D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[MostlyDm]

Not really one moment though, since your first point mentions they made a demonic pact to begin with. So really, they made a deal with the devil (evil), broke a contract (unlawful) then made another deal with the devil (evil) sacrificed a human to it (evil) and got demonic assistance because of it (more evil).

So your "one act" is really already a trend of acts.

I think the *town* made the deal with the devil and then reneged.

The PCs just stumbled across this situation in progress. At least, that's how I read his description.

 

[Neurotic]

I think the *town* made the deal with the devil and then reneged.

The PCs just stumbled across this situation in progress. At least, that's how I read his description.

This is correct. PCs first contact was the mother asking for help for sick child

 

[ThirdWizard]

Now getting into why the alignment system isn't perfect The point of the change is that in D&D good, evil, law and chaos are measurable and known quantities. It affects how priests cast, how various cultists / paladins / leaders etc react to you. It affects your abilities and templates (if any)...it is mechanical as much as RP change. Most groups ignore the alignment, but if used "by the book" it can be good adventure hook.

I think the only real things that use alignment mechanically are the talismans of pure good and evil. Other than that I can't think of any 5e rules that mention alignment. Other people can't tell what alignment you are. Now, if you're spotted breaking into the local blacksmith shop, and word gets around, then yeah people will respect you less (and you might run afoul of the thieves guild).

 

[Sunseeker]

This is correct. PCs first contact was the mother asking for help for sick child

Ohhh I see, all-in-all that's not really a bad deal though. Save the town, run off the demons all in exchange for one child? I'm surprised the town didn't take the deal!

 

[Neurotic]

The town didn't know about it. It was offered to PCs (and most of the villagers would end up in hell anyhow - and fiends can wait)

 

[Maxperson]

I meant measurable as in detectable and graded. But for exact "quantities" you need to speak with your group to set up some guidelines. There is no quanta of evil or good as far as I know
You could always set something like:
angels -> saints -> paladin -> good char -> neutral -> human lawyer -> human cruel warlord -> evil races -> demons

And go from there

See, and that just illustrates the difficulty of rating evil/chaos. A lot of people wouldn't rate lawyers so highly

 

[Maxperson]

On the evil axis, vandalism doesn't really register, or only registers in so far as it is malicious. No amount of vandalism can be as evil as a murder. On the chaos axis, vandalism approaches its diminishing returns too quickly to ever equal a murder (really, the difference between vandalizing a 50 buildings and a hundred has negligible impact on your alignment).

If someone tried to play a chaotic evil character in my game on the basis that they were a mad vandal, I might suggest chaotic-ish neutral was probably more their speed.

Malicious vandalism would rate as evil for a lot of people. Same with theft. If something rates as evil, enough of it can equate to a greater evil like murder.

 

[Aura]

Except that isn't what happened. The DM didn't pull a gotcha. Rather, he just roleplayed out the consequences of forgetfulness. If you don't want that to happen to you, don't forget things. It's not the DM's job to be your memory.

We've been over this, particularly since more information was added, such as the ranger actually showing sufficient interest in what was being sold as to make an Int roll to appraise it. I've also described how the shopkeeper's language was not the 'tip off' it was originally thought to be, as suits of armor are, in fact, sets of discrete items.

As you concluded last time, you felt, for some reason, that it was the DM's option to whether the player gets a perception roll to see the incongruence between what he thinks he is offering and what he is really offering for sale. Despite the fact he is almost assuredly handling the items in question. Despite the fact he is making an Int roll to appraise them.

Why you feel this way is still not clear to me. This isn't an issue of whether it is the DM's job to 'be your memory'. It's an issue of whether it is the DM's job to be your eyes into the world. (And I strongly feel that it is the DM's job to be your eyes into the world.)

I have maintained the idea that this seemed to be a DM error, and that's all fine and well. But, let's think about what you are offering for a moment, though. You're proposing it is acceptable to purposely:

(1) Focus on a mistake in a previous scene
(2) Purposely deny the player sensory information in new scene as he handles items
(3) Totally ignore a new action by the player which absolutely requires sensory information
(4) Impose a 'consequence' on the players based on above

Done purposely, I can't see how this isn't a 'gotcha'. Can you clarify this? Do you not feel the DM's job involves being the player's eyes into the world? What's the difference here between us?

 

[Saeviomagy]

The scenario is kind of like:

player1: I set this tree on fire!

(time passes, play goes on)

player2: I look around for a tree to climb.

dm: There's a tree over there!

player2: I climb the tree

dm: Take 5 fire damage!

player2: Huh?

 

[Lejaun]

The scenario is kind of like:

player1: I set this tree on fire!

(time passes, play goes on)

player2: I look around for a tree to climb.

dm: There's a tree over there!

player2: I climb the tree

dm: Take 5 fire damage!

player2: Huh?

That's exactly how I read this situation.