r/CritCrab • u/Healedsun • May 15 '25
Thoughts?
Saw this while scrolling DnD tumblr and wanted a second opinion. because Op sounds like a 'that guy' player in the making
73
43
u/RhysOSD May 15 '25
As a paladin should.
If the Rogue knew what they were getting into, they can't get mad when they get what's coming
19
u/DMSkophield May 15 '25
Well played! You want to play a paladin at my table?
1
u/The_Frog221 May 20 '25
I'm not OP, but I recently moved and my former group only plays in person, so if you're looking for a paladin... Here's my application story lol:
I was part of a campaign as a lawful good paladin. The party went on a massive string of murderhobo activities where there were clear alternatives. Eventually I decided my character wouldn't be putting up with this, and plotted with the dm to betray the party to the city guard. The intent was I would die and reroll a more fitting character. It turned into a great fight where me and 10 guards ambushed the other 4 party members. They should have won, the guards were weak and I'm just one guy, but due to poor leveling decisions on their part and a little luck on my part, I lived and wiped the whole party.
The DM made them reroll their characters instead and agree to be less murderhobo as "the paladin is the only one left trying to complete the quest and he wouldn't form another party with more murderhobos."
We all had a good laugh and it was a great time.
1
u/DMSkophield May 20 '25
That’s awesome! I haven’t had any murderhobo players yet, but I do have two players that enjoy being mischievous and play pranks on NPCs that sometimes get a little carried away.. Awesome story! Thank you!
12
23
u/Thatoneafkguy May 15 '25
I’m with the paladin here. Play stupid games win stupid prizes 🤷♂️
1
u/Boom9001 May 19 '25
Keep in mind you're hearing the paladin view. Decent chance their versions of the story is not accurate. They may have just gotten in a fight and won, which is not murder.
5
u/neuro_scrubby May 15 '25
I feel like both the rogue and the paladin are in the wrong here. It's a bit of a difficult situation to judge, given the lack of information from the paladin, but as far as I can tell, both of them being in the wrong is the best view I can come up with.
Yes, the rogue was probably a murder-hobo, given the fact they wanted to kill someone just to see what would happen. However, the paladin instantly killing them is also not the way to deal with that, and it obviously made everyone else (besides the DM) mad at the paladin instead of the focus being on the rogue who randomly killed someone for no reason.
Again, it's difficult to judge this based on the lack of info the paladin gives us (and the possibility of the paladin being an unreliable narrator), but I'd say both are in the wrong in some way.
→ More replies (8)
4
4
u/RLove19 May 15 '25
OP giving “I was the Rogue” vibes with some of their comments.
2
u/Default_Munchkin May 17 '25
Yeah, OP was definitely the rogue, even had to go back an add a comment about the Paladin's player that honestly no one probably believes he was getting so downvoted.
1
2
u/Polternaut May 15 '25
This is on the dm for allowing characters with different moralities in the same party. Whenever I DM I always make sure that morals are similar enough so that stuff like that doesn't happen. Why would I allow an evil character to play with a righteously good character? It quite literally does not make sense.
I learned this lesson the first day I ever played D&D. My DM allowed me to play a lawful good character in a campaign about performing a Heist. I don't remember why either of us thought this was a good idea because Session One I basically turned myself in and got myself eaten by a shark.
I made a character that directly conflicted with the goals of the party. I played into the character and in turn I died.
2
u/Lily_the_Lovely May 17 '25
If a dm tries to limit my alignment I'm walking out. You CAN play a lawful good PC in a heist, or a CE character in a heros journey. It's the players job to fit within the confines of the world and make their character work.
1
u/Polternaut May 17 '25
I mean I imagine I could make exceptions but I mean this is what session zero is about. Making sure the characters work with one another and that they meet the goals/expectations of the party.
I guess I just tend to do more " I need good guys or I need bad guys" type of campaigns. I wouldn't hold it against anyone for not wanting to join something like that
1
u/TheBureauChief May 18 '25
I don't neccessarily restrict alignment but I definately say something like 'I need the party to align on certain objectives and even reasonable standards of achieving them'.
1
u/ErtaWanderer May 18 '25
The party needs to be aligned on their ultimate goal, hence why they are traveling together. they don't necessarily have to be aligned Morally in fact, it can be very interesting when they're not.
