Story 3. Murderhobo? To the DM of this story. If you don't want some one to murder people on sight, don't insist on that being in their backstory.

@Nazo-kage

Жыл бұрын

I would bet good money the DM completely forgot about that part of the backstory. Which is why he put Drow in there and made them such a pivotal plot hook that losing them means he has to end of the game and rework things. (also, let’s not forget the other players were fighting too, and if they wanted to take one of the Drow alive they could have more than tried.)

@IsilmeTuruphant

Жыл бұрын

@@Nazo-kage Also, if you're entire plot hook rests on a character who is a known hostile race, who acts hostile when the players attempt to communicate, then attacks with lethal force... You probably shouldn't be surprised if that plot hook gets killed in self defense?

@ArkbladeIX

8 ай бұрын

@@IsilmeTuruphant "why did you kill the drow I put into the story after reading that murderhobo-ing drow is a major part of your character? 😯"

So I'm the guy that wrote the second story about being the Lawful Good Paladin. On the Reddit post, a number of people pointed out the fact that alignment means little in 5e and i was making a big deal of it. To a point I agree. As I mentioned in the story it was my first campaign and it wasn't until later that I realized the alignment had little mechanical role in the game. Also at the time it felt like a major judgement call on who my character was, and the alignment change felt like the DM was telling me who my character was and how I should be acting more than I knew about the character.

@unluckyone1655

Жыл бұрын

I know that in older editions, alignment was everything to a paladin. If you shifted alignment, you could lose your powers. It's a concept that looks good on paper, bit in practice, it often was a way to heavily restrict a players agency when a DM could hold the threat of rending your character useless at any given point. It's no wonder alpt of horror stories of older editions involved paladins in some way, either a player being a lawful stupid murder hobo, or a DM basically telling a paladin player what to do or else. That's one good thing that 5e managed to fix, your oath is what matters, and alignment is just guidelines

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but you were still right to call it out. That was a terrible judgement on alignment. One of the first thing first responders are taught for example is to be aware of their own safety as they can't help anyone if THEY get injured. Would the DM insist paramedics can't be lawful good? No.

@nigeltucker4202

Жыл бұрын

As I responded above, Lawful Good doesn't mean you're Lawful Stupid or Suicidal. I dislike and don't agree with DM's that think being a paladin means you have to martyr yourself every chance you get. It would not be any good to let the dragon come down and kill you to save a few people and now your party has to try to fight the dragon without your help. In that kind of world Paladins are a rare thing. Often not surviving for more then a few adventures. They run head first into unwinnable battles or stay behind to die when there are dozens of other options because "its what paladins do", they must protect everyone at the cost of their own life, always. As a DM, the only thing I may have said, and I wouldn't have even thought about it, was you might have tried to wave your arms and/or scream at the dragon to pay attention to you as you went for cover but this is also kind of dumb as the dragon was flying high above observing the chaos it was causing below and wouldn't have fallen for the "hey! Over here! follow me!" thing.

Alternative title to Story #3: A DM forgets what "letters" and "missives" are, has no idea how to do a plot hook

I think the dm in the end had an issue with navigating problem solving. Thinking "my obstacles can't be solved with these meager investigations" while forgetting that you need to string clues together. Atleast have a clue leading to another clue.

Only thing I can come up with for that last story is that the DM is too used to computer games where a specific set of dialogue unlocks a certain conversation path.

A list of things that would cause an alignment shift as a Paladin (meaning losing powers) 1. Eating mutton instead of fish. 2. Being 15ft away from a companion. 3. Killing a BBEG with overly complicated nuances that passes more as pretentious and forgettable due to having more "im vry smrt" level twists than a GoT fanfiction. 4. Pursuing a romance with a woman. 5. Pursuing a romance with a man. 6. Pursuing a romance with oneself. 7. Pursuing a romance with another paladin (the other paladin is excused). 8. Scaring away goblins with a successful intimidation check. 9. Not reading the DM's mind. 10. Leaving an obvious DMPC locked in a warehouse full of gunpowder with a leaky alchemist's fire. 11. Not helping an evil baron lethally suppressing a riot. 12. Helping a rebellion against an evil baron. 13. Leaving the city ruled by an evil baron. 14. Not bringing the DM's favorite snack. 15. - - - - 16. Thou shalt not talk about item 15. DM's Will is final! 17. Not accepting a duel from an anti-paladin or oathbreaker paladin. 18. Not being 6ft tall. 19. Being a Kinder. 20. Bugging the DM about what the actual frack is item 15. tl;dr - Being a paladin is impressively more difficult than it needs to be. Feel free to use a d20 to determine how you lost your paladin powers due to an unfair alignment shift.

