Kobold-murdering PC. How would you handle it if you were DM?

[TheIronGolem]

Actually why even set up something like this? Is there some good reason to break 40 years of gaming history and player expectations by making some bizarro world where kobalds aren't monsters?

Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that not literally every single ugly critter commits a capital crime by existing is not only new to D&D, but that it actually needs to be justified? If so, I hate to tell you this, but you haven't exactly been spending those last 40 years with your finger on the pulse of gaming culture.

[cobaltstarfire]

It's pretty clear that the DM did on some level show and/or tell that monsters aren't always evil/kos in his game, from the town being sprinkled with monstrous humanoid NPC's to the other PC's reacting unfavorably to the Crusaders conduct.

It doesn't matter what history the kobolds do or don't have, or how it would have been at your table or whatever else. At this DM's table monsters are people.

[TheIronGolem]

Now, all this being said, it's really not cool to have the character lose their class abilities over this. Yes, the character committed cold-blooded murder, but that resulted from a miscommunication between the player and the DM, and the player should have a chance to readjust the character's behavior now that expectations have been made clear (as they should have been from the start).

[MrStabby]

Now, all this being said, it's really not cool to have the character lose their class abilities over this. Yes, the character committed cold-blooded murder, but that resulted from a miscommunication between the player and the DM, and the player should have a chance to readjust the character's behavior now that expectations have been made clear (as they should have been from the start).

Yes, don't be too harsh but certainly ensure that there are some weakening of their abilities till they atone.

[BootStrapTommy]

You are still playing in your specific universe with your moral views.

I already explained that the player and the whole universe playing in doesn't have to share your views on what is and what is not an abomination.

I'm sure you agree that destroying undead is not murder whatever their alignment. You can rationalise that they are not living in the first place but that's just a rationalisation.

Many basic (oldschool) D&D stories and settings implies evil monster are just there to be killed, and can't be "murdered". They have no rights, it's not evil to kill them. You are not even SUPPOSED to ask yourself if they are good or not, just supposed to kill them.

People who play in such universes are not "having fun wrong" in killing monsters without having to face moral dilemmas. Your view is not the only valid one.

My above argument is in no way inapplicable with a world where "monster" equates to "Evil". It was a logical deduction derived by D&D's morality.

D&D has a rigidly defined moral system, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are considered measurable, demonstrable concepts coinciding with actual reality. That is not my opinion, that is by design. It is written in black and white across the source material. It's a fundamental concept codified into character creation by the existence of the alignment system.

In such a world removing Evil things is a Good action. My above statements, however, were not conjecture or an opinion, but what logically follows from a world where Good and Evil can be explicitly known. If Evil is measurable, it can be known with certainty. In a world where knowing Evil is just a spell away, acting without that information no matter how certain of the opponent's Evil you may seem, is an action which has the probability, however small, of being wrong. It is a world where acting without certainty means leaving things up to chance. Not an opinion, the logical extension of a world where knowing someone is Evil and unworthy is just detect Evil away.

Whether DMs, players, or characters actually care about this distinction? You are correct that it is another point entirely. But the above is the logical extension of D&D's demonstrable, objective morality. Just because DMs, players, or characters might find ingoring this to be far more entertaining doesn't mean it isn't based on the real logical implications of black and white morality.

You're right. It's only my opinion that it should matter. But the DM and the rest of party seem to agree.

And for the record, there totally is such thing as "having fun wrong". You're having fun is wrong the moment it comes at the expensive of other's.

Monsters in D&D are quite famous to use deception and trickery. If one is to think Kobold are only monster to be killed, the fact that they are famous trap makers and tricksters can push the character to not listen to them and not give them any chance to rally their 400 evils cousins lurking deeper in the tunnels. Much like you would refuse to listen to a Succubus or Demon.

And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'.

^Pretty solid response to that line of reasoning.

My subjective belief is as valid as yours on these forums.

