I am currently a player in a Dnd campaign with 4 other party members: A Lawful Human Cleric, a Chaotic Tiefling Rogue, a split personality Lawful Human Paladin/Chaotic Human Fighter, and a Chaotic Human Bard. Plus a Kobold Sidekick. And then there's me, a Lawful Human Rogue.
Long Version
We get in a lot of fights: the other players are trying to get more EXP, which I understand, really, but they seem to think that you have to kill the enemies to get the Experience. I, being a Lawful Rogue, usually just incapacitate my enemies, knocking them out. However, the other chars go and kill anyone I knock out; they claim it's for safety. I try to keep the incapacitated creatures alive, but unfortunately, my DM does not allow us to take actions out of our turn. As he should, of course; I don't disagree with him there. However, I wish that he'd let me do something to prevent them from dying.
I'll give you an example: My party was attacked by these bandit kobolds. I knock two of the three out, and the third runs. Then, my party members (including the Lawful Good Paladin of Redemption) decide to kill the kobolds. I ask my DM if I can intervene; he says no. He also makes our sidekick jump on top of one of them, slitting his throat. The other Rogue in the party follows suit. I decide to burn the kobolds dead bodies, sort of a funeral pyre, and the rest of the party immediately starts hating on me.
Short Version
My party often kills gratuitously, even if we've already incapacitated the target, and when I try to stop them, my DM intervenes, so they end up dying anyways. I also receive much anger from the other players for taking a long time giving the bodies a proper "funeral".
Since I'm lawful, obviously I have disagreements with the chaotic characters. But I didn't expect to have disagreements with the Lawful characters too, especially over the matter of killing people.
What should I do? Go with the flow and start killing people, or something else?
I’d say talk to your DM. He really shouldn’t have a problem with how you’re playing as long as you aren’t “interfering” with everyone else’s fun; just because your styles of play are different shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. If it is, so be it, but at least then you’ll know.
Personally, as long as you aren’t interfering with the story timing by doing so, I don’t see a problem with you just quickly saying “I bury the dead.” If your conversation with the DM goes nowhere and they do nothing, try talking to the players outside of game and see what the big deal is.
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
If your party's way is a concern for you, you should discuss it with the other Players & DM. Taking a broader approach to alignment could also help deal with it if you don't act like them or they start doing things differently.
Try not doing combat while with the rest of the party? Or just try to incapacitate enemies while holding them or something, or run away to bury the dead there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi, I am a pug and I like Noobs in Combat, Pugs and Big Weapons like Ballistas, RPGS and Recoilless Rifles.
Pm me the word Avocado🥑 For a prize!I am prob not online but pm me and i will dig up comments tht are old or forgottten. approx time about 7 days to finish and i need the approximate page number. But I will dig up the info.
Pm me the word Avocado🥑 For a prize!I am prob not online but pm me and i will dig up comments tht are old or forgottten. approx time about 7 days to finish and i need the approximate page number. But I will dig up the info.
I think this is less to due with your character's lawful tendency being in conflict with others and just a general view on what the expected morality is.
IIRC Gygax once made the argument that a paladin killing goblin babies was A-OK due to the inherent evil of goblinoids. Also if we look at the Kobold Bandits scenario there's lawful reasons to kill them. They're bandits which presumes they've robbed and killed, crimes that are generally worth of the death penalty in Medieval/Renaissance settings. Plus if you merely incapacitate them then when they wake up they can go back to it again. And if the setting takes into account kobolds being lawful evil then that can further eliminate any moral consideration beyond being excessive in their deaths. So the Oath of Redemption paladin could very well have a take of redemption being for those capable of it. Even the Wisdom tenet of the oath recognizes that some are too far down the path of evil and you need to end their lives for the greater good.
So I think it may be worth having the conversation of, "How deep into morality are we getting?" It seems to me you're taking the idea of, "Killing is an absolute last resort." whereas the others might be wanting a simpler, "If they're evil we can kill them."
Yeah, this is something your group needs to talk out regarding group dynamics and expectations.
