D&D 5E When an entire campaign comes down to one roll

[DND_Reborn]

Kind, forgiving, and good? I'll give you the last one, but even good dragons aren't Care Bears.

They also aren't merciless, raging, murder-hobos. By its very definition, "kind and forgiving" sort of go hand-in-hand with "good", especially lawful good.

 

[Maxperson]

They also aren't merciless, raging, murder-hobos. By its very definition, "kind and forgiving" sort of go hand-in-hand with "good", especially lawful good.

Probably a good thing that this dragon didn't act like a merciless, raging murder-hobo. It waited until an evil drow tried to kill it before killing the evil drow and his friends.

5e doesn't have detect evil or know alignment, so the dragon would have to go by actions and knowledge. As a dragon of its stature, it would have the knowledge that drow are overwhelmingly evil and the one in this party acted to try and kill it, proving its evil intent.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Probably a good thing that this dragon didn't act like a merciless, raging murder-hobo. It waited until an evil drow tried to kill it before killing the evil drow and his friends.

5e doesn't have detect evil or know alignment, so the dragon would have to go by actions and knowledge. As a dragon of its stature, it would have the knowledge that drow are overwhelmingly evil and the one in this party acted to try and kill it, proving its evil intent.

But it did act that way, even if after the attack.

Attacking the drow (even knocking it unconscious maybe) would have been more in line with lawful good gold dragons than killing it and attacking its comrades. I mean, honestly, what would that dragon have to fear from a drow shooting it with an arrow??? Come on! It would be like a kid hitting you with a snowball--annoying at worst. When the rest of the party pleaded with it, it could have acted differently.

Now, as I understand the scenario, it is guarding the treasure so killing would-be thieves is probably seen as part of its duty. Still, "killing" them to unconsciousness and allowing whatever authorities to take would have been more in line with lawful good.

IMO, it is a sad side-effect of 5E (although others seem to like it) that alignment has gone pretty much been thrown into the trash. And certainly, not all gold dragons have to be lawful good, just as not every orc has to be evil, etc.

Anyway, as I have said in other posts in this thread, as a DM I don't think the DM handled it well and if I was a player in the game, I would have been very annoyed if my PC was killed because of some unlucky charisma checks and one player deciding to act impulsively. As I also said, as long as they all had fun, and that is what is most important, what does my opinion matter?

 

[Sadras]

Greed. And pride. That’s why a LG dragon reacted the way it did. It felt we insulted it, and were going to steal its treasure. LG doesn’t mean it’s mental capacity was all there. Especially after years of being trapped in a vault.

I have the adventure but have not read it, however this comment does cement for me the mindframe of the dragon. Untrusting, overly cautious and perhaps quick-tempered. The call for initiative was decent on behalf of the DM as the dragon went into an aggressive stance and allowed the PCs a turn to act.
I would have the dragon attack too, given that it had learned that more enemies were on their way, their actions (drow) did not match up to their words and their was something off about their story, tone of voice and/or their constant gaze towards the treasure.

 

[Maxperson]

Attacking the drow (even knocking it unconscious maybe) would have been more in line with lawful good gold dragons than killing it and attacking its comrades. I mean, honestly, what would that dragon have to fear from a drow shooting it with an arrow??? Come on! It would be like a kid hitting you with a snowball--annoying at worst. When the rest of the party pleaded with it, it could have acted differently.

A good dragon would kill an evil drow. It wouldn't knock it out, especially after it tried to kill it. Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid.

Now, as I understand the scenario, it is guarding the treasure so killing would-be thieves is probably seen as part of its duty. Still, "killing" them to unconsciousness and allowing whatever authorities to take would have been more in line with lawful good.

Before the party tried to kill it, sure. Even Lawful Good creatures take their lives seriously, and even if this evil drow and his companions couldn't kill it now, they could come back better prepared later and with more powerful friends.

IMO, it is a sad side-effect of 5E (although others seem to like it) that alignment has gone pretty much been thrown into the trash. And certainly, not all gold dragons have to be lawful good, just as not every orc has to be evil, etc.

It hasn't. Lawful Good has never meant that you couldn't or wouldn't kill evil creatures who tried to kill you.

As I also said, as long as they all had fun, and that is what is most important, what does my opinion matter?

Not much in that context Fun is what the game is about.

 

[billd91]

They also aren't merciless, raging, murder-hobos. By its very definition, "kind and forgiving" sort of go hand-in-hand with "good", especially lawful good.

Not to the point of overriding everything else. Nor does lawful good mean everything LG is going to behave the same way. A bunch of murder hobos come into his domain with a cult of devils after them and with at least one of them willfully getting antagonistic? Why has he got to be kind and forgiving toward them?

