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

[ImNotTrevor]

And based on the original Gygax thread, all we know for certain that this particular ogre is guilty of, is


"being part of an assault group that attacked a keep"


Anything else - them being a cannibal, a rapist, or (gasp!) a hillbilly!




is conjecture.

As a hillbilly myself I take exception to the comment.

Nevertheless, the idea that he has been perfectly innocent aside from being an enemy combatant is also conjecture (and less supported in system context and requires a bigger assumption) meaning the entire thing is a conjecture fight, and the War Crimes argument (for reasons stated above) is still specious at best given the context of the system.

Given larger system context, it is MORE LIKELY that the Ogre is actively malicious in the day to day than that he's a former accountant from Ogruebec who joined the army and is just serving the Ogranadian interest in this combat maneuver. (Which is to say, a perfectly reasonable guy except for wearing the Blue Team Jersey.)

Both positions might be conjecture, but one has general contextual support. It's POSSIBLE that he's just a guy who is an ogre. But in the larger context of system expectations, the assumption that the ogre is as described in the MM is reasonable and appropriate. Otherwise, I can just as well argue that the DM hasn't specifically stated that the Paladin is LG and alignment is in play, therefore that's also conjecture. But that would be SUPER UNREASONABLE, because unless we get information otherwise, we should assume basic system expectations are in play.

Part of basic system expectations is that ogres are murderous and cannibalistic. So... not sure where it's suddenly unreasonable to go with that basic assumption due to lack of information contrary to the basic assumption.

You might not like that this is the basic system assumption, but that's something to take up with WotC, not me.

[hamishspence]

Part of basic system expectations is that ogres are murderous and cannibalistic.

Usually CE means only that "more than 50% of Ogres are CE".

"The average ogre is CE" does not mean that it's right to treat every ogre as CE unless they've proven otherwise.

Especially if "treat as CE" means "execute them on sight".



"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank.

[Keltest]

Usually CE means only that "more than 50% of Ogres are CE".

"The average ogre is CE" does not mean that it's right to treat every ogre as CE unless they've proven otherwise.

Especially if "treat as CE" means "execute them on sight".



"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.

Presumably the Ogres who arent some flavor of evil dont go around doing things like attacking travelers and eating them, and are therefore substantially less likely to encounter adventurers in the first place.

[Democratus]

"Treating all members of a species exactly the same, based on the behaviour of the average member" is more of a LE sort of way to behave, than a Good way.

I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

[hamishspence]

Presumably the Ogres who arent some flavor of evil dont go around doing things like attacking travelers and eating them, and are therefore substantially less likely to encounter adventurers in the first place.

Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

When Gygax was writing, maybe. In a world with a reasonable proportion of ogres and goblins that don't deserve to be attacked, this kind of character is inappropriate as a paladin - they'd be better as a LE blackguard who thinks they're still a paladin.

"Genocidal vows" and "good" from 3.0 onwards, are fundamentally incompatible.

[Keltest]

Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.

Not remotely true, except in parodies. They almost never just wander aimlessly through the wilderness waiting for adventure to happen. Adventurers have goals and objectives, even if its something as abstract as "find treasure". There simply isnt anything in a non-malevolent ogre's lair that would interest adventurers.

[hamishspence]

Not remotely true, except in parodies. They almost never just wander aimlessly through the wilderness waiting for adventure to happen. Adventurers have goals and objectives, even if its something as abstract as "find treasure". There simply isnt anything in a non-malevolent ogre's lair that would interest adventurers.

Murderhobo adventurers wouldn't be going into the "nonevil ogre's lair" - they'd be bumping into them while they're in the wilderness, hunting, and kill them, because "they're an ogre".

"Crossing the wilderness on the way to something important" is standard fare for adventurers in general.

And if you believe The Giant, the kind of thing he objects to, happens nine times out of ten:

The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

[Keltest]

Murderhobo adventurers wouldn't be going into the "nonevil ogre's lair" - they'd be bumping into them while they're in the wilderness, hunting, and kill them, because "they're an ogre".

"Crossing the wilderness on the way to something important" is standard fare for adventurers in general.

From a watsonian perspective, the odds of that are incredibly minimal. Its a big world, so running into any individual of a given species is exceptionally unlikely. From a doyalist perspective, if a DM is having the party run into a non-evil Ogre just out and on its business as a random encounter, and the party doesnt expect non-combat encounters, thats not the party being murderhobos, thats the DM badly mismanaging expectations.