Frankly, simply allowing all melee attacks to reliably knock an enemy out at 0 HP creates some verisimilitude dissonance- realistically knocking people out is neither safe nor practical to do in a fight, and most medieval adventure stories that come to mind skip over the comics conceit of heroically knocking mooks out during fights for the more practical approach that once steel is drawn self defense involves lethal force. So imo going straight for kills in these circumstances is fair even for your typical LG character, and I expect a lot of other players have a similar opinion. But then there’s the somewhat meta issue in 5e since any player does have at least the theoretical capability to subdue an opponent non-lethally, does that change the ethics of acceptable force for self-defense? I understand why they streamlined knocking out- aside from generally reducing crunch it makes “we need to take X bad guy alive” fights much easier to run without requiring specific builds; but it somewhat muddies the waters of what is a “Good/Lawful” way to handle things like bandit attacks.
Granted, by your description it’s also possible the group is leaning towards “murder hobo” either from assuming XP works like video games or the thrill. Which returns to the point of talking out expectations as players.
I agree with Ace... this is a conversation that needs to happen between you and the players, including the DM. I will say that there is a good chance that you have made a character that may not be a good fit for the table. That is not to say you made a bad character - I make no judgment here - but the table appears to be one that collectively feels the need to do what your PC cannot be happy with. I would recommend changing the PC's values to be more in line with the party, changing the PC entirely for one whose values are more aligned with the party, or changing tables to one that you can be happy playing at.
I agree with Ace... this is a conversation that needs to happen between you and the players, including the DM. I will say that there is a good chance that you have made a character that may not be a good fit for the table. That is not to say you made a bad character - I make no judgment here - but the table appears to be one that collectively feels the need to do what your PC cannot be happy with. I would recommend changing the PC's values to be more in line with the party, changing the PC entirely for one whose values are more aligned with the party, or changing tables to one that you can be happy playing at.
Bingo. I always love to have nuanced conversations about morality in D&D because the fact is alignment as it used to exist doesn't really exist beyond a few things like protection from evil and even that isn't alignment but more creature type.
OP, it really does sounds like your character doesn't fit the vibe. That said, it's also worth having a conversation to your DM from an in universe perspective about the reality/perception of things like Kobolds. Some DMs play them as creatures who are intelligent, have thoughts/feelings/culture and are capable of nuanced thought. Others play them as literal flesh sacks who are there for nothing but gaining experience points and as a plot point, creatures who are monsters and not capable of reason/thought/society etc.
I bring that up because of the piece about nuanced morality. If the former is true, then your party isn't exactly good if they are actively murdering a running foe. If the latter is true, well, you're in an extremely one dimension classic fantasy game and the DM is the arbiter of that story. I would "assume" its the latter because the DM made the sidekick(ironically a kobold, is it a "slave" or an actual being capable of thought?) do the same thing the players were doing, with zero option/input from you.
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
That can happen when people don't do a session zero creating characters TOGETHER and discussing what kind of party/campaign it will be.
I did a shift in the current campaign where the rest of the group is more a ruthless/good. Where I was playing more lawful. I talked to the DM and said I'd like to switch my alignment to Neutral to fit with the party more. And have had fun since not trying to butt heads with the majority direction.
While there is some fun to be had with mild party disagreements, and some players can handle it. But some people can end up taking party conflict personal if things weren't discussed before.
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
That can happen when people don't do a session zero creating characters TOGETHER and discussing what kind of party/campaign it will be.
I did a shift in the current campaign where the rest of the group is more a ruthless/good. Where I was playing more lawful. I talked to the DM and said I'd like to switch my alignment to Neutral to fit with the party more. And have had fun since not trying to butt heads with the majority direction.
While there is some fun to be had with mild party disagreements, and some players can handle it. But some people can end up taking party conflict personal if things weren't discussed before.
This is my second character in the campaign due to an unfortunate accident with Bullywugs and forgetting to Rest in between combat. I guess I should have tried to make a character more fitting for the campaign; however, my first character idea, a warforged fighter, was too min-maxed and boring to RP. I decided on this idea because I thought the party needed a Jiminy Cricket-esque guy to keep them in touch with their morality and he'd be fun to roleplay.