The Crusader's player subjective belief was wrong in the OP's universe, but my point is the Crusader would have KNOWN Kobolds were people in this universe, and would have KNOWN he was in a world where it is morally wrong to kill Kobolds for being Kobolds, even for a dwarf. Knowing this, he should have been warned OOC, not punished in-game for an action that was (maybe) driven by lack of information or understanding.

By all accounts by OP of the world, expectations of traditional roles for monsters appears to have already been subverted.

No standard-dungeon-crawling-black-and-white module I ever saw required the Paladin to make sure creatures he was killing were evil. Im pretty sure that even if one random orc or one hobgoblin was good or neutral, the fact that it currently helped evil was enough for the Paladin to slay them without being in the wrong.

And in the 2e introductory D&D set, the very first adventure (with an ogre searching for one of the Orbs of Dragonkind) has a bunch of Kobolds warn you (without actually attacking) to leave their room or the ogre will come and get you - and the DM is encouraged to tell the players that it is not heroic to kill cowering kobolds.

It would appear this dilemma is not nearly as contemporary as you would imply.

[AxeAlex]

My above argument is in no way inapplicable with a world where "monster" equates to "Evil". It was a logical deduction derived by D&D's morality.

It's a deduction, you've just said it yourself... People making other deductions than you are not necessarily wrong.

D&D has a rigidly defined moral system, where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are considered measurable, demonstrable concepts coinciding with actual reality. That is not my opinion, that is by design. It is written in black and white across the source material. It's a fundamental concept codified into character creation by the existence of the alignment system.

In such a world removing Evil things is a Good action. My above statements, however, were not conjecture or an opinion, but what logically follows from a world where Good and Evil can be explicitly known. If Evil is measurable, it can be known with certainty. In a world where knowing Evil is just a spell away, acting without that information no matter how certain of the opponent's Evil you may seem, is an action which has the probability, however small, of being wrong. It is a world where acting without certainty means leaving things up to chance. Not an opinion, the logical extension of a world where knowing someone is Evil and unworthy is just detect Evil away.

Many people interpret the black and white morality of classic D&D differently. There were many debates about this on these very forums.

Your interpretation is valid, but it is a complex matter. You can't shut down other interpretations simply because you disagree with them.

Whether DMs, players, or characters actually care about this distinction? You are correct that it is another point entirely. But the above is the logical extension of D&D's demonstrable, objective morality. Just because DMs, players, or characters might find ingoring this to be far more entertaining doesn't mean it isn't based on the real logical implications of black and white morality.

On YOUR logic on black and white morality. For example, one perfectly valid interpretation of black and white morality is that there are no grey zones like the one described by OP.

For example, Tv tropes has a line that defines (one type of) Black and White morality this way: "All major choices that the heroes are faced with are either unambiguously right or wrong. There aren't any grey areas".

And for the record, there totally is such thing as "having fun wrong". You're having fun is wrong the moment it comes at the expensive of other's.

You are 100% right. That's why I propose communication to ensure everyone has fun. Not punishment. Not imposing your own interpretation of morality like the only true way. Communication.

And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'.

Pretty solid response to that line of reasoning.

Yes, that is an awesome and cool response... But it doesn't change the fact that it can encourage to NOT spare evil monsters.

And in the 2e introductory D&D set, the very first adventure (with an ogre searching for one of the Orbs of Dragonkind) has a bunch of Kobolds warn you (without actually attacking) to leave their room or the ogre will come and get you - and the DM is encouraged to tell the players that it is not heroic to kill cowering kobolds.

It would appear this dilemma is not nearly as contemporary as you would imply.

I never said OLD modules, event recent one can avoid moral dilemmas.

Not being heroic is different from being evil. But whatever, the fact that the dilemma is comtemporary or not is not relevant to anything.

[SkipSandwich]

Since it seems this is mostly an issue created by a problematic player, perhaps Gadren may wish to implement a Anti-Murderhobo Table Rule similar to this one posted by ShaneMcRoth. Though most tables should not need to be quite as comprehensive in spelling out and defining the specifics of murderhobo behavior as Shane, every once in a while you do get players who seem so deeply attached to murderhobo as a character concept as to make it necessary.

