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

[R_J_K75]

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.

If the player hasn't shown up again its probably not worth giving any more thought to I'd imagine. If they do come back I'd just tell them what they did was against their alignment and move on.

 

[ccs]

Hmm... They are acolytes of Lathander. The dialogue I wrote for him alludes to his soul being offered revenge while awaiting his judgement in the afterlife. Who or what offered it, he doesn't know. He took the opportunity.

I really like the encounter, but I fear the player - and possibly the rest of the group - might feel I've unfairly targeted this one player. However, I didn't make them murder an unconscious human. I've had this encounter set to go for a while now, but the player hasn't shown up for several sessions. We moved to a virtual setting (global pandemic) and the player hasn't bothered to join. I really don't feel right about killing a PC without the player present, so I keep putting it off.

I might just suggest that the necromancer wanders off to pursue other interests. If the player comes back when the real world has returned to a more normal situation, I'll ask her to create a new, less controversial character.

So essentially killing the character without the player present.... Look, if that's your plan? Then you might as well kill them off with the Revenant & make it entertaining for everyone else.
Just stretch it out over a few sessions as the rev stalks them & launches various attacks. Eventually the revenant succeeds.

Of course you should simply ask the player straight up if they're intending to return. Email, phone, text, etc. If they don't respond within whatever you deem a reasonable time? Then proceed with the revenant attacks. Pick a # of encounters. If the player still hasn't returned responded by the last? Then they get killed.

 

[akr71]

So essentially killing the character without the player present.... Look, if that's your plan? Then you might as well kill them off with the Revenant & make it entertaining for everyone else.
Just stretch it out over a few sessions as the rev stalks them & launches various attacks. Eventually the revenant succeeds.

Of course you should simply ask the player straight up if they're intending to return. Email, phone, text, etc. If they don't respond within whatever you deem a reasonable time? Then proceed with the revenant attacks. Pick a # of encounters. If the player still hasn't returned responded by the last? Then they get killed.

No definitely not. I've had this encounter in my back pocket ready to go, but the player hasn't shown up again. I keep getting "oh ya, I should set that up."

I think I'm going to tell the player that the character left the party to pursue other goals. If the player rejoins the group, she can roll up a new character that fits better with the goals of the party.

 

[akr71]

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.

You're right. I dropped the ball.

 

[Quartz]

If the player is no longer there, how about killing the necromancer as a scripted event? Just have the other PCs witness from afar the necromancer being killed by the revenant. Maybe the necromancer is the other side of the market or something, the players hear screams, and get there just in time for the revenant to say, "Justice is served." and collapse.

 

[jasper]

I am jasper of watch patrol 14.
You killed me. I was two weeks from my retirement and was going on my honeymoon in three weeks.
You killed me because I just told you it was past curfew.
Now prepare to die!
NEVER BE AFRAID to kill of pcs. Especially if the monsters have reason to be miffed at them.

 

[billd91]

You're right. I dropped the ball.

I happens. But it is particularly important to keep in mind with newer players. There are plenty of weird misconceptions about alignments among experienced players as it is.

In general, if the players seem to be really misunderstanding something, it's incumbent on the DM to clarify things. I wouldn't consider reminding players of what their PCs would know or what their PCs were sent to do as anything like railroading. Our normal lives involve distractions and interruptions that are different from the lives our PCs would live so I don't grudge players forgetting things from session to session or from misunderstanding their interactions with NPCs. They don't have the perspective of their PCs or even ME as their DM. Plus, if they've misunderstood something, it's entirely possible it's my fault.

Once their understanding is clearer, then they I can hold them responsible for their choices with a totally clear conscience and let 'er rip.

 

[ccs]

No definitely not. I've had this encounter in my back pocket ready to go, but the player hasn't shown up again. I keep getting "oh ya, I should set that up."

I think I'm going to tell the player that the character left the party to pursue other goals. If the player rejoins the group, she can roll up a new character that fits better with the goals of the party.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain the difference between killing the character off without the player present & simply telling them they'll have to roll up a new one because their old one left the party while they weren't present.
Either way the character is removed from the game without the player being present. So all I see is a splitting of hairs over what you call it/how you describe the removal.
The difference being that one of them (hopefully) entertains the group.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain the difference between killing the character off without the player present & simply telling them they'll have to roll up a new one because their old one left the party while they weren't present.
Either way the character is removed from the game without the player being present. So all I see is a splitting of hairs over what you call it/how you describe the removal.
The difference being that one of them (hopefully) entertains the group.

I have to concur. These are essentially the same thing. The latter is arguably slightly less offensive because there's no less potential for it to seem mean, but they're very similar.

The main thing is, given the player is very new, if they weren't put off by the general reaction and sudden ending of the session, to make them feel okay about playing a character. If a new character will help with that, great. Some people will be put off by the effort of making a new one, though (yeah, I know a lot of us make characters like we breath, but my experience is that for newer people it's kind of a struggle).

They're a poor choice for the whole melodrama the OP planned, because they're new. An experienced player who did something murder-hobo-ish would have been a better target for such an attempt to "teach a lesson".

 

[akr71]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain the difference between killing the character off without the player present & simply telling them they'll have to roll up a new one because their old one left the party while they weren't present.
Either way the character is removed from the game without the player being present. So all I see is a splitting of hairs over what you call it/how you describe the removal.
The difference being that one of them (hopefully) entertains the group.

I have to concur. These are essentially the same thing. The latter is arguably slightly less offensive because there's no less potential for it to seem mean, but they're very similar.

The main thing is, given the player is very new, if they weren't put off by the general reaction and sudden ending of the session, to make them feel okay about playing a character. If a new character will help with that, great. Some people will be put off by the effort of making a new one, though (yeah, I know a lot of us make characters like we breath, but my experience is that for newer people it's kind of a struggle).

They're a poor choice for the whole melodrama the OP planned, because they're new. An experienced player who did something murder-hobo-ish would have been a better target for such an attempt to "teach a lesson".

I hear what you are both saying. Right now, the player has effectively removed themselves from the game by not showing up. I don't plan to force her removal - more like "Hey, what do you think if your player leaves the party to pursue her own interests. When we get back to playing face to face and want to join us again, then we can discuss how your character will join the party."

Depending on where the party is at that point, it might be logical to bring in a new character. For example, they could be on the other side of the continent, on a ship, who knows.