D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Lanefan]

Yes. This strikes me as player conflict being channeled through their characters.

Not necessarily.

Could be - and IMO often is - the players are allowing their PCs to come into conflict with each other and leaving it all in-character; and having fun with it.

If the players really wanted to get along, they would (as @iserith says) have fun narrating ways to "look the other way" during those awkward moments. I.e., some of the players agree to let the captive go, then they distract the paladin and kill the captive while he isn't looking. Or the paladin agrees to do the dirty deed and takes the captive off into the woods to off him, but of course lets him go. And everybody pretends to fall for it.

I've seen this done, and it always struck me as being just a bit too meta for my liking.

Since they're not doing this, your problem is the desire of the group to play D&D as a group, not the alignments (or oaths) of their characters.

Again, false equivalence.

It's very possible and quite easy for a group of players to have their PCs fight like cats while getting along with each other just fine in reality at the table.

 

[Flamestrike]

Are they? If they believe goblin children should be murdered...then, no, they aren’t.

Its a passage in one of the Drizzt books when normally CG Cattie Brie suddenly advocates genocide against Goblins (bearing in mind her father was killed by one) and expresses a desire to murder Goblin children.

The other heroes (including Drizzt) plus Bruenor etc are horrified by this, and explain to her why that is wrong, that they've literally encountered and even adventured with Goodly Orcs and Goblins before, and are deeply disturbed by what she's saying.

It's then never spoken of again in the books.

She is also depicted being upset and disturbed when she has to kill a human 'because they're like her' but has no pity or remorse or empathy whatsoever for Goblins and Orcs (who she clearly dehumanises).

Its some really weird writing.

 

[Lanefan]

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 largely disagree, and say instead the DM should be neutral.

I think your players are also at fault for dishing up a whole heap of unlikeable PCs.

Again I disagree. That party's got loads of character in it and immense potential for interesting play.

It's when they all get along and never disagree that it gets boring.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Very little difference between this and "fight with enemies, kill them all, then interrogate via Speak With Dead". This is the party's mistake; they're trying to question live captives - even more a mistake in that a living being can lie where a dead one cannot.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm upfront about the stick.

Some DM's promise unfettered freedom -> abuse of freedom -> game collapses.

Unfettered freedom -> abuse of freedom -> in-party conflict -> maybe some new PCs -> game goes on.

In-party conflict is fine as long as it stays in character. Let 'em fight.

 

[Lanefan]

That is definitely evil, and any non evil character I’ve ever played would refuse to let that happen without a fight. If I wanted to play someone who would let a cold blooded murder happen right in front of me, I wouldn’t be playing an adventurer.

Why not? Not all adventurers have to be good - sometimes the adventurers are the evil cold-blooded murderers. Doesn't bother me either as player or DM.

In-character as a PC I might care, or might not care, or might even be the murderer, depending on the specific character I'm playing at the time. There's characters of mine who would do whatever it took to bring the killer to justice, others who'd try to mete out justice on the spot, and still others who would be looting the corpse before it hit the ground while congratulating the killer on a job well done.

 

[OneRedRook]

So I don't have anything to add to the intra-party conflict side of things, but I thought I'd comment on this:

Well there is constantly friction in the party as to how to handle things. For example they typically want to kill prisoners after interogating and promising to let them go, they have no problem lying and well acting Chaotic. The Paladin tries to role play his character with his oath but it is causing a lot of friction. It came to a head in the last game when they let a stone Giant go after they got done arguing with him. The two CN characters wanted to kill him because they thought he would come back and attack them. the Paladin stood his ground and said no way and drew a line in the sand, the CG warlock rogue sided with the Palidin but would have been fine with "looking the other way" if the Paladin did not make a big deal out of it. OF course they were ambushed by said giant and friends later that session. It could have been a TPK, and would have but I played the Giants poorly in battle, making some bad decisions and the party scraped out of it (barely).

I've recently DMed a game after a hiatus, and my solution to this sort of situation was to let the players know that when they defeat someone through combat (ie, the remaining opposing side is at zero HP) but choose to let the enemy combatants live, those NPCs are effectively neutralised:

• They will answer questions the PCs put to them as best as they're able to
• They will follow the PCs immediate instructions
• They won't want to (or won't be able to) provide actionable information about the PCs to others

There are some limits on this - the PCs can't change someone's essential nature, at least not via this ruling alone. And it won't last for ever, so it's reasonable that the PCs might run into conflict with them again, but the "recovery" time for those defeated will be measured in weeks or months which is usually enough to avoid these sorts of issues. The in-fiction fig leaf over this is that the defeated enemy is (somewhat) traumatised.

It's super game-y (especially the last bullet point), and I know some people here will find it an unsatisfying way to handle stuff like this, but it worked for us.

 

[humble minion]

a living being can lie where a dead one cannot.

In 5e, this is explicitly not true. Speak With Dead does not enforce truthfulness.

 

[Lanefan]

In 5e, this is explicitly not true. Speak With Dead does not enforce truthfulness.

Interesting...and sad, really.

 

[TheSword]

Killing prisoners is not always an evil act.

If bandits are burning farms with people inside them and the party kills some and captures others. The bandits are questioned as to who they are workin for and why. There isn’t good justification for their banditry (Robin Hood) then it’s not an evil act to dispense justice and kill them. I’m not sure where this idea that killing a prisoner is evil came from.

Even in a highly regulated society vigilanteism isn’t necessarily evil. In a society without national police or legal system it would be normal. Remember most law enforcement was conducted by private citizens until the late 18th C or even later. Most serious crimes were punishable by death and there were over 200 crimes on the ‘bloody code’.

Prisoners of war fall into a fairly unique situation but the key part is war. There is a big difference between two nation states at war releasing prisoners who were professional soldiers acting as agents of the state following the cessation of hostilities and what occurs in most campaigns. The kind of raiding, predation and banditry that most PCs fight against.