Five person team working for the Outward-Looking Faction of the Dwarfs of Glon' had found an important site that might be used to reconcile at least the less fanatical members of the factions. On the way home, they were ambushed by a group of fanatical members of the Inward-Looking Faction, all Dwarfs of course. The fight was short but fierce and fairly soon all of the fanatics were down ands some of the team members were being healed.
Hobson Buttons, a Hobbit, found that one of the enemy still breathed, far from where his teammates were at the time, and he finished the guy off. The other player-characters and the allied NPC all found out about it but they aren't all that upset. The other enemies were all dead.
Buttons is all bent out of shape. He is a very "Dwarf-ized" Hobbit and has tried very hard to overcome his early life in a criminal gang in the slums of Iron Town. While we don't use alignments, it is clear that he is trying to be very lawful. His player and I have talked about the situation. He feels that he has three options when they are back in Iron Town:
1: He can turn himself in. This will incriminate the others, since they knew about it. He probably won't get the death penalty but he might. The Inward-Looking Faction has great influence. This will rebound against his companions and the Faction to which he has devoted years.
2: He can convince the others to turn him in. This will get them off the hook but it will have the other bad results.
3: He can wait until their find leads to the hoped-for reconciliation and then reveal his misdeed.
He knows I won't tell him what to do but he wanted to talk about it. I wonder what more I should say.
---
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/218159/Glory-Road-Roleplay-Core-Rules
Through 99.9% of human history, finishing off a downed enemy that just attacked you wasn't murder. Offering quarter then killing those who surrender might be murder. When I was in the Territorial Army about half the basic training seemed to be about finishing off possibly dead enemies who might still threaten.
Why does he think it's murder? You told him so? Why do the other guys regard it as murder? It seems quite an unusual norm to me.
Can't even begin to answer. What are the laws where this happened? Usually murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one elf/hobbit/dwarf by another elf/hobbit/dwarf. Was this unlawful and premeditated?
He put a fatally wounded enemy out of his misery. This isn't murder, it's a courtesy.
Quote from: S'mon;981354Why does he think it's murder? You told him so? Why do the other guys regard it as murder? It seems quite an unusual norm to me.
I agree. There are a lot of good reasons you might need to finish off a downed foe. It might not be feasible to safely bring him to justice, for instance. He might have information that you can't afford to let him pass on.
And even if you didn't need to, I think he's taking it a bit too far. If you would find his solutions disruptive and the player insists on roleplaying his PC's angst, you might suggest he do something to atone, like pay a weregeld (http://www.yourdictionary.com/wergeld). Maybe he needs to talk to a priest or divine being and seek penance, and they will give him a quest.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981353I wonder what more I should say.
Tell him or her to put on big boy pants and make a fucking decision, ie, roleplay the gawdamn character.
What kind of mewling asshole needs help with this shit?
Addendum: And why the fuck is this being handled out-of-character? Why isn't the character talking with the other adventurers? With a priest? With a lawyer?
In-fucking-character?
I kerb stomp enemies all the time... But then I tend not to play lawful characters.
I don't see anything too wrong with a lawful character finishing off a legitimate enemy. Lawful characters can be bastards just look at any Witchfinder of paladin zealot.
But if Buttons has 'character guilt' (for some bizarre reason) then he just hands himself in and rolls up a new character. That said, who he actually hands himself into is another can of worms (does anyone actually care?). Or just plays it as character guilt and let him atone through good deeds.
I'll mirror what others have said here.
Why is the character and/or player upset?
Finishing off an enemy you were trying to kill anyhow is somehow bad?
What were the alternatives?
Healing the villain - so they can try and kill the PCs or other people later?
Leaving them to die - so you just stood there and watched, or walked away doing nothing? To some that is WORSE!
Putting the enemy out of their misery was probably the best move possible in that situation.(unless the minion/villain was known to be just misguided. Then there might be regrets, or not. Stupid is its own reward and that reward is sometimes death.)
As a DM Id point out the above.
Also why would any local law get in an uproar over finishing off an enemy when you've just killed how many who just attacked you? That doesnt make any sense.
Quote from: S'mon;981354Through 99.9% of human history, finishing off a downed enemy that just attacked you wasn't murder. Offering quarter then killing those who surrender might be murder. When I was in the Territorial Army about half the basic training seemed to be about finishing off possibly dead enemies who might still threaten.