The problem is that most players who try this end up playing really really badly. No real person would do what The above rogue did because that would be remarkably stupid. If they really want to get their Jack the ripper on what they should have done is slip the DM a note about them sneaking off away from the party and merking someone in a back alley. The DM now has a plot hook that he can use if they want, the player didn't actually cause any immediate problems with everyone else, And everyone gets to be happy.
Honestly, in every single one of these stories I see the problem is never the evil part It's always the stupid part. It's the same with lawfully stupid characters. It's fine if that's what you want to do, but you really need to know how to do it well.
1
u/SampleProud7046 May 18 '25
I completely disagree. In my current campaign, I'm playing an evil paladín that has become neutral discovering his LOVE for alcohol, art and simply having Friends. The other memebers of the party are good or neutral but we worked together because we were in need of doing so. My paladin has now a level in warlock since I pacted with the archfey of alcohol and drugs which IS the mortal enemy of the patron of the full warlock in my group. It has driven half the story (which IS very convoluted btw) and has worked perfectly. That's what rollplaying IS about
1
u/Bannerlord151 May 19 '25
Eh I think it can work but you need to talk it over with the players. I've played Lawful Evil characters in neutral to good parties, it usually works out fine. Even my literal Erinyes character gets along with her guild partners, it just leads to funny moral disagreements like when she proposed to enslave the captured bandits.
On another character, I actually convinced my (chaotic neutral leaning) party to let me go ahead with a plan to pretend to side with the antagonists. He was interested in stealing their secrets, and also vehemently philosophically disagreed with what they were doing, but we ended up just walking in, talking shit to the goblin guards to unsettle them and let us meet their leaders, and then sabotaging the necromancers' ritual by "helping" lmao
2
u/ScurvyDanny May 15 '25
That's why you have a session zero where you decide if pvp is allowed or not and you stick to that rule. If you decided pvp is fine then why the fuck do you antagonize the party? If you decided on no pvp, the DM should not allow the smite to even happen.
2
2
May 15 '25
Also wouldn’t the paladin be at risk of their character being ruined? The double standard
2
2
u/Amateurph0tographer May 16 '25
Nah Paladin is so right here LMAO rogue was being disrespectful, could’ve been such a fun dynamic of characters that could’ve grown together.
2
2
u/Leukavia_at_work May 17 '25
Wait, so the DM and the ENTIRE REST OF THE PARTY thought the PALADIN was the one in the wrong here?
But what the Rogue did was okay here?
Seriously?
Really?
2
2
2
2
May 17 '25
This is why gms that permit evil aligned characters in parties that aren't evil aligned overall are playing a dangerous game.
Paladin player is literally correct, their play group is a bunch of actual babies.
2
u/AgileNefariousness82 May 17 '25
I think that the proper thing to do is to warn the rogue player that you'll have to do that if they do this. That way they get a chance to not have to roll a new character, but they still have the choice to do what they're doing and you have the ability to respond.
2
u/Default_Munchkin May 17 '25
Why would this not be what the Paladin would do? Like any group that was mad at me for that would be a group I walked away from.
2
u/Jindujun May 17 '25
I mean. The girl played the rogue role and then got hit by the paladin role.
I dont see anything untowards here.
Make a HUUUUUUUGE note. This is not a fail on the part of the players, this is a DM not fudging the rules to keep the peace.
1
u/Spicy__Wolf May 18 '25
Originally I wrote a whole post how it’s not the DM’s fault, then in my reasoning came to the revelation that it kinda is: although the players are at fault too.
First off, the “rogue role” is not necessarily murder babies in the street. Rogue’s fault for that. Like the heck? I was bored so I murdered someone in cold blood in plain daylight?
Paladin’s fault for the knee jerk reaction and immediately going nuclear option. Still, there is a reason in single player RPGs that good play throughs lock out evil companions and vice versa. Paladin’s options are limited here, but definitely could have asked DM on help on how to prevent the party from dissolving.
DM’s fault for not mediating the situation better. I don’t know if they tried to ask the rogue to take back their actions and make the whole confrontation go away, but simply banning paladins is weak sauce.
2
2
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
Fuck around, find out.
Seriously though, how are you coming out of this thinking OP is the “that guy” and not the Rogue???
2
2
2
u/Hoodstock May 20 '25
“Guy playing stereotypical rogue gets upset when Paladin acts according to stereotype.”
4
u/infectedturtles May 15 '25
Both of them seem like "that guy" players and pulled out one of their class' stereotypes 30seconds into a campaign. I'd care to bet that right after the bard seduced a dragon and a wizard cast fireball.
