D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

Neurotic said:

[MENTION=6806492]randrak[/MENTION]

I would say allow them to retrieve the item(s) from the blacksmith, have him raise the guards and chase them out of town (or let them fight legitimate authority). This was player error, translated into character error. Both due to bad bookkeeping (always bad idea), non-involvement (phone) and you (by not handling this behaviour before). Punish any lawful player by turning him neutral if the go through with this. Punish any and all player by moving them one step toward evil if they kill anyone innocent (including guards).

IMPORTANT: warn them in advance that what they are doing is illegal and may have consequences - don't list them, just warn them fairly.

Click to expand...

An alignment change sounds a bit heavy handed for a single robbery. Alignment is supposed to be trend, instead of a case by case thing, so changing alignment every time the PC does something lawful or unlawful sounds like a bit much, and would probably be a bit annoying to keep track of. YMMV of course.

Also, I don't know if you read this. The guy who sold the armor was the Ranger. The phone guy was the sorcerer. The two are separate, and this was not a punishment for the phone guy. The only reason he mentioned the story of the phone guy was because the phone guy, who had the least investment, was complaining the most.

I think the DM handled it well. He gave them a clue (the blacksmith's comment would have immediately given my players pause) and it went right over everyone's heads. All of the stuff was in a bundle. The DM has a group that doesn't pay attention, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

It's a tricky meta-game situation. If the DM called for a roll, then the player is going to get suspicious and you could get into this ugly situation where the ranger is going to want to act on information he doesn't have (that there's a bluff check going on).

The DM's best bet for a fair, pure scene is to try to roleplay it out, and he did.

In the end, it's just a fun wrinkle. There's a million hilarious ways for them to get their stuff back and it's a nice springboard for hijinks.

I would say that the DM absolutely needs to talk to Mr. Cellphone. It's insulting to be running a game and have a player blatantly not paying attention. Dude needs to stop or go away. And then Cellphone has the gall to complain about what happened... the guy sounds like a problem.

I think my concern is: If the group is usually a little inattentive, it sounds like the DM is exploiting a weakness of the players, not running a scenario based on the characters, and that makes it rather more adversarial than I like gaming to be.

I have gamed with people who can only pay attention if they have something to fidget with. This is normal enough to me (I have severe ADHD) that I don't even really notice. I trust them to pick the thing that lets them do their best, and sometimes that means playing tappy games on a cell phone or something.

Lanliss said:

An alignment change sounds a bit heavy handed for a single robbery. Alignment is supposed to be trend, instead of a case by case thing, so changing alignment every time the PC does something lawful or unlawful sounds like a bit much,

Also, I don't know if you read this. The guy who sold the armor was the Ranger. The phone guy was the sorcerer. The two are separate, and this was not a punishment for the phone guy. The only reason he mentioned the story of the phone guy was because the phone guy, who had the least investment, was complaining the most.

Click to expand...

I know the guys are two separate people. But the one who sold it wasn't paying attention, phone guy definitely wasn't and he was complaining the most. Punish them. Drifting occasionally is OK, it happens. Being on the phone...your thing. But slowing down everyone else affects not just you and your character and shows severe disrespect for other peoples time - not so minor anymore and not "your" thing anymore.

As for drastic punishments...yes, alignment is a trend. But we're not talking about occasional "tricky" situation in which there is a trend. Or maybe breaking some unfair laws or laws of a cruel baron. We're talking about peaceful town in which lawful PC actively endorses, plans and even executes a robbery. Same for fighting the guards: they are lawful representatives of the city. Killing them is probably capital offense in any case. Doing it while doing crime...which you weren't forced into...yes, I would punish them severely.

Maybe not with alignment change, although I would definitely drop hints at the very first opportunity (clerics, paladins, random encounter angels mentioning not-so-shiny spot on their alignment). But definitely would run them out of town, revoke their adventurers license (assuming there is one) and spread the word of the group so they would pay more in some shops, get shunted in barns instead of inn rooms, have traders in arms when they approach etc.

You know, shady people of ill repute in local area.

Neurotic said:

Punish any lawful player by turning him neutral if the go through with this. Punish any and all player by moving them one step toward evil if they kill anyone innocent (including guards).

Click to expand...

A few things:

• Changing someone's alignment isn't a "punishment" and should be done in good faith collaboratively with the players. Gone are the days of XP penalties for alignment changes.
• Aren't you telling the player who you make evil to now play an evil character in your games? Why would that be a positive thing? What is the goal here?
• If you do change someone's alignment for a single action don't be surprised when they no longer care about their alignment in your games as it is now fluid.
• I think you're being a bit too literal with alignments. I play a lawful good smuggler who constantly breaks laws and has a bounty on his head. He works fine.

Sorry, just figured this thread could use a good alignment debate to get it away from all that blacksmith nonsense.

Neurotic said:

I know the guys are two separate people. But the one who sold it wasn't paying attention, phone guy definitely wasn't and he was complaining the most. Punish them. Drifting occasionally is OK, it happens. Being on the phone...your thing. But slowing down everyone else affects not just you and your character and shows severe disrespect for other peoples time - not so minor anymore and not "your" thing anymore.

