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

[tetrasodium]

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.

One of us has obviously made an egregiously incorrect assumption about if @AlViking was acting as a paid GM for hire who agreed to a job offer or not. I don't think that the poor assumption is in my part because he has made no hint of any such employer/employee relationship that I've seen.

In that example the gm DID move by allowing the individual to play with changes rather than the original state where the individual simply can not play at that GMs table due to not having an acceptable character.

As many times some of the pro tortle/dragonborn/orc crowd has scolded people about not acknowledging accepting or whatever something the player wants before negotiating by way of total and complete capitulation you&: Ezekiel fail to acknowledge something critical. Namely the fact that the gm never agreed to act as a work for hire paid GM who accepted the prospective player as a paying client and is no obligation to allow a prospective player at their table if the prospective player is incapable of clearing the character creation bar to make an accepted character.

Maybe Minigiant will jump in and remind us all how the gm can say "no you can not play at my table" instead of how players are allowed to leave a game

 

[Belen]

Approrpiate being the operative word.
Sure, actions have consequences. But quite possibly, a random village being destroyed might just be a tragic mystery in the world where adventurers are roaming the world and trying to fight off the evil that the guards and the armies can't handle.
and figuring out who destroyed the village is basically the kind of thing adventurers might be tasked to do.

And of course, killing a lynch mob might simply be considered an act of self-defense, and if the entire village is coming for a character in an adventure group, the result might be tragic, but not surprising, and justified. These villagers acted unlawful and evil - trying to kill someone innocent without any form of legal process - aka lynching - is almost certainly good enough to justify self-defense.

The goalpost shifted. The original example was "the characters destroyed the entire village." It was not they defended themselves from a lynch mob. It was not that they killed a few an escaped. It was that they destroyed the entire village.

My immediate response would be that I would end the campaign. I do not do the evil thing.

Of course, I would have warned the players of any hatred or prejudice that may encounter. For instance, I had a campaign once where a Dragonborn PC insisted on visiting the border region near the Ahniss Empire. The people there hate and fear the Ahniss (Lizardfolk, including Dragonborn royalty). The Ahniss are constantly raiding that region and any Ahniss are considered spies, saboteurs, or scouts.

I warned the entire party that they would be under threat from the locals. The PC Dragonborn Bard was a noble who had rejected the Ahniss and the party wanted to locate a rare flower to woo an NPC.

It ended up working out only because the bard convinced a local lord to "protect" him and paid a lot of gold to a fund to support victims of the Ahniss. I thought it was an elegant solution by the player who thought it up, but my point is that the player knew of the issue and took steps to mitigate it.

These is part of my current campaign sheet that I provided the players and asked if they'd be interested in playing:

Alignment
Good or Neutral

Races, Classes, & Archetypes
Classes: (PHB); Races: PHB 5e 2014, PHB-variant (Dragonborn-(Ahniss variant)), Aasimar, Ahniss (Lizardfolk), Changeling, Eladrin (Summer or Winter), Fairy, Leonin , Satyr, Minotaur, Moon Elf (High Elf variant), Wood Elf

Bonus Profession & Feat
Select bonus toolset at first level, such as blacksmith tools. Select a feat at first level (must meet all requirements).

Character Background or History
Please provide a brief background for your character. It should be between one paragraph and one page. Your character should have goals and desires. Please make sure to provide character hooks as part of the story. (Note: The game should be fun for everyone at the table. Characters that thieve from the party, loners, etc. have been known to make the game less enjoyable for others, including the DM.)

Campaign Expectations
The campaign should be organic, and players should feel free to pursue their own goals and agendas. Recruit followers or build strongholds, pursue love or vengeance. The game is meant to be collaborative. You should not expect to purchase magic items although you are encouraged to quest for them such as searching for places of power, exploring old ruins, or dealing with ancient beings.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I may limit the scope of background changes and we typically have a bit of back-and-forth on details. An extreme example would be making their parents the rulers of the land with virtually unlimited resources at the character's beck and call. If it's adding a village or similar we'll discuss where and I'll give options of different regions.

Sadly* most people seem to want to make their characters orphans that sprung fully grown from Zeus's head like Athena.

*Am I allowed to use that word or will I be told I'm writing a DM horror story because of it?

 

[AlViking]

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.

I'm still not sure what the heck he was thinking. We had a lot of fun gaming together and never had any issues with him other than this one instance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the entire village is burned to the ground (if that's not what was meant it wasn't clear

I believe I said the PCs had little to fear from a lynch mob because they are capable of destroying the entire village. Not that they actually did this, by burning or otherwise.