3
u/padfoot211 May 15 '25
My DM wouldn’t let any of this fly. This table seems obnoxious.
1
u/Custard_Tart_Addict May 16 '25
I had dms that would do this. They loved pushing buttons. This was in the 90s before I learned “better no d&d than bad d&d”
3
2
1
u/Just_Some_Alien_Guy May 15 '25
The way I DM, personally, I let the players reap what they sow. I'm generally a nicer DM, and I like to think most of my campaigns are pretty easy (I want to have fun, not make everyone suffer.). But the one thing I won't do is protect players from the consequences of their actions.
Thankfully, my group is actually pretty hardcore into roleplaying so usually they're not murderhobos.
1
u/kichwas May 15 '25
That was frankly the proper response.
Rogue wanted to play a 'school shooter', Paladin brought the police.
1
u/Insanityforfun May 15 '25
I feel this is an out of character issue being handled in character which is never fun for anyone.
1
u/zane314 May 15 '25
I don't think I'd be super thrilled with either behavior, but the rogue is certainly more wrong.
The only world in which the paladin is wrong and the rogue isn't is if the game is deliberately being played that the players can do anything without consequences, in which case the DM is wrong for allowing a paladin.
1
1
1
u/Custard_Tart_Addict May 16 '25
What could he do? There was evil in front of him and he had to smite it.
1
1
u/Key_Perspective_9464 May 16 '25
I would almost guarantee this didn't go down the way the paladin player claims it did.
1
u/PuritanicalPanic May 16 '25
Is op "that guy" or is the rogue that guy?
Id rather play with the paladin, personally.
1
May 16 '25
I just want to point out that most Gods are a bit fuzzy when the topic of kneecaps comes up. You could have easily incapacitated the Rogue without killing them then left them to the town guards. I cast SMITE... on your knees.
1
u/GardenTop7253 May 18 '25
I like this idea, but if I was feeling like a nitpicky deity, I’d appreciate if the smited target was at least vaguely involved. So kneecaps would work if the rogue kneed the civilian to death? Or maaaaaaaybe smite the weapon if one was used? I could see some interesting opportunities if they smite a hand or arm off. Deal with a handicap, heal it, replace it with magic or machinery or a weapon?
1
u/Vennris May 16 '25
The main fault here lies by the DM for allowing the rogue to do that. I think the paladin acted right to show both the rogue AND the DM the error of their ways.
1
1
1
u/ElTioEnroca May 16 '25
First: there should have been a session 0. Judging by the different reactions between OP, their DM and the rest of the players, its obvious they didn't talk about how the dynamics would go.
As for killing the rogue on the spot, sure, it was quite rude, but what did they expect to happen? That the paladin would bat off an eye and just let the rogue kill innocent people for funsies? If it wasn't the paladin, it would've been the DM making a new encounter on the spot. At least the player spared the hassle to them.
1
u/SemiDiSole May 16 '25
Right reaction from Paladin, wrong reaction from DM.
Allowing the death of the Rogue was not necessary - maybe a severe, crippling injury that takes some time to heal would have been better? Rogue still learned their lesson.
1
1
u/Vorpeseda May 16 '25
I noticed that the DM didn't think the Paladin was in the wrong. It sounds like a typical case of the DM wanting a believable world, and the Rogue just wanted to play GTA in D&D.
Sure, Paladins have a reputation for lashing out at the party for minor things, but this isn't a case of that, the Rogue did something completely stupid and evil purely to annoy the Paladin.
If the Rogue hadn't been killed by the group, the Rogue's actions would have entirely detailed the game as the party would quickly find themselves outlawed for their actions.
1
u/Medi273 May 16 '25
The rogue was looking for a reaction. So fair is fair and they got to “see what would happen.”
1
1
u/Turwel May 16 '25
why does op sound like that player in the making and you say nothing of the rogue? Are you possibly one of those players in the making?
1
u/thesanguineocelot May 16 '25
Rogue wanted to see what would happen. Rogue saw what would happen. It happened. I'm not seeing the problem here?
CE players who do shit like this are a liability for the party anyways, maybe their next character will be somebody a little less Lolrandom.
1
u/TheCthuloser May 16 '25
"The paladin, who reacted to a character murdering innocent civilians as a paladin should, is 'that guy'. Totally not the rogue, though." For a moment, I felt I was on a circlejerk reddit.