[5ColouredWalker]

In a modern court... Not in a pseudo-medieval court.

Because the fact that they are guilty or not is not the problem. The problem is that the player and the GM are not on the same page. They don't have the same view of morality in the GM's world. They need to communicate to get on the same page.

1: They're not going before the courts/magistrates etc, they're going before an all knowing [Of actions] alignment system.

2: Did you/everyone miss the bit where the DM said he has communicated before about this problem in the past, repetitively, and his actions were annoying other players, which did get it?

The player in question is actually a very good friend. He was my best man at my wedding. We aren't mad at each other or anything. I don't get mad at my friends over a game.
However, I will admit to some irritation because it does reflect an ongoing trend that I HAVE talked to him about before. He almost always likes to play his PCs as immoral murderhobos. At least it is usually in character, since he tends to play rogues, bounty hunters, etc. If everyone in my group liked this playstyle, it'd be fine. However, most of the group is obviously highly annoyed by it, and it clearly subtracts from their fun. I've talked to him about it, he says he'll work on it, but the pattern continues...

...
So, there's been clear, repeated communication, that the player has claimed to have understood and received. Miscommunication is not the problem. The player by this point, IMO, needs to start suffering consequences until he 'gets it' instead of suffering from a variation of Afluenza, or needs to GTFO.

[Telok]

For all we know the player could actually come from the old-school versions of D&D where kobolds where yappy little dog-men and letting them grow strong and wealthy meant that they would start raiding local towns, killing people, and attracting bigger monsters to the area.

Or we can go with 'always evil' = 97% and attacking the succubus in the bar who is seducing the mayor has a 3% chance of making the good aligned PCs 'fall'.

I came from old-school and I've made it clear to the rest of my group that I don't hold with the kobold/dragonling fetishisim of WotC D&D. If they want to do something where there are kobold paladins leading LG churches they tell me this ahead of time, otherwise my characters will be treating kobolds like the vermin they are. We generally have good OOC communication in our group.

Edit: Ah, 5ColouredWalker caught something I missed. It's not a case of making the monsters human but of unrepentant murderhoboing. In that case the character's alignment may change, which only affects a few spells, and the houserules about crusaders being able to lose their powers can be invoked. Because that's what's at issue isn't it? The houserules about crusaders being able to lose their powers that the player knew about before choosing that class.

[BootStrapTommy]

Or we can go with 'always evil' = 97% and attacking the succubus in the bar who is seducing the mayor has a 3% chance of making the good aligned PCs 'fall'.

In the 3.5 MM, succubi are listed as "always Chaotic Evil". Kobolds are listed as "usually Lawful Evil".

And because perhaps it will put this line of argument to rest, the same MM describes elves as "usually Chaotic Good", dwarves as "often Lawful Good", gnomes as " usually Neutral Good", and haflings as "usually Neutral". Yet we all make no assumption that such is always the case for any of those creatures...

"Usually" and "Always" have very different meanings.

[gadren]

2: Did you/everyone miss the bit where the DM said he has communicated before about this problem in the past, repetitively, and his actions were annoying other players, which did get it?

Most posters in this thread aren't really interested in what the others are saying, they either want to make the player the bad guy or me into the bad guy (it's neither).

The posters that want to make me into the bad guy are making some pretty big assumptions about things I've done and making "points" based on those assumptions as if they are facts. The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

Anyways, this thread has still been productive for me. I have gotten a lot of feedback on ideas I've had for in-game consequences. For even having some of the ideas, it's been stated multiple times that I'm a bad DM, but the whole point was for me to bounce ideas off of others and get feedback before solidifying in my mind about whether they are good or bad ideas and before implementing them in my game.

So I'm quite thankful to all the people that've helped me here, even the ones that have been incredibly disrespectful in the process.

