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

[NichG]

Both of these arguments could swing the other way too. There's no risk of geas becoming commonplace in a typical DnD campaign world. Mages that can cast it are rare and have better things to do. Summary executions, on the other hand . . . yup, we can give those out like candy.

The same holds for monstrous acts creating monsters. A failed attempt at reforming someone might make them resentful but it's more likely that they'll end up either grateful or dead. Outright killing them, on the other hand . . . yeah, that'll make their surviving fellows quite angry.

In some sense, this is part of what the idea of having fair trials before taking extreme measures is about. People will still be resentful, but the more the situation is laid out before final actions are taken, the more that resentment can be defused. Similarly the difference in impact of someone being killed in the middle of a pitched battle, versus being executed afterwards. It makes it possible to see what happened more as 'he went off to war and got himself killed' versus 'he was captive and not a threat anymore and they executed him'.

You could say that to a large extent, a lot of these arguments center around making the same choices easily rather than giving them due weight, and that's where things start to slip. Blanket permission to take a certain approach, or making certain things standard operating procedure does more to normalize them than if every time that decision is made it's going to be questioned and only forgiven by careful judgment about the particular context.

[OldTrees1]

So, same question - if mages showed up and gave you a choice between magically compelled veganism and being decapitated, you'd pick the latter?

Ooh funny question. Both are a death sentence for me (severe broad food allergies) so I would pick the slower death (that way I can plan for the death). Obviously this is not what the mages intended so "Be careful what you wish for" applies to casting geas on people too.

However both are immoral threats and the mind control is both more invasive and will lead to a more agonizing death. So from the mage's point of view, the mind control should be seen as a greater violation and a more vile act. They are able to successful coerce me into opting for it by using the threat of immediate death, but both are vile.

[Keltest]

In some sense, this is part of what the idea of having fair trials before taking extreme measures is about. People will still be resentful, but the more the situation is laid out before final actions are taken, the more that resentment can be defused. Similarly the difference in impact of someone being killed in the middle of a pitched battle, versus being executed afterwards. It makes it possible to see what happened more as 'he went off to war and got himself killed' versus 'he was captive and not a threat anymore and they executed him'.

You could say that to a large extent, a lot of these arguments center around making the same choices easily rather than giving them due weight, and that's where things start to slip. Blanket permission to take a certain approach, or making certain things standard operating procedure does more to normalize them than if every time that decision is made it's going to be questioned and only forgiven by careful judgment about the particular context.

I have a question here. how is the Ogre in this example "not a threat anymore" exactly? In the immediate sense sure, but given that they lack the resources to bring him to town, which will probably refuse and/or be unable to hold him anyway, just about any resolution to the situation that doesnt result in his being maimed or killed is going to leave him more or less able to pick right back up and carry on with his banditry.

[NichG]

I have a question here. how is the Ogre in this example "not a threat anymore" exactly? In the immediate sense sure, but given that they lack the resources to bring him to town, which will probably refuse and/or be unable to hold him anyway, just about any resolution to the situation that doesnt result in his being maimed or killed is going to leave him more or less able to pick right back up and carry on with his banditry.

Given that the quoted bit has to do with the mindset of other ogres in thinking about what they're going to do going forward, do you think this argument would change the degree of resentment or vengeful behavior going forward?

Perhaps the more convincing argument is, if I'm an Evil Necromancer and I know the forces of Good take no prisoners or perform reformative brainwashing, it makes sense for me to carry around some terrible mutually assured destruction contingency in case events find me on the ropes. If there's no quarter, I might as well prepare a Locate City Bomb or some other atrocity in case it looks like the battle is turning against me.

[Keltest]

Given that the quoted bit has to do with the mindset of other ogres in thinking about what they're going to do going forward, do you think this argument would change the degree of resentment or vengeful behavior going forward?

Perhaps the more convincing argument is, if I'm an Evil Necromancer and I know the forces of Good take no prisoners or perform reformative brainwashing, it makes sense for me to carry around some terrible mutually assured destruction contingency in case events find me on the ropes. If there's no quarter, I might as well prepare a Locate City Bomb or some other atrocity in case it looks like the battle is turning against me.

