D&D General Doing Tragedy in D&D

[Paul Farquhar]

Every tragic character had choices, they were doomed by roleplaying instead of metagaming.

They are doomed because they are in a linear story not a role playing game, and therefore they could only make the choices the author decided for them.

It’s only a tragedy because there is an alternative timeline in which Romeo is happily married to Rosaline, Macbeth is content to be Thane of Cawdor, and Hamlet and Ophelia are king and queen of Denmark.

A game of D&D might lead to tragedy. But it has to be down to the players making the choice when a better outcome is possible. The DM cannot decide it for them - that’s not a Tragedy, that’s a railroad.

 

[Incenjucar]

The tragic doom of a PC is set by the player and enabled by the GM, the doom of an NPC is wholly on the GM.

A paladin who swore an oath to destroy all fire elementals who meets a good elemental and either breaks their oath or performs a wicked deed has set themselves up for and fulfilled a tragedy.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Going with the "downfall of someone who could have been better" because of hamartia (a fatal flaw that leads to the hero's eventual downfall), then I think I've got a player masterfully roleplaying it out in the Dragon Age setting (a morally ambiguous, gritty world) in the most complex of ways I'd never have imagined. It's a bit lengthy, but aren't all good tragedies?

• Character creation: a 15-year-old serving boy had his youth stolen by a spellcaster. It's an actual spell in the game, very nasty. He was left alive in the body of a 70-year-old man and no one believed he was the boy. He went off on his own, learning beginner spellcraft from a sympathetic Witch of the Wild (they're anti-establishment). He planned on finding the guy someday, learning this spell, and repaying the favor. However, he's also acting with the emotional maturity of a 15-year-old.
• He joins other adventurers and despite his age, quickly becomes their "good luck charm" (his current spells aid others, manipulate fate, and magic in this world has no components, so you can't tell if these types of spells are being cast). Everything always seems to work out when he's around. He does some good, helps people.
• Sometimes his 15-year-old emotional level is funny (he relies on others in the group to handle his money and asks for permission to have some).
• Sometimes it's crazy (when he meets a willing wench for the first time who is playing on his emotions to help get her out of her small-town life, an NPC who started out with just a 1-paragraph descriptor).
• Sometimes it's bad (when the wench does get out of town thanks to the PC and later appears interested in a younger, hotter guy who isn't arthritic, our immature character is devastated; later when he meets a demon - one that thrives off the emotional highs and lows of mortals - that secretly offers to help him out, he agrees).
• This leads to the wench coming onto him (she's been ensorcelled), and he believes it's because he's gotten successful, dressed better, has (poor) knowledge of wines now. He probably should suspect the truth, but he doesn't want to. The delusion is much better. The issue isn't important for the rest of the party. If the 70-year-old guy wants to hook up with a much younger person, that's his prerogative.
• He continues to delude himself when she abruptly leaves that she is in love with him, that she's waiting for him in "the city," and she's going to open an Inn, and they'll have kids together. It's all he talks about during downtimes.
• Our character is becoming a very powerful mage, delving into Death magic.
• He dies in a pool of lava in a future adventure, but thanks to his necromancy, clings to existence as a shade. His mind breaks (this type of coming back causes a permanent madness, randomly rolled, and he believes now that the wench has a doppleganger...it'll let him excuse any behavior he doesn't like of hers as the doppleganger).
• He confesses his backstory to the rest of the party but not his shortcomings. He doesn't see them.
• He quests for a body. He still believes he has a future with the wench. He finds a body he can use, a woman's body. It'll do for now, but he has hopes if they find a special religious artifact, he can be "healed" of all ailments and restored to his original body.
• He goes to the City finally and finds the wench. She got married, husband died suddenly, and now is saddled with his 5 kids and debt. She doesn't know our PC is in a new body. She is told he's dead. She is relieved. She unleashes her fears of him, her hate, her belief that she was ensorcelled. She also wants money. They kind of screwed her over, luring her out of her small town and away from her parents, enthralling her with tales of the adventuring road. At least that's how she remembers it.
• Our PC's obsession continues to delude him. She doesn't mean it. That's something the imposter of her would say. No one can dissuade him.
• He's now convinced it's his body that's a problem. He masters the age-draining spell. He ambushes some foul street ruffians, makes his body younger. He's angry, lashing out. The religious artifact becomes his goal now. It will fix everything. It'll fix him, it'll fix the wench.

If that isn't a character downfall from hero, not sure what else is. And yet, he still might play a part in saving the world (after all, if the Blight destroys everything, he doesn't get the wench and doesn't get that storybook happy ending).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The tragic doom of a PC is set by the player and enabled by the GM, the doom of an NPC is wholly on the GM.

A paladin who swore an oath to destroy all fire elementals who meets a good elemental and either breaks their oath or performs a wicked deed has set themselves up for and fulfilled a tragedy.

No, that is not a Tragedy - because there is no choice that avoids a bad outcome. The most important feature of tragedy is bad stuff only happens because of a bad choice. It must be avoidable. Otherwise it’s just sh*t that happens.

 

[Incenjucar]

No, that is not a Tragedy - because there is no choice that avoids a bad outcome. The most important feature of tragedy is bad stuff only happens because of a bad choice. It must be avoidable. Otherwise it’s just sh*t that happens.

The choice was the oath.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The choice was the oath.

Paladins are required to make an oath - it’s not a character flaw.

Nor does it lead to the character’s destruction. It’s a moral dilemma, not a tragedy.

 

[Incenjucar]

Paladins are required to make an oath - it’s not a character flaw.

Nor does it lead to the character’s destruction. It’s a moral dilemma, not a tragedy.

It's a tragic decision of a bad oath whose severity took time to reveal itself. Tragedy isn't limited to an immediate woopsie.

Plenty of characters survive their own tragedies. Oedipus got to live and suffer his.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

bad oath

What makes it a bad oath? Are all paladin oaths bad? Did the player know they were choosing “a bad oath”?

a bad oath whose severity took time to reveal itself

Gameplay problem: it’s the DM’s job to see that the players have at least the potential to acquire sufficient information to make informed decisions. Otherwise it’s just the DM telling their own story.

 

[Incenjucar]

What makes it a bad oath? Are all paladin oaths bad? Did the player know they were choosing “a bad oath”?

Gameplay problem: it’s the DM’s job to see that the players have at least the potential to acquire sufficient information to make informed decisions. Otherwise it’s just the DM telling their own story.

It's an oath against a kind of creature on the assumption that they will always be bad. See also: "Destroy all fiends" -> "Reformed succubus".

The GM is not required to warn players that decisions have consequences. They can certainly choose to do so.

--

Paladins are useful mainly in that they're more likely to have convictions that cannot be easily metagamed around, while other characters may break character when their personality would clearly beckfire.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's an oath against a kind of creature on the assumption that they will always be bad.

Given that elementals are largely neutral or unaligned, that seems like an unlikely assumption.

The GM is not required to warn players that decisions have consequences.

They are if it’s a house rule. As per 5e rules, there are no consequences for breaking a paladin oath unless the player decides so, nor are there are any “destroy all” oaths in the official rules. If the DM chooses to add something to the game, they need to explain to players the consequences.