D&D 5E I need good ideas

[LordShikamaru]

we are both level five and may character is an assassin for hire and also has the archetype assassin

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Sorry, couple more questions. What races are the two characters, and 5 levels of rogue for your character, or 3 rogue and 2 of another allowed?

 

[LordShikamaru]

Halfling all rouge and Human all paladin

 

[Lanliss]

With the new information, I still like my idea before for framing him to put a bounty on his head. Alternatively, you could report him to his Paladin order, and watch as they self police.

 

[Corwin]

The part that keeps tripping me up, the big lumbering thing I can't seem to get my head around, is...

The OP seems to play in a group that clearly very much worries about metagame thinking. So much so that it cost the OP his character. Because he couldn't explain his PC's actions, OOC to the rest of the table, for fear of being seen as committing that loathsome, terrible sin of metagaming.

Yet, here he is with a brand new PC, supposedly having no connection to his previous PC, out for revenge for that previous PC's death. How is that not worthy of King Meta, Supreme Ruler of the Land of Metagamia? I just don't get it.

 

[Lanliss]

The part that keeps tripping me up, the big lumbering thing I can't seem to get my head around, is...

The OP seems to play in a group that clearly very much worries about metagame thinking. So much so that it cost the OP his character. Because he couldn't explain his PC's actions, OOC to the rest of the table, for fear of being seen as committing that loathsome, terrible sin of metagaming.

Yet, here he is with a brand new PC, supposedly having no connection to his previous PC, out for revenge for that previous PC's death. How is that not worthy of King Meta, Supreme Ruler of the Land of Metagamia? I just don't get it.

At a guess, the DM wants someone on his side if things go south, that way it isn't a "DM hates this one PC, and wants him gone" case, but is instead "multiple people think this PC needs to go". I know that the first thing everyone says when such a case pops up is to Talk it out, but I respect the OP and his DM's right to do as they please.

Another possibility is that the DM has some story hook planned for when the Pally dies, but does not want to say "You all wake up in the morning. Except for one of you..." because that just reads like a dick move.

 

[Corwin]

At a guess, the DM wants someone on his side if things go south, that way it isn't a "DM hates this one PC, and wants him gone" case, but is instead "multiple people think this PC needs to go". I know that the first thing everyone says when such a case pops up is to Talk it out, but I respect the OP and his DM's right to do as they please.

Another possibility is that the DM has some story hook planned for when the Pally dies, but does not want to say "You all wake up in the morning. Except for one of you..." because that just reads like a dick move.

Put yourself in the paladin player's shoes. And tell me how it's any less a "dick move" when it was the DM *and* the player who's PC you offed, killing your paladin. Instead of just the DM.

Plus, please remember, the goal as stated is that no one is supposed to know the new assassin was involved in the killing in any way. So how does that help with your theory? The way I've been reading it, the DM *is* going to inform the paladin's player that his PC just doesn't wake up one morning. No other explanation is to be given. "Mysterious death."

And you brings up another good point. The DM better have plans for the aftermath. When the rest of the party finds their friend dead, aren't they going to start investigating the cause, and seek retribution/justice? Will this derail whatever current plot or adventure is underway? I know, if it were to happen to us, we wouldn't just shrug and move on. We'd want answers. And wouldn't rest until we had closure. Because I don't think the other *players* are in on this. So to them it will seem like a massive, heavy-handed DM plot move requiring their attention. I mean, their friend was just assassinated. That's a huge deal.

 

[Lanliss]

Put yourself in the paladin player's shoes. And tell me how it's any less a "dick move" when it was the DM *and* the player who's PC you offed, killing your paladin. Instead of just the DM.

Plus, please remember, the goal as stated is that no one is supposed to know the new assassin was involved in the killing in any way. So how does that help with your theory? The way I've been reading it, the DM *is* going to inform the paladin's player that his PC just doesn't wake up one morning. No other explanation is to be given. "Mysterious death."

And you brings up another good point. The DM better have plans for the aftermath. When the rest of the party finds their friend dead, aren't they going to start investigating the cause, and seek retribution/justice? Will this derail whatever current plot or adventure is underway? I know, if it were to happen to us, we wouldn't just shrug and move on. We'd want answers. And wouldn't rest until we had closure. Because I don't think the other *players* are in on this. So to them it will seem like a massive, heavy-handed DM plot move requiring their attention. I mean, their friend was just assassinated. That's a huge deal.