Is leaving them enough room that they think they could plausibly get out and eventually go back to doing their own thing that much better? An Arch-necromancer's Death Contingency Bomb would at least require a significant amount of resources to invest in (system cheese not withstanding) that a regular ogre wouldnt be able to manage. Most of the time, youre only going to encourage them to fight to the death, which isnt necessarily a huge deal if you arent in a position to accept prisoners anyway.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Having skimmed through the second half of the thread, i find it rather... tragi-comic that people would rather spend 10 pages discussing the hilariously subjective nature of fantasy-morality rather than actually attempt to explore the apparently far more esoteric and unknowable topic that is real world social interaction.

[ImNotTrevor]

Agreed.

It's argued here:



that any sufficiently criminal bandit, has basically forfeited their right to be treated like a person.

In which case, their "free will" can't be all that important any more.

"Acting in an extremely Evil fashion" is not a valid lifestyle choice that needs to be respected. As such, if changing them into a better entity is more in the best interests of the universe as a whole than killing them is - it makes logical sense to put the effort into doing the changing, via magical or mundane means, regardless of how much Free Will is abrogated.

If someone "deserves to die" then they "deserve to be changed, just as much" - and the universe may actually be better off if they are changed rather than killed.

Only when changing them is extremely impracticable, should killing them even be on the table.

I'm returning ONLY to call this out {Scrubbed}

NOTICE:
The posters you're talking to ARE NOT ME.
The posters you're talking to ARE NOT ARGUING MY POINTS.

If you wanna argue my points, argue with ME. I'm available via PMs.

{Scrubbed}

[Quertus]

Vileness doesn't arise from something being an undesired outcome for the victim, it can also arise from the consequences it creates in a world and the societies within it where that act is commonplace. You have to look at what happens when some form of guaranteed behavioral change is cheap, easy, and normalized. Summary execution is problematic because of the standards that it sets, that life has little value over order. Similarly, summary geasing sets the standard that free will has little value over order. It's the transition from 'its not as bad to do X than Y' to 'its not bad to do X' that's a problem. Geasing a murderer not to kill rather than executing them is one thing, but then why not geas a jaywalker to not jaywalk, or even just geas everyone born in a society to follow the laws of that society exactly from birth. So there needs to be a counter-pressure so that such measures are always considered bad to use, even if sometimes a compromise with necessity is made and they're used anyhow. So that's one kind of consequence.

I'm batting for team Lawful Evil, so I approve. I would happily cast such an epic spell to prevent atrocities on a global scale.

Would the world really be a worse place if your ancestors had opted in to a world with no malice?

Having skimmed through the second half of the thread, i find it rather... tragi-comic that people would rather spend 10 pages discussing the hilariously subjective nature of fantasy-morality rather than actually attempt to explore the apparently far more esoteric and unknowable topic that is real world social interaction.

You hit them with a (verbal) clue-by-four until they recognize the possibility that they've done something wrong, and are open for discussion about how to fix that?

[OldTrees1]

Having skimmed through the second half of the thread, i find it rather... tragi-comic that people would rather spend 10 pages discussing the hilariously subjective nature of fantasy-morality rather than actually attempt to explore the apparently far more esoteric and unknowable topic that is real world social interaction.

Hello fellow rational observer!

Yeah I tried to mention this several times this thread. Often I get 1 person to respond agreeing that "In future the DM should pause the session when Player B objected to Player A's plan that would affect both of them. Then talk about it OOC with the whole group before resuming the action." is a good solution. They even agreed this fantasy-morality is irrelevant. But within 3 posts it is back to this violent argument (some hyperbole used).

Either the actual topic is too esoteric for them to feel comfortable addressing, or the solution is so obvious that they don't feel it worth saying. Quite a puzzle.

[Keltest]

Hello fellow rational observer!

