The Lawful Asshole Alignment

I need you to tell me who is in the wrong, Veeky Forums. We have this utterly infuriating player in the party who has a Lawful Good character. Here's how he plays it:
>Ask enemies to surrender before attacking always, even when an ambush can be set-up or they can be flanked
>Spends time burying/cremating the dead even when the party chases the objective since it is running out of time
>Refuses to let anyone rough up captured enemies for information
>Insists on escorting captured enemies to the nearest settlement even if the party is in the middle of the woods
>Insists that any loot found on dead enemies be sent to their families by making inquiries at pubs and inns
>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot
>Refuses to use tactics in contravention of "humanity" like poison, burning oil, explosives, fire, captured monsters, etc
>Always offers to do something for free to quest givers
>Refuses attack on any monsters that have "young/fledgling" attached to their name
>Refuses to play along when interacting with stronger enemies, instead asks them to repent and seek forgiveness

The party is pretty fucking frustrated at this point and is mulling killing the PC in an extremely brutal fashion. What would be a fitting way to kill off such a character?

>>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot

Shitty GM is shitty. It's about beating a challenge, not killing the enemy. Surrender is beaten.

It sounds normal.
Just fucking assign experience for captured enemies, give the some rewards, tailor encounters to them - maybe split party for a while - have him engage in honorable duel while rest of the party goes murderhobo behind scenes.

It seems like this is fuckup from Gm side.


Inb4 it's always Gm fault,i am forever gm

Is he the leader of the party? If he's not, fucking ignore him. Let him escort enemies completely alone in the woods. Let him burn enemies by himself while you are three rooms away. Ignore his complaints about inhumane tactics, just do them, don't ask him his opinion. Don't involve him in sneaky plans. Do your best to ensure he leaves the party or doesn't disturb it.

He's the tank of the party

Orc children dilemma?

this is bait, right? Bait based on ironic juxtaposition of what Veeky Forums says an ideal paladin should do?

The only thing objectionable here is:

>does everything for free

This one can be debated since it's a specific example in the 2e Paladin handbook, but I feel there's something to be said for a Paladin accepting rewards under the notion he put said rewards to continuing his work

>refusing to attack young/fledgling monsters
This ones a nah, cleave and smite.

Everything else sounds pretty cool desu.

ok, read further, a few more things I think are questionable:

>Refuses to use tactics in contravention of "humanity" like poison, burning oil, explosives, fire, captured monsters, etc

Poison is outrigh forbidden to a paladin, fire is interesting because geneva convention bans WP in real life. Explosives? Not as much, actually quite a quick and merciless way to die. Monsters just depend.

>Insists that any loot found on dead enemies be sent to their families by making inquiries at pubs and inns

This sounds like an interesting character trait! If he's just using his gold, it's fine.

Anyway, your a faggot.

Does he know that he's an annoying fuck?

Dragging defeated enemies to towns all the time makes the Paladin sound like an absolute chore of a person. Especially since he's basically just executing them by proxy because in most settings a Paladin saying "he's a bandit" is all you really need to hang a guy for banditry. The Paladin should sack up and remember he is the Law. Despite what some people on /the/ say, it really isn't a class for carebears.

No yeah i agree with that, I skew more towards Gygaxian Paladins myself.

>This one can be debated
He offers on behalf of the party to do quests for free saying "we can't add to their misery" each time

>This sounds like an interesting character trait
He just collects loot from dead bodies and mails it to the mooks' families

>>Anyway, your a faggot
No, your, user, your.

I still don't believe this actually happened/is happening, but you should probably talk with them then.

is this bait?

>I need you to tell me who is in the wrong Veeky Forums

>What's the best way to kill this character because I don't like him


Have you tried talking to, say, quest givers about getting paid while he's not in the room? Or taking to the GM? Or in fact to the player?

Search your feelings.

Summon steed and use it to drag them to nearest town. Don't forget a note explaining why.

>Have you tried talking to, say, quest givers about getting paid while he's not in the room?
Come on, that's weird. I mean, our character are Good or Lawful Neutral as well, it just doesn't seem that practical a thing to do.

