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

[hamishspence]

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/showthre...las&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):

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Alignment is a red herring here, that's an in-character construct but the problem with this behavior is an OOC one.

[kyoryu]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.