I've had murder hobos in the games I've run before. Usually, either the whole group joins in or it's not an issue. One of the games I'm currently running, it is only one of the three players walking down that path.
While crossing a river via ferry, the group was met on the other end by a man in robes escorted by guard who identified himself as a Priest of Tyr. He then named two characters whom he was seeking on "a matter of justice". The Priest was seeking their testimony relating to a murder (they had been seen arguing in public with the victim the day before). Rather than try to slip away or deceive the priest, the rogue decided to full attack right away. Strangely (even after I explained who Tyr was) the paladin decided to back the rogue (with non-lethal blows), however, the group cleric stayed out of the fight.
As the encounter was balanced, the non-participation of the cleric lead to defeat. Although questioning under Zone of Truth cleared the PCs of the murder the priest was investigating, they were now guilty of assaulting a Priest of Tyr. The paladin vowed to make ammends, however, the rogue was un-repentant.
When I asked about the rogue's actions he gave a response that I'd called strongly in the role of murder-hobo: "He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I did set a "non-evil characters" rule at the start of the campaign and I'm glad he's getting push-back from the othe players rather than having me step in as DM; but I don't think it will change the path he is putting his character down though. At least I now get to send the paladin on a quest of my choice :)
This is a problem. Especially since you clearly stated a "No Evil Characters" rule, and this is clearly in direct violation of that concept. I'd tell them simply that they either need to play their character differently or play as a different character. They, and your other players, signed up for a specific game with a specific expectation about the types of characters that would be participating. If you had gone in with a "play whatever you want, however you want" attitude then being a psycho would be fine, but you set rules and it's not fair to you or the other players to have someone blatantly defy the rules everyone agreed on at the start of the game.
I'd tell them simply that they either need to play their character differently or play as a different character.
I'm currently content with support the action the other players took to curb what I do consider "aggressive" behavior.
I did talk with the player after session, which is when he justified the actions as "he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."" This attitude moves from what I consider "aggressive" into "evil" behavior; so yes, if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game.
I'd tell them simply that they either need to play their character differently or play as a different character.
I'm currently content with support the action the other players took to curb what I do consider "aggressive" behavior.
I did talk with the player after session, which is when he justified the actions as "he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."" This attitude moves from what I consider "aggressive" into "evil" behavior; so yes, if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game.
This just another version of "I just playing my pc" and the underline part should be He will be retired from the game. The rogue player is one of reasons for my signature.
This is an OOC, not an IC, issue. Explain to the player that he is not allowed to RP an evil character. Play a different character, or RP the character differently, or leave the game.
Not an easy convo to have but it needs to be had.
DO NOT solve it IC with jail time, etc. Yes that is a logical IC consequence, but this is a player issue, not a character issue. The player was told not to play an evil character and is doing it anyway. It's like cheating at the table. You can't solve it IC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'd tell them simply that they either need to play their character differently or play as a different character.
I'm currently content with support the action the other players took to curb what I do consider "aggressive" behavior.
I did talk with the player after session, which is when he justified the actions as "he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."" This attitude moves from what I consider "aggressive" into "evil" behavior; so yes, if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game.
I always think retiring a character is a drastic measure that isn’t generally needed. Instead I like to allow a chance at role playing a change accepting that may take a while to actually occur.
As an example in a similar situation it was clear in a party of 5 that 4 of the players wanted to wait a beat before deciding combat had to be the option to resolve something, the 5th would just go in swords swinging regardless, he then started fights in bars and just became a liability. Out of game we had a conversation as a group and explained, he accepted that maybe the way he was playing the game was detrimental to the party, he also accepted that the way he had been playing was not the neutral chaotic his character was meant to be. Instead of having him make the switch overnight, or retiring his character, in game the players characters started taking him in hand, they had some great moments helping him control himself. Finally in game he took a class of cleric simply to represent the impact the party cleric had in tempering his edges.
This took place over about 9 - 12 months of real time play, in game that period covered about 4 months. An initial change happened quickly as the party members got him to stop a beat, but he would still act out of none of them was near by, then slowly he meditated.
In your case talk to the players and encourage them to deal with this in game as a conversation. At the end of the day in a party of 3 if his character is risking the safety of the other 2 and causing problems, or acting against the aims and goals of the 2 lawful good characters what reason is there for them to keep him around, rather then retiring the other 2 may simply ditch him and go there own separate ways. Another thing that has happened in several campaigns when a characters aims and goals became different to the rest of the party. Tell your players they have the agency to split up the party of it makes sense.