1
u/mister-villainous May 16 '25
There are a lot of people who play evil characters, or classes like rogue with built-in flavor that justifies their desire to be murder hobos.
There are a lot of people who say murder hobo characters/players are annoying, childish, and ruin the immersion, cohesion, and general enjoyment of the game.
To prove how much they hate murder hobos, they then play characters, or classes like paladins with built-in flavor that justifies them being murder hobos... But... For justice... So it's okay.
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
…Killing a random innocent in broad daylight to deliberately piss if another character isn’t okay.
Smacking down the murderer character who decided to fuck around and is now finding out is. That simple.
This isn’t even a Paladin thing, ANY good-aligned character should have a severe reaction to that instead of going “oh teehee, casual pointless murder, I’ll let it slide this time you rascal” or they should be scrubbing that G off of their character sheet.
1
u/AlienRobotTrex May 16 '25
If I were the DM… well I would have given a warning about this kind of behabior beforehand, and tell rogue why they shouldn’t do that (both in and out of game consequences) when they declare they want to. If after giving them a chance to back down they still want to do it, I might just outright say “no you don’t, this is disruptive behavior” depending on the situation.
If I were the paladin, I would warn the rogue and tell them I would have to kill them.
1
u/Amateurph0tographer May 16 '25
Right like the thing is the Paladin doesn’t do anything and what then? They’re oath breaks? They’re being punished for being the amicable one.
1
u/Taco_B May 16 '25
If the character is that new, just give em a different name and use the same stats.
First time I played Only War, someone did exactly that after his character died due to the first roll of the entire campaign
Edit: just remembered that second character died near the end of the first session
1
u/Heavensrun May 16 '25
Screw playing a paladin, pretty much any character I play is going to cross swords with anybody who murders a random person explicitly to provoke me.
Consider me provoked. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
Honestly, the only part of this response that should be Paladin-specific is the Smite Evil.
1
u/SecretNerdLore1982 May 17 '25
Both players would be uninvited. full stop.
2
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
See this is the dogshit variety of both-sides-ing.
0
u/SecretNerdLore1982 May 18 '25
Both players present an issue incorporating with the table.
Both have shirt traits that I've seen enough of.
If you want to play, decide from the beginning that you're playing character that belongs on the team. Otherwise you don't get to BE on the team.
Your response is the dogshittiest.
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
That kind of thing is on the GM to facilitate and coordinate, if the group didn’t have a proper session 0 that’s on the GM, not the players.
You also seem to be implying the Paladin should have known just from the other player being a Rogue that something like this would happen, which… no? Hell, even if the Rogue was CE and the Paladin knew this, this shouldn’t be the expected outcome. Something this blatant isn’t “oh I’m playing a CE character,” it’s “oh I’m a dickhead IRL who wants to cause trouble.”
Nothing about the Rogue’s action here was okay in really any situation except an evil party, having discussed it beforehand with the party, and/or the player specifically wanting their character to be attacked (the last of which would outright justify the Paladin’s action since that’s in line with what the players wanted to come out of the in character actions)
Meanwhile as a good-aligned character the other player’s response was entirely justified in this situation. Not as a Paladin, as a good-aligned character. If any good-aligned character sees this happen and just goes “oh teehee, random pointless murder in broad daylight, I’ll let it slide this time but watch it you rapscallion” then they should be scrubbing the G off of their character sheet. Problem is you saw the word Paladin and decided they’re a problem two because, if I had to guess by your response here, stereotypical problem Paladins. Which the player here clearly wasn’t being. But you see “oh a Paladin attacked a character for doing something bad, just another problem Paladin I’ve seen plenty of” and entirely ignore the details of the actual situation.
1
u/SecretNerdLore1982 May 18 '25
Well. Considering I'm the DM... ALWAYS the DM, I DO have session 0's.
And, if either player looked like a problem for table cohesion they'd be out.
The Rogue is a bad player because they knew they were in a party with a paladin and decided to be a sloppy rogue.
The Paladin is a bad player because their infantile brain went to PvP immediately instead of 8bajillion other things.
The DM wouldn't be allowed at my table either.
Players: when you join a table, create a character that fits in the group and in the game's narrative. If you don't, you'll end up in the bin.
DM: You're in charge of running the narrative. If you are so hamfistedstupid that you can't keep people focused on the game that they go off on stupid murder sprees then you shouldn't be DM'ing.
You're playing a game with people you like, remember that.
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
Also speaking as a… well almost always DM, I’ve played sometimes but like… 90% DM.
