D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Maxperson]

People "intend" a lot of different and conflicting alternatives, and frequently change their minds. Intent is meaningless unless acted upon.

Unless it's part and parcel of who you are, like in a D&D setting. D&D isn't the real world. Evil and good are not exactly the same as here.

 

[AlViking]

I keep coming back to your own phrasing in your posts. I’m sorry if that sounds like a DM horror story but you’re making it sound like a deeply unfun event that you’re still not happy about. What exactly am I supposed to take away from it? It’s not like you’re expressing this as a funny thing where that time the doofus rogue tried to steal a chest and got killed and everyone laughed about it and had a great time anyway.

How would I have handled it: I probably would’ve said with the alarm raised, and guards likely on their way, you’re going to have to make a choice: get away now without anything which would be easy to do, try to steal a little something from the chest which is harder but certainly doable, or try to take the whole chest, which is going to be a really hard roll for you. Now they could be caught but the outcome of that for me would still not necessarily be death - there’s still possibilities for escape; but the story at that point is you’re captured. Maybe you feel you did all of that. I’m just saying to me, it doesn’t read that way.

It wasn't deeply unfun but I also don't like killing off characters. Nobody, including the player, had an issue with the way this played out.

As far as the scenario it was obvious the alarm had been raised. I told them they had a chance to get away. At that point I guess I could have captured them and given them opportunity to escape (that happened not long ago with the entire group) but I decided it didn't make sense for the orcs. This was a roving warband encampment, not a permanent fortress.

The player had multiple obvious options to survive and did not take them. If you would have still found someway for the character to survive that's fine but many players would hate that. Maybe you've never had a player that will push the limits until you kill off their character. I've hit it a few times - the player (different character, different scenario) even admitted that it was what they were doing. Now I talk about campaign lethality in session 0 and abide by what the group wants but I let them know death will never be completely off the table.

 

[TiQuinn]

That was exactly what he just described. It sounded like he gave the PC every opportunity to get away. The guards showed up, attacked, crit, and the PC died. That is the luck of the dice.

No, he described what the player chose and the outcome. He didn’t describe how he portrayed the choice to the player, and I think there’s a difference.

 

[mamba]

I keep coming back to your own phrasing in your posts. I’m sorry if that sounds like a DM horror story but you’re making it sound like a deeply unfun event that you’re still not happy about. What exactly am I supposed to take away from it?

maybe what they wrote, that they are sad the character’s decision led to the character’s death

 

[Belen]

This is one of those cases where you're being, if anything, overly generous: I've absolutely hit GMs who would not let players add something as simple as a village their character from, because they assume a player will take some sort of advantage from it or simply don't want players adding anything of any real footprint at all.

I'm not suggesting this is anything but an extreme case, but given I've seen more than one of them, I have to assume its an example of where some of the same mindset can go when carried far enough.

I do not understand it. I encourage my players to add to the setting. It makes my life far easier if they create things because it takes away from my burden.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Unless it's part and parcel of who you are,

What does that even mean? People are robots, incapable of making moral choices?

like in a D&D setting. D&D isn't the real world. Evil and good are not exactly the same as here.

In 5e good and evil are optional personality traits, not “part and parcel of what you are”, whatever that is supposed to mean. The game was changed because it’s moral system didn’t travel well beyond the 1970s Bible Belt.

 

[TiQuinn]

It wasn't deeply unfun but I also don't like killing off characters. Nobody, including the player, had an issue with the way this played out.

As far as the scenario it was obvious the alarm had been raised. I told them they had a chance to get away. At that point I guess I could have captured them and given them opportunity to escape (that happened not long ago with the entire group) but I decided it didn't make sense for the orcs. This was a roving warband encampment, not a permanent fortress.

The player had multiple obvious options to survive and did not take them. If you would have still found someway for the character to survive that's fine but many players would hate that. Maybe you've never had a player that will push the limits until you kill off their character. I've hit it a few times - the player (different character, different scenario) even admitted that it was what they were doing. Now I talk about campaign lethality in session 0 and abide by what the group wants but I let them know death will never be completely off the table.

That’s fine but I would also say that we were playing a more deadly high stakes game, the player knew those risks and wanted to roll for a life or death choice. But again, that doesn’t jive with saying “sadly, he was a kleptomaniac”. Do you not see how that statement could be interpreted as contradictory to the situation as you describe it?

 

[TiQuinn]

maybe what they wrote, that they are sad the character’s decision led to the character’s death

That seems very strange to me and again a bit incongruous with the description of the player’s choice.

To be more precise, why sit in judgment of the choice?

 

[AlViking]

So the fact that it was relation for a RACIALLY MOTIVATED LYNCHING doesn't factor at all? That nobody in the community tried to stop them is a tacit approval of such behavior.

I won't say more due to the politics rule on this board.

I don't care why the group decided to do it. In a slightly different scenario if you go into an area where slavery is legal and start killing off slave owners that may be considered a good thing. Doesn't mean the slave owners or their government are going to thank you for doing good deeds. I am not the one deciding on what punishment is appropriate, I'm only taking into consideration how the NPCs are going to react.

