In a recent game a friend of mine wanted to slaughter the hob goblins we encountered.
There were 4, the "leader" was lawful neutral the other 3 were lawful evil. the Lawful neutral claimed he was trying to change them (confirmed by zone of truth and sense motive). And was even willing to get all of his men out of the area so the we could go to HIS boss and fight him and keep his men out of the fight.
BUT because he was stood by and did not stop his boss from keeping and torturing prisoners, he deserves to die as well. (She says this is because she is a caviler of the dragon order, this is an entirely different issue)
HOWEVER earlier in the game (4 or 5 sessions) she herself took goblin prisoners and they eventual converted to neutral and good.
Is it wrong to side with the Hobgoblins over a party member.
i'm thinking the next time we play, i am going to say that if she is so insistent on killing them that she should also go kill her goblins.
(I also know that at least 2/3s of the party is on my side)
It's a little hard for me to clearly make out what your concernis, so I will try to the best of my ability to somewhat answer your problem, brave one.
I think it is funny that another group would have RPing issues because that is what always happens in my group. It allows boils down to the point where someone is asserting, "Well, that is what my character would do!"
I've experienced instances where party members have sided with NPCs over other party members simply because of a disagreement. Yes, this happens in real life when we argue and disagree, but in D&D, try to work with your other party members AS BEST as possible. Nothing is worse than having a divided group because you cease to work as a team, in which case it then becomes a one man show. If there ARE inconsistencies with someone's character, just bring it to that player's attention. If they still insist that the choices they made are justified, you can state your disapproval and move on. Have a partying group of mature adults who work through differences and adversity.
It is funny that you stated the hobgoblin's alignment because I know exactly where you are coming from. Our RPing issues end up as debates about what actions fit into what alignment and if it is justified. The alignments are more of a guideline and you just use your judgment call. (I wouldn't want to trust some hobgoblin haha).
Plus, PCs are usually better company than hobgoblins ever could be. Best of luck, good sir. :)
I don't know what alignment your cavalier is but it appears she is good. She took some goblin prisoners and converted them to "neutral and good" alignments. Do the hobgoblins not deserve the same chance at redemption in her eyes?
-Flea
Goblins are people too. Killing someone based on species is evil. It is a form of genocide. How did they find out the alignment of the bad guys. That is behind the scenes stuff. The guy who she wants to kill is most likely the follower type since he is neutral, and unless he participated should not be punished, but he should pick better friends.
No it is not wrong to side with whoever you think is right.
In a recent game a friend of mine wanted to slaughter the hob goblins we encountered.
... he deserves to die as well. (She says this is because she is a caviler of the dragon order, this is an entirely different issue)
I am at work so cannot acccess the SRD but don't cavaliers have to accept the honorable/sincere surrender of a foe as part of their code?
I am at work so cannot acccess the SRD but don't cavaliers have to accept the honorable/sincere surrender of a foe as part of their code?In a recent game a friend of mine wanted to slaughter the hob goblins we encountered.
... he deserves to die as well. (She says this is because she is a caviler of the dragon order, this is an entirely different issue)
Nope. I just checked the PRD.
Important clarification question: does "siding with the Hobgoblins over a party member" mean speaking up and having an in-character debate, or does it mean inter-party combat with the potential of one character dying or leaving the party?
In the first case, DO IT! You clearly have doubts about the ethics of the situation, so bring them up. It will add some depth and realism to the characters. There is great potential for some good role-playing, and the worst case scenario just puts you down into the second case:
In the second case, my rule-of-thumb is: "Party Cohesion trumps realism, but only up to the point where it damages your ability to feel invested in your character". In other words, if allowing the Hobgoblins to be killed won't irrevocably damage your ability to identify with your character, then don't worry about it. It's better to avoid the in- and out-of-character hurt feelings that can result from player-vs-player combat and/or someone losing a character. But do bring up the conflict out-of-character with the player of the Cavalier, which will hopefully help the two of you to avoid such conflicts in the future.
Nope. I just checked the PRD.I am at work so cannot acccess the SRD but don't cavaliers have to accept the honorable/sincere surrender of a foe as part of their code?In a recent game a friend of mine wanted to slaughter the hob goblins we encountered.
