• NOW LIVE! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Players Killing Players for stupid reason

Dire Bare

Legend
No offense, but we only have your word to go on. I want to believe you, but there has been some inconsistency as to your posts that I can't ignore.
What?

Of course you only have @RickTheFox's word to go on, what else do you expect? Dude presents a problem he needs advice on, it's naturally from his own perspective . . . what you need "proof" like this is some sort of court of law.

Lighten up Francis. Give your advice, move on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
What?

Of course you only have @RickTheFox's word to go on, what else do you expect? Dude presents a problem he needs advice on, it's naturally from his own perspective . . . what you need "proof" like this is some sort of court of law.

Lighten up Francis. Give your advice, move on.
I would ask that you kindly don't ignore the rest of that paragraph you quoted: "Maybe you're right and there is no actual problem. But then this only further underscores the need to take it in stride and not create a problem where there isn't one."

"Dude" said there was no problem after talking to the group. Okay. If that's true, then don't create one by murdering the rogue. There's my advice you requested, already delivered.
 

Today, yes. In the period being emulated, however, a noble killing a peasant for giving offense was well within accepted morals.
And we agree, that those morals at the time were evil.

Otherwise I can refer to a different time and/or place where rape, torture and murder are morally acceptable and it becomes morally OK to practice them.

By your reasoning, a LG Paladin raised in the Kingdom of Iuz, or Aztec times would be morally OK with genocide, slavery, human sacrifice or murder (because those practices are accepted by those around him, in that setting). He could (as a LG Paladin) raid a nearby village, take slaves (keeping some of the women for his own uses) and then sacrifice the remainder on top of his temple for the gratification of his God.

Just because evil practices are accepted by those around you, it doesn't make those evil practices less evil; it just means everyone is a lot less enlightened, and a hell off a lot more people have 'E' on their character sheet.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
And we agree, that those morals at the time were evil.
By our current standards.
Otherwise I can refer to a different time and/or place where rape, torture and murder are morally acceptable and it becomes morally OK to practice them.
Indeed; and within such times and-or places those things might not necessarily be seen as evil.
By your reasoning, a LG Paladin raised in the Kingdom of Iuz, or Aztec times would be morally OK with genocide, slavery, human sacrifice or murder (because those practices are accepted by those around him, in that setting). He could (as a LG Paladin) raid a nearby village, take slaves (keeping some of the women for his own uses) and then sacrifice the remainder on top of his temple for the gratification of his God.

Just because evil practices are accepted by those around you, it doesn't make those evil practices less evil; it just means everyone is a lot less enlightened, and a hell off a lot more people have 'E' on their character sheet.
The obvious broader question this leads to is whether a character's alignment is determined from an in-setting perspective or a metagame/modern-world perspective.

An example: take a setting based on the Roman Empire. Slave ownership was an accepted part of Roman life and would have no more bearing on someone's in-setting alignment than would the same character's ownership of horses; the affect on one's alignment would come more from how one treated one's slaves rather than from the simple fact of owning some.

A modern-day perspective would put all slave owners as some version of evil. An in-character perspective would have slave owners occupying all nine boxes on the alignment chart based on things other than their ownership of slaves.

Same goes for a noble exacting punishment on a peasant. When your word and whim is the law there's none of this modern legal stuff to get in the way: if you feel that a peasant deserves punishment then said punishment is yours to apply at will.
 

RickTheFox

Villager
Guys... are you for real?

I came here because in my game I see a potential party-braking problem I need to react to somehow. In a way that is fun, consistent with character and world, and allows us to play together.

Most of your comments here are not solutions or advice, they are just doubting the premise or doubting me. Either you say the issue is IRL and not at the game (I told you it is purely in-game), or you say the issue is not an issue at all and is completely fine (I told you it is a major betrayal, in-game party breaking at the very least), or that it would be reasonable for the character to forgive and forgot an go on merrily (I told you it is not a possibility at all). And you say the character should not be even there (well he is). That is the premise given and that is what we should work with.

You do not know the world, the game, the settings, the players, the characters. And because you do not know all these things, you will have to take my word for it.

So please, kindly, instead of commenting on my "insecurities" or practically calling me a liar, do focus on solving the problem with given parameters instead of doubting and arguing the parameters. (because that would make much sense, coming here asking for advice anonymously and lying in the process because my mind is set anyway, wasting hours of my time and yours).