>Or taking to the GM?
He says he'll try to shape the campaign around the guy's style of play which feels the worst fucking thing to do

>Or in fact to the player?
I wanted to discuss things here before doing that

>Paladins shouldn't paladin!
OP is a faggot.

>I wanted to discuss things here before doing that
Sure, because anonymous idiots will help you with your imaginary problem in a better way...

If you'd try to pull that on my Paladin, I'd just play along without too much of a fuss until we hit the next big town. I'd assess your capabilities in the meantime and then would ensure to enlist a big enough force to have you captured and hanged.

Yeah, right. I'll kill you unceremoniously in your sleep.

>Big enough force.

You vs the entire party?

>Spends time burying/cremating the dead even when the party chases the objective since it is running out of time
If it's timed, tell him to come back for the dead later, it's not like they're going anywhere

>Insists on escorting captured enemies to the nearest settlement even if the party is in the middle of the woods
Make him escort them on his own

>Always offers to do something for free to quest givers
I'd agree with other people in this thread, just don't let him talk to the quest givers until after the reward is in your hand

>Refuses attack on any monsters that have "young/fledgling" attached to their name
This is fine as long as they aren't attacking you. If they are attacking and you want to kill him, try to lock him in a room with the things.

>geneva convention bans WP in real life
And well it should. Water parks are the devil's playground.

The essential problem with this character is a meta one. In character, his rigidity is fine, but on a meta-level, the fact that he is so uncompromising in morals that differ from the rest of the group means that everybody is forced to go along with him to avoid blowing up the party. In effect, it's "play my way, or else", which is selfish. I mean, if the rest of the group enjoys the dynamic (even if their characters are of a different mindset), that's one thing, but if they find it annoying and only go along to prevent conflict, that's no good.

I'd have a talk with the rest of your group and make sure they're on the same page with you on this. Don't just assume they are. If they're as tired of this dynamic as you are, then you should talk to the problem player and tell him that everybody feels like they're being extorted/coerced into doing things his way all the time. Try to come up with some sort of compromise with him, where he can still have a code, but not be as extreme and broadly applied as it is now. Maybe you could even prearrange an in-game confrontation where his character faces off with yours (and other party members), and he ultimately backs down seeing as he's outvoted/outnumbered, figuring that it's better to enforce at least *some* code of conduct upon the party (even if it's much laxer) than to get kicked out of the party and have them go hog wild. The prearranged part would just be an agreement not to have the conflict turn into a death match, and to look for opportunities to have your characters react in ways that will ultimately resolve the issue.

>>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot

>>Or taking to the GM?
>He says he'll try to shape the campaign around the guy's style of play which feels the worst fucking thing to do

Okay, I'm going to assume that you're actually not making this up.
This is actually a problem with your GM, not with the player. If your GM treated him normally, you wouldn't have those problems, because most of these things are normally not feasible (regarding all the stuff like escorting prisoners away or mailing the gear of fallen mooks). The paladin should have something better to do than this or be faced in some other way with a dilemma that forces him to make a decision here. However, your GM for some reason enables him instead of facing him with tough decisions. In a regular party a paladin has his "super righteous" moments from time to time and otherwise also acts pragmatic, because he should have some kind of mission and he needs to be equipped for that, which means he needs money, which means he shouldn't object to looting enemies.

Personally, I have played with a similiar guy for some time and the question if his behaviour was problematic or not always hinged on the GM. If you as a player can't tell the paladin player "No, we NEED to do this now" and be right about it, then you end up in a situation like yours

If the player refuses to budge from a stance of "that's my character", then it's time to talk to the GM with the rest of your group. Tell him you don't want to derail the game, but you shouldn't have to knuckle under all the time to avoid a fight. Tell him the rest of the group wants to behave another way and has only gone along so far out of consideration for the welfare of the game, but can't be expected to compromise itself forever. Tell him the problem player refuses to budge and this sets up an inevitable confrontation that could tear the party apart, derail the campaign, and lead to hurt feelings. As him what his take on this is. Maybe he can intervene and talk to the problem player about the issue, as clearly the problem player needs to either compromise or create a new character.