... he deserves to die as well. (She says this is because she is a caviler of the dragon order, this is an entirely different issue)
Thanks Wraithstrike. I may be stuck thinking about the Cavalier from the original Unearthed Arcana.
Thanks every one
this game is coming up on Tuesday and i haven't been able to decide if it was ok.
The thing thats really messing with me is, the person who i'm against was the one who taught me the game, and was usually the down to earth, lets look for another way out player rather than the blood thirsty kill kill kill player. And has actually berated me for that type of play, back when i was first playing.
FYI. No i will not attack the player, worst case scenario plan was to hold person both her and the Hob leader until they both cool off.
Important clarification question: does "siding with the Hobgoblins over a party member" mean speaking up and having an in-character debate, or does it mean inter-party combat with the potential of one character dying or leaving the party?
In the first case, DO IT! You clearly have doubts about the ethics of the situation, so bring them up. It will add some depth and realism to the characters. There is great potential for some good role-playing, and the worst case scenario just puts you down into the second case:
In the second case, my rule-of-thumb is: "Party Cohesion trumps realism, but only up to the point where it damages your ability to feel invested in your character". In other words, if allowing the Hobgoblins to be killed won't irrevocably damage your ability to identify with your character, then don't worry about it. It's better to avoid the in- and out-of-character hurt feelings that can result from player-vs-player combat and/or someone losing a character. But do bring up the conflict out-of-character with the player of the Cavalier, which will hopefully help the two of you to avoid such conflicts in the future.
The problem is...she's the ONLY one who wants to fight them...the other problem is...shes the DMs wife...so...yeah...i dont want to openly attack her, That would go Completely against my character. I just think that we argued this for upwards of 20 mins last sessions and i wanted to know if I was in the wrong.
I just think that we argued this for upwards of 20 mins last sessions and i wanted to know if I was in the wrong.
If your group likes to roleplay stuff like this, than it cannot be wrong unless it rolls over to real life. My group has had lots and lots of in game squabbles over the years in LOTS of different systems and almost always added to the joy of the game. Sometimes it means a character leaves the group and the player re-rolls something else. Sometimes it means we learn a new tidbit about another characters backstory. Maybe there is backstory why goblins can be redeemed but Hobs are to be slain. Some of our favorite roleplay moments in time are over in-party conflicts. The only time it has ever been an issue is the handful of times it somehow would turn into a real life arguement. Those were not fun. And usually would create a halt in the game for that night so tempers could cool down and reason re assert itself. In one case, it ended a game of werewolf.
Anyway, just me thoughts.Greg
I just think that we argued this for upwards of 20 mins last sessions and i wanted to know if I was in the wrong.If your group likes to roleplay stuff like this, than it cannot be wrong unless it rolls over to real life. My group has had lots and lots of in game squabbles over the years in LOTS of different systems and almost always added to the joy of the game. Sometimes it means a character leaves the group and the player re-rolls something else. Sometimes it means we learn a new tidbit about another characters backstory. Maybe there is backstory why goblins can be redeemed but Hobs are to be slain. Some of our favorite roleplay moments in time are over in-party conflicts. The only time it has ever been an issue is the handful of times it somehow would turn into a real life arguement. Those were not fun. And usually would create a halt in the game for that night so tempers could cool down and reason re assert itself. In one case, it ended a game of werewolf.
Anyway, just me thoughts.Greg
Oh no, if it was ANY other player'it'd be fine...they claim to bwe a rules layer and dosnt really know the rules... and ends up mixing rules from 4th ed, 3.5, and Pathfinder together...and sometimes 2Nd ed and ADND...
