D&D 5E (2014) Killed Me a Lawful Stupid Paladin

[Baldurs_Underdark]

If a PC in my game would "pick a fight", then I would choose from two options:
1. Allow it and make sure it is interesting and balanced (which is not hard in a one-on-one fight), and weave it into the story arch. If it is stupid to pick that fight, then let it have consequences for later in the story.
2. Not allow it. Just tell the players that the NPC walks away in arrogance, and disappearsr into a busy harbor. That just creates a new potential encounter in a future session when the players leveled up more - returning NPCs make the story stronger.

It's mean to kill the PC - especially if it was a newbie. I don't understand why a DM would be proud to kill a PC. It's not difficult, if you run the rest of the world. Letting their silly actions have meaningful consequences, now that's something to be proud of.

 

[Blue]

"Lawful stupid" became a cliche because it was true. You mentioned a newer player - playing like that for their first paladin experience is a valid choice. They don't know how much mockery fans have piled on that concept. Ah well. Now they have also learned actions have consequences, a good lesson that some experienced players still need to learn.

 

[Oofta]

"Lawful stupid" became a cliche because it was true. You mentioned a newer player - playing like that for their first paladin experience is a valid choice. They don't know how much mockery fans have piled on that concept. Ah well. Now they have also learned actions have consequences, a good lesson that some experienced players still need to learn.

It's been at least a couple of decades since a paladin was restricted by the current ruleset for allies, and in my experience there is no limit to class or alignment for people that played PCs that wanted everyone to kowtow to them. Is it really any different for a LG character to not want to adventure with murderous thugs than someone wanting to play a murderous thug in a group that is otherwise good aligned?

Coming up with a cohesive group that will work together is a separate issue. PCs dying because they did something stupid is also not limited to any particular class or alignment. I'd have no problem with a "What stupid thing has your PC done that led to their death" thread. Calling out a specific alignment, class and archetype feels like borderline bigotry to me.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I wonder if using third person in play would've helped?

e.g.
The Elf captain looks you up and down, then says 'I haven't the time for riff-raff such as you.'

That way players more easily draw distinctions between in-play emotion and out-of-play feelings.

Just a thought, thinking back on similar situations I've suffered.

 

[Blue]

It's been at least a couple of decades since a paladin was restricted by the current ruleset for allies, and in my experience there is no limit to class or alignment for people that played PCs that wanted everyone to kowtow to them. Is it really any different for a LG character to not want to adventure with murderous thugs than someone wanting to play a murderous thug in a group that is otherwise good aligned?

Coming up with a cohesive group that will work together is a separate issue. PCs dying because they did something stupid is also not limited to any particular class or alignment. I'd have no problem with a "What stupid thing has your PC done that led to their death" thread. Calling out a specific alignment, class and archetype feels like borderline bigotry to me.

I was using the description supplied by the OP, and in the thread title. If you have a problem with "lawful stupid" being bigotry, please take it up with them.

And I have not called out paladins (one of my favorite classes), LG (an alignment I play frequently) or an archetype (none was discussed). The discussion was about a behavior. Any more than"playing tag on the highway will likely get one killed" is not bigotry.

But even there, I did not put them down - I mentioned it was valid play choice. I also mentioned that it's often mocked. So is the "my family are all dead" backgrounds, but that doesn't make them less valid. So I really have no idea why in this entire thread you chose to quote me and try to accuse me of bigotry.

 

[GMMichael]

-snip- A simple bad play.

Shortened for post utility.

They have a showdown to the death, if Paladin wins he gets his apology, if Tik Tok 12 wins he gets to eat the Paladin.

Process kinda took 20-30 minutes to play out. Only combat of the night. . . Derailed the last hour or so if the session.

Those were some horrible stakes. Not just for the paladin, but for the players who had to watch solo play for 20-30 minutes, with a reward of a dead PC.

Would something like this have worked, and shortened the situation?

PC and NPC choose their most effective attacks, alternate making them, and then decide the "winner" after each gets three swings at bat. If the PC clearly got demolished in the process, leave it up to the player to suggest the death of his character.​

 

[Oofta]

I was using the description supplied by the OP, and in the thread title. If you have a problem with "lawful stupid" being bigotry, please take it up with them.

And I have not called out paladins (one of my favorite classes), LG (an alignment I play frequently) or an archetype (none was discussed). The discussion was about a behavior. Any more than"playing tag on the highway will likely get one killed" is not bigotry.

But even there, I did not put them down - I mentioned it was valid play choice. I also mentioned that it's often mocked. So is the "my family are all dead" backgrounds, but that doesn't make them less valid. So I really have no idea why in this entire thread you chose to quote me and try to accuse me of bigotry.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I dislike the cliche'. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Same way that I dislike the chaotic means chaotic insane or unreliable loner cliche'.

I'm glad 5E eases off the old hard and fast alignment restrictions and rules. I like alignment as one descriptor along with others, neither more or less important than others. I think the "PC that does obviously stupid/suicidal things" is a descriptor unattached to alignment or class.

 

[Istbor]

I guess I fail to see how being Lawful Good played into someone deciding to pick a fight? Is it lawful and good to just start duels? And why was the Paladin fighting for an apology? Did this Captain get uppity because the PC ship beat them into harbor?

This feels like it is missing a lot of context in how it got to a to the death duel.

 

[Guest User]

Zard, was this the same player you posted about, whom wanted to select a race for his PC that you objected to?

I hope not, else I am afraid the tale the "meta data" shows is you got annoyed by a player, and then Bounty DM'd and collected a scalp.

Bounty DM-ing is not praiseworthy, quite the opposite, in fact.
No cookie for you.

If this was a different player, that missed session 0...then I guess you made your point:
"Do everything the DM says, and play your character only in the manner the DM expects".

As a middle aged player, with 40 years invested into the game, I certainly don't want to play in a game with either a Bounty Hunter DM nor a DO IT MY WAY DM.
I don't mind a fair, but hard assed DM...but Zard, is it possible the stress of this challenging time, might be influencing your refereeing?

What you described in your post, does not read like a Gold Medal DM performance.
To use the Ancient Greek archery term for "Missing the Mark", it read like a sin...that perhaps you missed the real target a DM should aim for.

A Deadly Encounter for a 5th level character is 1,100 XP. A Gladiator is worth 1,800 XP.
A DM does not get a cookie, for creating a solo challenge that is 164% of a Deadly Encounter, and killing a character.

Do you seek praise for punching infants?

NO COOKIE FOR YOU.

 

[FrozenNorth]

"Lawful stupid" became a cliche because it was true. You mentioned a newer player - playing like that for their first paladin experience is a valid choice. They don't know how much mockery fans have piled on that concept. Ah well. Now they have also learned actions have consequences, a good lesson that some experienced players still need to learn.

If a low-level player wants to pick a fight with a dragon or a beholder, he absolutely should get what is coming to him.

A 5th-level paladin picking a fight with a random sea captain? I don’t think it is either fair or foreseeable that the sea captain’s guard is a CR 5 creature (so the equivalent of a level 15 character), particularly if the DM enforces a fight to the death.