D&D 5E Deal Breakers - Or woah, that is just too much

E

Elderbrain

Guest
Of course there was an earlier incident, no so much "railroad" as "DM attempts to enforce his own twisted morality on the players" which would probably have made it his last time too:

So usual adventure stuff, then after fighting some orcs we find there are some baby orcs. They are harmless and pathetic by the DM's description (in fact, he emphasized how pathetic they were). So we, being not monsters, decide they're now basically orphans, so we'll take them back to the local church of some nice-guy loves-the-weak deity and they'll look after them (one of us is a cleric there). The DM flips his chips. He never questions the premise, in fact he agrees that said church would take care of them, but he demands that because we are good-aligned, we have to murder the baby orcs. Raising them good isn't enough. They are apparently inherently evil. This is in the FR, where orcs are not inherently evil, just tend that way, note, and that had been established even back then.

So we're just refusing to go with this, and he has his GMPC Paladin turn up, zap all the orc babies somehow (to our utter horror!), and then attempt to tell us off (which was a bit like Genghis Khan trying to explain to some peaceable monks how THEY were the evil ones!). Le sigh.

THIS is one of MY pet peeves - anyone (Player or DM) who wants to commit evil acts in the game and then try to claim said acts are actually "good" because the victim is of an "evil" race, or a member of the "wrong" group... even if the victim is a child, helpless, personally Good-aligned, pleading for mercy on hands and knees, etc. (And why are only Humans and Demi-Humans entitled to a trial in a court of law if accused of a crime? An Elf clubs an old man over the head and takes his money, and the Paladin hauls the Elf to court. A Orc does the same thing, he's slaughtered on the spot, no questions asked. Maybe it's just me, but that seems racist.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MostlyDm

Explorer
Evil characters can still fit in fine within a heroic story context, so long as they aren't some sort of intrinsic/demonic pure evil bent on general mayhem and destruction. They can be the troubleshooters, the guys that do the dirty but necessary work no one wants to admit needs doing.

Saving the world is just good business, after all. That's where all your stuff is. And saving the king is liable to get you all sorts of tangible and social rewards. And saving the village is liable to spread word of your deeds to that King. Etc.

Examples of such protagonists in literature are common.

I'm currently running a lawful evil dwarven cleric/wizard in a party of goody-goodies (including a paladin).

I've been particularly brutal at dealing with certain especially nasty enemies... Breaking a captive red wizards fingers to ensure she would not be able to cast spells, for example. Then there was a corrupt government official that had, in the span of a few minutes, tried to murder a child for a minor infraction and then tried to have his men murder us for questioning him. Once we toasted his men and he surrendered I killed him in cold blood; lots of other government officials were also corrupt and the most likely outcome was going to be that he recurred and caused all kinds of trouble for us. No thanks.

I'd consider the character basically evil, but he likes the other party members just fine (they saved his life!) and he has no problem paying people for good service and generally abiding by reasonable laws and civilized societal norms.
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
Agreed, I'm playing a Wizard in a mostly Good aligned party. He is arrogant, condescending, self-serving, cold, calculating... but he knows that working with the group gives him the best chance to enhance his own power - he is physically weak and socially awkward, and fully aware of that! He'll torment enemies as much as possible, the more they suffer the better - then when he finally kills them he raises them to serve him in undeath.

But it's his overarching motives and general selfishness which define his alignment. He wants to gain power to raise an undead army which he plans to command to tear down a temple of Tyr in an act of revenge - they executed his tutor for grave-robbing. He will help party members who are in trouble, but not if it means getting into melee range of an enemy - and should any foe dare to mock him, or get too close to him he will simply let off a Fear spell, with no thought as to who else is in the area of effect - all he cares about in those instances is that the enemy does not directly threaten him.

(level 8 Necromancer, Neutral Evil)
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
THIS is one of MY pet peeves - anyone (Player or DM) who wants to commit evil acts in the game and then try to claim said acts are actually "good" because the victim is of an "evil" race, or a member of the "wrong" group... even if the victim is a child, helpless, personally Good-aligned, pleading for mercy on hands and knees, etc. (And why are only Humans and Demi-Humans entitled to a trial in a court of law if accused of a crime? An Elf clubs an old man over the head and takes his money, and the Paladin hauls the Elf to court. A Orc does the same thing, he's slaughtered on the spot, no questions asked. Maybe it's just me, but that seems racist.)

Why would you want to take an Orc to a court of law? DnD is more like the Wild West, not every Posse is going to bring em back alive.
 


not-so-newguy

I'm the Straw Man in your argument
Heh, I jumped into a game at a FLGS the other night and thought of this thread.

I discovered the fact that players who like steal from other players is quickly becoming a deal breaker for me. Actually, players that actively work against players in any way is becoming a deal breaker.

The situation: Two of the players were pocketing loot that the rest of the group didn't spot. There was one instance where the two were not being very subtle, so I decided to follow them. We found a body floating down the river with coins in its eyes. The DM informed us that this was burial ritual for the deadn. My character, a cleric, pleaded and argued to leave the body alone, going so far as to push the body back out to the middle of the stream. One of them pulled out his sword and threatened to kill me. I washed my hands of the situation and went back to the rest of the group. It was a bit tense at the table because I'm sure it was obvious that their actions were getting under my skin. The player's defense for his actions? "Hey, i'm chaotic neutral."

After this incident things mellowed out a bit. Later, we battled some skeletons and... wouldn't you know it? These two needed some healing. Although I was sorely tempted to give them the bird, sit back, and watch them die; the angels of my better nature won out and I healed them.

I will be attending next week. If they repeat their behavior, I will say and do nothing to stop them during the game. OTOH, I will be sending the DM an email explaining why I will no longer play in his game.
 

MostlyDm

Explorer
Yeah, inter-party conflict is not necessitated by evil characters. Even evil characters in overall good aligned parties.

Just to be clear: I'm not advocating for evil characters who try to screw over other player's characters.
 

Awesome Adam

First Post
Evil should not equal stupid.

Jayne Cobb, from Firefly, was a selfish and not too bright, but he understood the value of the group he travelled with.

Boba Fett was utterly ruthless to his adversaries, but loyal to Dengar once they started working together.
 

not-so-newguy

I'm the Straw Man in your argument
If they are apparently roleplaying their alignment then I think you would be perfectly justified in roleplaying your cleric as someone who does not help those who descrate dead (at least those who have been given burial rites). But otherwise, I think quitting the group might be a good idea since not healing them will probably lead to further conflict.

One of those players actually asked me to heal him. There was a two second pause before I responded with "sure, no problem."

During that two second pause, the thoughts in your post went through my head. I came to the conclusion that taking the higher road was the best solution.
 

Tectuktitlay

Explorer
One of those players actually asked me to heal him. There was a two second pause before I responded with "sure, no problem."

During that two second pause, the thoughts in your post went through my head. I came to the conclusion that taking the higher road was the best solution.

Perhaps it might not have been, and here's a really good reason you can present why: It is against my faith to touch that which has been desecrated. Unfortunately, you recently desecrated a corpse, against my protestations. Sadly, my Lord's healing prayer requires me to lay hands upon you. So, until you have been cleansed of the desecration of the sacred dead's burial rites, touching you is something my faith demands I not do.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top