It is as I said, just the DM disliking a character and getting rid of it is a bad thing. More than one person disliking a character and getting rid of it is what is usually recommended on these boards, in cases where one PC has somehow gotten in the way of fun for others.

As I understand it, that is not how it would happen. My suggestion for example, almost guarantees a fight, and a chance for the Paladin to survive. If he fails to do so, mission accomplished. If he survives, there will be more Paladins or Bounty Hunters after him before too long.

I want to say, I understand your stance against toxic gameplay. However, the OP has already demonstrated that he/she is not interested in an alternative. I respect that choice, and provide what help I can, in ways that are not automatic kill buttons like slipping him poison or using the magic staff of F U.

 

[Corwin]

It is as I said, just the DM disliking a character and getting rid of it is a bad thing. More than one person disliking a character and getting rid of it is what is usually recommended on these boards, in cases where one PC has somehow gotten in the way of fun for others.

There is entirely one acceptable and proper way to address that issue. This isn't one of them. I think we can all agree on that. And I'd bet everyone here can guess what that one right way to do it is.

As I understand it, that is not how it would happen. My suggestion for example, almost guarantees a fight, and a chance for the Paladin to survive. If he fails to do so, mission accomplished. If he survives, there will be more Paladins or Bounty Hunters after him before too long.

From the OP:

"The DM has charged me with the task off murdering his [paladin].... but there is a catch. I have to do it in a manner and set it up so that The other Characters nor players in our campaign have any idea that it was me who murdered him, this job is between me and the DM, he is willing to help me out provided i come up with a plan of execution so that him and i dont need to pass notes in the middle of the session and let everyone know that i killed him so he does not try to hold a grudge."

Those are his words. His criteria. If you *are* trying to help on his terms, you are being no more useful to him than I am.

Again, that was so full of metagame thinking it almost hurts my brain. Which is ironic given the depth the group goes to trying to avoid metagaming.

I want to say, I understand your stance against toxic gameplay. However, the OP has already demonstrated that he/she is not interested in an alternative. I respect that choice, and provide what help I can, in ways that are not automatic kill buttons like slipping him poison or using the magic staff of F U.

IMO encouraging, or enabling, bad behavior doesn't help anyone. Nor will offer the best chance for the table to get past this ugly situation and become better for it. Toxic, dysfunctional table behavior doesn't just go away of get better on its own. It festers and worsens, building on itself until the group is so cancerous it dies a painful death.

I, for one, would rather try to save it than push it over a cliff. Even if part of it wants to jump.

 

[Lanliss]

There is entirely one acceptable and proper way to address that issue. This isn't one of them. I think we can all agree on that. And I'd bet everyone here can guess what that one right way to do it is.


From the OP:

"The DM has charged me with the task off murdering his [paladin].... but there is a catch. I have to do it in a manner and set it up so that The other Characters nor players in our campaign have any idea that it was me who murdered him, this job is between me and the DM, he is willing to help me out provided i come up with a plan of execution so that him and i dont need to pass notes in the middle of the session and let everyone know that i killed him so he does not try to hold a grudge."

Those are his words. His criteria. If you *are* trying to help on his terms, you are being no more useful to him than I am.

Again, that was so full of metagame thinking it almost hurts my brain. Which is ironic given the depth the group goes to trying to avoid metagaming.


IMO encouraging, or enabling, bad behavior doesn't help anyone. Nor will offer the best chance for the table to get past this ugly situation and become better for it. Toxic, dysfunctional table behavior doesn't just go away of get better on its own. It festers and worsens, building on itself until the group is so cancerous it dies a painful death.

I, for one, would rather try to save it than push it over a cliff. Even if part of it wants to jump.

I guess you could call me Chaotic Neutral. I enjoy working some things out within certain criteria, even if they are not really good things to think about.

Also, how am I failing to meet his criteria? Not arguing, just curious. Maybe if you only define "murder" as being the one to drive the knife through his heart. I am thinking of it in the broader "reason he died" sense. Everything I have said could be done at an in between session, or off screen with a bit of gold coming out of the Assassin's pocket, and accomplish the Death of the Pally without anyone else knowing what happened.