D&D 5E Anti-insperation

[Uchawi]

I would continue to use inspiration and then modify the story or NPC interactions. Maybe the player wants to explore the conflict or does not care, but just like the real world, a ripple in the pond eventually reaches everywhere.

 

[Lanliss]

I don't see the difference between 1) at some point later that session giving an orc advantage on one attack, and 2) bringing down DIVINE PUNISHMENT FROM THE GODS! or 3) stopping to inform the player that I think they are playing their character wrong. The first two lead to a punishment/consequence that amounts to the same thing in the game world, except for one being more severe, and the last option will just lead to an argument on degrees of role playing and how I'm wrong about what their character would do.

That being said, it seems everyone is pretty much agreed that this is a bad idea, so to the scrap pile it goes.

 

[Fedge123]

It depends on your group of players.

When I DM for "the old guys", my friends who've played for years, have wives, kids and a lifetime of experience behind them, everything is a grey area. The adventures are a lot more grittier and dark. There's a lot of moral ambivalence in our shared world. They're killing and looting and whoring and drinking their way through the world. Alignment is of the moment.

On the other hand, when I DM for my son and his friends, things are more black and white. They're new and still learning, about the game and about life. Their adventure is more about battling good and evil, about courage and honor and learning to do the right thing. Alignment is more important. Boys respond more to rules and restrictions, rewards and punishments. They need Divine Wrath!

 

[discosoc]

Just introduce consequences that are proportionate to the action.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Does anybody have a type of "anti-insperation" to be used when a player goes against their role badly? Not for a good cleric who killed someone, but for a LG cleric burning down an orphanage full of children. I am thinking of employing this soon, and would like some more opinions on the matter.

Simply put, he immediately becomes Chaotic Evil. I quietly write this down, but don't tell the player about it unless he is using a magic item such as a Robe of the Good Archmagic which would be affected by his alignment change.

He may also face diplomatic repercussions.

 

[sleypy]

The inspiration mechanics use actions tied directly to the characters, e.g., personality traits, bonds, ideas and flaws). That being the case, I think anti-inspiration should follow suite.

Comparing the traits to alignment, I think that traits are the superior choices (for anti-inspiration). Character traits are defined by the player, have special meaning to the character, and, all together, offer a clearer defined boundaries for which to base anti-inspiration.

On the other hand, alignments definition shift based on the interpreters values, are broad categories for covering varying ideas, and are influenced heavily by setting.

I think giving a character anti-inspiration for going against everything they value works better when sourcing the mechanics that contain everything they value.

Edit: (and would work worse when it instead use everything the DM values.)

 

[iserith]

If I were running a campaign set in Planescape, I would elevate alignment to the level of personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws and award Inspiration accordingly.

Typically, players "claim" Inspiration in my games so that I don't have to keep track of 16+ traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. They play to a particular aspect and then say they're claiming Inspiration as a result. The only restriction I place on that is that they can't claim Inspiration on the same trait twice in a row to ensure that they are playing up other aspects of the character.

So in the right kind of campaign where alignment actually matters to the campaign theme, I'd definitely award Inspiration for playing to it. Otherwise, it's on my pay-no-mind list.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

We joke about “un-inspiration” all the time when we game. Particularly when someone makes a really bad pun. But beyond joking about it, I don’t think we’d ever follow through with it.

 

[Umbran]

Does anybody have a type of "anti-insperation" to be used when a player goes against their role badly?

Nope. In older editions, where alignment had mechanical impact, the fact that going against your stated alignment enough meant you'd get surprised when the Smite Evil hit was enough.

In general, I don't feel a character is defined for all times by what the player says at the start of the game. The character is allowed to change. This may have repercussions in the fiction, but isn't something I'd give them a mechanical slap for - unless they'd taken a magically or socially binding oath that dictated some behavior.

 

[redrick]

At our table, if a player suggests doing something that really seems to go against the character's alignment, the DM will just reframe the action as a question, in a way that shows where the DM sees the conflict. The player can then say, "yep, that's what my character does," or, "wait, no, now that you mention it, he probably wouldn't do that..."

Example: "I'm going to kick the guard in ribs until he answers my question." "So, you're going to torture the guard?" "I guess so."

It's up to the players to do their best to play their character in a way that is consistent. It is up to the DM to frame a world where actions have consequences, including angering deities, local authorities, etc. If a player has a concept that they are struggling to play consistently to the point where it's taking fun away from the table, it doesn't hurt to talk to the player about ways to change the concept to fit the character the player actually wants to play.

But some sort of mechanic that says, "You're not roleplaying well, so your character will be penalized mechanically (as opposed to in-game consequences for in-game actions)," feels a little much and an unnecessary source of conflict.