Click to expand...

Okay, I think I see the difference. I think games are usually played by friends who care about and respect each other, you think they are played by people who would think that "punishing" each other would be a part of their relationships.

As for drastic punishments...yes, alignment is a trend. But we're not talking about occasional "tricky" situation in which there is a trend. Or maybe breaking some unfair laws or laws of a cruel baron. We're talking about peaceful town in which lawful PC actively endorses, plans and even executes a robbery. Same for fighting the guards: they are lawful representatives of the city. Killing them is probably capital offense in any case. Doing it while doing crime...which you weren't forced into...yes, I would punish them severely.

Click to expand...

Again, that's not how alignment works, and the entire thing exists only because the GM wanted an adversarial relationship with the players.

Maybe not with alignment change, although I would definitely drop hints at the very first opportunity (clerics, paladins, random encounter angels mentioning not-so-shiny spot on their alignment). But definitely would run them out of town, revoke their adventurers license (assuming there is one) and spread the word of the group so they would pay more in some shops, get shunted in barns instead of inn rooms, have traders in arms when they approach etc.

You know, shady people of ill repute in local area.

Click to expand...

That might make sense if they got caught, but mostly this just sounds like trying to make sure there's no way for the characters to get things back after the initial thing, and... no, that's not even remotely how you play a game with friends.

These are people, not misbehaving puppies.

seebs said:

These are people, not misbehaving puppies.

Click to expand...

They may be . . . if they're playing Pugmire

ThirdWizard said:

A few things:

• 
  [1]Changing someone's alignment isn't a "punishment" and should be done in good faith collaboratively with the players. Gone are the days of XP penalties for alignment changes.
  [2]Aren't you telling the player who you make evil to now play an evil character in your games? Why would that be a positive thing? What is the goal here?
  [3]If you do change someone's alignment for a single action don't be surprised when they no longer care about their alignment in your games as it is now fluid.
  [4]I think you're being a bit too literal with alignments. I play a lawful good smuggler who constantly breaks laws and has a bounty on his head. He works fine.

Click to expand...

[1]I consider it punishment as it means I didn't play the character as I intended him to be.
[2]I think you got the alignment thing backward. If the player plays evil character I would change his alignment to match his play regardless of what he says his alignment is. I cannot see lawful whatever smuggler in context of D&D. If you play honorable character with his own rules of conduct, he is chaotic (which does not mean random, it means he values personal freedom more then laws of society), not lawful.
Even lawful evil character wouldn't smuggle, but he would use anything in his power to get people to sell at low prices - as long as it is within the law.

[3] As I said, I would consider it for drastic enough action(s) - but even if the alignment doesn't change, hints would be dropping left and right and right in their faces.

Arguments like these are 50 steps down the wrong path. Go back to the basics and start over:

* A DM's job is to create a fun game for their players. If the setting or rules do not make players happy, a change is in order. The changes can be made to the campaign or to the membership of the group. If you have a group of 6 and one person doesn't like the way the game is played, then you can look for a way to tweak the situation to make everyone happy or you can let that person go find a game that meets their needs.

* A player's job is to have fun playing their character in the setting and rules provided. The DM makes the rulings (often after suggestions by players) and the players should trust their DM and the calls the DM makes. As players, we will often think the DM's ruling is not the one we'd make. However, it is not our place to change the game they run. Master is in their title, not ours. We can endure a few things that are not run as we'd like them... and if we can't live with the rulings, we can look for other games.

There should be no judgment if a player and DM can't find a setting and rule set that works for both of them - it happens. You can do other things with your friends if you can't play D&D together.

D&D is a role playing game. Players play a role in the story. They are responsible for their character's desires and decisions - the DM is responsible for everything else.

Neurotic said:

[1]I consider it punishment as it means I didn't play the character as I intended him to be.
[2]I think you got the alignment thing backward. If the player plays evil character I would change his alignment to match his play regardless of what he says his alignment is. I cannot see lawful whatever smuggler in context of D&D. If you play honorable character with his own rules of conduct, he is chaotic (which does not mean random, it means he values personal freedom more then laws of society), not lawful.
Even lawful evil character wouldn't smuggle, but he would use anything in his power to get people to sell at low prices - as long as it is within the law.

[3] As I said, I would consider it for drastic enough action(s) - but even if the alignment doesn't change, hints would be dropping left and right and right in their faces.

Click to expand...

But, what's the point of telling them to change alignment? They write down Evil because you say so, and then...? They feel bad because you judge them silently behind the DM screen? I can understand if they constantly kill civilians, maybe they should admit that they're evil, but they stole that one thing one time from that blacksmith who cheated them? That's a strange place to have the "Hey, maybe your character is actually not what you think he is" conversation. What if they disagree? Then what?

No lawful smuggler? What about a British privateer loyally serving his queen by taking East India Trading Company goods into Spanish lands without paying proper tariffs and fighting back the Spanish fleet should they try to interfere? Whether you follow the "law" is just a matter perspective and whose rules you think are the right ones to abide by.