I quit 4e-DM after my first day.

[renau1g]

Well, the son of the deposed king of Nigeria sent me an e-mail asking for money once...

You too? Man....I'd better send him my money first so you don't get the reward that he's going to send as soon as he gets in power.

Oh, but I'd better make sure I reply to that Google lottery in the UK I keep winning first, can't let those winnings disappear... the sad thing is there was some oaf in our area that was bilked for their life-savings on this scam. Then he called the paper and was looking for sympathy... he got none. It's bad enough that you fell for this scam, and that you got your relatives to give you some cash also, but then to go to the newspaper and broadcast it? Wow... just wow...

 

[AllisterH]

To the original poster who is hopefully still reading...

May I suggest letting our friends peruse the last chapter of the recently released "Player's strategy guide".

It is targetted at players and they don't have to buy it..just read the last chapter appropriately titled "How not to be a jerk".

 

[Jhaelen]

Not a troll actually.

Hmm, okay, benefit of doubt and all that. Didn't you say in your OP you've already been playing D&D together? What happened in those games?

After the players started slaughtering the crew, two of them kept asking random crap, can I do this, can I do that, I take his severed head and put him on my hand as a puppet. I told them to stop, even evil charcters wouldn't do most of this stuff. It was mainly one guy that started it, and the others just went along with it.

You know what I think? The players didn't accept your authority. I've been there. Once a player notices you let him get away with anything, the game goes down the drain. It turns into a test what you let them get away with.

Apart from that your players appear to be either rather immature or quite sick.

Apropos of nothing, this is a showcase example why having a concept of alignments in a rpg is bad. It's an invitation for jerks to be (ab)used to legitimize behaving like, well, jerks.

Should you consider DMing again, make sure to take heed of the DMG advice. Make very clear what kind of game you are interested in DMing.

 

[Celebrim]

Apropos of nothing, this is a showcase example why having a concept of alignments in a rpg is bad. It's an invitation for jerks to be (ab)used to legitimize behaving like, well, jerks.

Huh? This runs contrary to my experience, and I'm not exactly sure what the logic is.

The basic jerk defense of, "I am just playing my character", isn't system specific, nor does it depend on playing alignment. In games without alignment, you have just as much or more problems relating to taking disadvantages that have a role-playing component: "My character is short tempered, impulsive, and has annoying personal habits (cannabalism). Says so right on the sheet."

If you think a game without alignment discourages players randomly killing off innocents, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, eating the bodies of their victims, or (for example) taking captured female prisoners tying them up and hanging them upside down and... well, the rest is not EnWorld friendly but it involved playing with fire... then you are IMO very sheltered. I've ran into some real wierdos looking for new groups to play with in new cities.

Alignment in my experience is actually a moderating factor in 'playing your character like a jerk'. Unlike disadvantages, there is generally not a strong mechanical reason for choosing a particular alignment, and the default assumptions of most settings tend to favor choosing good. In my experience, many groups that downplay or drop alignment from their setting do so because it removes any DM mechanical cludgel for playing the character in an anti-social manner. In other words, for groups that think murderous cannibalistic psychopath is a cool character concept, you are much more likely to see alignment dropped in their house rules because it is 'too constraining' and 'realistic characters don't have alignment'. Or to put it more bluntly, they want to play in a world where they can be murderous cannibalistic rapists without being labelled as 'evil'. But really, if a group wants to go there, they are going to get there with or without alignment.

 

[renau1g]

I agree with you on that Celebrim. We played a game of d20 Modern back when it came out and one of our players was chomping at the bit to play it, he even picked up the rulebooks cost (out of character for him, cheapskate). When we started playing, the PC would often sneak off and ritualistically torture and kill people, he made sure to go into full detail about his character's acts. It was...off-putting to say the least.

One example involved him, a garrote, and the word's "I want it to be like when you start a lawnmower"... yeah... the DM let that stuff go and I stopped playing in that campaign. We had a rule at that point forward, alignments were required (no matter the system) and you must be either LG, N, CG, or LN.

 

[tuxgeo]

I agree with you on that Celebrim. < snip >

One example involved him, a garrote, and the word's "I want it to be like when you start a lawnmower"... yeah... the DM let that stuff go and I stopped playing in that campaign. We had a rule at that point forward, alignments were required (no matter the system) and you must be either LG, N, CG, or LN.

What, no NG?

 

[Rechan]

What, no NG?

They're just evil waiting to happen.

Or so hard to characterize no one pays attention.

 

[tuxgeo]

They're just evil waiting to happen.

Or so hard to characterize no one pays attention.

So -- the most purely Good alignment* is "just evil waiting to happen"?
If that is so, then everyone is. . . .

*NG: Neutral Good values "Good" above all, to the point of disregarding the Lawful/Chaotic axis. That is the maximum possible dedication to Good, since all other Good alignments at least diluted with other concerns. If NG people are "just evil waiting to happen," then alignment is so malleable as to be meaningless. [Is Alignment-Drift a necessary PC life-story arc?]

(Not to derail the thread, or anything. . . .)

 

[Celebrim]

So -- the most purely Good alignment* is "just evil waiting to happen"?
If that is so, then everyone is. . . .

*NG: Neutral Good values "Good" above all, to the point of disregarding the Lawful/Chaotic axis. That is the maximum possible dedication to Good, since all other Good alignments at least diluted with other concerns. If NG people are "just evil waiting to happen," then alignment is so malleable as to be meaningless. [Is Alignment-Drift a necessary PC life-story arc?]

(Not to derail the thread, or anything. . . .)

No, I don't think you derailed the thread, but boy are you ever tempting me to do so.

I'll try to be good.