Your party is adventuring in the hills around a crime-ridden backwater town. Your party finds evidence that the local lawman, who comes from a family with a criminal history, deliberately provokes violent confrontations with bandits and outlaws so that he has a legal justification to kill them, rather than simply arresting them.What do they choose to do with this knowledge?
Our bard would seduce the dragon
This guy is wearing a hat so I thought the thread was going to be about eberron
>>94971112Teleport in from the Upper Planes and murder his family starting with the youngest?
Look for a way to get a cut.
>>94971112Nothing. We're too busy with the fate of the continent to worry soap opera drama in some backwater mud pit.
>>94971112Depends, is he trying to provoke us?
>>94971112>cowboy what do? Probably something like thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr1aAdbGOVM
>>94971112why the fuck would he need legal justification to do anything to someone outside the law (read: an outlaw?)
>>94971112"Bandits and Outlaws" would imply they already have a criminal history and have not reformed their ways yet. The dealings of the Lawman's family are of no concern either, unless he himself is protecting and enabling other lawbreakers. Furthermore, if his sole gimmick is to provoke a criminal and that is enough to get said criminal to open fire on a Sheriff or Ranger, or whatever he is, then they are violent, dangerous "Bandits and Outlaws" and killing them is of little consequence.Far as anyone should be concerned, he's doing his job just fine.
>>94971112Is he harming innocent people? If no why would I give a shit?
>>94971575I understand the confusion. See, humans would be able to identify his actions as manipulative and grossly unjustified with how he's intentionally escalating the situation. A lawman's role is supposed to be de-escalation and peacemaking, and murders invite only more revenge and bloodshed. We have many millennia of story and parable to illustrate this without having to live through it ourselves in an endless cycle of violence. I understand it's different among your people, orc friend.
>>94972060>A lawman's role is supposed to be de-escalation and peacemaking, and murders invite only more revenge and bloodshed.Oh, so you're an idiot who doesn't know how lawmen in the old west worked, huh? You also don't seem to understand provocation or personal responsibility. You see, it's not a magic power that compels people against their will to take self-harming actions. If a person chooses to violently assault a law enforcer, they are forfeiting their lives willingly, no matter how much they may not like that possibility.
>>94972229You realize those were lies told to make a traveling circus more entertaining which then were turned into mythology through radio and early movies, right? Please tell me you're just doing a bit and you didn't get hoodwinked by 19th century hucksters.
>>94972279Are you seriously implying that lawmen were never allowed and never tried to kill criminals?
>>94972308The guy who shot dead every thief and vagrant who mouthed off at him or stunk up mainstreet and then got celebrated for it is fiction, yeah.
>>94972308You're also not supposed to try to kill somebody if they get in a brawl with you. Must be a big day for you, to learn basic concepts for living as an adult in society.
>>94971112>casually approach lawman>"so why don't you just skip the song and dance and kill them?"My PC is pretty used to Wasteland Justice and doesn't necessarily see the point in letting someone go if their guilt is a well known fact. If he catches someone doing bad shit he's just going to kill them under most circumstances. Other PCs might balk a little but not a whole lot, circumstances pending.
>>94972060>A lawman's role is supposed to be de-escalation and peacemakingNo, a lawman's role is to uphold the law.>murdersMurder is illegal killing. The whole point is that his killing them was not legal because it was self defence.>cycle of violenceBandits and outlaws are already violent. It's plausible that trying to arrest them could cause even more problems, like a jail break. Or he might simply not have the resources to hold or transport all the local bandits. It's a "crime ridden backwater town" after all.It's also plausible that he's effectively starting a war between the law and criminal gangs that will harm the town. Or that he's corrupt and finding excuses to bump off select people. Or any number of other things. We don't know.
>>94971112Am I being detained?
>crime ridden backwater town>crime ridden>local lawman.... violent confrontations with bandits and outlaws>bandits and outlaws>simply arresting them>backwater townThe town is crime ridden in spite of the lawman's best efforts. It is a backwater town so it lacks the resources to deal with the criminals by means of arrest and trials. Our only confusion would be why the lawman is bothering to provoke these known bandits and criminals to give some sort of additional legal pretext when they are notorious for banditry or are already outlaws.
