D&D 5E Killed Me a Lawful Stupid Paladin

[Oofta]

Wat.

You seem to be inferring an awful lot that the rest of us aren't getting out of this, jgsguden.

He's reporting on a bad play experience. This is useful fodder for discussion. Given his comments about how it derailed the last hour of the session and one of the other players was exasperated enough to walk out of the room, it does sound like Zardnaar could have found a better way to handle the situation, but I don't see any bragging or abuse here, and your comments about cruelty and rudeness seem completely unfounded.

I'm more sympathetic to the folks suggesting parting ways with the player. While we don't have full context to really judge how stupid or bad their play was, and how well Zardnaar signposted the danger, details like the player telling Zardnaar he wasn't going to take Con saves for his Concentration spells unless Zardnaar prompted him do sound like it's a bad/"abusive" player.

It was probably unintentional, but the tone of the posts conveys a message. The OP didn't like the PC class, the player was being annoying and obstinate while challenging the DM's authority so the DM killed the PC after creating an ad-hoc challenge that was practically guaranteed to kill the PC. It was okay because the player knew the name from the MM so he could have known* what they were up against. It's the player's fault for being so uppity and annoying.

On the other hand, I was not there. If I have a problem with a player (and there are some real red flags that have shown up after the OP) I'll talk to the player, not "teach the player a lesson" by killing the PC. If someone refuses to follow the rules of the game they can find a different table, but that's a discussion that happens outside of game time. If the player challenges a foe that will kill them to a fight to the death I'll do a quick sidebar and timeout to clarify with the player what is going to happen.

The result may have been similar at my table, the path there would have been different.

*even though the player is new and may have never seen a MM

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sometimes you get a player who deliberately goes out of their way to spoil the game for the other players. That often seems to involve pushing the DM to see if they will actually kill off the character. I haven't seen it since I was a teenager, but I've no doubt some people don't grow out of being jerks.

 

[jgsugden]

Wat.

You seem to be inferring an awful lot that the rest of us aren't getting out of this, jgsguden...

I'm not inferring here. I'm reading.

He stated that he set the player up to fail and have their PC killed (by selecting the strength of the foe AFTER the challenge was made), and then he came here to brag about how stupid the player/character was.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm more sympathetic to the folks suggesting parting ways with the player. While we don't have full context to really judge how stupid or bad their play was, and how well Zardnaar signposted the danger, details like the player telling Zardnaar he wasn't going to take Con saves for his Concentration spells unless Zardnaar prompted him do sound like it's a bad/"abusive" player.

Even if he was a bad player (and supposing Zardnaar was looking for advice, which his OP does not suggest), isn’t the best advice “don’t deal with out-of-game problems using in-game means”?

I mean, in both this post and the earlier post Z points out that he has out of game issues with the player, and in this post, the player picks a fight with a guy who just happens to be a gladiator and kills him? And then posts about how he “killed the LAWFUL STUPID paladin”?

 

[FrozenNorth]

It was okay because the player knew the name from the MM so he could have known* what they were up against. It's the player's fault for being so uppity and annoying.

It’s also worth noting that gladiators is one of those NPCs that has a much higher CR than one would assume.

When I hear Gladiator, I think “guy somewhat stronger than the guards who can put on a good show in the arena” and not “guy that regularly curbstomps mounted knights attacking with their mounts”.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Has the CR system changed so much since 3e? I don't see how CR 5 is an "overwhelming challenge". That seems to be something a 5th-level party could fight, and would be a hard (but not unbeatable) challenge for a single 5th-level PC.

There is no set CR for a gladiator. I'm a fan of Dark Sun, which had lots of important NPC gladiators. These included Neeva (8th-level) and Rikus (15th-level), with the generic being 3rd or 4th level. An elite 5th-level gladiator makes sense.

I am not a fan of lawful stupid paladins but I don't think this was a paladin issue, this was a player issue. I don't think the GM did anything wrong either. They warned the player, the player didn't listen, and the PC died.

