PDA

View Full Version : In-party conflict- how do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wrong?



Pages : [1] 2

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 10:31 AM
Example (was derailing an OOTS thread, so I took it here):

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60

I had a situation come up. The group had been ambushed by a group of Ogres, and managed to fight them off and capture the remaining one. They questioned it(By tying it upside down and hanging it by its feet from a tree.) They learned that it was part of the assualt group that had just attacked a keep some days before. And this PC group was part of the defense of the keep. The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last ogre, decides to execute the Ogre. Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a ogre to authorities. Its clear the ogre will only slow them down. The Dwarf who was doing the questioning, gets _____ at the Paladin for jumping in and finishing off his prisoner. Walks over to the Paladins horse and ...

Phoebewedh walks over to Ivric's horse and slits its throat.
"Don't tarry when you run to catch up with us.
If you ever so much as interfere with my prisoners again I will gut you like a pig and feed you to my boar. " he says to the paladin.

I explain to the character that this is not a good act(the dwarf.), I am thinking that he needs an alignment change to CN from this act.

Is it the dwarf player who's being a jerk for killing the paladin's horse (later clarified as a regular nonmagical one)? The paladin player for not talking it out with the dwarf before killing the party prisoner? A bit of both?

In my opinion, the "jumping in" started the whole quarrel, and the retaliation, while a little excessive, is an improvement on just going straight to PVP.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 10:38 AM
To restate my position from the other thread, the Dwarf is out of line here, the Paladin is at worst being presumptuous with the party which may require an OOC chat about making unilateral decisions like that.

Also, In 1-3.5 editions, the paladin is now no longer allowed to travel with that dwarf of their own volition regardless. They dont explicitly have to bring it to open conflict, but they do specifically have a clause that they will not work with people who offend them to that degree.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 10:40 AM
I rate the paladin as somewhat more out of line, but that's me.

As a DM in that position, I'd warn both the players that this is disrupting the game - but I'd reserve a somewhat sterner warning for the paladin player for starting the whole thing.

OldTrees1
2020-09-07, 10:41 AM
Step 1: Assume it is not a binary. It is possible they only one is right, but those cases are as rare as they are easy.

Step 2: Establish PvP boundaries going forward. This unilateral action that affected both characters may or may not have crossed that boundary. I don't allow PvP theft or destruction of property without consent of both players (albeit only consent of 1 character :D ).

In this case both players took unilateral action in an area that affected both of them. Pausing the action to ask every player (not every character) if they were okay with the Ogre being executed would have revealed the conflict while it could still be addressed preemptively.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 10:42 AM
I rate the paladin as somewhat more out of line, but that's me.

As a DM in that position, I'd warn both the players that this is disrupting the game - but I'd reserve a somewhat sterner warning for the paladin player for starting the whole thing.

The dwarf is the one who escalated it from "i didnt appreciate that" to "I am actively attacking you/your possessions and threatening your character with violence." Up until that point, youre only looking at a "hang on, can we get a say?" levels of conflict, which can be talked through pretty trivially among friends.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 10:43 AM
In this case both players took unilateral action in an area that affected both of them. Pausing the action to ask every player (not every character) if they were okay with the Ogre being executed would have revealed the conflict while it could still be addressed preemptively.

That works for me.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 10:46 AM
So far as I'm concerned jumping in to kill captured prisoners without first discussing alternatives is Lawful Neutral. A Lawful Good person would consider murder the last resort, and you can't realistically say you're using it as a last resort if you haven't even asked the rest of your party of competent adventures whether they know of another way to deal with the issue.

And once you've asked the rest of your party for their input you're no longer making this decision on your own, so problem solved.

As for the dwarf, no attacking people's horses is generally not a good thing. Still better than enthusiastic homicide though.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 10:49 AM
Alignment-wise, I'd probably ding the paladin for murder, or voluntary manslaughter at best (you need to jump through some hoops to justify any killing of a helpless enemy, and the player didn't try here).

The dwarf would get a ding too - smaller for killing an animal than would be usual for killing a sapient being - but still a ding, and maybe one for making the threat too.

"Associating with someone who offends against your moral code" wouldn't be a factor - since the paladin is no longer a paladin till they've atoned.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 10:51 AM
So far as I'm concerned jumping in to kill captured prisoners without first discussing alternatives is Lawful Neutral. A Lawful Good person would consider murder the last resort, and you can't realistically say you're using it as a last resort if you haven't even asked the rest of your party of competent adventures whether they know of another way to deal with the issue.

And once you've asked the rest of your party for their input you're no longer making this decision on your own, so problem solved.

As for the dwarf, no attacking people's horses is generally not a good thing. Still better than enthusiastic homicide though.

How far are we willing to assume the paladin knew about his party's resources? He is, presumably, not just ignoring everybody else's class features, but the topic doesnt actually list out the other members of the party or how they reacted besides the Dwarf. Should we just take the original topic at its word that they didnt have the means to do anything besides either set him free or kill him?


Alignment-wise, I'd probably ding the paladin for murder, or voluntary manslaughter at best (you need to jump through some hoops to justify any killing of a helpless enemy, and the player didn't try here).

The dwarf would get a ding too - smaller for killing an animal than would be usual for killing a sapient being - but still a ding, and maybe one for making the threat too.

"Associating with someone who offends against your moral code" wouldn't be a factor - since the paladin is no longer a paladin till they've atoned.

Ok, so youre ranking "Executing a legitimate prisoner" as a worse offense than "slaughtering an innocent life for no reason"?

Pardon me if i greatly disagree with that notion. The Ogre at least did something to earn consequences, even if you disagree with the specific action taken.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 10:53 AM
The thing is that if I were a paladin in that party I'd say that I couldn't associate with the first paladin because his apparent willingness to kill defenceless prisoners without first checking whether there's no other way to deal with said defenceless prisoner would offend my moral code.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 10:56 AM
The thing is that if I were a paladin in that party I'd say that I couldn't associate with the first paladin because his apparent willingness to kill defenceless prisoners without first checking whether there's no other way to deal with said defenceless prisoner would offend my moral code.

And thats a perfectly legitimate thing to say. Good people can disagree with each other without either side being wrong. I wouldn't have the paladin Fall either for killing or releasing the Ogre, although i might say that he is responsible for coming back and making sure the Ogre isnt hurting anybody else should it be feasible for him to do so.

Friv
2020-09-07, 10:59 AM
They're both bad people.

The first thing is that torturing prisoners is evil, which is what's being described here in terms of questioning. The second thing is that executing a prisoner after you force information out of them is an evil act. The third thing is that murdering an animal because you're upset with someone is an evil act.

Now, from an OOC perspective, the dwarf's player has definitely escalated the situation in a serious way. The paladin's actions were out of line, but within a level of "we need to have a talk about our differing moral perspectives", possibly escalating to "if this happens again there's gonna be PVP." Jumping straight to "I'm going to murder your horse and take you out of the fight alongside a death threat" the dwarf has escalated to "this party is over." Not many people are going to put up with that level of direct provocation. John Wick has killed dozens for that kind of insult.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 11:00 AM
Everyone sucks here.

The paladin's actions are worse - he murdered a sapient captive where murder wasn't necessary, merely the convenient option. Comparatively, the dwarf killed a horse - and while killing an animal in cold blood is still really ****ty behavior, horses aren't people in the way that ogres are.

...however, motivation also plays a part in it. Killing evil creatures is bread-and-butter for adventurers, and paladins in particular. Murdering this particular ogre wasn't necessary for their mission, and so was excessive, but it wasn't any worse than what the rest of the ogres got. It was done for pragmatic reasons. Meanwhile, the dwarf murdered the horse not because the horse living was inconvenient, but because he wanted to assert his authority over the paladin. The crime is smaller, but the motivation is pettier.

This is exactly the kind of ****-measuring nonsense that ends with the dwarf and the paladin waking up abandoned by the rest of the party who don't wanna deal with their bull**** anymore - or worse, not waking up at all cuz who knows if your throat's gonna be the next one cut by these power-grubbing psychos?

JNAProductions
2020-09-07, 11:01 AM
First off, I've already seen someone mention making the Paladin fall.

Don't do that. Just don't. Not without a thorough discussion first about how to make it still fun.

Second off, have you talked to the players in question? That's the most important bit. Talk with them, and ask them what sorts of rules they want for PvP. Because, despite no one directly harming another PC, this is definitely PvP.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:02 AM
How far are we willing to assume the paladin knew about his party's resources? He is, presumably, not just ignoring everybody else's class features, but the topic doesnt actually list out the other members of the party or how they reacted besides the Dwarf. Should we just take the original topic at its word that they didnt have the means to do anything besides either set him free or kill him?

Given that the dwarf took offence at his actions it's clear that at the very least he didn't get the consent from the rest of the party, which implies that he's acting solely on his own judgement.

Also an important factor of discussing the issue with the rest of your party is that no man is infallible. Even if the paladin is trying to keep in mind the abilities of his party he could easily overlook something, and it's realistic that each party member is best at knowing their own abilities (leaving aside that time I had to keep reminding the ranger in my party to apply Hunter's Mark). Neglecting to cover your bases before settling on execution of a defenceless prisoner either indicates an overeagerness towards killing or incompetence.

If he discussed the issue with the rest of the party and the dwarf was the only one who objected then we'd have a different case, but the information we've got says that the paladin decided 'can't bring him to town, so execution it is' and the dwarf took offence to that. It might be that there was more to the situation but in that case both of us would have to conclude that we can't make a judgement of the case because we don't have sufficient information.


And thats a perfectly legitimate thing to say. Good people can disagree with each other without either side being wrong. I wouldn't have the paladin Fall either for killing or releasing the Ogre, although i might say that he is responsible for coming back and making sure the Ogre isnt hurting anybody else should it be feasible for him to do so.

If he decided to release the ogre for the moment then yes I'd agree that he should try to find the time later on to come back and ensure that everything is fine and dandy.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:02 AM
Ok, so youre ranking "Executing a legitimate prisoner" as a worse offense than "slaughtering an innocent life for no reason"?

Without more moral authority than just "having paladin levels" it's not an execution, it's a murder.

Paladins should be no different than any other class, at least in 3e-3.5e, when it comes to "the right to execute".

And as for slaughtering "innocent animal life" - D&D doesn't exactly require all Good characters to be vegan. There is a reason, if not a very good one - it is to bring home to the paladin just how far they've stepped out of line.



"You took away a life I was responsible for, so I'm doing the same to you. And at least the life I took, wasn't sapient."

If killing an animal for food is not evil - why is killing an animal to communicate a message, so vastly more evil? I'm happy to concede that it's somewhat evil though - just not execution-worthy.


They're both bad people.

The first thing is that torturing prisoners is evil, which is what's being described here in terms of questioning.

Good point. Gygax might have been OK with it in some cases in a D&D context, but the average 3.5e DM probably wouldn't be.

Strictly, the Paladin should have fallen the moment they consented to the ogre being tortured.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:08 AM
The DM of my current Pathfinder campaign ruled that our wizard had become Neutral Evil after interrogating a captured assassin with acid and we keep having to remind our Inquisitor that just because interrogation is a class feature of his that doesn't mean it's okay.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:13 AM
Using the Corruption system from FC2, the torture on its own would get the whole party a minimum of 1 Corruption point each, possibly more depending on how severe it was.

"Unjustified killing of an animal" probably shouldn't get much more than low-end torture of a sapient - 1 or 2 points, I'd ballpark it at.

And the murder would be 5 pts (maybe 1 pt less on the grounds of it being "arguably necessary".

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:14 AM
Without more moral authority than just "having paladin levels" it's not an execution, it's a murder.

Paladins should be no different than any other class, at least in 3e-3.5e, when it comes to "the right to execute".

How about the authority of "You picked lethal combat with us and lost"?

The torture doesnt make it better, although frankly i think im willing to dismiss that as "the players didnt really comprehend that it was torture." but beyond that... why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

And i really hope i dont have to actually explain the difference between slaughtering an animal for food and slaughtering one for pointless cruelty.

And the dwarf explicitly made a threat against the paladin's life, so in a magical world where the group can PvP and all remain friends, and the DM is a totally neutral arbiter of it, i dont really see how that isnt, you know, a huge issue.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:16 AM
And i really hope i dont have to actually explain the difference between slaughtering an animal for food and slaughtering one for pointless cruelty.


It's not about "pointless cruelty" - it's about cruelty that makes a very strong point.

Like I said - I'd rate it as about the same level as whatever they were doing to the ogre while questioning it.



The torture doesnt make it better, although frankly i think im willing to dismiss that as "the players didnt really comprehend that it was torture." but beyond that... why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

Because that's how warfare in general, works - prisoners have protections. Limited ones, but still some.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:22 AM
It's not about "pointless cruelty" - it's about cruelty that makes a very strong point.

Like I said - I'd rate it as about the same level as whatever they were doing to the ogre while questioning it.

They being the dwarf, in point of fact.

And yeah, i would probably ding the paladin for that, although probably not so much as to make him fall since he was, apparently, explicitly kept out of the questioning by the dwarf's statements. Just a warning from the Powers That Be or whatever is applicable in the setting.

And as regards the horse, the cruelty is entirely pointless except for the sake of being cruel. The cruelty is the point, in as much as it can be a point. So i stand by my statement.


Because that's how warfare in general, works - prisoners have protections. Limited ones, but still some.

Well, i'll continue to await an answer for what his alternatives were then, given that they explicitly didnt have the ability to take it with them or hand it over to anybody else.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:25 AM
They being the dwarf, in point of fact.

And yeah, i would probably ding the paladin for that, although probably not so much as to make him fall since he was, apparently, explicitly kept out of the questioning by the dwarf's statements.

Whole party gets a ding, because it's a group working together. Consenting to another being tortured, makes you liable.

The unjustified horse killing results in a ding - but not as big a one as a regular murder of a sapient would be.



Well, i'll continue to await an answer for what his alternatives were then, given that they explicitly didnt have the ability to take it with them or hand it over to anybody else.
According to that DM, yes. But the implication is that nobody tried to find this out first.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:26 AM
Whole party gets a ding, because it's a group working together. Consenting to another being tortured, makes you liable.

The unjustified horse killing results in a ding - but not as big a one as a regular murder of a sapient would be.

Why not? Is wanton unprovoked killing for nothing less of an issue because your victim cant understand whats happening?


According to that DM, yes. But the implication is that nobody tried to find this out first.
I mean, at this point youre just arguing that the scenario given in the OP is/could be wrong, and thats not a useful line of reasoning.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:30 AM
Because murder is that one step higher than "unjustified animal killing" in law, I'm assuming that it's higher in D&D morality as well - because that's the simplest approach.

I dislike cruelty to animals - but I'm not going to place it on exactly the same level as cruelty to people.


Why not? Is wanton unprovoked killing for nothing less of an issue because your victim cant understand whats happening?


Given that we're never going to agree on this topic - perhaps we should submit other examples of intra-party conflict?

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:30 AM
How about the authority of "You picked lethal combat with us and lost"?

The torture doesnt make it better, although frankly i think im willing to dismiss that as "the players didnt really comprehend that it was torture." but beyond that... why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

And i really hope i dont have to actually explain the difference between slaughtering an animal for food and slaughtering one for pointless cruelty.

And the dwarf explicitly made a threat against the paladin's life, so in a magical world where the group can PvP and all remain friends, and the DM is a totally neutral arbiter of it, i dont really see how that isnt, you know, a huge issue.

The fact that they weren't aware that it's torture would mean I'd give them a stern warning and tell them to be very careful in the future.

Also the reason why it's considerably worse to murder defenceless prisoners is... well among other things there's the pragmatic reason that you want surrender to be a viable option for both sides as it can help reduce the amount of bloodshed. If they know that they'll be cut down where they stand whether they surrender or not they'll fight like cornered rats which you generally want to avoid.

Aside from that killing in combat is more acceptable because in combat there's simply not a lot you can do to avoid killing. If one side resorts to lethal measures it's a severe handicap for the other side if they try to stick to non-lethal measures, which could result in your own side taking unacceptable casualities (let's assume for the moment that your side is the one trying to put a stop to a crime ring). Once you've captured someone you can't exactly say "Well I need to render him harmless as quickly as possible before he harms someone else."

And I thought one of the main reasons why the dwarf killed the horse was so the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party, which is certainly ruthless but not exactly pointless cruelty.

Also at risk of sounding like a maniac I believe dying from a slit throat is one of the less cruel ways to die. It definitely beats being stabbed in the gut.

And I wouldn't say that the dwarf is blameless, but the fact that the dwarf is also causing trouble doesn't absolve the paladin.

Friv
2020-09-07, 11:32 AM
How about the authority of "You picked lethal combat with us and lost"?

The torture doesnt make it better, although frankly i think im willing to dismiss that as "the players didnt really comprehend that it was torture." but beyond that... why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

The short answer is "because if you knew that the ogre's death was the end goal, you should not have taken the time to capture them and interrogate them, causing substantial additional suffering before their death."

The longer answer is that, as noted, prisoners typically have some level of protection. The reason that prisoners have protection from a moral level is that they are no longer an imminent threat, and so executing them is not a moral deed. From a practical level, if you get a reputation for killing people who you capture, people are going to fight a lot harder not to be captured. It creates a game of total war that can only end with everyone involved dead, no quarter given, no treaties, no peace.

The important context to this story from the Gygaxian perspective is that this is how Gygax explicitly saw the game working. Evil beings were evil forever, and if you let them go they would always return to their evil ways. They would always fight to the death, unless they thought they could trick you into releasing them, and thus killing them was always a good deed. Paladins are inherently a divine authority and thus can mete out punishment for crimes, and execution is a valid Good punishment for crimes because mercy is only for those who commit crimes by mistake, and the true evil act is to allow an evil being to go free for any reason.

It's an approach to Good and Evil that says that people fundamentally don't change. You punish bad guys to scare them into compliance, but they will always be bad guys. As such, if you can't punish them into compliance, executing them is the only valid strategy. If someone claims to be repentant, you accept their repentance and then execute them before they can backslide to save their soul.

This is a philosophical approach that I take issue with on a number of levels, but it's one that permeates early D&D. When you run into moral dilemmas like this, it's tricky because a lot of things were written on those assumptions, and the game still hasn't fully broken free of them.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:33 AM
I want to be clear here, im not ignoring this point, i am just not going to touch any argument base in real life law with a standard issue 10' pole, for the sake of the mods.

To me, cruelty is cruelty. It doesnt matter who the victim is. If you go out and kill something, anything, just for the sake of killing it and for no other purpose, thats pretty monstrous to me.

dancrilis
2020-09-07, 11:34 AM
I think a lot of this depends on the build up.

We don't know what OOC actions were discussed in the interrogration scene etc, or previous behaviour etc, did the ogres kill people on the attack on the fort, was the dwarf planning to continue to torture the ogre for fun etc - we don't know.

Best case for the Paladin - they were unaware of the torture (player having the character be 'doing something else') and the Ogre had engaged in crimes that they knew about, and the Dwarf was going to drag out the execution for no reason and only got annoyed as the Paladin stopped their fun when the player had the character stop 'doing something else'.

Best case for the Dwarf - the interrogation of the ogre was non-painful and merely to disorient the creature and the information was extracted via promises of safety and release and then when they were about to release the captive the paladin kills them from, killing of the horse and threat to the paladin was an act of rage and grief.

I don't think either of the above is likely.
Most likely this party is over in my view - so in consultation with the GM might be better for both characters to be kicked and the players told to roll up new ones, the Dwarf player has essentially ensured that the party are at odds with each other now (irrespective of how out of line the paladin may or may not have been threatening other PCs is effectively unsustainable) and if it only a matter of time before the Paladin kills and cooks their boar, demands a duel, executes the dangerous loon in their sleep, etc.

Good roleplaying all around can of course overcome this - but I doubt that is happening the way the scene has been set out.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:34 AM
I want to be clear here, im not ignoring this point, i am just not going to touch any argument base in real life law with a standard issue 10' pole, for the sake of the mods.

Good point.


If you go out and kill something, anything, just for the sake of killing it and for no other purpose, thats pretty monstrous to me.

Me too. But there are differing degrees of monstrousness.

Someone "squashing flies purely for fun" or "catching fish for fun then throwing the dead fish back" is on a different plane of evil than someone doing the same to people.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:42 AM
I want to be clear here, im not ignoring this point, i am just not going to touch any argument base in real life law with a standard issue 10' pole, for the sake of the mods.

To me, cruelty is cruelty. It doesnt matter who the victim is. If you go out and kill something, anything, just for the sake of killing it and for no other purpose, thats pretty monstrous to me.

Oh yeah I'm definitely avoiding all mentioning of real life things as much as possible.

And I'm not a fan of cruelty either. That said it is generally accepted that sapients and non-sapients rank differently, at least in how Evil it is to kill one. I also think you're wrong with the claim that the dwarf's killing of the horse was cruelty for the sake of cruelty. From my perspective he did it with the intent of causing the paladin to fall behind and to send the message that the paladin can't just act on his own and expect the rest of the party to be okay with it. While definitely a questionable act it's not the sadistic deed that your description makes it sound like.


I think a lot of this depends on the build up.

We don't know what OOC actions were discussed in the interrogration scene etc, or previous behaviour etc, did the ogres kill people on the attack on the fort, was the dwarf planning to continue to torture the ogre for fun etc - we don't know.

Best case for the Paladin - they were unaware of the torture (player having the character be 'doing something else') and the Ogre had engaged in crimes that they knew about, and the Dwarf was going to drag out the execution for no reason and only got annoyed as the Paladin stopped their fun when the player had the character stop 'doing something else'.

Best case for the Dwarf - the interrogation of the ogre was non-painful and merely to disorient the creature and the information was extracted via promises of safety and release and then when they were about to release the captive the paladin kills them from, killing of the horse and threat to the paladin was an act of rage and grief.

I don't think either of the above is likely.
Most likely this party is over in my view - so in consultation with the GM might be better for both characters to be kicked and the players told to roll up new ones, the Dwarf player has essentially ensured that the party are at odds with each other now (irrespective of how out of line the paladin may or may not have been threatening other PCs is effectively unsustainable) and if it only a matter of time before the Paladin kills and cooks their boar, demands a duel, executes the dangerous loon in their sleep, etc.

Good roleplaying all around can of course overcome this - but I don't that is happening the way the scene has been set out.

Yes, all things considered we just don't have a lot of information on the topic and a lot of things could have happened. If we go by what is written down both the paladin and the dwarf acted independently, in which case I'd say that the paladin independently deciding on immediate execution is more in the wrong than the dwarf who decided that he was willing to kill a horse in retribution to the paladin.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:48 AM
I mean, doing it because he thought it would hurt and impede the paladin doesnt really strike me as any less arbitrary and cruel than doing it for the sake of hurting the horse. He's still hurting it for the sake of hurting.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:50 AM
I mean, doing it because he thought it would hurt and impede the paladin doesnt really strike me as any less arbitrary and cruel than doing it for the sake of hurting the horse. He's still hurting it for the sake of hurting.

Does forcing consequences on someone for doing something that you genuinely believe was wrong count as cruelty?

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:53 AM
Does forcing consequences on someone for doing something that you genuinely believe was wrong count as cruelty?

It certainly can, if the consequences involve unnecessary harm being done to somebody (including animals) to make that point.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 11:54 AM
I've said as much as I think I can say on the subject - but it'll be interesting to see what other things get added to the thread.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:55 AM
It certainly can, if the consequences involve unnecessary harm being done to somebody (including animals) to make that point.

Well it's definitely cruel to the horse but what I disagree with is that it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty. I'm using the interpretation that the dwarf is actually trying to make a point here towards the paladin, and not just pulling a case of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 11:57 AM
Well it's definitely cruel to the horse but what I disagree with is that it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty. I'm using the interpretation that the dwarf is actually trying to make a point here towards the paladin, and not just pulling a case of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'.

Given the subsequent death threat, i think the point is pretty clearly "I'm violent, dont like you, and have no compunction against doing bad things to you and things you care about." which to me reads like "im evil and flaunting it".

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 11:59 AM
Given the subsequent death threat, i think the point is pretty clearly "I'm violent, dont like you, and have no compunction against doing bad things to you and things you care about." which to me reads like "im evil and flaunting it".

I read it more as "Seriously, don't do that. Don't just go around killing prisoners without the consent from the rest of the party."

Your interpretation kind of sounds like you're going with the assumption that the dwarf is purely in this for the personal offence.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 12:01 PM
Well it's definitely cruel to the horse but what I disagree with is that it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty. I'm using the interpretation that the dwarf is actually trying to make a point here towards the paladin, and not just pulling a case of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'.

This is a point that could've been made without needlessly murdering an animal. In the real world, when somebody screws up the workplace, their boss doesn't shoot their dog to make a point, the boss docks their pay or sends them home for the day or maybe even fires them. Withholding part of the paladin's share of the loot is a perfectly fine way to teach him a lesson about taking significant action without consulting the rest of the party, and doesn't require any murder at all.

EDIT: That the dwarf followed up "murdering the horse as an object lesson" with "cross me again and I'll kill you" really makes it seem like the dwarf player is just trying to swing their authority around after it got challenged by the paladin acting without consulting him. Not to say the paladin isn't also severely in the wrong.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:01 PM
I read it more as "Seriously, don't do that. Don't just go around killing prisoners without the consent from the rest of the party."

Your interpretation kind of sounds like you're going with the assumption that the dwarf is purely in this for the personal offence.

Well yes, the dwarf was pretty clear on that point, at least from where i sit. He outright said that he was bothered because it was his stuff being touched.

Also, what Vecna said. The point could be made without the cruelty, hence why i consider it pointless.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:05 PM
This is a point that could've been made without needlessly murdering an animal. In the real world, when somebody screws up the workplace, their boss doesn't shoot their dog to make a point, the boss docks their pay or sends them home for the day or maybe even fires them. Withholding part of the paladin's share of the loot is a perfectly fine way to teach him a lesson about taking significant action without consulting the rest of the party, and doesn't require any murder at all.

In all fairness a mistake in the workplace usually doesn't involve intentionally murdering a defenceless prisoner (I mean, I've heard stories but...).