[5ColouredWalker]

The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

That made me giggle. Any chance I can sig this?

[noob]

I would change the alignment of the player and not say that to the player since nobody suddenly knows his alignment changed.

[Yukitsu]

To be fair, I didn't get a clear understanding as to why him changing alignment was important until I figured out that you were houseruling that in. And even with his particular line of question, recommending an out of character solution is good advice in context lest he wants to go from having lost 2 players to this exact issue previously, to 3 players.

[YossarianLives]

I also like the idea of the distraught kobold mother asking the PCs to find her children.

[Keltest]

I also like the idea of the distraught kobold mother asking the PCs to find her children.

Ditto. It would be a good way to give a hint without bludgeoning them with it.

[Shackel]

Ditto. It would be a good way to give a hint without bludgeoning them with it.

Truth be told, I think that's just as passive-aggressive bludgeoning. I'm pretty sure there are fun ways of getting a change away from murderhoboism without needing to go all Spec Ops: The Line with it. Especially when one character/player knows full well.

[gadren]

To be fair, I didn't get a clear understanding as to why him changing alignment was important until I figured out that you were houseruling that in. And even with his particular line of question, recommending an out of character solution is good advice in context lest he wants to go from having lost 2 players to this exact issue previously, to 3 players.

1. I have talked to him and will continue to talk to him about it OOC. However, IC actions merit IC consequences, unless he wants to retcon what he did, but I know him well and he won't.
2. I've been DMing for over 20 years, so I've lost a lot more than just two players in my time, for various reasons (scheduling, edition wars, unhappiness with DM actions, me expelling them for bad behavior). The two examples I gave I wouldn't want to have kept. I don't tolerate temper tantrums from grown men over a freakin' game in my home, especially when I usually have too many players at the table anyway. However, I've never thrown someone out of the group for IC behavior before.

EDIT: Actually I take that back I did ban someone from the group for IC actions once, though I'd forgotten about it because he never made it to the gaming table. He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

[Hawkstar]

Races of the Dragon was published almost a decade ago, for the record. Since kobold PCs predate even it, it's safe to say that the player was ignoring over a decade of gaming history and player expectation when he up and killed unarmed, nonviolent kobolds as they sreamed for mercy...

If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

And yeah... missing a single splatbook from over a decade ago in a game almost half a century old is not unreasonable, considering that RotD is the ONLY source of "Kobolds are People!"(And even then, RotD goes to lengths to indicate how almost all kobolds are horrible monsters that need to die)

Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs are all a bunch of Kender with slightly prettier appearances and a different set of overriding socially-unacceptable behaviors.

[Diamondeye]

Yes, here's what it has to say on killing:
Now, the only possible response you have to make his acts non-evil is to dismiss the BoED. In which case, things come back down to DM interpretation, and the DM in this instance says the act was CE, and being the DM his word means more than yours.

Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good, not merely run-of-the-mill good (and the BoED is not always in play anyhow). Semantic pedantry notwithstanding, a character that is not striving for exalted status should not be held to the standards of the BoED.

Finally, the BoED, in that respect, is at odds with the mechanical system it is attempting to support. You cannot have observable, mechanical evil and then say "well, it's not always good to eliminate it" or start carrying on about women and children as if it were the real world. Ultimately, the fact that alignments are a mechanic takes priority over the writer's idea of what constitutes any particular alignment.

As for the DM yes, clearly his views in his campaign take precedence over mine or anyone else's within that campaign. However, he came here asking for advice. Pointing out that "he's the DM" is irrelevant; if he doesn't want to hear different viewpoints he shouldn't have asked for them

[gadren]

If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

And yeah... missing a single splatbook from over a decade ago in a game almost half a century old is not unreasonable, considering that RotD is the ONLY source of "Kobolds are People!"(And even then, RotD goes to lengths to indicate how almost all kobolds are horrible monsters that need to die)

Kobolds, Goblins, and Orcs are all a bunch of Kender with slightly prettier appearances and a different set of overriding socially-unacceptable behaviors.