You keep trying to twist this into punishing the players. It's not. It's characters potentially facing the consequences of their actions. I don't punish players. If I have an issue with the behavior of a player I'll discuss it outside of the game context.

I didn't realize your setting was Eberron where magical telegraphs exist between po-dunk villages. Then again, I would hope a setting so magically advanced would have moved passed lynch mobs, but then again, I live in 21st century America so I guess its naive to expect that.

Sending stones are not considered rare in D&D, although of course they may be in your campaign. But yes, there is a fair amount of borderline magitech in my campaign world. A sending stone is also not the only option as I explained.

And every person was close enough to get a good look at the PCs and was clear headed enough to remember distinct details. Nobody misremembered, nobody didn't get a clear look and made up details to fill in gaps. Nobody lied to settle old-scores or take advantage of an opportunity ("It wasn't travelles, its Old Man Wicker whose hogs keep eating my turnips. I saw him learning fire magic from a devil!")

In the most recent mass school shooting, several people reported contradictory descriptions of the shooter, even leading to a false arrest. We have camera phones and high-speed wifi and we couldn't get our stories straight. Yet a bunch of farm hands in the field smelled smoke and rode into to town and can give perfect descriptions of the PCs?


And yet D.B. Cooper was never caught. Lots of people ride into town and ride out without ever being caught. Whole Podcasts worth. Even in an era of advanced forensics and DNA matching. Sometimes, the criminals move on. Most of the notorious outlaws in the West had long and profitable careers despite their notoriety.

I never guaranteed they would be caught. On the other hand D.B. Cooper probably died shortly after jumping from the jet.

The original poster (who I realize is not you) said it was an area under the influence of a raksasha and thus a PC tabaxi would be mistaken for one and lynched. No further info was provided but village. My take was that it seemed particularly convienent that all of a sudden the entire nation gained knowledge of the PCs guilt.

In the video game Elder Scrolls Online, if you are caught committing a crime (pickpocketing, murdering, or assault) a bounty is placed on your head. As long as that bounty is active anywhere you go IN THE MULTIVERSE (ESO has planes like D&D) citizens will react hostile to you and guards will accost you. If your bounty is low, they will just demand you pay the bounty and surrender any stolen items, but if its high enough you will be attacked by every guard in the Oblivion and Nirn. That's what this scenario reminded me of. One NPC catches you and every guard across the multiverse is hunting for you. That's fine for a video game, but I always viewed D&D as having a slight amount for nuance.

I never said there was a bounty on their head wherever they go.

YOU judge. That's the point. YOU, AlViking, have sat in judgement of the PCs and found them guilty. Of course Every NPC is going to believe they did it, you know they are guilty and you control every NPC! There is no situation where the PCs ride off and aren't punished for their crime. The world itself will bend to make sure of it.

No, I said that I would base the results of their actions based on my best judgement of their actions and the world building lore on the societal structures and resources. That may include everything from nothing happens to they get hunted down and executed. You're the one who keeps changing this into an adversarial relationship that simply isn't there.

So, hypothetically, can they not just leave? Go to a different country? Opt to get on a boat for a different continent? Become pirates? Or is the arm of the law always going to find them? Is the king of the nearby nation going to extradite them? What if they join the BBEG in exchange for protection? Would you allow it? Or is the universe always going to find a way to answer this crime?

I find those two sentences exclusionary. I don't disagree that actions have consequences, but if the players decided that those racist villagers had it coming and now the game has taken on a form you didn't prepare for (they join the bad guys, become a bandit gang, or leave to a totally new part of the world) are you fine with this or does the campaign end because they did want they wanted to do?

If the entire village is burned to the ground (if that's not what was meant it wasn't clear) there will likely be repercussions. Even if it was just a bunch of racists that were killed there will likely still be consequences. After all the scenario was that this happens in a region where it's commonly assumed that a cat person is a fiend. Killing everyone involved could simply reinforce that the group is and evil threat that must be destroyed.

 

[Mort]

It wasn't deeply unfun but I also don't like killing off characters. Nobody, including the player, had an issue with the way this played out.

As far as the scenario it was obvious the alarm had been raised. I told them they had a chance to get away. At that point I guess I could have captured them and given them opportunity to escape (that happened not long ago with the entire group) but I decided it didn't make sense for the orcs. This was a roving warband encampment, not a permanent fortress.

The player had multiple obvious options to survive and did not take them. If you would have still found someway for the character to survive that's fine but many players would hate that. Maybe you've never had a player that will push the limits until you kill off their character. I've hit it a few times - the player (different character, different scenario) even admitted that it was what they were doing. Now I talk about campaign lethality in session 0 and abide by what the group wants but I let them know death will never be completely off the table.

Personally, I strongly dislike a PC such as this at the table.

1. While not always, more often than not, they're spotlight hogs. Their time with the DM takes WAY longer than the other PCs;

2. More often then not, their time is focused on "personal" fun vs. fun for the table and since gaming time is finite it REALLY eats into everyone else's fun.