@duskgaming18

Жыл бұрын

Oh hey, I lost my Paladon Powers for not reading the DMs mind. Lovely. Welp, time to drop Paladin and go for Fighter

Third story was just DM: _gives player a background that says they'll kill Drow on sight_ OP: _kills a Drow on sight_ DM: _surprised Pikachu face_

I definitely see alignment as more of a suggestion of a character's general attitude rather than an absolute set of rules they have to follow. There's also definitely going to be times when people act against their alignment in stressful situations and do things they normally wouldn't. Running from a fight and abandoning your compatriots doesn't make a good person evil, it just means they might've gotten overwhelmed.

@sumonelse1989

Жыл бұрын

I once played a saurial paladin that was mistaken as a divine messenger by a tribe of lizard men. I did my best to to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding but as the tribe was in desperate straits they had latched onto whatever hope they could find. An overwhelming dark army of unknown origin was bearing down upon their settlement from all directions. Most of the party ( myself included ) had determined that we could not abandon them and escape on our own with the exception of the human knight. Knight: "I don't want to die for filthy lizard men!" Me: ( using limited use magic item for telepathy since saurials don't speak like everyone else and looking very angry and disgusted with the knight. ) "Then don't do it because you want to; do it because it's the right thing to do." Mic drop. Knight towed the line from then on and I got bonus XP. 😁 He also got bonus XP ( less than me ) for RPing the shame he felt afterwards when he realized he had been prepared to condemn innocents simply because they were not human. However; even that knight was not stepping out of character or alignment with his initial refusal. Alignment is not absolute, every race or culture is going to have different ideas of right and wrong. Situations like this provide a great setting for character growth due to their extreme nature. Alignment doesn't shift with EVERY choice. the OP making the intelligent decision to seek cover AND plan for when he COULD attack had nothing to do with being Lawful Good.

@unluckyone1655

Жыл бұрын

Sadly in older editions, alignment was everything to a paladin. Of you shifted from your lawful alignment, you could lose your powers. A good DM would be understanding of certain situations, but it often was a way for a DM to sort of hamstring a player if said player was being "creative." It's no wonder alot of horror stories of older edition games involve paladins.

@zaniatnik

Жыл бұрын

For that matter, cowardice has nothing to do with alignment. Good, neutral and evil crap their pants alike.

@TheDeadGunslinger

Жыл бұрын

As a DM I use Alignment pretty strictly. But I don't have player choose Alignment. I, as the DM, will let them know where they lay on the Alignment spectrum based on their actions.

@swissarmyknight4306

Жыл бұрын

Alignment should be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

That entire first group, based on the information here, is a bunch of f**kwits, IMO. There's got to be more to it than this

@AlexandraSaysHi

Жыл бұрын

Op did say their character was getting a lot of focus. Maybe they were just being petty about that but lying to cover up.

@informitas0117

Жыл бұрын

The group members are a bunch of toddlers including the dm.

Story 2, typical DM "Lawful Good MUST be Lawful STUPID, if your character has any common sense or self-preservation instinct, you're playing wrong!". Spoony once insulted D&D players as a whole because not as many people play lawful good characters anymore... This is why, pretty much every other alignment isn't under such scrutiny.

@duskgaming18

Жыл бұрын

Well every alignment aside from Chaotic Neutral and the Evils. Mostly cause of RPG Horror Stories where people play Chaotic Neutral and the 3 Evil Alignments as Chaotic Stupid and just do whatever they want cause "I'm Chaotic Neutral/Evil. I do what I want."

