Player Hubris

[D'nemy]

I need a little advice here and I'm not sure if this topic has been talked to death before and if it has I apologize for trawling it up again.

I've been playing for 25+ years as both a player and a DM/GM and one thing I keep running into and cannot stand is what I call "Player Hubris."

It goes something like this...

The paladin or LG cleric tortures the helpless kobold for information.

The NG rogue steals some bottles of mead from a poor innkeeper. When called on it by me as GM their response is always "but I'm a thief! That's what I do!"

The whole gang decides to use a captured Drow as trap fodder. Sending her first through every intersection, threshold, staircase and room. After a few false alarms the bound dark elf is hacked to pieces by some whirling blades that come out of the walls. All these "good guys" laugh about it and marvel at how "cool" that was.

In short, it's this idea that so long as we call the other thing "evil" we can do whatever we want as characters... and any punishments a fellow player or DM/GM may bring for such actions is always met with scorn and threats to leave the game. ALWAYS.

I have two questions.

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it?

What is a hero? What is a villain? Is the CE or LG on their stats or is it what they do and how they act?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

any punishments a fellow player or DM/GM may bring for such actions is always met with scorn and threats to leave the game. ALWAYS.

First of all, those are childish threats. I'd reconsider my association with these people.

Secondly, their character's behavior could be ok, if it's that type of game you want to be playing.

If you accept to DM a world where that behavior is good, and to make an evil creature is not an un-good act in and of itself, then there's absolutely no reason why how they acted could be considered wrong, IMO.

What bugs me is their "ultimatum". You're the DM, you decide what behavior is acceptable in your game. If they won't conform to how you want to play your world, either change the way you run your world, or stop DMing (for them).

AR

 

[Shemeska]

In short, it's this idea that so long as we call the other thing "evil" we can do whatever we want as characters... and any punishments a fellow player or DM/GM may bring for such actions is always met with scorn and threats to leave the game. ALWAYS.

I have two questions.

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

I've never really had to put up with it. Maybe I've just had damn good players, who I adore, but they've never given good and evil a double standard like that. If their characters do an obviously evil act, they know it's an obviously evil act, and they'll pony up to it. But I also don't require that the PCs be good.

Current group:

1 - NG cleric
1 - NE tiefling rogue/wizard
1 - N (bouncing between NE and NG) 1/2 arcanaloth 1/2 lupinal sorceress. She has moral issues.
1 - LN half drow wizard
1 - N ogre fighter
1 - CG Phoelarch druid (who is not aware IC of the alignment of the others)
1 - LN/LE monk

They have their own motives and their own goals, but I won't require that they be entirely motivated by altruism.

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it?

What is a hero? What is a villain? Is the CE or LG on their stats or is it what they do and how they act?

I like my players to play characters, not play alignments. Things change according to the situation and what they go through.

As the DM I've described some absolutely deplorable things done by some of the blasphemously NE characters in the game, and I get seriously IC when I describe it. Would I even for a moment consider those things in real life? Of course not. I don't think it reflects on the moral framework of the people who do it, though if I played a shining paragon of good going out and raping and strangling baby yugoloths and calling it 'GOOD' because it was being done to yugoloths, and not understanding the hypocrisy in that, well, then yes I'd say there was a problem. But so long as you understand the difference, you're fine.

Your players may have issues however.

 

[Reynard]

The issue is that the character's alignment is just another 'stat' on the character sheet, one that doesn't have a whole lot of value to these kinds of players outside of a few spells and magic items. The best solution with players like this is to kick alignment out the door. let them act how they want to act.

And then make them face the consequences of such actions. If all this happens in the deep dark of a dungeon, it is hard to bring about consequences -- until of course they have a few too many ales in the tavern and start bragging. or until the lower level adventurers or the local militia go in to the dungeon after the PCs as a 'clean up crew' and see the evidence of the PCs' actions. I'd be a little concerned if I was a local priest or ruler if I hear about a group of powerful adventurers who considered themselves beyond good and evil.

Cue the Inquisition. They'll never suspect it.

Another option is to use an Honor system, rather than alignment. There is a good one in Unearthed Arcana. Remember, it isn't Renown. It is a palpable quality that impacts how other beings respond to the PCs. Even if no one sees them use the kobold toddlers as mine detectors, their Honor knows and people respond accordingly (without knowing why).