Everyone's going to play a lawful good gold dragon a bit differently. I'd have probably played him more mercifully (though neither likely kind or forgiving in this circumstance), but I don't have a problem with another DM playing him a bit angrier and prouder.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to the point of overriding everything else. Nor does lawful good mean everything LG is going to behave the same way. A bunch of murder hobos come into his domain with a cult of devils after them and with at least one of them willfully getting antagonistic? Why has he got to be kind and forgiving toward them?

Everyone's going to play a lawful good gold dragon a bit differently. I'd have probably played him more mercifully (though neither likely kind or forgiving in this circumstance), but I don't have a problem with another DM playing him a bit angrier and prouder.

After the first bad decision to be antagonistic, followed by the 1, I would have had the dragon say something to the effect of, "I asked you to leave and you refused. Now I will toss your unconscious bodies from my home." before rolling for initiative. That way the PCs would know that it wasn't coming to kill them. However, if any of them tried to kill it, such as with an arrow fired from an evil drow, the gloves would come off the way they did in the OP.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A good dragon would kill an evil drow. It wouldn't knock it out, especially after it tried to kill it. Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid.

Before the party tried to kill it, sure. Even Lawful Good creatures take their lives seriously, and even if this evil drow and his companions couldn't kill it now, they could come back better prepared later and with more powerful friends.

It hasn't. Lawful Good has never meant that you couldn't or wouldn't kill evil creatures who tried to kill you.

Not much in that context Fun is what the game is about.

Any good creature will defend itself, certainly, but think about the context: an adult gold dragon against a party which, even if suspicious and untrusting, it really shouldn't consider a threat. Until they acted in such a way as to show they were a threat, it should be supremely confident in its ability to defeat them at any point.

(Metagaming, we know this is a party of 4th or 5th level PCs IIRC against a CR 17 creature... this should not have even been played out IMO and simply narrated by the DM. It is like when a high-level party encounters a dozen kobolds--the result is pretty much indisputable... why bother wasting game time resolving it except to give the players a "power-high" as they crush kobolds. Just narrate the encounter. So, what the DM felt it was necessary to give the dragon a power-high by crushing the PCs?)

Even if angry, it would LAUGH at the drow's feeble attempt. It also knows much of the party is cowed by his dragon fear and another is pleading with it again. So, the player rolled another 1... and the DM decided that was really the "one roll" that would seal the party's fate.

It is a pity, IMO, that a game where people enjoyed their characters and had fun, would end because of a roll, when the threat the party represented was negligible. It could have been handled in SO many other ways which would have been just as much fun (if not more) and not led to a TPK.

 

[Maxperson]

Any good creature will defend itself, certainly, but think about the context: an adult gold dragon against a party which, even if suspicious and untrusting, it really shouldn't consider a threat. Until they acted in such a way as to show they were a threat, it should be supremely confident in its ability to defeat them at any point.

(Metagaming, we know this is a party of 4th or 5th level PCs IIRC against a CR 17 creature... this should not have even been played out IMO and simply narrated by the DM. It is like when a high-level party encounters a dozen kobolds--the result is pretty much indisputable... why bother wasting game time resolving it except to give the players a "power-high" as they crush kobolds. Just narrate the encounter. So, what the DM felt it was necessary to give the dragon a power-high by crushing the PCs?)

Even if angry, it would LAUGH at the drow's feeble attempt. It also knows much of the party is cowed by his dragon fear and another is pleading with it again. So, the player rolled another 1... and the DM decided that was really the "one roll" that would seal the party's fate.

It is a pity, IMO, that a game where people enjoyed their characters and had fun, would end because of a roll, when the threat the party represented was negligible. It could have been handled in SO many other ways which would have been just as much fun (if not more) and not led to a TPK.

I'm a good person, but when a mosquito bites me it gets crushed, and evil drow mosquito would be even worse. A 1st level PC can hit a gold dragon and sting it like the mosquito.

We have different opinions of the situation, but if we were all the same, it would make for a small variety of adventures. I'm sure your games are fun, too.

 

[Oofta]

I think the idiot deserved to die. But the person asking for mercy shouldn't have had to roll anything. At worst the result of that roll should have decided the fate of the rogue.

Beyond that the details are a little light. From what I can tell it's not that "the party" attacked or antagonized the dragon, it was one individual who apparently had a death wish.

Again, we don't know all the details and some of what I'm saying may not apply to this specific group. But oftentimes there's an unspoken agreement within groups that they allow just about any PC in the group. That chaotic stupid rogue that should have gotten kicked to the curb after the second session? Well, that's Bob's PC and we like Bob even if our PC would hate the rogue. So we let him stay. That doesn't mean the campaign should end because one PC is suicidal.

Last, but not least, people play for a lot of different reasons. In this scenario, if I were DM the dragon would have ignored the plea and killed the rogue. After that? He'd let the party decide what they were going to do now that the nuisance was taken care of.

On the other hand if the group had fun, it's the right DM for that group.