Why does he think it's murder? You told him so? Why do the other guys regard it as murder? It seems quite an unusual norm to me.
It
is an unusual norm. It has to do with his being so heavily influenced by Dwarf society. The enemy was in their power and the normal thing to do, in that place at that time, would be to turn him in. The humans and Elf on the team think he's being silly to sweat it. The two Dwarfs are less blasé but neither one wants to turn him in or have him turn himself in.
-----------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain
Quote from: Black Vulmea;981364Tell him or her to put on big boy pants and make a fucking decision, ie, roleplay the gawdamn character.
What kind of mewling asshole needs help with this shit?
Addendum: And why the fuck is this being handled out-of-character? Why isn't the character talking with the other adventurers? With a priest? With a lawyer? In-fucking-character?
He was and is talking to the other characters. The Human and the Elf think he did the right thing. The Dwarfs are still talking to him about it. One of them is temporarily an NPC because her player can't play on Thursday nights. The characters talk "around the campfire" between gaming sessions. I handed my part of the conversation off to Willa's player this evening because she has time to talk to him. I will be interested to see the result.
Murder is too strong a term, even under Glon' law. The Dwarfs are very legalistic and the lesser charge would be very serious.
-------------------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain
"Misericorde" is the dagger a knight carried on his right hip, used among other things to finish off wounded opponents who are too badly hurt to recover.
"Misericorde" means "mercy."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981395"Misericorde" is the dagger a knight carried on his right hip, used among other things to finish off wounded opponents who are too badly hurt to recover.
Did I miss where the OP said that the opponent was too badly hurt to recover? Or were you thinking this was that other thing that Misericorde were used for?
Seems to me he should do what most guilt ridden men and drink himself stupid.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981394He was and is talking to the other characters. . . .
Perhaps there's a tiny glimmer of hope after all.
Here's why this is important to me: for me,
* roleplaying is an exercise in thinking as my character. That can be in moments as superficial as deciding on which trail to take at a fork, or as involved as reacting to the character's evolving morality.
Eladio is my longest-played character in our
Boot Hill campaign, and the only one of the original three characters still alive, and he's progressed from a somewhat reserved cowhand to a steely-eyed gunfighter and gambler to a fledgling cattle baron, and I've done my best to roleplay changes in my conception of who Eladio is, of who Eladio sees himself to be, and where his moral and ethical limits lie. That process happens in-game, in actual play, through interactions with other characters, player and non-, such as a local priest who's become his 'spiritual advisor' - Padre Tomás' advice has been invaluable in shaping how I perceive Eladio's actions and the choices he's made, and it's been one of the more consistently entertaining
† on-going roleplaying interactions in the campaign.
Just bullshitting about it out-of-game wouldn't be the same to me
* - like playing tennis with the net down.
* Hey haters, "for me" and "to me" means exactly that, for me and not necessarily for thee, so if you're going to take this as an opportunity to chew on my ass about 'badwrongfun' or some other nonsense, well, fuck straight off.† Ask me about the 'Pope-O-Matic!'
Quote from: Black Vulmea;981422Perhaps there's a tiny glimmer of hope after all.
Here's why this is important to me: for me,* roleplaying is an exercise in thinking as my character. That can be in moments as superficial as deciding on which trail to take at a fork, or as involved as reacting to the character's evolving morality.
Eladio is my longest-played character in our Boot Hill campaign, and the only one of the original three characters still alive, and he's progressed from a somewhat reserved cowhand to a steely-eyed gunfighter and gambler to a fledgling cattle baron, and I've done my best to roleplay changes in my conception of who Eladio is, of who Eladio sees himself to be, and where his moral and ethical limits lie. That process happens in-game, in actual play, through interactions with other characters, player and non-, such as a local priest who's become his 'spiritual advisor' - Padre Tomás' advice has been invaluable in shaping how I perceive Eladio's actions and the choices he's made, and it's been one of the more consistently entertaining† on-going roleplaying interactions in the campaign.
Just bullshitting about it out-of-game wouldn't be the same to me* - like playing tennis with the net down.
* Hey haters, "for me" and "to me" means exactly that, for me and not necessarily for thee, so if you're going to take this as an opportunity to chew on my ass about 'badwrongfun' or some other nonsense, well, fuck straight off.