This is an OOC, not an IC, issue. Explain to the player that he is not allowed to RP an evil character. Play a different character, or RP the character differently, or leave the game.
Not an easy convo to have but it needs to be had.
DO NOT solve it IC with jail time, etc. Yes that is a logical IC consequence, but this is a player issue, not a character issue. The player was told not to play an evil character and is doing it anyway. It's like cheating at the table. You can't solve it IC.
Right on. If you don't discuss this with the player, the behavior is going to continue. If this is someone you want to keep being friends with, they should understand. If not, you'll have to bite the bullet and boot them, for your fun and everyone else's.
That's not to say you shouldn't execute the character too though. That's what I'd do. And that Paladin is at the least going on a big holy quest. After all, any chance of proving themselves innocent of the murder they DIDN'T commit is now gone, since they refused to testify about it and acted like bloodthirsty psychopaths. Heck, their best shot at getting out alive is to pin it on the rogue. What incredible idiots.
Please, please, confront the player. I know how hard that can be, but it can also be vital to your campaign.
I was recently a player in just such a campaign, and looking back, I can see so much that we missed because we all continued to tolerate the evil character until the end. The result was that we spent at least the entirety of the last story arc (and I suspect more than that) actively avoiding encounters because we simply couldn't afford to risk them with the evil character in the group. She would inevitably have betrayed us or slaughtered a much needed ally or "accidently forgotten" the size of an area-of-effect spell that she dropped indiscriminately on party and foes alike. So, our level 1-16 campaign ended with us at level 13. We did not confront the BBEG on his home plane. We did not explore the 2 obvious adventure sites or follow the hooks that would have taken us to either place.
Don't get me wrong. This was still a great campaign. We had some wonderful character interactions and development and the GM gave us a truly memorable story. I appreciate very much all that he did for us. There is just a part of me, looking back and wishing that we, as a group, had felt able to face those other challenges. How much more might we have seen and done if it were not for the one person insisting on what is basically the same attitude as your troublesome player The whole "...not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I have told the player straight out that certain actions I considered "evil" wouldn't be tolerated.
For instance, the party took a drow prisoner, hoping to interrogate for information on the nearby drow camp. The drow didn't crack, the rogues reaction was "I stab them repeatidly in the foot till they die." I informed the player that was on overtly evil action. We got past it.
Attacking a priest of Tyr isn't overtly "evil", it is however, very aggressive. I'm glad the other players intervened on this one rather than having me step in as DM.
I think it is genuinely bad role-play on the player's part rather than trying to use a flimsy explaination to justify actions against the spirit of this particular campaign. As I've said before, "evil" is not an allowable characater option in this campaign and I will retire the character if they continue to "role-play" in this manner.
With all due respect, I would consider randomly attacking figures of authority to avoid being questioned an act of evil. This kind of smells like how my kids act. Push a little to see how far they can go, then push a bit more.
Based on the OP, the priest was acting as an officer of the law, and asking them legitimate questions as regard to being witnesses to a crime. To run away or lie to him would be non-lawful. To attack him and attempt to kill him would be evil. The paladin was maybe being non-lawful to use subduing, but since you didn't say the rogue was using non-lethal blows, I can only assume the rogue was attacking to kill, someone who was just doing their law-abiding job. That is an evil act.
This would be the equivalent to a policeman knocks on your door to ask you questions, and you pull out a gun and start shooting at the cop. Running from the cop is non-lawful. But shooting and trying to kill the cop, who is just here to ask you questions? That is evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This would be the equivalent to a policeman knocks on your door to ask you questions, and you pull out a gun and start shooting at the cop. Running from the cop is non-lawful. But shooting and trying to kill the cop, who is just here to ask you questions? That is evil.
In this case the player can be glad I'm DM and have given him a wider leash to roam on than you would in my place. Yes, in our modern society attacking a police officer under the circumstances you describe would be evil.
The characters are not in our modern world. My PCs are roaming the Forgotten Realms in the North. Alustriel Silverhand's kingdom of the League of the SIlver Marches fell apart years ago, there is no nation or "law" holding claim to where the characters are. Even if it were still in existance the Uthgardt and orcs that also live in the area certainly wouldn't give a hoot about what some city-folk priest of Tyr has to say about "laws".