>>94972339A wanted criminal and violent outlaw who terrorizes the local area pulls iron on the Sheriff and we're supposed to pretend it's some tragic injustice that the outlaw got killed?
>>94972420Looking at it objectively, he's already making the problem worse. Why's there so many desperate men around here, anyway? Seems more likely they're being paid to raid as a separate political justification centered elsewhere. ESH, I cast fireball.
>>94972453>making the problem worseI feel like killing the criminals in the crime-ridden town is doing the town a service. Especially if he's been doing so successfully for any period of time.
>>94972440The OP didn't say any of that. All you know is,>sheriff comes from a crime family>he deliberately provokes violence>his targets are people who also have criminal historyThis is just a gang war except one side is also sucking up government payroll.
Sounds like just desserts. I think people forget that Outlaws are "Outside the Law" and as such are not entitled to the protections of the law. If you want to fuck over innocents when the Law states the proper way of things then it's a bit hypocritical to expect Lawfags to abide their strictness when dealing with a group of people who are not playing by the same rules.If you choose to fuck the rules, the rules are free to fuck you.
>>94972476and as long as innocent bystanders stay out of harm's way it's fine way to handle things
>>94972470You're operating under the assumption that it's like cleaning up your bathroom. If you wash the toilet, that's one less stink appliance, right? Killing people isn't like that. It is itself a stink appliance, and it creates more stink as a byproduct. It's trying to clean your bathroom with a bucket of mud and a cumrag.
>>94972521Now you're being edgy and contrarian with no substance.
>>94972476>criminal familyMeans nothing. Lack of info.>provoke violenceInconsequential. Trying to kill a law enforcement officer is a punishable offense in any time period>targets have criminal historySo they are criminals and they are violent enough to be provoked into trying to kill a law enforcer.You can fudge the details any which way you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no problem here.>>94972523And you're operating under the assumption that solving the crime problem will magically create more crime. Criminals can't commit crimes if they are dead.
>>94972546Criminals aren't an invasive species, retard. You're the one here with magical thinking.
>>94972567According to you, they are. Killing criminals somehow makes more criminals who will need to be killed and create a hydra-like cascade of more criminals, unless you don't kill them and either leave them alone, where they will commit more crime, or will somehow miraculously be a problem if you simply lock them up, because that will somehow not invite retaliation from other criminals either.Face it. You wanted to create some complex moral dilemma, but you shit your pants instead and are now frustrated that people aren't impressed by the size of the stain.
>>94971112Befriend him, and if he shows interest in the party's slutty tiefling chick, tell him that she'll meet him in a nearby outhouse to fuck. When he goes in the outhouse, tie it shut, douse it in oil, and light it on fire.
>>94971112>What do they choose to do with this knowledge?Nothing. Killing bandits and outlaws is based.
Well im already a bandit, and the last 20 men who tried to take me all made a fatal slip, so im pretty confident i can just execute this guy in a back alley and be gone the next morning
>>94972780Sounds like you're vicious and a killer, though a youth of 24.
>>94972523You're just not good enough at killing.
>>94972567They actually are like an invasive species. That's specifically how it tends to work.
>>94972523And if you expertly detain all of these people and stick them on a prison train to go back east and be thrown in for a life sentence, that changes what, exactly? To use your analogy, you're cleaning the bathroom with either a bucket of blood or a bucket of motor oil. The oil might be preferable to blood, but it still isn't clean.Likewise, arresting outlaws might be preferable to killing them, but if another criminal comes after you for revenge either way, what's the functional difference?
>>94971112>brokeback cowboy>"I caint quit you"
>>94971112this is very nearly the plot of the first episode of Gunsmokethe only difference is it was a random gunman provoking fights so he could kill people legally instead of the sheriff
>>94971112Nothing.