† Ask me about the 'Pope-O-Matic!'
Actually, I agree with you. I don't know if they are through talking about it now and I don't mind being out of the loop. Willa's usual player is talking to him in character, or was, and I will see whatever decisions he and the rest of them reach on Thursday. She wasn't available immediately after the end of play, so he messaged me to ask what Willa would say.
-------------
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son and remember the great DiMaggio" Ernest Hemingway "The Old Man and the Sea"
Quote from: Bren;981404Did I miss where the OP said that the opponent was too badly hurt to recover? Or were you thinking this was that other thing that Misericorde were used for?
"he finished the guy off." Not going to waste healing on you, not going to let you bleed to death, not going to let you lie here wounded until the scavengers start plucking at your eyes, not going to drag you back to town.
Do you leave a wounded enemy in an unsafe area to die by misadventure, or do you finish him cleanly?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981508"he finished the guy off." Not going to waste healing on you, not going to let you bleed to death, not going to let you lie here wounded until the scavengers start plucking at your eyes, not going to drag you back to town.
Do you leave a wounded enemy in an unsafe area to die by misadventure, or do you finish him cleanly?
To be fair -
In medieval history, if someone was so wounded as to be unconscious, it was extremely likely that they were going to die shortly of blood loss and/or infection if left in the wilderness. Heck, they were likely to die of infection anyway regardless of how well cared for they were, given medieval medicine. In a typical military campaign, more soldiers died of disease than anything else. However, in a fantasy world, this isn't a given. Many fantasy worlds are less gritty, and feature less infection and disease as well as having healing options. So the excuse that they would die anyway might have less force.
Still, if it's anything like medieval, killing an opponent who attacked you isn't generally considered murder. For example, in the Icelandic sagas, murder was specifically a secretive killing. As long as you were open and honest about having killed someone, it wasn't murder - even if you went and attacked them for no just cause. As long as you announced the killing to the first person you saw afterwards, it wasn't murder.
Right, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. In the middle ages they wouldn't blink at finishing off a wounded guy who had ambushed you.
I'm assuming, since it was an ambush, that it was a relatively remote area, so it would take some expenditure of resources for the wounded guy to not die. I am also assuming that the wounded guy was wounded enough to be "down," basically helpless.
"Heal an enemy who tried to kill me? Are you NUTS? But because I'm not a total bastard, I'll give it to you quick and clean."
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981353He knows I won't tell him what to do but he wanted to talk about it. I wonder what more I should say.
"Well, what do -you- think Buttons would do?"
And then, as a good impartial GM, you advance the world around them. Who found the body (or rather, bodies), and what would they do in response? While Buttons is emotionally struggling (and kudos to a player trying to actually explore the idea of "I just killed a guy!!!!" as something other than an indifferent murderhobo), it sounds to me there could very well be a posse after the party at this point?
What you say is what the NPCs do. ;)
A player trying to be lawful feeling more guilt for his lawfully-okay but perhaps morally questionable (by some standard) act than the surrounding world sounds like a reasonable outcome and a decent role playing outcome. Have the NPCs react as they would ("I don't see what the problem is," "you killed someone trying to kill you," "Would you stop calling that murder? I just did the exact same thing during that fight and you're implying that I'm a murderer too!," "I understand how your past means you hold yourself to a higher standard than the law does, but really, that guy was going to be dead by now regardless," etc.). See what that makes the player decide to do with Buttons.
Quote from: san dee jota;981521"Well, what do -you- think Buttons would do?"
Christ, yes, because that's the only metric that matters.
Seriously, this thread is full of bullshit that has nothing to do with the fundamental question asked in the original post: the character's belief system says this is wrong - what should he do now? The rest of this nonsense about when killing is justified or merciful or in the wilderness or in the Middle Ages has exactly fuck-all to do with that. The questions the player must answer,
as the character, are these: what do
my moral and ethical precepts say about this, and how tightly am I going to hold myself to them?
And play this shit out - don't worry about it over a frappacino at Starbucks.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981508Do you leave a wounded enemy in an unsafe area to die by misadventure, or do you finish him cleanly?