Failing this kind of resolution, you probably need to ask what the GM's position on player-vs.-player combat is. If PCs aren't allowed to kill each other, that effectively resolves your problem. The problem PC can't kill your character. The next time you play, just have your character tell him off and quit abiding by his bullshit code. There will, no doubt, be conflict and argument in the game, and you should definitely take the opportunity to role-play this out, and maybe even have an armed standoff that you know can't come to blows, because your GM won't allow that. It'll just be interesting drama, but in the end, your character won't die, and won't be following his comrades bullshit moral code anymore. You still might want to do a bit of meta discussion and be considerate and accommodating out-of-character, so that the problem player doesn't feel like *he* is being attacked. Also, you probably want your character to compromise a bit too, giving the problem PC and "out", and not forcing him to either be an evil fucker or leave the party. Basically, agree to curtail the worst stuff, and try to halfway abide by the code, when it's reasonable to do so.

>If you as a player can't tell the paladin player "No, we NEED to do this now" and be right about it, then you end up in a situation like yours
Addendum: to explain why this is dependant on the GM: The GM sets the framework for your quest and this should involve time constraints, an overarching narrative with a clear antagonist or goal and so on. You as a player can't set this up, but you need it to put the paladin in his place

>What would be a fitting way to kill off such a character?
Its rare some one accualy plays a paladin like a Good Knight and not just a murder hobo with smite evil.

If you kill of this character not only are you a shit gm but you're a heathenist faggot and shouldn't post on Veeky Forums ever again.

You also don't want the other player sabotaging the group in lieu of being able to actually fight the other party members, so it's best if he doesn't come of this nursing a grudge.

If your GM is fine with PvP, try to convince him to change his mind due to how destructive to a campaign and gaming group that this could be. I mean, I've had plenty of confrontations with other PCs, some of them armed, and a few of them even came to fisticuffs, but there was always the understanding between players that this wouldn't get out of hand, so it was more like play-acting than real PvP. Real PvP is an exceedingly bad idea, outside of campaigns carefully designed around it.

But if you can't convince him otherwise, then you need to be prepared for any confrontation with the trouble PC to come to blows. Have your character speak to the other characters in the party and agree to stand as a united front. As long as there are plenty of reasonable opportunities to take people aside in-game, this shouldn't be something you need to do during an actual game session. Just talk to the other players outside of the game, and meta this out, agreeing on how the discussion between your characters goes. Provided you can get all (or most) agree, you should be good.

The next time the problem PC tries to dictate bullshit your group isn't happy about, stand up to him. It's best if it's something you can resolve quickly and force him to react to you, rather than having to fight your way past him to get the thing accomplished. If he collects loot to give to the families of the fallen, for instance, you don't want to try to take that away from him. You want to either block his path before he's done it, or wait until something else comes along where you only have to stand your ground and not manhandle him.

yeah, because the GM is just gonna let you end the game prematurely by giving you a militia..

>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot
This one is completely on your DM. This isn't an MMO.

If the problem PC attacks you, the rest of the party can help you curb-stomp him. If he's just threatening and refuses to budge, work around him. Don't try to take the loot out of his pockets; just don't give the opportunity to claim all the loot in the future. Don't attack him to get at the prisoner you want to kill; just kill prisoners when they're unguarded (and in the future, don't take prisoners in the first place). Hell, if he wants to escort captured enemies to the nearest settlement, pack him a lunch and wish him good luck before you continue on with the adventure. Yes, this will leave you down a man, but you'll just have to be extra careful (or recruit or hire somebody to take his place). Whatever you do though, watch yourself. His character doesn't sound like the type to stick a knife in your back, but he can certainly maneuver against you (and maybe wait until you're alone to start an armed confrontation with you). You need to regard him as a threat until some kind of understanding can be reached (and even then you want to still be careful).