I got advice I did not like one bit, but I took it. The advice was mostly this

0 - talk to the player, talk to the DM to solve the in game issue, or rule out IRL issue
1 - do not play with that party if they are jerks
2- do not PC kill no matter what, for if there is no IRL issue now, there would be after the PC kill
3 - the wizard is a bad character and should not be there in the first place.



So I started by saying I already did No. 0. As you advised. And what I got as a feedback from you?

"Don't do this because my Wizard is vengeful" might as well be begging for her to go through with it.

You know, ph0rk you ph0rk. It was literally your advice (and most obvious one!) to talk to her. I had already done that in the first place. And you do not cede the point, on the contrary, you say I screwed that up, escalating the situation. By talking to her, pointing out the consequences and reminding her of the character and history of my PC, and her going through with it anyway. And you paint me as the bad guy who does not care about the party or other players. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU...


Advice 1 was ruled out, I do want to continue if possible.

So that leaves me with 2 & 3. I took both of these advice. And to remove the "bad and poor" character that "does not play well with others" and to avoid PC kill, I decided to give the wizard to the DM, making him a villain of the story. It was not an easy choice, I really liked the wizard and enjoyed playing him. But hey, you guys here have more experience and I took your advice, hoping it would smooth things over, stay reasonably consistent and be fun in the end.


Even so, the fact that you're choosing to retire your character over something rather silly instead of doing any number of other things that would see you keep your beloved character gives me the impression you're trying to be the martyr here.

And what I get after taking the advice from you guys here? This thrown in my face, that I wanted to do it all along and I am creating problems. Again doubting the premise given that it is a major in game betrayal, not something silly. I did not create the in game issue. I am trying to solve it in a manner that would enable us to continue playing together. And here we go, calling me a liar with no offense added (that makes it all better) and saying this is what I wanted all along, to create problems, and I am the bad player overreacting. Well how nice.

Some guys here are very confused to say the least. I am done with this conversation.

(Thanks Lanefan and Dire Bare and some others for being both helpful and open minded and for some cool insight)
 
Last edited:

Doc_Klueless

Doors and Corners
Whoof. It's getting hot in here!

@RickTheFox , here's my neutral, third-party, non-judgmental advice. The Rogue may be being a jerk. But, in my ungodly long 40 years of gaming, PC-vs-PC conflict which includes murder almost always destroys the group unless it was something decided on in a Session 0 and even then it usually backfires and destroys the group. Someone usually gets booted out or it bleeds over into the next adventure/campaign/etc.

I'm glad you decided to not go through with it if you want to keep the gaming group together.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Guys... are you for real?
Yes, this is a matter we take very seriously, which is why you’re getting such emotionally charged responses. You’re coming across as the bad guy in the situation, even when we only have your side of the story. I hope if nothing else you at least realize that and reconsider your position.
I came here because in my game I see a potential party-braking problem I need to react to somehow. In a way that is fun, consistent with character and world, and allows us to play together.
Right, so taking your story at face value, those things seem to be in an irreconcilable conflict. Killing the rogue won’t be fun for their player. Letting them get away with it apparently isn’t consistent with the way you see your character. Something has to give, and the question is one of priorities. Either you decide that what’s fun for the group is more important than consistency with the way you imagine your character and don’t kill the rogue, you decide your vision of your character is more important than the rogue’s player’s fun and you do kill the rogue, or you accept that what you want isn’t compatible with what the rest of the group wants and part ways. The advice you’re getting is that the first option is the best, and the third option is obviously not ideal, but it’s better than the second option, which would just be an IRL jerk move.

