D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

Indeed, and if a character roleplays itself right out of the party then so be it...that character is still out there for its player to bring in at some other time and-or to some other party, or play solo, or build another party around; and the player can always roll up a replacement for here and now. (I've always held that having extra PCs "out there" tends to make for a deeper and richer campaign/setting in the long run)

And yes, sometimes in-party disagreements escalate to the point where weapons get drawn, spells get cast, and some characters end up either tossed out, charmed, or dead (or, in one memorable and hilarious - you had to be there - case, given away into slavery). The key thing is that what happens in character stays in character: if the players are laughing as these things happen, all is good.

I'd rather see these things resolved that way than by the more passive-aggressive approach I've also seen, where an annoying character is by tacit agreement among the other characters/players hung out to dry in some combat or other and left to die.

Indeed, why would they do that? Best answer IMO is maybe they wouldn't; and end up going their separate ways (or, more commonly IME, splitting into two groups that do get along internally - which means I then run two parties once each group fills out its lineup with new recruits).

Yeah, basically, I think that the mode of 'Gygaxian DMing' is still the best suited to D&D 'out of the box'. That is, one big boss DM that everyone has their night with, who runs as many different sessions as reasonably possible to handle all the different threads of PCs coming together, splitting up, etc. Gygax apparently ran a few games a week, and had up to 100 players at various levels of activity who might enter a game (and then had Rob as a sub-DM, maybe others too). D&D works reasonably well there, characters can settle into certain niches, they don't really have to cooperate that much, etc. The paladin and the assassin simply never join the same party, one or the other player gets out some other PC instead for that adventure. I mean, back in 'the day' I probably had 20 or more PCs that I could run. Most were low level, but if I go dig out my notebook I'm sure I'd find that a number of them got up into the higher single-digit levels and did various things that I don't even remember anymore. Even 5e is really most adapted to this kind of play to be honest.

 

[Tutara]

You don't really NEED an 'uncharted land' for this. You can simply assume that there really are few, if any, of these 'big fish' around. So, lets take Doskvol as an example...

I know Blades and Doskvol very well, so everything you say makes perfect sense. It is an excellent example of how this should work.
Honestly, I just usually assume the players are exceptional and it works out well for me - my players aren't going to randomly stab a burgomeister in the throat, because I've known them nearly a decade. We enjoy working together to make engaging narratives and a lot of the DM vs Player schtick in this thread is alien to me.

When things do go wrong - the mob boss is offended, the party has been framed for a crime they (possibly) didn't commit - everyone has bought in and it's fun. No need to teach or punish. We're all on the same side.

 

[Flamestrike]

Are normal human beings wizards who can cast might spells (and in any thing like a normal context Charm Person and Sleep would be mighty magics), or a fighter who can withstand multiple sword blows from substantial enemies (IE orcs and goblins and the like) without significant harm? There's nothing 'normal' about a 1st level PC in ANY edition of D&D (I mean arguably the oldest 3LBB version a level 1 fighter is still tougher than your average modern cop).

For the love of God, that's not how HP work, and how on earth does the fact one is a Wizard in any way affect your mental stability and morality leading you to repeatedly psychotically murder on a whim?

I get the feeling you'd be likely to raise this exact debate in a game, right around the time your Good aligned PC gets pulled up right before cutting someones throat in their sleep over some petty gripe.

You're not going to convince me that murder-hobism is a normal 'real life' phenomenon in anything other than random serial killers, and you're not going to convince me that it's a genuine attempt at characterization by a player in 99 percent of cases (i.e. unless playing a CE character, who is an actual deranged serial killer, and a team killing Jerk like Darth Vader or similar, who does routinely kill people over trivial matters).

That's the end of the debate here, and it would be at the table as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I do. I've traveled all over the world and have yet to find myself in a place full of DnD-esque murder-hobos.

Even in dangerous places, you'll have militants killing people over differences in religion, or nationalistic gripes, or over a gang war or whatever, but a nation full of utter psychopaths slaughtering random people for on-the-spot trifling reasons doesnt exist anywhere other than a Khornate Demon world in 40K.