For the record, all 3.5 WotC books are in play at my table.

Also, I'm fairly certain RotD was not the only source of "Kobolds are People"

[Diamondeye]

Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good, not merely run-of-the-mill good (and the BoED is not always in play anyhow). Semantic pedantry notwithstanding, a character that is not striving for exalted status should not be held to the standards of the BoED.

Finally, the BoED, in that respect, is at odds with the mechanical system it is attempting to support. You cannot have observable, mechanical evil and then say "well, it's not always good to eliminate it" or start carrying on about women and children as if it were the real world. Ultimately, the fact that alignments are a mechanic takes priority over the writer's idea of what constitutes any particular alignment.

As for the DM yes, clearly his views in his campaign take precedence over mine or anyone else's within that campaign. However, he came here asking for advice. Pointing out that "he's the DM" is irrelevant; if he doesn't want to hear different viewpoints he shouldn't have asked for them

It's the amount of people who think it's okay to murder a sapient creature just because in their experience, they're evil. Like if someone killed innocent German civilians in 1943 because there were Nazis about. They're all saying this would be okay.

You're begging the question by classifying it as "murder" in the first place. The only sapient creatures we have in real life are humans and possibly some sorts of whale/dolphin and some forms of apes. None of those creatures are inherently evil and inherent evil does not exist in real life.

In D&D the fact that a creature is "sapient" does not matter. Evil is quite real, and has real effects and with appropriate magic can be observed and even attacked directly. The fact that a creature is sapient is far, far less important to determining if a murder was committed - by itself it's barely even a starting point. Comparisons to real-life events like WWII are not appropriate and not accurate.

The gap between "This race is evil! It's OK to kill them!" and "This group is evil! It's OK to kill them!" gets far too close to the real world, and real life racism, and it's generally just horrible.

What's horrible is the presumption that one is in a position to sit in judgement of other people based on their views of a fictitious alignment system and the potential killing of creatures that don't really exist in a moral system that has real, observable effects in a way that we can't even attempt in real life.

Real life "racism" has nothing to do with it. Not only is real life "racism" itself a concept subject to abuse for purpose of ad hom political attack but it does not exist in D&D. Racism is a meaningless concept within this system.

People basically need to learn to leave their personal viewpoints and baggage in regard to real world matters aside. If "racism" against kobolds bothers you because it's "horrible" then maybe roleplaying games that involve killing lots of things aren't for you.

In a court of law we'd call this circumstantial evidence.

You keep saying kobolds are Evil. But that's simply not true. You're confusing "usually" with "always". A lot of kobolds are Evil. But not all. And it is that distinction which is the crux the problem.

I'm not "confusing" that at all. People keep relying on "usually does not mean always" and pedantry like "that could mean 50.01%" to get around this, but the fact is that it's a safe assumption that kobolds are evil.

As for "circumstantial evidence" and how it would be treated in a real court of law, that's irrelevant. D&D is not and should not be about trying to duplicate 21st century ideas of what's legally acceptable or not.

OP has made it pretty clear the kobolds were not guilty. Otherwise, why would gadren be so bent up about this? Seriously, why do you keep ignoring that?

Because OP is posting that after the fact. He's saying by DM fiat to us with 100% omniscience. That has nothing to do with the perceptions of the character at the time.

I

n D&D no species is guilty by virtue of their species. They're guilty by virtue of being Evil. But as has been stated many a time, the Crusader possessed no way of knowing. He acted on prejudice, not on fact.

Yes, as a matter of fact they are because many species are evil. It is not "prejudice" to act on that unless that species is not, in fact, generally evil either by the book or by that DM's world. Moreover, the means exist to directly detect and measure that evil. Real-world concepts of "prejudice" have no place in the discussion.

Here's the thing. If you go around killing things for being Evil, it's fine in D&D. But the burden of proof of their Evil is on you. If you can't prove it and you choose to act, you should pay the price if you turn out to be wrong. Which, for the last time, OP has made clear was the case.