You are still making assumptions about the opponents' state of health vis a vis was this mercy or simply ruthless expediency. And the two choices you listed are not the only two choices. For the sake of argument, one might want to staunch the bleeding or patch him up enough so as to question him to find out if the attack was just some accidental run in with some fanatical inner-outer whatever they ares or if this was an ambush specifically directed against the group. And if the latter, who was doing the hiring and/or directing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;981524The rest of this nonsense about when killing is justified or merciful or in the wilderness or in the Middle Ages has exactly fuck-all to do with that.
It's a thread. There's drift. You should get out and actually play some RPGs or something.
Quote from: Bren;981526You should get out and actually play some RPGs or something.
And you should kiss my entire fucking ass.
Two factors that added to Buttons' problem:
1: The effectiveness of magical and clerical healing in this high casualty/low fatality campaign. If there are people around with healing powers, wound trauma isn't going to kill anyone who is still breathing and the guy was still breathing, and there were two healers in the group. So this wasn't exactly a mercy-killing.
2: The extremely lawful nature of Glon' Dwarf society and the fact that HB's background and experience makes him really want to be a good citizen.
-------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/
Patch him up and send him home for a show trial and public execution.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981533Two factors that added to Buttons' problem:
1: The effectiveness of magical and clerical healing in this high casualty/low fatality campaign. If there are people around with healing powers, wound trauma isn't going to kill anyone who is still breathing and the guy was still breathing, and there were two healers in the group. So this wasn't exactly a mercy-killing.
So in this society, healers are supposed to heal people even if those same people tried to
kill them 30 seconds before?
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981533Two factors that added to Buttons' problem:
1: The effectiveness of magical and clerical healing in this high casualty/low fatality campaign. If there are people around with healing powers, wound trauma isn't going to kill anyone who is still breathing and the guy was still breathing, and there were two healers in the group. So this wasn't exactly a mercy-killing.
2: The extremely lawful nature of Glon' Dwarf society and the fact that HB's background and experience makes him really want to be a good citizen.
So from what I'm understanding, it isn't just the character's personal convictions that are at issue. He wants to be a good citizen, and apparently this killing was a crime according to dwarf society.
What is the law in this case? i.e. If he was being a good citizen, what does the law expect citizens to do with downed attackers? Are they expected to heal them, take them prisoner, and bring them in to the police for trial? Or are they expected to let them go?
Quote from: jhkim;981541So from what I'm understanding, it isn't just the character's personal convictions that are at issue. He wants to be a good citizen, and apparently this killing was a crime according to dwarf society.
What is the law in this case? i.e. If he was being a good citizen, what does the law expect citizens to do with downed attackers? Are they expected to heal them, take them prisoner, and bring them in to the police for trial? Or are they expected to let them go?
Yeah, some more discussion of this sort of thing would have been helpful. Knowing what the laws of the land actually were makes a difference.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;981531And you should kiss my entire fucking ass.
What you do with your ass is your business, but I'm not getting involved with kissing or fucking it. Thanks for the thought though.
Quote from: Bren;981547What you do with your ass is your business . . .
And business is good, thanks for asking.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981508Do you leave a wounded enemy in an unsafe area to die by misadventure, or do you finish him cleanly?
Depends on how much I hate him.
Quote from: Dumarest;981358Can't even begin to answer. What are the laws where this happened? Usually murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one elf/hobbit/dwarf by another elf/hobbit/dwarf. Was this unlawful and premeditated?
Back to what I said on page one.
Quote from: jhkim;981541So from what I'm understanding, it isn't just the character's personal convictions that are at issue. He wants to be a good citizen, and apparently this killing was a crime according to dwarf society.
What is the law in this case? i.e. If he was being a good citizen, what does the law expect citizens to do with downed attackers? Are they expected to heal them, take them prisoner, and bring them in to the police for trial? Or are they expected to let them go?
The law says to bring him in for trial. Letting him go would also be an offence; he's a criminal. Killing him as he did, if all were revealed and believed before the court, would not be premeditated murder, probably what we would call manslaughter. The whole thing occurred in the Westwood. The Kingdom claims the Westwood but almost no one in the area are citizens, most of them are Elves, so things like this would not come to the attention of the authorities. However, Buttons is a citizen and the two Dwarfs in the party are citizens and Buttons was going to have them turn him in. I believe that they talked him out of it. The rivalry between the two Factions and the influence of the attackers' faction on the courts is another factor.