Also, why would adventurers attack a random ogre if they have somewhere else to be? It presumably has no obvious treasure, and if they kill it they cant even track down its lair to see if it has a hoard or anything. Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.

[hamishspence]

Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.

There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

[Keltest]

There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

From a lone ogre out minding its business? Thats barely worth the time it takes to deal with even if they are low enough level that they get meaningful XP from ogres.

[hamishspence]

I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

[Democratus]

Adventurers go everywhere, virtually.


When Gygax was writing, maybe. In a world with a reasonable proportion of ogres and goblins that don't deserve to be attacked, this kind of character is inappropriate as a paladin - they'd be better as a LE blackguard who thinks they're still a paladin.

"Genocidal vows" and "good" from 3.0 onwards, are fundamentally incompatible.

Not at all. Your table may run one way. But that doesn't make it a "fundamental" truth.

The idiom of the shining knight slaying monstrosities to make civilization safe is far older than Gygax, and is still relevant in storytelling today.

[Keltest]

I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

Youre kind of using your premise to defend itself at this point. If you dont start with the assumption that adventurers are XP-hungry murder machines with no greater goal than the maximum amount of combat per game session, the behavior youre describing looks nonsensical. Youve made a caricature of an adventuring group to make your point here.

[hamishspence]

Not at all. Your table may run one way. But that doesn't make it a "fundamental" truth.

The idiom of the shining knight slaying monstrosities to make civilization safe is far older than Gygax, and is still relevant in storytelling today.

With always Evil creatures, maybe. Not Usually evil creatures. Especially not Often evil creatures.

A character who swears a vow to kill all orcs (or ogres), is no paladin by 3.0 to 3.5 standards. Paladins in those editions can't commit Evil acts without Falling, and genocide is evil (BoVD).

[Friv]

I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

The average player of a murderhobo is neither a Paladin nor Lawful Good, nor would they want to be, since being Good only slows down their XP gain.

[hamishspence]

The average player of a murderhobo is neither a Paladin nor Lawful Good, nor would they want to be, since being Good only slows down their XP gain.

Fair enough.

Though sometimes it seems like a lot of murderhobo players see the Paladin as a way to be both Murderhobo and Good - just using Detect Evil to identify "sources of XP gain I can target without upsetting the DM".

[Friv]

Fair enough.

Though sometimes it seems like a lot of murderhobo players see the Paladin as a way to be both Murderhobo and Good - just using Detect Evil to identify "sources of XP gain I can target without upsetting the DM".

Heh, also fair.

If, as a GM, I had a party going that far-in on their goal to get the most XP and do the most killings, it would be time to just excise anything with a moral dimension and call it a day. Dire monsters, abberations, murder-cultists who die rather than talk, undead, demons... there's a lot of things I could introduce that PCs would never want to or have to (or be able to) capture alive, and then you've solved the problem of what to do with defeated enemies pretty cleanly.

[denthor]

I'd say that is purely on the Lawful spectrum. And thus would be appropriate behavior for LE, LN, or LG.

It's well within idiom for a LG Paladin to be sworn to slay all ogres, goblins, and other "evil creatures".

In 2e AD&D a paladin could not strike first. The other side had to attempt to hurt the the Paladin could act.

[NichG]

I spotted this dig.

You'll please note that I don't condone the violation of the Geneva Convention or the committing of war crimes IN REAL LIFE, because that would be an unreasonable stance entirely.

But given that we're talking about Imaginary Elf Games which give you the option to COOK PEOPLE ALIVE IN THEIR ARMOR a few times per day with nothing noting that this is going to definitely shift your alignment, and given that impaling people with spears (generally frowned upon in the modern era) is a standard part of combat, and given that LITERAL MIND CONTROL is fairly common, and given that Burning Hands is basically a flamethrower, that using poison is commonplace, spells that are the equivent of gassing your opponents exist (cloud kill) and are commonplace and nobody bats an eye at them, that 5e has the spell Blade Barrier which essentially allows you TO LITERALLY PUT YOUR OPPONENT IN A COMBINATION BLENDER/WOODCHIPPER, throwing ACID on someone is a CANTRIP, there is now a spell that INSTANTLY DEHYDRATES PEOPLE AROUND YOU BY SUCKING THE WATER OUT OF THEIR BODIES, and a spell called Immolate, which just sets someone on fire, straight up, and they sit there and burn alive (essentially burning them at the stake minus the rope), granted that all these things are things in D&D....