@PaladinGear15

Жыл бұрын

@@duskgaming18 To be fair I can't stand Chaotic Neutral... Chaotic means chaos, Lawful means order, so just acting like a deranged lunatic *could* still be acting within your alignment, and problem players know it. Makes for an easy excuse.

@duskgaming18

Жыл бұрын

@@PaladinGear15 Fair, though usually Chaotic Characters in Fiction tend to wait for good moments to go off the deep end and "have fun" instead of just chaos 24/7. I had a Chaotic Evil Divination Wizard Changeling who was part of a party, and while they helped save people and do all sorts of good for the world, he never revealed his Changeling nature, and used his Divination to gather as much information and blackmail on the higher ups of society. Doing so to manipulate the Monarch and Governing bodies from the shadows, as seemingly a Shadow Organization, with dozens of different members, but in reality, every person that the Monarchy and Nobility of the World saw, threatening to reveal every dirty secret they ever had, was my Wizard putting on different clothes and changing his face. While being a part of the party, he was secretly pulling the strings of society from his web of information, while no one ever suspected him. Cause who would ever suspect the Wizard that helped save the realm countless times? Thats how a Chaotic Evil character should be played, less of a Force of Nature, and more of a subtle evil, that lurks in the shadows, and only shows their true colors when it benefits them. Also, if you want to know what happened to my Wizard, me and the DM came up with an idea, to get the party to turn against my Wizard. I was getting bored of playing them, and the campaign arc was coming to a close. So I had my Wizard do his usual stuff during downtime, making demands for money and powerful artifacts that the Royalty had in their possession, but instead it was a trap, which my Wizard fell for and chaos ensued. My Wizard fled, and the rest of the Party caught wind of a random Orc Mage causing tons of problems while invading law enforcement. My Wizard eventually managed to disappear into the night, and the party was able to piece 2 and 2 together, when my Wizard was no where to be found during the whole chase and after the Orc Mage disappeared. Now I get to play a Lizardfolk Druid, and my Changeling Wizard is out there somewhere, under the DM's control as a new antagonist the Party will have to deal with.

@ShinyAvalon

Жыл бұрын

@@PaladinGear15 - That seems like a "worse case scenario" interpretation of "chaotic." To me, it implies something closer to "has a problem with authority." You know, like the stereotypical "cowboy cop" character would be chaotic (could run from "chaotic good hero cop" to "chaotic evil corrupt cop"). Chaotic neutral, then, would be acting in your own best interest while also defying any authority that tries to exert control over you.

@PaladinGear15

Жыл бұрын

@@ShinyAvalon That's why I said "Could" be realistically in-character to do so. I knew a guy who said he exclusively plays chaotic neutral characters because that means he can just act however the heck he wants to act in that moment and it'll still be in character... which is true since as a free-spirit unburdened by rules or morality, he can change at any time without any major event triggering it. That's actually why I really like Chaotic Good characters, cause they're doing good simply because that's what they want to do, not any sense of duty, chivalry or honour.

I will never understand why some DM's get so tight lipped. You can only withold the game's progress for so long. If you don't have anything planned yet then just say so. It's always better to work out a storyline with your players then to keep dragging things out and making your players angry.

Listening to the story about the paladin, I'm amazed that people think that paladins have no sense of self preservation. I've had it happen to me in a play by post. The party all declared they were following my paladin into a crypt before I'd even had a chance to say what is do...which wasn't going straight into said crypt without checking it out first.

The first story screams stupidity and jealousy to me. OP did something creative and it was successful. I think the others players had their egos bruised when their strategy of "hit it harder" did nothing and OP saved the day in a cool way. If I was the DM, I would have stood up for OP, even if the outcome was a destroyed group. The group behavior demonstrates that OP and the DM can't trust THEM to have fun playing a game! No dnd is better than bad dnd.

My thoughts on the last story: he was an on rails DM You'll see encounters like this from time to time albeit usually with the dm pointing hard at the NPC/thing they want the pcs to discover at every turn, this guy probably didn't want the party to think of him as a railroading DM as evidenced by him not taking their criticism well or at all. So he left his tracks there hoping they would find them on their own, when they didn't he fumbled and couldn't give anything because they were doing it the "wrong" way I.E. the paths they were exploring weren't the ones he planed so he shut down.