>>94971112>>>/qst/
What do the townsfolk think?
>>94972060>humans would be able to identify his actions as manipulative and grossly unjustified with how he's intentionally escalating the situation.Lol. Lmao. What a fag.
>>94971575In the show, one of the crime lords has his lackeys be more subtle and less violent than the others. So Raylan kills his dudes less, which makes it seem like they're working together.
>>94974243I have no idea what show you're talking about and do not care.
>>94972330Good thing that's not even close to what that anon was saying in the first place.
>>94972476>The OP didn't say any of thatHe absolutely did, when he used the words "bandits and outlaws"
>>94973647>the only difference is it was a random gunman provoking fights so he could kill people legally instead of the sheriffThe antagonist of Why Can't Johnny Speed has a similar MO. It's a good setup in a setting where extrajudicial killing is legal in certain circumstances.
>>94974575I forgive you, but don't make your illiteracy strangers' problems.
>>94975391Cope harder faggot, you got my other post removed but you're still a moron.
He's upholding the law while putting down outlaws and bandits, both part of his job. Unless there's a conveniently placed BANDIT ARMY or similar massive consequence he's inviting on himself or his region i don't see anything beyond "violence is bad" as a reason to stop him. I wouldn't necessarily trust him fully but i can't see any reason i should step up to protect outlaws and bandits, those aren't even people.
>>94971112I don't see the problem. I guess we give him a thumbs-up, and help him wipe out the local varmints?
>>94971120Underrated.
>The local lawman is killing bad guys in a bad town>you're supposed to think this is a big problem
>>94971112>Has to escalate the situation with bandits and outlaws, people by historical standards he'd already be well within his rights to kill, to further justify himself>Presumably is doing this in a somewhat public manner, meaning the whole town is in on itFrankly, sounds like he's giving those dipshits a second chance to pull their head out of their ass. 'Due process' is a modern and largely city-based concept, and you're not giving me a reason to intervene here. Frankly, with the average party, seems wiser to give the guy a wide berth, or make any possible surrenders to him immediate and clear.
>>94971475I don't think that most settings actually include actual outlawry (either temporary or permanent), and most usage of the term 'outlaw' has, I think, taken on a common vernacular usage where it is simply synonymous with criminal, or for someone who breaks the law or adheres to or espouses nonconformist ideas or attitudes.
That depends. Who is the handsome ranger?
>>94971112What are you talking about? My players haven't encountered anything like this in my game. Are you off your meds?
>>94972523Nope, when you kill a criminal, there's one less criminal. If you kill every criminal in the world, there are no criminals.
>>94972567Yes they are.
>>94973251It changes how many criminals there are in your town, specifically by reducing the number. Obviously.
>>94973251If another criminal comes after you, you kill him too. Not really sure where you're getting confused.
>>94976487He thinks there's some endless cycle of revenge awaiting anyone who kills some scumfuck bandit. What OP fails to understand is that there is a limit to the number of bandits and family members who would put their life on the line to avenge another bandit who died at the hands of a sheriff... and killing the sheriff is likely to invite other authorities around. If you're an outlaw, you really don't want the Arizona Ranger With A Big Iron On His Hip to show up. Killing the Sheriff and doing this retarded "cycle of revenge" shtick against the law always ends up with the outlaws losing.
>>94976561You are so lost in your own jackoff action hero fantasy that you're assuming everyone who wants to point out that you're acting like you never grew beyond pre-teen edgelordism is Just One Guy and also coincidentally the trolling OP who fired and forgot this entire thread. Is this political for you or something?
>>94976479>>94976487That's what I was disputing with the person I replied to. It doesn't matter if they're 6 feet under or if they're locked in a cell on a prison island on the other side of the country. They're not in town, and any criminal friends are probably pissed that you did that to them. But criminals being pissed that you put their friend in prison far away isn't a reason to stop putting them in prison, so I'm wondering why he thinks that the circumstances meaningfully change for killing them.