There is no "burden of proof" at all. This is yet another attempt to inappropriately impose a modern concept of legal rights on the system and claim that violating our system of rights is not good in a society where not only have modern legal systems not developed, but good and evil are actual phenomenon with real power, not merely abstract moral concepts.

As to the OP, it's not even clear why he's having problems. It's not clear if he's just objecting to the character being LG and acting this way, or if he;'s objecting to his social encounter ending in a massacre. In either case there's a fairly simple solution - either explain to the player that the rest of the players would like him to NOT KILL THINGS that are clearly an opportunity to do a social encounter, or explain to him that LE or something else might be more appropriate.

Inglorious Basterds always made me cringe because this element was present, as the movie fails to differentiate between the Waffen-SS (actual Nazis) and the German Army (who are usually just Germans).

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Not only is it irrelevant, but as to the historicity of it that's a wild oversimplification. On top of that, you watch Inglorious Bastards for fun. You don't watch a movie like that to quibble over historical details.

But they have to be Evil! I don't understand why that escapes your grasp. For killing things on sight to be fine, they have to be Evil! If they're are not actually Evil than what you did was just negligent homicide! Manslaughter at best. "I thought they were Evil!" doesn't change the fact that they weren't. In a world with black and white morality, what you thought was the case does not matter. In a world with black and white morality, what was objectively the fact is what matters. And if they are not objectively Evil creatures, then killing them, even if you thought they were Evil, is the same as killing any other non-Evil, nonviolent creature as it flees and begs for mercy. Objectively Evil. Your subjective belief on the matter changes nothing.

So in a world with black and white morality, ignorance of the objective moral reality does nothing to modify the morality of an action. Thus anyone who might pursue Evil creatures must necessarily insulate themselves from that eventually. Persecution of Evil in such a world requires objective knowledge that that Evil exists.

They don't have to be evil at all. "Negligent homicide", "mansalughter" and all that never even enter into it. It escapes his graps, and mine, because it simply isn't true. Trying to fit the actions into the boc of real-world crimes doesn't work. Those are questions of pertinent law, not good and evil, and do not apply.

Objective morality in no way implies that morality is judged based on information not available to an actor at the time he acts. The belief that the kobolds were evil is not subjective; it's a judgement based on objective fact - kobolds are generally evil. That information may be insufficient to conclusively prove THESE kobolds are evil, but it's still an objective fact in the context of D&D.

[Shackel]

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Not only is it irrelevant, but as to the historicity of it that's a wild oversimplification. On top of that, you watch Inglorious Bastards for fun. You don't watch a movie like that to quibble over historical details.

I can answer this one, actually: the reason it can be uncomfortable is that you're just supposed to assume everyone who gets killed is the most evil Nazi. This, however, conflicts heavily with the idea that every person is sapient and has their own story. Empathy, is the word, here.

[BootStrapTommy]

You're begging the question by classifying it as "murder" in the first place. The only sapient creatures we have in real life are humans and possibly some sorts of whale/dolphin and some forms of apes. None of those creatures are inherently evil and inherent evil does not exist in real life.

Murder, n., the unlawful killing of a person, especially with malice aforethought

Murder is defined not by its moral quality, but by whether it is lawful.

And for the last time, the literature does not explicitly state that kobold are inherently Evil! There is no line in any 3.5 material which states "Kobold will always be Evil and irredeemable in the eyes of the Alignment system" like there is for demons and devils. Since that is the case, you're the one begging the question by discounting the act on the supposition that the kobolds were Evil.

I'm not "confusing" that at all. People keep relying on "usually does not mean always" and pedantry like "that could mean 50.01%" to get around this, but the fact is that it's a safe assumption that kobolds are evil.

The assumption is not safe if the objective reality of the situation contradicts the assumption.

Sure, statistically you might be more likely to be right, but that doesn't preclude being wrong.

