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

[hamishspence]

Example (was derailing an OOTS thread, so I took it here):

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.