You and your shitty group doesn't deserve such a gem of a person.

On point 3: it's generally proven that people will say any bullshit under torture just to make the pain stop if they break. There's absolutely no guarantee any of it will be useful and chances are it won't. The best interrogation methods irl have involved managing to make someone slip up through polite small talk.

Also congrats, you want to destroy the one example of a Lawful GOOD paladin I've seen in fucking years. You're a monster marveling at the Gioconda and hating that it blocks the view of the wall.

Seriously this, XP in D&D is specifically said to be for overcoming, not for killing, in literally every edition.

Shit, in AD&D (both editions) managing to steal a dragon's hoard without waking it up was overcoming.

>Also congrats, you want to destroy the one example of a Lawful GOOD paladin I've seen in fucking years.
The character forces everybody else to play the game his way, which is inconsiderate. It's like all those fuckers whose characters will never negotiate, retreat or surrender. They fuck up the game for everybody else.

You want to destroy a piece of art because he doesn't satisfy your bullshit mmo criteria of how a game should be.

>The character forces everybody else to play the game his way, which is inconsiderate
How are they forcing everyone?
Are they throwing out threats? Strongarming others?
Or are they saying "I am doing X", and the rest of the party is going along with it?
We are going to pretend OP isn't bullshit for a moment, because it certainly is. The actual issue being discussed is someone taking the whole "true knight in shining armor" absolutely seriously, and that most players don't because they are trying to be murderhobos for pretend power.
That the DM is encouraging this is actually a pleasant anomaly, most DMs I've seen try their best to shit on a paladin who takes it to heart.

I'm okay making small, reasonable allowances to get along with the group (or bigger ones, if my character is the one that's out of step), but I'm not going to have somebody else's character force a radically different code of behavior on me. The game isn't about that other character; it's about all of us, and he doesn't have the right to expect everybody else to play the game his way. Role-playing is a team sport.

Read >Come on, that's weird. I mean, our character are Good or Lawful Neutral as well, it just doesn't seem that practical a thing to do.
OP just wants to murderhobo

Then he can play on his own.

>Or are they saying "I am doing X", and the rest of the party is going along with it?
According to the OP, the rest of the party is pretty frustrated with it at this point, and the OP is obviously unhappy with the situation, so it seems most reasonable to assume that other players are frustrated too. (Without knowing all the ins and outs of the situation, it's necessary to make assumptions.) That, in turn, suggests that the problem player isn't being considerate of the other players' gaming experience. It sounds like they feel compelled to go along with his character's morality to avoid conflict within the party. Trying to find a way to have your character behave in a manner that will preserve the party and avoid derailing the adventure is frankly what everybody should be doing. I mean, there are limits, but this is the good kind of meta-gaming.

Now, if my assumptions are wrong, then my perspective on the situation is subject to change. But I'm just calling things based on how they look to me.

You could be right. That does seem a bit weak. On the other hand, if the rest of the group is on the same page with him, then paladin guy is still being disruptive. I guess the question is whether OP is an outlier or not.

Try to get into a scenario where an individual will have to sacrifice themselves so the others can live

Come on, user. You're right, but beating people is the time honoured way of getting the truth out of people in rpgs

>That, in turn, suggests that the problem player isn't being considerate of the other players' gaming experience
Are you implying that a group of neckbeards would have actually expressed their frustration? That's an even bigger assumption to make. OP sounds like the kind of fag that bitches and moans, but only when the person it's about isn't there.
Why should the paladin player reconsider his playstyle if it seems to be accepted by both GM and other players

Everyone else reroll to Paladins of marginally different gods with highly similar, but very slightly different, tenets.

A Paladin's job is not preaching. It's the cleric who should be preaching.

>Are you implying that a group of neckbeards would have actually expressed their frustration?
I don't think they would've been very good at hiding their frustration, even if they didn't come right out and say: "Hey, man, I'm frustrated."