Yeah I tried to mention this several times this thread. Often I get 1 person to respond agreeing that "In future the DM should pause the session when Player B objected to Player A's plan that would affect both of them. Then talk about it OOC with the whole group before resuming the action." is a good solution. They even agreed this fantasy-morality is irrelevant. But within 3 posts it is back to this violent argument (some hyperbole used).

Either the actual topic is too esoteric for them to feel comfortable addressing, or the solution is so obvious that they don't feel it worth saying. Quite a puzzle.

Personally, its the latter. 9 times out of 10 the solution is "The DM stops the game before things go too far and makes sure everybody's heads stay cool." but thats not really interesting to discuss, or particularly controversial.

[HappyDaze]

Personally, its the latter. 9 times out of 10 the solution is "The DM stops the game before things go too far and makes sure everybody's heads stay cool." but thats not really interesting to discuss, or particularly controversial.

It's not the DM's place to dictate how adults act towards one another; that's for the site's host to decide. Often that's the DM, but not always. If I'm hosting a game, I can boot jackhole players for any reason even if I'm not the DM (and I can boot the DM too, if it comes to that). Home turf advantage is real.

[Keltest]

It's not the DM's place to dictate how adults act towards one another; that's for the site's host to decide. Often that's the DM, but not always. If I'm hosting a game, I can boot jackhole players for any reason even if I'm not the DM (and I can boot the DM too, if it comes to that). Home turf advantage is real.

The DM has the power to unilaterally stop the game. Their participation is an absolute necessity. The host "can" to a degree, but they can be ignored up until the point where they call the police to get these people out of their house, especially if people are getting heated and ignoring the softer opinions of the people around them.

[GrayDeath]

Not going to read the whole thread, far tooo long, but these 2 posts seem on the point.

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.

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.

Let me add my 2 questions/Cent:

1st: Why did nobody interfere with the Paladin killin gthe Ogre?

I mean the Ogre was the DWARFS Prisonor, so I assume he was keeping an eye on him, so how`d the Paladin do it?
He cant have snuck in, cause Paladin, so why did the Dwarf do nothing until the deed was done, and THEN flip out?

To me that seems like an intentional bait by the Dwarfen Player.


2nd: Assuming that for some reason the Dawrf was not there when the Paladin did the Deed, the question remains. Why did this happen at all?
For it to work, no palyer has to protest when the Paladin palyer declares his action, then the DM ahs to say "OK, do it".

If the other player protested and the DM did nothing, he is at fault, for the whole sad problem.

Cause things like these are points where a good DM says "Stop. First off, this is not in line with the Paladin Code of Conduct, and secondly this is not your prisoner. I wont prevent you from doing it if the Dwarfs palyer does not protest, but this WILL have consequences for your Paladin, maybe even cause a fall alter on.
Are. You. Sure?!.

[Zanos]

Having skimmed through the second half of the thread, i find it rather... tragi-comic that people would rather spend 10 pages discussing the hilariously subjective nature of fantasy-morality rather than actually attempt to explore the apparently far more esoteric and unknowable topic that is real world social interaction.

I agree that the alignment debate at least is secondary, but whether or not a character did something which is morally wrong is relevant to whether or not another player's roleplayed response to that action is justified. If someone in the party blatantly murdered an innocent in front of a Good party member, most people would not fault that party member for roleplaying a response that involves violence against a murderer. And while you can say things like it's an issue of expectations or needs to be hashed out with calm discussion, some people are just jerks. Especially in the RPG community. And being your therapist is not your DM or RPG groups job.

Let me add my 2 questions/Cent:

1st: Why did nobody interfere with the Paladin killin gthe Ogre?

I mean the Ogre was the DWARFS Prisonor, so I assume he was keeping an eye on him, so how`d the Paladin do it?
He cant have snuck in, cause Paladin, so why did the Dwarf do nothing until the deed was done, and THEN flip out?

To me that seems like an intentional bait by the Dwarfen Player.


2nd: Assuming that for some reason the Dawrf was not there when the Paladin did the Deed, the question remains. Why did this happen at all?
For it to work, no palyer has to protest when the Paladin palyer declares his action, then the DM ahs to say "OK, do it".

