Dealing with edginess

If a guy is actively going out of his way on your nature trip to torture wildlife, and your a bunch of adventurers who have to rely on each other to survive, that guys a liability. Also evil. So smite him

In real life though go to the police or something, dont just merc someone in the woods.

I hate ressurection. If your dead you should stay that way, or come back as a horrible undead.

There's a difference for killing animals for food and killing and torturing animals for the hell of it. Especially when an angry forest spirit appears.

There's a player in my campaign who acts like a punk and is only there to wreck shit, but he's friends with the others so I can't say anything about it. It doesn't offend me but it's getting really boring to play with.

Yeah, but they’re still just animals. A death sentence seems extreme. Though I also could see the fellow adventurers washing their hands of the situation since it’s just headache and danger to save a jerk.

When you have an angry nature spirit bearing down on you because some asshole is torturing animals for kicks, it no longer becomes a question of whether or not it's too extreme, it becomes a question of whether it's worth saving an asshole and possible earning the ire of nature itself.

>letting yourselves get slaughtered by an angry forest spirit because you want to reason with it that the animals it protects are less than people

Are you the baitfag from the other thread?
or just retaded?

>Trying to convince a forest spirit that animals are less than people.
>Protecting an asshole who'd probably murder you in your sleep.
You're a special one aren't you.

I'd be less worried about whether within the fiction it makes sense to sacrifice a man who deliberately angered magical nature spirits and more about the real person at your table who's trying to sabotage your game with vicarious psychopathy.

Like I said, I could see you washing your hands of the situation because you gain nothing from it.

Who said anything about reasoning with the spirit? All I’m saying is you’d think a good character might protest an eye for an eye morality being doled out by forest ghosts on a guy for torturing animals and defend/assist him. Not saying all good characters have to, but I’d have figured most wouldn’t be down for street justice from spooky tree spirits.

In my games there is a rule, you wanna resurrect someone you gotta go to wherever their soul is and get it back, and planar travel is a bitch to achieve and dangerous, everything and anything can go wrong and often there are forces that don't want the soul to leave, don't want you there, or simply don't want people to planar travel.

they are allowed to try and resurrect any character or npc they want, but that's how it has to be done.

The party rarely bother but when they do, I make it an adventure.

So you are the baitfag.
Please remember this: You are worthless and nobody in your life ever loved you

fpbp

Doesn't that also punish asshole players by sending them on evil planes?

I don’t even know the other thread in question, but thanks for being an asshole

The spastic had committed a crime by harming innocent creatures and his death served as a means of both pacifying the offended party and giving the offended party justice for the deaths that the spastic had caused.

It's no different than letting a serial killer be hanged in a public square by the local sheriff.

>not posting the burger version

Except only druids and tree ghosts would execute someone for that. To me a good adventurer might help him escape the rightly angered spirits and dump his ass off at the nearest town’s guards or split ways.

>Except only druids and tree ghosts would execute someone for that.
Which they had.

>dont just merc someone in the woods
Even if they stole your dust?

A good adventurer would probably make sure to go nonlethal on everyone so those goblin kids don't end up without a father

My point was that not everyone in the party was a Druid I assume. So I’d think they’d have a problem with letting the dude get killed for animal abuse.

In this situation the spirit is the one attacking and thus the goblin, kind of an awkward analogy.

Your baiting is actually the most annoying thing in the world.

Good job.

Depends, if they are beholden to some power such as clerics to a god it depends how much they pleased that god. But generally yes, be an asshole character, and you will have a bad end.

Why would they have a problem with justice being served?

Because it differs from society’s idea of justice. Seems more like vengeance

>Assuming the rest of the party's morals

They could be amoral people who hated the bastard for bringing this angry Forrest spirit upon them.

Some people are not above disposing of assholes

>Because it differs from society’s idea of justice.
So? You committed a crime and the locals have doled out the punishment that they saw fit. If you don't want to die, don't torture woodland creatures for fun, it's just that simple.

This.
The new guy who is causing needless problems isn't someone defended.

YEah what a bitchy lil soyboy

Yeah, like I said if you’re not good, or even a more offbrand of good I get leaving him since it’s way more hassle from you and he definitely deserves some form of punishment. I would think a paladin wouldn’t be down for it though

I wager a paladin would argue for something less final, but if the law of the land is an Eye for an Eye, and it applies to all creatures, it is just, but not kindly.

> I would think a paladin wouldn’t be down for it though
That would depend on the paladin in question though. A Paladin of the ancients would let the spirit kill him since his presence carries the risk of more innocent lives lost than if he was allowed to live while a Paladin of Vengeance would let him die simply because he was evil and the spirit is just trying to avenge its fallen companions.