---------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;981609The rivalry between the two Factions and the influence of the attackers' faction on the courts is another factor.
Uh? So the halfling is upset because he finished off assassins from a faction that has a strong hold over the law system? Also. Why is it ok to kill the other attackers but not the one that was hanging on to life? Was he really hanging on or just bleeding out?
The PCs might want to look into wether or not this was a set-up. The possibility this whole morbid situation was arranged and planned to discredit or disgrace the side the PCs are on.
Quote from: Omega;981613The PCs might want to look into wether or not this was a set-up. The possibility this whole morbid situation was arranged and planned to discredit or disgrace the side the PCs are on.
Well they could question the attackers...if only someone hadn't killed the last one. :D
Quote from: David Johansen;981536Patch him up and send him home for a show trial and public execution.
"Now back to Rome for a quick wedding and some slow executions!" -- Miles Gloriosus, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum"
Quote from: Pyromancer;981537So in this society, healers are supposed to heal people even if those same people tried to kill them 30 seconds before?
Yeah, this is the point where logic is starting to fail me.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;981846Yeah, this is the point where logic is starting to fail me.
Could be. There are people who believe that our world, so there might be a group of people with a moral code like that in a fantasy world. Though it doesn't sound like that is exactly the case from what the OP has said.
Quote from: Bren;981840Well they could question the attackers...if only someone hadn't killed the last one. :D
Party. "Ok suspiciously surviving assassin. Is this a set up by your faction?"
Suspicious assassin "nope!"
Party. "Drat!"
US combat medics always heal enemy wounded. Pacific Island campaign in WWII was an exception where this was not almost universal. An old man in my neighborhood when I was a kid was a medic and was almost attacked by some marines when he was healing a prisoner. He went through with healing him. No one in Vietnam ever objected to healing the NVA. Most of the world's militaries do the same. Almost no police force in the world would allow a criminal to bleed out when treatment was available.
So I don't know why anyone finds this far-fetched.
----
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;982002US combat medics always heal enemy wounded. Pacific Island campaign in WWII was an exception where this was not almost universal. An old man in my neighborhood when I was a kid was a medic and was almost attacked by some marines when he was healing a prisoner. He went through with healing him. No one in Vietnam ever objected to healing the NVA. Most of the world's militaries do the same. Almost no police force in the world would allow a criminal to bleed out when treatment was available.
So I don't know why anyone finds this far-fetched.
They're talking about a pseudomedieval fantasy world full of dwarfs.
Quote from: Dumarest;982038They're talking about a pseudomedieval fantasy world full of dwarfs.
And I in particular hate the kind of pseudomedieval fantasy world that is "a Renaissance Faire with magic"; that is, people look, act, talk, and think like 21st century American science fiction fans and fantasy geeks, but the world has monsters and magic an' shit.
WillInNewHaven - Your examples are of medics are in the modern world, which are based on international cooperation like the Geneva Conventions (in the case of war) or an established professional police force.
Historically, these sorts of agreements in war were generally applied among opponents that both respected them. For example, the Germans in WWII generally followed the established rules of war among European countries for the treatment of wounded and prisoners. However, the Japanese in WWII did not respect these conventions, and in response the U.S. gave less respect to Japanese wounded and prisoners than they did to Germans. I could see that there might be such a code among dwarves. If the PCs were overcome by their attackers, might they have been healed, captured, and ransomed? If they weren't, and they expected to be murdered if they fell - then responding in kind would be more the norm.
Likewise, respect for the rights of criminal murderers is a product of having a safe society with constitutional rights and a professional police force. In the absence of these social structures, it's far less likely for there to be a code of treating attacker's wounds. (Also, in practice, cop killers tend to be dealt with particularly harshly.) Medieval societies usually worked around citizen enforcement of laws rather than professional police, and the enforcing citizens were not held to the standards of modern police.
Quote from: jhkim;982055Medieval societies usually worked around citizen enforcement of laws rather than professional police, and the enforcing citizens were not held to the standards of modern police.
Ding! Winner!
Quote from: jhkim;982055WillInNewHaven - Your examples are of medics are in the modern world, which are based on international cooperation like the Geneva Conventions (in the case of war) or an established professional police force.