 

[Chimera]

and any punishments a fellow player or DM/GM may bring for such actions is always met with scorn and threats to leave the game. ALWAYS.

First of all, those are childish threats. I'd reconsider my association with these people.

First response: "There's the door. Feel free to leave at any time."

Second response: "Then go. Now."

Third response: "Get the %$#@ out of my house."

 

[Jer]

I have two questions.

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it?

What is a hero? What is a villain? Is the CE or LG on their stats or is it what they do and how they act?

I used to have these types of problem a lot - more in high school/college than since, but it still comes up occasionally. The using drow as bait and torturing kobolds thing comes, I think, from the "certain races are just evil" mentality that various settings and editions of the game has encouraged. Players playing "good" characters think that their characters have a "free ride" with doing bad things to evil creatures, so using a drow as bait or tormenting a helpless kobold is okay by them.

That problem has been fairly easy to solve for me. When I start a new campaign now I lay down some ground rules about "good" and "evil" in the game. I let them know that alignment in my games is ALWAYS fuzzy, and that it more describes how a character acts than something inherent in the character. There are no free passes - just because a target has an evil alignment that doesn't excuse evil acts by the players against that character. I still have some creatures that are just plain evil - mostly fiends, undead and some dragons, but in general most of the "evil" creatures in my games are as likely to be neutral as they are evil - they're just at odds with the PCs. What has really helped is letting a player play a normally "evil" race - a kobold or an orc in a couple of instances. The rest of the party realized up front that things were different on this world (and, amusingly, the players in BOTH of those instances helped me out by pointing out how unfair the other PCs attitudes were IN CHARACTER during the sessions).

The Neutral Good thief that steals from the poor innkeeper needs his hand smacked, though. That's not the act of a "good" thief. A "good" thief would be like Robin Hood - taking from the rich guy to do good with it, not taking from someone just because he's a thief. I'd suggest some advice from the DMG II, actually, and make sure that you throw some folks into the adventure that the thief CAN steal from with impunity, since that may be why the player is playing a thief in the first place. If he insists on stealing from anyone and everyone, though, his alignment should shift to Neutral or Chaotic Neutral instead of Neutral Good, at least IMO.

As for the second question - sometimes its a maturity issue (and I've seen enough of those to last a lifetime), but sometimes not. I personally find it distasteful when people who are supposed to be "good" use torture or threats against foes in-game, but others don't have a problem with it. In my games, I warn players up front that any use of torture (and other acts commonly considered "evil" by modern morality) are alignment infractions for good characters REGARDLESS of who they are using them against. Torturing a demon to get information out of it is still not a good act, even if the demon is irredeemably evil, and could cause an alignment shift and a loss of Paladin abilities. A lot of times things like this are just mis-communications between players and DMs over expectations.

If you're having problems with the alignment system, you might want to try an Honor system like a previous poster mentioned. Another idea is that the new World of Darkness game has a Morality system built in that ranks a character's Morality on a simple 1-10 scale. When they commit an act that is not compatible with their current level of Morality, there's a chance that the character's Morality will drop (the higher the level, the more likely it will drop - and the less it takes to lose it). This gives a very mechanical, in-game way of tracking a character's "fall from grace" from "good" to "evil". Its similar to the Honor system, but I think it hits more of the Good-Evil axis of the alignment grid instead of the Law-Chaos axis.

 

[Haradim]

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

I make suitable modifications to the character's alignment (if using them). I would also bring to bear appropriate (and thus, quite possibly very troublesome) consequences.

If such behavior was blatantly contradictory to the theme of the game (if any), then I would advise the players to modify their approaches to suit.

People unable to handle this (and these are things I always make a note of before the game starts) are advised to find another GM, or wait until I want to run the kind of game they want to play. Threats and other immaturity would likely result in blacklisting them from my games.

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it?

I know I wouldn't look to many gamers if searching for high moral or ethical integrity. But your players may simply be immature, or just looking for a straightforward 'kill all evil' kind of game.

 

[Oryan77]

The paladin or LG cleric tortures the helpless kobold for information.

The NG rogue steals some bottles of mead from a poor innkeeper. When called on it by me as GM their response is always "but I'm a thief! That's what I do!"