If the other player protested and the DM did nothing, he is at fault, for the whole sad problem.

Cause things like these are points where a good DM says "Stop. First off, this is not in line with the Paladin Code of Conduct, and secondly this is not your prisoner. I wont prevent you from doing it if the Dwarfs palyer does not protest, but this WILL have consequences for your Paladin, maybe even cause a fall alter on.
Are. You. Sure?!.

There's nothing to suggest that the Ogre is solely the Dwarf's prisoner, if anything it sounds to me like the party defeated the ogres together, which would make the Ogre the party's collective prison. I agree that the unilateral decision to execute by the paladin disrespects the typical way decisions are made in a party, and also that it is odd the Paladin was able to do so with no interjection, even if I don't agree the action is Fall worthy or even Evil.

The response, though, is ludicrously over the top.

[HappyDaze]

The DM has the power to unilaterally stop the game. Their participation is an absolute necessity. The host "can" to a degree, but they can be ignored up until the point where they call the police to get these people out of their house, especially if people are getting heated and ignoring the softer opinions of the people around them.

Nope. That's totally wrong. A DM can easily be replaced by the players because that's the sole source of the DM's authority.

In contrast, the homeowner that hosts the game can unilaterally boot anyone out the door if they want to, nobody else can legally do a thing about it, and trying to ignore it can get those that try hurt. I have ejected jackholes a few times in the past, particularly with "friend-of-a-friend" tag-a-long players. I didn't need to wait for the police either, and only once did I have to actually use violence (the threat of violence was usually enough). You'd be surprised just how lenient the law is with removing people that refuse to comply with a command to leave your home.

[Keltest]

Nope. That's totally wrong. A DM can easily be replaced by the players because that's the sole source of the DM's authority.

In contrast, the homeowner that hosts the game can unilaterally boot anyone out the door if they want to, nobody else can legally do a thing about it, and trying to ignore it can get those that try hurt. I have ejected jackholes a few times in the past, particularly with "friend-of-a-friend" tag-a-long players. I didn't need to wait for the police either, and only once did I have to actually use violence (the threat of violence was usually enough). You'd be surprised just how lenient the law is with removing people that refuse to comply with a command to leave your home.

Its not a legal or technical issue, its one of psychology. Nobody wants to replace the DM, its a butt load of extra work and frequent disappointment for dubiously extra fun. Certainly if the host tries to boot somebody from their house for playing the game "wrong", theyre just going to end up not being told when the group meets up anymore, whereas if the DM calls a halt to play to ask somebody WTH they think theyre doing, everybody listens.

The DM, not the host, is the one wearing the authority hat amongst players. Finding a location to play is easily the least difficult part of getting a group together. What youre describing is not the host putting a stop to conflict, what youre describing is the host quitting the game in a dramatic fashion.

[HappyDaze]

What youre describing is not the host putting a stop to conflict, what youre describing is the host quitting the game in a dramatic fashion.

Yet that's not what happened. The game went on minus the ejected jackholes. You're still very much wrong.

[icefractal]

Having skimmed through the second half of the thread, i find it rather... tragi-comic that people would rather spend 10 pages discussing the hilariously subjective nature of fantasy-morality rather than actually attempt to explore the apparently far more esoteric and unknowable topic that is real world social interaction.

Because that angle has been well covered - it's been correctly identified that this needs an OOC solution, suggestions on both how to handle it now and what to do in future have been made, and there's not much more to say about it now.

On the other hand, the topic of "What does Good mean, exactly?" has supported centuries of discussion so far and isn't about to run out any time soon. Not likely to be productive, per-se (as in, it's very unlikely that in this thread, we'll surpass all previous philosophers and create a universally agreed definition that's also easy to apply on the fly in D&D), but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to discuss.

[Quertus]

Standard authorial advice is "show, don't tell".

In one group, I had a very… unusual role. Open table (or functionally so). Whenever we got a new player whose character was out of line with the group's power level, the GM would try to talk to them. When the new player didn't get the message, that's when I would step up. I would switch characters, and bring one who totally sidelined theirs. Then, after a session of them being useless, I would explain the concept of "balance to the table" to them again, and ask if they would care to bring in a character more in line with the group's power level. I never had anyone fail to get the idea once I had *shown* them the error of their ways.