And I agree that what the dwarf did was wrong, but I don't read it as cruelty without a purpose.


Well yes, the dwarf was pretty clear on that point, at least from where i sit. He outright said that he was bothered because it was his stuff being touched.

Also, what Vecna said. The point could be made without the cruelty, hence why i consider it pointless.

From where I sit it reads as him not wanting the paladin to just go ahead and murder prisoners, at the very least not before the dwarf is done with the prisoner.

The fact that he resorted to an excessive reaction doesn't mean it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty, it means that the dwarf went overboard with trying to get his point across.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:06 PM
In all fairness a mistake in the workplace usually doesn't involve intentionally murdering a defenceless prisoner (I mean, I've heard stories but...).

And I agree that what the dwarf did was wrong, but I don't read it as cruelty without a purpose.



From where I sit it reads as him not wanting the paladin to just go ahead and murder prisoners, at the very least not before the dwarf is done with the prisoner.

The fact that he resorted to an excessive reaction doesn't mean it's cruelty for the sake of cruelty, it means that the dwarf went overboard with trying to get his point across.

He used the words "If you so much as interfere with my prisoners again", so its very much not about the killing in and of itself.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:07 PM
He used the words "If you so much as interfere with my prisoners again", so its very much not about the killing in and of itself.

Which could just be his way of saying 'don't murder prisoners without my consent.'

MoiMagnus
2020-09-07, 12:08 PM
Are we judging player acts or character acts?

Character acts are evil without doubts, but I feel that's not the point of the thread.

As for player acts:

1) It seems that the team was pretty ok with treating prisoner badly. The dwarf didn't object to the execution for moral reasons, it seems like it was more "it's my prisoner, so it belongs to me" kind of reaction. The party is clearly seeing prisoners as "loot", not as sentient beings. If everyone is ok with it, I guess that's fine?

2) The paladin's player is taking a unilateral decision to kill a NPC. That's the act that should have been prevented with a DM saying "stop, is everyone ok with that?". However I would not put it high in the "breaking the table convention" scale.

3) The dwarf's also decided that the prisoner was "his", visibly without the consent of the remaining of the them. That's also an unilateral decision, though less active than the previous one, so even less problematic. But this is an important step: the paladin's player though he was destroying "common property", while the dwarf player understood it as a destruction of his "personal property".

=> In most tables, personal property destruction in taboo. Some tables are even reluctant to allow the DM to destroy personal property from the players, so destruction by an "allied" player is a very high offense. Peoples have emotional bond with the different part of their character sheet, so such destruction is probably significantly hurting the relationship between the two players (on top of hurting the one between the characters).

4) The dwarf's player chose to retaliate rather than try to defuse the situation. Unless it was accepted that by the table than PvP is ok, is is a big no for me for what it says about the player's personality. If the player complained OOC before retaliating, that's yet another missed opportunity for the DM to stop the escalation.

5) The dwarf's player retaliate through personal property destruction. Contrary to the paladin's player act, this is a willing attack against something he knows another player cares about. While the behavior of the paladin's player was not perfect, it might have been a mistake and could have been defused. This player is just acting in real-life evil ways. [Unless that was clear to everyone that this kind of behavior was ok when done "in character"]

My judgement is: The paladin's player did something wrong, but the dwarf's player acted way worse.
[Oh, and if any of the two characters has "Good" in his character sheet, he should consider changing it. But that's secondary]

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:10 PM
Which could just be his way of saying 'don't murder prisoners without my consent.'

I mean, that could be, but that kind of requires ignoring the straightforward meaning of his words.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:11 PM
I mean, that could be, but that kind of requires ignoring the straightforward meaning of his words.

Not really, that's my first and most straightforward way of interpreting his words, since it's stated that he's Chaotic Good (otherwise there'd be no point in mentioning that his alignment should be changed to Chaotic Neutral) so being against reckless killing is automatically included in my interpretation.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 12:11 PM
[Oh, and if any of the two characters has "Good" in his character sheet, he should consider changing it. But that's secondary]

Dwarf was CG at the time - paladin, assuming a regular paladin, was LG.

DeTess
2020-09-07, 12:12 PM
I'd say that the dwarf player is wrong for escalating things like that instead of calling a time-out the moment the paladin declared his intention to talk through what consequences this would have for inter-party cooperation. Also, the paladin was wrong to unilaterally declare an execution like that.

Overall, solve this by talking to the players first. Get them to come up with a satisfying resolution to this conflict. If they can't, both their characters leave the party, and maybe the players should leave the group as well.

Misery Esquire
2020-09-07, 12:14 PM
Are we judging player acts or character acts?

Character acts are evil without doubts, but I feel that's not the point of the thread.
~snip~

Pretty much this.

Character terms, the Paladin is at original fault, the Dwarf is at a less extreme action, though infinitely pettier fault.

In player terms, the Paladin player made a fault, and the Dwarf player launched into PvP. The latter is a larger problem in continuing to play the game.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 12:24 PM
Not really, that's my first and most straightforward way of interpreting his words, since it's stated that he's Chaotic Good (otherwise there'd be no point in mentioning that his alignment should be changed to Chaotic Neutral) so being against reckless killing is automatically included in my interpretation.

See I guess I'm weird because I read the words and thought "ill judge this guy based on what he literally said" rather than thinking "he's CG so I'll give him some slack and assume he didnt actually mean what he literally said".

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:28 PM
See I guess I'm weird because I read the words and thought "ill judge this guy based on what he literally said" rather than thinking "he's CG so I'll give him some slack and assume he didnt actually mean what he literally said".

Allow me to join you in being weird, because thats my thought process too.

Kyutaru
2020-09-07, 12:34 PM
See I guess I'm weird because I read the words and thought "ill judge this guy based on what he literally said" rather than thinking "he's CG so I'll give him some slack and assume he didnt actually mean what he literally said".

Rarely a good idea even in real life. When my brother says "You used my shirt, I'm so going to kill you" then I don't reach for the phone to dial 911.

firelistener
2020-09-07, 12:35 PM
The short answer is "because if you knew that the ogre's death was the end goal, you should not have taken the time to capture them and interrogate them, causing substantial additional suffering before their death."

The longer answer is that, as noted, prisoners typically have some level of protection. The reason that prisoners have protection from a moral level is that they are no longer an imminent threat, and so executing them is not a moral deed. From a practical level, if you get a reputation for killing people who you capture, people are going to fight a lot harder not to be captured. It creates a game of total war that can only end with everyone involved dead, no quarter given, no treaties, no peace.

The important context to this story from the Gygaxian perspective is that this is how Gygax explicitly saw the game working. Evil beings were evil forever, and if you let them go they would always return to their evil ways. They would always fight to the death, unless they thought they could trick you into releasing them, and thus killing them was always a good deed. Paladins are inherently a divine authority and thus can mete out punishment for crimes, and execution is a valid Good punishment for crimes because mercy is only for those who commit crimes by mistake, and the true evil act is to allow an evil being to go free for any reason.

It's an approach to Good and Evil that says that people fundamentally don't change. You punish bad guys to scare them into compliance, but they will always be bad guys. As such, if you can't punish them into compliance, executing them is the only valid strategy. If someone claims to be repentant, you accept their repentance and then execute them before they can backslide to save their soul.

This is a philosophical approach that I take issue with on a number of levels, but it's one that permeates early D&D. When you run into moral dilemmas like this, it's tricky because a lot of things were written on those assumptions, and the game still hasn't fully broken free of them.

This is the most correct response to me. I personally don't think alignments should be mutable except in very rare circumstances. When the players start to torture someone, I always step in as DM and say, "No, this isn't something your characters are willing to do since they are Good-aligned." I don't allow player freedom at the expense of playing a game about heroes. I also outright ban Evil PCs at my tables simply because they lead exactly to this type of scenario. This is why early edition paladins just straight wouldn't adventure with Evil people.

This is also why I almost never role play Evil creatures as willing to compromise or live peacefully. The moment the paladin walked up to it or the dwarf got too close, I would make the monster trash about and try to take a chunk out of someone, probably while making threats against their families and friends. Monsters are monsters, and when they don't act like monsters, people obviously want to start letting them live in peace (a good and merciful act). So when someone wants to mete out divine justice, the others understandably get upset.

JNAProductions
2020-09-07, 12:36 PM
Rarely a good idea even in real life. When my brother says "You used my shirt, I'm so going to kill you" then I don't reach for the phone to dial 911.

There's a difference between that and someone who literally just murdered your mount.
There's also a difference between normal people and murderhobos adventurers.
There's also a difference between real people with real laws and fictional people.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:37 PM
See I guess I'm weird because I read the words and thought "ill judge this guy based on what he literally said" rather than thinking "he's CG so I'll give him some slack and assume he didnt actually mean what he literally said".


Allow me to join you in being weird, because thats my thought process too.

I realize you're being sarcastic here, but ignoring context is actually kind of weird.

JNAProductions
2020-09-07, 12:38 PM
I realize you're being sarcastic here, but ignoring context is actually kind of weird.

What context makes it better? As far as I can see, the Dwarf pretty clearly said "Do that again and I'll kill you."

The context actually makes it worse! He just murdered the Paladin's mount! That shows he's serious!

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:39 PM
What context makes it better? As far as I can see, the Dwarf pretty clearly said "Do that again and I'll kill you."

The context actually makes it worse! He just murdered the Paladin's mount! That shows he's serious!

The context that he's at least partially motivated by the fact that he's opposed to the paladin jumping to murdering defenceless prisoners the moment he thinks there's nothing else to be done with the prisoner.

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:39 PM
I realize you're being sarcastic here, but ignoring context is actually kind of weird.

The context in this case being he just killed something and is making a death threat against another person. I think its pretty fair to lean in the direction of being inclusive towards things that will set him off again, not exclusive.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 12:40 PM
Rarely a good idea even in real life. When my brother says "You used my shirt, I'm so going to kill you" then I don't reach for the phone to dial 911.

Yeah but that's way more context than we have here. Being told this guy is CG isn't a ton of context because people pick alignments based on what they think they want the character to be rather than how they necessarily intend to play the character.

All the context we have is what literally occurs in the OP. This is more like if your brother said that, right after shooting your dog. And if that happened, idk about you but I'd at least consider that maybe my brother wasn't joking or exaggerating about murder.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 12:42 PM
The context that he's at least partially motivated by the fact that he's opposed to the paladin jumping to murdering defenceless prisoners the moment he thinks there's nothing else to be done with the prisoner.

The paladin is also definitely a ****heel for murdering a defenseless prisoner because not murdering them was inconvenient. Tge paladin being an ******* doesn't make the dwarf not a psycho for murdering his horse and issuing a death threat immediately after.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:45 PM
The context in this case being he just killed something and is making a death threat against another person. I think its pretty fair to lean in the direction of being inclusive towards things that will set him off again, not exclusive.

I gotta point out, again, that I'm not disagreeing that what the dwarf did was wrong. What I'm disagreeing with is the description of his behaviour being literally nothing more than cruelty for the sake of cruelty, when to my eyes his motivation isn't cruelty but sending the message to the paladin that he shouldn't do what he just did. That he's way over the line with his reaction doesn't change it to cruelty for the sake of cruelty. For that to be the case you'd have to make the assumption that his overreaction is purely out of malice rather than him just being unreasonable and irrational.


Yeah but that's way more context than we have here. Being told this guy is CG isn't a ton of context because people pick alignments based on what they think they want the character to be rather than how they necessarily intend to play the character.

All the context we have is what literally occurs in the OP. This is more like if your brother said that, right after shooting your dog. And if that happened, idk about you but I'd at least consider that maybe my brother wasn't joking or exaggerating about murder.

I feel pretty safe adding the context that Good-aligned characters are opposed to spontaneously killing prisoners.


The paladin is also definitely a ****heel for murdering a defenseless prisoner because not murdering them was inconvenient. Tge paladin being an ******* doesn't make the dwarf not a psycho for murdering his horse and issuing a death threat immediately after.

That's literally what I've been saying about how the dwarf's behaviour doesn't absolve the paladin. I think we're starting to go in circles here.

EDIT: To make it clear, both are bad, both are not Good, and I'm not excusing the dwarf's behaviour. I am saying exactly one thing, and that's that I disagree with the description of the dwarf's act as 'cruelty for the sake of cruelty.'

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-07, 12:47 PM
Generally, if someone is doing "a scene" i don't let someone else interrupt or sabotage them with ill intent. I find saying "no, you don't" ultimately results in far less problems down the line than trying to punish people "in game".

Keltest
2020-09-07, 12:48 PM
I feel pretty safe adding the context that Good-aligned characters are opposed to spontaneously killing prisoners.


That he spontaneously murdered the horse would suggest that your feeling of safety is not particularly warranted.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:50 PM
That he spontaneously murdered the horse would suggest that your feeling of safety is not particularly warranted.

I feel safer assuming that Good-aligned characters are against spontaneously killing prisoners than that Good-aligned characters always treat sapients and non-sapients as equal.

I know you've stated that you consider cruelty cruelty regardless of whether the target is animal or people, but the matter of the fact is that it's a very common perspective to treat sapients and non-sapients as different and I've yet to play with a DM who'd consider treating sapients and non-sapients differently cause for losing your Good alignment. That's more like a thing for druids specifically.

It'd be different if you go and torture animals but the dwarf went for the quickest way to kill the horse.

JNAProductions
2020-09-07, 12:52 PM
I feel safer assuming that Good-aligned characters are against spontaneously killing prisoners than that Good-aligned characters always treat sapients and non-sapients as equal.

I know you've stated that you consider cruelty cruelty regardless of whether the target is animal or people, but the matter of the fact is that it's a very common perspective to treat sapients and non-sapients as different and I've yet to play with a DM who'd consider treating sapients and non-sapients differently cause for losing your Good alignment. That's more like a thing for druids specifically.

It'd be different if you go and torture animals but the dwarf went for the quickest way to kill the horse.

Do you think that the dwarf's threat should be treated as credible?

That seems to be the point of contention. From your words, it seems you hold the position that the dwarf wouldn't REALLY hurt the Paladin (or at least, not kill them). Whereas the rest of us all think that the dwarf pretty clearly showed that yes, he would.

AvatarVecna
2020-09-07, 12:53 PM
That's literally what I've been saying about how the dwarf's behaviour doesn't absolve the paladin. I think we're starting to go in circles here.

That's literally been my position from my first post on this subject. The paladin's an *******, even if murdering evil creatures is usually treated as pretty kosher because D&D, killing prisoners just because it's inconvenient for them to live is a **** move. The dwarf is a psycho, because from where I'm sitting, his actions and statements make it seem less like he's against the prisoner getting killed at all, and is just pitching a fit over the paladin not getting his input on "his" prisoner, so he brought the horse into it for no reason.


EDIT: To make it clear, both are bad, both are not Good, and I'm not excusing the dwarf's behaviour. I am saying exactly one thing, and that's that I disagree with the description of the dwarf's act as 'cruelty for the sake of cruelty.'

And I think it's wholly appropriate description. You can pretty it up all you like, I'm not going to read "you killed this person, so I'm going to kill your pet to make a point" as anything other than needless cruelty. You've already admitted that it's cruelty, and I've made my case that killing the horse wasn't needed to get across the point you claim he's making here. Even if I agree that that's the point the dwarf was trying to make here, it's still him performing a cruelty that he didn't need to.

If only there was some phrase for "cruelty that didn't need to occur".

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 12:54 PM
Do you think that the dwarf's threat should be treated as credible?

That seems to be the point of contention. From your words, it seems you hold the position that the dwarf wouldn't REALLY hurt the Paladin (or at least, not kill them). Whereas the rest of us all think that the dwarf pretty clearly showed that yes, he would.

Actually I specifically think that the dwarf killing the horse was not cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

People keep pushing for my perspective of the dwarf as a whole but that's literally all I'm saying right now. Yes, the dwarf did a bad thing. Yes, the dwarf is dangerous. Yes, the threat may very well be credible. Yes, it's definitely on the table that the dwarf should lose his Good alignment for his behaviour.

But him killing the horse was not cruelty for the sake of cruelty.


That's literally been my position from my first post on this subject. The paladin's an *******, even if murdering evil creatures is usually treated as pretty kosher because D&D, killing prisoners just because it's inconvenient for them to live is a **** move. The dwarf is a psycho, because from where I'm sitting, his actions and statements make it seem less like he's against the prisoner getting killed at all, and is just pitching a fit over the paladin not getting his input on "his" prisoner, so he brought the horse into it for no reason.



And I think it's wholly appropriate description. You can pretty it up all you like, I'm not going to read "you killed this person, so I'm going to kill your pet to make a point" as anything other than needless cruelty. You've already admitted that it's cruelty, and I've made my case that killing the horse wasn't needed to get across the point you claim he's making here. Even if I agree that that's the point the dwarf was trying to make here, it's still him performing a cruelty that he didn't need to.

If only there was some phrase for "cruelty that didn't need to occur".

Yes. Hence the 'I think we're going in circles' part. Neither of us is saying that either side is not bad for what they've done.

I'm not prettying it up, I'm arguing semantics. For me to recognize it as cruelty for the sake of cruelty the act of cruelty would have to be the purpose in and of itself. For me the dwarf's goal was to send a message to the paladin, namely 'don't do this again or I'll kill you'. Which is definitely not Good, but him killing the horse was merely the method to get the message across. I don't think he cared one bit about whether the horse suffered or not.

Was it unnecessary cruelty? Yes. Was it cruelty for the sake of cruelty? No.

Mostly it was just an extreme overreaction.

Mightymosy
2020-09-07, 01:10 PM
To answer the opening question:
They are both chaotic evil pieces of **** and I am happy I don't have to game with them.

Quertus
2020-09-07, 01:13 PM
PvP is not just attacking other PCs - their property also counts.

The Paladin initiated PvP when he killed the dwarf's prisoner.

The dwarf responded in kind, showing the Paladin *exactly* what kind of a **** he was by killing the Paladin's horse.

Neither are good. Neither are Good. If there is a "no PvP" rule, both are in the wrong. Neither is "right".

Satinavian
2020-09-07, 01:14 PM
On the global scale, what the paladin did was more wrong. Executing prisoners of wars is in nearly every siuation wrong and also a war crime. And a horse is just a horse.

On the intra-party scale, what the dwarf did was the greater transgression. The horse was property of the paladin and as riders tend to have some emotional connection to their mounts might even have been a true and trusted companion.

---------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting fact is, in most of my groups, if something like that happened, the PCs would settle the matter in court. Which means the DM has to decide what the laws are and what an in world judge would think about it. Probably the dwarf would have to pay the horse, the paladin might get some harsh words about conduct in way (or maybe the authorities turn a blind eye to it). But the group would never adventure with each other again after it is settled.

But no one would care about alignment.

Composer99
2020-09-07, 01:48 PM
IMO, what is appropriate or not "in character"/"in game" is not relevant.

If both players are keen participants in this exchange and the rest of the players are happy to spectate/be tangentially involved, well and good. If the DM and players had agreed in advance that this level of PvP or nearly-PvP behaviour was acceptable, well and good.

That is to say, as long as this event was agreeable to the table and was fun for participants, everything's fine and dandy.

Failing that, the paladin's player is a little out of line, while the dwarf's is waaaaaay out of line.

What to do with the prisoner ought to have been a party-level decision, or the decision of whatever character the party has delegated the authority to make such decisions on its behalf. From the OP that might have been the dwarf. The paladin's player needs a reminder of that.

However, the dwarf's player escalated a disagreement over what to do with a prisoner NPC in-game - pretty small potatoes at the level of out-of-game decision-making - into a direct attack on another character's class features. It'd be not unlike burning a wizard's spellbook. That merits a rather sterner talking-to about what the table culture considers acceptable regarding player conflict.

Kyutaru
2020-09-07, 01:53 PM
That he spontaneously murdered the horse would suggest that your feeling of safety is not particularly warranted.
There's a difference between that and someone literally murdering you.
There's also a difference between normal people and a paragon of good.
There's also a difference between real morality with real expectations and fictional morality.

What might fly for an adventurer would lead to an arrest for us. Killing the horse isn't on the level of killing the paladin. Adventurers are killers, we know that just by reading the player's handbook. It's the world they live in that accepts a level of aggression and violence, just so long as it doesn't cross over into people.

Worldsong
2020-09-07, 02:00 PM
However, the dwarf's player escalated a disagreement over what to do with a prisoner NPC in-game - pretty small potatoes at the level of out-of-game decision-making - into a direct attack on another character's class features. It'd be not unlike burning a wizard's spellbook. That merits a rather sterner talking-to about what the table culture considers acceptable regarding player conflict.

Not sure if this matters, but I believe it was specified afterwards that the horse was a non-magical mundane horse, not the paladin's special mount.

Something like a travel horse instead of the paladin's warhorse.

hamishspence
2020-09-07, 02:09 PM
Not sure if this matters, but I believe it was specified afterwards that the horse was a non-magical mundane horse, not the paladin's special mount.

Something like a travel horse instead of the paladin's warhorse.

It was, yes, in the linked thread.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-09-07, 02:33 PM
And I think it's wholly appropriate description. You can pretty it up all you like, I'm not going to read "you killed this person, so I'm going to kill your pet to make a point" as anything other than needless cruelty. You've already admitted that it's cruelty, and I've made my case that killing the horse wasn't needed to get across the point you claim he's making here. Even if I agree that that's the point the dwarf was trying to make here, it's still him performing a cruelty that he didn't need to.

If only there was some phrase for "cruelty that didn't need to occur".
Worldsong is talking about "cruelty for cruelty's sake", which is not the same as "needless cruelty". The first would require that the dwarf killed the horse because he wanted to be cruel (i.e. the cruelty was the goal--definitely Evil); the second requires merely that the dwarf killed the horse when it wasn't necessary to achieve his purpose (i.e. the cruelty was the means, and it was excessive or ill-suited to the purpose--also Evil).

Interestingly enough, if you want to be cruel, cruel acts are in fact necessary, so "cruelty for cruelty's sake" is never needless. It is definitely very, very Evil to find cruelty an intrinsically worthy goal, but calling Evil "needless" imposes a Good perspective on Evil, which is a bit weird.

In other words: CFCS describes a situation where cruelty is a suitable wicked means to a wicked end, whereas NC describes a situation where cruelty is a wicked means to a non-wicked end, to which an alternative is available.


Regardless of the words we use to describe the dwarf's cruelty, it is clear that both players overstepped, and both characters committed evil acts; I see no need to rank them.

Within the D&D alignment framework, the paladin falls and must find atonement, and the remaining characters may refuse to associate with the paladin until it has been granted.
The dwarf may shift to CN, at the DM's discretion, and may be replaced at the next convenient junction by a less unstable and more moral companion.
Both players must evaluate the choices that led to this debacle, and the other players (DM included) should realize that they should recognize and discuss this sort of behaviour before it is final--simply asking the question "Do we want this to be canon?" would be sufficient.
The DM should perhaps guide these players more closely in the future, knowing that they can occasionally spectacularly fail to act reasonably and within their supposed alignment.


Redemption arcs are, of course, great for RP, but paladins kinda suck without their alignment-dependent class features, so it's probably a good idea to help out a bit. Perhaps the paladin will take a few months to atone at a monastry, and a temporary PC (from the same monastry?) can fill in until that time?

Lacco
2020-09-07, 02:45 PM
There is "intra party conflict" and "conflict between players".

For intra party conflict - a conflict between two characters:
Both players should be able to enjoy the roleplay of the conflict. No need to tell which is in the right or wrong - it's about their characters. If one of them does not like the roleplay - it's an OOC issue. See below.

For conflict between players (which this looks like):
Discuss the OOC issue OOC (...don't we have a fancy name for this? we have Stormwind fallacy and few others, but this should also have some kind of cool name, as this is basically what most people suggest).

For the alignment issue:
No idea how to handle this in D&D.
It's definitely a transgression of the "good" part on both sides, and especially on the "lawful" part from the paladin - if it applies, and if the ogre surrendered somewhere down the way.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-07, 03:16 PM
From the perspective of a GM who does not sweat about PvP, a conflict between characters, no matter how violent, is never automatically a sign of any player being in the wrong. Each and every player has a right to play their character exactly as unpleasantly as they want, this includes retaliation against any other player character for perceived transgressions - from a roleplaying perspective, both players could've just been doing their jobs. As a GM, I only step in if I have a metagame reason to suspect bullying (etc.) - for example, if the players are siblings and the more domineering one is being an ass. (These dynamics persist between characters and even games; if it's truly a player who is being an ass, they will be an ass even if playing soccer, Counter Strike or Monopoly.)

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily agree the paladin did anything fall-worthy by executing the ogre - paladins frequently have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. However, this is also irrelevant; any violations of the paladin's code and possibly punishments have no necessary bearing on their relationship with the dwarf, because the dwarf is not a paladin and is not angry at the paladin due to violations of such a code. Both of these characters could be Chaotic Evil thugs and still plausibly come into conflict over the exact same thing in the exact same way.

Discussion of whether the acts were Evil is also somewhat besides the point; characters generally are not supposed change alignment over single actions and these were not particularly extreme actions. (A paladin falling for an Evil act is a special case and not synonymous with changing alignment.) This tangent can, at best, establish a character as being "wrong" in a limited moral sense; without further context (such as a table-wide ban on any Evil acts) it has no bearing on whether a player did anything wrong. The dwarf being labeled Chaotic Neutral is not in any real sense a punishment, because Chaotic Neutral is a legitimate and fairly normal alignment for a player character.

HappyDaze
2020-09-07, 03:28 PM
I find it weird when people say he "murdered the horse" when murder is the killing of another person. In D&D, the range of what constitutes a person goes well beyond humans, but I've never considered it to include beasts. Of course, I don't go for the "meat is murder" stuff IRL either.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-07, 03:43 PM
It's definitely a weird choice of words; on the other hand, horses were (are) serious business among mounted warriors and such. So I can totally get a mindset where torturing and killing a prisoner is fine, but having your horse killed or stolen is a reason to go John Wick on the perpetrator. :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2020-09-07, 04:01 PM
I would say it is an evil act for both of them, albeit a relatively minor one.

Its actually some pretty good RPing on both of their parts though, and creates an interesting conflict as long as the parties can keep it in character, but fat chance of that.