It's a bit hard to take "killing a tied up ogre is a war crime" seriously. Half the spells in the game are either warcrimes or thoroughly and unnecessarily cruel ways to kill people. Yet we're gonna sit here and pooh pooh a Paladin?

Unless you're ready to bust out your war crimes accusations whenever someone casts Burning Hands, Immolate, Acid Splash, Cloudkill, Dominate Person, suggestion, or Blade Barrier... and for that matter consider "dinging" people on their alignment whenever they cast any of the spells that aren't technically war crimes but are still really brutal ways to kill someone, maybe don't argue from this position, because it's *ridiculous.*

I actually don't care what you get up to in D&D since as you point out, none of it is real.

But, you did make some arguments that don't actually stop at the border of 'elf games':

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

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

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

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

It's not intended as a dig at you, more a point that it's unproductive to push players to the point where they start to make arguments that bleed over into real-life stances.

[ImNotTrevor]

There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

See below:

Youre kind of using your premise to defend itself at this point. If you dont start with the assumption that adventurers are XP-hungry murder machines with no greater goal than the maximum amount of combat per game session, the behavior youre describing looks nonsensical. Youve made a caricature of an adventuring group to make your point here.

Thanks for beating me to this point.

At this point it seems the position has lost a lot of its footing.

If there's a greater than 50/50 chance the ogre is evil, and it's going and picking fights with other civilizations, (fortified positions have a longstanding record of being unable to go bother someone by virtue of being immobile) and just got into a fight with some adventurers who are presumably good guys trying to fight badguys, and most DMs don't bother with the whole "oh ho ho, but THIS ONE OGRE is actually a GOOD GUY" thing, I think the idea that this ogre actually being a good person deep down is so probable that we're just as likely to be committing a great moral wrong as we are to be deleting Bad Guy #435 from the DM's notes, is STILL an unreasonable notion.

That the point in general has to be supported by the ADDITIONAL CONJECTURE that this party (and most parties) are "murderhobos" is ridiculous.

Yes. D&D often relies on "killin' orcs cuz orcs is evil." Do you know WHY?
Because D&D is about heroes doing violence to bad guys.
Always has been, hopefully always will be. And frankly, not everyone wants it to be that complicated. Which is totally fine, by me.

[Quertus]

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

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

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

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

Ah. We're coming at this from different assumptions.

I'm starting with "there is an established social contract", and "they've already agreed that there is a problem".

If everyone is happy, then… this isn't a conversation we should be having. And if we haven't verified that people are unhappy, this conversation is jumping the gun. (So, we're in complete agreement here afaict).

If there *isn't* an established social contract, then, yes, it's a bit muddier waters, and I can see going more the route you described.

Still, I view "(your action of) killing the prisoner / my horse is (seemingly) the cause of my dissatisfaction with the game, because <reasons>” and "well, I could see my character doing <other thing>" or "maybe we could have <event> happen" or "can we retcon <established fact>?” to be very efficient, productive dialog.

Granted, that's… small picture, rather than big picture "what kind of game / social contract do we want".

Have I been lucky to *usually* have such discussions with people who can talk things out that way? Have I been foolish in encouraging this method of direct conflict / problem resolution?

And, of course, have I completely misunderstood part or all of your intended message?

…

On second read through, I really like the underlined bit. Recognizing that we have a problem - one for which we do not have defined resolution mechanics - and setting out to build the tools to resolve such issues in the future.

I guess I have a combination of… "prefer to create the tools before the game begins" and "if those tools fail, solve the specific problem before or at the same time as creating the general solution". That is, maybe, for example, we retcon *this*, as the best answer to *this*, *then* decide that isn't a good general solution for us, and discuss the general solution.

Then again, I tend to find, "has no interest in trying to help resolve the unhappiness of a fellow player (let alone when it's 'their fault')" to be a strong indicator of someone I don't want to game with, so… it may bias my opinion on the effectiveness of certain strategies.

So, again, anything where I'm completely off base?

[NichG]

Ah. We're coming at this from different assumptions.

I'm starting with "there is an established social contract", and "they've already agreed that there is a problem".

If everyone is happy, then… this isn't a conversation we should be having. And if we haven't verified that people are unhappy, this conversation is jumping the gun. (So, we're in complete agreement here afaict).

If there *isn't* an established social contract, then, yes, it's a bit muddier waters, and I can see going more the route you described.

Still, I view "(your action of) killing the prisoner / my horse is (seemingly) the cause of my dissatisfaction with the game, because <reasons>” and "well, I could see my character doing <other thing>" or "maybe we could have <event> happen" or "can we retcon <established fact>?” to be very efficient, productive dialog.

Granted, that's… small picture, rather than big picture "what kind of game / social contract do we want".

Have I been lucky to *usually* have such discussions with people who can talk things out that way? Have I been foolish in encouraging this method of direct conflict / problem resolution?

And, of course, have I completely misunderstood part or all of your intended message?

…

On second read through, I really like the underlined bit. Recognizing that we have a problem - one for which we do not have defined resolution mechanics - and setting out to build the tools to resolve such issues in the future.

I guess I have a combination of… "prefer to create the tools before the game begins" and "if those tools fail, solve the specific problem before or at the same time as creating the general solution". That is, maybe, for example, we retcon *this*, as the best answer to *this*, *then* decide that isn't a good general solution for us, and discuss the general solution.

Then again, I tend to find, "has no interest in trying to help resolve the unhappiness of a fellow player (let alone when it's 'their fault')" to be a strong indicator of someone I don't want to game with, so… it may bias my opinion on the effectiveness of certain strategies.

So, again, anything where I'm completely off base?

No, I think that's basically in accordance with my position here.

[Quertus]

No, I think that's basically in accordance with my position here.

Cool, thanks for explaining.

Also, why would adventurers attack a random ogre if they have somewhere else to be? It presumably has no obvious treasure, and if they kill it they cant even track down its lair to see if it has a hoard or anything. Unless theyre in an area with explicit ogre problems (in which case again, thats on the DM for mismanaging player expectations) theres nothing to be gained.

There's XP to be gained. The average player playing a murderhobo adventurer will have them attack almost anything they consider "fair game" for the XP alone.

I think you're underestimating how XP-hungry the average player of a murderhobo is.


"This possible enemy is not worth the time to deal with" and "murderhobo" just don't go together.

Murdering a pile of XP for the XP is suboptimal. Optimal play is to maximize your wealth to XP ratio, to maximize the XP gain per unit of threat. Real hardcore optimizers love negative levels.

So a *real* Determinator would either ignore the Ogre, capture it and sell it into slavery, or capture whole breeding groups to sell their offspring into slavery in perpetuity. Or, if murdering it was unavoidable, sell the meat (using "Craft: meat pie" to increase the value) and animate the bones.

[Mutazoia]

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

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...11762&start=60


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

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

Okay, after painfully sorting through the entire thread, let me toss in my two copper pieces worth.

A) The Ogre was actively taking part in attacking travelers, the keep, pretty much anybody the Ogres could get their hands on. Knowing this we can assume that this particular ogre has killed and eaten people that would otherwise be alive and uneaten if this ogre had not made the conscious effort to kill and eat them. So bad Ogre, not a good Ogre.

B) Being that we have established that the ogre is a bad ogre, we can reasonably make the assumption that should it be released, it will resume its lifestyle of killing and eating people as soon as it possibly can. Freeing the ogre is, therefore, a bad decision that causes more death and consumption of people not willing to die and be consumed. This means that freeing the ogre is not an option.

C) Whereas freeing the ogre is not an option, the next option would be to drag him to the nearest town for incarceration. The question now becomes "What kind of town would realistically be equipped to incarcerate an ogre indefinitely, as well as having a sufficiently trained and equipped security force that can easily overpower the ogre should it attempt to escape. Given the implied technological level of the D&D world, we can pretty much assume that only the aforementioned Keep is going to have a chance at it. Now the question becomes "Does the party have the time and resources to safely transport the ogre back to the Keep?" Knowing as little as we do about the situation, we can only conjecture at the answer but obviously the Paladin didn't think so. We can also conjecture that the rest of the party, sans the Dwarf, agreed to some extent, as the Dwarf seems to be the only one to have taken issue with the Paladin's actions.

D) What, exactly did the Dwarf expect to happen to the ogre once he was dragged back to a secure facility? Did he expect a monster who had attacked the keep to be fed and sheltered while a fair trial was prepared, complete with adequate, competent legal representation? Would taking the ogre to "jail" serve any purpose other than expending the time and resources to get it there, just to have it killed instantly by the guards? As a side issue, does the Dwarf argue for capturing and jailing other monsters that the party has defeated? Has the Dwarf given medical treatment to monsters that have dropped below zero HP and are bleeding out? If not, then why is this particular ogre special?

E) What did the horse ever do to the Dwarf to warrant death? The Dwarf had no prior relationship to the ogre, so there is no logical reason for the Dwarf to avenge it's death. Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people. If you have a cat and get into an argument with your neighbor, does that mean that your neighbor is well within his rights to walk over and kill your cat in front of you? Would you feel comfortable still living next door to that person? Would any well adjusted, sane person take their anger at a person out on an animal? IMHO only an evil bastard would do such a thing.


F) By their very nature, the PCs are given an unwritten covenant to be judge, jury, and executioners. They are allowed, nay expected, to kill and maim monsters, demi-humans, and humans alike if they are acting in a manner that is disparate to the rest of society. Paladins embody that covenant more so than other classes. By their very nature (and the example of their literary forefathers), they are meant to protect the weak and avenge the fallen. Allowing a monster that has murdered and eaten peaceful folk to go free would be unheard-of, and frankly I would be surprised if the rest of the party, given the choice, had voted to do so. Freeing the ogre would make the party responsible for every death that ogre caused for the rest of it's life.

It sounds to me like Mr. Dwarf player has some kind of personal problem with Mr. Paladin player and chose that moment to act on it. IMHO I would not ding the Paladin for his actions at all. He acted more or less how I would expect a Paladin to act against a murderous monster. In this instance I would place the entire blame on the Dwarf for choosing to lash out at another player. He had no reason, in game or IRL, to truly justify doing so. Not only that, but doing so harms the rest of the party by forcing them to travel at the speed of their slowest member...the now foot bound Paladin.

[DarkWhisper]

B) Being that we have established that the ogre is a bad ogre, we can reasonably make the assumption that should it be released, it will resume its lifestyle of killing and eating people as soon as it possibly can. Freeing the ogre is, therefore, a bad decision that causes more death and consumption of people not willing to die and be consumed. This means that freeing the ogre is not an option.

Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?

The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last ogre,

emphasis added

E) What did the horse ever do to the Dwarf to warrant death? The Dwarf had no prior relationship to the ogre, so there is no logical reason for the Dwarf to avenge it's death. Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people.

{Dwarf} walks over to {Paladin's} horse and slits its throat.
"Don't tarry when you run to catch up with us.

names replaced, emphasis added

Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a ogre to authorities. Its clear the ogre will only slow them down.

emphasis added

Killing the Paladin's horse because he is mad at the Paladin is far and away more psychotic and evil than killing a monster that has killed and eaten unwilling people

The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).

Moreover,

"If you ever so much as interfere with my prisoners again

emphasis added

the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage .

As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).

[hamishspence]

Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".

By their very nature, the PCs are given an unwritten covenant to be judge, jury, and executioners. They are allowed, nay expected, to kill and maim monsters, demi-humans, and humans alike if they are acting in a manner that is disparate to the rest of society. Paladins embody that covenant more so than other classes.

But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

[Rynjin]

Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.


It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

Sure...because humans are different from ogres. And even then, a human bandit? I'd still barely bat an eye.

[ImNotTrevor]

Can we ? Could the dwarf / paladin ?

Let's examine the evidence again:
1. The Ogre has already been harming innocents per original thread discussion.
2. The Ogre was trying to kill the PCs a few minutes prior to this event.
3. The vast majority of DMs aren't interested in havin each mook be a complex, fleshed out character with redemption arc potential, and nothing indicates this orc to be particularly noteworthy in any way.
4. D&D has a long cultural history of Ogres being badguys, and most DMs aren't out to challenge the players' assumptions and make ogres that are totes ready for a new lease on life as a purehearted goodboy.
5. In real life, the best and most consistent predictor of future behavior is... past behavior. Meaning that if the ogre has been regularly killing people, the expected outcome of releasing him is that the previous behavior will resume.
6. New wrinkle, if released, the ogre does have some chance of alerting his allies to the party's approach and making that whole thing even more dangerous.

So... given that we have plenty of information pointing to Ogre = Evil, there's no reason to assume that putting rope on this ogre has significantly affected the morality of the issue,

The killing of the horse wasn't (only) retaliation or revenge; it was a way of ensuring that the paladin wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the party as they make their way to the highfolk, of, essentially, kicking the paladin from the group (at least for a time).