I do appreciate the advice you're giving me. I'll try to enact some of the ideas. I'll definitely have ask about alignment (PC and monster) expectations at the next session.
(Oh yeah, for context, the main reason my PC's anti-murder is because he stumbled across a destroyed Good Mimic Colony and vowed to never wreak such carnage)
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
That can happen when people don't do a session zero creating characters TOGETHER and discussing what kind of party/campaign it will be.
I did a shift in the current campaign where the rest of the group is more a ruthless/good. Where I was playing more lawful. I talked to the DM and said I'd like to switch my alignment to Neutral to fit with the party more. And have had fun since not trying to butt heads with the majority direction.
While there is some fun to be had with mild party disagreements, and some players can handle it. But some people can end up taking party conflict personal if things weren't discussed before.
This is my second character in the campaign due to an unfortunate accident with Bullywugs and forgetting to Rest in between combat. I guess I should have tried to make a character more fitting for the campaign; however, my first character idea, a warforged fighter, was too min-maxed and boring to RP. I decided on this idea because I thought the party needed a Jiminy Cricket-esque guy to keep them in touch with their morality and he'd be fun to roleplay.
I do appreciate the advice you're giving me. I'll try to enact some of the ideas. I'll definitely have ask about alignment (PC and monster) expectations at the next session.
(Oh yeah, for context, the main reason my PC's anti-murder is because he stumbled across a destroyed Good Mimic Colony and vowed to never wreak such carnage)
Interesting backstory, but if the character didn't stumble across the colony until after it had been destroyed, how did they know it was made up of good mimics?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It sounds to me like a run-of-the-mill maturity issue. I'm guessing the chaotic characters are played by younger players who occasionally say, "It'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO!" It's not uncommon for less mature players to be a bit more murder-hobo-ey than is generally wise in the game world. You could just wait, and try to serve as a good example in the mean time, and hope that they eventually grow out of that phase and become committed role-players. Or you could just find a better table with better players.
My only other comment would be that "chaos" per se does not lead someone to wanton acts of violence. That's not a chaotic thing, that's an evil thing. "Good vs Evil" is about goals. "Order vs Chaos" is simply about methods toward those goals. Someone who is chaotic good would never commit gratuitous murder. On the contrary, they would want to help free the target from the influence of the BBEG. That also means that Lawful does not always mean Good. Dictators are lawful. [REDACTED]
But this doesn't sound to me like a difference of deep philosophical perspectives. This just sounds like a maturity issue. Either guide them toward better role-playing or find a better table. Either way you'll be better off.
It sounds to me like a run-of-the-mill maturity issue. I'm guessing the chaotic characters are played by younger players
That's a false stereotype. In our campaign the chaotic players are all the older ones. And the one is a very educated art teacher. I've run into young and older players consistently split, that play that way. There is no AGE that is just that way.
I am currently a player in a Dnd campaign with 4 other party members: A Lawful Human Cleric, a Chaotic Tiefling Rogue, a split personality Lawful Human Paladin/Chaotic Human Fighter, and a Chaotic Human Bard. Plus a Kobold Sidekick. And then there's me, a Lawful Human Rogue.
Long Version
We get in a lot of fights: the other players are trying to get more EXP, which I understand, really, but they seem to think that you have to kill the enemies to get the Experience. I, being a Lawful Rogue, usually just incapacitate my enemies, knocking them out. However, the other chars go and kill anyone I knock out; they claim it's for safety. I try to keep the incapacitated creatures alive, but unfortunately, my DM does not allow us to take actions out of our turn. As he should, of course; I don't disagree with him there. However, I wish that he'd let me do something to prevent them from dying.
I'll give you an example: My party was attacked by these bandit kobolds. I knock two of the three out, and the third runs. Then, my party members (including the Lawful Good Paladin of Redemption) decide to kill the kobolds. I ask my DM if I can intervene; he says no. He also makes our sidekick jump on top of one of them, slitting his throat. The other Rogue in the party follows suit. I decide to burn the kobolds dead bodies, sort of a funeral pyre, and the rest of the party immediately starts hating on me.