Exactly! Or in a D&D game! This was my precise point! In case the thread has unraveled here, my point is that any sort of analysis or judgment about the actions of PCs in a D&D game is pretty much moot because said characters are already UTTERLY unrealistic. Now saying its unrealistic for them to kill some guards that get in their way? Or violates some sort of law of human behavior? OK, maybe it does, but you're already so far into fantasy land behavior already that complaining about it seems pointless, and calling it unrealistic is equally pointless.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For the love of God, that's not how HP work, and how on earth does the fact one is a Wizard in any way affect your mental stability and morality leading you to repeatedly psychotically murder on a whim?

I get the feeling you'd be likely to raise this exact debate in a game, right around the time your Good aligned PC gets pulled up right before cutting someones throat in their sleep over some petty gripe.

You're not going to convince me that murder-hobism is a normal 'real life' phenomenon in anything other than random serial killers, and you're not going to convince me that it's a genuine attempt at characterization by a player in 99 percent of cases (i.e. unless playing a CE character, who is an actual deranged serial killer, and a team killing Jerk like Darth Vader or similar, who does routinely kill people over trivial matters).

That's the end of the debate here, and it would be at the table as well.

Huh? You've utterly twisted the argument around. My position is that ALL of this behavior, even most 'normal PC behavior' is so abnormal when taken in the context of actual real people, that its impossible to even judge it. I said NOTHING arguing that 'murder hobos are normal', totally the opposite!

 

[Oofta]

Exactly! Or in a D&D game! This was my precise point! In case the thread has unraveled here, my point is that any sort of analysis or judgment about the actions of PCs in a D&D game is pretty much moot because said characters are already UTTERLY unrealistic. Now saying its unrealistic for them to kill some guards that get in their way? Or violates some sort of law of human behavior? OK, maybe it does, but you're already so far into fantasy land behavior already that complaining about it seems pointless, and calling it unrealistic is equally pointless.

They're action movie heroes, perhaps low-ish level superheroes at high levels. It's realistic for the genre and feel that it's trying to emulate. But I agree that physical or supernatural capabilities have nothing to do with mental stability. It's odd that you're correlating the two, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[dave2008]

The PC did whatever the PC did, I'm not going to stop them. On the other hand, I won't enjoy a game with evil characters as a DM or player. Been there, done that, don't want to do it again. I have to enjoy the game too.

Players are always free to find a different group and DM if they really want to play evil PCs. I've had exactly one player leave because they really wanted to play an evil PC in all my decades of running games. I explain all of this when I ask players to join.

Allowing them to do whatever they want doesn't mean you don't object to what they are doing. It is fine to admit you do in fact object. I mean, it is clear you do, you just don't want to say it for some reason.

 

[pemerton]

Disallowing evil PCs is actually a pretty common limitation.

Sure. But it's a way of limiting what players can do in the game, not a way of giving them full control over their PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Allowing them to do whatever the want doesn't mean you don't object to what they are doing. It is fine to admit you do in fact object. I mean, it is clear you do, you just don't want to say it for some reason.

I never tell my players what they can or cannot do, I will let them know what the consequences are. That first level PC wants to try to take out that dragon? Go for it. I may ask if they even want to bother rolling initiative because their PC is going to die, but it's the player's choice.

If you consider telling people the consequences of their actions is that I assume control of the PC if they go evil [edit to add] telling the players what they can do[/edit] , that's your choice.

EDIT: It also doesn't really have anything to do with the character being evil. I had this happen once and it gave me a really fun NPC (the player had chatted with me ahead of time about what they were thinking). On the other hand I think I've been quite clear - I simply don't want to play in a game with evil PCs. So ... yes I object to having evil PCs in my group. Not sure how much clearer I can be on that.

 

[pemerton]

I never tell my players what they can or cannot do, I will let them know what the consequences are. That first level PC wants to try to take out that dragon? Go for it. I may ask if they even want to bother rolling initiative because their PC is going to die, but it's the player's choice.

If you consider telling people the consequences of their actions is that I assume control of the PC if they go evil [edit to add] telling the players what they can do[/edit] , that's your choice.

I think that many people - I'm one, and I wouldn't be surprised if @dave2008 is another - think there is a significant difference between an imagined in-fiction consequence ("You, the PC, get crisped by the dragon") and a real-life, at the table consequence ("You, the player, are now forbidden from playing your character").