D&D 5E Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves

[Satyrn]

I'm reading the books right now for the second time. The first time was about 20 years ago, and while I got through them then I remember feeling it a mighty slog full of achingly tedious diversions of the Tom Bombadil sort. So this time - Gandolf and company are entering Isengard - I am just finding it to be bland, average writing. The content might be good, but the style is a slog.

I would rather read the ridiculously poetic prose of Joseph Conrad, or the to-the-point description and wonderfully terse characterization of Agatha Christie. It is no wonder to me that Asimov's Foundation series beat out Tolkien for Best All-time Series at the 1966 Hugo Awards.

 

[MNblockhead]

Well, I already bought the books, so I will read them. I may tell you my experience after that.
Now, on the topic: I used to have a ban on evil-PCs, but right now I'm thinking about removing it. Not sure how that will go, but some players truly wanted to play one; what could possibly go wrong, after all?

You'll be fine. Alignment means less in 5e than in prior editions.

Focus more on table ettiquette and what kind of game you all want to play.

If players take alignment seriously and try to play to their alignment, then you may want to limit to Lawful or Neutral Evil.

If anyone plays a CE character true to character, it will just make for an awful game in my experience. Actually, ANY chaotic character. CG can be just as annoying. I'm more inclined to say no CHAOTIC characters than no EVIL characters.

In my current campaign, I allowed a player that joined the campaign many months after it started to play a Yuanti Pureblood. It was originally an NPC that the party helped escape from a prison as she promised that they would be rewarded if they returned her to her people. We turned that NPC into a PC and fleshed out a background that would make sense for the campaign. It has worked out well.

I don't want to get to philosophical, but one can be evil and still be loyal. You are not going to trust a psychopath to look out for your best interests, but you can do business with him. In fact, you likely have worked with or for people with psychopathic character traits. Psychopaths (as opposed to sociopaths) can (and do) function very well in lawful societies.

Devils in fantasy exemplify this. IRL history, the Natzis are the go-to example of LE.

Talk to the player(s) about what makes their character LE? Are they psychopaths who have little to no empathy and see others as means to an end or obstacles to be destroyed? Or instead of psychopaths, perhaps they have incredible love for their own people, nation, organization, or ideal?

Some LE character types that can work even in mostly Good parties:

1. The Psycopath--using party for his goals. He is in this for his own ends. Other party members very well may not realize that he is "evil" or a psychopath. He could be the most liked member or leader of the party. Likely very charismatic.

2. The psychopath--narcissist. Like #1, but may believe that he is working for a greater goal than himself, but finds himself the most important person for realizing that goal. Is incredibly gracious when you are on his good side, but cannot take criticism. "You are either with me or against me and if you don't agree with me, you must be against me."

3. The racist/fascist/ethnocentric/___-ist. This is someone who may seem like a great, generous, kind, and loving person...to her own group. But she harbor great hate for a specific group--or--feels that her group is supior over all others. What makes this person evil is that she sees the hated group, or those outside her favored group, as subhuman. Will defend slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. You have to be careful allowing these kinds of characters and make sure that other players in the group are okay with this. This doesn't mean that the character can get away with acting on her beliefs, or that she has to constantly act out hate speech, but even when acting this kind of character in a fantasy world (I hate all beast people, etc.), it can hit too close to home for some players.

4. The greedy or silf-indulgent/addicted--the murder hobo. Greed and addition are forms of self indulgence that when taken to extreme can make you evil. Actually I would say that many PC that don't have Evil written down on their character sheets act evil in the sense of being murder hobos. These characters can work well and be fun to play, because while they don't have any qualms wiping out a lair of kobolds for gold, they can just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" if the other party members say to spare the children or those who surrender. These characters can be very loyal to their friends, but their circle of ethics is very small.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If anyone plays a CE character true to character, it will just make for an awful game in my experience. Actually, ANY chaotic character. CG can be just as annoying. I'm more inclined to say no CHAOTIC characters than no EVIL characters.

[Forgive me, MNblockhead, because the rest of your post indicates that many of the things I've written below are things you'd probably agree with, but I take exception to the statement in bold here and I hope you won't mind me commenting on it. Not everything below is addressed directly to you. -Hemlock]

That might be true of a shallow portrayal of Chaotic, or Chaotic Evil, but you can make a convincingly Chaotic character by just ignoring abstract principles and precedent in favor of concrete facts.

For example, Iron Man in Captain America: Civil War is espousing a Chaotic perspective, because he figures he can just sign any documents he needs to to keep the team together, because he can (and does) simply ignore them when they become inconvenient.

On the other hand, Steve Rogers' moral dilemma is created out of the fact that he is worrying about situations that haven't happened yet, like "What if they won't let us go somewhere we need to go?" It never even crosses Steve's mind that you could theoretically just break the agreement that you signed; this is a Lawful perspective. (That fact that it drives him underground as a fugitive against the law of the land is an ironic consequence.)