That DM was an idiot. The paladin player not being stupid, standing out in the open and dying for no reason was not a cause for an alignment change.

You give a player's character a history of being a soldier and issues with drow. Then you have a Drow attack that player, even though OP tried talking, and is surprised when he goes on attack to kill the Drow. I hope DM and that other guy get a papercut in the folds of their fingers.

Story 3: Yeah, I'd have bailed when the diplomacy check failed. An actual guard taking bribes, just to tell about Orcs attacking HIS own city? And a nat 20 diplomacy check failed to convince him to do his job? Yeah, ok buddy. I see how this is, bye.

What? The DM made the biggest goof by not overruling the "vote", the group are terrible players. I haven't DMed yet, but in making PCs: alignment guides the build and how to act in general before session 1, as an overall demeanor. But usually doesn't matter after because frankly, that extremely subjective. For example in my wife's campaign, I been staking dead creatures (they're local cryptozoological, like Jersey devil and moth man). So far my characters are neutral good or true neutral, does mutilation with the stake change my alignment? The party OOC slightly think so.

@schwarzerritter5724

Жыл бұрын

Peer pressure is a hell of a drug.

@davidtherwhanger6795

Жыл бұрын

This is getting into what simple alignment has never been able to cover properly. Driving a stake thru a dead creature can be mundane, a necessity, or a perverse pleasure based solely on the motivation of the character. And others could perceive it differently for different reasons. Take bug collecting. Pinning the dead bugs in place is seen as mundane and a necessity by the collectors. But others see it as perverse mutilation. Neither one of those things actually would change the alignment of the collector.

Story 2 felt personal for me. An example of alignment being flexible, not rigid. In a campaign, I was playing a lawful good Paladin. Despite this I had no issue with the party stealing from corrupt nobles or joining the dethroning of the tyrant King. My oath was to Bahumut. Not a king who failed his duty to his people. The petty laws of mortals always took a back seat to the will of my god. And my god said "fuck this guy!"

@tristank8076

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, lawful anything means you have a CODE. It's a code YOU follow, and someone else's opinion on what is YOUR code is, is wrong.

@gameguy20100

Жыл бұрын

@tristank8076 Yeap. My code as an Oath of devotion Paladin was that I never lied, I protected the weak and punished the guilty. These nobles failed in their duty to serve their people. They were supposed to inspire and lead the people of this town, not abuse them for personal gain.

@tristank8076

Жыл бұрын

@@gameguy20100 so you where obligated by your morality to not only let these guys get thier comeuppance but to help them get it. I love it.

@gameguy20100

Жыл бұрын

@@tristank8076 Yeah. It was awesome. Paladin is one of my favourite classes.

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Yep, my current character is chaotic good because he'll happily bend rules to help people. Despite that he's also probably the best at actually working with rules in the party. I remember an old explanation of alignment that said a chaotic character was just as likely to cross a bridge as jump off it which was always kind of silly to me. No a chaotic character just doesn't care if they're expected to use the bridge they'll go with whatever is faster/safer.

Honestly the first story reminds me of the ending in Fallout 1. The DM turns to OP, solemnly shaking their head with a heavy sigh. "I'm sorry. You're a hero, and you have to leave."

As I mentioned in my story I don't use alignment anymore and in my homebrew setting I focus on certain narrative pulls which I feel tells me more about a character than a Law vs Chaos scale. In my setting there is a big Arcane vs Divine social narrative, so me asking what your character's views on arcane magic or the Gods and the Nobility vs Guilds which the first is all about old money and tradition or new money and those with with gold making the decisions are major aspects that I use instead of a generic alignment system.

DM: I've got a campaign for you, but you need to figure everything out yourself. There will be no hints, no one will give you information, everyone hates your guts so damn much they wouldn't tell you where they keep their sand bucket if they were on fire. There are just generic quests. I'd be out after session one of stonewall GM.

Last story- So with the DM becoming a player, did he NOT confess why he had to be an ass with spilling out the info?