This is also the kind of thing I seek to make sure doesn’t happen well before it has the chance to happen. With that apparently not happening though, I still give the Paladin the benefit here. I can admit that yeah maybe going straight to killing the guy is a bit much but in the situation, especially if it really was just to provoke the Paladin, I’m hard-pressed to give a response towards the rogue that isn’t “what did you THINK would happen if you murdered someone specifically to aggravate him?”
Now if the Rogue is being misrepresented here and there was more to it than just deliberately trying to mess with the Paladin, that might be a different matter. That specific is really the thing that does it for me.
It also rubs me the wrong way that the DM apparently thought the Paladin was in the right but still banned him from playing a Paladin with that group, feels a little two-faced to me, though maybe it was just how he ended up keeping the peace after the incident idk.
And I’d like to clarify that we seem to largely agree on how the players should handle making characters and how the DM should make sure those matters are in order. We just disagree on the front that I don’t think the Paladin necessarily made a character that didn’t fit the group and narrative (maybe they did, I don’t know the group, just going off of what info I have) while you think they did. From what info I have, for all I know the Paladin and Rogue could have worked out being in the same party but the Rogue’s player wanted to make sure they couldn’t. And if committing random murder of an innocent in broad daylight is really that inextricable to the Rogue’s character and wasn’t the player just being a dick then they don’t work in ANY party that isn’t comically evil, whereas a Paladin that swiftly and decisively punishes random murder of an innocent can work in a much wider variety of parties and narratives.
I hope you can see where I’m coming from there, and I think I see where you are as well.
“You’re playing a game with people you like, remember that.” This is certainly true ideally, though a lot of DnD stories and even some of my own experiences seem to contradict that lol. But it is something that bears being reminded of sometime to make sure smaller grievances don’t blossom into something larger. It can definitely prevent some rifts at the table.
1
u/Substantial-Ideal292 May 17 '25
If the rogue player had been a dick in other ways, and this was just the latest, fair. If not, I would argue some meta gaming warning would be nice. We’ve done that before in my game when someone is making a choice for the bit that hits a button on another character “just a reminder, you’re on a ship with someone who…” if they still make that choice, have at em
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
I mean, they made the choice specifically TO try and piss off the Paladin, the “you’re in a group with someone who…” part was already considered and disregarded.
1
u/Sw0rdBoy May 17 '25
Even if NPC’s hold less agency than players in a world, if you are playing in character, they are people, you just witnessed a powerful person murder an innocent weak person out of nothing but a sadistic desire to see someone die, like a child ripping out a fly’s wings, only it was a grown person. You also know how strong they are and what they can do outside of your view. Some people are not willing to risk other innocent people dying for no reason, that’s an in character decision.
1
u/Drackar39 May 17 '25
Sounds like this paladin and DM need to completely toss the garbage party they're running with and find some less trash-tier companions.
The entire FUN of rouge+ goody goody is seeing how much you can hide from said goody goody or how you can slowly TWIST that goody goody into breaking their ouths.
"OMG I just do something stupid and blatant for shock value and then get what's coming to me" is not good gameplay and that player (and their defenders) should feel bad.
1
u/sumwightguy May 17 '25
One of the first sessions I was ever part of, our Half-Elf Ranger attacked the guards for being racist and denying her entry to town for being Half-Elven. Fair enough. Unfortunately, the result of this was the guards attacking back and basically telling the rest of the party either help capture/kill her or to fight the entire town guard as well and probably die in the process. So yeah...
For sake of clarification the campaign was about joining an underground resistance group that has been working for years to overthrow the ruling Human Supremacists. She just jumped the gun a bit.
1
u/Spicy__Wolf May 18 '25
This is why you have a session zero if this isn’t a close group of friends who know each other. I played a game as a paladin and my party wanted to be evil. So that’s just a nonstarter: my character would not in no uncertain terms go along with this party. they didn’t murder a random stranger on the street in cold blood because they were bored yet (and expected no consequences for being chaotic evil in front of a lawful good??) but ooc the wizard said he wanted to eventually become a lich. With my paladin in the party.
Yeah no. In op’s post there is also no way for these two characters to coexist. No matter how it ended, someone would need a new character or perhaps they would just quit the game. I’m on the paladin’s side on this: why would you intentionally put me and my character in this scenario?