 

[Ancalagon]

Lawful stupid. He was demanding an apology for the ship cutting them off (despite they won that and kinda cut them off).

I've been allowing history checks to identify the flags various ships fly.

DC10 for major powers and pirates of reknown up to DC 20 for obscure stuff.

I'm using earth map, the Elves rule the UK, humans Iberia and Mali, Dragonborn/Kin 13 colonies (Arkhosia) and the Tieflings in Mexico.

The Elves and crimson fleet are the major public villains with the yuan ti the behind the scene types.

Generally I try and create little events where the sailor background character gets to make a skill check on occasion since he bought into the theme the most.

Theme being happy pirates of the caribbean.

Ok, the the elves are the known villain. The PCs have had a minor, symbolic victory. But to make it a bit more "real", to strike a small but real blow against the elves and build themselves a reputation, he decides to challenge them to a duel. Foolhardy? Yes. Completely stupid... not really? I can see the logic here.

Attacking the elven ship? Yeah that would have been foolish. But a duel "equalizes". It's one vs one - most of the strenght of the elven ship (better crew, bigger crew, better ship) has been neutralized.

So he gambled, and lost. Was that stupid, really? There was some kind of logic.

 

[jasper]

Luke and the old man enter the evil bar. It looks like a tough crowd. Their familiars try to come in.
Barkeep, "We don't allow those kind in here." The kid and ancient warrior leave half the party outside.
DM, " The ancient warrior goes up to smuggler who you know is has a 1 million gp bounty on the head. Looks like he asking to be smuggled out of the kingdom."
Jasper, "I go up to bar and let the kid brush against me. "
DM, "The kid looks down not meeting you eyes, and said he sorry."
Oofta, " I go up to the kid. Kid Jasper does like you."
DM, "The Kid says sorry so Sorry. "
Oofta, " I do like you either kid."
Jasper, " I have the death penalty in 7 kingdoms."
Dm"The Kid saids I be careful and turns away trying to avoid a fight."
Jasper, "You will be dead! "
DM, "The ancient warrior tells you the kid is not worth it. and offers to buy you a drink. "
Jasper, " I toss the barmaid aside, and grab my hand crossbow. I roll a 12 initiative."
DM. The Ancient warrior draws his magical glowing sword and has a 19 for initiative. Do you still want to attack Jasper?
Jasper, "He just an old man. "
DM. "He has a MAGICAL GLOWING SWORD. DOES not care about the smuggler's bounty, and has initiative. Do you really want to fight?"
Jasper, "Yes."
DM. "Natural 20. Let bring up the critical hit chart. Lose the arm holding the crossbow."
Jasper, "You are a sucky dm."

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Ok, the the elves are the known villain. The PCs have had a minor, symbolic victory. But to make it a bit more "real", to strike a small but real blow against the elves and build themselves a reputation, he decides to challenge them to a duel. Foolhardy? Yes. Completely stupid... not really? I can see the logic here.

Attacking the elven ship? Yeah that would have been foolish. But a duel "equalizes". It's one vs one - most of the strenght of the elven ship (better crew, bigger crew, better ship) has been neutralized.

So he gambled, and lost. Was that stupid, really? There was some kind of logic.

I agree with this. From a pure game perspective, there is definitely an angle where the PCs actions make sense. Bold? Yes. A gamble? Yes. Perhaps slightly foolhardy? Yes. But frankly, I'd love to have a PC played as a bold but slightly foolhardy warrior, willing to take a gamble.

But, from reading all the posts, I think this had more to do with personal issues between GM and player than it did with roleplaying. It sounds like the player "pushes" with attitude and comments, and in this case the GM pushed back. Usually, when the GM pushes the GM wins. Nothing to brag about there.

 

[Krachek]

Maybe the player realize that he don’t want to play a paladin in a pirates setup, he just grab the first occasion to make a flashy exit!