>Why should the paladin player reconsider his playstyle if it seems to be accepted by both GM and other players
If the neckbeards simply aren't voicing their frustration, that's a pretty far cry from acceptance. As far as the GM goes, many GMs don't take an active role in such things, viewing PC interaction as being outside of their realm of influence. Also, the GM is apparently not awarding XP for captured monsters, so I'm not going to put too much trust in him.

nah, I always feed complete bullshit if my players start pulling the torture shit.

>But I rolled intimidate
Yep, the guy was very intimidated alright. He took responsibility for bandit raids that happened when he was 2.

The biggest issue here is that you're not getting exp for clearly overcoming challenges.

So what? Not everyone is like you, this brings diversity.

If you dont like him take action as a character against his character, it's all part of the game.

If you feel that by his actions you're done injustice it's not the player's fault, but the DM's

Bullshit IS useful. He can either tell the truth, or bullshit that we can use later for our purposes: an accusation, a declaration of guilt, anything to be used against the enemy even the lies that he told you.

if they're not voicing their frustration then they're in fact giving their tacit agreement
that's how it works in grown-up world, user

>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot
GM is retarded.

hang them for what, leaving bandit bodies around after quite likely being paid by the local lord to go kill bandits? using poisons and oil, quite the norm in the era? or killing hatchling red dragons which grow up to be violent, sadistic, greedy assholes that can wipe cities?

At best, the guards nominally care about bodies due to it attracting monsters.

We haven't raised any ooc objections but it's apparent people are frustrated by their IC quips and sarcasm towards the paladin. I had my character ask the paladin to leave the group because the rest of us were intent on setting traps to take out as many bandits as we could and his response a generic "I see the good in you and feel the need to burnish it, etc"

OOC we're sort of unfamiliar or this problem wouldn't be there in the first place.

Nobody likes armed missionaries.

Then it's time to talk to the player ooc.

Work with him and try to come to an arrangement everybody can be content with.

>plays paladin very authentically and it pisses off everyone in the party

I swear OP if you fucking force this prick into going along with shit to shut you murder hobos up and he falls, I'll never forgive you.

ITT: Murderhobos don't like it when LG isn't just letters on a sheet.

In game I'd say you have two options OP. Introduce diseased enemies (starving plague bandits would be ideal) any extra time spent around them or their corpses weakens him, his allies have a good reason to not help the more he gets sick. He'll either get the point and start acting rationally or die for his beliefs. I assume either option would make you happy.

The 2nd thing you could try is to make the setting dark. And I mean DARK. Unrepentant enemies who rape and kill, molestors, villages who take in prisoners who then take over, depleted villages with only haunted women left. That type of stuff. Make sure you reintroduce a few he's let go as well. As he;s the tank (and a very visible member of the party) you could pile on the guilt by having PC's accuse him of being worse than the evil dudes because he can stop it but wont. I'm sure he would eventually snap and kill a prisoner or two.

>muh edgy super dark
Look, nobody gives a shit about saving shitholes like Westeros

>>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot
Both shitty GM for not giving XP for beating challenge and murderhobo players for caring that much.

Paladins are immune to disease bro, they'll wade into Lepers and werewolves and give 0 fucks about germs.

>I need you to tell me who is in the wrong, Veeky Forums.
Most likely you

>molestors
>dark
You wouldn't know evil if it broke into your house and raped and murdered your family.

sounds like you're a bunch of skaggy bitches. git gud and man and woman up

I find edgy dark stuff cringeworthy too, but sometimes it's needed to force a shallow character to actually question their beliefs

>Ask enemies to surrender before attacking always, even when an ambush can be set-up or they can be flanked
Stupidity.
>Spends time burying/cremating the dead even when the party chases the objective since it is running out of time
Respect for the dead isn't an aligned thing but it is a time-waster unless there's risk of undead or attracting dangerous necrophages
>Refuses to let anyone rough up captured enemies for information
Abstaining from torture is expected, slapping a guy a few times is not torture.
>Insists on escorting captured enemies to the nearest settlement even if the party is in the middle of the woods
Disruptive as fuck.
>Insists that any loot found on dead enemies be sent to their families by making inquiries at pubs and inns
Depends on his code really, but if you're a highwayman your shit is forfeit anyway.
>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot
This is a case of the DM being a fucktard. You gain XP by defeating or otherwise driving off an enemy, not killing them. If you Fear a guy and he runs off never to be seen again, you still get XP. As for loot, it's trivial to make them hand over their valuables as a condition for surrender.
>Refuses to use tactics in contravention of "humanity" like poison, burning oil, explosives, fire, captured monsters, etc
Poison tends to be verboten depending on the edition, the rest is just him being an asshole.
>Always offers to do something for free to quest givers
Denying the party their share is faggotry
>Refuses attack on any monsters that have "young/fledgling" attached to their name
A beast is a beast, besides, nonlethal combat is always an option.
>Refuses to play along when interacting with stronger enemies, instead asks them to repent and seek forgiveness
Stupidity.

Send him to fight the local demon cultist meetup and clobber the DM for not giving the party XP for rightfully defeated enemies.

sounds like you are the one being the dicks about it. if youre just gonna murder-hobo dont play good or lawful characters. Also, murder of another pc because you dont like their character when you guys are also, lawful, good, or neutral is pretty evil so good luck with that.

it seems like he is playing a paladin the way a merciful paladin should be played. If all you wanna do is get loot and exp you could maybe play a video game with your group? Dungeon Siege, Path of Exile, WoW, etc. are good choices for that type of stuff.

>shallow character
>actually tries to be good
Murderhobos are the shallow ones

>Respect for the dead isn't an aligned thing
>t. graverobber

I get where you're coming from, but it's interfering with our style of playing.
Want to slay some bandits and gather cool loot? Not gonna happen, asshole paladin convinces half of them to surrender and gathers the loot from others to send back to their families.
Want to set spike traps and burning pitch to kill invading bandits? Not gonna happen, asshole paladin convinces town elder to rely on his might and god to protect, meaning the encounter gets tough for the rest of the party.
Want to get some gold for gearing up by carrying out a quest for some nobleman? Not gonna happen, asshole paladin convinces noble to take up worship of his god instead of giving us a reward.
Want to interrogate captive bandits about location of hideout? Not gonna happen, asshole bandit won't let us threaten or torture him instead escorts him to the town guard who reward him for that, which gets distributed among the town hobos

Let me reiterate, the rest of the party is good and neutral as well, with no CNs

>asshole bandit
*paladin

You can take a commission, but robbing robbers to keep all they've stolen for yourself doesn't fit with the altruistic expectations of a good alignment. Let the people reward you.

>Let me reiterate, the rest of the party is good and neutral as well, with no CNs
Then clearly the rest of the party doesn't understand their alignments

yea, so your playstyle is not "good" youre all morally ambiguous at best. The only person acting good is the paladin.

it just sounds like you just wanna murder-hobo and that is boring. The paladin is a much better player and you all should follow his lead.

>Shitty GM is shitty. It's about beating a challenge, not killing the enemy. Surrender is beaten
This, hell...I would award bonus xp for taking enemies alive, it's way harder.

I don't do all the things OP's paladin does but I do some of them because it's fun and it often pays off.

Take prisoners, turn them over to the authorities (maybe to be executed but that's the lawful side of lawful good). Mercy can get cooperation from a prison and paladin's have the sense motive to tell when they're being lied to and that's going to end the mercy if a paladin is being sufficiently righteous.

Regarding wasting time burying the dead etc, aside from preventing undead from plagueing you, they should learn to be a little moderate in their religious practices. Explain to them that IRL religious fools (jews/muslims) don't get that bent out of shape if they accidentally eat port at a buffet or something and it's the same for their god.

Letting the dead lie a while so that you can smite more evil is at least an either/or situation. Smiting more evil then coming back (or sending someone back) to do the funerary arrangements is perfectly reasonable and furthers the cause of LG just as well or better.

Wow, four whole examples that literally any DM could circumvent in less than a sentence each.