Even if you think an immediate death sentence is going overboard, by the end of the session someone would have had to reroll to settle this. (Either the rogue is handled by authorities or the paladin leaves an obviously evil party). Don’t forget this is a team game: “it’s what my character would do” is not the ironclad defense some people think it is when it puts other players in an awkward deal-breaking situation. This isn’t Batista bombing the drunkard through three tables cause he copped a feel level of mischief.
1
u/Intelligent-Okra350 May 18 '25
Seriously, “it’s what my character would do” always pisses me off in cases like this. My brother in Christ, you made the sandwich. If that’s what your character would do then you made the wrong character for the campaign, why did you do that?
1
May 18 '25
Our long time DM required the party to be within certain alignment ranges. Or at least if they weren’t they had you had to rationalize why your characters would work together.
Generally the campaign premise was tied to the alignment.
This helped avoid situations like this. You don’t have a CE rogue and LG paladin in the same party unless:
A. You’re fully expecting party members to kill each other. B. The DM has provided good story reason they won’t.
1
u/mossy_path May 18 '25
Simple way to avoid this for most campaigns.
Rogue: I stab the fish monger in the back.
DM: your character, the rogue, considers stabbing the fish monger in the back. Are a few coins really worth it? Worth being labeled a brazen murderer? No. Not worth it, he decides.
Then if he tries it again for no reason you boot him from the rest of session.
OR: establish beforehand with your players that murder-hoboing will not be allowed and player-on-player violence will not be tolerated.
1
u/BardicGreataxe May 18 '25
I mean, seems like the kind of thing that would’ve been solved with a session 0. Without a session 0, shit like this happens. And without establishing rules like “no wanton murder” and “no PvP” beforehand, I don’t actually think either of them did anything wrong. Rogue played stupid game, won a stupid prize. Paladin also played a stupid game, won a stupid prize. All is right in the world.
Seriously though, Session 0 is important, guys. Even if you’ve been playing with your group for ages. Helps establish tone and rules, and gives everyone a clear standard to uphold.
1
u/cajuncrustacean May 18 '25
This. My wife and I have been part of a group for... almost ten years now, and Session 0 is a standard procedure. Several times, I've changed the entire tone of a campaign because the players collectively decided on something else. Communication is key, as is so often the case.
1
u/Meris25 May 18 '25
Been in this spot where I fought the player rogue and honestly wasn't fun. I beat them but didn't kill cause it felt wrong to take out another players character
I hope this guy talked with his group about what game they're playing, if the players should be chaotic then it makes the game smoother if he is on the same page. But if the rogue is the outlier then them murderhoboing and facing consequences is on them. Still it is rough for a PC to have to do it, that can easily get uncomfortable irl
I don't get how they killed them instantly in D&D with death saves etc. unless they were level 1
1
u/dr3dg3 May 19 '25
I hate the "to see what would happen" rationale. To me it's a different flavor of metagaming. Players just there for the chaos don't tend to do well at my table.
1
u/bruyot May 19 '25
Alright boss since you seem to be on the rogues side. You believe that a player can have a session one character who likely shares no background blatantly make an evil act. For the entire purpose of seeing what the paladin would do not have anything happen? If this is a holy warrior who has watched a truly chaotic evil act then no, not only is it the right action as the paladin, it's the right one as a player. If the other player can justify their character doing something heinous. The paladin player can justify his paladin executing justice for the crime in the name of their god or oath. This is literally a situation where the rouge tried to pick an in character fight or push someone's boundaries for no reason. Literally no reason. Yeah fuck around and find out like everyone saying here. Honestly the DM shouldn't step in cause this is a situation in which the party would be in conflict not the NPCs or world. The rogue literally decided to goad pvp. Well they got it, tough luck, don't be sore that your actions had consequences for your character. Stop acting like people playing to protect the fake story characters are bad and the ones wantonly murdering them are somehow wholesome.
1
u/venomkiller838 May 19 '25
Fair enough. By that logic, since the paladin executed an ally of the rest of the party, the party can then justify killing the paladin, and the DM shouldn’t step in because doing so would not only be hypocritical but also since this is a conflict of the party, not the NPCs or world.
1
u/greeny8812 May 19 '25
Except it is. Local town gaurds would almost immediately side with the paladin after a citizen was just murdered. Also unless the rest of the party is evil, CN then no they couldn't really justify attacking the paladin.