Simba looks stoned

The first story is reminding me of the MGS3 Snake Eater boss. Sacrificing themselves to save the people they care about and being remembered as a traitor. OP deserved better, GM should have had some backbone and tell the other players they were wrong.

@GarkKahn

Жыл бұрын

Maybe they had a private conversation with that ending monologue? lol

@realdragon

Жыл бұрын

It's honestly double edge sword, I just think OPs playstyle and rest of the people playstyles just didn't match. But yeah DM didn't handle it well

@nivada94

Жыл бұрын

I read about that story on the reddit and a comment gave a good perspective on that first story about why the other players where angry at op. The comment basically went like: Just imagine yourself in the other players shoes. You are playing a campagin, with a group of people, everything is going fine, till the last battle. Where all your struggles trough the campaign to get allies and items to beat the bbeg, together with your party, are moved aside, cause the dm and a other player made plans behind the groups back, for a plot twist that nobody else knew about. Would you feel good? Knowing all the time you spent getting all those allies/ items are moved aside, cause one person got to be the focus, and have the things you have done not matter at all? That said, kicking the op of first post but not the dm probably means that the dm threw op under the bus and probably blamed him. Blaming the others for over reacting is not fair cause the thing was it was a bbeg, from a campaign that lasted long. Meaning they had much time invested into it already. Nobody likes their time being stolen.

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

@@nivada94 Oh please, no one's time was stolen drop the theatrics. Those armies and allies were still necessary to actually defeat the BBEG, the wizard did what was needed to make the death stick. They did it in secret only because the character knew the other characters wouldn't let them take this path. Its pretty telling the second it happened they wanted to kill the wizard and not finish off the BBEG which was literally the point. Frankly you're talking as if they soloed the boss 1vs1 effortlessly when all they did was undo the thing that kept them from dying. A pretty necessary step they seem to have neglected as a party.

@nivada94

Жыл бұрын

@@shadenox8164 Dude, the armies and magic items didn't even break the magic barrier of the bbeg, in the story. If you read it on reddit, they did jack shit, and it was op writing the story that put it like that, people generally tend to write more favorable to themselves, so if even the op of story 1 says it had not even broke the bbeg barrier yet. While all the party where low you know the dm, made the encounter that way, probably cause he liked the op's idea so much he wanted to have it end that way. Which effectivly made all other players impact moot. The decision on how it would end was made beforehand between those two, meaning any input the other players had in the final battle was moot. But like i said I think both dm and op are equally to blame to only kick op out for this is not good they should have kicked either both or have their grievansess aired to both.

In the first Story, OP basically pulled a Diablo with forcing the evil within them to save the day. It's incredible that the other players saw this in an entirely different context and accused them of derailing the campaign. OP and the DM REALLY should have been more adamant in clarifying the intent of their action. Based on the story, it seems they either didn't do that properly, or the other players were so delusional that their attempts fell upon deaf ears.

@Michaeljack81sk

Жыл бұрын

The context they probably saw this in was the big win of the whole campaign was given to OP with no choice for any of them and no chance to stop him. Imagine how disappointed they must have felt that everything they did was for nothing just so OP could have his special session with DM and his cutscene victory

@asioca1992

Жыл бұрын

@@Michaeljack81sk The alternative would've most likely been a TPK, which this group honestly deserved, sans OP.

@Ultima1134

Жыл бұрын

@@Michaeljack81sk if that's why they kicked op out then they're even worse than I thought. Op thought of a solution to the invincible bbeg, the solution was accepted by the dm and they pulled it off. Being creative is a good thing.

@dionysus_adores

Жыл бұрын

The party really took it too far kicking someone out for that. They really need to learn to sperate game person from real people

@Michaeljack81sk

Жыл бұрын

@@Ultima1134 Not without consulting the party OOC. DnD is a game for a group to enjoy together, not for one player to grandstand and hog the spotlight

Me, in the third story: "I go to the tavern and sit at a table and wait for a plot hook to arrive".

We haven't used alignment since the early 2000's, and even then we didn't pay much attention to them. They are far too subjective to be useful. Who determines what is good or bad? Everyone has their own moral compass and few purposely try to be "evil", even is others mightsay they are from their perspective. It's just pointless. That DM randomly changing alignments due to OP's logical actions - ridiculous. If that had been me, my alignment on my sheet would have been perfunctary anyway, and a forced change wouldn't change how I played my character. Because it's my character's background and experience that determines how I play, not some arbitrary definition of law/chaos, and good/evil.