I do wonder how it eventually played out!

icefractal
2020-09-07, 04:47 PM
The ethics of acting like D&D characters are weird, and I haven't actually found a satisfying answer other than "play a character who's ok with killing people in general and don't worry about it".

There's this sharp line people try to draw between killing "in the heat of combat" and not, perhaps a way to square the conflicting concepts of "murder is a bad thing" and "here are all these tales about heroic killing". But I don't honestly think it applies in D&D. There's no fog of war. There's no chaos of the melee. You know whether you're attacking with lethal or non-lethal damage. And "I'm in fear of my life" is a much more fluid state, where on the one hand sufficiently powerful characters may not be in imminent danger even with a foe swinging at them, and on the other hand some foes can still TPK the party while tied up.

Like, if it's not right to execute one of these Ogres, it probably wasn't right to kill them in combat either. And maybe not to beat them unconscious either - assault is a crime, after all.

There are non-lethal (could even be non-violent) ways to deal with foes, but they depend on the campaign facilitating them:
* GM guarantees that if the Ogres surrender and promise to call off their raids, that will be entirely true and neither will they start doing something else bad.
* PCs have a reasonably ethical judicial system to send them to (if it's a ****ty oubliette they're going to die in anyway, might as well just kill them) and the means to do so.
* PCs have the ability to rapidly "reform" people (this itself may be questionable depending on the methods).
* Most of the foes are not doing bad stuff in general, they're just in the PCs' way at this particular moment. Which would make it worse to be killing them in combat either.
* The PCs themselves can imprison foes indefinitely, like with a demiplane or something. Still, doesn't this just push the problem down the road?

Add to this that if you take prisoners some jackass will inevitably suggest torturing them, and I think my answer to "What do you do with prisoners?" is "Don't take any, either kill people or leave them be."


Oh, and to return to the OP - I'd say both characters are engaging in light PvP, which depending on the campaign could be ok but doesn't sound good in this case. The Dwarf is engaging to a larger degree by deliberately targeting the Paladin, and at this point I'm not sure the two are really going to work together in the same party.

Berenger
2020-09-07, 05:14 PM
...why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

Probably some silly hippie distinction between "active enemy combatant" and "helpless POW". :smallamused:


Both actions suck and neither is justified. Out of game, the actions of the dwarf suck more because he is the one that initiated irrevocable intra-party conflict. It is very hard to say which one takes the cake from an ingame perspective as this requires an acute awareness of the involved culture(s) customs and traditions regarding several topics (e.g. the value of "monstrous" lifes, the treatment of prisoners in general, the relationship between a warrior and his mount, acceptable behaviour between comrades-in-arms...).

NichG
2020-09-07, 09:04 PM
This thread is a demonstration that attempting to apportion blame is a terrible way to meditate an in-party conflict. Don't ask which player is in the right. Identify the disagreeable thing about the situation as a whole, and negotiate a compromise or norm to follow going forward designed to resolve the lingering issues and prevent the undesired things from happening again.

Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether the paladin's player or the dwarf's player was more of a jerk here. Assuming that OOC this wasn't like 'great roleplay scene there!' from the players, then likely both players have a reason to be dissatisfied about what happened. The paladin's player probably is unhappy about potentially being blocked from participating in that thing they were in such a rush to get to, and the dwarf's player is probably unhappy about their loss of agency and the interruption of something they considered to be their scene.

So both have reason to consider a change, because both have something to gain from that change.

On the other hand, if you start with blame then you're going to ensure that at least one of the two will resent whatever follows, and will just as likely deepen their disruptive behavior as reduce it, or will just bleed it into OOC unpleasantness.

HappyDaze
2020-09-07, 09:11 PM
This thread is an object demonstration that attempting to apportion blame is a terrible way to meditate an in-party conflict. Don't ask which player is in the right. Identify the disagreeable thing about the situation as a whole, and negotiate a compromise or norm to follow going forward designed to resolve the lingering issues and prevent the undesired things from happening again.

Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether the paladin's player or the dwarf's player was more of a jerk here. Assuming that OOC this wasn't like 'great roleplay scene there!' from the players, then likely both players have a reason to be dissatisfied about what happened. The paladin's player probably is unhappy about potentially being blocked from participating in that thing they were in such a rush to get to, and the dwarf's player is probably unhappy about their loss of agency and the interruption of something they considered to be their scene.

So both have reason to consider a change, because both have something to gain from that change.

On the other hand, if you start with blame then you're going to ensure that at least one of the two will resent whatever follows, and will just as likely deepen their disruptive behavior as reduce it, or will just bleed it into OOC unpleasantness.
Or, decide which player you're most dissatisfied with and boot them. Not all players are salvageable, and not all that are end up being worth the effort spent.

Duff
2020-09-07, 09:14 PM
I just want to check - Are the players OK with the conflict and you're just managing character consequences? If so, I'd generally say anyone who agreed to torture or killing of the prisoner is not good and killing the horse is not a good act.

But, if it's more a player issue, read on...

If the players aren't OK with it and the dwarf's actions were the result of an angry player declaring character actions in the moment, or the paladin's player was upset about the action, you need to manage that with player conversations, not character consequences. Have a conversation around what you want at the table. Maybe if either or both players want to undo poor choices, let them.
If the dwarf player was upset by the prisoner being killed out of hand, that might be a time to step in and ask the Paladin's player to pause for a minute. When you're playing with a group of friends, sometimes right and wrong aren't the main factors at play. Also when conflict flares up, it might be food time, or at least time to take a break for a few minutes


PvP is not for everyone. It requires everyone at the table to have high levels of separation of player and character, maturity of players and the ability of everyone in the group to be able to call a time out and have the rest of the group respect that.
And it needs everyone to be happy to play a game with PvP in it. Even groups which have the emotional skills to do it don't always want to.

NichG
2020-09-07, 09:46 PM
Or, decide which player you're most dissatisfied with and boot them. Not all players are salvageable, and not all that are end up being worth the effort spent.

I mean, if I felt the need to go that far I'd just boot both...

The test of salvageable/unsalvageable is going to be how the players behave during mediation, not something they did in the heat of the moment during game. Someone who sabotages or resists mediation to the extent that it becomes a deadlock is actively being a problem, whether or not there's some abstract argument that could be made that they were 'in the right' .

Chauncymancer
2020-09-08, 01:29 AM
Why not? Is wanton unprovoked killing for nothing less of an issue because your victim cant understand whats happening?
.


To me, cruelty is cruelty. It doesnt matter who the victim is. If you go out and kill something, anything, just for the sake of killing it and for no other purpose, thats pretty monstrous to me.
How is this meant to square with the totally courtly and appropriate for paladins acts of falconry and sport hunting aka "killing animals just because it is fun"?

Elysiume
2020-09-08, 04:48 AM
Reading through this thread, lacking any other backstory, I can't see any way in which the dwarf's player isn't more in the wrong. The paladin's player took initiative without consulting the party but was (as described) doing something they considered to be to the party's benefit. The dwarf's player then took an entirely vindictive action, killing the paladin's horse and issuing an additional threat. The character moralities are more mired in the expectations of certain classes/alignments in the setting, but in terms of players I'd consider the dwarf player's actions far more over the line. The entire basis for killing the horse was to punish the paladin (and the paladin's player) for a perceived slight.

Lacco
2020-09-08, 05:11 AM
How is this meant to square with the totally courtly and appropriate for paladins acts of falconry and sport hunting aka "killing animals just because it is fun"?

Naah, that's knights for you. Cavaliers.

Paladins find fun in praying, judging others' actions/smiting evil, out-paladining contests, and non-evil embroidery :smallbiggrin:


Reading through this thread, lacking any other backstory, I can't see any way in which the dwarf's player isn't more in the wrong. The paladin's player took initiative without consulting the party but was (as described) doing something they considered to be to the party's benefit. The dwarf's player then took an entirely vindictive action, killing the paladin's horse and issuing an additional threat. The character moralities are more mired in the expectations of certain classes/alignments in the setting, but in terms of players I'd consider the dwarf player's actions far more over the line. The entire basis for killing the horse was to punish the paladin (and the paladin's player) for a perceived slight.

More in the wrong, less in the wrong. What difference does it make in this case?

They are either both wrong (because they decreased the entertainment value of the game for each other based on their decision) or both right (because they created a really interesting RP situation, which they can now try to handle.

What is the added value of "more wrong"/"less wrong" in this case? And I'm not just asking you, I'm asking also the OP.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-09-08, 05:50 AM
This is an interesting dilemma. The paladin is probably the most out of line in character, while the dwarf appears more out of line out of character.

The paladin's act is worse because they're killing a person rather than an animal. I'd rate that as worse because while the ogre is an enemy, they're now helpless. The dwarf also has the minor excuse of acting second and out of revenge. And the paladin has the disadvantage of being a paladin, they're held to higher standards.

But the dwarf's action is worse because it's PVP. The prisoner was a prop in a scene, at best a future informant. The horse was not a class feature, but definitely an integral part of the paladin's equipment. They're also adding a threat going forward, not a good base for future adventures together. The revenge excuse also turns around here, revenge against fellow PC's is a nono. The dwarf's actions definitely go against the unwritten rules of the game.

So there are at least two competing viewpoints here. Picking which one is more wrong is kind of a choice on which aspect of the game you think is more important: having a consistent in character world, or having a fluent out of character game.

Hand_of_Vecna
2020-09-08, 06:12 AM
On the surface killing a humanoid prisoner is much worse that killing an animal until we remember that this is a D&D game. Killing hostile humanoids is a regular part of D&D games, even though some players may find the pragmatic solution of killing prisoners even when you have eyewitness testimony, your own personal observation, and a confession to capital crimes.

What the Paladin did wasn't ideal, but would be acceptable in more than half of the games I've played in myself. The Dwarf though is a complete psychopath and a traitor killing a loyal animal that is a resource while the party is under time pressure. Also his complaint was that "his" prisoner was interfered with. Rather than arguing for the universal value of humanoid life, the Dwarf is saying that the prisoner was his, like the horse is the Paladin's.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 06:45 AM
While I'll freely concede that the Dwarf player over-reacted, I don't think I'll ever be prepared to say that they were wrong to react at all.

(I also think Gygax's advice in this case, that the paladin player ought to have their character duel the dwarf player's character, pretty poor).



The Giant had a good piece of advice on how to "Choose to react differently" - referenced in this very similar thread about a character who tries to kill a prisoner without the rest of the party's consent, and is stopped:


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?232633-Advice-Sociopathic-Legolas&p=12725492

The column itself is lost - but I referenced it once, and this is what it said (regarding a monk overreacting to a party member who thieves from NPCs):

The monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.



They are either both wrong (because they decreased the entertainment value of the game for each other based on their decision) or both right (because they created a really interesting RP situation, which they can now try to handle.

What is the added value of "more wrong"/"less wrong" in this case? And I'm not just asking you, I'm asking also the OP.

Mostly it's "If I'm ever DMing, how do I resolve this kind of situation, without alienating too many members of the group".

Coming down too severely on either end, and one would expect the entire group to break up. Fail to come down at all, and it's only storing up trouble for the future, with undealt-with resentments.

And it's important to have a rough idea of which end is most likely to be "most wrong". If there is good reason to believe that in the vast majority of cases, most parties will think the paladin player was "least wrong" - then it would be nice to know that.

Berenger
2020-09-08, 07:34 AM
How is this meant to square with the totally courtly and appropriate for paladins acts of falconry and sport hunting aka "killing animals just because it is fun"?

I think this is about the expected role of that animal (game, livestock, companion...) and the emotional value the animal holds to a person. So, to sic a falcon on a random rabbit in the wild is not an evil act to most people. To deliberately sic the same falcon on the beloved pet rabbit of a little girl will be seen as an evil act by a lot of people. It is perceived as evil because the act now clearly aims to cause as much grief and emotional distress as possible and does so by targeting one of the victims good characteristics (love and care for another creature), so it is out of line even when that person deserves punishment.

OldTrees1
2020-09-08, 07:44 AM
Mostly it's "If I'm ever DMing, how do I resolve this kind of situation, without alienating too many members of the group".

Coming down too severely on either end, and one would expect the entire group to break up. Fail to come down at all, and it's only storing up trouble for the future, with undealt-with resentments.

And it's important to have a rough idea of which end is most likely to be "most wrong". If there is good reason to believe that in the vast majority of cases, most parties will think the paladin player was "least wrong" - then it would be nice to know that.

I think it is bad advice to try to figure out who is "most wrong" in this case. They both are in the wrong and are both "most wrong" in different ways.

The Paladin Player was severely inconsiderate when they took that unilateral action without discussing it with the other players.
The Dwarf Player responded by seeking and enacting retribution and a threat.


You do not need to equate these mistakes but you also don't need to rank them. Come down on both players and tell them that those actions and reactions felt out of line. But also implement rules that catch the situation earlier next time. I suggest something like "Players that will cause harm or disruption to another Player's Character need to discuss that course of action out of character with the group first to seek group consensus. This gives the Players time to speak / hear and the DM time to hear before it becomes a problem."

Lacco
2020-09-08, 09:56 AM
Mostly it's "If I'm ever DMing, how do I resolve this kind of situation, without alienating too many members of the group".

Coming down too severely on either end, and one would expect the entire group to break up. Fail to come down at all, and it's only storing up trouble for the future, with undealt-with resentments.

And it's important to have a rough idea of which end is most likely to be "most wrong". If there is good reason to believe that in the vast majority of cases, most parties will think the paladin player was "least wrong" - then it would be nice to know that.

Ah. Okay, that's completely different topic. Following will apply to most of my tables, so not applicable universally.

How to resolve without alienating too many people?

Step 1: Find the guilty one. Persecute.

Just joking :smallsmile:

One of my friends, a quality manager at my work, once said something very interesting. There was some issue in a project, everybody joined the discussion. When we pinpointed the issue and found out who was the one to blame for it, he said "Ok. We have found the guilty party - so there's no reason to do anything, right?" The dose of sarcasm he used was overwhelming. And he was right - we shouldn't focus on finding the guilty party.

Don't go thinking about who caused the issue. You want to solve the issue or prevent it.

Prevention: intention is not action. The paladin says he wants to execute the prisoner - that's fine. But give the dwarf possibility to react. To stop him. It's actually good for their ... how do you call it... player agency. They can react to the world and other PC actions. If the PC is not present, the player still should be. Depending if the game is online or in person, this can make it a bit tricky, but still: players should state intentions - not results of their actions. Of course, during play one easily slips into result-talk (which is fine, unless they actually expect that "what I just said happened and nobody can do anything about it"). But it's fine if you - the DM - keep it in mind.

"I execute the prisoner" becomes "I intend to execute the prisoner" - which means there is still something that can stop the player. Even if they rolled the dice already.

There should be a clear set of table rules concerning PvP. Some GMs and players handle them easily, some players would rather leave table than have to deal with it. In my case: everyone at the table is responsible for enjoyment of everybody else, including the GM. Which means - and I usually spell it out - I'm fine with PvP if you both agree you want to go for it. Just make sure it's the story you want to tell, you can not be forced into it.

Solving: Let's assume the same stuff happened at my table. The knight in shining armor just killed an unarmed enemy. Another PC freaks out about it.

I stop the game and ask both what are they doing, why, and what are their characters thinking.

OOC they should be able to explain. Maybe the dwarf player still wants to go with the "I cut off the horses' head". I'd personally find the one-liner they used really good, so no issue there. And I have a player that would enjoy playing the knight, who has just been reprimanded harshly of their oaths - after all, why play a virtuous knight in shining armor if you take up shortcuts and make it easy for yourself? The player I mention would mope around the camp, trying to right the wrong they did, and would accept the death of the horse as harsh reminder of their own bad deed.

Of course, other players I have would not be so peaceful. In that case, we go into full OOC mode. Discussion would be open regarding hurt feelings, expectations, possible revenge - and I would try to help them find a compromise for solving the issue. After all, these are their characters: I am not their judge (only in cases they actually address a deity or local NPC to judge them). They need to solve this to continue.

So: step 1 - why they did what they did and what are their characters thinking.
Step 2 - are they going to escalate to full PvP? If yes, and both agree, they can duke it out. But they need to know why and both need to accept possible death of their character.
Step 3 - if not, we go to social combat. Are they okay with Duel of Wits? If yes, we go mechanical route. If not, we continue discussion OOC.
Step 4 - try to reach a compromise. Don't get on either side. Don't look for guilty party - we are here to settle an issue, not blame each other. Both have done something stupid - and they both need to agree on price they pay.

I guess I'd be able to work them into accepting a tradeoff. The paladin takes a temporary (24h?) fall due to the fact they killed non-combatant, in cold blood. The dwarf takes pity on them, apologizes for killing the horse and will replace it with his own steed/will buy the paladin a nicer horse.

But that's me and my table.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 09:57 AM
It would probably fall out something like this with me (assuming a two-player party and bit-players, rather than a full size party)

Joe: “My character kills the prisoner”
Bob: “Hey, wait a moment!!”
Me: “Are you sure you want to do this? Joe clearly doesn’t want it.”
Joe: “They kill the prisoner. That’s what my character would do.”
Me: “OK (roll roll) prisoner is dead.”
Bob: “My character kills Joe’s character’s horse, and warns Joe’s character that if he does anything like that again, he’ll be fed to my character’s steed.”
Joe: “Hey, that’s not right!!”
Me: “Are you really really sure? Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.”
Bob: “I’m sure.”
Me: “OK (roll roll) the horse is now dead, and Joe’s character has now been warned.”
Joe: “My character challenges Bob’s character to a duel for infringing his honour.”
Bob: “My character is game.”
Me: “OK - time out. You do realise this is a cooperative game, about working together toward a goal, right? Now. I’m going to rewind events right back to just before all this started, we’re all going to have a drink of water, and you two can talk about what your characters each will and will not put up with. Then we carry on again from there, only this time, keep in mind that the goal is to survive the adventure as a team, and if you do this sort of thing, it will compromise that goal - a lot.”

This is, of course, assuming that the initiative system makes it impossible for each character to stop the other character’s action.

Kyutaru
2020-09-08, 10:37 AM
Doesn't seem like a two person "group" though. Any of the other members could have interjected like any stereotypical stopping the fight scene. Sometimes groups quarrel and it takes the other members to ensure cooler heads prevail over emotional hot tempers. The dwarf could also have just been killing the horse to force the paladin to walk as punishment, an extreme case of sticking it to them with a similar act of random death. Didn't like me killing your horse? Well I didn't like you killing my prisoner.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-08, 11:43 AM
Someone gently broached a point here. And I'm gonna come at it with the hottest take:
The person MOST in the wrong here is the DM.

If someone objects to the actions taken by another character, we aren't in combat, and they're not alone, other characters nearby should be free to try and stop them, and an opportunity to do so should reasonably occur.

If the dwarf pipes up and says he doesn't want this to happen, and his character is close enough, I'll let him reach out and hand and grab the Paladin by the arm and say "Hey, no, put down the sword we're not killing him." I'm going to allow for that AND check to see if anyone is going to take that action.

Ditto goes for the horse.

You're the DM. You get to hit the pause button and say "hold up, not everyone agrees with you and will simply LET you do this. So they get to try and prevent you from doing it."

Now, if the dwarf asks the Paladin firmly but without hostility to stop, and the Paladin ignores this, then I can say "So you're firm that despite your friend asking for mercy, you are going to unilaterally execute this helpless being? Such bloodlust is unbecoming of a Paladin. Are you sure?"

That the DM rolled over and allowed this clusterfumble to proceed unchecked is the true sin.

OldTrees1
2020-09-08, 12:16 PM
It would probably fall out something like this with me (assuming a two-player party and bit-players, rather than a full size party)

A good example. I am a bit more strict so this is how it would go at my table.

Joe: “My character kills the prisoner”
Bob: “Hey, wait a moment!!”
Me: “Okay, let's hold on a moment and talk this out. Bob, not Bob's character, clearly doesn’t want it.”
Joe: “They kill the prisoner. That’s what my character would do.”
Me: “Well then let's talk it out. With all the players. This is a cooperative game. It is okay when the characters get into conflict but let's talk out this player disagreement first”
... Later ...
Me: “Sounds like we have an understanding / consensus. Thank you for talking it out. Let's go through it now.”

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 01:17 PM
This is the most correct response to me. I personally don't think alignments should be mutable except in very rare circumstances. When the players start to torture someone, I always step in as DM and say, "No, this isn't something your characters are willing to do since they are Good-aligned." I don't allow player freedom at the expense of playing a game about heroes. I also outright ban Evil PCs at my tables simply because they lead exactly to this type of scenario.

Hard pass on that for me:

"Are you sure you want to do that? It might be in-character for Evil characters and some Neutral characters, but not really in-character for Good ones"

is vastly superior to:

"I won't let your character do that, because a Good character wouldn't do it."



Alignment has been mutable as the standard for a very long time. And character freedom matters a lot.

Better to make liberal use of this kind of "are you sure" (and even the "reset button" if the situation becomes untenable) - than to outright forbid anything short of the downright squicky.


If LG characters are not entitled to police the other party members' actions, as The Giant suggests, then it is equally true that the DM is not entitled to police the PC actions to that extent.

Kyutaru
2020-09-08, 01:20 PM
Just a reminder that even two paragons of good have tried to beat each other down over a moral disagreement. Captain America vs Iron Man comes to mind.

Lacco
2020-09-08, 01:46 PM
Let's go with your example.


Joe: “My character kills the prisoner”
Bob: “Hey, wait a moment!!”
Me: “Are you sure you want to do this? Joe clearly doesn’t want it.”

First stop.

"Are you sure?" is a great GM phrase. One that never works. They are sure.

"Hold up. Bob, what are you doing...?"


Joe: “They kill the prisoner. That’s what my character would do.”
Me: “OK (roll roll) prisoner is dead.”

If they pull "That's what my character would do.", I'll gladly pull "Your alignment is now X." But only when I'm feeling like doing some minor evil.

However, to solve this - ask simple question.

"Why?"

Usually stops them dead. If not, continue questioning. After all - this is roleplaying game. Meaning the player should know the character's motivations.

Maybe he hates all ogres - and can not let any of them go. Or his character is torn between wanting to do the lawful thing & the good thing and is pushed by time - some kinds of pressure could break even a paladin. Kyutaru's example is perfect - two paragons of good (lawful & chaotic, maybe?) fighting over a matter of principle.

Maybe his reasons are enough to persuade Bob the player to let it go. But he has to hear them. Not Bob's character.

My usual approach is to just keep asking - because somewhere there is a reason. And maybe even in-character reason. Maybe you'd be surprised at things that go through your players' heads in game.

Maybe not.


Hard pass on that for me:

"Are you sure you want to do that? It might be in-character for Evil characters and some Neutral characters, but not really in-character for Good ones"

is vastly superior to:

"I won't let your character do that, because a Good character wouldn't do it."

Alignment has been mutable as the standard for a very long time. And character freedom matters a lot.

Character freedom or player freedom?

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 02:37 PM
Character freedom or player freedom?

A bit of both. It is not the DM's job to dictate to the player what the player's character is willing or unwilling to do. That's just a kind of railroading.

Keltest
2020-09-08, 02:52 PM
A bit of both. It is not the DM's job to dictate to the player what the player's character is willing or unwilling to do. That's just a kind of railroading.

On the other hand, i do think the DM has a duty to make sure people understand that if they cross certain lines, they wont be able to retain their alignment. They may not get absolute veto power, but they do have the ability and responsibility to inflict consequences for particularly egregious decisions.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 02:55 PM
In some systems, there is little or no mechanical penalty for alignment change though. 4E in particular springs to mind.

A 4e paladin might change alignment for doing something awful - but they won't lose any of their powers, or their ability to continue progressing in their class. They aren't saddled with "may not associate with those who offend them" either.


A completely separate issue is "Things that will upset or squick-out the other players (or the DM) enough that the game can no longer progress".

It might be reasonable for the DM to lay down some ground rules before the game of the "If you state outright that your character's doing this, the game is over" kind - but IMO this shouldn't be "all evil acts of any kind". DMs need to accept that they can't force the players to adhere to Exalted Good.

Keltest
2020-09-08, 02:59 PM
In some systems, there is little or no mechanical penalty for alignment change though. 4E in particular springs to mind.

A 4e paladin might change alignment for doing something awful - but they won't lose any of their powers, or their ability to continue progressing in their class. They aren't saddled with "may not associate with those who offend them" either.

Depending on the game, the mechanical penalty could be "your character becomes an NPC." Certainly in my game if somebody went and, i dunno, killed all the dogs in a town or something because "its what their character would do" then they wouldnt be allowed to play that character anymore.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 03:03 PM
Star Wars games often have "your character becomes an NPC, after having Fallen Completely To The Dark Side" as an option - but it's never one act that does it, it's always a series of acts.

NichG
2020-09-08, 03:03 PM
Alignment is a red herring here, that's an in-character construct but the problem with this behavior is an OOC one.

kyoryu
2020-09-08, 03:08 PM
First stop.

"Are you sure?" is a great GM phrase. One that never works. They are sure.

"Hold up. Bob, what are you doing...?"

"Are you sure?" needs to be accompanied with clarifying info.

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure?"
Player: "Of course!"
GM: "The king has his guards summarily execute you."

Note that per the gazebo thread, this is a mismatch of assumptions - the player doesn't think this act is suicide, and the GM does. Of course the player won't change their mind based on "are you sure?" They're already making the right decision based on what they believe and know.

Better:

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure? Your character would know that the monarchs don't take kindly to that. There was in fact a hanging last week because somebody called the King's sister ugly."
Player: "Um, okay, maybe not."

(Note that ideally you can convey this information in-character).


A good example. I am a bit more strict so this is how it would go at my table.

Joe: “My character kills the prisoner”
Bob: “Hey, wait a moment!!”
Me: “Okay, let's hold on a moment and talk this out. Bob, not Bob's character, clearly doesn’t want it.”
Joe: “They kill the prisoner. That’s what my character would do.”
Me: “Well then let's talk it out. With all the players. This is a cooperative game. It is okay when the characters get into conflict but let's talk out this player disagreement first”
... Later ...
Me: “Sounds like we have an understanding / consensus. Thank you for talking it out. Let's go through it now.”