>>94976611What action hero fantasy? Is there an unlimited supply of constantly-respawning bandits? The whole 'If you kill your enemies, they win' thing is retarded.
>>94976752So basically anything I type is not something you feel you have to read and you're just spitting out knee-jerk responses based on what you wish someone else had written. You'd save a lot of time with a random number generator and a blog, you know.
>>94976738You really can't figure out the difference between killing someone and not killing someone? Don't infantilize yourself so much.
>>94976611>killing murderers is edgelordism
>>94972060>cycle of violence.A cycle of violence ends when the criminal is dead. If in this setting is an unlimited supply of criminals and outlaws then so be it, but if it's realistic to some degree, after a while of successfully killing them they would cease to exist either because they are dead, or because they would simply move on to prey on another town.
We kill the sheriff and his cardboard-cutout diversity hires for the crime of being badly written caricatures.
>>94976812 You're the one acting like killing criminals creates an infinite supply of criminals, but arresting them doesn't. Either explain what you mean or fuck off.
What if the criminals are your family?
>>94976611You're so angry for such stupid reasons. Touch brass before some brave and noble and handsome lawman kills you.
>>94971112So, the main issue is that the local lawman is a cocky idiot? Shooting bandits is part of the job, but trying to turn every arrest into a standoff is not only a crooked behaviour but also a quick way to die the moment your enemy has faster draw or gets lucky once. Plus, it tends to make things worse for the next guy who has to clean up the town, since now all the scumbags left are to scared to surrender and get jailed.
>>94975844Arguably, there are three issues one can point out without saying that violence is bad. To list them of:>Constantly starting duels and standoffs is a quick way to get yourself killed by the first guy who gets lucky or has a faster draw.>While making the criminals fear you is good, making them feel like there is no point of surrendering makes them more unpredictable. Bandits are opportunistic, cowardly rats, but a cornered rat still fights to death. Overuse of the lethal force negates the main advantage of making them fear you.>People stupid enough to try this strategy are bound to fuck up sooner or later and end up shooting somebody they shouldn't. Putting a bullet between the eyes of the old man Wilkins drunkenly mistaking old man Brown's horse for his own is a sure fire way to rightfully lose the trust of your city and your standing as a sheriff.
>>94979372>no point of surrenderingIt's specified that he goads them into attacking first. It'd be incoherent for him to not accept a surrender. This also makes the third point very unlikely.
>>94980581Why attack him at all, then?
>>94972060>with how he's intentionally escalating the situation.That would be true if it were normal people he was baiting into getting killed. This isn't a 'cop fools low functioning autistic 18 year old to buy weed', this is a law man pushing bad people to do things no normal person would have cause or the callousness to do.
>>94980581Your point makes sense, but it's still a part of the issue with his method I have pointed out in my first point. It places a suicidal personal risk on him by turning every confrontation into a life or death matter. Sometimes, having your opponents surrender from fear is more advantageous than having them attack you first. In fact, it's almost always a more advantageous outcome.Making criminals fear you is a valuable asset, but the dread level has to be managed. Too much fear and the criminals start getting desperate, panicky and prone to taking the radical risks. With the strategy presented by the OP, it's only a matter of time before guy gets shot in the back by a panicked buddy of the criminal he's currently goating into a duel or gets shot suddenly shot from an unexpected angle by a random scumbag who thinks that his only chance to live another day is to shot first before he even notices him.
>>94971112>when your murderhobos encounter the local lord and realize that, here, the local lord is the murderhobo
>>94971112>Your party is adventuring in the hillsFantastic.>around a crime-ridden backwater town.Sounds like they need someone to enforce laws>Your party finds evidence that the local lawman, who comes from a family with a criminal historyI don't think someone should be judged based on associations they have little control over, but I can see how they may have had a negative influence on the lawman.>deliberately provokes violent confrontationsWhoa! That sounds scandalous! We should...>with bandits and outlawsdo nothing about this as he is performing his job as required.>so that he has a legal justification to kill them, rather than simply arresting them.We should see if he needs any help.
