Butcher of Hommlet?

Can someone please explain the game logic to me as it pertains to the "Butcher of Hommlet" reputation?

My party, which has a zero tolerance policy for evil, includes two Paladins. One of them "smited" Zert upstairs at the Welcoem Wench. Zert died..and when we went back downstairs, all was as well.

Later, however, one of my Paladins engaged in conversation with the evil monk guy...he said "I see your evil aura..." and i figured that gave me license to attack him. But...doing so apparently set off the "Butcher" alarm, and I was attacked by everyone in the inn.

So what gives?

 

Well, as a DM, I would have busted you.

1. Paladins shouldn't just "test people's auras" it is an invasion of privacy like asking someone's alignment or the size of thier genitals.

2. A Paladin isn't supposed to Smite all Evil he/she comes accross- they are, at first supposed to "help the person see the errors of their ways" -again this is only if they actually witness an evil act- or have good reason to believe that one is about to be done- such as an assasin about to kill someone- Paladins know that not everyone is up to their level of goodness that they are. But again, unless given reason, the paladin should have never checked for evil.

 

Depends on several things, IMO...If he's going to party up with them, he NEEDS to check their aura first; he's not allowed to associate with them if they are evil. Which opens up the conversation to the very fact of alignment. I imagine the conversation going downhill from there...and a brawl ensuing. Lawful Good doesn't mean the character has to be naive or stupid; and they are supposed to deal with people they know to be evil by force of arms. It's what they do.

As far as this game goes, I don't think the rep is (or ought to be) bestowed for taking out those two creeps. Has anyone else in your party died? You know...the 'good' NPC's?

 

I think it's perfectly within character for a Paladin to use detect evil on someone they believe to be suspicious, especially if they want to join his party. That said, they aren't going to walk down the street using detect evil on everyone they meet and most folks are going to take offense at a paladin staring at them intently when they try to strike up a conversation.

As for the butcher of Homlett reputation, you're attacking people without provocation. Being evil isn't enough. They have to either be commiting an evil act, in which case the paladin should stop them by any means necessary, attacking the paladin or someone else, which gives the paladin the right to defend the lives or himself or others, or proven to be have engaged in criminal acts, in which case the paladin should attempt to turn them over to the local authorities, if possible, before acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Just randomly whacking people with your sword because you don't like their aura is going to make the townfolk uppity, hence the butcher rep.

 

Spike-Good point about the detecting before joining and possibly spiralling into a confrontation, and that of course is forgivable- but...

Yeah Kalshane, you said what I meant, only better!

It seems as if aanalore was more along the -detect everyone and kill them without provacation- vein, and that earns the reputation and SHOULD be a fallen Paladin too.

Aanalore- I'd rerun that encounter...

 

Well...both Zert and Toruko try to join the party; a party with two paladins, as aanalore explained. He'd probably fall for partying up with them. How is he supposed to RP this? He shouldn't get the rep for taking out these morons. If this game were truly capable of role-playing...and we all know it's limitations...they might not even try to join his group. Rather, they might try to shadow them and attack in a weak moment. Evil guys are cowards, as is well known. And paladins are supposed to seek and destroy evil. I agree that this means no checking the auras of people who haven't given the paladin cause for suspicion. Encounters with people who say things that give cause for concern or wish to join the group means they get checked. The evil guys get confronted...and sometimes killed. A good PnP DM would role play the evil guys so as to avoid giving concern to the players...until it was time for them to strike. And then, the PC's would probably be wishing they'd killed them when they had the chance.

The game gives you the rep when x number of Hommlet folk die. It should only apply to neutral or good RESIDENTS of Hommlet, not adventurers passing through; or spies who have taken up residence there to keep their cover.

We know this isn't pen & paper...but the question was posed about this game. Something might need to be fixed.

 

If you kill someone without good cause or under certain conditions you get the Butcher rep. If you kill the traders Rannos/Gremag BEFORE the Traders revealed quest you'll get it. The people of Hommlet don't know who is evil unless they do an evil deed. You have to play within the context of the game and a Paladin attacking without obvious cause wont work. I once recruited Lodriss from Nulb and the paladin never knew she was Lawful Evil. She fought really well for the party and nobody knew the difference. Of course, she was in it for the money, but it worked out well.

 

The dialogue is fine, I'm thinking that how the rep gets attached is the messed up part. Getting it for whacking some known scoundrels doesn't make sense to me.

 

can you change what faction they're in?

 

factions... hmm

Maalri, what if the Paladin also happens to be a Mercykiller?
You know, they believe all sin is to be punished by death and they're only doing it in the name of good?

AHA! I GOT YOU THERE, DIDN'T I!!!!!

HAHAHA I'm so funny, no really I am.

 

Mercykillers need a Mercy Killing, in my opinion. I don't think anyone that narrow-minded and zealous should ever be considered "Lawful Good"-- "Lawful Neutral" is a better alignment for that kind of Paladin, because even if they are ridding the world of Evil, they are doing it in such a "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" way that they themselves are using unfair means to do it. Anyone using evil/unfair means to destroy evil, is neutral in my opinion.

And, yes, Moose, in that regard, you "got" me. Still they shouldn't exist, and don't in my games, sooo, your response is moot

 

I'm almost sure my paladin recognized them as evil, something about "I sense your evil entint.

 

sichet and aanalore- we may are dealing with two different things here-

1st -should you have attacked them- in role play-certainly there were ways to have it happen, even in the dialogue given within this game it seems to lend it to their destruction- BUT the general consensus seems to be that "detect everyone and kill the evil ones" is worthy of the reputation, while role play leading up to their death is not. I was going with the impression that aanalore was of the first type, and I would have busted aanalore for that-so I said the reputation was deserved-BUT I certainly concede that there would be times in which the reputation should NOT have been earned (i.e. your particular dialogue), but was anyway, which leads us to

2nd- this game is a little wrong in the way that it handles the alignment playing. I think everyone agrees to that, seeing all the threads and responses that have been entered on that subject. Unfortunately, until those two actually TURN on the party in combat, you will earn the reputation, whether you deserved it or not. It's a real Bummer, but not even humans are perfect, so how can we expect our hardware and software to be.

It would be safe not to kill anyone not trying to kill you, in this game, for reputations sake.

 

There are so few options for role-playing...

The two things about this game that can't really ever be fixed are:

1. The limited role playing
2. The alignment situation

This game doesn't really do either well. And both of these topics really are as individual as the PnP games we all used to participate in. To debate them is fine, but no one is ever really going to agree on them.