In a room with your character sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold

>and his successor will probably have a bone to pick with you

His successor should probably thank me for speeding up the succession.

>you are screwed eternally

Don't really buy into gods anyway.

>Rich man dies first. The king can reward me with gold or titles if it comes down to it, so i don't really need him.

The king didn't offer you them either. he might not offer anything.

>He has objectively the least compelling arguement.

The rich guy, you mean? I'm positive that every contract killer in history would disagree.

>Killing a king means you are screwed when the authorities find out (cause even if you kill him the kingdoms still around and his successor will probably have a bone to pick with you)

I'm not so sure. If all the kings horses and all the kings men weren't utterly inept, why aren't they killing the other two right now instead of you?
Also, what said. You'd be doing the royal fruit of is loins a favor by speeding up that succession, chop chop. He's probably not going to be missed because he seems a bit of a cunt. Evidence for this lies in the fact that he's asking some random guy to kill two other people.

>and killing a clergyman means you are screwed eternally once you die.

Do you fear every twat that knocks on your door and tells you to submit to their primitive blood god or be punished?

>So i kill the rich man, and once i've killed him i'll sit back and think for a moment. See if they have anything else to say.

They call for the guards, who aren't so inept. they arrest you for the murder of the rich man and order the guard to slit your throat before you can speak out against them. You were a loose end and now you're pig feed.
They do this again one year later with another dumb-ass peasant.

None. You do not kill because you are ordered, you do so when you must.
LG Paladin isn't for show, dammit.

My last character is a pious champion of Justice and Valor, so presumably he kills all of them for being irredeemably terrible people, and takes the burden of maintaining stability in the realm after their deaths upon himself.

>> ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’
There are 200 people in the tribe. I would know my lawful ruler.
>> ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’
Gods, plural? That's heresy.
>> ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’
We can't eat it, we can't make tools out of it, and we don't barter with the unclean heretics we share our tunnels and caverns with.

Not one of them makes an appealing case.

Assuming all speak the truth, the only answer is save the King. Priest is no servant of God if he does not respect the King as sovereign and wielding the Divine Right of Rule, or Mandate of Heaven.

Gold isn't worth much in a kingdom turned to ruin, and a king could offer much more and a title to match. A lawful king's word is far greater than any rich man's and dealing with the treasonous priest and nobleman merits reward.

>Divine Right of Rule, or Mandate of Heaven
Not a universal thing. Kingdoms have been around far longer than this concept has.

Priest lives.
Why would you question the will of the Gods?

Not my fault OP is a faggot. The question is pointlessly vague unless you make presumptions on the setting and character then answer them yourself. We're both equally correct:

My character kill himself, because he doesn't want to live in a world where Crown and God aren't aligned.

>The question is pointlessly vague unless you make presumptions on the setting and character then answer them yourself.
The question is a jumping-off point for telling Veeky Forums about your setting and character, you window licker.

But you just had to get snarky about a single aspect of some kingdoms.

>implying the priest isn't an isolated blasphemer by being a traitor of the crown

Throw my weapon between them and let fate take its course.

Soveriegnity of rule is hardly a "single aspect" nor is it delegated to only "some" kingdoms. It's the rule, not the exception. Divine right, etc. is the solution to maintain soveriegnity in the exception when God is believed to supersede the king in the rule of the kingdom.

I turn right around and leave. This stinks of politics.

You're all overthinking this. It's an allegory to test your character's principles for the sake of an interesting discussion about the kind of people we roleplay as.
I'm not sure there's much point trying to find the clever "correct" answer. It's not a riddle.

Sometimes, Veeky Forums, you pleasantly surprise me.

>neutral evil cleric
Kill the rich man, take his gold
Kill the king, take his shiny crown
Sacrifice the priest for a proper reward

This isn't complicated.

They have all proven themselves wretched and unworthy of my service with their bloodlust.

The king in our setting has proven himself to be a needlessly petty asshole whose clumsy attempts to solve problems involve backstabbing allies, creating new enemies, and re-antagonizing people who just want to adventure in peace.
> Literally no one would miss him at this point, least of all the cleric who holds religion and family very close to her heart
>Guess who trashed the Temple District and sent in hitmen when she was spending time with her parents for the first time in ages

Rich man is probably next unless if it's the halfling crime boss or an associate.

The king dies, because fucking royalty oppressing the people and exploiting them.
The priest dies, because fucking church lying to the people and exploiting them.
The rich man dies, because fucking aristocracy think blue blood makes them better than people and exploiting them.

Viva the republic.

>wanting politicians in charge oppressing, lying, and exploiting instead of an easily replacable monarch

Alright, fine, viva the puppet dictator controlled by the numerous counter-acting institutions that keep his ego in check. The problem is that corruption still remains a problem.

So a jew, a jew and a JEW?

>pic related

There is no large-scale instruction that escapes either corruption, incompetence or both.

That's why I said numerous, user. Numerous small-scale institutes.

>King
The Prince illustrated that any successful monarch must be ruthless and underhanded. Either he is ruthless and underhanded in which case he deserves to die or he is incompetent and he deserves to die.
>Priest
Gods plural? He's a heathen, that's a smiting.
>Rich man
Trying to bribe a paladin? That's a smiting.

>Ricch man trying to bribe me with gold that is literally sitting right there for the taking once he's dead.
Can't help but feel the cheesemonger didn't think that one through.