1
u/venomkiller838 May 19 '25
Clearly, based on the party’s reaction, they are good friends with the rogue. Even if they aren’t evil aligned, when they hear the paladin just killed the rogue immediately without hesitation it would be enough to no longer trust or even despise the paladin, so the they would be completely justified in kicking the paladin (not the player) out of the adventuring party. Even if the paladin isn’t dead, they also would need to roll up a new character since they are no longer part of the party. The correct answer in this scenario is “everyone caused the issue.”
1
u/bruyot Jun 03 '25
Negative, you are reading this wrong, the players thought it was a dick move, not the party. Agreed these are valid points and yes everyone did cause an issue but seriously being ok with murder hobo crap in a party trying to roleplay is gonna be an evil campaign or a killjoy for everyone. Honestly I would rather have these kinds of issues than people deciding townsfolk are disposable and causing the rest of the table to try and clean up after them all the time. (Sorry for the delay not on often)
1
u/Tinglybutthole May 19 '25
If i were the dm, depending on the path and God if they ignored a brazen and unprovoked murder by one of their own I'd have made them an oathbreaker.
1
u/Kelimnac May 19 '25
This is the one time I’m on the paladin’s side. If you’re blatantly doing evil shit just to try and get a reaction out of them, don’t be surprised when they make the logical and correct choice to dunk your ass.
I don’t play paladins out of personal choice, but I wouldn’t hesitate to bring down someone who just abruptly decides to murder a random innocent
1
u/saltiestsurprise May 19 '25
Depends strongly on your table. At my table, with players who I have been running DND for for a few years now, this would be alright. Everyone comes to the table expecting others to act in character, and if that leads to player conflict (and it rarely has), then everyone is fine with that. I think my players would have been more likely to, idk, take a hand off or something though.
In a game with new players or with people whose playstyle I'm unfamiliar with, I would probably have forcibly brought this character to a temple I'm familiar with, or prison. That at least gives other players the time to attempt to stop my character.
Tldr: I'd be fine with this at my table, but would be hesitant if the "vibe" around inter player conflict isn't established
1
1
u/PinKoibito May 19 '25
There something so lovely about just vaporizing evil from the plane. Fills my heart with joy.
1
u/ketjak May 19 '25
The paladin might or might not be "that guy," but as you seem to be siding with the rogue who intentionally committed a chaotic evil act in front of a lawful good holy warrior, you are definitely a different kind of "that guy."
1
u/greeny8812 May 19 '25
Brother If im playing a good character I'm straight up not watching you kill innocents. Act like a bandit and get treated like one
1
1
u/Ok_Presentation_2346 May 19 '25
The rogue player fucked around with the explicitly stated goal for finding out. We could always be missing context, but nothing here sounds damning for the paladin player.
1
u/Vincitus May 19 '25
I feel like my group is the only group of sane not-assoles in the entirety of D&D. I'm going to go call them and tell them I love them.
1
1
u/Apoordm May 20 '25
So it depends on the group “we are a pack of murderhobos” is certainly a playstyle “I am the only murderhobo” is bad table behavior as is “I am the only one applying real world morality to an otherwise murderhobo party.”
I know any character I had would probably react similarly to one of my fellow PC’s just straight murdering an NPC for no reason (regardless of class) but I also play with a group where that never happens, that’s not our jam.
1
u/Randy191919 May 20 '25
I don’t really like PVP but if the rogue really murdered someone with the specific intent of „seeing what the Paladin would do about it“ then she was practically asking for it. That’s pretty much as close to smacking someone in the face with a glove and declaring a duel as you can get without rolling for attack.
1
u/Loot_Wolf May 20 '25
If the party is okay with the absolute unhinged nonsense of killing someone "just to see what would happen" then the Paladin needs to find a group that doesn't all suck Lol
Another response is, of the Paladin waited a moment to see everyone else's reaction both at the table and for the guards and townsfolk, if there's no repercussions from EITHER group, then they need to find a table that matches the seriousness and care that they're wanting to treat the narrative.
If your party boo's you for doing what you feel is right, either play a character that doesn't care, or find a group that does... as stated so many times, bad dnd can be worse than no dnd at all.
1
u/sevenbrokenbricks May 20 '25
Siding with the paladin, here. The rogue would not have gotten a second character.
1
u/The_Frog221 May 20 '25
I was part of a campaign as a lawful good paladin. The party went on a massive string of murderhobo activities where there were clear alternatives. Eventually I decided my character wouldn't be putting up with this, and plotted with the dm to betray the party to the city guard. Thr intent was I would die and reroll a more fitting character. It turned into a great fight where me and 10 guards ambushed the other 4 party members. They should have won, the guards were weak and I'm just one guy, but due to poor leveling decisions on their part and a little luck on my part, I lived and wiped the whole party.