Evil is selfishness, which includes enjoying harming people. If your best friend always remembers your birthday and takes your kids out for you when you're busy, and if anyone shoves your son or takes the swing away from your daughter your best friend will stand up to that person and get the swing back for her, that's great! If he punches their teeth out, that's questionable, especially if "anyone" is also a little kid. If he instead makes a note of their parents' license plate number and then tracks them down at their house and quietly poisons them in their sleep for revenge, that's straight-up evil, dude. That's wrong. Doesn't mean your friend isn't your friend, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to do you a favor, but as far as alignment is concerned, that's Evil.

Put all these things together and you can have a team-oriented Chaotic Evil viking or knight or bard who is perfectly nice to the other PCs, possibly horrid to the hired help, and unutterably vile and malicious to anyone he takes a disliking to. That maliciousness could be physical ("I run him through with my rapier") or it could be social ("That merchant cheated you! I'm going to seduce his wife and take pictures, then give the pictures to his children") and it could even be patient and rational ("Don't worry, I understand we need to finish the mission first--I'll just put the seduction on my to-do list for after we save the world"). It could even be generous and understanding to friends. "I could really use a wingman to help me with this seduction, and BTW remember it's actually an insult against you that I'm avenging here, but I understand that you don't like getting involved in this kind of thing so if you want to just stay home I'll work something out somehow." But it would still be concrete and oriented on short-term concrete results instead of abstract principles and precedents, and it would still be fundamentally selfish: hence Chaotic Evil.

But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting to have in the party or in the game.

Also, I think Chaotic Good Iron Man could be just fine too. After all, his Chaotic tendencies created Ultron, which was bad for the world but good for the movie business. D&D adventures are similar--having PCs do things which get them in trouble sometimes just leads to interesting stories about how the PCs then got themselves out of trouble.

 

[MostlyDm]

Beautifully put, Hemlock.

Currently playing a Dwarven Cleric/Abjurer that is probably... Neutral Evil, at a guess? I don't cleave too rigidly to alignments.

He likes the party quite a bit and defers to them most of the time, shares his loot, etc. But if someone is causing problems for his friends, his first consideration is always "can the problem this guy is causing be solved most expediently by just murdering him?"

In general, he sees himself as being the guy willing to do the "dirty work" for the party to keep them moving towards their goals without compromising their personal morals.

It's a lot of fun, very positive party dynamics, he just happens to be a terrible evil bastard.

Edit: yeah, he's totally a murder hobo.

 

[MNblockhead]

[Forgive me, MNblockhead, because the rest of your post indicates that many of the things I've written below are things you'd probably agree with, but I take exception to the statement in bold here and I hope you won't mind me commenting on it. Not everything below is addressed directly to you. -Hemlock]

That might be true of a shallow portrayal of Chaotic, or Chaotic Evil, but you can make a convincingly Chaotic character by just ignoring abstract principles and precedent in favor of concrete facts.

No offense taken, what you wrote makes a lot of sense. In my experience, most players who play chaotic characters do not approach it with as much though as you've put into your post.

Which is why I think it really comes down to player game etiquette and common understanding and less about what alignment is written on a character sheet.

A bad player can ruin a game with a character of any alignment.

LG Paladins are probably disliked by many players and DMs and CE characters are.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Beautifully put, Hemlock.

Currently playing a Dwarven Cleric/Abjurer that is probably... Neutral Evil, at a guess? I don't cleave too rigidly to alignments.

He likes the party quite a bit and defers to them most of the time, shares his loot, etc. But if someone is causing problems for his friends, his first consideration is always "can the problem this guy is causing be solved most expediently by just murdering him?"

In general, he sees himself as being the guy willing to do the "dirty work" for the party to keep them moving towards their goals without compromising their personal morals.

It's a lot of fun, very positive party dynamics, he just happens to be a terrible evil ------.

Edit: yeah, he's totally a murder hobo.

Heh. Now you've got me thinking about how incredibly fun Subtle Spell + Phantasmal Force could be in a social setting if you're the party's friendly neighborhood psychopath.

"The guy just started screaming, and then he suddenly dropped dead. I don't know what happened. You guys all saw it too, right?"

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION] Thanks for sparking some interesting discussions!

I do have one pet peeve as a DM. I hate "throw away" die rolls. You know, players throwing dice at a problem until it breaks. DMs allowing that behavior. Knowledge checks without consequences. Rolls where nobody really is clear about what's at stake.

Combat being something of an exception, because it's "roll happy" in D&D and always has been.

