Vagabonds

[milstrom]

What do you usually do when you encounter a vagabond? to me it makes the most sense to kill them for loot, but it makes me feel bad. Is there any other gameplay use to them? Again, what do you do when encountering a vagabond?

[PALU]

A vagabond is just a human who doesn't belong to any tribe. There are vagabond villages outside of tribal territory, for instance, and vagabonds can have any of the professions that tribe members can have.
Vagabonds can be recruited as companions just the same as tribal ones, and vagabond adventurers are just the same as tribal ones.
Vagabond robbers are just as much a pest as tribal robbers.

Thus, murdering vagabonds just because they don't belong to any tribe is akin to murdering members of other tribes because they don't belong to your own (or murdering members of a particular tribe because of some reason).

The only possible difference is that I see more vagabond woodsmen, hunters, and adventurers traveling around that I do tribal ones, but on the other hand, my characters settle outside of tribal territory.

Thus, I greet vagabonds (some of them can also provide a quest, although that quest isn't exclusive to vagabonds) and theoretically trade with them (in theory, as I don't have any need to trade). Of course any "adventurer" seen on the map can turn out to be robbers of any tribe, including the vagabond "tribe", so you need to take care with those.

[kaizokuroof]

Yeah, I usually brutally murder them, usually try to mutilate their arms/legs first so they can't run away and then watch them bleed out...

[Dungeon Smash]

Yeah, I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.  I do feel slightly guilty, but then again, if you were starving to death in the woods... perhaps you'd do the same

[PALU]

Yeah, I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.  I do feel slightly guilty, but then again, if you were starving to death in the woods... perhaps you'd do the same

You must be a poor player indeed, if you're character is constantly starving so you have to murder everyone you encounter to get something to eat...

[Privateer]

Yeah, I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.  I do feel slightly guilty, but then again, if you were starving to death in the woods... perhaps you'd do the same

You must be a poor player indeed, if you're character is constantly starving so you have to murder everyone you encounter to get something to eat...

That reply seems a bit harsh, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

[PALU]

Yeah, I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.  I do feel slightly guilty, but then again, if you were starving to death in the woods... perhaps you'd do the same

You must be a poor player indeed, if you're character is constantly starving so you have to murder everyone you encounter to get something to eat...

That reply seems a bit harsh, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Well, it is harsh, but I think it's rather hypocritical to justify murdering everyone with desperate starvation. If you want to play as a mass murderer, go ahead, but don't justify it with a need for survival. See: "I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.". If it was truly a matter of survival the victim should be murdered regardless of whether a quest could be had or not, as those quests typically result in inedible rewards of information.

I can understand that some players would murder the first person they find to get started, but the spoils of that murder should be sufficient to buy the player time to become self sufficient. If you're using a "just in time" play style when it comes to food you might run into trouble again very occasionally, in particular if you use a house rule of not buying food, and so may decide that prolonged starvation would serve as a justification for an additional murder.

Thus, my response was based on the hypocritical justification rather than the choice of play style.

[Wulfgaran]

I never kill them. They are non-threatening to me.

Its not like they are walking around with bags of gold coins. Im not going to kill a man just to steal his woodaxe.


if they look friendly ill greet them and have a chat about the places we have been and things we have seen.

If they look a bit intimidating and I don't yet have decent weapons to defend myself with ill just back off quietly into the bush. 

[Dungeon Smash]

Yeah, I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.  I do feel slightly guilty, but then again, if you were starving to death in the woods... perhaps you'd do the same

You must be a poor player indeed, if you're character is constantly starving so you have to murder everyone you encounter to get something to eat...

That reply seems a bit harsh, maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Well, it is harsh, but I think it's rather hypocritical to justify murdering everyone with desperate starvation. If you want to play as a mass murderer, go ahead, but don't justify it with a need for survival. See: "I usually murder them too.  Usually I just ask if they have a quest, and if not, it's murder time.". If it was truly a matter of survival the victim should be murdered regardless of whether a quest could be had or not, as those quests typically result in inedible rewards of information.

I can understand that some players would murder the first person they find to get started, but the spoils of that murder should be sufficient to buy the player time to become self sufficient. If you're using a "just in time" play style when it comes to food you might run into trouble again very occasionally, in particular if you use a house rule of not buying food, and so may decide that prolonged starvation would serve as a justification for an additional murder.

Thus, my response was based on the hypocritical justification rather than the choice of play style.

I was just joking in the first place.  I think sometimes my style of humor doesn't translate well to message boards

[PALU]

@Dungeon Smash: Without the tone of voice to modulate the message it can be hard to convey the fact it was meant as a joke. I certainly didn't catch it...

[nekot]

I didn't get it too but I understand where the Dungeon Smash sarcasm come from .
N.B. I usually give a wink emoticon after a joke to make it easier to recognize.

Edit:
DO NOT KILL VAGABONDS!!! (Just find a Njerpez).
Edit2:
No joke here! 

[DfDevadander]

I have never killed a vagabond unless they were of the robber variety; in which case their tribal affiliation, or lack thereof, bears no weight to me and it's the attempted robbery that spurs my retaliation. They can actually be quite useful if you plan on settling outside of tribal lands: I had a hired vagabond stay with me long enough to build two small cabins and only asked for very minimal payment in food for the ridiculous amount of trees he cut down.