When is it okay to have a kind, well-meaning, and non-murderhoboish

>>54184494

whenever it defies the logic of the setting to offer it

For a classic example, the party tracks down a Succubus only for it to claim it has fallen in love and will do no more harm. Naturally suspicious, the party confirms using magic that the Succubus isn't lying.

Sparing the Succubus seems like a well-intended, merciful act.

But in reality, it has a wide variety of consequences that you would be perfectly justified to visit upon them, including but not limited to:
>Someone finding out the party spared a demon and assuming they were tainted or heretical.
>The demon changing its mind or succumbing to its baser instincts and harming others, which would have been prevented if the party had killed her.
>Someone harming the demon's lover, sending the demon straight back on the warpath.
>The party just being outright wrong, the demon having straight up fucking tricked the party's truth detection using magic of its own, and continuing to commit horrible acts of evil.

But honestly, anything can have consequences that no one intends at the time and there's nothing wrong with playing that out from time to time. But don't overdo it, don't poison every, or even most, acts of mercy or you'll warp the players mindset.

>>54184494
when it was foreshadowed or if you just feel like being a dick

>>54184494
Whenever they just half-ass it.

When it adds to the story. There's a big difference between adding a betrayal of trust for plot reasons and allowing room for character development vs. stabbing the party in the back for shits and giggles. Everything should have plot relevance beyond the moment, and that merciful act that bit them in the ass should be something that they remember until the climax of the story arc.