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

[AlViking]

I was once in danger of not realizing that I could have done it better, but then I was saved by...

View attachment 426413

Yeah, I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unless I'm not allowed to suggest a GM who won't allow someone to even define the village their character comes from is being excessive, it changes things because when you drag in an accusation about what I'm saying about a specific other poster (who, far as I can tell, is not that exctreme, you're either misrepresenting me or shadowboxing. So, yeah, if you want to pick a fight with me, go to the trouble of addressing what I'm talking about and at least be honest about it.



And, yeah, I think that's excessively controlling, at least as a generic policy (there can be special cases). Be offended if you want. But at least admit its about you, not someone else you're defending.

You are allowed to, but your example left out too many details that makes the gm for hire and simple fact that the gm is allowed to say no relevant.

This is what you wrote I'll point out what you did & did not include to make my questions about gm as an employee & gm being allowed to refuse to accept a olayer

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.

"A village" says nothing of substance. It may be an actual interaction, but it says nothing about what adding the village brings over choosing to come from somewhere that exists. If nothing else, creating a character who springs fully formed from Zeus's head with no ties to the world is an advantage if the rest of the party is playing characters who all have ties to the world

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.

This says nothing unless the default expectation is one of employer/employee or we assume that none of them are allowed to tell a prospective player "no you can not play at my table with that"

 

[TiQuinn]

You've never had a problem with a player? You've never realized in hindsight that you could have done it better? Learned from your mistakes?

Of course!

 

[Maxperson]

Which is, frankly, ridiculous. I write lawful good on my character sheet and go around eating babies. Do I go to heaven because my actions don’t matter, so long as my heart was in the right place? Evil is as evil does.

No. You are evil because you have evil attitudes and ideals before you have evil actions like eating babies. This isn't hard stuff.

The only question there is did you eat the baby because you could and nobody could stop you(chaotic evil), eat the baby because it was an eeeeeevil thing to do(neutral evil), or eat the baby because the parents didn't pay back the loan on time(lawful evil)?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You are if you can just take out the whole village(mob).

How easily the party can take out a bunch of commoners is going to depend on the level of party. But that’s a strawman. The point is, when a bunch of heavily armed strangers walk into town, the villagers are going to be terrified of all of them, irrespective of if they are hated cat people or not. They aren’t going to try lynching them. They won’t be friendly - but that’s normal. Slamming shutters and bolting doors is something adventurers are used to.

 

[Maxperson]

How easily the party can take out a bunch of commoners is going to depend on the level of party. But that’s a strawman. The point is, when a bunch of heavily armed strangers walk into town, the villagers are going to be terrified of all of them, irrespective of if they are hated cat people or not. They aren’t going to try lynching them. They won’t be friendly - but that’s normal. Slamming shutters and bolting doors is something adventurers are used to.

Yeah. You're probably right about that, unless something else is happening to make it happen.

 

[Maxperson]

"A village" says nothing of substance. It may be an actual interaction, but it says nothing about what adding the village brings over choosing to come from somewhere that exists. If nothing else, creating a character who springs fully formed from Zeus's head with no ties to the world is an advantage if the rest of the party is playing characters who all have ties to the world

I think what @Thomas Shey is referring to is what my players often do, which is create a home village, including several of the NPCs and their roles in the village, as well as some relationships. Not just, "I came from a village with no name."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

No. You are evil because you have evil attitudes and ideals before you have evil actions like eating babies. This isn't hard stuff.

The only question there is did you eat the baby because you could and nobody could stop you(chaotic evil), eat the baby because it was an eeeeeevil thing to do(neutral evil), or eat the baby because the parents didn't pay back the loan on time(lawful evil)?

Oh... I like spicy. What?

So correct me if I'm wrong. I can eat babies and be good as long as I have kindness in my heart when I swallow?

I can't say I've looked at morality and alignment in that way before. Interesting.

 

[gban007]

Oh... I like spicy. What?

So correct me if I'm wrong. I can eat babies and be good as long as I have kindness in my heart when I swallow?

I can't say I've looked at morality and alignment in that way before. Interesting.

I think it is more why did you eat the baby? What was intent/ reason for doing so?

Is it a Soylent Green scenario? Were you coerced into it? Did you just wake up and decide one day I want to eat a baby?

 

[Maxperson]

Oh... I like spicy. What?

So correct me if I'm wrong. I can eat babies and be good as long as I have kindness in my heart when I swallow?

No. But it's not just the act. Intent is primary. If I kill someone to save your life, it's not evil(or good). If I walk up to someone and shoot them in the back of the head because I didn't like what color shoes they had on, pretty darn evil. The act is the same. I killed someone. Intent is what made things different.

If you're killing a baby to eat it, I don't see a way for that to be anything but evil. But what if you're starving to death and the baby died of exposure to the elements already? Eating it is not going to be a good act, but I don't see that being evil, either.