D&D 5E (2014) Anti-insperation

The only good version I've seen of inspiration is Angry DM's version. Check it out if you havent already.

I dont recommend using alignment. It's too simplistic/crap.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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..."

This is how I tend to DM. If a player does something really weird, I reframe the situation to make sure that the player fully understands the scene. And I ask for confirmation. Sometimes the player was just kidding, or he was confused, or he misunderstood what was said. Maybe he missed a crucial piece of information?

Say for example that a player says that he wants to kill a city guard. I'll inform him that while he can do that, both him and his party may no longer be welcome in that city, if they get caught. They may need to return to this city multiple times in the future, and becoming a wanted criminal may not be in their best interest. Is all this trouble worth it?

Usually the party as a whole would then agree that perhaps killing the city guard is not a good idea. Or I might give them additional information that would open up other alternative strategies. I always allow my players to undo a decision, without any penalty.

Another example, would be two players trying to break into a graveyard. Two Lawful Good paladins (of the fanatical kind) are guarding the entrance. A third is patrolling the streets. The graveyard itself is covered in darkness, and void of guards. The players consider the option of killing all of the paladins one by one. At this point I would remind the players that there are probably more paladins inside the nearby church, and all it takes is for one of them to sound an alarm. If they mess up, the holy order could sound the alarm, and then they have a huge problem on their hands. I also reframe the scene, and give them more details about the lay out of the graveyard. So the players reconsider, and decide that maybe they can simply climb over the fence unnoticed.

As a DM, I can't play their characters for them, but I can reframe the scene, and give additional information. I can also tell them what their characters know, or may suspect. Based on that new information, the players may choose an entirely different strategy. Maybe they didn't realize that the only thing stopping them from entering the graveyard, was a pathetic little fence, which they could easily climb. Maybe they didn't realize how well armed the paladins were? Maybe I as a DM forgot to describe that they were wearing full plate, and looked like formidable foes? Maybe they didn't realize that with the graveyard covered in darkness, they would be virtually invisible to the paladins, once they made it over the fence?
 
Last edited:

Sorry but it's a terrible idea to implement. Characters by their actions incur consequences either good or bad. Punishing players is rotten. Would you like to be punished publically? Moreover it can reek of DM bullying. Forcing a way to play.

Forcing? Unless the DM stipulated your alignment for you, no one is forced to play LG. If a player chooses to play a LG character then ignores that, there may be consequences, especially for clerics. Play a more neutral character if you don't want to be a goody two shoes.
 


If the DM is handing out punishments in regards to how one plays a character that can be interpreted as forcing.

I think the question of interpretation here applies to the term "punishments", not "forcing."

As a DM, a not inconsiderable part of my job is to generate and shape the world around the PCs to conform to the ramifications and consequences of the player's character's choices and actions. My personal preference is to have those ramifications take place and alter the world/reality of the PCs in ways that make sense...and are even largely predictable.

That is the role of the DM at the table, a very large part of that role.

To whit, in the hypothetical of the OP:
The player chose to be a cleric.
The player chose to be Lawful Good.
The player chose all of the actions that lawful good cleric character took.

The DM then decides, among other things, what the gods think of this [if anything], which effects the character's spellcasting and other abilities. How will the locals react? Is a mob going to run them out of town? Constables try to arrest them? Clerics of a rival temple try to capture and sacrifice them or use it to fuel a smear campaign against the cleric's deity and temple? And, ultimately, what the character's alignment needs to be changed to, if at all. All of that is the purview of the DM...assuming a table/game world is actually using alignment, has nosy/involved deities, etc...etc...

No one is "forcing punishment" on the player...or even on the character! They are enforcing the consequences, the world's reactions, of those PC choices and subsequent actions.
 
Last edited:

My comments are directed at the OP's idea for DMs to hand out Anti-Inspiration. I do not consider justifiable in game consequences resulting from character actions to be an issue.
 



My comments are directed at the OP's idea for DMs to hand out Anti-Inspiration. I do not consider justifiable in game consequences resulting from character actions to be an issue.

My original thoughts were similar to Trial by combat, where one assumes that the gods have a hand in how well one fights. If you anger a God, they may not feel the need to go ending an entire continents existence just to kill you. It is much easier to make sure that one orc actually lands it's swing. Of course, as I said, I scrapped the plan, so this is a moot point(mine, not yours)
 

My comments are directed at the OP's idea for DMs to hand out Anti-Inspiration. I do not consider justifiable in game consequences resulting from character actions to be an issue.

Ah. I see.

I, personally, probably would not do/use this idea. No. I am not so "mechanics-ly" inclined.

But I could see justification for a DM who is more about mechanical impact and wants to enforce alignment across the board, not just on clerics/paladins carrying all of the risk of real consequence, to do so...Handing out/going over alignment guidelines/definitions/expectations with the players before play begins, of course.

Coming up with it and plopping it into a campaign mid-run? No...and doled out to players to smack each other with? No. Never.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top