The main baddies in the campaign up until now have been orcs, drow and a green hag. They are evil because they choose to murder and betray their own kind, not beacuse they seek to control or destroy the cities of the north. If an orc warlord says his people were on the land first and the humans/elves need to move out, well, that doesn't make him evil. Killing innocent children, butchering troops that have surrendered, agreeing to "terms of truce" then disregarding them to launch a surprise attack. That makes them the villians.
The modern day version would be to go to a foreign country, particularly one with a different set of laws or beliefs on "justice" and see what happens. North Korea seems like a good present day example.
I've had murder hobos in the games I've run before. Usually, either the whole group joins in or it's not an issue. One of the games I'm currently running, it is only one of the three players walking down that path.
While crossing a river via ferry, the group was met on the other end by a man in robes escorted by guard who identified himself as a Priest of Tyr. He then named two characters whom he was seeking on "a matter of justice". The Priest was seeking their testimony relating to a murder (they had been seen arguing in public with the victim the day before). Rather than try to slip away or deceive the priest, the rogue decided to full attack right away. Strangely (even after I explained who Tyr was) the paladin decided to back the rogue (with non-lethal blows), however, the group cleric stayed out of the fight.
As the encounter was balanced, the non-participation of the cleric lead to defeat. Although questioning under Zone of Truth cleared the PCs of the murder the priest was investigating, they were now guilty of assaulting a Priest of Tyr. The paladin vowed to make ammends, however, the rogue was un-repentant.
When I asked about the rogue's actions he gave a response that I'd called strongly in the role of murder-hobo: "He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I did set a "non-evil characters" rule at the start of the campaign and I'm glad he's getting push-back from the othe players rather than having me step in as DM; but I don't think it will change the path he is putting his character down though. At least I now get to send the paladin on a quest of my choice :)
That Paladin should definitely not be playing one. Thats just me though, I don't allow Pally's to be anything but LG (and LG Clerics and Paladins have to tithe 10% to the poor, but not the church)
One option I don't see listed is to have the party encounter someone similar, who is much more powerful. If the murder hobo decides to again attack out of hand, the others won't join in again, and he MAY die, or you may decide the foe is merciful and spares his life.....THIS time. This is, of course, assuming you have had yet another talk with him/her about the evil slant the character is taking. It sounds like this issue has been addressed once already, and if it continues, I, as a DM would have no issue with allowing the character to simply be killed. I'm not interested in ongoing conflict over the same thing and I wouldn't tolerate it. It is disruptive to the game and thus the other players and to me, majority rules. You irritate 3 of the 4 people involved in the game, you can expect some pretty harsh reactions and consequences as a result.
Our own group is coming into some conflict (IC conflict) where 2 of the players are throwing in with evil creatures and the other 2 are against it. Our case isn't as disruptive as your situation appears to be, but it is already making for some very interesting interactions with the group. Oddly enough, my character is more mediator than anything in this (he is against siding with evil and won't, but understands, to an extent, why the other 2 are accepting these "gifts" from evil creatures)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I've had murder hobos in the games I've run before. Usually, either the whole group joins in or it's not an issue. One of the games I'm currently running, it is only one of the three players walking down that path.
While crossing a river via ferry, the group was met on the other end by a man in robes escorted by guard who identified himself as a Priest of Tyr. He then named two characters whom he was seeking on "a matter of justice". The Priest was seeking their testimony relating to a murder (they had been seen arguing in public with the victim the day before). Rather than try to slip away or deceive the priest, the rogue decided to full attack right away. Strangely (even after I explained who Tyr was) the paladin decided to back the rogue (with non-lethal blows), however, the group cleric stayed out of the fight.
As the encounter was balanced, the non-participation of the cleric lead to defeat. Although questioning under Zone of Truth cleared the PCs of the murder the priest was investigating, they were now guilty of assaulting a Priest of Tyr. The paladin vowed to make ammends, however, the rogue was un-repentant.
When I asked about the rogue's actions he gave a response that I'd called strongly in the role of murder-hobo: "He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I did set a "non-evil characters" rule at the start of the campaign and I'm glad he's getting push-back from the othe players rather than having me step in as DM; but I don't think it will change the path he is putting his character down though. At least I now get to send the paladin on a quest of my choice :)
That Paladin should definitely not be playing one. Thats just me though, I don't allow Pally's to be anything but LG (and LG Clerics and Paladins have to tithe 10% to the poor, but not the church)
The paladin player is a 14 year old kid playing with a bunch of 40+ crowd (including me); so I give him kudos for not simply jumping on the murder hobo bandwagon. And additional bonus, his character admitted to wrong-doing and vowed to make ammends. Plenty of grown men and women I've played with over the years would burn the world in flames before admiting they were on the wrong side of a fight.
Honestly, its not just "modern views" that make me personally think that the character is acting evil. You posted: "He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
That's the justification they gave for attacking someone just asking questions; minor nuisance => violence. That fits between NE and CE, as per PHB - "Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."
But you seem to disagree with that assessment, so lets move on.
The fundamental problem is that the rogue player still wants to have his PC engage in antisocial behavior. They're under arrest, and not showing any remorse. So, you have two options. Either talk with them OOC that you don't want to run that kind of game, or you deal with it IC.
Actions have consequences.
They said that violence gets results, and they don't care about hurting others over minor inconveniences. Sounds like they're expecting you to hold their hands and shield them from consequences. So... don't. Hold a trial with whatever figures are in power - town elders, tribal chiefs, whatever. Throw them out of town. Show that there's consequences for being a murder hobo.
If you let them get away with violence without consequence... then the player will just keep on doing things like this, over and over. They won't learn that violence isn't the answer. Don't enable the attitude at the table.
One option I don't see listed is to have the party encounter someone similar, who is much more powerful. If the murder hobo decides to again attack out of hand, the others won't join in again, and he MAY die, or you may decide the foe is merciful and spares his life.....THIS time. This is, of course, assuming you have had yet another talk with him/her about the evil slant the character is taking. It sounds like this issue has been addressed once already, and if it continues, I, as a DM would have no issue with allowing the character to simply be killed.
I've only been that heavy-handed once.
PCs started as level 1s hunting goblins for the local garrison commander. They kill a few goblins, find an abandoned dwarven ruin, kill a few undead. Head back to town with both goblin ears for bounty and treasure looted from the ruin. They're level 3 now, feeling pretty proud of themselves....
They arrive at the garrison commander's office to present their goblin ears and earn their bounties. - one player isn't happy with the bounty (remember they have HEAPS of coin recoverd from the dwarven ruin falling out of their pockets), so he rolls INTIMIDATE to try to get more money - roll is a "natural 1", the big man in charge tells them to take their bounty and leave - player is flustered, his character threatens violence and rolls another INTIMIDATION without ASKING me as DM first...rolls another "natural 1" - the garrison commander calls for his guard to arrest the PC and throw him in stocks - the entire party decides to FIGHT their way out; I actually let them escape through repeatedly stating "you hear the guards yell out, LOCK THE GATES, are you sure you want to stay and fight?" - so somehow they steal horses and ride out of the fort before the gate is shut ( I didin't even make rolls, it was a gift so the other players could survive) - they decide to camp on the road. a days ride from the fort. Not surprisingly they are attacked mid-rest. - the group leaves the road to rest in the wilderness, recovers, the heads back to the road to get to the nearest town. They are somehow astonished to find more horseman out looking for them - the whole thing came to an end when one PC (the intial offender) was captured. The remaining PCs decided the only way to free him was a direct frontal assault at 3-to-1 odds. I even told them they woudln't win the fight. - they charged anyway, they died in combat, except one who was hung to death in public on the fort wall.
I haven't DMed a better case for Darwin's Theory of Evolution. None of those players are part of this group.
I’ve had that type of player in my games a couple of times. It’s always better when the player leaves the group and finds a group better suited to their preferred play style for everyone involved.
Your experience may be different, but I haven’t found anyone who plays a murder hobo well who enjoys playing in a heroic campaign instead of an evil one.
Show that there's consequences for being a murder hobo.
If you let them get away with violence without consequence... then the player will just keep on doing things like this, over and over. They won't learn that violence isn't the answer. Don't enable the attitude at the table.
NPCs "friendly" to the party have had disapproving words with the paladin.
In regard to the rogue's past attempts to torture prisoners, two NPCs characters working with the group walked off. This time I didn't just leave it for NPCs. The player has been told as stated in previous posts, " if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game."
What would you suggest? Have one of the deities of the Forgotten Realms come down from the sky and smack him around a little? In my experience that just causes players to act out more outrageously.
I've had murder hobos in the games I've run before. Usually, either the whole group joins in or it's not an issue. One of the games I'm currently running, it is only one of the three players walking down that path.
While crossing a river via ferry, the group was met on the other end by a man in robes escorted by guard who identified himself as a Priest of Tyr. He then named two characters whom he was seeking on "a matter of justice". The Priest was seeking their testimony relating to a murder (they had been seen arguing in public with the victim the day before). Rather than try to slip away or deceive the priest, the rogue decided to full attack right away. Strangely (even after I explained who Tyr was) the paladin decided to back the rogue (with non-lethal blows), however, the group cleric stayed out of the fight.
As the encounter was balanced, the non-participation of the cleric lead to defeat. Although questioning under Zone of Truth cleared the PCs of the murder the priest was investigating, they were now guilty of assaulting a Priest of Tyr. The paladin vowed to make ammends, however, the rogue was un-repentant.
When I asked about the rogue's actions he gave a response that I'd called strongly in the role of murder-hobo:
"He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I did set a "non-evil characters" rule at the start of the campaign and I'm glad he's getting push-back from the othe players rather than having me step in as DM; but I don't think it will change the path he is putting his character down though. At least I now get to send the paladin on a quest of my choice :)
This is a problem. Especially since you clearly stated a "No Evil Characters" rule, and this is clearly in direct violation of that concept. I'd tell them simply that they either need to play their character differently or play as a different character. They, and your other players, signed up for a specific game with a specific expectation about the types of characters that would be participating. If you had gone in with a "play whatever you want, however you want" attitude then being a psycho would be fine, but you set rules and it's not fair to you or the other players to have someone blatantly defy the rules everyone agreed on at the start of the game.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I'm currently content with support the action the other players took to curb what I do consider "aggressive" behavior.
I did talk with the player after session, which is when he justified the actions as "he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."" This attitude moves from what I consider "aggressive" into "evil" behavior; so yes, if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game.
To take it from an IC perspective, why would the paladin and cleric continue to associate with somebody who will simply attack priests of Tyr?
This just another version of "I just playing my pc" and the underline part should be He will be retired from the game. The rogue player is one of reasons for my signature.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
This is an OOC, not an IC, issue. Explain to the player that he is not allowed to RP an evil character. Play a different character, or RP the character differently, or leave the game.
Not an easy convo to have but it needs to be had.
DO NOT solve it IC with jail time, etc. Yes that is a logical IC consequence, but this is a player issue, not a character issue. The player was told not to play an evil character and is doing it anyway. It's like cheating at the table. You can't solve it IC.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I always think retiring a character is a drastic measure that isn’t generally needed. Instead I like to allow a chance at role playing a change accepting that may take a while to actually occur.
As an example in a similar situation it was clear in a party of 5 that 4 of the players wanted to wait a beat before deciding combat had to be the option to resolve something, the 5th would just go in swords swinging regardless, he then started fights in bars and just became a liability. Out of game we had a conversation as a group and explained, he accepted that maybe the way he was playing the game was detrimental to the party, he also accepted that the way he had been playing was not the neutral chaotic his character was meant to be. Instead of having him make the switch overnight, or retiring his character, in game the players characters started taking him in hand, they had some great moments helping him control himself. Finally in game he took a class of cleric simply to represent the impact the party cleric had in tempering his edges.
This took place over about 9 - 12 months of real time play, in game that period covered about 4 months. An initial change happened quickly as the party members got him to stop a beat, but he would still act out of none of them was near by, then slowly he meditated.
In your case talk to the players and encourage them to deal with this in game as a conversation. At the end of the day in a party of 3 if his character is risking the safety of the other 2 and causing problems, or acting against the aims and goals of the 2 lawful good characters what reason is there for them to keep him around, rather then retiring the other 2 may simply ditch him and go there own separate ways. Another thing that has happened in several campaigns when a characters aims and goals became different to the rest of the party. Tell your players they have the agency to split up the party of it makes sense.
Right on. If you don't discuss this with the player, the behavior is going to continue. If this is someone you want to keep being friends with, they should understand. If not, you'll have to bite the bullet and boot them, for your fun and everyone else's.
That's not to say you shouldn't execute the character too though. That's what I'd do. And that Paladin is at the least going on a big holy quest. After all, any chance of proving themselves innocent of the murder they DIDN'T commit is now gone, since they refused to testify about it and acted like bloodthirsty psychopaths. Heck, their best shot at getting out alive is to pin it on the rogue. What incredible idiots.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Please, please, confront the player.
I know how hard that can be, but it can also be vital to your campaign.
I was recently a player in just such a campaign, and looking back, I can see so much that we missed because we all continued to tolerate the evil character until the end. The result was that we spent at least the entirety of the last story arc (and I suspect more than that) actively avoiding encounters because we simply couldn't afford to risk them with the evil character in the group. She would inevitably have betrayed us or slaughtered a much needed ally or "accidently forgotten" the size of an area-of-effect spell that she dropped indiscriminately on party and foes alike. So, our level 1-16 campaign ended with us at level 13. We did not confront the BBEG on his home plane. We did not explore the 2 obvious adventure sites or follow the hooks that would have taken us to either place.
Don't get me wrong. This was still a great campaign. We had some wonderful character interactions and development and the GM gave us a truly memorable story. I appreciate very much all that he did for us. There is just a part of me, looking back and wishing that we, as a group, had felt able to face those other challenges. How much more might we have seen and done if it were not for the one person insisting on what is basically the same attitude as your troublesome player The whole "...not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
I have told the player straight out that certain actions I considered "evil" wouldn't be tolerated.
For instance, the party took a drow prisoner, hoping to interrogate for information on the nearby drow camp. The drow didn't crack, the rogues reaction was "I stab them repeatidly in the foot till they die." I informed the player that was on overtly evil action. We got past it.
Attacking a priest of Tyr isn't overtly "evil", it is however, very aggressive. I'm glad the other players intervened on this one rather than having me step in as DM.
I think it is genuinely bad role-play on the player's part rather than trying to use a flimsy explaination to justify actions against the spirit of this particular campaign. As I've said before, "evil" is not an allowable characater option in this campaign and I will retire the character if they continue to "role-play" in this manner.
With all due respect, I would consider randomly attacking figures of authority to avoid being questioned an act of evil. This kind of smells like how my kids act. Push a little to see how far they can go, then push a bit more.
Oh yes it is.
Based on the OP, the priest was acting as an officer of the law, and asking them legitimate questions as regard to being witnesses to a crime. To run away or lie to him would be non-lawful. To attack him and attempt to kill him would be evil. The paladin was maybe being non-lawful to use subduing, but since you didn't say the rogue was using non-lethal blows, I can only assume the rogue was attacking to kill, someone who was just doing their law-abiding job. That is an evil act.
This would be the equivalent to a policeman knocks on your door to ask you questions, and you pull out a gun and start shooting at the cop. Running from the cop is non-lawful. But shooting and trying to kill the cop, who is just here to ask you questions? That is evil.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In this case the player can be glad I'm DM and have given him a wider leash to roam on than you would in my place. Yes, in our modern society attacking a police officer under the circumstances you describe would be evil.
The characters are not in our modern world. My PCs are roaming the Forgotten Realms in the North. Alustriel Silverhand's kingdom of the League of the SIlver Marches fell apart years ago, there is no nation or "law" holding claim to where the characters are. Even if it were still in existance the Uthgardt and orcs that also live in the area certainly wouldn't give a hoot about what some city-folk priest of Tyr has to say about "laws".
The main baddies in the campaign up until now have been orcs, drow and a green hag. They are evil because they choose to murder and betray their own kind, not beacuse they seek to control or destroy the cities of the north. If an orc warlord says his people were on the land first and the humans/elves need to move out, well, that doesn't make him evil. Killing innocent children, butchering troops that have surrendered, agreeing to "terms of truce" then disregarding them to launch a surprise attack. That makes them the villians.
The modern day version would be to go to a foreign country, particularly one with a different set of laws or beliefs on "justice" and see what happens. North Korea seems like a good present day example.
That Paladin should definitely not be playing one. Thats just me though, I don't allow Pally's to be anything but LG (and LG Clerics and Paladins have to tithe 10% to the poor, but not the church)
One option I don't see listed is to have the party encounter someone similar, who is much more powerful. If the murder hobo decides to again attack out of hand, the others won't join in again, and he MAY die, or you may decide the foe is merciful and spares his life.....THIS time. This is, of course, assuming you have had yet another talk with him/her about the evil slant the character is taking. It sounds like this issue has been addressed once already, and if it continues, I, as a DM would have no issue with allowing the character to simply be killed. I'm not interested in ongoing conflict over the same thing and I wouldn't tolerate it. It is disruptive to the game and thus the other players and to me, majority rules. You irritate 3 of the 4 people involved in the game, you can expect some pretty harsh reactions and consequences as a result.
