "Eric", part of a great pantheon of four locked in eternal conflict with a mysterious being known as the Dungeon Master. Vlepontas feels like he has never had free will, that his life is either guided by Eric or by the chance encounters of this mysterious DM. All he seeks is his freedom...

The second one is just the first with a few extra touches thrown in, which could well be something done later on because why would you share that with a stranger?

[Sigreid]

The creatures in the game do not know that they are just creatures in a game!

They believe they are real, and make decisions as if they are real.

The point of role-playing is to play that role, i.e. the role of a creature that believes itself to be a real person in a real world.

Such a creature would make the same decisions we would if our mates suddenly started murdering innocents for the lulz.

The paladin's player wants to have his PC act like any moral person would act in those circumstances. The other guys seem to be having their characters act as if they were not real; as if they were just...unreal avatars in a game, and aware that they are not real.

If The Deck of Many Things existed in the real world, would you take a card? "Roll up, roll up, take a card and toss a coin; if it comes up heads you get ten grand, but if it comes up tails...you die!"

Anyone? Who would take a card? You would have to be insane or in such dire straits that death was not any worse than your current condition.

So why does anyone ever draw a card?

Because the player cannot lose! It's not the player that dies, but his PC, and they are ten-a-penny! If my PC draws a bad card, no worries, I can roll up another, my new PC will walk around the corner next round and the party will instantly and without reason trust this new guy with their lives, and he might even be in time to draw a card. If he draws a bad card, rinse and repeat. If he draws a good card, I now have a ridiculously powerful PC! It's win/win.

But a real person would not risk death so casually.

So it depends if you treat RPGs as 'just' a game, or whether you actually try to play a role. It might be said that both styles are equally valid, but valid for the player, not for the character. Not for a moral person who is witnessing a random murder for the lulz.

Sky diving, base jumping, deep sea diving, sports that can be described as 2 people voluntarily entering an enclosure and attacking each other until one is physically unable to continue, rattle snake round ups, the list goes on. People risk their lives casually for the thrill all the time.

[Millstone85]

I am not convinced that a failure to get into character is the problem.

One player wrote Lawful Evil on their character sheet. The character is for the execution of slaves.
Another wrote chaotic neutral but thought evil (AL rules or something). The character kills for fun.
That's all very in character.

The player with the supposedly chaotic good character might be different.
But I don't know what "threat" the player or character saw.

[Arial Black]

Sky diving, base jumping, deep sea diving, sports that can be described as 2 people voluntarily entering an enclosure and attacking each other until one is physically unable to continue, rattle snake round ups, the list goes on. People risk their lives casually for the thrill all the time.

I wonder if any of these sports would be as popular if there was a 50% chance of dying every time.

[Sigreid]

I wonder if any of these sports would be as popular if there was a 50% chance of dying every time.

If I remember right only 2 or 3 cards are certain death/removal from the campaign. A few of the others can make things difficult. More than half have at least the potential of being beneficial.

[Arial Black]

Thinking more about this, I guess it's not that the other guys are not playing 'properly', but that they seem to be accusing the paladin of not playing properly on the grounds that he is actually playing his PC as if he were a real person in that situation.

It's them saying the paladin is playing 'wrong' that bothers me.

[Sigreid]

Thinking more about this, I guess it's not that the other guys are not playing 'properly', but that they seem to be accusing the paladin of not playing properly on the grounds that he is actually playing his PC as if he were a real person in that situation.

It's them saying the paladin is playing 'wrong' that bothers me.

I don't remember anyone saying he was playing wrong. A few of us threw out "Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies." and one person was essentially arguing that if the OP wants to play in a good guy campaign then perhaps that's not the group for him this time.

[Malifice]

I wonder if any of these sports would be as popular if there was a 50% chance of dying every time.

Mate, there are plenty of people that would play Russian Roulette for a huge (or even small) wad of money.

Including all the people who have played Russian Roulette.

[Arial Black]

Mate, there are plenty of people that would play Russian Roulette for a huge (or even small) wad of money.

Including all the people who have played Russian Roulette.