There is no "burden of proof" at all. This is yet another attempt to inappropriately impose a modern concept of legal rights on the system and claim that violating our system of rights is not good in a society where not only have modern legal systems not developed, but good and evil are actual phenomenon with real power, not merely abstract moral concepts.

I'm not attempting to apply any legal concept there. I'm applying common sense. In a world were it's easy to objectively prove Evil, acting without doing so is a bit lazy. You can totally do it, but if you get it wrong you've no one to blame but yourself. What consequences naturally flow from that only make sense.

Objective morality in no way implies that morality is judged based on information not available to an actor at the time he acts. The belief that the kobolds were evil is not subjective; it's a judgement based on objective fact - kobolds are generally evil. That information may be insufficient to conclusively prove THESE kobolds are evil, but it's still an objective fact in the context of D&D.

But if the kobold are not Evil, than the Crusader's judgement that they were does not reflect an objective reality. Namely the objective reality that, despite his belief otherwise, the kobolds were not actually Evil. His judgement was wrong. Regardless of how the Crusader felt about it, it does not correspond to the objective reality that these particular kobolds existed within that group of kobolds not included in the qualifier "usually".

That's how objective realities work. They correspond to what actually is the case, not what we believe is.

For the record my phone now autocaps Good, Evil, and Lawful for me...

[Yukitsu]

1. I have talked to him and will continue to talk to him about it OOC. However, IC actions merit IC consequences, unless he wants to retcon what he did, but I know him well and he won't.
2. I've been DMing for over 20 years, so I've lost a lot more than just two players in my time, for various reasons (scheduling, edition wars, unhappiness with DM actions, me expelling them for bad behavior). The two examples I gave I wouldn't want to have kept. I don't tolerate temper tantrums from grown men over a freakin' game in my home, especially when I usually have too many players at the table anyway. However, I've never thrown someone out of the group for IC behavior before.

EDIT: Actually I take that back I did ban someone from the group for IC actions once, though I'd forgotten about it because he never made it to the gaming table. He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

[goto124]

OP's responses are kinda buried among the many other posts on *cough* alignment.

OP, if I may ask, would you say that you have, repeatedly, tried to teach That One Player to stop murderhoboing? How did you go about it, and how successful did your attempts appear to be before the whole kobold incident?

[gadren]

Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

Eh, it probably doesn't help that when I see an adult act like a child my first instinct is to laugh at them, which in turn always sets off the types to get worked up over a game in the first place.

I AM aware of my general tendency to come across as condescending... So, working on that.

[ShaneMRoth]

Most posters in this thread aren't really interested in what the others are saying, they either want to make the player the bad guy or me into the bad guy (it's neither).

I hope that I haven't led you to believe that with my advice.

I am confident that if you and the player both give each other good and timely information, he will be able to make his character concept work within the context of your campaign.

...
EDIT:He emailed his character sheet to me ahead of time... for a Wizard named Roan Hypnol and spent 1/3 of his starting gold on crafting Elixirs of Love. I had some harsh words for him.

Seriously? [BLEEP] that guy. [BLEEP] his character. And [BLEEP] his unfunny and literally felony-stupid puns.

[gadren]

OP's responses are kinda buried among the many other posts on *cough* alignment.

OP, if I may ask, would you say that you have, repeatedly, tried to teach That One Player to stop murderhoboing? How did you go about it, and how successful did your attempts appear to be before the whole kobold incident?

I usually point out to him -when it's just the two of us- that "hey, the other players kind of enjoy playing a heroic game, and you know the stuff you do with your character tends to make that really difficult. I don't like to tell people how to play their characters, but if you could find a way to do stuff without causing all the intraparty conflict, I think we'd all have more fun." This typically results in a marginal change in behavior for a little while.

[gadren]

I hope that I haven't led you to believe that with my advice.
I am confident that if you and the player both give each other good and timely information, he will be able to make his character concept work within the context of your campaign.

No, you've been respectful and polite the whole time.