D&D 5E player knowlege vs character knowlege (spoiler)

[Blue]

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge. The best way to avoid inappropriate overlap between the two is for the DM to mix things up.

Let me ask you this. As a DM, I introduce a character that has a name matching someone from a novel or other FR resource. You make assumptions about that character. It turns out it is another character of the same name, just like there are plenty of John Smiths in the world. (Maybe a coincidence, I heard the name somewhere and it stuck in my subconcious, maybe intentionally.)

You end up with a character that did something for no reason they can explain using in-world knowledge, and that action turns out to be completely unjustified. When you are interrogated by the church of Lathander under a Zone of Truth about why you unprovokely murdered their paladin Valindra Shadowmantle, what do you answer?

I don't understand how your character can't forget it's a lich - they never knew it and it may not be true. The player "knows" it's a lich ... except it may not be. Even if it's the same character, it may be at a different point along their arc. Don't assume the DM has perfect information either (an issue I have with FR - so much lore, it's easy for a DM and their players to be out-of-step).

 

[jasper]

1. Has your DM read the book in which she is a lich? What you know as a player does not matter. At best as DM I would allow your pc a monster knowledge check. DC I don’t know.

2. So you are already using player knowledge to plan to attack the lich. I would TPK the group if it is a lich. Or bad karma for the group for killing the innocent.

 

[R_J_K75]

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

Absolutely you did something wrong IMO. Player knowledge doesn't translate to character knowledge, at least not at my table and I make that clear from the start for those who are familiar with the setting. Unless your player had some inside knowledge I don't see anyway that your character would immediately know that the elf was a lich if she was taking pains to disguise her true nature, which in this case it sounds like she was. In previous editions there were telltale signs that if one knew what to look for could reveal that they were undead and possibly even what type. So if your character had the appropriate skill and was actively trying to determine this I'd allow a skill check possibly.

I see no real way of separating character and player knowledge. The best way to avoid inappropriate overlap between the two is for the DM to mix things up.

As a player I always played from the standpoint of my character and what knowledge they may or do have no matter how familiar I was with the game and the setting. This was just always ingrained in me as player very early on and used self control to separate player vs. character knowledge. I don't think a DM should have to necessarily mix things up to accommodate trigger happy players but in reality this is usually what it comes down to.

 

[Charlaquin]

EDIT: Nevermind, I was mistaken.

 

[Mort]

Pretty sure Valindra Shadowmantle is not in ToA as published, so this must be something your DM has decided to add in.

I'm going to throw this in spoilers in case someone doesn't want to read it, though this whole thread is a big spoiler. Still :

Spoiler

she is 100% part of the actual adventure.

Maybe it's someone else with the same name, and your DM is a sadistic bstd who wants to metagame you into killing an entirely innocent character?

Spoilers again:

Spoiler

she wants to use the adventurers not kill them, which she could easily do. The adventure itself gives specific actions she takes if attacked by THE PCs. Basically she gets away (almost no chance of 5th level PCs stopping her, and manipulates the PCs from afar - sending goons after them if she feels they've outlived their usefulness.

Basically, it won't change much to have the PCs recognize her and will certainly go right along with the plot. But the PCs should still confirm their suspicion in game, the DM can easily change things around on them.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Let me ask you this. As a DM, I introduce a character that has a name matching someone from a novel or other FR resource. You make assumptions about that character. It turns out it is another character of the same name, just like there are plenty of John Smiths in the world. (Maybe a coincidence, I heard the name somewhere and it stuck in my subconcious, maybe intentionally.)

You end up with a character that did something for no reason they can explain using in-world knowledge, and that action turns out to be completely unjustified. When you are interrogated by the church of Lathander under a Zone of Truth about why you unprovokely murdered their paladin Valindra Shadowmantle, what do you answer?

I don't understand how your character can't forget it's a lich - they never knew it and it may not be true. The player "knows" it's a lich ... except it may not be. Even if it's the same character, it may be at a different point along their arc. Don't assume the DM has perfect information either (an issue I have with FR - so much lore, it's easy for a DM and their players to be out-of-step).

I have never run into these issues - probably because I have never run a game in someone else's world. Never the less, if I was to play in the FR, it would not be Greenwood's FR. It would be, by definition of me not being Greenwood, my FR. The mistake is assuming the a specific DM's FR is the same as any other DM FR. It isn't. It cannot be. The same way as when two people read the same book, they see a different story in their mind. The stories are similar, but never identical. Even I read the same book twice, the stories I experience are not identical.

 

[Hriston]

I'm going to throw this in spoilers in case someone doesn't want to read it, though this whole thread is a big spoiler. Still :

Spoiler

she is 100% part of the actual adventure.

Spoilers again:

Spoiler

she wants to use the adventurers not kill them, which she could easily do. The adventure itself gives specific actions she takes if attacked by THE PCs. Basically she gets away (almost no chance of 5th level PCs stopping her, and manipulates the PCs from afar - sending goons after them if she feels they've outlived their usefulness.

Basically, it won't change much to have the PCs recognize her and will certainly go right along with the plot. But the PCs should still confirm their suspicion in game, the DM can easily change things around on them.

I think in light of this information, the DM should absolutely have telegraphed this to the players. Otherwise, it’s a gotcha.

 

[iserith]

So two questions:

1. Do you think I did anything wrong and how am I supposed to play this? I can't like forget that she is an evil lich.

Per the rules, you determine what your character thinks - not the DM and not the dice. If you say your character thinks the NPC is a lich and that your character wants to destroy her, then that's what your character thinks.

You just might not be correct in that assumption.

 

[iserith]

Basically, it won't change much to have the PCs recognize her and will certainly go right along with the plot. But the PCs should still confirm their suspicion in game, the DM can easily change things around on them.

Right. You don't know if your assumption is true unless you take steps to verify that it is.

 

[R_J_K75]

Per the rules, you determine what your character thinks - not the DM and not the dice. If you say your character thinks the NPC is a lich and that your character wants to destroy her, then that's what your character thinks.

I would say that their assumption that the NPC is a lich should be grounded on some hint or fact that the DM has asserted throughout the course of the adventure or campaign to have any validity.