While I agree that an OOC conversation may be a good approach, I would disagree with the other comments though and think that IC is also viable, so I would go for both.
I think your player's response to your previous OOC challenge is key here. If he claims that his character has learned this may actually be that he was p****d off with things that happened in the past where maybe he wanted to talk but ended up rolling for Initiative. So I think IC he also needs to have in-game learning for his character.
For instance, next time a law-man confronts the party, if the rogue attacks he could be immediately hit by a contingency spell or similar. Or, the priest could have stood back, clicked his fingers to have his associates reveal himself and say "Did you really think I would confront suspected criminals by myself?".
And you could provide additional rewards for non-hobo behaviour and disincentives for murder. So, have them encounter some NPC who if murdered leaves behind an unintelligible map to some treasure that means the party lose out, with the NPC's last word being " ... but I was wiling to share ...". Or you could have a party patron/quest-giver who is particularly pleased with the non-violent solution and provides an additional reward.
Wow, lots of people pretty passionate about this thread.
- Glad to see all the responses of people saying "talk to the player". Already been done, but thanks for adding it anway.
- The player and I disagree between where the line that crosses "evil" actions is. I've made it clear that the player's response justifying his character actions does fall into "evil". Since I'm DM he will be holding his character to the standard I set.
- In this case attacking a Priest of Tyr IS NOT an evil action. My justification has multiple but basic points are: 1) the character is a Chaotic, and doesn't believe in "laws of society" 2) the Priest of Tyr wasn't in a city or kingdom to give him any authority over the rogue So the PC and the priest are in my view, a conflict between LAW and CHAOS, not good vs evil.
- How many posts have "if I was DM I would the CRUSH THE PC!" responses. I've never seen that kind of method work long-term. Yes, it will get you past a single rough session, but I don't find it healthy for overall gameplay. This is a long term game, currently over 30 sessions totaling over 100 hours of play.
I'm prone to trying to resolve things like this in-character first, but in this situation you already approached the player and they clearly informed you, out of character, that they have no respect for your game, you, or the other players.
Depending on your relationship with the person, you might try to resolve it in-character still if you're close/if you think kicking this person will cause the rest of the party to dissolve. Personally, I would tell such a player that they knew what they signed up for, and if they don't think it interest them any longer then you'll be sad to see them go but don't want anyone to be playing a campaign that they're not interested in. If they stay and change their ways, cool. If they leave, cool. If they stay and don't change, time to tell them to stop showing up.
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)
But why? That goes completely against the whole thing.
It really depends what "whole thing". Originally, in AD&D, paladins were all LG (and with even stricter restrictions than usual LG) because they were supposed to be basically Kingths in Shining Armor / Knights of the Round Table, and only the good ones. So there are lots of people who still go back to this idea and have only LG paladins, in general because the paladin-like orders in the world are LG. There is nothing wrong with that.
As for me, I like the fact that every religion can have their champion knights (basically the Rune Lords to the Cleric being the Rune Priests, Glorantha was always in advance), but I'm not too sure about calling them "Paladins". Also, I know that they did not want to put class-based restrictions on alignment in 5e, but it gives things which are a bit silly. Assassins who cannot be evil (killing is bad, killing for money is worse), and Paladins which can be chaotic, which is silly when the whole notion of the class is based on an oath.
And even without this, there are still sentences in the rules like: "A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible." "Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. " So all of that really points towards LG paladins only:
If they crusade against evil, they should to be good
If they are based on an oath, they should be lawful.
So kudos to the kid who actually recognised that he had done was "wrong" and decided to make amends, not an easy thing to do.
Personally (and I think this is a table by table thing that has no generic right or wrong answer). If you consider Paladins to be more like crusaders, then in the name of religion a paladin could very much be lawful evil. The acts carried out during the crusades by supposedly “good” men where horrific and would very much be classed as lawful evil.
In terms of the good assassin, again in a world where murder and death happens all the time you can’t subscribe the same moral compass to a players actions, it’s one of the many many things I dislike about the alignment table. An assassin who only kills the bad, no women, no children, could be considered neutral. Possibly even good if the rest of there life is doing good deeds. A characters alignment should be defined by a view of actions over a period of time, not a one off event.
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)
But why? That goes completely against the whole thing.
Goes against what whole thing? Paladins were LG only for decades.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I agree that an OOC conversation may be a good approach, I would disagree with the other comments though and think that IC is also viable, so I would go for both.
I think your player's response to your previous OOC challenge is key here. If he claims that his character has learned this may actually be that he was p****d off with things that happened in the past where maybe he wanted to talk but ended up rolling for Initiative. So I think IC he also needs to have in-game learning for his character.
For instance, next time a law-man confronts the party, if the rogue attacks he could be immediately hit by a contingency spell or similar. Or, the priest could have stood back, clicked his fingers to have his associates reveal himself and say "Did you really think I would confront suspected criminals by myself?".
And you could provide additional rewards for non-hobo behaviour and disincentives for murder. So, have them encounter some NPC who if murdered leaves behind an unintelligible map to some treasure that means the party lose out, with the NPC's last word being " ... but I was wiling to share ...". Or you could have a party patron/quest-giver who is particularly pleased with the non-violent solution and provides an additional reward.
Wow, lots of people pretty passionate about this thread.
- Glad to see all the responses of people saying "talk to the player". Already been done, but thanks for adding it anway.
- The player and I disagree between where the line that crosses "evil" actions is. I've made it clear that the player's response justifying his character actions does fall into "evil". Since I'm DM he will be holding his character to the standard I set.
- In this case attacking a Priest of Tyr IS NOT an evil action. My justification has multiple but basic points are:
1) the character is a Chaotic, and doesn't believe in "laws of society"
2) the Priest of Tyr wasn't in a city or kingdom to give him any authority over the rogue
So the PC and the priest are in my view, a conflict between LAW and CHAOS, not good vs evil.
- How many posts have "if I was DM I would the CRUSH THE PC!" responses. I've never seen that kind of method work long-term. Yes, it will get you past a single rough session, but I don't find it healthy for overall gameplay. This is a long term game, currently over 30 sessions totaling over 100 hours of play.
I'm prone to trying to resolve things like this in-character first, but in this situation you already approached the player and they clearly informed you, out of character, that they have no respect for your game, you, or the other players.
Depending on your relationship with the person, you might try to resolve it in-character still if you're close/if you think kicking this person will cause the rest of the party to dissolve. Personally, I would tell such a player that they knew what they signed up for, and if they don't think it interest them any longer then you'll be sad to see them go but don't want anyone to be playing a campaign that they're not interested in. If they stay and change their ways, cool. If they leave, cool. If they stay and don't change, time to tell them to stop showing up.
Personally (and I think this is a table by table thing that has no generic right or wrong answer). If you consider Paladins to be more like crusaders, then in the name of religion a paladin could very much be lawful evil. The acts carried out during the crusades by supposedly “good” men where horrific and would very much be classed as lawful evil.
In terms of the good assassin, again in a world where murder and death happens all the time you can’t subscribe the same moral compass to a players actions, it’s one of the many many things I dislike about the alignment table. An assassin who only kills the bad, no women, no children, could be considered neutral. Possibly even good if the rest of there life is doing good deeds. A characters alignment should be defined by a view of actions over a period of time, not a one off event.
Goes against what whole thing? Paladins were LG only for decades.