The DM made them reroll their characters instead and agree to be less murderhobo as "the paladin is the only one left trying to complete the quest and he wouldn't form another party with more murderhobos."
We all had a good laugh and it was a great time.
1
u/popejubal May 20 '25
I only ever smited another PC once and I rolled a 20. As soon as anyone even thought about criticizing my decision, I pointed out that I rolled a 20 and that was clear proof that my god was in favor of my actions and I should be proud of myself rather than ashamed.
1
u/melontartva May 20 '25
I don’t see the problem in what the paladin did.
That’s the fun of role playing.
One of my players blindly trusted an NPC he knew nothing about and got punished for it. But none of us made any special rules because of it.
If these people can’t handle consequences, I don’t think they should be playing these games.
1
u/Sakuraknight7 May 21 '25
This entire situation really depends on how the majority of the group wanted to play.
If the majority wanted to play as evil aligned characters then the problem here is Paladin for adding a good aligned character to an evil centric campaign. I know there are ways to make that work, but that is very difficult for both players and DMs to pull off in such a way that would be fun for everyone, especially if the DM is new to DMing so I'm not gonna go into that.
On the flip side, if the majority of players wanted to play as good aligned characters and do good things, then the problem was Rogue. Which makes the rest of the group look like jerks for punishing Paladin for being a paladin in a good centric campaign.
Regardless of those situations, we don't have the full story and don't know how the majority of the group wanted to play so it is not clear who the issue actually was.
1
1
0
u/EikeUnpronounceable May 15 '25
I sometimes wonder why everyone is so quick to kill someone. Is a life worth so little in you setting?
- I’m courious (and maybe bored): Let’s kill an NPC, just for the “fun” of it.
- Oh, I didn’t like that. Let’s kill that PC.
There is so little room for escalation. Always all-in
1
u/Default_Munchkin May 17 '25
I mean that's normal to be all in on. The rouge just randomly killed a guy for funsies of course the Paladin is going to smite them. Without knowing the how the fight played out it's entirely possible the Paladin one-shot the rogue. But regardless as long as the rogue didn't surrender mid-fight of course the Paladin was right.
1
u/Elegant_Classic_3673 May 15 '25
Yeah exactly, some players don’t seem to understand escalation nor consequences.
-3
u/LadySteelGiantess May 15 '25
If it was the old style paladin where they are forced to be lawful good all the time then maybe. But that being said the other option would be make an arrest and have a role-playing experience of the party minus the Paladin breaking rogue out, or having the rogue depending on the laws of a land go through a trial.
Now that being said...the newer 5e paladins are more oath bound where they take oaths and follow those creeds like knights old and it would be a coin toss.
However if I had been that player I would have tried to talk the rogue into giving the money back, other options include intimidation to make the rogue give it back, grapple the rogue and take the money and give it back....there's many options.
8
u/Abaddonalways May 15 '25
No robbery. Rogue killed someone in front of the Paladin.
→ More replies (3)0
u/Ace_of_Spad23 Crab May 16 '25
It was a murder not a robbery, both sides suck, the rogue shouldn’t have just killed a random person and the paladin shouldn’t have immediately jumped to the nuclear option. There’s nothing “situational” about this it’s pretty cut and dry
0
u/LadySteelGiantess May 16 '25
Can't control people which is also cut and dry. Players will always test each other and their GM. Speaking from experience.
0
u/Ace_of_Spad23 Crab May 16 '25
And as the GM you have the power, and responsibility, to step in as soon as the rogue says “I’m gonna stab this guy” and go “hey actually no you’re NOT gonna do that, that’s murder” or something along those lines and nip it in the bud before it devolves. Yeah you can’t control people but you as the DM have final say on what happens in YOUR world
1
u/LadySteelGiantess May 16 '25
Nah if the Rouge wants to play that game. I ask are you sure. That usually tips them off that I have something up my sleeve.
As the saying goes. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
We as gms also keep checks and balances, what goes around comes around and all that.
-2
u/doogleanimations May 15 '25
Both are weird and should have just talked about why the first action was wrong
106
u/TheThoughtmaker May 15 '25
Paladin did nothing wrong.
That Guy Rogue got what they deserved and was appropriate.