Historically, these sorts of agreements in war were generally applied among opponents that both respected them. For example, the Germans in WWII generally followed the established rules of war among European countries for the treatment of wounded and prisoners. However, the Japanese in WWII did not respect these conventions, and in response the U.S. gave less respect to Japanese wounded and prisoners than they did to Germans. I could see that there might be such a code among dwarves. If the PCs were overcome by their attackers, might they have been healed, captured, and ransomed? If they weren't, and they expected to be murdered if they fell - then responding in kind would be more the norm.
Likewise, respect for the rights of criminal murderers is a product of having a safe society with constitutional rights and a professional police force. In the absence of these social structures, it's far less likely for there to be a code of treating attacker's wounds. (Also, in practice, cop killers tend to be dealt with particularly harshly.) Medieval societies usually worked around citizen enforcement of laws rather than professional police, and the enforcing citizens were not held to the standards of modern police.
To be fair, the surrounding human societies find Glon' rather odd in this respect. So I guess they are more in line with the thinking on here. However, Glon' is "pseudomedieval fantasy world (nation, really) full of Dwarfs," so I don't see how "back then" arguments apply to it. In some respects, the Dwarfs of Glon' are ahead of their time but basically, the whole world is off the real-world timeline. Has been since 1981.
--
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/
Quote from: jhkim;982055For example, the Germans in WWII generally followed the established rules of war among European countries for the treatment of wounded and prisoners. However, the Japanese in WWII did not respect these conventions, and in response the U.S. gave less respect to Japanese wounded and prisoners than they did to Germans.
Uh, not on the Eastern Front, the Germans were murderous and even genocidal in their war against 'the Slavs' and the Russians returned the favour. The extreme racism in the Pacific contributed to a similar lack of restraint, see
With the Old Breed and Gore Vidal's memoirs of the war in the Pacific.
As to the OP there was a sense of honour and chivalry and Quarter in at least romantic versions of the Middle Ages was there not? I'm not talking historically accurate, after all we have elves and dragons too.
Not murder during war. The player character is no longer fit for duty, as they say. Often times, they are never the same afterwards. Being haunted forever. Thus, the "War is Hell" thing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;981364Tell him or her to put on big boy pants and make a fucking decision, ie, roleplay the gawdamn character.
I think he is roleplaying the character.
Buttons is having an internal struggle with his conscience, should he turn himself in, tell his friends or wait until found out?
He is roleplaying that well, trouble is he can't include anyone else without telling people, unless he talks about it out of the game.
Quote from: soltakss;982208I think he is roleplaying the character.
Buttons is having an internal struggle with his conscience, should he turn himself in, tell his friends or wait until found out?
He is roleplaying that well, trouble is he can't include anyone else without telling people, unless he talks about it out of the game.
Thats the impression I got too.
Its the OPs whole defense of the situation and setting that feels off kilter somehow. Its like he doesnt want advice. He wants some yes-men to say "Yes all is well." But all isnt well because the way he describes the setting makes the situation sound contrived when it very likely isnt.
To the OP: Its your setting and players. And it is up to you to figure out what to do now based on what you know as the DM of the overall situation once the player makes their choice.
Tell the player to make a choice based on the PC's gut feelings at the moment and live with it. Good or bad.
Quote from: Omega;982214Thats the impression I got too.
Its the OPs whole defense of the situation and setting that feels off kilter somehow. Its like he doesnt want advice. He wants some yes-men to say "Yes all is well." But all isnt well because the way he describes the setting makes the situation sound contrived when it very likely isnt.
To the OP: Its your setting and players. And it is up to you to figure out what to do now based on what you know as the DM of the overall situation once the player makes their choice.
Tell the player to make a choice based on the PC's gut feelings at the moment and live with it. Good or bad.
I didn't figure out what to do; I stopped trying to do anything. The players talked it out in-character, "around the campfire" when the game was not officially in session and I did not participate. The reason I was involved in the first place was because of an absent player and once she could talk for her character I withdrew. I don't know what was said but Hobson is not going on the road with the group on their next trip. He was always a city Hobbit anyway and might have made this decision absent all the angst. He's was still with them Thursday night as they settled up with their employer and made their plans, and fought an avatar of the Dwarf War God, but we won't see him soon again outside of Iron Town. The player has another character ready to go.
-------------
Sunspear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance