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

[NorthernPhoenix]

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[Worldsong]

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

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

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

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

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

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

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

[Worldsong]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Mostly it was just an extreme overreaction.

[Mightymosy]

To answer the opening question:
They are both chaotic evil pieces of **** and I am happy I don't have to game with them.

[Quertus]

PvP is not just attacking other PCs - their property also counts.

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

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

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

[Satinavian]

On the global scale, what the paladin did was more wrong. Executing prisoners of wars is in nearly every siuation wrong and also a war crime. And a horse is just a horse.

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

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

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

But no one would care about alignment.

[Composer99]

IMO, what is appropriate or not "in character"/"in game" is not relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kyutaru]

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

There's a difference between that and someone literally murdering you.
There's also a difference between normal people and a paragon of good.
There's also a difference between real morality with real expectations and fictional morality.

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

[Worldsong]

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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

It was, yes, in the linked thread.

[ExLibrisMortis]

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

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

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

Spoiler: An aside

Show

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

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


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

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


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

[Lacco]

There is "intra party conflict" and "conflict between players".

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

[HappyDaze]

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

[Talakeal]

I would say it is an evil act for both of them, albeit a relatively minor one.

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

I do wonder how it eventually played out!

[icefractal]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Berenger]

...why does it become murder just because the Ogre cant act to stop them? Obviously the other ogres werent able to stop the party from killing them either, but i dont see anybody calling that out as murder.

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


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

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

[HappyDaze]

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

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

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

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

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

[Duff]

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

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

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


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

[NichG]

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

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

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

[Chauncymancer]

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

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

How is this meant to square with the totally courtly and appropriate for paladins acts of falconry and sport hunting aka "killing animals just because it is fun"?

[Elysiume]

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

[Lacco]

How is this meant to square with the totally courtly and appropriate for paladins acts of falconry and sport hunting aka "killing animals just because it is fun"?

Naah, that's knights for you. Cavaliers.

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

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

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

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

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

[Lvl 2 Expert]

This is an interesting dilemma. The paladin is probably the most out of line in character, while the dwarf appears more out of line out of character.

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

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

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

[Hand_of_Vecna]

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

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