* 'Plenty'?
* 1 in 6 chance of dying with RR, not 1 in 2 for the Deck, per card draw BTW
* desperate people

[Douche]

Mate, there are plenty of people that would play Russian Roulette for a huge (or even small) wad of money.

Including all the people who have played Russian Roulette.

I'd do it. If you lose, you're dead so you don't even realize that you lost. But if you win, then you have a bunch of money!

It's a win/win scenario

[Arial Black]

I'd do it. If you lose, you're dead so you don't even realize that you lost. But if you win, then you have a bunch of money!

It's a win/win scenario

Darwinian evolution FTW!

[Malifice]

* 'Plenty'?
* 1 in 6 chance of dying with RR, not 1 in 2 for the Deck, per card draw BTW
* desperate people

Id spin the wheelgun against my head for a million.

If I wasnt living in Australia with a good job, id chance it for considerably less.

[Addaran]

* 'Plenty'?
* 1 in 6 chance of dying with RR, not 1 in 2 for the Deck, per card draw BTW
* desperate people

Did they change the Deck of many things with half "Death" cards? I though it was half good things and half bad things, with various degree of goodness/badness. For lots of desperate people (poor commoners) the chance to lose some exp, magical items or your fortune isn't that bad, specialy if it gives the chance to magically turn into a wizard who'll be able to get way better pay, receive an holy avenger that they can sell to buy a castle or gaining a wish.

[Mellack]

* 'Plenty'?
* 1 in 6 chance of dying with RR, not 1 in 2 for the Deck, per card draw BTW
* desperate people

Only 3/22 cards in the Deck kill/imprision you. That is less than the 1/6 chance of RR. Some of the "bad" ones wouldn't even hurt a poor person. Losing magic item or valuables? No problem.

There are a lot of people who are desperate in the world.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, a Sorcadin.

So, I'm playing through Storm Kings Thunder, and it's great, except for one thing. Several of my fellow characters are terrible people (characters, not players.) We're playing at a game store, so the people there from session to session, but 3 of the regulars have characters who are... morally questionable. Let's call them A, B, and C.

A for Asmodeus:
-Is an LE cleric of Asmodeus. Literally walks around with the guy's holy symbol on a shield on his back.
-Has encouraged murder of slaves. Yeah. Long story.
-My character has the least problem with this guy, surprisingly. He hasn't done anything *that* blatantly evil.

B for Bard:
-Works for Harpers, is CG bard.
-Murdered a helpless prisoner out of nowhere, for no reason. Apparently, they were a "threat."

C for Chaotic Stupid:
-CN (read: CE) Fighter/Bladesinger
-Has cold-heartedly murdered 3 fleeing, CR 1/8 enemies. While we were level 8. Then he looted their dead bodies. His excuse was that he didn't want to waste his Haste spell.

Does anyone know what to do? I'm not trying to play my character as Lawful Stupid, just as a genuinely good person. I honestly cannot see a good reason to not just betray them.
/end of rant.

In (admittedly limited knowledge of the player motive) defense of these characters.

A) Ok, no defense, just wondering how this guy isn't getting killed by anyone you meet? Asmodeus isn't even a standard deity, is this something allowed in SKT?
B) Harpers have enemies who would put them in the ground immediately given the chance, so it's entirely possible this prisoner was one of them. That doesn't make it morally repugnant, but it does present a rationale under which it would make sense to keep him away from such prisoners in the future if you as a party know he's prone to no mercy for those particular factions.
C) Fleeing enemies aren't fleeing neutrals or friends. There's every reason to kill them if they didn't surrender, letting them flee without surrendering their arms is just asking for them to regroup and ambush you later on.

[Spore]

What happened to the: "Behave yourselves or I'll smite-kick you in the butt that your intestines will light up until next tuesday."? No really, warn them in character.

[Malifice]

In (admittedly limited knowledge of the player motive) defense of these characters.

A) Ok, no defense, just wondering how this guy isn't getting killed by anyone you meet? Asmodeus isn't even a standard deity, is this something allowed in SKT?
B) Harpers have enemies who would put them in the ground immediately given the chance, so it's entirely possible this prisoner was one of them. That doesn't make it morally repugnant, but it does present a rationale under which it would make sense to keep him away from such prisoners in the future if you as a party know he's prone to no mercy for those particular factions.
C) Fleeing enemies aren't fleeing neutrals or friends. There's every reason to kill them if they didn't surrender, letting them flee without surrendering their arms is just asking for them to regroup and ambush you later on.


...are the exact excuses proffered by a bunch of murder-hobos.

[Tanarii]

Whats your Paladins alignment, Oath and Deity? From your OP, I'm going to assume LG and Devotion.This is really relevant information that was left out. I'm curious to know what Oath the Paladin is too.

(Amazingly I don't really disagree with your post, in an alignment-based thread. Pigs just flew.)

[Malifice]

Pigs just flew

Indeed my friend!

[Scarytincan]

I was also going to point out the notable fact that the bard was a Harper. Dunno how familiar you are with them but I could see there being plenty of RP reasons the harpers would have to kill 'for the greater good' or to 'maintain balance'. Possibly even a secret assignment or mission your character isn't aware he / she is on or has been assigned

[Malifice]

I was also going to point out the notable fact that the bard was a Harper. Dunno how familiar you are with them but I could see there being plenty of RP reasons the harpers would have to kill 'for the greater good' or to 'maintain balance'. Possibly even a secret assignment or mission your character isn't aware he / she is on or has been assigned

I doubt it. Sounds to me like murderhobism 101.

I just cant see Robin Hood (CG) slitting the throat of a captured prisoner who was begging for his life even if they were the Sherriffs men. Same deal with McNulty from the Wire (CG) gunning down Stringer Bell regardless of Stringers evil.

I'm not saying there isn't a pragmatic justification for doing so. Its just not what CG people do. A Neutral person perhaps in certain situations. An evil person for sure.

Wolverine kinda bounces between CN and CG depending on the situation [the struggle between the two was kinda a big part of his story], and only in his darker (CN) depictions would he do it.

Anakin Skywalkers killing of Dooku was a character depicted as CG doing something similar and it was clearly framed as his penultimate slide into darkness (taking down Windu being what finally pushed him to join Sidious, before clearly going all the way to evil when he slaughtered the Younglings at the temple). Interestingly he only took Windu down ostensibly to stop Windu (depicted as LN with good tendencies for mine) from doing the same thing to Palpatine.

Of course, he lashed out in anger and fear, and for a Jedi thats usually enough to push them closer to the Dark side. Those midiclorians are a bitch.

[DiceDiceBaby]

Sigh. Stories like this make me sad. Our Paladin in the campaign I frequent has the same problem. He decided to just live by example; he gets to solve all of the social quests that we of poor Charisma can't get done without killing people. It actually makes him look cooler that way. Sometimes you just have to be the change you want to see in this world.

[Tanarii]

C) Fleeing enemies aren't fleeing neutrals or friends. There's every reason to kill them if they didn't surrender, letting them flee without surrendering their arms is just asking for them to regroup and ambush you later on.


...are the exact excuses proffered by a bunch of murder-hobos.
Curious Malifice, do you really think this one is murderhoboism? Or do you mean that's exactly the kind of thing a murderhoboism that was going to kill his enemies no matter what latches on to?

I've never had to fight or kill anyone IRL. I don't know if I could. But on my moral compass, which is admittedly fairly amoral, there's nothing particularly wrong with this sentiment. It's not particularly *noble*, but I don't think it's terribly dishonorable either. (I don't believe that good and evil are real things, so I don't use them when talking about IRL morality.)

Otoh I do think it would be far more in character for a Lawful Good aligned Devotion or Ancients Paladin would balk at someone in the party having done that, depending on the enemy. But that's different from saying doing it is murderhoboism.

[Vogonjeltz]

...are the exact excuses proffered by a bunch of murder-hobos.

I assumed if someone was a murderhobo they wouldn't feel the need to justify their activities at all. But sharing a justification doesn't make the justification wrong (bad people can still be right)