Now, I consider treating people like reasonable adults, and trying to talk to them to be a reasonable first step. However, once that step has failed, I firmly believe in "show, don't tell" as a necessary technique for certain less astute individuals.

In this story, if you told me that the dwarf's player had *already* tried to address similar problems in previous sessions OOC, and the GM and Paladin were unable to comprehend the problem, I wouldn't be surprised. Because that's a pattern I've seen repeated time and again at various tables.

Yes, obviously, the correct answer is to talk about this OOC. But it's pretty obvious from the *title* of this thread, let alone the tone of the OP, that the GM is ill-equipped for such a conversation, or even to necessarily know the necessity or purpose of such discussion. Believe me, I know - I've been there. I was "raised" on "role-playing is Good, metagaming is Bad", and if "my guy" had been a known thing, it would have been considered the path to sainthood. That Me would have looked at this scenario and responded, "so what?".

So, my bias is on the side of the dwarf's player trying to teach the Paladin's player *and* the GM an important lesson. However, unless we get the background of the events leading up to this scene, that is purely conjecture and projection on my part, attempting to pattern match what can I infer about the GM & the gaming environment based on the title and tone of the OP with own (somewhat extensive) experiences.

Point is, if they have hurt one another's fun, both players are definitionally "in the wrong" - doubly so if they don't care that they've done so. Also, yes, the GM would be in the wrong for their handling of it, and possibly for their handling of the gaming environment itself. OTOH, if everyone is having a great time, considering that an excellent bit of role-playing of in-party conflict, then *neither of them* is in the wrong.

So, which is more in the wrong? The one who doesn't care how much they've hurt the other player(s). Beyond that, we're just guessing at motives and details, and telling more about ourselves than about the actual scenario.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussions of D&D "morality" and legality, for those who want to discuss which *character* was more in the wrong.

[OldTrees1]

Standard authorial advice is "show, don't tell".

In one group, I had a very… unusual role. Open table (or functionally so). Whenever we got a new player whose character was out of line with the group's power level, the GM would try to talk to them. When the new player didn't get the message, that's when I would step up. I would switch characters, and bring one who totally sidelined theirs. Then, after a session of them being useless, I would explain the concept of "balance to the table" to them again, and ask if they would care to bring in a character more in line with the group's power level. I never had anyone fail to get the idea once I had *shown* them the error of their ways.

Now, I consider treating people like reasonable adults, and trying to talk to them to be a reasonable first step. However, once that step has failed, I firmly believe in "show, don't tell" as a necessary technique for certain less astute individuals.

1) That is not what "show, don't tell" is teaching.

Show don't tell is saying exposition is more engaging and more vivid if you show the pasta "went down as smoothly as the fragrant scents tickled the nose" rather than tell the pasta "was delicious".

It is about enjoyable more vivid yet more opaque communication is more engaging. It is not advice on how to communicate effectively.

2) In the case where someone lacks enough empathy or experience to understand the topic. Yeah showing might be useful, but understand you are going to be worse at communicating via "show" than when you literally "talk to them". Often this kind of advice can generate cycles of spite which is bad.

However you did say "... trying to talk to them to be a reasonable first step. However, once that step has failed ..." so I think you understand this is a last resort.


PS: While it got lost in the thread, the OP actually just lifted the story from a forum post 10 years ago in another forum. OP is not the DM.

[Talakeal]

I still don't see why people are assuming that this was an OOC problem. Nothing in the OP suggests any OOC issues, and they may well have just been asking about the alignment implications of the conflict.


Also, wow, I have had a lot of dysfunctional gaming, but I have never had to threaten (let alone resort to) OOC violence to solve an issue!

[OldTrees1]

I still don't see why people are assuming that this was an OOC problem. Nothing in the OP suggests any OOC issues, and they may well have just been asking about the alignment implications of the conflict.