Because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It’d be like wandering up to a society where every crime is punished by death. Sure it’s the law of the land, but I’d think most adventures would consider it tyrannical.

The guy is torturing and killing for sport. He's evil. If anything the paladin has a moral imperative to end him.

(I can't believe I'm responding to this shit tier bait)

Yeah, that's a terrible thing. But, of course, you can't violate the Prime Directive unless the accused party is Wesley.

>Because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
You tortured an animal in a land where animals carry the same rights as any other living being, you deserved to die for being evil.

>killing and TORTURING animals for sport
>not that bad

Pick one, retard

I’d think a paladin would follow the moral code he believes in, not conform to the law of whatever land he finds himself in. Otherwise how would he function in a society of purposefully twisted laws?

You think people deserve the death penalty for it? I agree it’s fucked ho, but I don’t think it deserves the death penalty

That is assuming the law is twisted.
If the law applies to all creatures in a sovereign land or territory, is it unjust?
Is ignorance an excuse? Like I said, the law not being nice does not make it unjust or wrong.

But that also doesn’t make your personal morals beholden to it. In this scenario the “law” is backed only by personal feelings of a murderous spirit and it’s power to enact its wrath. Not something I’d expect a paladin to defer to.

>You think people deserve the death penalty for it?
Yes, because people who torture animals for fun are generally people who would kill humans if they could get away with it.

>trying to sabotage your game with vicarious psychopathy.

Then kick them out. You shouldn't have to appease vicious psychopaths when they're not worth keeping in the game.
Give him a chance to learn from his mistake, and if he doesn't take it, boot him.

Yes I do, dogs are good, humans are cunts
If i had to pick between a dog and a random human i'd pick the goodboy.

because I hate people

Again, it would depend on the oath the paladin took on in question and most paladin oaths wouldn't have an inherent issue with a nature spirit avenging the creatures that the spastic tortured in cold blood.

Well I and more than one government disagree. Doesn’t mean I’m right though

I think you're missing the part where his first victim was a presumably magical white and gold stag. It's not "just animals", at that point he should have at least asked himself whether this unnaturally beautiful animal could possibly be sentient or sacred to someone or something before shoving a dagger in its eye

>Not something I’d expect a paladin to defer to.
That's why I said the paladin would argue for something less lethal, but that the law is not inherently unjust.
Blood for Blood is a sound law, so long as it is not applied specifically to some and not others.

If the animals have sentience then I agree. If they’re just very pretty animals I maintain my opinion

Regardless or not of how it should be treated IRL, this happened in a 'holy forest' or something where animals clearly are treated as on the same level - if not above - other beings. The guy enraged a forest spirit by acting extremely evil, of course in this context he deserved death.

>Well I and more than one government disagree.
Cool, your government has no power in the wild fuckboy. If you want to save the psychopath then go on ahead, I'll be WAAAAAAY the fuck over here while you do so.

Its very simple, live by the sword, die by the sword

have none of you niggers been trained to not respond to baitfags?

This
I ain't gonna try piss off the clearly powerful spirit god with a vengeful streak.

>in a world with active dieties and spirits that can flambe/drown/blight a small peasant village you have to ask if it's "worth a death sentence"

If a tree came to life or a deer transformed into a druid and told me not to mow my lawn or hunt this year it's not getting cut and im not going hunting, full stop. I'm not risking pissing off an agent of nature itself.

It’s very crude law, and typically not used in interspecies conflicts

>If the animals have sentience then I agree.
I'm going to clarify a thing here... the word you're looking for is sapient. Most complex animals would qualify as sentient.

Listen I'm bored, and this is at least some form of interest to me.

Like I said, totally understandable behavior. Not what I’d expect from a paladin mindset wise though

You’re right

Applying to all creatures isn't a defense against claims of injustice. It's equally illegal for a millionaire and a homeless man to steal a loaf of bread; the justice or injustice of that is in how many chances the homeless man had to make an honest living and how much a loaf hurts the baker.

The Paladin's standing right here next to me, he says you'll be in his prayers. Before you ask, he's a vengeance Paladin, so he's cool with Evil fucktards and their sympathizers being hosed in the name of justice.

Good Luck

I'm pretty sure a dagger in the fucking eye hurt that deer alot

The could've tried not torturing animals for fun. He could've tried not torturing animals for fun on multiple occasions. Instead, he did, so he's SOL.

There's nothing wrong with the killing of mindless beasts. It's a perfectly natural thing, there's many cases of sadistic animals in nature that kill for their own amusement. Does that make these animals, or even nature itself, evil?