I know you came hoping to find a “loophole” that would let you satisfy your character’s desire for vengeance without hurting the rogue player’s feelings. But that’s just not going to happen. You’re the one who’s decided your character can’t let this go. Accepting that premise, your only options are to change your character (either by changing how you view them such that letting it go is something he “would do” or by deciding to play a different character), to leave the group, or to kill the rogue, and killing the rogue would be the wrong choice. Those are the only resolutions I can see to the situation you’ve described, sorry if you don’t like it.
Most of your comments here are not solutions or advice, they are just doubting the premise or doubting me. Either you say the issue is IRL and not at the game (I told you it is purely in-game), or you say the issue is not an issue at all and is completely fine (I told you it is a major betrayal, in-game party breaking at the very least),
These two statements are logically inconsistent. If the rogue committed such a major, party-breaking betrayal, it’s an IRL issue, because the rogue’s player is not respecting what’s fun for the group. It certainly seems like it has negatively impacted your fun, if nothing else. The appropriate response is to talk to the rogue’s player about it. And I don’t mean ominously suggesting “watch out, my character is really VENGEFUL, so you might not want to do that...” I mean telling the rogue’s player straight-up that what they did was not fun for you, as a player, and talk it over like grown-ups.
or that it would be reasonable for the character to forgive and forgot an go on merrily (I told you it is not a possibility at all).
You’re the one who has decided it isn’t a possibility at all. What is or is not reasonable for your character to do is entirely up to you. You can decide to play a character who would let it go, or to play a character who would take revenge. If you decide to play a character who would take revenge, you have, in real life, decided that your vision of the character is more important to you than the rogue player’s enjoyment of the game, and that would make you a jerk.
And you say the character should not be even there (well he is). That is the premise given and that is what we should work with.
I can accept that premise. Given that you have decided it isn’t a possibility for your character to let it go without killing the rogue, it’s also not a possibility to keep playing this character in this group without ruining someone else’s fun, likely causing more hurt feelings and escalating the real life conflict that the rogue’s player started by betraying your character. These are the consequences of your decisions.
You do not know the world, the game, the settings, the players, the characters. And because you do not know all these things, you will have to take my word for it.
So please, kindly, instead of commenting on my "insecurities" or practically calling me a liar, do focus on solving the problem with given parameters instead of doubting and arguing the parameters. (because that would make much sense, coming here asking for advice anonymously and lying in the process because my mind is set anyway, wasting hours of my time and yours).
I’ve given my best advice given the premise: retire your character and either make a new one that plays nicely with others, or find another group. However, I must reiterate that it is within your power to change the premise: no one is forcing you to play the character this way. You can choose to play the character in such a way that would not demand he kill the rogue. The only person stopping you is you.
I got advice I did not like one bit, but I took it. The advice was mostly this

0 - talk to the player, talk to the DM to solve the in game issue, or rule out IRL issue
1 - do not play with that party if they are jerks
2- do not PC kill no matter what, for if there is no IRL issue now, there would be after the PC kill
3 - the wizard is a bad character and should not be there in the first place.
Good advice.
So I started by saying I already did No. 0. As you advised.
You say that, but it seems like your “talking to the player” consisted of vaguely hinting your character might take revenge. That’s not really addressing the issue, that you’re not happy with what their character did to your character. Furthermore, you specifically avoided telling the other player that you are considering killing their character, for fear that you would give them a meta-game advantage. Instead of making this an in-character vendetta and hiding your intentions, what you should do is talk openly and honestly about your feelings. Tell them you didn’t like having your character humiliated like that, and be honest about the fact that it made you want to kill their character.
Advice 1 was ruled out, I do want to continue if possible.

So that leaves me with 2 & 3. I took both of these advice. And to remove the "bad and poor" character that "does not play well with others" and to avoid PC kill, I decided to give the wizard to the DM, making him a villain of the story. It was not an easy choice, I really liked the wizard and enjoyed playing him. But hey, you guys here have more experience and I took your advice, hoping it would smooth things over, stay reasonably consistent and be fun in the end.
Good, I’m glad you were at least able to find a solution that didn’t result in escalating any real-life conflict and allowed you to continue playing with your group.
 

GSHamster

Adventurer
I think most of you guys are being too hard on @RickTheFox. He made a character with an interesting quirk. However, he did make an underlying assumption, that the quirk would only be triggered by NPCs (who are fair game).

However, the quirk got triggered by a party member, which he did not expect. Which is a difficult situation for someone who is more new to the game but trying to roleplay appropriately.

@RickTheFox, there is an unstated practice among experienced D&D players that you never make a too rigid character in a mixed group. The classic example here is making a paladin who never does anything illegal. When you first think of a paladin, you think of a shining bastion of law and good, so many new players try to make that type of character. But inevitably a D&D group will do something illegal or shady or consort with thieves, etc. and a too-rigid paladin will spoil the fun. Thus the advice is not to make that type of character, and have paladins who set their moral lines apart from the "strictly legal" standard.
 