Short Version
My party often kills gratuitously, even if we've already incapacitated the target, and when I try to stop them, my DM intervenes, so they end up dying anyways. I also receive much anger from the other players for taking a long time giving the bodies a proper "funeral".
Since I'm lawful, obviously I have disagreements with the chaotic characters. But I didn't expect to have disagreements with the Lawful characters too, especially over the matter of killing people.
What should I do? Go with the flow and start killing people, or something else?
This is sounding a lot more like good vs evil than law vs chaos, actually.
The difference is that a lawful person might follow a code to kill anyone who questions him. As long as it is consistent, it is lawful.
In fact, if the chaotics aren't sparing anyone, then how chaotic are they, really?
Also, neither law, chaos, good or evil equals 'stupid.' Unless your DM inflicted your character's code on you without your consent or input, make sure your code has means to handle exceptions that work generally within the campaign. But that should go for them and the DM, too. And if the campaign is simply a style you don't actually enjoy, find a different campaign. There are other DM's out there.
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
That can happen when people don't do a session zero creating characters TOGETHER and discussing what kind of party/campaign it will be.
I did a shift in the current campaign where the rest of the group is more a ruthless/good. Where I was playing more lawful. I talked to the DM and said I'd like to switch my alignment to Neutral to fit with the party more. And have had fun since not trying to butt heads with the majority direction.
While there is some fun to be had with mild party disagreements, and some players can handle it. But some people can end up taking party conflict personal if things weren't discussed before.
This is my second character in the campaign due to an unfortunate accident with Bullywugs and forgetting to Rest in between combat. I guess I should have tried to make a character more fitting for the campaign; however, my first character idea, a warforged fighter, was too min-maxed and boring to RP. I decided on this idea because I thought the party needed a Jiminy Cricket-esque guy to keep them in touch with their morality and he'd be fun to roleplay.
I do appreciate the advice you're giving me. I'll try to enact some of the ideas. I'll definitely have ask about alignment (PC and monster) expectations at the next session.
(Oh yeah, for context, the main reason my PC's anti-murder is because he stumbled across a destroyed Good Mimic Colony and vowed to never wreak such carnage)
Interesting backstory, but if the character didn't stumble across the colony until after it had been destroyed, how did they know it was made up of good mimics?
He had come across it prior to its destruction. He also adopted a juvenile mimic from that particularly colony. There's a lot more to the backstory that I'm not going to dump on you guys because I feel that'd be inappropriate for this thread.
There has been lots of discussion in talking with your players and DM, on reevaluating your own views on alignment to determine if they are too ridged, etc. so I will not retrace that ground.
I did, however, want to give one piece of practical advice you should follow. While we do not have much information on your funerals, if everyone else is complaining about them taking too long, you probably are taking too long. All you really have to do is say “I take a moment to bury the bodies, I rolled a religion check of X.” That is a way to stay true to that element of the character, but only take up a single sentence of game time.
I thought the party needed a Jiminy Cricket-esque guy to keep them in touch with their morality and he'd be fun to roleplay.
If that's the idea you had coming in, my suggestion would be to pick your spots
If you're chirping about the morality of murder after every single encounter, the rest of the party is just going to tune you out. Killing some kobold bandits who, by your own account, attacked first shouldn't be what sparks that kind of discussion anyway
Keep your reservations to yourself during 'normal' fights, and only try to intervene in big moments -- maybe with a bit of a backstory lore drop to give your appeal to the rest of the party more weight
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You do get XP killing enemies. There is nothing anywhere that says you have to give them a proper burial. I don't even know where that comes from. I would have to look at the rules again, but I think you can get XP for defeating enemies without killing them, but I don't remember if you get full XP or not.
You do get XP killing enemies. There is nothing anywhere that says you have to give them a proper burial. I don't even know where that comes from. I would have to look at the rules again, but I think you can get XP for defeating enemies without killing them, but I don't remember if you get full XP or not.