>Two weeks later the bandit's grandmother shows up and insists you take a reward
>The elder declines and points out that the Paladin is putting noncombatants in danger
>The noble insists on a reward
>The paladin can disburse his own reward, not the other players

Took me literally 25 seconds

>You wouldn't know evil if it broke into your house and raped and murdered your family.
I'm not the person you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure that in that scenario, the people breaking into my house to rape and murder my family are the evil ones.

t. Unchivalrous heathen

>Is he the leader of the party? If he's not, fucking ignore him. Let him escort enemies completely alone in the woods. Let him burn enemies by himself while you are three rooms away. Ignore his complaints about inhumane tactics, just do them, don't ask him his opinion. Don't involve him in sneaky plans. Do your best to ensure he leaves the party or doesn't disturb it.

The flip side of that is that maybe he's expecting some push-back and you're not giving it due to beta/polite/hasn't occurred to you?

A player in my game is sort of like that, they try and hoard all the treasure, they pick up everything first and then say it's theirs because they picked it up, try to sell whatever they picked up to the people that need it...they're sort of like that IRL as well and you really just need to stand your ground with him because he's expecting to be resisted and have some banter/faux-conflict in the party but everyone else is just like "you want it that badly, you have it...what a dick"

>tfw you wish for your players to do this one day so you wouldn't have to roll on the random loot table to make up for the shit you were planning on giving out as rewards for doing the good thing.
>tfw they pawn off a plot hook

>quick and merciless
I'm sure you meant merciful.

>fire is interesting
If he's a cleric of Pelor then fire is purifying. Frankly, the cleansing flame sounds fine for most paladins. Just get the other players to couch it in those terms next time.

Paladins are dogmatic, if you want to burn your enemies alive in their lairs, you have to sell it to them. If you can't be arsed doing so IC, just make a Knowledge: Religion check to come up with a religious precedent that permits it.

>This one can be debated since it's a specific example in the 2e Paladin handbook, but I feel there's something to be said for a Paladin accepting rewards under the notion he put said rewards to continuing his work
My thought is to treat it like asking clerics to cast raise dead or something, they want a donation to their church. No reason why a Paladin can't see it in those terms either...assuming the quest giver has two copper to rub together anyway. Whether they keep it or tithe it to their church is between them and their god. They also need to remember that the rest of the party aren't paladins.

>Ask enemies to surrender before attacking always, even when an ambush can be set-up or they can be flanked
My Dark Heresy psyker always does that. It's the enemies' fault they refuse to listen.

FPBP

1) How is that a problem? This is good. The less risk to everyone the better. And is also very honourable.
2) Just tell him to bury them later, and settle for a quick prayer for now.
3) Where is the problem? That sounds very noble of him. And, also, torture is a very bad way to extract information from someone.
4) This sounds like something you do if you are an honourable and just man.
5) This seems a little overkill, but as long as he permits the players to take some of that for themselves for their trouble, then it really isn't an issue. Just make sure it doesn't take up ridiculous game time and is instead hidden behind downtime.
6) Your GM is just really, really stupid. Your Paladin is completely in the right. And you SHOULD get full EXP and loot for defeating the enemies this way. Namely by beating them in combat, and then being allowed to take their stuff after they surrender. Tell your GM to fuck off and stop being a jerk.
7) Well... yeah? He's an honourable, noble Paladin. Would you seriously expect the avatar of the Gentleman's Code to go splashing acid in people's face and permanently disfigure them just to get an edge in combat? No, he'd rather lose honestly than win by foul play.
8) The Paladin's wealth is the goodness in the world. One is richest in their soul, not in their wallet.
9) It's rather dishonourable to kill something young and relatively weak and helpless to what it could have been. Sure, Orcs and Dragons may be considered evil, but that doesn't readily justify stomping their babies for the easy kill.
10) That's what a Paladin might do, though. Why kill something, when that thing could instead repent and redeem itself?

A Paladin wouldn't use such an underhanded deception as "play along".
A good GM will permit a natural opportunity for conflict without taking a side.

