Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Typical Player Behavior, or Bad Roleplaying?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2642089" data-attributes="member: 707"><p>Mechanically, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. The new PC is going to need to be suitably equipped for his level anyway, so whether the equipment comes form the former PC or from off-camera adventures is beside the point. The old PC was suitably equipped, now the new PC is suitably equipped. There's no issue here, certainly not one that needs to be corrected.</p><p></p><p>Now, if the old PC was <em>over</em>-equipped, and you're disgruntled because now the new PC is over-equipped as well, then that's an entirely different issue that can be dealt with quite cleanly in-game.</p><p></p><p>Or is the entire problem here the fact that you don't think it's reasonable for one person to give their most valuable belongings to another person after having only met them for a few hours? It's a justifiable opinion, but a good DM knows that it isn't his job to determine (outside of [Compulsion] and [Charm] magic,) what actions are reasonable for the PCs. Players determine what actions are reasonable for PCs. The DM determines what actions are reasonable for <em>NPCs</em> because of or in spite of the PCs.</p><p></p><p>In the case of your campaign, I suggest that you completely set aside your feelings about the appropriateness of what the old PC did, and instead fairly and unbiasedly continue to adjudicate your NPCs' actions. Most likely, that won't involve unwarranted retributive strikes against the PCs for actions NPCs couldn't have known about and wouldn't care about, but only you would know for sure.As a DM, your job is to judge the PCs' actions based on the general guidelines you've given them. In this case, I think you are instead judging the PC based on what <em>you would have done</em>. Remember that just because a PC doesn't do what you would have done, or follow the reasoning you would have followed, doesn't mean the PC has failed to live up to the ideals they are supposed to be following.</p><p></p><p>In the case of your campaign, the PC has explained her actions. She didn't think the Supreme God of Good would want her to kill innocent guardsmen (only doing their jobs to feed their families...and often the only way to <em>do</em> that under a corrupt government is to work for the government,) in order to free the former PC. She still held out hope that the former PC's Temple, a powerful political force in the city, could enact the former PC's release.</p><p></p><p>Now, you may find this reasoning less heroic than you might have liked, but it certainly still fits in with the criteria you gave the player to work with. Punishing the PC for not behaving exactly as you would have done accomplishes nothing, since it's unlikely the player will <em>ever</em> be able to perfectly anticipate how you would handle every situation. So long as she's thought things through and has [Good] reasons for acting the way she does, that should be enough.</p><p></p><p>If, on the whole, the game becomes or has become less heroic than you'd like, that's something to discuss with the players out of the game, not something to wordlessly punish the PCs for in-game.Again, perhaps if you were playing the PCs in question, this may be true. In the case of the actual player of these PCs, apparently not. You might build on this. Perhaps the PCs encounter the former PC's brother. They need his help and ask him to trust them, and he snorts derisively. "I've heard about how you treat your friends." The situation is something that can add to the background of the campaign, but is, again, not something to punish the players for, outside of reasonable consequences to their actions.The lack of alignments doesn't really play into it. Just because you haven't given behaviors simple labels doesn't mean there are no longer good and evil actions or beings in the world. They're merely no longer easily, undeniably identified as such. I think some players/DMs make the mistake of thinking that without alignment, there no longer <em>are</em> such things as good and evil. Everything is just "kinda friendly" or "not so nice" and nothing can be judged. This simply isn't true. In a world without alignment, defining what is morally acceptable and unacceptable becomes even more prominent.</p><p></p><p>*ahem* So as I said, the issue isn't with the fact that you've done away with alignments. The issue here is that you don't think the PC's reasons are good enough. Indeed, you don't think they're valid reasons at all, but merely "justifications" for improper behavior. If this is true, then you need to ask yourself if the player/PC feels the same. i.e. does the player feel his PC is just "making excuses" or does the player truly believe that such reasons are a valid reason not to act? If the latter, then you need to sit down with your player and work out what kinds of actions the Supreme Good of God endorses. What kinds of behavior the god looks for in his followers. Clearly, there's been a miscommunication somewhere. Let this incident slide, and take care to ensure that the player understands in the future what kinds of actions please the god, (heroic, bold, saving those who have been unjustly incarcerated even at the possible expense of lives, etc.) and what actions displease him. Things should run more smoothly in the future. And if the PC still behaves inapprpriately, then have his powers reflect that. But by that point the <em>player</em> should be very conscious of what is happening, and why.