Experience is awarded "When adventurers overcome one or more monsters-typically by killing, routing, capturing, or cleverly avoiding them..." You are completely wrong, and the idea is even offered that experience be awarded for noncombat challenges.
As for the OP, once all enemies are incapacitated, combat is over. Therefore, there is no more initiative and you can stop your party members from killing the enemies. Also, you can try to convince your party members not to kill them, eg: you could say you want to interrogate them, and then promise their freedom in exchange for information.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am currently a player in a Dnd campaign with 4 other party members: A Lawful Human Cleric, a Chaotic Tiefling Rogue, a split personality Lawful Human Paladin/Chaotic Human Fighter, and a Chaotic Human Bard. Plus a Kobold Sidekick. And then there's me, a Lawful Human Rogue.
Long Version
We get in a lot of fights: the other players are trying to get more EXP, which I understand, really, but they seem to think that you have to kill the enemies to get the Experience. I, being a Lawful Rogue, usually just incapacitate my enemies, knocking them out. However, the other chars go and kill anyone I knock out; they claim it's for safety. I try to keep the incapacitated creatures alive, but unfortunately, my DM does not allow us to take actions out of our turn. As he should, of course; I don't disagree with him there. However, I wish that he'd let me do something to prevent them from dying.
I'll give you an example: My party was attacked by these bandit kobolds. I knock two of the three out, and the third runs. Then, my party members (including the Lawful Good Paladin of Redemption) decide to kill the kobolds. I ask my DM if I can intervene; he says no. He also makes our sidekick jump on top of one of them, slitting his throat. The other Rogue in the party follows suit. I decide to burn the kobolds dead bodies, sort of a funeral pyre, and the rest of the party immediately starts hating on me.
Short Version
My party often kills gratuitously, even if we've already incapacitated the target, and when I try to stop them, my DM intervenes, so they end up dying anyways. I also receive much anger from the other players for taking a long time giving the bodies a proper "funeral".
Since I'm lawful, obviously I have disagreements with the chaotic characters. But I didn't expect to have disagreements with the Lawful characters too, especially over the matter of killing people.
What should I do? Go with the flow and start killing people, or something else?
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
I’d say talk to your DM. He really shouldn’t have a problem with how you’re playing as long as you aren’t “interfering” with everyone else’s fun; just because your styles of play are different shouldn’t be a dealbreaker.
If it is, so be it, but at least then you’ll know.
Personally, as long as you aren’t interfering with the story timing by doing so, I don’t see a problem with you just quickly saying “I bury the dead.” If your conversation with the DM goes nowhere and they do nothing, try talking to the players outside of game and see what the big deal is.
I hate to say it, but maybe it just isn’t the right table for your character.
If your party's way is a concern for you, you should discuss it with the other Players & DM. Taking a broader approach to alignment could also help deal with it if you don't act like them or they start doing things differently.
Try not doing combat while with the rest of the party? Or just try to incapacitate enemies while holding them or something, or run away to bury the dead there.
Hi, I am a pug and I like Noobs in Combat, Pugs and Big Weapons like Ballistas, RPGS and Recoilless Rifles.
Play my forum game find the word Here
Pm me the word Avocado🥑 For a prize!I am prob not online but pm me and i will dig up comments tht are old or forgottten. approx time about 7 days to finish and i need the approximate page number. But I will dig up the info.
Just a suggestion.
Hi, I am a pug and I like Noobs in Combat, Pugs and Big Weapons like Ballistas, RPGS and Recoilless Rifles.
Play my forum game find the word Here
Pm me the word Avocado🥑 For a prize!I am prob not online but pm me and i will dig up comments tht are old or forgottten. approx time about 7 days to finish and i need the approximate page number. But I will dig up the info.
I think this is less to due with your character's lawful tendency being in conflict with others and just a general view on what the expected morality is.
IIRC Gygax once made the argument that a paladin killing goblin babies was A-OK due to the inherent evil of goblinoids.
