D&D 5E Killed Me a Lawful Stupid Paladin

[ccs]

He cast shield of faith and tried to tell me with a poo eating grin it's up to me to make him roll concentration rolls for his spell.

That would earn him - the player - the (unfavorable) gaze of the gods in my game. His characters lives would become much harder.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yeah... that could have (and should have) been handled completely differently.

 

[Arvok]

Also got told "I don't care if you get yourself killed. I do care if you get others killed".

My philosophy.

 

[jgsugden]

Didn't enjoy killing him, I just didn't care.

My players describe me as a LN DM. Won't go out of my way to kill them won't lift a finger to much to save them from themselves.

What will be will be.

… and you came here to brag? You're relishing in this kill. Relishing in a kill is not Neutral, and arbitrarily selecting to make an encounter overpoweringly hard is not lawful. You said you decided to make the elf a CR 5 - and you pretty clearly seem to have done it when you knew there was a fight coming. This is little different than you just having an archmage pop in and PW: Kill a PC.

"Hey, look everybody, I got to kill the Lawful Stupid paladin. Ha, ha! I'm the DM and can set him up for an overwhelming challenge - so I just put in a monster that was guaranteed to kill him! And I even got him to decide to start the fight! These players will never beat me!"

D&D is an RPG, a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Setting up the PC to have their story end for no good reason is counterproductive.

 

[Zardnaar]

… and you came here to brag? You're relishing in this kill. Relishing in a kill is not Neutral, and arbitrarily selecting to make an encounter overpoweringly hard is not lawful. You said you decided to make the elf a CR 5 - and you pretty clearly seem to have done it when you knew there was a fight coming. This is little different than you just having an archmage pop in and PW: Kill a PC.

"Hey, look everybody, I got to kill the Lawful Stupid paladin. Ha, ha! I'm the DM and can set him up for an overwhelming challenge - so I just put in a monster that was guaranteed to kill him! And I even got him to decide to start the fight! These players will never beat me!"

D&D is an RPG, a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. Setting up the PC to have their story end for no good reason is counterproductive.

I didn't think he would go through with it. Literally got told it was a gladiator.

I posted it as I've heard about Lawful Stupid online, first time I had seen it. Plenty of CN or Chaotic annoying.

As I said if I put a CR16 dragon in the game and they chose to fight it that's in them.

Just kinda stops PCs bullying NPCs all the time.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What was this paladin's alignment and oath supposed to be? While I don't dictate character choices, if it was supposed to be the LG type, I would probably have mentioned something to give him the idea that the action he was contemplating might not be a good fit for his alignment/oath (in my campaign, that sort of thing affects what happens to your character after they die, and having a little scene with dead characters can be interesting so they can see where they ended up).

In any event, I get the impression that this player wanted to play a jerk character. He started a fight because he was a sore winner? Seriously? It also sounds like the DM telegraphed everything thoroughly, and that the consequences were naturally arising from the setting and scenario. The only things I can see that the DM did wrong are perhaps not giving the player a Session 0 recap, and saying that he killed the character in the thread title. He didn't, the player was role-playing a jerk character (which may or may not have been making a mockery of his declared alignment/oath), he was warned of the likely consequences of his actions repeatedly, by both the DM and the other players, and he still chose to take the serious risk--which wasn't even an automatic fail.

If a DM were to artificially save this character from his action's natural consequences, and I were a player in that campaign, I would be seriously reconsidering if this is a campaign I want to play in. Saving jerk characters who choose to risk their lives to be jerks would be no more desireable in a DM than arbitrarily killing characters because he doesn't like them.

My judgement is fully in favor of the OP on this one.

 

[Zardnaar]

What was this paladin's alignment and oath supposed to be? While I don't dictate character choices, if it was supposed to be the LG type, I would probably have mentioned something to give him the idea that the action he was contemplating might not be a good fit for his alignment/oath (in my campaign, that sort of thing affects what happens to your character after they die, and having a little scene with dead characters can be interesting so they can see where they ended up).

In any event, I get the impression that this player wanted to play a jerk character. He started a fight because he was a sore winner? Seriously? It also sounds like the DM telegraphed everything thoroughly, and that the consequences were naturally arising from the setting and scenario. The only things I can see that the DM did wrong are perhaps not giving the player a Session 0 recap, and saying that he killed the character in the thread title. He didn't, the player was role-playing a jerk character (which may or may not have been making a mockery of his declared alignment/oath), he was warned of the likely consequences of his actions repeatedly, by both the DM and the other players, and he still chose to take the serious risk--which wasn't even an automatic fail.

If a DM were to artificially save this character from his action's natural consequences, and I were a player in that campaign, I would be seriously reconsidering if this is a campaign I want to play in. Saving jerk characters who choose to risk their lives to be jerks would be no more desireable in a DM than arbitrarily killing characters because he doesn't like them.

My judgement is fully in favor of the OP on this one.

LG Oath if the Ancients following Seggotan, aquatic dragon deity from Midgard.

Forgot to mention one if the other players got so annoyed she left the room. She doesn't mind a mano a mano challenge on occasion just not over stupid pointless crap.

 

[Flamestrike]

LG Oath if the Ancients following Seggotan, aquatic dragon deity from Midgard.

Forgot to mention one if the other players got so annoyed she left the room. She doesn't mind a mano a mano challenge on occasion just not over stupid pointless crap.

So why start the fight?

Couldnt you have found a solution to what was an OOC problem, without killing the PC?

 

[Zardnaar]

So why start the fight?

Couldnt you have found a solution to what was an OOC problem, without killing the PC?

Why not? It's on him. He'll learn the hard way or not.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why not? It's on him. He'll learn the hard way or not.

There are other ways to teach players how to be better other than 'kill the PC and gloat about it online' you realise?