It appears to be a start of very mild OOC conflict that was allowed to escalate. The players have a disagreement, it is not just the characters disagreeing.

One player had their character unilaterally attempt an action that affected both characters. Another player objected. That is the mildest of out of character conflicts. Two players with a disagreement about something they both have a stake in. A brief pause with a short OOC conversation about the disagreement will usually find 1+ solutions. Although it is possible a DM might intuit these social cues enough that they automatically pause & handle the situation and thus consider it too mild of an OOC conflict to even call an OOC conflict.

In the opening post, and the original post from 10 years ago, you can see the question is about the players' conduct, not the characters' conduct. The title is "How do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wrong?". That implies that the players are in disagreement rather than just the characters. If it was just the characters in disagreement, then the players did nothing wrong and there is no lesson the DM could learn.

[Quertus]

---

Thank you for clarifying. I'll… whistle nonchalantly about how much of that I did or did not know/suspect/believe.

I still don't see why people are assuming that this was an OOC problem. Nothing in the OP suggests any OOC issues, and they may well have just been asking about the alignment implications of the conflict.

It is certainly easy to *infer* that this was an OOC issue; however that is not explicitly stated, thus my "if" clauses.

Also, wow, I have had a lot of dysfunctional gaming, but I have never had to threaten (let alone resort to) OOC violence to solve an issue!

"If violence isn't solving your problems, you aren't using enough of it" "That's how Dad did it , that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty good so far,"

[Talakeal]

It appears to be a start of very mild OOC conflict that was allowed to escalate. The players have a disagreement, it is not just the characters disagreeing.

One player had their character unilaterally attempt an action that affected both characters. Another player objected. That is the mildest of out of character conflicts. Two players with a disagreement about something they both have a stake in. A brief pause with a short OOC conversation about the disagreement will usually find 1+ solutions. Although it is possible a DM might intuit these social cues enough that they automatically pause & handle the situation and thus consider it too mild of an OOC conflict to even call an OOC conflict.

In the opening post, and the original post from 10 years ago, you can see the question is about the players' conduct, not the characters' conduct. The title is "How do we tell which player's in the right and which in the wrong?". That implies that the players are in disagreement rather than just the characters. If it was just the characters in disagreement, then the players did nothing wrong and there is no lesson the DM could learn.

The OP here, but afaict the post he is quoting uses entirely in character language and seems to be asking about whether an alignment change is necessary rather than about any
OOC issues.

[zinycor]

I still don't see why people are assuming that this was an OOC problem. Nothing in the OP suggests any OOC issues, and they may well have just been asking about the alignment implications of the conflict.


Also, wow, I have had a lot of dysfunctional gaming, but I have never had to threaten (let alone resort to) OOC violence to solve an issue!

I mean, in my opinion, if there isn't an OoC problem, then no player is in the wrong or right. Neither the dwarf or paladin player were jerks.

[Lacco]

I mean, in my opinion, if there isn't an OoC problem, then no player is in the wrong or right. Neither the dwarf or paladin player were jerks.

This.

If this is pure IC conflict, and both players enjoy/agree about it, then it's pure roleplaying. Players - depending on their maturity and preferred roleplaying style - can enjoy even a healthy disagreement or playing rivalries, frenemies or even conflicting personalities. In that case, what remains is only to determine in-game mechanical result (i.e. if their actions have an effect on their alignments; something I will not go into). GM should not interfere if both players are OK with the game (they should check if they are OK) - otherwise they are encroaching on their player agency.

I could see this as IC conflict. Paladin's pragmatic action insulted Dwarf's (using capitals because I don't know character names) code of dwarven conduct, so he retaliated in purely dwarven fashion ("Decapita per Capita", so to say ). If both players are OK with the interaction (Dwarf's player was acting out anger because that's the feeling his character has), they can now explore the new party dynamic, influence of dwarven & paladin code of conduct on their interaction and the topic of prisoner handling vs. pragmatism.

If this is OOC conflict - players are having an issue with the other characters' action - that needs to be addressed OOC. Possible solutions were already discussed and proposed, not going to reiterate.