The whole gang decides to use a captured Drow as trap fodder. Sending her first through every intersection, threshold, staircase and room. After a few false alarms the bound dark elf is hacked to pieces by some whirling blades that come out of the walls. All these "good guys" laugh about it and marvel at how "cool" that was.

It seems like your letting your own real life morals influence your judgement on your players. I see nothing wrong with paladins & clerics torturing kobolds for information, even if the priest is LG. To that individual, the kobold doesn't mean squat to him because he knows what the kobold would do to his own children if his children were captured by kobolds. He might think the creature is better off dead so the gods can deal with his vile ways rather than it doing harm to good living people. Alignment doesn't dictate a persons morality & judgement...it might influence you, but it doesn't dictate your views.

Same thing with the rogue stealing from an innkeeper. It might be an idiotic act, but that's what some people do. I've had so called "friends" steal the last of my Jack Daniels from my house (like 3 ounces left) when if they just asked me for it I would have gladly given it to them. My girlfriends teenage brother & his friends stole a bag of candy from my fridge instead of asking me for it (I knew they were attempting to steal it & I let them, then confronted him about it the next day). People do stupid things in game & out of game. This doesn't make my gf's brother N, NE, LE, or CE.

The drow incident is the same as the kobold scenario. You can't let your personal real life views influence their character actions. If I know 98% of drow are evil & my enemy, and I capture one, unless it's against my code of honor, the DM doesn't have a right to judge my characters actions with that drow.

If your players are whining about quitting when you legitimately deal with their actions in game, they are taking advantage of you. You should be firm with them and let them know that doesn't fly in your game. You're being a softy man My players know if they do something risky and get caught, they better play well enough to get away or pay for the chances they took. ALWAYS give them a way out though. First you should go easy on them but make them shake in their boots a bit. If they do it again, scare them into thinking they are about to pay for their actions but let them get away at the last minute. You can even capture them and that opens the whole prison escape scenario. After they realize it's not easy to get away with stealing from merchants or whatever, they will do it less often & do it more professionally.

 

[Jer]

It seems like your letting your own real life morals influence your judgement on your players. I see nothing wrong with paladins & clerics torturing kobolds for information, even if the priest is LG. To that individual, the kobold doesn't mean squat to him because he knows what the kobold would do to his own children if his children were captured by kobolds. He might think the creature is better off dead so the gods can deal with his vile ways rather than it doing harm to good living people. Alignment doesn't dictate a persons morality & judgement...it might influence you, but it doesn't dictate your views.

I disagree Oryan - alignment is all we have in D&D that gives your moral and ethical outlook. The (simplistic) descriptions of good and evil in the PHB give some insight into what "good" and "evil" characters are like. Specifically, it says "good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. It also says that good characters "make personal sacrifices to help others".

Torture is not showing "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Notice that it says "sentient" there - not "good" or "nonevil" beings. Using a captured prisoner as trap fodder is not showing a "respect for life". And stealing from a poor innkeeper is not showing "altruism" or "making a personal sacrifices to help others".

If a player wants to play a character who wants to torture his enemies, steal from civilians, and/or use a prisoner as trap fodder, I'd say that a DM is well within his rights to say that that character is acting "neutral" (or even "evil") and not "good". Alignment doesn't necessarily dictate what you can and cannot do, but if it doesn't accurately describe how your character acts, then its a useless appendage. If you want to call your character "good" but not act in a "good" manner, then the whole term "good" loses its meaning and its value in the game.

Again, I'd say clearly outlining what is considered "good" and "evil" for your campaign is a decent way of preventing this sort of stuff up front. I have some players in my current campaign who specifically picked "neutral" alignments to get around my expectations for good characters, but I have others who love to play the champion and like dealing with the tough ethical questions when they come up. Things like how to deal with prisoners and how to get that necessary bit of information out of them in a "good" manner are fun for me to watch.

 

[Mystery Man]

What bugs me is their "ultimatum". You're the DM, you decide what behavior is acceptable in your game. If they won't conform to how you want to play your world, either change the way you run your world, or stop DMing (for them).

AR

That ultimatim bugs me as well and when I get threats like that (I don't anymore) I'm always gracious and I thank them for playing and politely ask them to feel free to come back and play anytime. I always mean it. Works every time.

I'm usually willing to listen to different points of view, but when you give me an ultimatim the discussion is over.