I mean, I have seen PCs nuke a populated planet, so they might do that, that’s a matter for the players, not the DM.

 

[Belen]

I may limit the scope of background changes and we typically have a bit of back-and-forth on details. An extreme example would be making their parents the rulers of the land with virtually unlimited resources at the character's beck and call. If it's adding a village or similar we'll discuss where and I'll give options of different regions.

Sadly* most people seem to want to make their characters orphans that sprung fully grown from Zeus's head like Athena.

*Am I allowed to use that word or will I be told I'm writing a DM horror story because of it?

My current Wood Elf Druid duo created an entire community and elven grove for my current campaign. It was really helpful to have them create an enclave in the wilderness region.

The Dwarf created his own clan which was one of the ruling clans; however, he was exiled for killing another in a duel and is considered dead unless he completes an impossible quest. That came from the player.

Of course, the entire party has started his quest as it also helps the fighter with his geas of completing another quest in a year and a day or die.

I admit to the geas but he used an ancient artifact tied to the wild magic to wipe out a small fleet of pirate slavers and he had to agree to the price.

 

[AlViking]

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?

Sadly I felt like I had little choice to kill off a character they thought would be fun playing is somehow a contradiction? How else do you describe a character who steals things repeatedly with no consideration of the risk involved as anything other than a kleptomaniac?

This was not a deadly high stakes game, but it was a well armed encampment. I had made it clear to the group that a full frontal assault would be suicidal - they had the option to report back or potentially engage in a little gorilla warfare. When the player snuck into camp I assumed they were just going to do a bit of reconnaissance and there were some documents with war plans in the tent.

When they decided to open the chest without checking for traps an alarm went off. I told the player something along the lines of "You can grab some treasure but the chest is too heavy to drag away and the shrieker is still screaming an alarm. What do you do?" His response was that he continued trying to drag the chest away.

I see no contradiction in anything I've said. I see you doing your best to interpret what I said as a bad DM punishing a player no matter how much I clarify the scenario.

 

[billd91]

And of course, killing a lynch mob might simply be considered an act of self-defense, and if the entire village is coming for a character in an adventure group, the result might be tragic, but not surprising, and justified. These villagers acted unlawful and evil - trying to kill someone innocent without any form of legal process - aka lynching - is almost certainly good enough to justify self-defense.

Self defense, sure. But killing the whole lynch mob AND the whole village would be way beyond the pale of justified behavior. Mobs break up and scatter. Villages almost certainly have people living in them who have no idea what's going on. Killing the entire village is the act of a criminal covering their tracks or meting out collective punishment.
There aren't a whole lot of things I agree with Belen on, but this could be a campaign stopper. It's certainly a game pauser in which I would ask the players what the hell they think they're trying to accomplish.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sadly I felt like I had little choice to kill off a character they thought would be fun playing is somehow a contradiction? How else do you describe a character who steals things repeatedly with no consideration of the risk involved as anything other than a kleptomaniac?

This was not a deadly high stakes game, but it was a well armed encampment. I had made it clear to the group that a full frontal assault would be suicidal - they had the option to report back or potentially engage in a little gorilla warfare. When the player snuck into camp I assumed they were just going to do a bit of reconnaissance and there were some documents with war plans in the tent.

When they decided to open the chest without checking for traps an alarm went off. I told the player something along the lines of "You can grab some treasure but the chest is too heavy to drag away and the shrieker is still screaming an alarm. What do you do?" His response was that he continued trying to drag the chest away.

I see no contradiction in anything I've said. I see you doing your best to interpret what I said as a bad DM punishing a player no matter how much I clarify the scenario.

I continue to see multiple contradictions. You say it was not an unfun game session but you’re sad after the fact. You express disappointment with the player’s choice - that they had no consideration, and they were being a kleptomaniac - again not in a positive light, but in a disapproving way. You are sitting in judgment of the player’s choice, like someone whose partner just misplayed a hand of bridge and is not happy with them. This does not come across to me as a game where the rogue character pushed his luck and got himself killed and everyone’s happily telling the story later about how the scrawny thief tried to make off with a 200 pound chest of treasure. That would indicate everyone had fun. Your story, as presented, doesn’t.

 

[Belen]

There aren't a whole lot of things I agree with Belen on, but this could be a campaign stopper. It's certainly a game pauser in which I would ask the players what the hell they think they're trying to accomplish.

.....thanks?

Honestly, I always like to hear your opinion on things. I find it valuable.