But when an ability check comes up I pretty much always have an idea of what interesting thing happens as a result of failure or success, and often I have ideas for what happens if the checks fails/succeeds by 5+ as well. For an exaggerated example of what I mean, here's what's working in the mental background for me as DM when adjudicating a player's Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) roll to open a lock or disarm a trap...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, ANY chaotic character. CG can be just as annoying. I'm more inclined to say no CHAOTIC characters than no EVIL characters.

I'm with Hemlock in that chaotic isn't automatically bad. Chaotics value personal freedom (CN's mainly their own, CG's definitely that of others, as well), personal freedom is hard to retain, so working with others is not out of the question. So, sure, they can work with a group. Especially small ones. Especially friends. Especially without formal ranks or leadership. Especially one that will help them gain/protect their own freedom and/or that of others. All of which describes an adventuring party pretty well.

And, yeah, they can be loyal. Personally loyal, to a worthy individual, for as long as they stay worthy.

I don't want to get to philosophical, but one can be evil and still be loyal.

Sure. Though 'loyal' may mean subtly, horribly, different things to them, those difference may never even come up.

Some LE character types that can work even in mostly Good parties:

I'm not sure which is creepier. That 3 out of 4 of those sound perfectly reasonable, or that (a different) 3 out of 4, sound like as fair descriptions of forumites in general, as of adventurers in general.

Evil is selfishness, which includes enjoying harming people.

I've never cared for the evil = selfish idea. Sure, good can mean being selfless - so selfish is the opposite, right? Nah, selfish is just the middle of the spectrum. Good cares about others, neutral doesn't (without a reason)... Evil cares about others. Really, Evil cares a lot, evil goes far out of it's way, often gets itself killed by Good, it cares so darn much about others. Y'know, killing others, enslaving others, torturing others. It's a very others-oriented perspective, Evil. The really committed NE has to remember to make some 'me time' now and then, just to recharge the old batteries so he can get back to doing (horrible) things for (the suffering of) others.

 

[MNblockhead]

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION] I do have one pet peeve as a DM. I hate "throw away" die rolls. You know, players throwing dice at a problem until it breaks. DMs allowing that behavior. Knowledge checks without consequences. Rolls where nobody really is clear about what's at stake.... [W]hen an ability check comes up I pretty much always have an idea of what interesting thing happens as a result of failure or success, and often I have ideas for what happens if the checks fails/succeeds by 5+ as well.

I don't know if it is and older play style, but I ask my players to explain what they are doing. How are they trying to overcome an issue or find the hidden macguffin. I've read people blaming everything from video games to 4e for the zero-narrative, roll-for-it approach. Seems like an easy "problem" to fix...ask the players to explain what they are doing.

The image you shared is similar to how I approach things. As for setting the DC, I have a baseline DC for, say, a lock or hidden door, or some other challenge. But I will adjust it based on how the player explains their approach. How you go about doing something should affect how difficult it is in many/most cases. If you just "call it in" then perhaps it is just a base skill check...but I'm inclined to to increase the DC by a point or two. You obviously are not giving the activity that much attention. It is more likely that you are going to break the lock or miss the hidden door, etc.

And sometime the way you explain how you are approaching it is so good that I will descrease the DC, or give you an advantage on a roll.

This is my form of "inspiration." Awarding inspiration has never worked well in my game. I forget to give it, players forget they have it. Instead I will award inspiration to be used on the spot when you come up with a great idea. It keeps the game cinematic--you've come up with a heroic or inspired idea, I give you a better chance of making it happen (but still with a chance of failure--the awesome idea that fails can be just as cinematic).

Sometime I do allow the players to just make a roll or "take 10" to keep the game moving.

When they fail, that can be more of a challenge for DM.

It is important to design adventures such that there are alternate avenues of attack. You don't want the entire game to come to a standstill because of a failed skill check.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've never cared for the evil = selfish idea. Sure, good can mean being selfless - so selfish is the opposite, right? Nah, selfish is just the middle of the spectrum. Good cares about others, neutral doesn't (without a reason)... Evil cares about others. Really, Evil cares a lot, evil goes far out of it's way, often gets itself killed by Good, it cares so darn much about others. Y'know, killing others, enslaving others, torturing others. It's a very others-oriented perspective, Evil. The really committed NE has to remember to make some 'me time' now and then, just to recharge the old batteries so he can get back to doing (horrible) things for (the suffering of) others.

I've never cared for that perspective on evil. I think it makes it too easy to be Neutral. "You can steal from widows and murder orphans and it's fine, that's not evil, just as long as you weren't paying too much attention to them while you did it." No, not for me.

I think it takes a lot of conscious striving to be recognizably good (although presumably you're not striving because you care about the label "Good"--you care about living certain values, and being labelled Good by the metaphysics of the universe is just a side-effect), and a moderate amount of empathy and basic consideration to be Neutral. It doesn't take any particular effort to be Evil though; it just takes a certain callousness and disregard for the welfare of others.