Yup. Figure out if it's an in-character issue, or an out-of-character issue.

If it's OOC (Bob doesn't want to play in that type of game), then handle it OOC.

If it's in-character, then make sure that characters that oppose the action and are in a place to actually prevent it are given the chance to. Actions do not take zero time.

Keltest
2020-09-08, 03:11 PM
"Are you sure?" needs to be accompanied with clarifying info.

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure?"
Player: "Of course!"
GM: "The king has his guards summarily execute you."

Note that per the gazebo thread, this is a mismatch of assumptions - the player doesn't think this act is suicide, and the GM does. Of course the player won't change their mind based on "are you sure?" They're already making the right decision based on what they believe and know.

Better:

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure? Your character would know that the monarchs don't take kindly to that. There was in fact a hanging last week because somebody called the King's sister ugly."
Player: "Um, okay, maybe not."

(Note that ideally you can convey this information in-character).

Thats sort of a tricky thing. "Are you sure?" is fairly well known DM slang for "this is going to go very badly for you, in a way that you can probably predict." In a lot of veteran tables, that really is all they need to hear to reconsider.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-08, 03:27 PM
Thats sort of a tricky thing. "Are you sure?" is fairly well known DM slang for "this is going to go very badly for you, in a way that you can probably predict." In a lot of veteran tables, that really is all they need to hear to reconsider.

Apocalypse World has good advice for this.
"Name the possible consequences and ask"

So, for instance, giving them the context they are forgetting before asking if they are sure and letting them know what reasonable consequences their character can identify even if the player is lapsing should be totally fine.

Because the player *is not literally the character,* filling reasonable knowledge gaps shouldn't be some wild concept. For the king example,
"Kronar [the character] would be aware that speaking harshly to a king is widely considered a suicidal move, and the king's guards are present and ready for a scuffle. A group of armed adventurers is in the throne room and they've been a bit on edge from the moment you walked in. If you give them a reason, they outnumber you and are ready to throw down. As much as Kronar may want to say that, he knows it would be consigning himself and his party to almost certain death. Do you still want to say that?"

You don't need to take that long, but letting them know *why* a choice is obviously stupid before asking if they're sure is gonna be much more effective.

kyoryu
2020-09-08, 03:44 PM
Apocalypse World has good advice for this.
"Name the possible consequences and ask"

Precisely.

"Are you sure" asks the player to re-evaluate based on their current knowledge and assumptions... and if those are enough to realize that it's a bad idea, then it can work. But, experientially and based on the number of horror stories, it often doesn't.

"Name the possible consequences and ask" handles that case - but it also handles the case where the player is unaware of something (that the character would know) or has a misconception about something (that the character would know).

I really don't get the whole "give as little information as possible" style of GMing.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-08, 05:48 PM
Precisely.

"Are you sure" asks the player to re-evaluate based on their current knowledge and assumptions... and if those are enough to realize that it's a bad idea, then it can work. But, experientially and based on the number of horror stories, it often doesn't.

"Name the possible consequences and ask" handles that case - but it also handles the case where the player is unaware of something (that the character would know) or has a misconception about something (that the character would know).

I really don't get the whole "give as little information as possible" style of GMing.

The "minimal info" style comes from the position of metagaming being EXTREMELY ANATHEMA to everything. Any acknowledgement of the separation between player and character RUINS THE IMMERSION (because we all forgot we're sitting around a table, somehow) and MUST NEVER, EVER HAPPEN. The character knows what the player knows, always and forever. It is impossible for the character who lived in Sparrowtown for their entire life to know more about it than Jack, the player, who didn't know his character was from there until the DM mentioned it during session 0 and has asked no followup questions.

Yes, my bias is showing, but it's pretty much that simple. It tends to be the same crowd that sees D&D as SUPREME STRATEGICAL TACTICAL CHALLENGE FEST MEATGRINDER SPECTACULAR: THE DRAGONING, where the game is about pitting your wits against the DM's arbitrary challenges, and that uncertainty is where the DM's "Gotcha" games dwell.

But I already covered the main topic. DM done screwed up, the end.

Duff
2020-09-08, 07:08 PM
Thats sort of a tricky thing. "Are you sure?" is fairly well known DM slang for "this is going to go very badly for you, in a way that you can probably predict." In a lot of veteran tables, that really is all they need to hear to reconsider.

My players long ago learned that when I say "Are you sure?", if they don't know why the action is unwise, they need to ask questions.
And that, I've since realised, is credit to them as players, not the quality of my GMing. I would now be more proactive in making sure *players* know what their character knows or what the character's instincts will tell them or that I need to ask "What are you thinking will happen?"

Keltest
2020-09-08, 08:35 PM
My players long ago learned that when I say "Are you sure?", if they don't know why the action is unwise, they need to ask questions.
And that, I've since realised, is credit to them as players, not the quality of my GMing. I would now be more proactive in making sure *players* know what their character knows or what the character's instincts will tell them or that I need to ask "What are you thinking will happen?"

As a DM, im of the opinion that it is the players jobs to tell me when they dont understand something and what it is they dont understand, and not my job to try and manage the perceptions of 8 other people simultaneously (yes, i have a really big party). If they dont understand why something would be dangerous, i would much rather they just ask me questions directly than have to go over the scenario another half dozen times to make sure they didnt miss any details.

I of course make exceptions when i can see somebody is obviously misunderstanding something, but in general its much more time and sanity efficient for the players to be in charge of their own understanding.

icefractal
2020-09-08, 08:57 PM
As a DM, im of the opinion that it is the players jobs to tell me when they dont understand something and what it is they dont understand, and not my job to try and manage the perceptions of 8 other people simultaneously (yes, i have a really big party). If they dont understand why something would be dangerous, i would much rather they just ask me questions directly than have to go over the scenario another half dozen times to make sure they didnt miss any details.The thing is, they don't know what they don't know, so they can't ask about it.

Like, if I said this:
"The throne is empty, and on it rests the royal scepter, which contains the magical gem you seek."

You reply "I pick up the scepter", and I ask "Are you sure?"
What would you ask about? Maybe check for traps, maybe pick it up with gloves?
Would you ask about the six guards who are about to stab you for touching the scepter?

Oh yes, the guards were always there. It was only the throne that was empty. But someone was rustling a bag of chips loudly when I mentioned them, and so you didn't hear that.

Most likely, you never think to ask about guards in what you believe is an empty room, because why would I have omitted such a large and obvious detail? If you do, it would be after going through a number of questions and probably repeating the scene description.

Whereas, if I replied:
"You're going to pick the king's scepter up right in front of the royal guards?"

Then the mismatch is obvious immediately and it took me barely longer to say.

Keltest
2020-09-08, 09:05 PM
The thing is, they don't know what they don't know, so they can't ask about it.

Sure they can. When i say something that confuses them, they can just say theyre confused. At that point, we can initiate dialogue and try and figure out where the issue is. Very rarely do any of my players get so confused that they cant even explain what is confusing them.

Well, there is one player, but he's doing it on purpose (i hope) because his character has exceptionally low wisdom and he doesnt actually want to be perfectly aware and on top of everything.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-08, 09:44 PM
Sure they can. When i say something that confuses them, they can just say theyre confused. At that point, we can initiate dialogue and try and figure out where the issue is. Very rarely do any of my players get so confused that they cant even explain what is confusing them.


This requires that they be confused. If they are mistaken and confident about their understanding, that creates a problem neither of you are aware of.

Taking a quick second to name the potential consequences (in short order) and ask if they're sure is a good way to make sure they're on the same page, and it doesn't take very much time.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-09-08, 09:59 PM
This requires that they be confused. If they are mistaken and confident about their understanding, that creates a problem neither of you are aware of.

Taking a quick second to name the potential consequences (in short order) and ask if they're sure is a good way to make sure they're on the same page, and it doesn't take very much time.

I totally agree with both parts of this. Misplaced confidence is, in a lot of ways worse than confusion. And, in my experience both as a DM and as a teacher, much more common.

Plus, playing hide and seek with information ends up taking way more time and often leads to greater confusion (because they only got part of the necessary stuff). And it often has the effect of making the characters look like total idiots, because they'd know even if they're low Wisdom. They're not blind, and they've lived in that society for their entire life. And often, the kind of "stupid" things that people want to do are things that the characters would know are stupid because they're not dead yet.

--------------

On the main topic, remember that blame is not conserved. Everyone can be at 100% fault. I don't care about the characters, but if the players are in conflict, both they and the DM have failed somewhere along the way. And should fix that with OOC discussions.

Keltest
2020-09-08, 10:07 PM
This requires that they be confused. If they are mistaken and confident about their understanding, that creates a problem neither of you are aware of.

Taking a quick second to name the potential consequences (in short order) and ask if they're sure is a good way to make sure they're on the same page, and it doesn't take very much time.

If i ask them "Are you sure" and they cant think of any consequences they arent willing to live with, then they either are imagining the correct scope of consequences and are simply mistaken on the details, in which case theres no issue because theyre being knowingly foolish anyway, or they arent imagining it correctly and will get confused when my perception of the danger seems different from theirs.

Rynjin
2020-09-08, 10:17 PM
Without more moral authority than just "having paladin levels" it's not an execution, it's a murder.

Paladins should be no different than any other class, at least in 3e-3.5e, when it comes to "the right to execute".

I think a lot of people really confuse what murder is. Ogres don't have legal rights, therefore they cannot be murdered.

The same is true, by definition, of bandits, and all other outlaws. That's what "outlaw" means.

This ogre was part of a group of raiders that attacked a keep under the PCs protection. Unless this is some unusual setting where ogres are citizens of some actual nation (instead of a collection of murderous tribes), with real citizen's rights, it's not murder.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 10:57 PM
Ogres are sapient (INT 3 or higher) and therefore people. Even if a government "takes away people's legal status" allowing them to be killed with impunity, it can still be morally murder, whether or not it is legally murder in that government's eyes.

Plus not all bandits are outlaws. To be an outlaw, one must have had a writ of outlawry passed on them.

Otherwise, one is more likely to be a highwayman-type - a "solid citizen by day, who sneaks off in a mask to rob people by night".

And plenty of governments could be passing those writs unjustly.

Robin Hood is the archetypal "Good-aligned outlaw" who has had a writ of outlawry passed on them.

Yet I could see plenty of DMs saying

"because Robin is the good guy, and because you snuck up on him in his sleep and stabbed him - it's murder. I don't care that the Sheriff of Nottingham had him outlawed - that doesn't change the moral status of the situation".



3.5e's DMG2 makes it clear that once an adventurer has successfully captured an outlaw - they should still deliver them to the local authorities for trial - killing outlaw prisoners is not actually sanctioned, and can still be murder, in any case.

Rynjin
2020-09-08, 11:00 PM
Ogres are backwoods hillbilly sexual predators who eat people, not Robin Hood sorts.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 11:12 PM
Unless this is some unusual setting where ogres are citizens of some actual nation (instead of a collection of murderous tribes), with real citizen's rights, it's not murder.

The whole "if you're a member of a tribe, and not a nation, then, being not a citizen, you're not a person" idea,


has a very ugly history. Best for DMs not to stray in that direction. Gygax did - but D&D moved away from Gygax long ago.


This is the OOTS board, after all - and The Giant has made it crystal clear in the past, that he sees goblins as people. Similar principles apply to other "monstrous races" - like ogres.


Ogres are backwoods hillbilly sexual predators who eat people, not Robin Hood sorts.


While it's true that average ogres are not "Robin-Hood sorts" - so what? A human who's a cannibal, is still a person.

If the party are living in a fictionalised version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they successfully capture Leatherface - why should they believe that they are entitled to execute him?

Rynjin
2020-09-08, 11:15 PM
The whole "if you're a member of a tribe, and not a nation, then, being not a citizen, you're not a person" idea,


has a very ugly history. Best for DMs not to stray in that direction. Gygax did - but D&D moved away from Gygax long ago.




While it's true that average ogres are not "Robin-Hood sorts" - so what? A human who's a cannibal, is still a person.

If the party are living in a fictionalised version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and they successfully capture Leatherface - why should they believe that they are entitled to execute him?

...Because he's a cannibal murderer and horror movie monsters are well known for improbably escaping captivity and continuing their crime spree?


Usually, killing the monster in one of these films is considered a heroic act for a reason.

hamishspence
2020-09-08, 11:17 PM
Killing him in self-defence (or defence of another that he's in the process of attacking) is fine.

But intelligent monsters are always people.



Usually, killing the monster in one of these films is considered a heroic act for a reason.
Usually, the monster isn't tied up.

Rynjin
2020-09-08, 11:20 PM
Killing him in self-defence (or defence of another that he's in the process of attacking) is fine.

But intelligent monsters are always people.


Usually, the monster isn't tied up.

Which is usually why they're so much harder to kill.

Lacco
2020-09-09, 01:11 AM
A bit of both. It is not the DM's job to dictate to the player what the player's character is willing or unwilling to do. That's just a kind of railroading.

Correct.

You are only their characters' eyes, ears, taste buds, the thingies in your nose that smell stuff... also, in some games, you are their memory and experience.

Meaning: Game of Shadowrun. The player knows nothing about yakuza etiquette. But their character lived in Tokyo for 20 years and has Etiquette skill maxed out. Little chance they'd not know what "face" or "save face" is. Right?

It's also a matter of risk management and making decisions based on in-character knowledge. Would a level 1 character attack a group of wights? If not, why?


Thats sort of a tricky thing. "Are you sure?" is fairly well known DM slang for "this is going to go very badly for you, in a way that you can probably predict." In a lot of veteran tables, that really is all they need to hear to reconsider.

It's a matter of training and experience.

There is one player in my RL group who reacts to "Are you sure?" with loud "Oooooh, $#!&! You messed up." He also knows the (t)ropes well enough to know when to do the "stupid" thing (which may bring an interesting complication).

But even a veteran can easily go for "Yes." if they see the scene differently. Especially if you switch games or game worlds, the assumptions they have can be easily wrong. "We can take them!"

So yes, it's a useful tool in GM's toolbox, if you train your group - it shortens the discussion in many cases. But for new players - use wisely. And follow up if they go for simple "Yes." Questions like "What do you want to accomplish with this?" or "What do you expect happens?" or "What is your character thinking/why are they doing this?" may give you background.

Sometimes the player just wants to spit into king's face. Maybe they know they won't get away with it and are okay with it. Or they misunderstood, have different expectations or view of the scene.


Precisely.

"Are you sure" asks the player to re-evaluate based on their current knowledge and assumptions... and if those are enough to realize that it's a bad idea, then it can work. But, experientially and based on the number of horror stories, it often doesn't.

"Name the possible consequences and ask" handles that case - but it also handles the case where the player is unaware of something (that the character would know) or has a misconception about something (that the character would know).

I really don't get the whole "give as little information as possible" style of GMing.

It has its time and place. There are whole games that run on it, and are fine. For example, the oD&D - no character skills, no lore - the "your character knows only what you know" was very much baked into the premise. And it was fine.

The "get to know the world or die" was part of the game, part of its charm and also a mechanic.

Not so much now. And that is fine. For example in Fate - when you have a Lore skill, you can basically create a lore. In other games, here can be a Folk lore skill - letting you know that if you throw salt over your left shoulder, you will ward off evil spirits.

Would the player know about the salt-throwing protection vs. evil? Nope. Probably not. But their character would.

Satinavian
2020-09-09, 02:01 AM
This is how it works in most of my groups.


Player declares something completely out of character for the PC or utterly stupid in the eyes of the GM.

GM "Are you sure ?"

possible answers :

"Yes" -> Player declares with that that he understands how stpid or strange it is and wants to do it anyway. Maybe for drama or character development etc.

It gets done

"No" -> Player declares that he does not understand why the GM thinks that action is strange or stupid.

Then the GM explains why. When both are certain that they have the same idea about the situation, the game resumes. And of course the player is free to do the action anyway.

hamishspence
2020-09-09, 03:05 AM
possible answers :

"Yes" -> Player declares with that that he understands how stpid or strange it is and wants to do it anyway. Maybe for drama or character development etc.

It gets done

"No" -> Player declares that he does not understand why the GM thinks that action is strange or stupid.

Then the GM explains why. When both are certain that they have the same idea about the situation, the game resumes. And of course the player is free to do the action anyway.
This. Very much this.

Lacco
2020-09-09, 03:10 AM
"Are you sure?" is a closed question. There are two possible answers. Use it when you want to speed up the process but don't really care about result.

"Why...?" is an open question. Use that one instead. It helped me a lot.

Clears a lot of confusion & has the added value of showing you whether this is IC or OOC issue. It also tends to push the player into the character's mind and helps other players understand the character.

Elysiume
2020-09-09, 04:14 AM
More in the wrong, less in the wrong. What difference does it make in this case?

They are either both wrong (because they decreased the entertainment value of the game for each other based on their decision) or both right (because they created a really interesting RP situation, which they can now try to handle.

What is the added value of "more wrong"/"less wrong" in this case? And I'm not just asking you, I'm asking also the OP.This is all table dependent, and that post was based on this being a player-driven question rather than a character-driven question. I can only work with what the OP said, but based on what they said:

The paladin killed the ogre out of convenience*. They were trying to benefit the party, but should have asked OoC first.
The dwarf killed the paladin's horse out of spite. They were not trying to benefit the party — the dwarf (and the dwarf's player) wanted the paladin (and the paladin's player) to respect to the dwarf's ownership of the prisoner.
What the characters did — the morality of killing a captive ogre vs. an unsuspecting horse — isn't what I'm discussing. It's how the players responded to things. The paladin player's motivation was to progress the game. The dwarf player's motivation was to punish the paladin's player. I'll reiterate here that I'm sure that I'm missing some relevant details, but I'm working with what I've seen in this thread. This is not a matter of black and white. The OP didn't say specifically what his table's expectations are, but as far as my table is concerned, killing a mount/familiar/whatever is way further over the line than killing a prisoner, regardless of whether the other players agreed to the killing of the prisoner.

*: This would not fly for most paladins. Super setting-dependent, but killing a helpless enemy is frowned upon in almost all paladin codes. That's a whole thread unto itself, though.

HappyDaze
2020-09-09, 05:23 AM
But intelligent monsters are always people.


Nope. To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.

hamishspence
2020-09-09, 05:42 AM
To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.
I would. There's a lot of fiction out there with undead protagonists. Not quite so much fiction with aberration protagonists - but I suspect there's some.

One can recognise them as people - without suspending morality.


Simply take the approach that they are often (mostly due to their attitudes and their actions) really nasty people, who do a great many immoral deeds - and it all works out.


I'm mostly taking my cue from The Giant here. "Monsters are people" is a really strong theme in OOTS - especially in the non-online OOTS media.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-09-09, 06:15 AM
"Are you sure?" needs to be accompanied with clarifying info.

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure?"
Player: "Of course!"
GM: "The king has his guards summarily execute you."

Note that per the gazebo thread, this is a mismatch of assumptions - the player doesn't think this act is suicide, and the GM does. Of course the player won't change their mind based on "are you sure?" They're already making the right decision based on what they believe and know.

Better:

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Are you sure? Your character would know that the monarchs don't take kindly to that. There was in fact a hanging last week because somebody called the King's sister ugly."
Player: "Um, okay, maybe not."

(Note that ideally you can convey this information in-character).

Worse but lots of fun:

Player: "I insult the king!"
GM: "Roll intelligence."
Player: "2."
GM: *Obvious evil smirk* "You see absolutely nothing wrong with that action, what's the worst that could happen?"

(The reason this is worse is that as a general trend it gets less effective the better your players are. Most people will get the hint, but many an inspired role player will take the failed roll as "I get it's bad now, but my character doesn't, so even if I wasn't curious what would happen, I have to push on now.")

(I like the "Why?" or "Explain" option by the way. Good way to get someone thinking without at least too much of an impression that you're leading them.)

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-09, 07:56 AM
I would. There's a lot of fiction out there with undead protagonists. Not quite so much fiction with aberration protagonists - but I suspect there's some.

One can recognise them as people - without suspending morality.


Simply take the approach that they are often (mostly due to their attitudes and their actions) really nasty people, who do a great many immoral deeds - and it all works out.


I'm mostly taking my cue from The Giant here. "Monsters are people" is a really strong theme in OOTS - especially in the non-online OOTS media.

"Monsters are people" is non-universal as a take, and unless we know it applies to this game, we can't really make a call.

I'm much more practical than these lofty ideals. Part of the moral weight once you're a cannibalistic milti-murderer is your cost to the society you're cannibalistically murdering. If your cost is too high, you gotta go. Sorry. I'm under no obligation to keep an enduring threat around just because it's currently tied up.

I don't grok the logic, really.
>Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to = OK to kill.
>Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to, but now tied up = an innocent, whose murder will forever stain your hands.

Sorry, guy. If you've actively tried to kill me and my friends, and I have no reason to assume misunderstanding, AND you've got a confirmed past of killing innocents, AND I have no reason to believe you're planning to stop killing innocents, then your being temporarily inconvenienced by ropes is not going to sway my call on whether taking your head off is suddenly evil now. Your continued personhood privileges will be revoked by the end of this interaction either way. Literally the only question is how useful to us you're going to be before that. But I'm not going to risk you going on to kill more people after I leave. I'd rather have your evil blood on my hands than the blood of those innocents.

Literally the only consideration is "Is there something we can gain from keeping you around temporarily of greater net value than ending your continuing murderous tendencies?"

If the answer is yes, I will utilize you. If the answer is no, I will ice you. Ropes or no doesn't make a meaningful impact on the fact you do murder as a hobby. End of the day, you gotta go. Nobody owes you the resource costs required for you to have a redemption arc. Least of all someone you were trying to kill 10 minutes ago.

Making it about sapience and being tied up is like fretting about whether to put out the housefire because the flames are just in this one corner now and look a bit sad about it. It's an imminent threat. Once you've ended enough people, your personhood in the math is forfeit, because their personhood sure didn't matter to you, and hey, if I can securely, 100% guarantee that you won't kill anybody else for the low low price of a sword swing... that's a good deal.

OldTrees1
2020-09-09, 07:57 AM
Nope. To give two examples, undead (e.g., ghasts, ghouls, vampires) and aberrations (e.g., beholders, mind flayers) are all intelligent monsters, but I don't think very many people would consider them to be people.

I consider them to have moral status. Consequences that affect them can have a moral weight for their own sake.
I would even consider them to be moral agents. They have the capability to make choices that carry a moral character. In game we have confirmation of this fact.

However, this is really off topic so I am not very invested in this tangent. I do not see how the moral character of the PC's actions could be relevant to discussing the conflict AND how to handle similar cases in the future. To be fair, the PC's actions are barely relevant in the first place.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-09, 08:10 AM
I consider them to have moral status. Consequences that affect them can have a moral weight for their own sake.
I would even consider them to be moral agents. They have the capability to make choices that carry a moral character. In game we have confirmation of this fact because they have non "unaligned" alignment (even some True Neutrals are moral agents, but deer are not).

However, this is really off topic so I am not very invested in this tangent. I do not see how the moral character of the PC's actions could be relevant to discussing the conflict AND how to handle similar cases in the future. To be fair, the PC's actions are barely relevant in the first place.

I agree, despite my rant, that this is pretty off topic.

Like I said, I think the DM carries the biggest burden, but this is an OOC problem with IC implications.

Paladin's player was a doofus and didn't think about the other players. That's about the full extent of his sins.
Dwarf's player got his blood hot and decided to do some petty stuff to punish the pally. That's the full extent of his sins.

Pally player is guilty of being foolish.
Dwarf player is guilty of being petty.

Foolish is less infuriating to deal with than petty, so... I know where I'd start.

Hand_of_Vecna
2020-09-09, 02:00 PM
"Monsters are People" is an interesting theme, but one could argue that the principle not being the default is one of the things that makes OoTS a self-aware parody.

hamishspence
2020-09-09, 02:34 PM
In Eberron, many (not all) monsters are treated as people in some locations. In Sigil in the Planescape setting, pretty much all monsters present in the city are treated as people.


Same appears to be the case in BoED.


It seems to me like, since 1e, things have shifted a lot.

Talakeal
2020-09-09, 02:43 PM
Its weird how different this debste looks when viewed from a player angle vs a character angle.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-09, 03:03 PM
Example (was derailing an OOTS thread, so I took it here):

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


Is it the dwarf player who's being a jerk for killing the paladin's horse (later clarified as a regular nonmagical one)? The paladin player for not talking it out with the dwarf before killing the party prisoner? A bit of both?

In my opinion, the "jumping in" started the whole quarrel, and the retaliation, while a little excessive, is an improvement on just going straight to PVP.

Make them play Rock Paper Scissors and whoever loses sucks it up. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong, it's paving over the conflict and preventing a new one that matters.

Friv
2020-09-09, 04:13 PM
I don't grok the logic, really.
>Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to = OK to kill.
>Mass murderer, evil, ready and willing to kill you where you stand if given the opportunity and previously tried to, but now tied up = an innocent, whose murder will forever stain your hands.

On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong. If you are choosing to extend the life of an evil fiend purely for your own benefit, you are either deceiving them about their continued existence, which is cruel, or you're torturing them for information, which is very cruel.

Is it the most efficient course of action? Probably not. Good doesn't always get to take the most efficient course of action. They're supposed to be held to higher standards than that.

And to be honest, "you are a threat and threats are not worth the resources required to turn them into assets" is not a Good attitude. I wouldn't call it Evil either; it's an extremely Neutral way of looking at the world. Good people are expected to expend effort to redeem others, within reason.

* - There are two exceptions to this, and both of them preclude cutting someone's throat as soon as you're done with them. The first exception is that you don't know if they're evil or not. In this case, you can't kill them on suspicion and still be good. The second case is that you believe you can redeem them or offer them atonement. In this case, you can't kill them the moment that becomes inconvenient, although you could arguably execute them if redeeming them eventually proves impossible.

Berenger
2020-09-09, 04:32 PM
@Friv: I agree with the whole of your post, but there is a third exception; transfer to a court of law for a proper trial.

Rynjin
2020-09-09, 05:22 PM
Make them play Rock Paper Scissors and whoever loses sucks it up. It doesn't matter who is right and wrong, it's paving over the conflict and preventing a new one that matters.

"Paving over" a problem does not fix the problem, explicitly. This will just breed resentment and not cause any of the underlying problems (like the dwarf player being a high-handed prick) to be solved.


On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong.

Treating people as resources is the base status of any system of political or military power. Given Paladins can be the leaders of organizations, and even kings, I'd dispute that.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-09, 05:28 PM
"Paving over" a problem does not fix the problem, explicitly. This will just breed resentment and not cause any of the underlying problems (like the dwarf player being a high-handed prick) to be solved.

That's the opposite of true. Think about the issues you have with anyone you live with, any little pin or needle that annoys you regularly. How often have you actually resolved those issues? How often does your partner change how they load the dishwasher, or stop popping their gum, or your coworker stop microwaving fish?

The vast majority of conflicts aren't resolved, they are moved past. This is true in all aspects of life, gaming isn't different.

Keltest
2020-09-09, 05:38 PM
That's the opposite of true. Think about the issues you have with anyone you live with, any little pin or needle that annoys you regularly. How often have you actually resolved those issues? How often does your partner change how they load the dishwasher, or stop popping their gum, or your coworker stop microwaving fish?

The vast majority of conflicts aren't resolved, they are moved past. This is true in all aspects of life, gaming isn't different.

I cannot feasibly stop my coworker from eating fish. I can absolutely stop playing with somebody who tells me my character isn't allowed to be in the same party as his. Ignoring a problem like that is just putting a delay on the escalation.

HappyDaze
2020-09-09, 05:49 PM
@Friv: I agree with the whole of your post, but there is a third exception; transfer to a court of law for a proper trial.

Abdicating the decision to others is not inherently better. There is no guarantee that a trial will produce a more "good" outcome than the on-the-spot judgement of one person. You've just turned the struggle from good vs. evil into lawful vs. chaotic.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-09, 05:50 PM
I cannot feasibly stop my coworker from eating fish. I can absolutely stop playing with somebody who tells me my character isn't allowed to be in the same party as his. Ignoring a problem like that is just putting a delay on the escalation.

Sure, if a player wants to walk that's their prerogative. But the DM isn't going to fix things, and it doesn't matter who is in the right. Very few people like hypocritical paladin players, and no one likes the team killer people. Presumably the DM has a reason for not closing down the game, such as them being friends with the players or it being a paid game. In which case they basically have to patch it over and move on.

What is never good advice is for the DM to become the group therapy leader.

Keltest
2020-09-09, 05:52 PM
Sure, if a player wants to walk that's their prerogative. But the DM isn't going to fix things, and it doesn't matter who is in the right. Very few people like hypocritical paladin players, and no one likes the team killer people. Presumably the DM has a reason for not closing down the game, such as them being friends with the players or it being a paid game. In which case they basically have to patch it over and move on.

What is never good advice is for the DM to become the group therapy leader.

Disagreements that are ignored are going to just keep recurring and accumulating until they boil over. Ignoring the issue is unhealthy for the group.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-09, 07:57 PM
On a certain level the problem here is not the killing itself; it's the taking prisoners who you intend to kill the instant that their usefulness is expired.

The simple answer is that if someone is evil enough that you are going to kill them, you kill them. You don't tie them up in the first place.* If you are tying someone up who deserves death and using their knowledge to your advantage, secure in the belief that you will kill them afterwards, you are treating them as a resource, and treating people as resources is wrong. If you are choosing to extend the life of an evil fiend purely for your own benefit, you are either deceiving them about their continued existence, which is cruel, or you're torturing them for information, which is very cruel.

Once you've killed enough people, I'm not really concerned about being sufficiently nice to you. You are right that I would treat them as a resource. Because at this point, that's the only potential good they can put back into the world: helping me stop his murdering buddies.



Is it the most efficient course of action? Probably not. Good doesn't always get to take the most efficient course of action. They're supposed to be held to higher standards than that.
I never claimed to hold lofty ideals. I'm very pragmatic. Good, to me, is just as much about trying to increase the net peace and goodness in the world. Sometimes that requires being a callous A-hole.



And to be honest, "you are a threat and threats are not worth the resources required to turn them into assets" is not a Good attitude. I wouldn't call it Evil either; it's an extremely Neutral way of looking at the world. Good people are expected to expend effort to redeem others, within reason.

The trouble there is, they aren't held to that expectation AT ALL. Otherwise the Paladin would have therapy notes instead of a Smite.

Maybe I'm very old school, but there is a definite air of "that which is evil gets put to the freakin' sword and it's feelings aren't part of the equation" to the Paladin aesthetic. I'd much rather be a Paladin who has free reign to be a bit of a bastard so long as the target is evil than one who has to tie their own hands in a way that puts more people at risk.

Let's break it down to a variant of the trolley problem:
Killing the ogre outright saves 10 lives.
Getting the information and letting him go saves 50.
Getting the information and killing him saves 70. (He'd go on to kill 20 more if let go)

I'm thinking I'm gonna take option 3, my dude.



* - There are two exceptions to this, and both of them preclude cutting someone's throat as soon as you're done with them. The first exception is that you don't know if they're evil or not. In this case, you can't kill them on suspicion and still be good. The second case is that you believe you can redeem them or offer them atonement. In this case, you can't kill them the moment that becomes inconvenient, although you could arguably execute them if redeeming them eventually proves impossible.

I already covered #1 in my post.

#2 is perfectly fine.

Granted, all this assumes that every person is entitled to equally good treatment regardless of their crimes. Which I disagree with. Having worked with the victims of a wide variety of abuse, there are certain actions which, in my opinion, make you eligible for de-personhood.

Yeah, it sure does suck you were tied up, tortured, and lied to. But it also sure did suck to be all the people you've killed, tortured, and eaten. So I'm thinking my empathy is 0 in this case.

Again, maybe in this particular regard I'm very neutral. But there's a hard line beyond which society is no longer obligated to tolerate your continued existence, nor give a crap about your feelings on the matter. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

hamishspence
2020-09-10, 12:48 AM
Let's break it down to a variant of the trolley problem:
Killing the ogre outright saves 10 lives.
Getting the information and letting him go saves 50.
Getting the information and killing him saves 70. (He'd go on to kill 20 more if let go)


Alternatively - getting the information and redeeming him saves hundreds of lives - he goes on as a hero to save hundreds of lives if redeemed.


Now, not everyone is a good candidate for redemption - but that's what the informal trial is for - to find out exactly what they've done in the past (through questioning, magical divination, mind reading, etc) and whether they were an eager villain or a reluctant one - "the nicest guy in the tribe" etc.


LG characters like formal trials. CG characters like informal trials. But Good characters in general like some kind of "does this person deserve redemption attempts or execution" investigations, rather than summary execution of captured prisoners without any trial.

"players of Good characters should be extremely wary of killing prisoners - because it is out-of-character for Good alignment"

has been an established fact of D&D since the Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D. Certainly it is the same in 3.0 to 3.5.



Execution is not inherently evil - but there are loops to jump through, to make something an execution rather than just a lynching.


And my opinion is that this was part of the reason the dwarf was carrying out the questioning session in the first place - not just to get useful information for the mission - but to find out how salvageable the ogre was. Hence the enraged reaction. They wouldn't have reacted like that if they believed the ogre had to be killed as soon as the questioning session was over, and that the paladin merely killed the ogre very slightly prematurely.

Lacco
2020-09-10, 02:25 AM
Once you've killed enough people, I'm not really concerned about being sufficiently nice to you.

Does that include 99% of adventurers then?


The trouble there is, they aren't held to that expectation AT ALL. Otherwise the Paladin would have therapy notes instead of a Smite.

They are warriors. So yeah, if they manage to turn someone good with the threat of the sword, no problem, but it's not their major task. Major task is keeping evil at bay using the sword. Or axe. Or whatever.


Maybe I'm very old school, but there is a definite air of "that which is evil gets put to the freakin' sword and it's feelings aren't part of the equation" to the Paladin aesthetic. I'd much rather be a Paladin who has free reign to be a bit of a bastard so long as the target is evil than one who has to tie their own hands in a way that puts more people at risk.

Interesting point about the "old school" approach. Were there paladins in od&d? I don't think so, but feel free to correct me.

Obviously, there is a big chasm between different peoples' expectations regarding paladins, their code and behaviour. For me, they should be held to a higher standard - trying to redeem those, who wish to be redeemed, doing good deeds to show that good is better than the alternatives, leading by examples... yes, I am very much influenced by Steve Rogers, Balian of Ibelin, King Arthur, Sturm and Bowen.

Human, but trying to be better at being Good. And Lawful.

Would I think about punishing the paladin for killing the ogre from the example? Depends on the situation.

Did the ogre surrender? Did the paladin accept the surrender? If yes, then they are in trouble - they are going against their word.

Is it practical? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. The paladin should act better.

If they just captured the ogre, and the ogre shows no remorse, no signs of repentance? No problem. Kill it.

The context is really important. Why did the dwarf want to keep the ogre? Some more torture? Then the paladin did a mercy kill - which I fully support.

Would I make a paladin fall for killing an ogre? Nope. That requires much more.


Again, maybe in this particular regard I'm very neutral. But there's a hard line beyond which society is no longer obligated to tolerate your continued existence, nor give a crap about your feelings on the matter. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Same here. Just, like, opinions.

Man.

But it's a good discussion. I especially like this forum because not often it gets too vitriolic, even though these subjects are rather touchy.

Altheus
2020-09-10, 02:25 AM
Neither player is particularly right, however, the wrongs are almost even.

The paladin erred by killing something that wasn't his to kill, the ogre was the prisoner of the dwarf. The then got an object lesson that you don't do that because...

The dwarf took legitimate retribution by also killing something that wasn't his to kill. Legitimacy in this case being "I have been wronged, now I will wrong you in turn".

The PC's are square (They may not see it like this), this is a classic eye for an eye situation.

Basically, don't mess with dwarves on matters of rights, they're vengeful little buggers.

Berenger
2020-09-10, 02:41 AM
The trouble there is, they aren't held to that expectation AT ALL. Otherwise the Paladin would have therapy notes instead of a Smite. .

Smite Evil is an important tool of the paladin class. So are Detect Evil, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Zone of Truth, Discern Lies and Mark of Justice.

Chauncymancer
2020-09-10, 02:55 AM
Hard pass on that for me:

"Are you sure you want to do that? It might be in-character for Evil characters and some Neutral characters, but not really in-character for Good ones"

is vastly superior to:

"I won't let your character do that, because a Good character wouldn't do it."


If LG characters are not entitled to police the other party members' actions, as The Giant suggests, then it is equally true that the DM is not entitled to police the PC actions to that extent.


A bit of both. It is not the DM's job to dictate to the player what the player's character is willing or unwilling to do. That's just a kind of railroading.



It might be reasonable for the DM to lay down some ground rules before the game of the "If you state outright that your character's doing this, the game is over" kind - but IMO this shouldn't be "all evil acts of any kind". DMs need to accept that they can't force the players to adhere to Exalted Good.


Depending on the game, the mechanical penalty could be "your character becomes an NPC." Certainly in my game if somebody went and, i dunno, killed all the dogs in a town or something because "its what their character would do" then they wouldnt be allowed to play that character anymore.

I think Keltest has the right of this. It seems clear to me from what they wrote that FireListener starts their campaigns with "I only want to run games for Good characters. Make a Good character, and promise to keep them Good, or please just leave." And they "dictate their player's actions" insofar as they remind them of their promise to only play Good characters, and to leave if they don't want to be Good.



Treating people as resources is the base status of any system of political or military power. Given Paladins can be the leaders of organizations, and even kings, I'd dispute that.

All Good political and military powers are fictitious for this very reason. "Treating people as a resource" is a violation of the Kantian golden rule that underwrites the Gygaxian Good-Evil axis. It's an evil act.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-10, 03:03 AM
Interesting point about the "old school" approach. Were there paladins in od&d? I don't think so, but feel free to correct me.

Paladins were introduced in an OD&D supplement back in 1975 and became a fixture of "core" rules in AD&D in 1977. Gygax himself went on the record saying that paladins (and Good characters in general) are not pacifists and that there are cases where a paladin is justified in executing prisoners of war, even after an evil-doer repents.

Why? Because in fantasy land there (occasionally) really is a God to sort them all out, so executing a repentant criminal means their soul will join the angels in a Good afterlife (etc.). As I said earlier, a paladin can very much be the judge, jury and the executioner and still be in spirit of the rules, so discussing whether the act violates the paladin's code is somewhat pointless.

hamishspence
2020-09-10, 03:35 AM
Gygax himself went on the record saying that paladins (and Good characters in general) are not pacifists and that there are cases where a paladin is justified in executing prisoners of war, even after an evil-doer repents.

Why? Because in fantasy land there (occasionally) really is a God to sort them all out, so executing a repentant criminal means their soul will join the angels in a Good afterlife (etc.).

It has been argued that Gygax was being tongue in cheek about executing repentant evildoers.


It doesn't say anything specifically about allowing execution of prisoners, but it seems to take a utilitarian "greatest good and least woe to the greatest number of decent folk" kind of approach to good. And, as noted in the linked thread, the idea of a paladin was an oath-bound one-man judge who was authorized by both society and deity.

But you have to be careful, part of that thread he's plainly joking.

But where he says about killing a recently converted person to keep them from backsliding, for example, that seemed like his dry humor at work.


Personally I think that outside of 1st ed, Gygax's opinions on prisoners don't really apply. And even in 1st ed, not every D&D author agreed with him.

I think Keltest has the right of this. It seems clear to me from what they wrote that FireListener starts their campaigns with "I only want to run games for Good characters. Make a Good character, and promise to keep them Good, or please just leave." And they "dictate their player's actions" insofar as they remind them of their promise to only play Good characters, and to leave if they don't want to be Good.

Good characters can commit the occasional Evil deed, and remain Good. Characters are not 100% consistent. DM banning a Good character from committing any evil deed - is somewhat questionable. More "railroady" than is the standard approach.



yes, I am very much influenced by Steve Rogers, Balian of Ibelin, King Arthur, Sturm and Bowen.


When you really think about it - Bowen waged a one-man genocidal war against all dragonkind, because he believes one dragon corrupted his king, he wants revenge on that dragon - and killing every other dragon he can find to get that one, is acceptable.

Quertus
2020-09-10, 05:00 AM
He used the words "If you so much as interfere with my prisoners again", so its very much not about the killing in and of itself.

Not necessarily. When someone messes up badly enough, it is often common practice to ban them from a larger area.


See I guess I'm weird because I read the words and thought "ill judge this guy based on what he literally said" rather than thinking "he's CG so I'll give him some slack and assume he didnt actually mean what he literally said".

I highly recommend watching "12 Angry Men". Also, it's relevant to your comment. :smallwink:


This thread is a demonstration that attempting to apportion blame is a terrible way to meditate an in-party conflict. Don't ask which player is in the right. Identify the disagreeable thing about the situation as a whole, and negotiate a compromise or norm to follow going forward designed to resolve the lingering issues and prevent the undesired things from happening again.

Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether the paladin's player or the dwarf's player was more of a jerk here. Assuming that OOC this wasn't like 'great roleplay scene there!' from the players, then likely both players have a reason to be dissatisfied about what happened. The paladin's player probably is unhappy about potentially being blocked from participating in that thing they were in such a rush to get to, and the dwarf's player is probably unhappy about their loss of agency and the interruption of something they considered to be their scene.

So both have reason to consider a change, because both have something to gain from that change.

On the other hand, if you start with blame then you're going to ensure that at least one of the two will resent whatever follows, and will just as likely deepen their disruptive behavior as reduce it, or will just bleed it into OOC unpleasantness.

So… I follow the school of thought that… hmmm… the first step to solving a problem is realizing that there is a problem; the second step is identifying what that problem is.

I'm a programmer. I'm not one to demonize the notion of blame. "Yup, the problem is, the motherboard is fried. I blame the fried motherboard for this problem. If you want to fix the problem, I'd recommend replacing the motherboard."

I suppose my question is, how does one efficiently address a problem, without properly assigning blame, to know what to fix?


Or, decide which player you're most dissatisfied with and boot them. Not all players are salvageable, and not all that are end up being worth the effort spent.

Most people's "problem player", my response is "I know that guy - he's fine so long as…". Therefore, I tend to view most stories of "unsalvageable players" as indicative of the faults/failure of those who were unable to salvage them.


I mean, if I felt the need to go that far I'd just boot both...

The test of salvageable/unsalvageable is going to be how the players behave during mediation, not something they did in the heat of the moment during game. Someone who sabotages or resists mediation to the extent that it becomes a deadlock is actively being a problem, whether or not there's some abstract argument that could be made that they were 'in the right' .

Although I look at it from a different angle, I think I agree that the ability to move forward productively is important to the salvageable/unsalvageable distinction.


This is all table dependent, and that post was based on this being a player-driven question rather than a character-driven question. I can only work with what the OP said, but based on what they said:

The paladin killed the ogre out of convenience*. They were trying to benefit the party, but should have asked OoC first.
The dwarf killed the paladin's horse out of spite. They were not trying to benefit the party — the dwarf (and the dwarf's player) wanted the paladin (and the paladin's player) to respect to the dwarf's ownership of the prisoner.
What the characters did — the morality of killing a captive ogre vs. an unsuspecting horse — isn't what I'm discussing. It's how the players responded to things. The paladin player's motivation was to progress the game. The dwarf player's motivation was to punish the paladin's player. I'll reiterate here that I'm sure that I'm missing some relevant details, but I'm working with what I've seen in this thread. This is not a matter of black and white. The OP didn't say specifically what his table's expectations are, but as far as my table is concerned, killing a mount/familiar/whatever is way further over the line than killing a prisoner, regardless of whether the other players agreed to the killing of the prisoner.

*: This would not fly for most paladins. Super setting-dependent, but killing a helpless enemy is frowned upon in almost all paladin codes. That's a whole thread unto itself, though.

Or the dwarf killed the horse out of convenience, to benefit the party (to teach and improve the Paladin in the most efficient manner), whereas the Paladin killed the prisoner out of spite for all the ogre's sins (not considering him a person worthy of a trial), or even out of spite for the dwarf's "actions" (not considering the dwarf a valid agent to judge or redeem the Ogre). It's not exactly cut and dry.

Actually, the hubris of "I am judge, jury, and executioner" and looking down on the dwarf as "inferior" in that regard seems very believable for a Paladin.

Berenger
2020-09-10, 06:10 AM
I'm a programmer. I'm not one to demonize the notion of blame. "Yup, the problem is, the motherboard is fried. I blame the fried motherboard for this problem. If you want to fix the problem, I'd recommend replacing the motherboard."

I suppose my question is, how does one efficiently address a problem, without properly assigning blame, to know what to fix.

Jokes aside, a motherboard is a piece of technology and incapable of guilt. You just accept that, sometimes, motherboards fry and don‘t spend time to search the wrecked computer for evidence to punish the user for neglect in cleaning the ventilation outlets and you don‘t spend resources to track down and reprimand the chinese factory worker that made the motherboard. Or maybe you do.

Lacco
2020-09-10, 06:31 AM
So… I follow the school of thought that… hmmm… the first step to solving a problem is realizing that there is a problem; the second step is identifying what that problem is.

I'm a programmer. I'm not one to demonize the notion of blame. "Yup, the problem is, the motherboard is fried. I blame the fried motherboard for this problem. If you want to fix the problem, I'd recommend replacing the motherboard."

I suppose my question is, how does one efficiently address a problem, without properly assigning blame, to know what to fix?

As a programmer, you should be already familiar that often people seek to pin the blame instead of fixing the cause of the problem.

"This program does not work properly. Quertus programmed it, it's his fault. Problem solved."

instead of

"Okay, the program does not work properly. The reason is Quertus was overworked when programming it and hunted by two separate project managers because they also needed him to do stuff, so he misplaced a semicolon. We'll fix the semicolon and the PMs need to make sure they first align the priorities amongst themselves to ensure Quertus works at peak efficiency."

Currently, the discussion is mainly about the first approach.

Identifying problems does not mean placing blame - it means looking at issues and identifying what happened, what can be done to salvage the situation and ideally - looking at the core of the issue, not just the "perpetrator". Saying the paladin was right and the dwarf not does not solve the issue at hand.

Also, as someone who deals with people - and programmers - on daily basis, people tend to forget the problem exists once the blame is correctly pinned. Still, the problem remains and often they just add more to it.

And the OP clarified he's also looking for answers how to address such things.

HappyDaze
2020-09-10, 08:27 AM
Most people's "problem player", my response is "I know that guy - he's fine so long as…". Therefore, I tend to view most stories of "unsalvageable players" as indicative of the faults/failure of those who were unable to salvage them.


It's not necessarily that they are unsalvageable, it's that what you salvage may not be worth the effort. It's like resuscitating someone that will only live on in a persistent vegetative state--DNR orders exist for a reason, and something similar could apply to many players.

Friv
2020-09-10, 09:32 AM
Paladins were introduced in an OD&D supplement back in 1975 and became a fixture of "core" rules in AD&D in 1977. Gygax himself went on the record saying that paladins (and Good characters in general) are not pacifists and that there are cases where a paladin is justified in executing prisoners of war, even after an evil-doer repents.

Gygax also went on the record saying that mercy is a trait that should be reserved only for those who trangress in error, and that Good characters are justified in committing genocide against unarmed women and children as long as they come from a nation or culture that you are currently at war with.

I don't think Gygax is a particularly good source of philosophy, is what I'm saying.

kyoryu
2020-09-10, 09:41 AM
Is it the most efficient course of action? Probably not. Good doesn't always get to take the most efficient course of action. They're supposed to be held to higher standards than that.

You could argue that "not taking the most efficient course of action" is kind of what defines Good. It's easy to be "Good" when it's also the most efficient thing. When you choose to value things like your word, the lives of others, etc., over your own convenience or gain is when you start to be "Good".

Well, to some extent Neutral would do that too. I guess maybe it's the inverse - always doing the most efficient thing for you, regardless of others, is kind of the defining feature of Evil.



Let's break it down to a variant of the trolley problem:
Killing the ogre outright saves 10 lives.
Getting the information and letting him go saves 50.
Getting the information and killing him saves 70. (He'd go on to kill 20 more if let go)

You're presuming a Utilitarian frame of morality, which is not universal.

(The point of the trolley problem isn't that there's really a right or wrong answer. The point is to clarify how individuals view morality).


I'm thinking I'm gonna take option 3, my dude.

Am I the only one that finds the phrase "my dude" super condescending and dismissive?


Alternatively - getting the information and redeeming him saves hundreds of lives - he goes on as a hero to save hundreds of lives if redeemed.

And this is pretty much the Good view of things. Always try to help everyone.


LG characters like formal trials. CG characters like informal trials. But Good characters in general like some kind of "does this person deserve redemption attempts or execution" investigations, rather than summary execution of captured prisoners without any trial.

Bingo.


And my opinion is that this was part of the reason the dwarf was carrying out the questioning session in the first place - not just to get useful information for the mission - but to find out how salvageable the ogre was. Hence the enraged reaction. They wouldn't have reacted like that if they believed the ogre had to be killed as soon as the questioning session was over, and that the paladin merely killed the ogre very slightly prematurely.

This smells likely.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-10, 09:56 AM
I don't think Gygax is a particularly good source of philosophy, is what I'm saying.

Gygax is perfectly adequate source for purposes of playing in a fantasy setting built on a wargame. :smalltongue:

Cygnia
2020-09-10, 10:00 AM
OP, what hasn't been answered -- did the IC conflict bleed out into OOC troubles? If all the players are cool with what went down, it doesn't matter. Fun apparently was had.

If there's resentment all around though, this has got to be lanced out.

Keltest
2020-09-10, 12:38 PM
Alternatively - getting the information and redeeming him saves hundreds of lives - he goes on as a hero to save hundreds of lives if redeemed.

At the cost of thousands more because the paladin was faffing around with this ogre instead of doing his job and moving against the forces attacking this town he's supposed to be protecting. Adventurers in general, and paladins in particular, are warriors. Their job is to defend the interests of Good by fighting the forces of Evil. If they happen to find somebody willing and able to be redeemed, thats great, but they arent obligated to try and redeem every evildoer who isnt actively attempting to kill them.

hamishspence
2020-09-10, 01:00 PM
At the cost of thousands more because the paladin was faffing around with this ogre instead of doing his job and moving against the forces attacking this town he's supposed to be protecting.

The original post in question, says that the ogre in this group was part of a force that had attacked a keep several days before.

And that the party's "mission is to get to the highfolk".

It did not say that "the highfolk are in extreme, immediate danger and thousands of lives will be lost if the PCs don't arrive in time".


Plus, the use of the term "assault group" makes it seem like the ogre is not a bandit, but a trooper. Even more reason for "the laws and customs of war" to apply.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-09-10, 01:07 PM
A good example. I am a bit more strict so this is how it would go at my table.

Joe: “My character kills the prisoner”
Bob: “Hey, wait a moment!!”
Me: “Okay, let's hold on a moment and talk this out. Bob, not Bob's character, clearly doesn’t want it.”
Joe: “They kill the prisoner. That’s what my character would do.”
Me: “Well then let's talk it out. With all the players. This is a cooperative game. It is okay when the characters get into conflict but let's talk out this player disagreement first”
... Later ...
Me: “Sounds like we have an understanding / consensus. Thank you for talking it out. Let's go through it now.”

I think this is probably the best solution presented. Solving ooc issues in character is rarely a good idea, and as "unfair" as the burden can seem, it's the DMs role to timeout at potential conflict so that it can be resolved.

Quertus
2020-09-10, 01:17 PM
Jokes aside, a motherboard is a piece of technology and incapable of guilt. You just accept that, sometimes, motherboards fry and don‘t spend time to search the wrecked computer for evidence to punish the user for neglect in cleaning the ventilation outlets and you don‘t spend resources to track down and reprimand the chinese factory worker that made the motherboard. Or maybe you do.

I would of I could. How else can they learn and improve, if I don't kill their horse? Wouldn't motherboards be better if we could / if workers knew every time that they were at fault for failure?


As a programmer, you should be already familiar that often people seek to pin the blame instead of fixing the cause of the problem.

"This program does not work properly. Quertus programmed it, it's his fault. Problem solved."

instead of

"Okay, the program does not work properly. The reason is Quertus was overworked when programming it and hunted by two separate project managers because they also needed him to do stuff, so he misplaced a semicolon. We'll fix the semicolon and the PMs need to make sure they first align the priorities amongst themselves to ensure Quertus works at peak efficiency."

Currently, the discussion is mainly about the first approach.

Identifying problems does not mean placing blame - it means looking at issues and identifying what happened, what can be done to salvage the situation and ideally - looking at the core of the issue, not just the "perpetrator". Saying the paladin was right and the dwarf not does not solve the issue at hand.

Also, as someone who deals with people - and programmers - on daily basis, people tend to forget the problem exists once the blame is correctly pinned. Still, the problem remains and often they just add more to it.

And the OP clarified he's also looking for answers how to address such things.

I guess I don't tolerate people / behaviors like that, that stop at "blame" without care for "solution". So, it's not something that's really survived contact with me in the workplace. (Granted, because my player clearly believed in tanking my Charisma, my inquiry of "How can you be this dumb?" was not received in its intended spirit. :smallfrown:)

For the OP… questions of the "why?" category seem apt.

NichG
2020-09-10, 01:19 PM
So… I follow the school of thought that… hmmm… the first step to solving a problem is realizing that there is a problem; the second step is identifying what that problem is.

I'm a programmer. I'm not one to demonize the notion of blame. "Yup, the problem is, the motherboard is fried. I blame the fried motherboard for this problem. If you want to fix the problem, I'd recommend replacing the motherboard."

I suppose my question is, how does one efficiently address a problem, without properly assigning blame, to know what to fix?


Identifying and understanding the reasons for the problem is different than rendering judgement as to who was more to blame.

It's a connotation thing. If you're talking about a computer, generally the word 'blame' isn't going to have connotations of e.g. reward and punishment, justice, disciplinary action, etc. If you're talking about people, it gains additional social connotations that don't exist in the other usage of the word, and those are very important when it comes to the attitude someone is going to bring to an attempt at resolution.

Blame is a sort of one-way adjudication. In as much as it ever 'works', it relies on a clear hierarchy, and couching things in terms of blame projects the image of trying to establish or reinforce that hierarchy. That is, you can only get away with telling someone 'you did bad, change or else' if they basically have no real leverage in the situation. No one in that situation is thinking 'the other guy did right, I did wrong' and waiting to be told so they can fess up. Both will feel justified, and both will probably feel discontent as well - like 'I did what I felt like I should do in that situation, but I also don't like that this situation exists'. If you say 'I and a bunch of people online decided that you are wrong' they're likely to dig their heels in and just be more determined about their position. They might back down in public in which case they may well be sullen going forward, look for passive aggressive ways to screw over the other player or even 'punish the GM back' in order to not feel like they let themselves be pushed around, etc. Basically a mess.

So instead, if you focus on the part of the reaction where both players are unhappy with what happened, you can often use that to motivate the players to make concessions of their own will.

Of course, if one or both players actively like making people at the table uncomfortable and is thrilled that they had an excuse to be a jerk to everyone and wants even more of that, then I might buy the 'unsalvageable' line. But that's not how the situation reads to me.

Friv
2020-09-10, 04:29 PM
Gygax is perfectly adequate source for purposes of playing in a fantasy setting built on a wargame. :smalltongue:

Dude actively defended real-world genocides to explain why it's okay to kill orcs. He's not a moral authority on anything.

*edit* On re-reading, I think the tone of my post came off as hostile to you, rather than hostile to Gygax, and I apologize if it did so in your eyes as well. I realize that you're just making a tongue-in-cheek comment about the depth of morality in D&D, and I don't mean to snap.

I do, however, feel very strongly that Gary Gygax's vision of Good vs Evil is itself pretty Evil, philisophically speaking, and it creates a world in which Good and Evil are mostly just team jerseys that you wear rather than an actual ideological belief. It's more of a Hackmaster parody than anything else, and I really do think that D&D has moved beyond it.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-10, 11:15 PM
@Friv: And I can understand why someone would find Gygax's stance distasteful - I just find criticisms coming from that angle fundamentally flawed. Morality in fantasy games is arbitrary, you can take anyone as a moral authority when it comes to setting up a game scenario, regardless of what you'd think of those morals if applied to real life. Real life agreeability is not necessary or even necessarily good selection criteria for game morality.

D&D's own history is a case-in-point. I agree D&D's alignment has moved past Gygax, but it didn't move forward. It is a matter of historical fact that post-Gygax D&D became more black-and-white in attempt to pander to literal angry moms, as admitted verbatim in articles from that era. This actually helped bolster the culture of arguing about what is or isn't in-game Evil; in Gygaxian alignment system, if your character's morals disagree with the world's they might not be Good, but it doesn't restrict your participation in the game. Post-Gygax, PCs are supposed to be Good and Heroic and playing Evil characters is special and generally shouldn't be done, so now you have vested interest in arguing so you can keep playing.

That a lot lf hobbyists internalized the idea that Evil characters are naughty-naughty and that Good has to adhere to what keeps mom happy, didn't make the world a better place. If the choice is between team jerseys and corporate moralism, I'll take the jerseys. :smalltongue:

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-11, 06:33 AM
The original post in question, says that the ogre in this group was part of a force that had attacked a keep several days before.

And that the party's "mission is to get to the highfolk".

It did not say that "the highfolk are in extreme, immediate danger and thousands of lives will be lost if the PCs don't arrive in time".


Plus, the use of the term "assault group" makes it seem like the ogre is not a bandit, but a trooper. Even more reason for "the laws and customs of war" to apply.

I hate to break it to you, but the Geneva Convention doesn't exist in D&D. So taking this weird "it's a war crime" angle is confusing to me.

The spell Heat Metal is a war crime.
Pretty much any spell involving poison damage is a war crime.
A whole boatload of what adventurers do in a standard encounter falls very comfortably into the "war crimes" category.

I'm certain if I took the time I could find several Paladin spells that would violate the geneva convention. Such as Mark of Justice, where you pretty much affix someone with a magical shock collar that maims them whenever they think naughty thoughts. I'm pretty sure the UN would frown upon such.

---

As for the myriad of responses to my thoughts and RE: Gygax...

I have been very forward that my approach is pragmatic. And I'll be forward that I'm very much a utilitarian. I find in my life experience that while idealism sounds real nice, a utilitarian approach gets results and often does a better job than the idealistic approach at increasing general happiness. I also believe that given what human nature is like, humans living in a utopia would burn it down after a week because they got bored. So that informs my expectations of behavior a lot.

Regarding Gygax and his comments,
I (and by extension everyone else else) am luckily under no obligation to give any heed to any designer's personal morality to inform my gameplay, and I'm free to disregard them entirely. Which is pretty neat. So I don't particularly care about how Gygax feels about morality, nor any of the other interpretations by later designers. Until WotC starts sending Morality Police to my house to enforce their vision, I will continue to not care what they think.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, one dude took offense at me using the phrase "my dude." I understand that not everyone keeps up with internet culture, but the phrase is not designed to be dismissive nor condescending. I can't stop you from interpreting it how you like, but the phrase is growing in the common parlance due to a meme. It's meant to be casual and perhaps a bit flippant and silly, but not dismissive. Please go to YouTube and search "it is Wednesday my dudes" for the level of seriousness behind the phrase.

TL;DR
Chillax, my dude.

Quertus
2020-09-11, 06:37 AM
Identifying and understanding the reasons for the problem is different than rendering judgement as to who was more to blame.

It's a connotation thing. If you're talking about a computer, generally the word 'blame' isn't going to have connotations of e.g. reward and punishment, justice, disciplinary action, etc. If you're talking about people, it gains additional social connotations that don't exist in the other usage of the word, and those are very important when it comes to the attitude someone is going to bring to an attempt at resolution.

Blame is a sort of one-way adjudication. In as much as it ever 'works', it relies on a clear hierarchy, and couching things in terms of blame projects the image of trying to establish or reinforce that hierarchy. That is, you can only get away with telling someone 'you did bad, change or else' if they basically have no real leverage in the situation. No one in that situation is thinking 'the other guy did right, I did wrong' and waiting to be told so they can fess up. Both will feel justified, and both will probably feel discontent as well - like 'I did what I felt like I should do in that situation, but I also don't like that this situation exists'. If you say 'I and a bunch of people online decided that you are wrong' they're likely to dig their heels in and just be more determined about their position. They might back down in public in which case they may well be sullen going forward, look for passive aggressive ways to screw over the other player or even 'punish the GM back' in order to not feel like they let themselves be pushed around, etc. Basically a mess.

So instead, if you focus on the part of the reaction where both players are unhappy with what happened, you can often use that to motivate the players to make concessions of their own will.

Of course, if one or both players actively like making people at the table uncomfortable and is thrilled that they had an excuse to be a jerk to everyone and wants even more of that, then I might buy the 'unsalvageable' line. But that's not how the situation reads to me.

"What you did broke the social contract. Here is the contract, here is what you did, here is how that breaks that."

This sounds like blame to me, and it sounds productive to me.

Thus, my initial analysis was "*if* there is a 'no PvP' rule, then *both* players broke that rule, thus the behavior of both was unacceptable".

I never said anything about one or the other being *more* to blame, simply that, *if* there was a problem, *both* were to blame.

Am I misusing the concept of blame? Am I making statements you believe would be unproductive or toxic? What am I missing here?

(EDIT: and kudos to those who have pointed out to add "the GM" to the blame list. Certainly, the culture that they have built, and how they responded to this incident as it was unfolding could put them at fault, as well. I, personally, just couldn't see enough in the details from the story to make that call, but it's definitely something that needs to mentioned.)

NichG
2020-09-11, 07:08 AM
"What you did broke the social contract. Here is the contract, here is what you did, here is how that breaks that."

This sounds like blame to me, and it sounds productive to me.

Thus, my initial analysis was "*if* there is a 'no PvP' rule, then *both* players broke that rule, thus the behavior of both was unacceptable".

I never said anything about one or the other being *more* to blame, simply that, *if* there was a problem, *both* were to blame.

Am I misusing the concept of blame? Am I making statements you believe would be unproductive or toxic? What am I missing here?

(EDIT: and kudos to those who have pointed out to add "the GM" to the blame list. Certainly, the culture that they have built, and how they responded to this incident as it was unfolding could put them at fault, as well. I, personally, just couldn't see enough in the details from the story to make that call, but it's definitely something that needs to mentioned.)

I'd approach it differently. 'You transgressed, now let me explain it to you' doesn't work if the person you're talking to doesn't have the kind of relationship with you where you're an established authority figure over them. So if someone is already defensive, they'll say e.g. 'you're just taking his side!' or 'why should I listen to you, I was in the right!' or so on. Look at people in this thread getting pushed to make argumentation defending Geneva convention violations in response to criticisms against the way that they themselves like to play Good-aligned characters. If you try to push norms without buy-in, they're going to entrench.

So instead I'd ask 'Okay, do we agree that what happened sucked? Are either of you actually happy with this outcome?'. I'm asking that expecting 'yes that sucked, no we're not happy' - if one both say 'that was fine' then no problem, move on with life; if one says 'that was good RP' and the other says 'that sucked' then it's going to be a much more difficult mediation. But lets assume for now that both say 'I don't like what happened'.

Then I can ask 'Okay, first of all what do you think we should do so that it doesn't happen again?', and I'd shut down things that are clearly of the form of 'let me do stuff to the other guy but they're not allowed to retaliate', and try to see what they actually want. Do we retcon things like that when they happen, but otherwise have people just bull ahead? Do we implement an OOC 'stop, I'm not okay with this direction' kind of policy at the table? Do we let actions like that go, but say that PvP is explicitly allowed if it gets to that stage? Focus on table procedure, not 'laws' with penalties for breaking them: e.g. 'in the future if this happens, here is how we will resolve it or prevent it' not 'if you break this, you're at fault and you'll be the one in trouble, don't break it'.

After deciding how to go forward, I'd then focus on whether anything needs to be done in this particular case to mend the immediate damage. But I want to reserve that discussion for after the agreement about procedure because it's more likely to get people to dig in their heels and it tends to make the focus narrow rather than broad and system-level. If they're fine with things as long as the table policy is in operation going forward, fine. Otherwise I'd offer to retcon the events. If for whatever reason that gets rejected, and there's no compromise from the players themselves, then I'd suggest that both players bring in fresh characters at that point. Hopefully that'd be extreme enough they'd be motivated towards a compromise instead. But I'd make it clear that any kind of compromise isn't going to be of the form of 'force the one or the other player to suck it up' or something like that, and I'd shut down any lines of discussion as to which one did the worse act or which one was individually responsible - focusing on 'this is the situation, it's unsatisfying to both of you, I'll only change it to something that is satisfying to both of you or not change it'.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 08:25 AM
I hate to break it to you, but the Geneva Convention doesn't exist in D&D. So taking this weird "it's a war crime" angle is confusing to me.


It's based on the whole "Bandits and outlaws have forfeited any protections" attitude.

Ogres don't have legal rights, therefore they cannot be murdered.

The same is true, by definition, of bandits, and all other outlaws. That's what "outlaw" means.

This ogre was part of a group of raiders that attacked a keep under the PCs protection. Unless this is some unusual setting where ogres are citizens of some actual nation (instead of a collection of murderous tribes), with real citizen's rights, it's not murder.

Once you've killed enough people, I'm not really concerned about being sufficiently nice to you.
...
Maybe I'm very old school, but there is a definite air of "that which is evil gets put to the freakin' sword and it's feelings aren't part of the equation" to the Paladin aesthetic. I'd much rather be a Paladin who has free reign to be a bit of a bastard so long as the target is evil than one who has to tie their own hands in a way that puts more people at risk.
...
Again, maybe in this particular regard I'm very neutral. But there's a hard line beyond which society is no longer obligated to tolerate your continued existence, nor give a crap about your feelings on the matter. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.



I was pointing out that these may not qualify as bandits, even if you accept that principle.



Personally, I think "you must be a citizen of a nation, to have any rights" is a bad idea though. As is ruling out all rights to "monsters that live in tribes".

Even Tolkien, whose orcs are almost as irredeemable as monsters get, had a concept of Orcs having rights, which the other peoples must heed:


... the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. This is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 08:42 AM
It's based on the whole "Bandits and outlaws have forfeited any protections" attitude.





I was pointing out that these may not qualify as bandits, even if you accept that principle.



Personally, I think "you must be a citizen of a nation, to have any rights" is a bad idea though. As is ruling out all rights to "monsters that live in tribes".

Even Tolkien, whose orcs are almost as irredeemable as monsters get, had a concept of Orcs having rights, which the other peoples must heed:

I dont think anybody is arguing that the torture was appropriate though.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 08:51 AM
I dont think anybody is arguing that the torture was appropriate though.
That's usually the next step in "Monsters don't have rights" - that "the needs of innocents" justify torturing monsters for information - and not just suspending them upside down, but all kinds of real horrors.


As you pointed out:

frankly i think im willing to dismiss that as "the players didnt really comprehend that it was torture."

the players might not be aware that their characters' actions qualify as torture. Plus:



Best case for the Dwarf - the interrogation of the ogre was non-painful and merely to disorient the creature and the information was extracted via promises of safety and release and then when they were about to release the captive the paladin kills them from, killing of the horse and threat to the paladin was an act of rage and grief.

It's the difference between High Altitude Interrogation (as a subset of the Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique), and Cold Blooded Torture:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighAltitudeInterrogation
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackBauerInterrogationTechnique


https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColdBloodedTorture

The first two are reasonable for darkly-shaded heroes, antiheroes, etc.

The last is more a Villain thing.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-11, 09:02 AM
I'd approach it differently. 'You transgressed, now let me explain it to you' doesn't work if the person you're talking to doesn't have the kind of relationship with you where you're an established authority figure over them. So if someone is already defensive, they'll say e.g. 'you're just taking his side!' or 'why should I listen to you, I was in the right!' or so on. Look at people in this thread getting pushed to make argumentation defending Geneva convention violations in response to criticisms against the way that they themselves like to play Good-aligned characters. If you try to push norms without buy-in, they're going to entrench.

I spotted this dig.

You'll please note that I don't condone the violation of the Geneva Convention or the committing of war crimes IN REAL LIFE, because that would be an unreasonable stance entirely.

But given that we're talking about Imaginary Elf Games which give you the option to COOK PEOPLE ALIVE IN THEIR ARMOR a few times per day with nothing noting that this is going to definitely shift your alignment, and given that impaling people with spears (generally frowned upon in the modern era) is a standard part of combat, and given that LITERAL MIND CONTROL is fairly common, and given that Burning Hands is basically a flamethrower, that using poison is commonplace, spells that are the equivent of gassing your opponents exist (cloud kill) and are commonplace and nobody bats an eye at them, that 5e has the spell Blade Barrier which essentially allows you TO LITERALLY PUT YOUR OPPONENT IN A COMBINATION BLENDER/WOODCHIPPER, throwing ACID on someone is a CANTRIP, there is now a spell that INSTANTLY DEHYDRATES PEOPLE AROUND YOU BY SUCKING THE WATER OUT OF THEIR BODIES, and a spell called Immolate, which just sets someone on fire, straight up, and they sit there and burn alive (essentially burning them at the stake minus the rope), granted that all these things are things in D&D....

It's a bit hard to take "killing a tied up ogre is a war crime" seriously. Half the spells in the game are either warcrimes or thoroughly and unnecessarily cruel ways to kill people. Yet we're gonna sit here and pooh pooh a Paladin?

Unless you're ready to bust out your war crimes accusations whenever someone casts Burning Hands, Immolate, Acid Splash, Cloudkill, Dominate Person, suggestion, or Blade Barrier... and for that matter consider "dinging" people on their alignment whenever they cast any of the spells that aren't technically war crimes but are still really brutal ways to kill someone, maybe don't argue from this position, because it's *ridiculous.*

EDIT: lemme address this while I'm here:


It's based on the whole "Bandits and outlaws have forfeited any protections" attitude.

I didn't say bandits and outlaws. Anybody who is harming innocent people on a regular basis is going to have minimal empathy from me as to their plights. If Timmy the Mass Murderer gets chucked off a cliff I'm not gonna accuse the chucker of being immoral. I'm gonna buy him a drink and tell him "good job."

Timmy the Soldier Who Likes Shooting Innocent Women and Children is functionally identical to Timmy the Mass Murderer and the same rules apply.

I'm not in favor of vigilantism in real life, mind. As a general system it is prone to many, many flaws. My PREFERENCE is for law and order to reign, IN REAL LIFE.

In my imaginary elf games, I'm not a stickler about it because it's IMAGINARY ELF GAMES.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 09:35 AM
Anybody who is harming innocent people on a regular basis is going to have minimal empathy from me as to their plights. If Timmy the Mass Murderer gets chucked off a cliff I'm not gonna accuse the chucker of being immoral. I'm gonna buy him a drink and tell him "good job."

Timmy the Soldier Who Likes Shooting Innocent Women and Children is functionally identical to Timmy the Mass Murderer and the same rules apply.
And based on the original Gygax thread, all we know for certain that this particular ogre is guilty of, is


"being part of an assault group that attacked a keep"


Anything else - them being a cannibal, a rapist, or (gasp!) a hillbilly!


Ogres are backwoods hillbilly sexual predators who eat people


is conjecture.


That's what an "informal trial" would be for in the first place, even if it only consists of heavy use of Charm spells and Diplomacy, and Sense Motive - finding out if this particular ogre "needs killing".

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-11, 10:45 AM
And based on the original Gygax thread, all we know for certain that this particular ogre is guilty of, is


"being part of an assault group that attacked a keep"


Anything else - them being a cannibal, a rapist, or (gasp!) a hillbilly!




is conjecture.

As a hillbilly myself I take exception to the comment.

Nevertheless, the idea that he has been perfectly innocent aside from being an enemy combatant is also conjecture (and less supported in system context and requires a bigger assumption) meaning the entire thing is a conjecture fight, and the War Crimes argument (for reasons stated above) is still specious at best given the context of the system.

Given larger system context, it is MORE LIKELY that the Ogre is actively malicious in the day to day than that he's a former accountant from Ogruebec who joined the army and is just serving the Ogranadian interest in this combat maneuver. (Which is to say, a perfectly reasonable guy except for wearing the Blue Team Jersey.)

Both positions might be conjecture, but one has general contextual support. It's POSSIBLE that he's just a guy who is an ogre. But in the larger context of system expectations, the assumption that the ogre is as described in the MM is reasonable and appropriate. Otherwise, I can just as well argue that the DM hasn't specifically stated that the Paladin is LG and alignment is in play, therefore that's also conjecture. But that would be SUPER UNREASONABLE, because unless we get information otherwise, we should assume basic system expectations are in play.

Part of basic system expectations is that ogres are murderous and cannibalistic. So... not sure where it's suddenly unreasonable to go with that basic assumption due to lack of information contrary to the basic assumption.

You might not like that this is the basic system assumption, but that's something to take up with WotC, not me.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:00 AM
Part of basic system expectations is that ogres are murderous and cannibalistic.

Usually CE means only that "more than 50% of Ogres are CE".

"The average ogre is CE" does not mean that it's right to treat every ogre as CE unless they've proven otherwise.

Especially if "treat as CE" means "execute them on sight".



"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.




He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 11:05 AM
Usually CE means only that "more than 50% of Ogres are CE".

"The average ogre is CE" does not mean that it's right to treat every ogre as CE unless they've proven otherwise.

Especially if "treat as CE" means "execute them on sight".



"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.

Presumably the Ogres who arent some flavor of evil dont go around doing things like attacking travelers and eating them, and are therefore substantially less likely to encounter adventurers in the first place.

Democratus
2020-09-11, 11:07 AM
"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.

I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:07 AM
Presumably the Ogres who arent some flavor of evil dont go around doing things like attacking travelers and eating them, and are therefore substantially less likely to encounter adventurers in the first place.

Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.



It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

When Gygax was writing, maybe. In a world with a reasonable proportion of ogres and goblins that don't deserve to be attacked, this kind of character is inappropriate as a paladin - they'd be better as a LE blackguard who thinks they're still a paladin.

"Genocidal vows" and "good" from 3.0 onwards, are fundamentally incompatible.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 11:12 AM
Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.

Not remotely true, except in parodies. They almost never just wander aimlessly through the wilderness waiting for adventure to happen. Adventurers have goals and objectives, even if its something as abstract as "find treasure". There simply isnt anything in a non-malevolent ogre's lair that would interest adventurers.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:13 AM
Not remotely true, except in parodies. They almost never just wander aimlessly through the wilderness waiting for adventure to happen. Adventurers have goals and objectives, even if its something as abstract as "find treasure". There simply isnt anything in a non-malevolent ogre's lair that would interest adventurers.
Murderhobo adventurers wouldn't be going into the "nonevil ogre's lair" - they'd be bumping into them while they're in the wilderness, hunting, and kill them, because "they're an ogre".

"Crossing the wilderness on the way to something important" is standard fare for adventurers in general.

And if you believe The Giant, the kind of thing he objects to, happens nine times out of ten:



The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 11:20 AM
Murderhobo adventurers wouldn't be going into the "nonevil ogre's lair" - they'd be bumping into them while they're in the wilderness, hunting, and kill them, because "they're an ogre".

"Crossing the wilderness on the way to something important" is standard fare for adventurers in general.

From a watsonian perspective, the odds of that are incredibly minimal. Its a big world, so running into any individual of a given species is exceptionally unlikely. From a doyalist perspective, if a DM is having the party run into a non-evil Ogre just out and on its business as a random encounter, and the party doesnt expect non-combat encounters, thats not the party being murderhobos, thats the DM badly mismanaging expectations.

Also, why would adventurers attack a random ogre if they have somewhere else to be? It presumably has no obvious treasure, and if they kill it they cant even track down its lair to see if it has a hoard or anything. Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:22 AM
Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.

There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 11:24 AM
There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

From a lone ogre out minding its business? Thats barely worth the time it takes to deal with even if they are low enough level that they get meaningful XP from ogres.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:26 AM
I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

Democratus
2020-09-11, 11:27 AM
Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.


When Gygax was writing, maybe. In a world with a reasonable proportion of ogres and goblins that don't deserve to be attacked, this kind of character is inappropriate as a paladin - they'd be better as a LE blackguard who thinks they're still a paladin.

"Genocidal vows" and "good" from 3.0 onwards, are fundamentally incompatible.

Not at all. Your table may run one way. But that doesn't make it a "fundamental" truth.

The idiom of the shining knight slaying monstrosities to make civilization safe is far older than Gygax, and is still relevant in storytelling today.

Keltest
2020-09-11, 11:32 AM
I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

Youre kind of using your premise to defend itself at this point. If you dont start with the assumption that adventurers are XP-hungry murder machines with no greater goal than the maximum amount of combat per game session, the behavior youre describing looks nonsensical. Youve made a caricature of an adventuring group to make your point here.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 11:34 AM
Not at all. Your table may run one way. But that doesn't make it a "fundamental" truth.

The idiom of the shining knight slaying monstrosities to make civilization safe is far older than Gygax, and is still relevant in storytelling today.
With always Evil creatures, maybe. Not Usually evil creatures. Especially not Often evil creatures.

A character who swears a vow to kill all orcs (or ogres), is no paladin by 3.0 to 3.5 standards. Paladins in those editions can't commit Evil acts without Falling, and genocide is evil (BoVD).

Friv
2020-09-11, 12:50 PM
I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

The average player of a murderhobo is neither a Paladin nor Lawful Good, nor would they want to be, since being Good only slows down their XP gain.

hamishspence
2020-09-11, 01:04 PM
The average player of a murderhobo is neither a Paladin nor Lawful Good, nor would they want to be, since being Good only slows down their XP gain.

Fair enough.

Though sometimes it seems like a lot of murderhobo players see the Paladin as a way to be both Murderhobo and Good - just using Detect Evil to identify "sources of XP gain I can target without upsetting the DM".

Friv
2020-09-11, 02:08 PM
Fair enough.

Though sometimes it seems like a lot of murderhobo players see the Paladin as a way to be both Murderhobo and Good - just using Detect Evil to identify "sources of XP gain I can target without upsetting the DM".

Heh, also fair.

If, as a GM, I had a party going that far-in on their goal to get the most XP and do the most killings, it would be time to just excise anything with a moral dimension and call it a day. Dire monsters, abberations, murder-cultists who die rather than talk, undead, demons... there's a lot of things I could introduce that PCs would never want to or have to (or be able to) capture alive, and then you've solved the problem of what to do with defeated enemies pretty cleanly.

denthor
2020-09-11, 02:12 PM
I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

In 2e AD&D a paladin could not strike first. The other side had to attempt to hurt the the Paladin could act.

NichG
2020-09-11, 02:28 PM
I spotted this dig.

You'll please note that I don't condone the violation of the Geneva Convention or the committing of war crimes IN REAL LIFE, because that would be an unreasonable stance entirely.

But given that we're talking about Imaginary Elf Games which give you the option to COOK PEOPLE ALIVE IN THEIR ARMOR a few times per day with nothing noting that this is going to definitely shift your alignment, and given that impaling people with spears (generally frowned upon in the modern era) is a standard part of combat, and given that LITERAL MIND CONTROL is fairly common, and given that Burning Hands is basically a flamethrower, that using poison is commonplace, spells that are the equivent of gassing your opponents exist (cloud kill) and are commonplace and nobody bats an eye at them, that 5e has the spell Blade Barrier which essentially allows you TO LITERALLY PUT YOUR OPPONENT IN A COMBINATION BLENDER/WOODCHIPPER, throwing ACID on someone is a CANTRIP, there is now a spell that INSTANTLY DEHYDRATES PEOPLE AROUND YOU BY SUCKING THE WATER OUT OF THEIR BODIES, and a spell called Immolate, which just sets someone on fire, straight up, and they sit there and burn alive (essentially burning them at the stake minus the rope), granted that all these things are things in D&D....

It's a bit hard to take "killing a tied up ogre is a war crime" seriously. Half the spells in the game are either warcrimes or thoroughly and unnecessarily cruel ways to kill people. Yet we're gonna sit here and pooh pooh a Paladin?

Unless you're ready to bust out your war crimes accusations whenever someone casts Burning Hands, Immolate, Acid Splash, Cloudkill, Dominate Person, suggestion, or Blade Barrier... and for that matter consider "dinging" people on their alignment whenever they cast any of the spells that aren't technically war crimes but are still really brutal ways to kill someone, maybe don't argue from this position, because it's *ridiculous.*


I actually don't care what you get up to in D&D since as you point out, none of it is real.

But, you did make some arguments that don't actually stop at the border of 'elf games':



I'm much more practical than these lofty ideals. Part of the moral weight once you're a cannibalistic milti-murderer is your cost to the society you're cannibalistically murdering. If your cost is too high, you gotta go. Sorry. I'm under no obligation to keep an enduring threat around just because it's currently tied up.




Granted, all this assumes that every person is entitled to equally good treatment regardless of their crimes. Which I disagree with. Having worked with the victims of a wide variety of abuse, there are certain actions which, in my opinion, make you eligible for de-personhood.

Yeah, it sure does suck you were tied up, tortured, and lied to. But it also sure did suck to be all the people you've killed, tortured, and eaten. So I'm thinking my empathy is 0 in this case.

Again, maybe in this particular regard I'm very neutral. But there's a hard line beyond which society is no longer obligated to tolerate your continued existence, nor give a crap about your feelings on the matter. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.


It's not intended as a dig at you, more a point that it's unproductive to push players to the point where they start to make arguments that bleed over into real-life stances.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-11, 03:11 PM
There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

See below:


Youre kind of using your premise to defend itself at this point. If you dont start with the assumption that adventurers are XP-hungry murder machines with no greater goal than the maximum amount of combat per game session, the behavior youre describing looks nonsensical. Youve made a caricature of an adventuring group to make your point here.

Thanks for beating me to this point.

At this point it seems the position has lost a lot of its footing.

If there's a greater than 50/50 chance the ogre is evil, and it's going and picking fights with other civilizations, (fortified positions have a longstanding record of being unable to go bother someone by virtue of being immobile) and just got into a fight with some adventurers who are presumably good guys trying to fight badguys, and most DMs don't bother with the whole "oh ho ho, but THIS ONE OGRE is actually a GOOD GUY" thing, I think the idea that this ogre actually being a good person deep down is so probable that we're just as likely to be committing a great moral wrong as we are to be deleting Bad Guy #435 from the DM's notes, is STILL an unreasonable notion.

That the point in general has to be supported by the ADDITIONAL CONJECTURE that this party (and most parties) are "murderhobos" is ridiculous.

Yes. D&D often relies on "killin' orcs cuz orcs is evil." Do you know WHY?
Because D&D is about heroes doing violence to bad guys.
Always has been, hopefully always will be. And frankly, not everyone wants it to be that complicated. Which is totally fine, by me.

Quertus
2020-09-11, 09:38 PM
I'd approach it differently. 'You transgressed, now let me explain it to you' doesn't work if the person you're talking to doesn't have the kind of relationship with you where you're an established authority figure over them. So if someone is already defensive, they'll say e.g. 'you're just taking his side!' or 'why should I listen to you, I was in the right!' or so on. Look at people in this thread getting pushed to make argumentation defending Geneva convention violations in response to criticisms against the way that they themselves like to play Good-aligned characters. If you try to push norms without buy-in, they're going to entrench.

So instead I'd ask 'Okay, do we agree that what happened sucked? Are either of you actually happy with this outcome?'. I'm asking that expecting 'yes that sucked, no we're not happy' - if one both say 'that was fine' then no problem, move on with life; if one says 'that was good RP' and the other says 'that sucked' then it's going to be a much more difficult mediation. But lets assume for now that both say 'I don't like what happened'.

Then I can ask 'Okay, first of all what do you think we should do so that it doesn't happen again?', and I'd shut down things that are clearly of the form of 'let me do stuff to the other guy but they're not allowed to retaliate', and try to see what they actually want. Do we retcon things like that when they happen, but otherwise have people just bull ahead? Do we implement an OOC 'stop, I'm not okay with this direction' kind of policy at the table? Do we let actions like that go, but say that PvP is explicitly allowed if it gets to that stage? Focus on table procedure, not 'laws' with penalties for breaking them: e.g. 'in the future if this happens, here is how we will resolve it or prevent it' not 'if you break this, you're at fault and you'll be the one in trouble, don't break it'.

After deciding how to go forward, I'd then focus on whether anything needs to be done in this particular case to mend the immediate damage. But I want to reserve that discussion for after the agreement about procedure because it's more likely to get people to dig in their heels and it tends to make the focus narrow rather than broad and system-level. If they're fine with things as long as the table policy is in operation going forward, fine. Otherwise I'd offer to retcon the events. If for whatever reason that gets rejected, and there's no compromise from the players themselves, then I'd suggest that both players bring in fresh characters at that point. Hopefully that'd be extreme enough they'd be motivated towards a compromise instead. But I'd make it clear that any kind of compromise isn't going to be of the form of 'force the one or the other player to suck it up' or something like that, and I'd shut down any lines of discussion as to which one did the worse act or which one was individually responsible - focusing on 'this is the situation, it's unsatisfying to both of you, I'll only change it to something that is satisfying to both of you or not change it'.

Ah. We're coming at this from different assumptions.

I'm starting with "there is an established social contract", and "they've already agreed that there is a problem".

If everyone is happy, then… this isn't a conversation we should be having. And if we haven't verified that people are unhappy, this conversation is jumping the gun. (So, we're in complete agreement here afaict).

If there *isn't* an established social contract, then, yes, it's a bit muddier waters, and I can see going more the route you described.

Still, I view "(your action of) killing the prisoner / my horse is (seemingly) the cause of my dissatisfaction with the game, because <reasons>” and "well, I could see my character doing <other thing>" or "maybe we could have <event> happen" or "can we retcon <established fact>?” to be very efficient, productive dialog.

Granted, that's… small picture, rather than big picture "what kind of game / social contract do we want".

Have I been lucky to *usually* have such discussions with people who can talk things out that way? Have I been foolish in encouraging this method of direct conflict / problem resolution?

And, of course, have I completely misunderstood part or all of your intended message?



On second read through, I really like the underlined bit. Recognizing that we have a problem - one for which we do not have defined resolution mechanics - and setting out to build the tools to resolve such issues in the future.

I guess I have a combination of… "prefer to create the tools before the game begins" and "if those tools fail, solve the specific problem before or at the same time as creating the general solution". That is, maybe, for example, we retcon *this*, as the best answer to *this*, *then* decide that isn't a good general solution for us, and discuss the general solution.

Then again, I tend to find, "has no interest in trying to help resolve the unhappiness of a fellow player (let alone when it's 'their fault')" to be a strong indicator of someone I don't want to game with, so… it may bias my opinion on the effectiveness of certain strategies.

So, again, anything where I'm completely off base?

NichG
2020-09-11, 10:18 PM
Ah. We're coming at this from different assumptions.

I'm starting with "there is an established social contract", and "they've already agreed that there is a problem".

If everyone is happy, then… this isn't a conversation we should be having. And if we haven't verified that people are unhappy, this conversation is jumping the gun. (So, we're in complete agreement here afaict).

If there *isn't* an established social contract, then, yes, it's a bit muddier waters, and I can see going more the route you described.

Still, I view "(your action of) killing the prisoner / my horse is (seemingly) the cause of my dissatisfaction with the game, because <reasons>” and "well, I could see my character doing <other thing>" or "maybe we could have <event> happen" or "can we retcon <established fact>?” to be very efficient, productive dialog.

Granted, that's… small picture, rather than big picture "what kind of game / social contract do we want".

Have I been lucky to *usually* have such discussions with people who can talk things out that way? Have I been foolish in encouraging this method of direct conflict / problem resolution?

And, of course, have I completely misunderstood part or all of your intended message?



On second read through, I really like the underlined bit. Recognizing that we have a problem - one for which we do not have defined resolution mechanics - and setting out to build the tools to resolve such issues in the future.

I guess I have a combination of… "prefer to create the tools before the game begins" and "if those tools fail, solve the specific problem before or at the same time as creating the general solution". That is, maybe, for example, we retcon *this*, as the best answer to *this*, *then* decide that isn't a good general solution for us, and discuss the general solution.

Then again, I tend to find, "has no interest in trying to help resolve the unhappiness of a fellow player (let alone when it's 'their fault')" to be a strong indicator of someone I don't want to game with, so… it may bias my opinion on the effectiveness of certain strategies.

So, again, anything where I'm completely off base?

No, I think that's basically in accordance with my position here.

Quertus
2020-09-12, 07:23 AM
No, I think that's basically in accordance with my position here.

Cool, thanks for explaining.


Also, why would adventurers attack a random ogre if they have somewhere else to be? It presumably has no obvious treasure, and if they kill it they cant even track down its lair to see if it has a hoard or anything. Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.


There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.


I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

Murdering a pile of XP for the XP is suboptimal. Optimal play is to maximize your wealth to XP ratio, to maximize the XP gain per unit of threat. Real hardcore optimizers love negative levels.

So a *real* Determinator would either ignore the Ogre, capture it and sell it into slavery, or capture whole breeding groups to sell their offspring into slavery in perpetuity. Or, if murdering it was unavoidable, sell the meat (using "Craft: meat pie" to increase the value) and animate the bones.

Mutazoia
2020-09-12, 11:45 AM
Example (was derailing an OOTS thread, so I took it here):

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


Is it the dwarf player who's being a jerk for killing the paladin's horse (later clarified as a regular nonmagical one)? The paladin player for not talking it out with the dwarf before killing the party prisoner? A bit of both?

In my opinion, the "jumping in" started the whole quarrel, and the retaliation, while a little excessive, is an improvement on just going straight to PVP.

Okay, after painfully sorting through the entire thread, let me toss in my two copper pieces worth.

A) The Ogre was actively taking part in attacking travelers, the keep, pretty much anybody the Ogres could get their hands on. Knowing this we can assume that this particular ogre has killed and eaten people that would otherwise be alive and uneaten if this ogre had not made the conscious effort to kill and eat them. So bad Ogre, not a good Ogre.

B) Being that we have established that the ogre is a bad ogre, we can reasonably make the assumption that should it be released, it will resume its lifestyle of killing and eating people as soon as it possibly can. Freeing the ogre is, therefore, a bad decision that causes more death and consumption of people not willing to die and be consumed. This means that freeing the ogre is not an option.

C) Whereas freeing the ogre is not an option, the next option would be to drag him to the nearest town for incarceration. The question now becomes "What kind of town would realistically be equipped to incarcerate an ogre indefinitely, as well as having a sufficiently trained and equipped security force that can easily overpower the ogre should it attempt to escape. Given the implied technological level of the D&D world, we can pretty much assume that only the aforementioned Keep is going to have a chance at it. Now the question becomes "Does the party have the time and resources to safely transport the ogre back to the Keep?" Knowing as little as we do about the situation, we can only conjecture at the answer but obviously the Paladin didn't think so. We can also conjecture that the rest of the party, sans the Dwarf, agreed to some extent, as the Dwarf seems to be the only one to have taken issue with the Paladin's actions.

D) What, exactly did the Dwarf expect to happen to the ogre once he was dragged back to a secure facility? Did he expect a monster who had attacked the keep to be fed and sheltered while a fair trial was prepared, complete with adequate, competent legal representation? Would taking the ogre to "jail" serve any purpose other than expending the time and resources to get it there, just to have it killed instantly by the guards? As a side issue, does the Dwarf argue for capturing and jailing other monsters that the party has defeated? Has the Dwarf given medical treatment to monsters that have dropped below zero HP and are bleeding out? If not, then why is this particular ogre special?

E) What did the horse ever do to the Dwarf to warrant death? The Dwarf had no prior relationship to the ogre, so there is no logical reason for the Dwarf to avenge it's death. Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people. If you have a cat and get into an argument with your neighbor, does that mean that your neighbor is well within his rights to walk over and kill your cat in front of you? Would you feel comfortable still living next door to that person? Would any well adjusted, sane person take their anger at a person out on an animal? IMHO only an evil bastard would do such a thing.


F) By their very nature, the PCs are given an unwritten covenant to be judge, jury, and executioners. They are allowed, nay expected, to kill and maim monsters, demi-humans, and humans alike if they are acting in a manner that is disparate to the rest of society. Paladins embody that covenant more so than other classes. By their very nature (and the example of their literary forefathers), they are meant to protect the weak and avenge the fallen. Allowing a monster that has murdered and eaten peaceful folk to go free would be unheard-of, and frankly I would be surprised if the rest of the party, given the choice, had voted to do so. Freeing the ogre would make the party responsible for every death that ogre caused for the rest of it's life.

It sounds to me like Mr. Dwarf player has some kind of personal problem with Mr. Paladin player and chose that moment to act on it. IMHO I would not ding the Paladin for his actions at all. He acted more or less how I would expect a Paladin to act against a murderous monster. In this instance I would place the entire blame on the Dwarf for choosing to lash out at another player. He had no reason, in game or IRL, to truly justify doing so. Not only that, but doing so harms the rest of the party by forcing them to travel at the speed of their slowest member...the now foot bound Paladin.

DarkWhisper
2020-09-14, 01:48 AM
B) Being that we have established that the ogre is a bad ogre, we can reasonably make the assumption that should it be released, it will resume its lifestyle of killing and eating people as soon as it possibly can. Freeing the ogre is, therefore, a bad decision that causes more death and consumption of people not willing to die and be consumed. This means that freeing the ogre is not an option.

Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?


The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last ogre,
emphasis added



E) What did the horse ever do to the Dwarf to warrant death? The Dwarf had no prior relationship to the ogre, so there is no logical reason for the Dwarf to avenge it's death. Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people.


{Dwarf} walks over to {Paladin's} horse and slits its throat.
"Don't tarry when you run to catch up with us.
names replaced, emphasis added


Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a ogre to authorities. Its clear the ogre will only slow them down.
emphasis added


Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people

The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).

Moreover,

"If you ever so much as interfere with my prisoners again
emphasis added

the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage :smallwink:.

As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 03:27 AM
Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".


By their very nature, the PCs are given an unwritten covenant to be judge, jury, and executioners. They are allowed, nay expected, to kill and maim monsters, demi-humans, and humans alike if they are acting in a manner that is disparate to the rest of society. Paladins embody that covenant more so than other classes.

But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

Rynjin
2020-09-14, 05:04 AM
Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

Sure...because humans are different from ogres. And even then, a human bandit? I'd still barely bat an eye.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-14, 05:54 AM
Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?
Let's examine the evidence again:
1. The Ogre has already been harming innocents per original thread discussion.
2. The Ogre was trying to kill the PCs a few minutes prior to this event.
3. The vast majority of DMs aren't interested in havin each mook be a complex, fleshed out character with redemption arc potential, and nothing indicates this orc to be particularly noteworthy in any way.
4. D&D has a long cultural history of Ogres being badguys, and most DMs aren't out to challenge the players' assumptions and make ogres that are totes ready for a new lease on life as a purehearted goodboy.
5. In real life, the best and most consistent predictor of future behavior is... past behavior. Meaning that if the ogre has been regularly killing people, the expected outcome of releasing him is that the previous behavior will resume.
6. New wrinkle, if released, the ogre does have some chance of alerting his allies to the party's approach and making that whole thing even more dangerous.

So... given that we have plenty of information pointing to Ogre = Evil, there's no reason to assume that putting rope on this ogre has significantly affected the morality of the issue,



The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).
Yeah, I'm sure if I shot your dog you'd have a pretty hard time making it to the barbecue that night.

That I wanted you to be late for the bbq and maybe not hang out with us makes this a MORE UNREASONABLE DECISION, not a less unreasonable one.

Since I get the tickle that someone will say the horse is more akin to a car here, busting the hell out of someone's car would also be fairly psychopathic as responses go.




the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage :smallwink:.

As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).

NOBODY has argued that Pally was 100% justified to not talk to anybody before offing the Ogre.

I have mentioned that this is a case of a DM just letting a thing happen without thinking and suddenly the players have problems.

There was apparently no mention of "So, party, you see Paladin drawing his sword and walking towards the ogre. Is anyone going to do anything about this?"

Had that happened, probably none of the rest would have happened. I put primary blame on the DM, unironically.

Since it DID happen, killing the ogre 5 minutes after killing all the other ogres is not elevating "shoulda asked, bro" to the level of "Psycho killer who deserves to have his animals slaughtered."

I get what the dwarf was trying to do, but there are better responses.

Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.

Hmmmm.....
My opinion is unchanged.



It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.
Humans in D&D don't have genre expectations almost exclusively painting them as the badguy. This is a significant change to the scenario for that reason.

HOWEVER, in this situation I'm not seeing much reason to change my stance, since the ogre (now human) was said in the previous thread to be killing and eating people. Making this human a supermurderous cannibal.



A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".
Look, I get that when you run your games, every mook has a backstory and can be redeemed, and behind every blade of grass is a new reason for the PCs to worry that they're actually terrible people.

But most campaigns just want to keep the moral side simple. The ones in black armor are badguys and we're not gonna spend time worrying about the moral quandries of lopping their heads off because they're badguys. Why? Because they are interested in other things.




But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

You do realize that since you've made this an ultimatum (players will always...) that the point is significantly weakened since there are definitely moments where it hasn't mattered to anyone what race the guy getting chopped is.

Ever notice how Bandits rarely get described by what race each one is? Even though they may be human or half orc or elven or whatever? And yet PCs aren't suddenly less inclined to riddle them with holes?

Because I sure have noticed that.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 06:34 AM
in this situation I'm not seeing much reason to change my stance, since the ogre (now human) was said in the previous thread to be killing and eating people. Making this human a supermurderous cannibal.

Where, precisely, was this said in the Gygax thread?

This was the original statement - Replacing Ogre with Human - but otherwise changing nothing, it becomes:


I had a situation come up. The group had been ambushed by a group of humans, and managed to fight them off and capture the remaining one. They questioned it (By tying it upside down and hanging it by its feet from a tree.) They learned that it was part of the assault group that had just attacked a keep some days before. And this PC group was part of the defense of the keep. The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last human, decides to execute the human. Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a human to authorities. Its clear thehuman will only slow them down.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-14, 06:43 AM
Where, precisely, was this said in the Gygax thread?

Going off Mutazoia's research into it:


Okay, after painfully sorting through the entire thread, let me toss in my two copper pieces worth.

A) The Ogre was actively taking part in attacking travelers, the keep, pretty much anybody the Ogres could get their hands on.

I'll give this doesn't include the cannibalism, so this human would just be a mass murderer. Which as we all know, means he's beyond reproach.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 06:47 AM
Going off Mutazoia's research into it:


I went through the Gygax thread, thoroughly, and could not find any other statements about the ogre's actions, besides in the very first post.

If you want to try and find more info - you can:


https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


but I'd be a little surprised if I missed that much.

Keltest
2020-09-14, 06:53 AM
I went through the Gygax thread, thoroughly, and could not find any other statements about the ogre's actions, besides in the very first post.

If you want to try and find more info - you can:


https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60


but I'd be a little surprised if I missed that much.

I wouldnt. When i ran through that thread, half the freaking pages just entirely skipped loading for me and went on to the next one, without announcement or label. It took a considerable amount of brute force for me to get them all to load. I dont know what it is about that site that doesnt want to work, but it is decidedly non-cooperative.

Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-14, 07:15 AM
I wouldnt. When i ran through that thread, half the freaking pages just entirely skipped loading for me and went on to the next one, without announcement or label. It took a considerable amount of brute force for me to get them all to load. I dont know what it is about that site that doesnt want to work, but it is decidedly non-cooperative.

Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.

Yup. Even if the thread doesn't spell it out, it can easily be inferred by surrounding evidence.

Since we have no reason to assume the campaign has "redeeming mooks" or "monsters are as complex as people" as central themes, regarding the ogre as nothing more or less than Badguy #312 is perfectly reasonable.

Satinavian
2020-09-14, 07:20 AM
Also, the fact that the ogre is attacking travelers is self evident, on account of the group of travelers that is the PCs being attacked by it and its buddies.The PCs were not travellers, but defenders of a keep on patrol and the ogre was part of an assault group attacking the keep.

That is more akin to soldiers of different sides in a war.

OldTrees1
2020-09-14, 07:36 AM
Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".

Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-14, 07:52 AM
The PCs were not travellers, but defenders of a keep on patrol and the ogre was part of an assault group attacking the keep.

That is more akin to soldiers of different sides in a war.


That distinction doesn't make a significant difference unless this is one of those Gray Morality, Both Sides Are Justified sort of war.stories as opposed to "Good guys vs Bad Guys."

Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.

Make this real life and things change. EVERYONE has a backstory and motivations and is a full person in reality.
In D&D land, some things come from nowhere, and have no backstory, and are plot devices. Thus, getting in a tizzy about the morality of its execution is... very, very odd.


Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.

And thank you for keeping us on track. This is my most basic position. DM flubbed this, this was an OOC problem played out IC instead of OOC, where it should be solved.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 09:00 AM
I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".I think The Giant said it best:




except its not (or could be argued as such) racism or genocide. As they are fictional creatures. and -NO MATTER- what they may -REPRESENT- the FACT that they are NOT real creatures NEVER changes.

I would equate looking down on someone for allowing people to kill goblins "because they are goblins" with looking down on someone because they decided to have their character kill another one without a fair trial or any proof the person WOULD threaten them in the future (and just testimony).

Yes it would be reprehensible for the character, but the character did it not the player. and the player is not guilty for the crimes of his character because those crimes are not his crimes. and also the crimes are make believe.
and as such that there is no racism and genocide because the only person committing or feeling that doesnt exist.

the only crime committed is possibly lazy roleplaying or a -game- that doesnt take into account real life morals. I mean i'd love to play in a dark gritty game where we where faced with real life decisions and where deeply attached to our characters. But you cant fault someone for glossing over something irrelevant to the game just because you want damage dealing bags of experience to have some semblance (<--emphasis)of life .
The crime, such as it is, occurs when the people who roleplayed those actions then say, "And that character is Good." When they take those events and rather than saying, "Yeah, my character is a real piece of *******, but I have fun playing him," they say, "My character is a hero." When they transfer the lessons of the game into their metagame analysis of it. Because that's when the fourth wall is broken and the stuff that happens in your game affects the real world.

If you want to play a psychopath who kills orcs because they're orcs, awesome. Good for you, have fun. But don't write, "Good," on your character sheet. Or "Neutral." And don't expect me to write a 900+ page story condoning it.


Also:



I would point out that the target of my critique is not the people living in a medieval fantasy world—it's the D&D player who lives in the air-conditioned home. I don't care what your D&D character thinks is right or wrong, I care what you think is right or wrong. Whether you then choose to reflect that lesson back into your D&D games is not really my concern.

In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to say, "My D&D character is sort of racist against goblins," and then play the character accordingly. It's not acceptable to say, "My D&D character is not racist against goblins, he just kills them on sight because they're all Evil."





Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.

I tend to agree with The Giant when he says D&D isn't that black-and-white, and really shouldn't be.



Two, D&D is a world of black and white morality, in most cases. Even the concept of shades of grey was codified in neutrality, really an idea that's just as simple and straightforward (albeit annoyingly hard to actually implement) as good and evil. Trying to apply your real world morals to it (often resulting i the self-inflicted discomfort you're feeling) is like trying to determine the morality of a lion eating a gazelle; they're just not compatible.The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.

kyoryu
2020-09-14, 09:12 AM
That distinction doesn't make a significant difference unless this is one of those Gray Morality, Both Sides Are Justified sort of war.stories as opposed to "Good guys vs Bad Guys."

Since we have no reason to assume gray morality as a central theme, and good vs evil is the more common theme, I'll assume it's the latter.

Bearing that in mind, we now have two options:
1. The Ogre is part of the Bad Guys. If so, he's evil, and being a mook, has no little blonde ogre children at home who will become orphans forever. Killing him is not a big deal.
2. The Ogre is not part of the Bad Guys? Ergo, he is part of the Good Guys, ergo the PCs are the Bad Guys and such actions are to be expected of Bad Guys, so killing the ogre is again not a big deal.

Make this real life and things change. EVERYONE has a backstory and motivations and is a full person in reality.
In D&D land, some things come from nowhere, and have no backstory, and are plot devices. Thus, getting in a tizzy about the morality of its execution is... very, very odd.

And here we come to the gazebo thread... You have certain assumptions about what is and is not okay in gaming, and how things should play out. Specifically, you think that if playing "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys", it's no holds barred on the Bad Guys.

Which is a totally fine way to play but it is not universal truth. And likely, this is the root cause of the issue.... the paladin having this assumption, while the dwarf didn't.


And thank you for keeping us on track. This is my most basic position. DM flubbed this, this was an OOC problem played out IC instead of OOC, where it should be solved.

The GM flubbed this in multiple ways. First, by allowing the "kill the Ogre" action to be simultaneous, and secondly (and frankly a bit harder to catch in the moment) by not recognizing that this was an OOC issue around those assumptions, and clarifying them.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-14, 09:23 AM
Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".



But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

Not really? Murderous scum are murderous scum. The party are not within the bounds of a state and are not obligated to accept a monopoly of force, they are well within their rights to kill the cannibal murderer.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 09:24 AM
Not really? Murderous scum are murderous scum. The party are not within the bounds of a state and are not obligated to accept a monopoly of force, they are well within their rights to kill the cannibal murderer.
The presumption that they're a cannibal murderer, comes entirely from the fact that they're an ogre. There is nothing in the original post, that says anything about the prisoner having committed cannibalism or murder - only "attacking a keep".

Tvtyrant
2020-09-14, 09:30 AM
The presumption that they're a cannibal murderer, comes entirely from the fact that they're an ogre. There is nothing in the original post, that says anything about the prisoner having committed cannibalism or murder - only "attacking a keep".

If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.

kyoryu
2020-09-14, 09:41 AM
If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.

There is also a difference between what you need to do to creatures that are actively attacking, and what to do with creatures that have surrendered or otherwise been made a non-threat - at least potentially. And, clearly the dwarf thinks there is.

Which again gets back to "the GM screwed up and should be clear about what type of game this is".

Friv
2020-09-14, 10:20 AM
If I found people attacking a random keep I would kill them too. They are the aggressor in this scenario, fiction is full of "drive off the invading whose its." Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.

Adventurers.

Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.

Keltest
2020-09-14, 10:36 AM
Adventurers.

Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.

Very rarely will a bad guy castle be a "random" keep. The point of a castle is to exert authority and power in the surrounding area. If Bad Guys are living there doing Bad Guy Things, enough that adventurers are going after them, theyre going to be moderately notorious, locally if nothing else.

ImNotTrevor
2020-09-14, 10:52 AM
I tend to agree with The Giant when he says D&D isn't that black-and-white, and really shouldn't be.

I think neither he nor you has the authority to say what D&D is or isn't. (It operates on a system of Objective Morality with exactly 3 states: Good, Evil, and Neither. The Law/Chaos bit is more about approach than morality. In my book, that's pretty dang black and white.)

I don't think you or he has the authority to dictate what D&D SHOULD BE, either.

This is a case of elevating someone's preference to the level of "everyone should agree with this position because it is the correct one."

Which for my imaginary elf games, anyone telling me my game SHOULD be one thing will be told to go suck a tailpipe because my campaign is none of their business unless they're in it.

Ie, stop being a moral busybody and let people have fun how they want to. You don't find me telling you that nobody SHOULD have morally gray scenarios in their campaigns. But I have said that, generally speaking, that is not a common take for D&D campaigns and assuming this campaign is part of the larger group is a safe bet given no evidence to the contrary.



And here we come to the gazebo thread... You have certain assumptions about what is and is not okay in gaming, and how things should play out. Specifically, you think that if playing "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys", it's no holds barred on the Bad Guys.

Which is a totally fine way to play but it is not universal truth. And likely, this is the root cause of the issue.... the paladin having this assumption, while the dwarf didn't.

Which is all well and good. I just see no indication that this campaign has that kind of moral depth.

Granted, I don't think it's No Holds Barred, but "inconvenienced by rope" does not take a Bad Guy down to the level of victim. Now, if the PCs were putting in the thumb screws and mutilating limbs and organs, feeding the guy his own liver and other such atrocities, that'd be another thing.

This ain't that, nor close to it.




The GM flubbed this in multiple ways. First, by allowing the "kill the Ogre" action to be simultaneous, and secondly (and frankly a bit harder to catch in the moment) by not recognizing that this was an OOC issue around those assumptions, and clarifying them.

YES. I mentioned this before multiple times, but yes. This.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-14, 10:53 AM
There is also a difference between what you need to do to creatures that are actively attacking, and what to do with creatures that have surrendered or otherwise been made a non-threat - at least potentially. And, clearly the dwarf thinks there is.

Which again gets back to "the GM screwed up and should be clear about what type of game this is".


Adventurers.

Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.
I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. I don't think it was evil in character, but all of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.

On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.

Mutazoia
2020-09-14, 10:56 AM
Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?

Logically, yes. A creature with a 5 int and 7 wisdom is not going to suddenly have an epiphany and rethink his life choices. If anything else it's going to get more dangerous and take its frustrations out on weaker beings.



emphasis added/[QUOTE]

If we assume that the ogre does not suddenly have a crisis of faith and devote itself to the path of good, we can only assume that the ogre will either join a new tribe, or form a new one. You seem to be placing a lot of human traits onto a monster of evil intents. For that matter, people seem to be placing a lot of real world ideologies into a high fantasy game about killing monsters in a pseudo-medieval world.


[QUOTE=DarkWhisper;24708655]emphasis added/[QUOTE]

All the "don't tarry" line that you highlight just goes to show that the dwarf was being malicious.

[QUOTE=DarkWhisper;24708655]The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).

So the dwarf was the person in charge of who can and can't be a member of that party, eh? And that justifies animal cruelty in your eyes?


the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage :smallwink:.

As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).

Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre. Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.

All in all, all you are doing is defending the Dwarf player starting in-party conflict by trying to morally justify him killing a defenceless animal because he was mad at the Paladin player.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 10:57 AM
On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.

The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.

Tvtyrant
2020-09-14, 11:42 AM
The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.

The Ogres who ambushed the party? Gee, I wonder if invading forces randomly ambushing strangers might be dangerous to the people around them. Almost villainous of them wouldn't you say?

The only issue I see is the party should have talked about what kind of campaign they planned on running first, and made some work towards being harmonious.

hamishspence
2020-09-14, 11:51 AM
Thread's been interesting, and I've learned a lot - but I think it's time for me at least, to bow out for the time being. With thanks to everyone who's been helpful.

Mutazoia
2020-09-14, 11:52 AM
The ogre tribe was fought (and one prisoner taken) two days after the keep was attacked.

And then they went out and ambushed travelers. What's your point?

kyoryu
2020-09-14, 12:26 PM
I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. I don't think it was evil in character, but all of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.

On defending the keep: if you see someone getting assaulted you don't get to stand there and wonder if maybe they are assaulting a bad guy and are a hero, evil through inaction is still evil. Life is too fast to wait around for perfect information, you save the keep first and then work from there.

In some games, with some assumptions, the paladin would be absolutely correct. The paladin assumed they were playing that game.

In some games, with some assumptions, the paladin would have been wrong. The dwarf assumed they were playing that game.

That's the problem to fix. Everything else comes after that.

DarkWhisper
2020-09-14, 03:47 PM
Preface about blame:

I don't disagree with the notion that the GM is to blame, at least in part, for the situation. In my opinion, however, Paladin, Dwarf and every other player at the table is also to blame, at least in part, for whatever happened.


Let's examine the evidence again: (...)

1: Yes
2: Moot; the PCs have been trying to kill the ogres (and unless the PCs have never used surprise attacks / ambushes, being ambushed doesn't change anything).
3+4: BadWrongFun or GoodRightFun; we don't know the playstyle of the original story's group.
5: Assumptions / projections; we don't know whether the ogre tribe has been assaulting humans before. We only know that they assaulted the keep a couple of days ago and ambushed the party. But... point.
6: As per the original story, the ogre is the last survivor.


Ogre = Evil, there's no reason to assume that putting rope on this ogre has significantly affected the morality of the issue
So a paladin walking through a town, stopping every now and then to use Detect Evil, is justified in slaying everyone that pings ?
If that's fine for you and your table - it's your game and your table and if you and your players are having fun - all good.
But every table that doesn't consider this acceptable is not having BadWrongFun by default.


Yeah, I'm sure if I shot your dog (...)
With the tiny difference that I didn't torture a prisoner moments before and, because it would have been too much of a hassle to bring that prisoner to the authorities, cold-bloodedly murder the helpless prisoner.


I put primary blame on the DM, unironically.
- The GM (for allowing it to happen without the chance of intervention (or so it seems)
- The Paladin (for the unilateral decision)
- The Dwarf (for escalating)
- The Dwarf and the other players (for not intervening, either IC or OOC)


Since it DID happen, killing the ogre 5 minutes after killing all the other ogres is not elevating "shoulda asked, bro" to the level of "Psycho killer who deserves to have his animals slaughtered."
I don't think the dwarf was justified - but neither was the paladin.

I (and many of my characters) would have serious concerns in being in a group - which includes trusting your life and well-being, among other things - into the other members' hands together with a paladin that unilaterally decides to kill a prisoner because other courses of actions are... inconvenient. Had there been a clear and present danger (e.g. during a combat) or a "real" reason (e.g. a time limit, like an impending attack the party bears warning off), maybe.
Of course, I (and many of my characters) would have similar issues in being in a group with the dwarf...


Logically, yes. A creature with a 5 int and 7 wisdom is not going to suddenly have an epiphany and rethink his life choices. If anything else it's going to get more dangerous and take its frustrations out on weaker beings
Except that it was part of a band before and is now alone - and not the biggest, baddest thing around. It's not a troll with superior regeneration or an adult dragon but a CR3 creature. Presumably, it even has 10+ Intelligence (unless someone in the group speaks Giant) and thus enough brainpower to realize that alone, it's vulnerable.

Will it lead the life of a peaceful hermit, going forward ? Probably not but slaying any helpless prisoner (unless they are quite literally made of Evil like demons or devils) merits more than a unilateral 'nah, too much hassle, I kill it', in my games.


You seem to be placing a lot of human traits onto a monster of evil intents.
Uhm... likewise ?
I'm no expert on Giant Psychology (and have serious doubts any expert that can explain giant thought and decision-making processes can be easily found) but I assume some basics remain unchanged (e.g. self-preservation).


So the dwarf was the person in charge of who can and can't be a member of that party, eh? And that justifies animal cruelty in your eyes?
The dwarf gets to decide who he travels with, yes. Of course, saying "I won't travel with you any longer" and leaving (with the possibility of asking the other members of the group to choose a side) would have been a better solution.

Also, animal cruelty, after this line ?

placing a lot of real world ideologies into a high fantasy game about killing monsters in a pseudo-medieval world.


Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre.

Now, this is pure conjecture but the "my prisoner" line likely came from somewhere.
It might have been that the dwarf had been the only one to deal subdual / nonlethal damage (thus enabling the capture), it might have been that the paladin didn't want to be part of the torture (because evil act) and thus was 'occupied elsewhere' during the actual torture, it might have been that the dwarf took responsibility for the prisoner - "Consequences, on my head they shall be" - and thus the torture, allowing the paladin to remain 'pure' or one of countless other scenarios.


Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.
Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the other persons, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal prisoner.


All in all, all you are doing is defending the Dwarf player starting in-party conflict by trying to morally justify him killing a defenceless animal because he was mad at the Paladin player.

No. What I'm doing is pointing out that there is a lot of information we don't know, information we now that isn't being considered and provoking, maybe, people at taking another, deeper look. A certain amount of defending the dwarf player is part of that, simply because that player has been relegated into the role of 'bad guy' while the paladin player's part has been painted as 'could have acted better but hey, he's a paladin, the orge's evil, killing it - unilaterally - was all fine and dandy'.

Everybody has been at fault in that situation, as outlined above and of, as has been mentioned somewhere in the thread, for breaking the social contract of the game (i.e. collaboration) for paladin/dwarf and GM, to a degree.
Irrevocable and group-affecting decisions in situation without some sort of pressure that limits discussion shouldn't be made unilaterally.


I would definitely have gotten info before execution and conversed with the party about it, I don't think the Paladin did the best thing. All of the players did a bad job here. Party cohesion comes first.
+1

OldTrees1
2020-09-14, 04:41 PM
Preface about blame:

I don't disagree with the notion that the GM is to blame, at least in part, for the situation. In my opinion, however, Paladin, Dwarf and every other player at the table is also to blame, at least in part, for whatever happened.

- The GM (for allowing it to happen without the chance of intervention (or so it seems)
- The Paladin (for the unilateral decision)
- The Dwarf (for escalating)
- The Dwarf and the other players (for not intervening, either IC or OOC)


Everybody has been at fault in that situation, as outlined above and of, as has been mentioned somewhere in the thread, for breaking the social contract of the game (i.e. collaboration) for paladin/dwarf and GM, to a degree.
Irrevocable and group-affecting decisions in situation without some sort of pressure that limits discussion shouldn't be made unilaterally.

Yes.

Almost every detail in this story was irrelevant to adjudicating the conflict.
The vast majority of the argument in this thread was irrelevant to the conflict.

There was a unilateral decision, that another player objected to. Rather than address that OOC disagreement, everyone involved allowed it to play out and escalate IC.

HappyDaze
2020-09-14, 04:52 PM
But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

Your players might. My players would not. They use the full-on old-school Cobra Kai plan for dealing with things they encounter in dark places. If something is not hostile, the burden is on it to prove that before it gets dead. Things in safer places get more benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't matter what race they are--ogres in cities are obviously ones that likely know how to behave and are more likely to be allowed to live than dwarves skulking around in a dungeon.

Quertus
2020-09-14, 06:03 PM
Might I remind you that the actual PC actions involved were irrelevant to the player conflict? Yes, you and some posters have been arguing about the morality of the Paladin's actions, however this would still have been a player conflict if the Paladin had been a Blackguard instead, or if the Ogre had been an oak table, or if the paladin's horse had been a druid hireling.

The players had an OOC disagreement and attempted to resolve it through IC actions. To prevent this in the future the DM should preempt it and force an OOC conversation between all players. To address this incident going forward the DM should force an OOC conversation to get all sides to understand the concerns of the other and to establish how you are going to preempt these issues in the future.

I am not surprised to see that you have a very level-headed view of this thread. Kudos!


Adventurers.

Adventurers are "people attacking a random keep."

Building a castle does not denote moral authority. Bad guys build castles too.

Thank you for that laugh!


Yes, yes. I'm sure the Dwarf captured the ogre single handed while the rest of the party sat back and played pinochle and sipped cherry cordials. This, naturally gave the dwarf full ownership of the ogre. Regardless, this is a situation where a rational person would talk to the offending person, not go and immediately kill a defenceless animal.

1) actually, IME, when taking down a *group* of creatures, yes, it usually *is* a single person who is responsible for taking a prisoner.

2) even when that isn't the case, when a group of PCs cooperated / coordinated to take a prisoner, each member who participated will still call the prisoner "theirs", just not exclusively.

3) even if they did not participate in the capture, someone who engages in interrogation / torture of the prisoner will typically call the prisoner "theirs".

4) the dwarf's player may well be role-playing someone who is not rational. Thor knows *most* PC dwarves I've seen were not rational!

5) "being irrational" is not an excuse for being incompatible with the player-level social contract.

-----


The crime, such as it is, occurs when the people who roleplayed those actions then say, "And that character is Good." When they take those events and rather than saying, "Yeah, my character is a real piece of *******, but I have fun playing him," they say, "My character is a hero." When they transfer the lessons of the game into their metagame analysis of it. Because that's when the fourth wall is broken and the stuff that happens in your game affects the real world.

If you want to play a psychopath who kills orcs because they're orcs, awesome. Good for you, have fun. But don't write, "Good," on your character sheet. Or "Neutral." And don't expect me to write a 900+ page story condoning it.

Very much this.

Look, I'm batting for team Lawful Evil. IRL, I've looked at stories (like "Those who Walk Away from Omelas") and missed the moral imprecations, choosing the Evil path and thinking it Good, or at least Acceptable.

I'm fine with Evil PCs. I play with and as them all the time.

But it's rather terrifying to hear attempts to justify some of these actions as real-world Good.

Also, whether they're good acts or not is completely irrelevant to the real issue here, which is about the players, and the social contract.

So… unless you disagree, and want to explain why you feel that a determination of the real-world morality of the characters' actions is somehow both germaine and necessary to resolve what I will insist is an OOC issue, can we not make claims of real-world goodness of these actions? (Real-world legality is, IMO, fine). (Note: I am *not* a mod; I'm just making a personal request, both for myself, and for my suspicions of what might get the thread closed. Apologies if I'm completely off base.) (EDIT: in retrospect, it's probably not only good but better to also not *demonize* their actions in irl morality, too. Sorry for my myopic PoV)

OldTrees1
2020-09-14, 07:28 PM
Look, I'm batting for team Lawful Evil. IRL, I've looked at stories (like "Those who Walk Away from Omelas") and missed the moral imprecations, choosing the Evil path and thinking it Good, or at least Acceptable.

To be fair, the short story "Those who Walk Away from Omelas" explicitly implies 3* responses characters could make to the revelation. And it condones none of those 3 paths. The story can be used to see how aware one is of moral implications, but I could never say I knew my answer was "right". Even back then when I could still see black & white, Omelas was only shades of black.

*Some readers will see a 4th path that is also troubling, but the author does not reference it explicitly.

Quertus
2020-09-14, 07:52 PM
To be fair, the short story "Those who Walk Away from Omelas" explicitly implies 3* responses characters could make to the revelation. And it condones none of those 3 paths. The story can be used to see how aware one is of moral implications, but I could never say I knew my answer was "right". Even back then when I could still see black & white, Omelas was only shades of black.

*Some readers will see a 4th path that is also troubling, but the author does not reference it explicitly.

Sigh. My reference / attempt to explain was poor. I *meant* that I had "chosen paths" in examples like that story which, in retrospect, *I* found abhorrent.

I *meant* to further imply(?) that it is probably bad to fight over IRL morality, *especially* if it makes sides more entrenched rather than open to "see with eyes included by hate", but also because I *think* that's bad form around here.

Granted, I think it's not easy, given the bad labels on D&D team jerseys.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to try to clarify my poor, uh, speak skill stuff. :smallredface:

OldTrees1
2020-09-14, 09:56 PM
Sigh. My reference / attempt to explain was poor. I *meant* that I had "chosen paths" in examples like that story which, in retrospect, *I* found abhorrent.
You have my sympathy that you gained that wisdom through experience. I will end that aside here.


I *meant* to further imply(?) -snip-
Yeah you were quite clear on that the first time, and I agree.

Talakeal
2020-09-14, 10:43 PM
I took the dwarf calling the prisoner his to mean that, as a member of the capturing party, they were all morally responsible for the ogre’s treatment. Thus the paladin’s actions didn't just affect the ogre and the paladin, but also stained the dwarves conscience / honor / soul etc.

Keltest
2020-09-14, 10:45 PM
I took the dwarf calling the prisoner his to mean that, as a member of the capturing party, they were all morally responsible for the ogre’s treatment. Thus the paladin’s actions didn't just affect the ogre and the paladin, but also stained the dwarves conscience / honor / soul etc.

Given that he followed up with killing an innocent animal, i find that a pretty hard sell.

Mutazoia
2020-09-14, 11:15 PM
I took the dwarf calling the prisoner his to mean that, as a member of the capturing party, they were all morally responsible for the ogre’s treatment. Thus the paladin’s actions didn't just affect the ogre and the paladin, but also stained the dwarves conscience / honor / soul etc.

Well, here's a small point that I think a lot of you have overlooked.

The party was torturing the Ogre. Whose idea was it to torture the ogre? Since the Dwarf referred to the ogre has "his" prisoner, we can infer that the Dwarf was the one doing the torturing. Is the Dwarf going assume moral responsibility for someone he just tortured? Doubtful.

My take: The Dwarf player was enjoying his little role play session about torturing someone, and then the Paladin player suddenly ended his torture fantasy before he was finished. The Dwarf Player then lashed out at the Paladin player in a fit of anger, but since he was probably well aware that the Paladin (both character and player) would most likely kick the Dwarfs (both character and player) ass, he attacked his horse and then tried to morally justify his attack.

This is bratty behavior at best, and borderline psychotic at worst.

OldTrees1
2020-09-14, 11:42 PM
Well, here's a small point that I think a lot of you have overlooked.

The party was torturing the Ogre. Whose idea was it to torture the ogre? Since the Dwarf referred to the ogre has "his" prisoner, we can infer that the Dwarf was the one doing the torturing. Is the Dwarf going assume moral responsibility for someone he just tortured? Doubtful.

My take: The Dwarf player was enjoying his little role play session about torturing someone, and then the Paladin player suddenly ended his torture fantasy before he was finished. The Dwarf Player then lashed out at the Paladin player in a fit of anger, but since he was probably well aware that the Paladin (both character and player) would most likely kick the Dwarfs (both character and player) ass, he attacked his horse and then tried to morally justify his attack.

This is bratty behavior at best, and borderline psychotic at worst.

My take:
That assumption is unneeded as mostly irrelevant to answering how to handle & prevent these conflicts. The Paladin was going to take unilateral action that affects both the Dwarf and the Paladin. The Dwarf's Player objected. At that moment you have a disagreement between the Dwarf's Player and the Paladin's Player where both players have a stake. No other assumptions are needed. Take that moment as the opportunity to discuss the OOC disagreement OOC.

All these irrelevant details do is disguise and distract from the actual situation. The actual situation is multiple players have a small OOC disagreement that can be addressed OOC while it is small. So do so.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-15, 02:28 AM
For that matter, people seem to be placing a lot of real world ideologies into a high fantasy game about killing monsters in a pseudo-medieval world.

Placing real world ideologies into a game is not the problem; it's fine to put any ideology in a game. The problem is either inability or unwillingness to accept that the ideology holding true in a game world doesn't need to be the one you adhere to in real life.

HappyDaze
2020-09-15, 02:56 AM
All these irrelevant details do is disguise and distract from the actual situation. The actual situation is multiple players have a small OOC disagreement that can be addressed OOC while it is small. So do so.

Screw that! They should have rolled initiative and hashed it out on a grid of 5 foot squares. It's the only way to be sure who's right in D&D...

Lacco
2020-09-15, 03:14 AM
Screw that! They should have rolled initiative and hashed it out on a grid of 5 foot squares. It's the only way to be sure who's right in D&D...

Why stop there?

Adopt the Burning Wheel Duel of Wits for disagreements and make a game out of it!

Could work for OOC too, just make sure to get players' CVs to make sure they don't cheat with their lifepaths.

hamishspence
2020-09-15, 06:26 AM
Heck the first Ice Wind Dale stores is exactly this scenario using humans.

And Bruenor is willing to fight an Icewind Dale soldier to stop them from murdering one of the few survivors, prisoners, (one that Bruenor has knocked unconscious early in the battle), in exactly that story. After Bruenor threatens the soldier with violence, they back down.

So that doesn't support the "it's OK to kill prisoners" narrative.

Conversely, later in that same novel, Bruenor is willing to torture a different captured prisoner for information - but since the prisoner is under a charm spell, and torture doesn't work well on charmed enemies, Drizzt convinces him that Regis and his own magic charm pendant, is a better option.

So, here we have a dwarf who is both willing to torture prisoners, and willing to fight "good guys" to prevent a prisoner from being murdered.


Maybe this dwarf, is a Bruenor expy?

zinycor
2020-09-15, 11:46 AM
So... In my opinion we don't really have enough info to know if there even is a problem player. This whole situation could work very nicely with the PCs being angry and frustrated at each other while the players are having a blast.

So, without an OoC view on the matter I can't say who is out of line here.

Mutazoia
2020-09-15, 10:18 PM
Placing real world ideologies into a game is not the problem; it's fine to put any ideology in a game. The problem is either inability or unwillingness to accept that the ideology holding true in a game world doesn't need to be the one you adhere to in real life.

Kind of hard to apply real-world ideologies to a creature that never existed in the real world in the first place lol

hamishspence
2020-09-15, 11:33 PM
Kind of hard to apply real-world ideologies to a creature that never existed in the real world in the first place lol

Not according to The Giant, at least:



I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.


The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

I am not truly concerned with whether the people living in the fantasy world are or are not racist, because they do not exist. I am concerned with whether we, in the world of relative comfort, can identify whether or not they are being racist.


there is a gap between dehumanizing pixels or some thing that literally only exists in my mind and dehumanizing actual humans that is so large you could fit 5 universes in there and have room for a tiki barThere is not even so much as a hair's breadth between them. One leads to the other in a continuous spectrum.


People want to play racist characters? No problem.

People want to play racist characters and keep telling themselves and everybody else that these characters are not racist? Problem.




My take: The Dwarf player was enjoying his little role play session about torturing someone, and then the Paladin player suddenly ended his torture fantasy before he was finished. The Dwarf Player then lashed out at the Paladin player in a fit of anger, but since he was probably well aware that the Paladin (both character and player) would most likely kick the Dwarfs (both character and player) ass, he attacked his horse and then tried to morally justify his attack.


Only assuming "best case for the Paladin" - described here by dancrilis, is completely true:




Best case for the Paladin - they were unaware of the torture (player having the character be 'doing something else') and the Ogre had engaged in crimes that they knew about, and the Dwarf was going to drag out the execution for no reason and only got annoyed as the Paladin stopped their fun when the player had the character stop 'doing something else'.

Best case for the Dwarf - the interrogation of the ogre was non-painful and merely to disorient the creature and the information was extracted via promises of safety and release and then when they were about to release the captive the paladin kills them from, killing of the horse and threat to the paladin was an act of rage and grief.

I don't think either of the above is likely.

I agree with dancrilis that "best case for the paladin" is unlikely. "Best case for the Dwarf" may be unlikely too though - with the truth about events, falling somewhere between these two cases.