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 2642089, member: 707"] Mechanically, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. The new PC is going to need to be suitably equipped for his level anyway, so whether the equipment comes form the former PC or from off-camera adventures is beside the point. The old PC was suitably equipped, now the new PC is suitably equipped. There's no issue here, certainly not one that needs to be corrected. Now, if the old PC was [i]over[/i]-equipped, and you're disgruntled because now the new PC is over-equipped as well, then that's an entirely different issue that can be dealt with quite cleanly in-game. Or is the entire problem here the fact that you don't think it's reasonable for one person to give their most valuable belongings to another person after having only met them for a few hours? It's a justifiable opinion, but a good DM knows that it isn't his job to determine (outside of [Compulsion] and [Charm] magic,) what actions are reasonable for the PCs. Players determine what actions are reasonable for PCs. The DM determines what actions are reasonable for [i]NPCs[/i] because of or in spite of the PCs. In the case of your campaign, I suggest that you completely set aside your feelings about the appropriateness of what the old PC did, and instead fairly and unbiasedly continue to adjudicate your NPCs' actions. Most likely, that won't involve unwarranted retributive strikes against the PCs for actions NPCs couldn't have known about and wouldn't care about, but only you would know for sure.As a DM, your job is to judge the PCs' actions based on the general guidelines you've given them. In this case, I think you are instead judging the PC based on what [i]you would have done[/i]. Remember that just because a PC doesn't do what you would have done, or follow the reasoning you would have followed, doesn't mean the PC has failed to live up to the ideals they are supposed to be following. In the case of your campaign, the PC has explained her actions. She didn't think the Supreme God of Good would want her to kill innocent guardsmen (only doing their jobs to feed their families...and often the only way to [i]do[/i] that under a corrupt government is to work for the government,) in order to free the former PC. She still held out hope that the former PC's Temple, a powerful political force in the city, could enact the former PC's release. Now, you may find this reasoning less heroic than you might have liked, but it certainly still fits in with the criteria you gave the player to work with. Punishing the PC for not behaving exactly as you would have done accomplishes nothing, since it's unlikely the player will [i]ever[/i] be able to perfectly anticipate how you would handle every situation. So long as she's thought things through and has [Good] reasons for acting the way she does, that should be enough. If, on the whole, the game becomes or has become less heroic than you'd like, that's something to discuss with the players out of the game, not something to wordlessly punish the PCs for in-game.Again, perhaps if you were playing the PCs in question, this may be true. In the case of the actual player of these PCs, apparently not. You might build on this. Perhaps the PCs encounter the former PC's brother. They need his help and ask him to trust them, and he snorts derisively. "I've heard about how you treat your friends." The situation is something that can add to the background of the campaign, but is, again, not something to punish the players for, outside of reasonable consequences to their actions.The lack of alignments doesn't really play into it. Just because you haven't given behaviors simple labels doesn't mean there are no longer good and evil actions or beings in the world. They're merely no longer easily, undeniably identified as such. I think some players/DMs make the mistake of thinking that without alignment, there no longer [i]are[/i] such things as good and evil. Everything is just "kinda friendly" or "not so nice" and nothing can be judged. This simply isn't true. In a world without alignment, defining what is morally acceptable and unacceptable becomes even more prominent. *ahem* So as I said, the issue isn't with the fact that you've done away with alignments. The issue here is that you don't think the PC's reasons are good enough. Indeed, you don't think they're valid reasons at all, but merely "justifications" for improper behavior. If this is true, then you need to ask yourself if the player/PC feels the same. i.e. does the player feel his PC is just "making excuses" or does the player truly believe that such reasons are a valid reason not to act? If the latter, then you need to sit down with your player and work out what kinds of actions the Supreme Good of God endorses. What kinds of behavior the god looks for in his followers. Clearly, there's been a miscommunication somewhere. Let this incident slide, and take care to ensure that the player understands in the future what kinds of actions please the god, (heroic, bold, saving those who have been unjustly incarcerated even at the possible expense of lives, etc.) and what actions displease him. Things should run more smoothly in the future. And if the PC still behaves inapprpriately, then have his powers reflect that. But by that point the [i]player[/i] should be very conscious of what is happening, and why. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Typical Player Behavior, or Bad Roleplaying?
Top