Also if we look at the Kobold Bandits scenario there's lawful reasons to kill them. They're bandits which presumes they've robbed and killed, crimes that are generally worth of the death penalty in Medieval/Renaissance settings. Plus if you merely incapacitate them then when they wake up they can go back to it again. And if the setting takes into account kobolds being lawful evil then that can further eliminate any moral consideration beyond being excessive in their deaths.
So the Oath of Redemption paladin could very well have a take of redemption being for those capable of it. Even the Wisdom tenet of the oath recognizes that some are too far down the path of evil and you need to end their lives for the greater good.
So I think it may be worth having the conversation of, "How deep into morality are we getting?" It seems to me you're taking the idea of, "Killing is an absolute last resort." whereas the others might be wanting a simpler, "If they're evil we can kill them."
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Yeah, this is something your group needs to talk out regarding group dynamics and expectations.
Frankly, simply allowing all melee attacks to reliably knock an enemy out at 0 HP creates some verisimilitude dissonance- realistically knocking people out is neither safe nor practical to do in a fight, and most medieval adventure stories that come to mind skip over the comics conceit of heroically knocking mooks out during fights for the more practical approach that once steel is drawn self defense involves lethal force. So imo going straight for kills in these circumstances is fair even for your typical LG character, and I expect a lot of other players have a similar opinion. But then there’s the somewhat meta issue in 5e since any player does have at least the theoretical capability to subdue an opponent non-lethally, does that change the ethics of acceptable force for self-defense? I understand why they streamlined knocking out- aside from generally reducing crunch it makes “we need to take X bad guy alive” fights much easier to run without requiring specific builds; but it somewhat muddies the waters of what is a “Good/Lawful” way to handle things like bandit attacks.
Granted, by your description it’s also possible the group is leaning towards “murder hobo” either from assuming XP works like video games or the thrill. Which returns to the point of talking out expectations as players.
I agree with Ace... this is a conversation that needs to happen between you and the players, including the DM. I will say that there is a good chance that you have made a character that may not be a good fit for the table. That is not to say you made a bad character - I make no judgment here - but the table appears to be one that collectively feels the need to do what your PC cannot be happy with. I would recommend changing the PC's values to be more in line with the party, changing the PC entirely for one whose values are more aligned with the party, or changing tables to one that you can be happy playing at.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Bingo. I always love to have nuanced conversations about morality in D&D because the fact is alignment as it used to exist doesn't really exist beyond a few things like protection from evil and even that isn't alignment but more creature type.
OP, it really does sounds like your character doesn't fit the vibe. That said, it's also worth having a conversation to your DM from an in universe perspective about the reality/perception of things like Kobolds. Some DMs play them as creatures who are intelligent, have thoughts/feelings/culture and are capable of nuanced thought. Others play them as literal flesh sacks who are there for nothing but gaining experience points and as a plot point, creatures who are monsters and not capable of reason/thought/society etc.
I bring that up because of the piece about nuanced morality. If the former is true, then your party isn't exactly good if they are actively murdering a running foe. If the latter is true, well, you're in an extremely one dimension classic fantasy game and the DM is the arbiter of that story. I would "assume" its the latter because the DM made the sidekick(ironically a kobold, is it a "slave" or an actual being capable of thought?) do the same thing the players were doing, with zero option/input from you.
That can happen when people don't do a session zero creating characters TOGETHER and discussing what kind of party/campaign it will be.
I did a shift in the current campaign where the rest of the group is more a ruthless/good. Where I was playing more lawful. I talked to the DM and said I'd like to switch my alignment to Neutral to fit with the party more. And have had fun since not trying to butt heads with the majority direction.
While there is some fun to be had with mild party disagreements, and some players can handle it. But some people can end up taking party conflict personal if things weren't discussed before.
This is my second character in the campaign due to an unfortunate accident with Bullywugs and forgetting to Rest in between combat. I guess I should have tried to make a character more fitting for the campaign; however, my first character idea, a warforged fighter, was too min-maxed and boring to RP. I decided on this idea because I thought the party needed a Jiminy Cricket-esque guy to keep them in touch with their morality and he'd be fun to roleplay.