It's as evil as only choosing to let another player in your EDH group play an Uncommander if you get to tear up a card of your choice in their binder. It's entirely reasonable.

I don't disagree with that. He had every chance not to be a murderhobo for no personal benefit, and he chose to a) murder and b) hobo without as much as taking the rack and trying to sell it to an ivorycarver.
I'm just pointing out that an absolute "applies to everyone!" line will produce several thousand hard-evil INT:1 wolves for every dude like this.

You're defending an idiot who got what he deserved for (you)'s.

Welp, here's a (you) for the road, I'm done arguing.

>Because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
clearly magical white-and-gold stags are not "some animal." He deserves death for that one alone. Being devoured by a tree spirit is probably the least painful way that can go down.

for what it's worth I agree with you

He chose to pointlessly kill animals and died for it.
its a example of "you reap what you sow"

Anyone with a brain knows that actions have consequences and sometimes those consequences are death. its not hard to fathom that someone with an inclination for vengeance will take exception to the slaughter of animals.

Also you are expecting an angry forrest spirit to have a perfect law and punishment system. and that would argue philosophy.

nor should the party have to care for a psychopathic asshole who had done nothing but brought this upon himself and was warned before hand to stop.

Torturing animals for amusement would be a sign for any one from several personality disorders IRL. Even hunters usually try to kill cleanly, for both practical and ethical reasons

>Even hunters usually try to kill cleanly
Would they ever claim otherwise?

There's logic behind some of it, clean kill means less damage to any pelts, cuts of meat, etc

Killing in one shot is more time efficient, safer for the hunter and doesn't ruin the taste of the meat. There's no reason for lying about it unless you get off on wastefully torturing animals

People whose job involves animals have a tendency to do horrible shit and say they're 100% humane all the time until they're caught skinning crocs alive etc.

he killed bunnies in a forest... he's a rogue, a backstabbing killer.... maybe just maybe he kills for entertainment

I don't know if it really is fair to say "heh he should have known the forest was sentient and got revenge for him killing a bunny should have seen it coming". If it's the DM just fucking a guy who was fucking the group it's fine, but I don't think anyone with a brain would foresee killing cucks at the bottom of the foodchain coming back to bite you. I mean, it could have been the king's forest and he'd be hanged as a poacher or something.... it's not entirely out of left field, but I don't think it's really reaping what you sow.

Are you retarded?

>kill an innocent white-and-gold stag in the goddamn forest
>innocent
That thing was probably some sort of forest spirit and likely intelligent.

Murder of innocent intelligent beings can be easily punishable by death.

>he killed bunnies in a forest... he's a rogue, a backstabbing killer.... maybe just maybe he kills for entertainment
It doesn't matter if he knew it'd have consequences or not; they did have consequences.

The guy would have have bitched if he went into a cave to torture some rabbits and a bear ate him.

>wow look at this white and gold stag we just found in the middle of a explicitly magical forest, looks bottom of the foodchain I should kill it so everyone knows how lolrandumb I am

>he couldnt have known the woods were intelligent

Given the number of greek myths, dryads, nymphs, leshens, treants, druids, fairies, and other fictional woodland creatures, yes, yes he should have assumed there was a guardian spirit

I don't mean he should have expected the forrest spirit to want vengeance for it, but the party had a druid, druids are no beyond killing a person who kills animals for fun, a person could have a problem with it.

Its not exactly left field for someone to have enough on an issue with pointless slaughter to kill over it. If the player had no concept that he may be punished in game for it. then he has problems.

Not to mention, it was the party druid who already had a huge issue with it, who had offered his life up to the spirit.

You guys are missing the fact that the rest of the party made it clear that they wouldn't tolerate him continuing to torture animals.

And then when they found out he'd been torturing animals and irritating the local spirits, putting them all in danger, they lived up to their promise and failed to further tolerate that behavior.

wait... did that deer hunt and kill something?
no...? oh, it is the bottom of the food chain then

yes that's fair
oh right, that's the key to it. Party chose to fuck him back. I forgot that it wasn't just the thing swallowing him up.

Talk shit, get hit soyboy.

You sound to me like the kind of person in legends who would unironically follow the suspicious beautiful woman into the wilderness

...does she have a bussy?

But she has tittys

I'd have left him dead.
he did a thing, and a thing happened
I'd feel like I was cheating him of his reward if I took it away.
you earn your damnation, and salvation alike.

just to be clear, I'd also take issue with the lack of justification in the back story, and throwing a hiss fit for that matter.

this
and this