Yeah, I'm sure if I shot your dog you'd have a pretty hard time making it to the barbecue that night.

That I wanted you to be late for the bbq and maybe not hang out with us makes this a MORE UNREASONABLE DECISION, not a less unreasonable one.

Since I get the tickle that someone will say the horse is more akin to a car here, busting the hell out of someone's car would also be fairly psychopathic as responses go.

the possessive pronoun implies that the dwarf considers the ogre 'his' prisoner - which the paladin had just slain, presumable without so much as a discussion with the rest of the party and certainly without everyone's consent.

Since it has been established that the horse was not the "Paladin's Mount" but just a 'normal' one, we have the slaughter of an intelligent being vs the slaughter of an animal, with the latter being the paladin's possession and the former in the dwarf's (at least from the dwarf's point of view). So... mutual property damage .

As to whether there having been a prior relationship with the ogre or not - the dwarf seems to have assumed responsibility for it ("my prisoner"). Killing a prisoner that someone has taken responsibility for isn't ok - certainly not without prior discussion with all involved parties (which didn't happen).

NOBODY has argued that Pally was 100% justified to not talk to anybody before offing the Ogre.

I have mentioned that this is a case of a DM just letting a thing happen without thinking and suddenly the players have problems.

There was apparently no mention of "So, party, you see Paladin drawing his sword and walking towards the ogre. Is anyone going to do anything about this?"

Had that happened, probably none of the rest would have happened. I put primary blame on the DM, unironically.

Since it DID happen, killing the ogre 5 minutes after killing all the other ogres is not elevating "shoulda asked, bro" to the level of "Psycho killer who deserves to have his animals slaughtered."

I get what the dwarf was trying to do, but there are better responses.

Imagine that, in every instance, the word "ogre" was replaced with "human" - but nothing else was changed.

Hmmmm.....
My opinion is unchanged.

It's safe to say that people would be a lot less sympathetic to the paladin, and a lot less inclined to believe the worst about the prisoner.

Humans in D&D don't have genre expectations almost exclusively painting them as the badguy. This is a significant change to the scenario for that reason.

HOWEVER, in this situation I'm not seeing much reason to change my stance, since the ogre (now human) was said in the previous thread to be killing and eating people. Making this human a supermurderous cannibal.

A textbook example of how the text in the MM, is used to justify pre-judging the prisoner as "deserving of death".

Look, I get that when you run your games, every mook has a backstory and can be redeemed, and behind every blade of grass is a new reason for the PCs to worry that they're actually terrible people.

But most campaigns just want to keep the moral side simple. The ones in black armor are badguys and we're not gonna spend time worrying about the moral quandries of lopping their heads off because they're badguys. Why? Because they are interested in other things.

But players will always be more careful with humans or demi-humans, than "monsters". Despite the fact that all 3 are in some Monster Manuals.

You do realize that since you've made this an ultimatum (players will always...) that the point is significantly weakened since there are definitely moments where it hasn't mattered to anyone what race the guy getting chopped is.

Ever notice how Bandits rarely get described by what race each one is? Even though they may be human or half orc or elven or whatever? And yet PCs aren't suddenly less inclined to riddle them with holes?

Because I sure have noticed that.

[hamishspence]

in this situation I'm not seeing much reason to change my stance, since the ogre (now human) was said in the previous thread to be killing and eating people. Making this human a supermurderous cannibal.

Where, precisely, was this said in the Gygax thread?

This was the original statement - Replacing Ogre with Human - but otherwise changing nothing, it becomes:

I had a situation come up. The group had been ambushed by a group of humans, and managed to fight them off and capture the remaining one. They questioned it (By tying it upside down and hanging it by its feet from a tree.) They learned that it was part of the assault group that had just attacked a keep some days before. And this PC group was part of the defense of the keep. The paladin in the group, once finding out that no more harm will come from this tribe. That this is the last human, decides to execute the human. Their mission is to get to the highfolk, and thus they dont have time to drag a human to authorities. Its clear thehuman will only slow them down.

[ImNotTrevor]

Where, precisely, was this said in the Gygax thread?

Going off Mutazoia's research into it:

Okay, after painfully sorting through the entire thread, let me toss in my two copper pieces worth.

A) The Ogre was actively taking part in attacking travelers, the keep, pretty much anybody the Ogres could get their hands on.

I'll give this doesn't include the cannibalism, so this human would just be a mass murderer. Which as we all know, means he's beyond reproach.