>>94979372This is fair, but I'd rebut:>The lawman encountering a more skilled bandit will already likely end in his death, no matter his behavior. Even if the lawman was perfectly non-aggressive, any attempt at detaining the bandit could kill him regardless.>Being known for killing bandits will not make them fear you less, I promise.>Making a more severe mistake is more likely with his approach, but any mistake could happen regardless and with similarly lethal consequences.
>>94983716Good rebuttal, but I think you misunderstood my argument in your second point. >Being known for killing bandits will not make them fear you less, I promise.Being known for being too trigger happy won't make the bandits fear him less, that's for sure. Yet, there is a point where too much fear starts working to your detriment. It's like dealing with the rats. The rats are cowards and will run away, but when you corner them they can and will fight back, since it's their last option. OP's method has potential to backfire due to causing low tier scum to do desperate stuff in panic.Either way, my main point is that the lawman in the example is reckless and overly trigger happy, not that he's fully ineffective. Thanks for the good talk, by the way.
>>94983788>OP's method has potential to backfire due to causing low tier scum to do desperate stuff in panic.Right. To your second point, the lawman's intent is to goad them into violent conflict, and his approach makes each successive attempt at that easier as his influence spreads. Bandit fearing him more makes it easier for the lawman to invoke their desperation, which only helps his current approach.He's definitely reckless and is likely to get more complacent over time unless he starts encountering 'near-miss' events of significant enough consequence for him to change his current approach. Depending on his motivations, he's likely to either offload his work to a deputy he teaches his tricks to, or finds something clever and devious to give him an ace in the hole for the riskier encounters.
>>94981502>turning every confrontation into a life or death matterNot specified in the OP, and an odd assumption. Most people - even most criminals - aren't going to attack him. Especially since he specifically attacks people that attack him first, which is widely known enough that a group of strangers quickly learned it.It is a high risk strategy, but being the local lawman in a crime-ridden backwater is inevitably high risk unless you just give up and get drunk.
>>94976561>t. Has never been to AppalachiaThose fuckers do very little aside from get drunk, smoke meth, and hold grudges.
>>94971112https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1JOFhfoAD4We join him of course.
I am confused as to why my character would care
>>94971112We find the lawman's dad and kick him in the nuts 'cause Arlo is the fucking worst.
>>94981502>but the dread level has to be managedAin't got time for that shit. Its a small town, trying to be middle management and HR for criminals is a waste of time unless you're trying to turn them into infrastructure and cheap labour.
>>94983788>Being known for being too trigger happy won't make the bandits fear him less, that's for sure.lmao
>>94971112What skin color are the sheriff and the bandits?
>>94986770Race goes a lot deeper than mere skin color.
>>94971112We stay out of Kentucky and if we must go do not attempt to rob the local bank using a bomb vest with roadflares to look like Dynamite
>>94971112Silenzio's alive? And a Cop?
>>94971112This question is asinine in basically any setting where a party of PCs would be called "adventurers". You're in an equivalent time period where execution or mangling is the punishment for most violent crimes and almost nobody would care for the morality of provoking already-established criminals to violence unless it's a part of a setting with a strict legal code and the party is also part of law enforcement, in which case they're not adventuring anyway.Unless you have a bleeding heart PC who really feels bad about violence and killing in general, there's no reason to get involved unless the lawman's actions provoke an escalation into open gang warfare that catches innocents in the crossfire or there's reason to suspect he's doing this on behalf of a different criminal organization.
>>94972060assuming aggression is hereditary (based on the fact that among animals that we tamed it was),if you kill all aggressive people, and only timid people remain to breed, you will breed out aggressiveness from humans. thus he is doing good.>inb4 so you're saying we should genocide innocent people!?!1!?I'm saying we shouldn't let criminals breed.
>>94971112We get him drunk and/or alone, kill him, and then leave his body in a ditch somewhere before skipping town.
>>94993095>using eugenics to breed humans into docile NPC cattle is a good thingAggression is not criminality. You are an evil person.
>>94993411what is aggression good for?