Alignment in 5e is just a shorthand for the most general attitude your character has to the world and others. I personally find it useful as a shorthand because you can just say "This is John, the ranged fighter, he wears a green outfit with a tricone hat and is chaotic/good" and everyone gets the general Robin Hood-vibe without you having to explain details about your character's backstory that the other characters know nothing about at the start of the campaign.

For the first story: I felt a surge of anger at the DM being too chicken shit to stand up for his player when they had both made a completely legit move. I'm glad OP managed to take it without getting salty. I wouldn't have been able to. Terrible group, terrible DM. Peer pressure at its worst. Third story: DM deliberately had the drow speak a language they don't understand and show open hostility towards the group. The only proper response to that is to defend yourself. Especially if they were trained to unreasonable degrees to hate drow. It's not murder-hoboing if they attack first and OP definitely should have said something to that effect. It's always so frustrating to me to hear about players who cannot or will not stand up for themselves, because they fear the repercussions or they're too socially awkward and everything goes to shit because of that. I'm not blaming them. Social anxiety is hard to overcome for a lot of people and they struggle hard with it. It's not just something you do. But that doesn't make the frustration any less. It just really sucks to hear about so many campaigns going down the crapper because of social shortcomings. DnD often strikes me as being very weird in that regard, because it's loved by a lot of people who struggle with socially mingling with their peers, but still want to play an inherently social game. They clearly love the game and want to get along with their group, but they don't always know how to respond appropriately to certain social situations. Bit of a dichotomy. I wish there was something I could say or do that would serve as some kind of advice, but it's unfortunately not as simple as that.

@falxblade1352

Жыл бұрын

Re: story 1, I felt like the other players were going to either a) riot and leave, or b) kick OP anyways even IF he told them to f off. "Me, personally"-ing is kind of bad form, but an idea I have to challenge this player stupidity would be to ask how they defeated the dracolich, if the sacrifice was essentially made necessary by prior choices, but again, tbf to the dm, it's easier to be a general after the war's over.

"Bitch-made"? "Shit dm?" Damn son. That first story had doge HEATED.

For the last one, maybe it was a matter of prep, but not in the manner you described? His world may LOOK super deep, but he hasn't actually prepared that much content, so he's gotta drag it out so you don't burn through everything he planned?

Story 1: Mistakes? That is what literally everyone in my group of players would do! sacrifice themselves to save the world, there friends, and the people. for Op's friends to just up and do that to them? what a bunch of dickheads! if i was the DM in this instance i would take the side of OP! Retconning both there sacrifice and killing both the dracolich AND there player? so whats the point of kicking them then? what a way to betray a friend of yours... this is how a Villian is born indeed.

In the first story, that GM had no balls. How can you throw a player under the boss like that?! Especially one which crafted such a great narrative. If someone has to stand up to the mob, it's the DM, and this was just awful.

First story seems like an Everyone Sucks story. OP (maybe unintentionally) was a main character it seems and DM definitely enabled it. I don't think either had bad intentions and I think the kicking was likely just them using that as an excuse when all the other stuff had built up resentment. DM shoulda taken responsibility and they all needed to sit down and talk about things if they wanted it to work. After all, it's hard to see you're the problem when you are having fun. Second story is exactly one of the many reasons I don't like alignment. People are more complex than alignments and sometimes you do things outside what they are and it's still in character. And I personally believe in letting players explain their actions and would have deemed that in character. Gotta be logical to survive and help more people. Third story... If I'm assuming everything is as says, that's on the DM completely. Players are instinctively going to fight when initiative is rolled or someone attacks them. If you as a DM wants this, communicate that to your players. Fourth story just seems like a very bad DM that views himself as an enemy to the Players... Who doesn't give out info? That's literally the job of the DM and I'd be making sure the players find what they are seeking. Maybe throw in a little trouble, but always reward resource usage and high checks. Seems like maybe DM mighta wanted the investigation feeling? Idk, just weird. At least it ended well. Once again, stories that could have been solved with good ol empathy and communication. Pet the cats for us, Doge!

