D&D 5E Next session a character might die. Am I being a jerk?

[Todd Roybark]

"What is your alignment?" The necromancer's player replies chaotic good. My wife laughed and said "I don't think so." She has been playing lawful evil as far as I'm concerned.

How new is the player to D&D? If the player thought they were extinguishing the life force of an evil thing, and replenishing their own life force so they can continue their crusade against evil...that falls under the bailiwick of Chaotic Good/ Neutral Good.

It is egotistical, but righteousness often is.

The Necromancer player clearly misstepped. Was it intentionally meant to be out of line with the ethics of the group, or unintentional? If a group of supposedly good adventures let my Chaotic Good character be murdered by a Revenant while they ate popcorn and drank wine, I would quit the group.

Having each other’s back is rule one, for adventuring groups...unless we are explicitly playing a Paranoia style game. What did your Session Zero game set as ground rules?

 

[akr71]

Chaotic Good! WTF?

Have you explained to the player that... you know... murder, is evil?

And if so, any reason you haven't changed their alignment?

She hasn't shown up again - we've move online and she hasn't joined in. New player, first character - wanting to be edgy or something. Ended up being ineffective and a distraction.

 

[akr71]

How new is the player to D&D? If the player thought they were extinguishing the life force of an evil thing, and replenishing their own life force so they can continue their crusade against evil...that falls under the bailiwick of Chaotic Good/ Neutral Good.

It is egotistical, but righteousness often is.

The Necromancer player clearly misstepped. Was it intentionally meant to be out of line with the ethics of the group, or unintentional? If a group of supposedly good adventures let my Chaotic Good character be murdered by a Revenant while they ate popcorn and drank wine, I would quit the group.

Having each other’s back is rule one, for adventuring groups...unless we are explicitly playing a Paranoia style game. What did your Session Zero game set as ground rules?

Really new player. Again, I think I did a poor job of conveying that the unconscious bodies were helpless victims. They just defeated a BBEG undead and assumed that these people were soon to be undead and they should strike first. They used player knowledge of pop-culture and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

The rest of the party was quite taken aback by the necromancer's actions - there was plenty of healing by other party members to be had - even a short rest was an option. "I want to see what this new spell does." was the response.

I'm not sure the rest of the party would just stand by and watch, but their defense may be lackluster. This group has teetered on the edge of murder-hoboness a lot. I was hoping that this encounter might teach them that their actions are not without consequence.

 

[Flamestrike]

She hasn't shown up again - we've move online and she hasn't joined in. New player, first character - wanting to be edgy or something. Ended up being ineffective and a distraction.

Man, as DM I would have stepped in and clearly and unambiguously told the player that murdering a helpless person is evil, before they did what they did. Hit the pause button pre murder, and stated it outright.

It's so weird that people need to be reminded of that fact. I would have thought the statement 'murder of helpless people is wholly evil' was self evident.

 

[Flamestrike]

How new is the player to D&D? If the player thought they were extinguishing the life force of an evil thing, and replenishing their own life force so they can continue their crusade against evil...that falls under the bailiwick of Chaotic Good/ Neutral Good.

Facepalm.

 

[Unwise]

Why would the guy come back as a revenant? He is presumably a good guy of a light-based anti-undead religion. He died peacefully in his sleep with no idea what happened. Why is he so full of hate that he could rip the veil of the shadowfell and reject his eternal rest?

Heck, most people who are brutalised to death and have their families slaughtered in front of them do not come back as revenents.

This just feels like the DM wanting to punish player actions and concocting an in-game reason to do so. Having a reverent after him is a death sentence. Be it today, or in a years time, it will eventually kill him.

If you don't want that PC in the party any more because it offends the type of game you want to run, I think just be explicit about it. Adjusting the world itself to bring justice to evil-doers erodes player agency and world building.

 

[Flamestrike]

Adjusting the world itself to bring justice to evil-doers erodes player agency and world building.

Unless the world features 'good begets good and evil begets evil' as a cosmic force; like karma and so forth.

I would have intervened as both a player and a DM.

As a DM I would have clearly and unambiguously told the player that what they were doing (murder) was evil (no arguments allowed), and explained that IF they did it there would be consequences (alignment change on the character sheet, and likely getting booted from the party by good aligned PCs who witnessed the murder).

As a player of a Good character, I would have likely refused to adventure with the murderer any more, at a minimum.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course if this happened to my players they'd just knock the revenant unconscious and bury it or otherwise trap it.

Undead can go unconscious?

That's a new one...

 

[Lanefan]

Man, as DM I would have stepped in and clearly and unambiguously told the player that murdering a helpless person is evil, before they did what they did. Hit the pause button pre murder, and stated it outright.

It's so weird that people need to be reminded of that fact. I would have thought the statement 'murder of helpless people is wholly evil' was self evident.

Depending how it was described, the players may have no way of knowing whether these are helpless people or undead-in-making unless they do some investigating, and if they don't and simply assume the worst then so be it.

No need for the DM to jump in and give away info the PCs don't otherwise have. What you're suggesting amounts to HINT! You're supposed to rescue these guys! which to me is flat-out railroading.

 

[Mistwell]

The revenant is going to find them in the forest at night, hunkered down in their Tiny Hut. If they don't deal with him, he will just make noise, disturb their long rest and attract all kinds of nasty creatures in the process. He doesn't care, he just wants revenge on the necromancer.

Party will finish their long rest. They can just plug their ears and sleep through it until morning (and I am not even sure sound carries through the dome). There is nothing the revenant can do to get an attack in to them.

And then, assuming they have just a couple minutes of rest before the tiny hut went up, they can spend that last couple of minutes pin-cushioning the revenant from inside the tiny hut with arrows. "creatures and objects within the dome when you cast this spell can move through it freely." In fact the spellcasters may even be able to stick a hand trough the hut to cast a spell and then withdraw their hand, if nobody has a readied action to attack them if any part of them appears.