I do appreciate the advice you're giving me. I'll try to enact some of the ideas. I'll definitely have ask about alignment (PC and monster) expectations at the next session.
(Oh yeah, for context, the main reason my PC's anti-murder is because he stumbled across a destroyed Good Mimic Colony and vowed to never wreak such carnage)
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
Interesting backstory, but if the character didn't stumble across the colony until after it had been destroyed, how did they know it was made up of good mimics?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It sounds to me like a run-of-the-mill maturity issue. I'm guessing the chaotic characters are played by younger players who occasionally say, "It'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO!" It's not uncommon for less mature players to be a bit more murder-hobo-ey than is generally wise in the game world. You could just wait, and try to serve as a good example in the mean time, and hope that they eventually grow out of that phase and become committed role-players. Or you could just find a better table with better players.
My only other comment would be that "chaos" per se does not lead someone to wanton acts of violence. That's not a chaotic thing, that's an evil thing. "Good vs Evil" is about goals. "Order vs Chaos" is simply about methods toward those goals. Someone who is chaotic good would never commit gratuitous murder. On the contrary, they would want to help free the target from the influence of the BBEG. That also means that Lawful does not always mean Good. Dictators are lawful. [REDACTED]
But this doesn't sound to me like a difference of deep philosophical perspectives. This just sounds like a maturity issue. Either guide them toward better role-playing or find a better table. Either way you'll be better off.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
That's a false stereotype. In our campaign the chaotic players are all the older ones. And the one is a very educated art teacher. I've run into young and older players consistently split, that play that way. There is no AGE that is just that way.
This is sounding a lot more like good vs evil than law vs chaos, actually.
The difference is that a lawful person might follow a code to kill anyone who questions him. As long as it is consistent, it is lawful.
In fact, if the chaotics aren't sparing anyone, then how chaotic are they, really?
Also, neither law, chaos, good or evil equals 'stupid.' Unless your DM inflicted your character's code on you without your consent or input, make sure your code has means to handle exceptions that work generally within the campaign. But that should go for them and the DM, too. And if the campaign is simply a style you don't actually enjoy, find a different campaign. There are other DM's out there.
He had come across it prior to its destruction. He also adopted a juvenile mimic from that particularly colony. There's a lot more to the backstory that I'm not going to dump on you guys because I feel that'd be inappropriate for this thread.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
There has been lots of discussion in talking with your players and DM, on reevaluating your own views on alignment to determine if they are too ridged, etc. so I will not retrace that ground.
I did, however, want to give one piece of practical advice you should follow. While we do not have much information on your funerals, if everyone else is complaining about them taking too long, you probably are taking too long. All you really have to do is say “I take a moment to bury the bodies, I rolled a religion check of X.” That is a way to stay true to that element of the character, but only take up a single sentence of game time.
If that's the idea you had coming in, my suggestion would be to pick your spots
If you're chirping about the morality of murder after every single encounter, the rest of the party is just going to tune you out. Killing some kobold bandits who, by your own account, attacked first shouldn't be what sparks that kind of discussion anyway
Keep your reservations to yourself during 'normal' fights, and only try to intervene in big moments -- maybe with a bit of a backstory lore drop to give your appeal to the rest of the party more weight
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Lawful what? Good, Evil or Neutral?
You do get XP killing enemies. There is nothing anywhere that says you have to give them a proper burial. I don't even know where that comes from. I would have to look at the rules again, but I think you can get XP for defeating enemies without killing them, but I don't remember if you get full XP or not.
Experience is awarded "When adventurers overcome one or more monsters-typically by killing, routing, capturing, or cleverly avoiding them..." You are completely wrong, and the idea is even offered that experience be awarded for noncombat challenges.
As for the OP, once all enemies are incapacitated, combat is over. Therefore, there is no more initiative and you can stop your party members from killing the enemies. Also, you can try to convince your party members not to kill them, eg: you could say you want to interrogate them, and then promise their freedom in exchange for information.