Our own group is coming into some conflict (IC conflict) where 2 of the players are throwing in with evil creatures and the other 2 are against it. Our case isn't as disruptive as your situation appears to be, but it is already making for some very interesting interactions with the group. Oddly enough, my character is more mediator than anything in this (he is against siding with evil and won't, but understands, to an extent, why the other 2 are accepting these "gifts" from evil creatures)
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The paladin player is a 14 year old kid playing with a bunch of 40+ crowd (including me); so I give him kudos for not simply jumping on the murder hobo bandwagon. And additional bonus, his character admitted to wrong-doing and vowed to make ammends. Plenty of grown men and women I've played with over the years would burn the world in flames before admiting they were on the wrong side of a fight.
Honestly, its not just "modern views" that make me personally think that the character is acting evil. You posted: "He (the player's character) now understands that violence often gets results, and he is not overly concerned about killing people, creatures, or anything that might be a minor nuisance."
That's the justification they gave for attacking someone just asking questions; minor nuisance => violence. That fits between NE and CE, as per PHB - "Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust."
But you seem to disagree with that assessment, so lets move on.
The fundamental problem is that the rogue player still wants to have his PC engage in antisocial behavior. They're under arrest, and not showing any remorse. So, you have two options. Either talk with them OOC that you don't want to run that kind of game, or you deal with it IC.
Actions have consequences.
They said that violence gets results, and they don't care about hurting others over minor inconveniences. Sounds like they're expecting you to hold their hands and shield them from consequences. So... don't. Hold a trial with whatever figures are in power - town elders, tribal chiefs, whatever. Throw them out of town. Show that there's consequences for being a murder hobo.
If you let them get away with violence without consequence... then the player will just keep on doing things like this, over and over. They won't learn that violence isn't the answer. Don't enable the attitude at the table.
I've only been that heavy-handed once.
PCs started as level 1s hunting goblins for the local garrison commander. They kill a few goblins, find an abandoned dwarven ruin, kill a few undead. Head back to town with both goblin ears for bounty and treasure looted from the ruin. They're level 3 now, feeling pretty proud of themselves....
They arrive at the garrison commander's office to present their goblin ears and earn their bounties.
- one player isn't happy with the bounty (remember they have HEAPS of coin recoverd from the dwarven ruin falling out of their pockets), so he rolls INTIMIDATE to try to get more money
- roll is a "natural 1", the big man in charge tells them to take their bounty and leave
- player is flustered, his character threatens violence and rolls another INTIMIDATION without ASKING me as DM first...rolls another "natural 1"
- the garrison commander calls for his guard to arrest the PC and throw him in stocks
- the entire party decides to FIGHT their way out; I actually let them escape through repeatedly stating "you hear the guards yell out, LOCK THE GATES, are you sure you want to stay and fight?"
- so somehow they steal horses and ride out of the fort before the gate is shut ( I didin't even make rolls, it was a gift so the other players could survive)
- they decide to camp on the road. a days ride from the fort. Not surprisingly they are attacked mid-rest.
- the group leaves the road to rest in the wilderness, recovers, the heads back to the road to get to the nearest town. They are somehow astonished to find more horseman out looking for them
- the whole thing came to an end when one PC (the intial offender) was captured. The remaining PCs decided the only way to free him was a direct frontal assault at 3-to-1 odds. I even told them they woudln't win the fight.
- they charged anyway, they died in combat, except one who was hung to death in public on the fort wall.
I haven't DMed a better case for Darwin's Theory of Evolution. None of those players are part of this group.
I’ve had that type of player in my games a couple of times. It’s always better when the player leaves the group and finds a group better suited to their preferred play style for everyone involved.
Your experience may be different, but I haven’t found anyone who plays a murder hobo well who enjoys playing in a heroic campaign instead of an evil one.
Professional computer geek
NPCs "friendly" to the party have had disapproving words with the paladin.
In regard to the rogue's past attempts to torture prisoners, two NPCs characters working with the group walked off. This time I didn't just leave it for NPCs. The player has been told as stated in previous posts, " if the player continues in this direction his character will be retired from the game."
What would you suggest? Have one of the deities of the Forgotten Realms come down from the sky and smack him around a little? In my experience that just causes players to act out more outrageously.