>>Offers enemies on the losing side options to surrender depriving the rest of the party of exp and loot

Use gold for XP you dumb motherfucker

Regards, TSR D&D

This is one of the few players who take LG seriously, and you want to kill him? fuck you.

>Paladins are dogmatic
No, clerics are dogmatic. Paladins are idealists.

The gm should give xp if the enemy surenders. You shouldn't need to kill everything to get xp.

The gold can be rewarded buy saying they found a stash that has no owner somewhere (not related) else.

Op is just wants muder hobos that kill npcs with loot stuffed inside them.

>>Ask enemies to surrender before attacking always, even when an ambush can be set-up or they can be flanked
>Stupidity.

The rest of the party is stupid for not setting up an ambush and THEN sending in the Paladin to offer quarter if they yield. He's the bait in the trap.

>Respect for the dead isn't an aligned thing
My PCs never leave a corpse lying around because the villain kept animating them and sieged their inn when he had enough.

>Enhanced interrogation isn't torture
Yes it is, the Paladin is dead-right and completely bound by OOC rules on this one. Get someone to cast zone of truth, or just talk to the prisoners, the paladin has excellent diplomacy and sense motive and can legitimately offer a quick death/mercy/to send their coin pouch to their grandmother in exchange for information. Charm Person isn't torture either.

>>Insists on escorting captured enemies
>Disruptive
You're kind of right on that one but taking prisoners is reasonable, you don't refuse surrender or execute prisoners who aren't murderers. You have to do something with them.

>loot sent to their families
>if you're a highwayman your shit is forfeit anyway.

I'm inclined to agree, it's proceeds of crime but you don't technically know how much of it is. Split it in the party and the Pali can do what he wants with his share.

>you still get XP. As for loot, it's trivial to make them hand over their valuables as a condition for surrender.
This. Why not get loot and xp, it was earned.

>Poison is verboten, the rest is just him being an asshole.
I think it's the party's job to sell him on the plan, it's doable.

>>Always offers to do something for free to quest givers
>Denying the party their share is faggotry
Only if they're rich, the poor deserve charity, not exploiting their desperation. He should take a stand.

>>Refuses to play along when interacting with stronger enemies, instead asks them to repent and seek forgiveness
>Stupidity.
I think it's ballsy, why not?

Fuck off OP. That player sounds like an amazing party member. Talk to your DM about your xp problem or solve it in game. Play your character and don't be upset because someone is playing their's.

To me it really sounds like most of the players are fucking pussies. Then again, I play a lot of thieving murderhobos with paladins that do the same, but we actually roleplay this shit. My paladin doesn't like me stealing from corpses? I do it when he's not looking and make a deception check to convince him I didn't. We need to rough up a prisoner? I ask him to leave the room. He doesn't want the reward, I outright tell the questgiver, "Fuck that, I want a reward."
He takes all the gold for a reward himself? I'll threaten to stab him in the face for literal thievery from me. He either has to accept he's stealing my hard earned gold or take a few d6 of sneak attack damage because I don't fight fair.
A paladin has to seem forceful, because they have to try by very rules. Just don't be cucks.

>tfw you are a paladin in a group of mentally challenged murder hobos
>tfw you are in a dungeon and come across a sarcophag that the DM hints is filled with loot
>tfw your character does not want to raid tombs
>tfw the rest of the party wants to get into it and doesn't give a fuck about what your paladin wants
>especially tfw they all play characters that have strength as a dump stat while the paladin's strength is like 18 or sme shit
>tfw they can't open the slab of stone closing the grave thing
>tfw ooc they all get pissed off tremendously because you won't budge with opening said grave and they faileda ll their rolls to the point that the DM said there was no way for them getting into them.

Aaah, that was a fun campaign. Fuck your heathen ways.

>The rest of the party is stupid for not setting up an ambush and THEN sending in the Paladin to offer quarter if they yield. He's the bait in the trap.

Any true paladin would have a problem with this. Not only did the group lie to him but then preformed a un-chivalrous act of deception.