arguments pop up all the time in rules...(Can you ride a floating disk spell, if you are hit earlier in the round do you need a concentration check to cast a spell, can more that 2 figures move through a door in a round, etc)
but this is the first real non-rules argument, where i cant just go "Okay, the rule is right here"
i'm sorry if i'm mainly venting on this message bored, i just want to get this all out of my system before the next game. She left really steamed and i dont like the Arguing to take up most of the game
(Can you ride a floating disk spell,
First off, it sounds like your group and my group would do well together. :P
Now onto the floating disk thing. I actually had to cut out a templet of the circle for a floating disk. There was a GREAT discussion on how many grown men could fit on a floating disk. Even so, it was not resolved to one person's contention. But everyone else finally accepted my ruling. The one that had to be "right" only went so far as to say I was DM and my ruling has to stand...even though I and everyone else was wrong :P
Greg
Just because the Hobgoblin stood by as his king did heinous things doesn't mean he deserves to die. It could be that the hobgoblin didn't have the means to do anything about it, he did take an effort though. he offered to step aside and let the players do what they must and leave. This should relay that he's not evil. AN evil hobgoblin would try to get the players to take out the king so he could take over. It would be no different if a LG knight got stuck serving an evil king. Yeah he would hate it, and try to do everything in his power to lessen the kings damage, but he would still try to do it within the law. Does this mean because the knight serves under cruel evil king he deserves to die? no! killing him would be murder pure and simple.
(Can you ride a floating disk spell,First off, it sounds like your group and my group would do well together. :P
Now onto the floating disk thing. I actually had to cut out a templet of the circle for a floating disk. There was a GREAT discussion on how many grown men could fit on a floating disk. Even so, it was not resolved to one person's contention. But everyone else finally accepted my ruling. The one that had to be "right" only went so far as to say I was DM and my ruling has to stand...even though I and everyone else was wrong :P
Greg
the argument was whether ONE person could. she read the first line which says "that follows you" and ignored the rest.
Just because the Hobgoblin stood by as his king did heinous things doesn't mean he deserves to die. It could be that the hobgoblin didn't have the means to do anything about it, he did take an effort though. he offered to step aside and let the players do what they must and leave. This should relay that he's not evil. AN evil hobgoblin would try to get the players to take out the king so he could take over. It would be no different if a LG knight got stuck serving an evil king. Yeah he would hate it, and try to do everything in his power to lessen the kings damage, but he would still try to do it within the law. Does this mean because the knight serves under cruel evil king he deserves to die? no! killing him would be murder pure and simple.
AHAA...AND there is the BIG THING THAT DRIVES ME NUTS in this group...
they define lawful as following their OWN laws not the set laws of an area...SO the lawfuls tend to be more chaotic.
which is why i wanted to play a charecter who stuck 100% to the laws and would ABSOLUTELY refuse to kill any humanoid. and would instead bring them to the nearest town to be tried.
He wold veiw goods killing evils in the name of good to be just as bad as as evils.
they define lawful as following their OWN laws not the set laws of an area...SO the lawfuls tend to be more chaotic.
which is why i wanted to play a charecter who stuck 100% to the laws and would ABSOLUTELY refuse to kill any humanoid. and would instead bring them to the nearest town to be tried.
He wold veiw goods killing evils in the name of good to be just as bad as as evils.This is both true and false to certain extents. For example, the paladin would not likely follow the law in a land that said you must sacrifice i lamb to the blood god on the first of the month. Does that mean the paladin is not lawful good?
At the same time, evil necromancer doesn't kill indiscriminately when he is in town, because it is against the law and would get him imprisoned, does that make him lawful? More likely, it means he just doesn't want to go to jail.
In general you are right, lawful means you follow the law, but not all the time. Look at some of the old 3.5 descriptions... Lawful can mean disciplined, well trained, enjoys routine and order in life and interaction with others. Chaotic can mean free-spirited, and doesn't see things as others do. It doesn't mean he breaks the law actively (unless evil also), more likely, it means that if he doesn't like the laws somewhere, he would go somewhere else. The exception to that might be slavery, chaotic non-evil characters are likely to rail against slavery
Yes, but that same palidin doest say "Oh, slavery is against my inner laws so while in this town i will go around breaking every slave out of their owners control" they would instead try to go about bring reforms to the laws themselves rather than breaking them
|
I think what defines a lawful character is that they follow the laws of their own culture, (The laws they grew up with) and generally respect established authority and make their way in the world by working within the bounds proscribed by that authority. Lawful characters run into trouble when the local laws run contradictory to their own cultural morality. At that point they need to decide which is the lesser evil: breaking/thwarting the local authority/culture or repressing their own cultural outrage.