D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[auburn2]

Her father was murdered by Goblins.

Can you please cite a single example of her murdering Goblin children?



Yeah. Extremely evil.

If your PCs are killing prisoners out of hand, or for convenience, they're unquestioningly evil.

They are killing prisoners because they are enemies and in general prisoners that they first "killed" on the battlefield and then stabilized.

 

[Flamestrike]

They are killing prisoners because they are enemies

Arent all POW's in that boat?

I'm sorry mate, if they're regularly killing prisoners, they're evil.

I you saw me semi-regularly promise captured people to let them go if they tell me stuff, only to murder them in cold blood afterwards, would you think I was evil?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Wait, you really don't like paladins... and then agreed to DM a game with one in it?

Why do that to yourself? You should have made this clear to the players from the start.

A game is way waaay better if the DM likes the characters the players have made. I think your players are also at fault for dishing up a whole heap of unlikeable PCs. They should be more considerate to you and each other.

No game is better than a bad game. Let them know how you feel and find a good book or computer game, give yourself an alternative to this bad play experience.

 

[ccs]

You are looking at a few actions, and yes ones that either are or lean evil. Their characters are more than that and they do plenty of good things too. Letting enemies go (or in this case potential enemies) is not one of them.

You can't take this as a whole. For example, I doubt anyone would call Cattie Brie from the Drizzt novels "evil", yet in one of the novels she states that Goblin children should be slaughtered in their nursery without mercy and Bruenner (her also good father) agrees with her. I think that act is undeniably evil even though both of those characters as presented in the novels are undeniably good.

I don't like Chaotic neutral characters in general because I think this is the most difficult alignment to play, but I also don't think these characters actions as a whole are necessarily evil. Chaotic, absolutely.
1. They do lie often and have no use for the truth (chaotic)
2. they do kill prisoners rather than release them (evil) but they refuse to torture prisoners for information (good)
3 they do tend to err on the side of caution instead of rightousness - better safe than sorry - when it comes to potential threats (neutral?)
4 They never steal and give to charity (good)
5. They deal and work with both good and evil factions to get the job done (neutral). One works with the harpers, the other actually joined the Zhents. The Paladin is unaware of both factions, but the CN PCs are aware of each other and they use the factions but have no real care for advancing their goals nor any value in the allegiance other than its usefulness. (Chaotic).
6. What they do is always for the greater good of society albeit often motivated by the reward they will receive (neutral)

I think overall that is pretty neutral on the good-evil scale.

So you're just trolling & starting an Alignment argument thread.

 

[auburn2]

Wait, you really don't like paladins... and then agreed to DM a game with one in it?

Why do that to yourself? You should have made this clear to the players from the start.

A game is way waaay better if the DM likes the characters the players have made. I think your players are also at fault for dishing up a whole heap of unlikeable PCs. They should be more considerate to you and each other.

No game is better than a bad game. Let them know how you feel and find a good book or computer game, give yourself an alternative to this bad play experience.

I played a lot of dnd with these players. If we ditch this campaign we will start another.

The Paladin wanted to "try out" a Paladin on this campaign. Usually that player is a wizard or cleric/wizard multiclass. She wanted something different (and she got it).

The CN players wanted to play a CN character and have wanted to do this for years.

I don't really dislike Paladins and I think they are great NPCs. I think for PCs though it is difficult to mesh with a party unless the whole party is very similar. That is the only reason I dislike them. Paladins, by definition, are zealots and that leads to conflict unless all the characters are either similar or ok with that.

Similarly I think it is difficult to play a CN PC, and play true to alignment, as part of a larger group.

 

[ccs]

Yeah right!



I actually did used to ban CN PCs from the game, along with evil characters. With alignment deemphasized in 5E and because the two players begged to play CN characters I decided to allow it this game.

So what did you used to do when people wrote xx on their sheet but played xEvil anyways?

Because despite your claims that the CNs also do non-evil things, murdering the prisoners is in fact the act of evil characters.

 

[R_J_K75]

I am really having trouble with this because I think in real life those characters would just part ways - the Paladin can't accept such behavior and the others can't stand the goody-goody Paladin. Of course in the real world parting ways means an end to our game. If it wasn't for his oath I think he would just relent and basically look at alignment as a guideline or belief instead of a code to live by.

Yeah theyd have parted ways long ago if they would have ever even started adventuring together at all. I would think the characters alignment would be the reason they are bound to a oath, probably not the oath driving them to LG. Either way I hate Paladin PCs to the point I don't allow them anymore.

 

[ZeshinX]

They are killing prisoners because they are enemies and in general prisoners that they first "killed" on the battlefield and then stabilized.

So....fight with enemies and spare at least one....patch that one up, interrogate and lie without flinching, knowing the inevitable outcome...then murder them once whatever information has been gleaned?

I mean to each their own interpretation....but ye gawds....this party, save the Paladin, are monstrously evil. I mean honestly, that scenario is how so very many books and films establish a villain.

Dunno why you don't allow evil characters....you seem to have no issues with them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Descriptions of CN from prior to 3e were evil. You can't give to widows and orphans on Monday and murder children on Tuesday and say you are overall neutral. Strongly evil deeds take precedence over any good you do and make you evil--you can't balance them by including them in a lifestyle that also does some good.

3e had the best alignment definitions. CN in 3e was completely playable, and it was easy to see what the difference was between that and evil.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Okay, you don't want to ditch the group.

Well... don't allow reviving defeated monsters. The dying rule is specifically for PCs and important NPCs. Force the players to use Speak with Dead instead.

For my own games I don't allow excessive inter-party conflict. If one PC does something that egregiously disenfranchises them from another PC, the offender becomes an NPC. Take that beech tree.

I joke that that their level becomes CR and equipment treasure. Not really joking, someone has upset people, including me.

This is the harsh stick that the players know is there. So what they then have to do is find some compromise that makes everyone equally unhappy. I consider this a social encounter and tell the players, so it's worth XP. Heck, I might even work in a treasure drop if remotely plausible. Ime, characters usually seem to be under-treasured.