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

[TiQuinn]

Having a player willing to push the envelope helps things happen - but some of those things aren't good in the long run. You've never played at a table where a player had a character do rash things that made things difficult for the rest of the group or the DM from time to time? Those players can be fun and funny and also very frustrating.

Of course, but I also don’t look back years later (I’m assuming this was years ago since it was a 3e game) as if it were a terrible thing. If the good doesn’t remain, I question whether something didn’t go wrong in that game, and I seek to fix that for the next time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of us has obviously made an egregiously incorrect assumption

Yes. You did by assuming I was talking about anyone specific.

 

[SkidAce]

For a lot of cases with a setting, it may be one that's been run with before - just with a new set of players for a new campaign. Background work... largely already done. One of the players in my group has run a series of campaigns over the last 20 years out of his own campaign setting. And yes, he keeps out most of the D&D species options, both as PCs and NPCs. There's no point to asking to play a tortle - they aren't an option.

I have used the same campaign setting since mid 80's.

But in between groups I use the opportunity to tweak it a bit (mostly changes they made), but I also make changes based on the new players ideas.

Still no orcs though.

 

[Maxperson]

What do you mean by "monster"? There is no legal definition to draw upon. But killing any sentient being that is not a genuine threat is morally wrong (that would include the likes of dragons in D&D). Of course laws may be morally wrong too, which is why heroes are often outlaws.

Real world legal definitions need not apply. Only what the fictional law says matters, and those often deal with monsters. And as for threat, if they feel your cat person is a threat, then they will see you as a threat and perhaps act on it.

That's very much easier said than done, and anyway, the whole party would obviously defend any party member from a lynch mob. It's not just a single individual.

Not, really. If you can take out an entire mob, you can almost always just get away.

Actions have consequences, and the party becoming outlaws is a fairly common one in my experience, especially when a society has racist and unjust laws.

Sure, which brings us right back around to you being hunted by bounty hunters and having troubles being in towns and cities. A consequence of your actions, not a punishment for the player for whatever reasons you stated many pages ago.

 

[TiQuinn]

Just when did kleptomaniac become a slur we can never use to describe a character?

Because you keep using it pejoratively. It’s the posture of the posts that make me feel this didn’t work out the way you wanted, but you are blaming the player who you said was willing to push their luck. Well, if they’re willing to push their luck and that’s the character they have, there’s no reason to look back sadly at it unless there was something else at hand in the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The fact that they automatically knew with no doubt that they had nothing to fear if they destroyed the entire village is what I have an issue with

They have nothing to fear from the villagers. The authorities, they will deal with as and when it arises. The party aren’t going to stand around and let someone be lynched, irrespective of the consequences.

that I would consider them evil and I don't want evil PCs, which I tell people during the session 0.

Fair enough, as long as everyone is on board with that. But being an enemy of the state is often the good option.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I’m sure this was a while ago, so I’m not criticizing any GM actions here.

But it seems like a solid example of a time to make sure good GM practices are being followed.

If the player is acting in a manner you find confusing:

Switch to metagame conversation.
Clarify the player’s intent.
Make sure the player is aware that the stakes are being raised and the consequences are sharpening because of their actions.

Ideally, you never wrap up a scene without knowing what the player(s) were trying to acccomplish.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is D&D. Alignment is more than just actions.

No they aren't. In 5e good and evil are alignments which are not listed as optional. The personality traits just help people roleplay those alignments and TEND to indicate good or evil, or lawful/chaotic. You aren't evil just because you picked the Greed trait as an Entertainer.

Not what the 2024 rules say. But you still haven’t explained what alignment actually is. Say my character is lawful good, am I incapable of steeling a sandwich, like some sort of automaton who can only follow its programming?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And as for threat, if they feel your cat person is a threat, then they will see you as a threat and perhaps act on it.

Sure, but they are wrong, so if they attack my cat person friend I am justified in killing them. And if they law doesn’t like it the law can go **** itself.

Sure, which brings us right back around to you being hunted by bounty hunters and having troubles being in towns and cities.

Business as usual for adventurers.

 

[TwoSix]

Having a player willing to push the envelope helps things happen - but some of those things aren't good in the long run. You've never played at a table where a player had a character do rash things that made things difficult for the rest of the group or the DM from time to time? Those players can be fun and funny and also very frustrating.

What the heck is the “long run”? We’re here to have the players generate conflict and narratives. That’s the point of playing.