I think most of you guys are being too hard on @RickTheFox. He made a character with an interesting quirk. However, he did make an underlying assumption, that the quirk would only be triggered by NPCs (who are fair game).
Not really.

I mean going off half-cocked and murdering NPCs could just as easily screw the party and the campaign.

I mean, we've all done this early in our careers; taking 'it's like a video game where you can do anything in' and making a horrifying id monster that does NOT work in a group-oriented environment. I think we're all trying to make it clear that this is a bad idea that is the problem before Rick runs off to inflict the same bad idea on another group.

Other characters you might not want to bring to a group unless they are expressly okay with it:

  • The lone wolf that does everything they can to not interact with the party.
  • The kleptomaniac who has literally no control over what they steal.
  • The 'evil' character who has no sense of self-preservation and will stab a dude in front of the guards barracks and then tell his mama, who is also the captain of the guard.
  • The sex maniac, both 'lovable' and 'skeevy' varieties.
  • Anything that is a meme
  • LOL RANDUMB
 

ph0rk

Friendship is Magic, and Magic is Heresy.
Other characters you might not want to bring to a group unless they are expressly okay with it:

  • The lone wolf that does everything they can to not interact with the party.
  • The kleptomaniac who has literally no control over what they steal.
  • The 'evil' character who has no sense of self-preservation and will stab a dude in front of the guards barracks and then tell his mama, who is also the captain of the guard.
  • The sex maniac, both 'lovable' and 'skeevy' varieties.
  • Anything that is a meme
  • LOL RANDUMB
Indeed. It is a group game, and part of understanding that is not bringing characters into a group that can't work in a group.

Vengeful character who keeps a "people to kill list" and makes a big showy point of adding people to it when they slight him, but effectively does nothing about it in the short term? Fine. Amusing, even. Think early Arya Stark.

Vengeful character who skips right past that to murder NPCs or PCs immediately? Not fine. In the first case you're removing other player agency from the group narrative, in the second you're removing agency entirely (or attempting to - many attempts at a sneaky player-kill fail). Think Cirsei Lannister.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Other characters you might not want to bring to a group unless they are expressly okay with it:

  • The lone wolf that does everything they can to not interact with the party.
  • The kleptomaniac who has literally no control over what they steal.
  • The 'evil' character who has no sense of self-preservation and will stab a dude in front of the guards barracks and then tell his mama, who is also the captain of the guard.
  • The sex maniac, both 'lovable' and 'skeevy' varieties.
  • Anything that is a meme
  • LOL RANDUMB
Other than the kleptomaniac I've had every one of those in my games, in most cases several and in one case many times over. We're still rolling along fine here,;and each of those has, even if not always lasting very long, provided some amusement and entertainment while in the party.

The game's more fun if the characters mostly have a bit of an edge to them and are willing to stand up for themselves within the party as well as without.
 

Other than the kleptomaniac I've had every one of those in my games, in most cases several and in one case many times over. We're still rolling along fine here,;and each of those has, even if not always lasting very long, provided some amusement and entertainment while in the party.

The game's more fun if the characters mostly have a bit of an edge to them and are willing to stand up for themselves within the party as well as without.

You forgot one important phrase: IF everyone at the table is on board with that game style. It's up to each table to define where the line is. An "edge" too far at some (or, more likely, most) tables and, indeed, the game is the opposite of more fun.
 

Other than the kleptomaniac I've had every one of those in my games, in most cases several and in one case many times over. We're still rolling along fine here,;and each of those has, even if not always lasting very long, provided some amusement and entertainment while in the party.

The game's more fun if the characters mostly have a bit of an edge to them and are willing to stand up for themselves within the party as well as without.
I think we both already know we're each other's antimatter universe counterpart.

The only pizza cutter (all edge, no point) allowed in my life lives in my kitchen drawer.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Other than the kleptomaniac I've had every one of those in my games, in most cases several and in one case many times over. We're still rolling along fine here,;and each of those has, even if not always lasting very long, provided some amusement and entertainment while in the party.

The game's more fun if the characters mostly have a bit of an edge to them and are willing to stand up for themselves within the party as well as without.
That’s great for you, but the way you play is very different than the way most groups play. @Vaalingrade ’s post is solid as general advice, even if it isn’t directly relevant to your specific situation.
 

Awfully Cheerful Engine!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top