Last Story: There's a simple solution to this asinine problem. Tell the DM to cut the bullshit or he won't have a table anymore. Period.

The annoying dm not giving any info I assume probably literally didnt have any to give cause they had gotten to the end of his prep or something so he was stringing them along to waste time so he could reach the end of session.

God I love it when Doge says something is "bitch made"🤣

I've always found alignment way too restrictive and way too open to abuse

I love the speckles on Simba's nose!

We go back to the Boards and look through the ads until we have specific contacts and/or directions, ignoring all others.

Ok, talking to commoners to get the latest gossip for a quest is a classic way to get on with quests, because people like to talk. It may not be the most reliable, as alot of it is often heresay, but commoners are generally willing to part with info for free, especially if its about an orc raid in a neigboring area and wanting adventurers to take care of that so that they also dont get raided in the future. Look there are times that info may be hard to get and people may be tight lipped and reluctant to help adventuers, like if the town has been taken over by a cult, are all being mass hypnotized by an evil wizard, or they may be living in the shadow of an evil dictator who enjoys kidnapping peasents and their family members and toturing and killing them for funzies so they may even be stadoffish with outsiders so they dont draw unnecessary attention on themselves (like in the case with COS). TLDR, there are times to make it difficult to aquire info, but making everyone in the eorld so tight lipped to where NPCs wont talk all the time is just a waste of everyones time. Like why bother with NPCs at all, just play a straight up djngeon crawl at that point

First story I agree 100% with you. So a paladin should really not seek cover before his fellow party members. Alignment or not, paladins have a certain code to follow. That being side, this is no way cause for an alignment change. o_O Player is not murder hobo at all... DM is an idiot. Not only is the PC's backstory encourages killing drows on sight, the DM at the drows attack first, then goes surprised pikachu face when the PC kills them. That last DM is also kinda dumb. First rule of running adventures is to give crucial information freely, and only have players roll for extra infos. Otherwise, there's no game...

Story 2. Alignment Shift. WTF! Courage is not linked in any way to Alignment. Period. By this DM's logic Paladin's should not wear armor of any kind or employ shields at all as that is "cowardly".

Alignment is a general set of core beliefs not a pass/ fail test. Did the lawful evil character pet instead of kick the dog? Lawful neutral now for not being evil. Did the Lawful good character tell the annoying guy to take care of his 27th request for the day himself? Lawful neutral now for not being good. Yeah thats not how it works.

That first story, Op and the DM are not to blame and the fact OP says they had anything to be responsible for is ridiculous and makes me mad. The players can’t disconnect the game from reality or understand that the actions of a Character and the Actions of a player are to be semi separated then maybe they shouldn’t be playing dnd. If I was the GM and this happened. I don’t care weather I got out voted. I’d tell ‘em what for and to find a new GM because I’m not changing SHIT!

I do use a version of the alignment system but it's sort of a soft version of the alignment system. You pick your alignment at character creation and you pick a deity from the pantheon(s). You don't need to be a practiononer of the faith or even be mostly aware of it, but it's the deity whose ideals you mostly follow or embody. The deity is at most one alingment step away (diagonals counting as two steps). When you do things that are unlike your alignment i take note as the DM. If there is too many things or the things are too different from your alignment i might have you roll a flat d20 with modifiers depending on what was done. On a failure or many failures, you shift one step on the alignment chart so as to more accurately reflect your alignment. If an alignment shift causes you to distance yourself more than one step from your deity, they may take note and react. Whether they take note and how they react is dependent on the deity. These systems rarely come into effect, but on some rare occasions do. I haven't had complaints yet.

In regards to alignment, I use it personally as a DM. But, I also only use it as a sort of... guideline of sorts. I also take the time to give a layout of what the alignments mean to me, as opposed to what the general idea on reading it might mean. -Lawful v Chaotic this one, I don't tie to ACTUAL law. Rather, having a personal code. Take the Pirates movies as an example. The pirates are breaking the LAW, but very much (usually) still following their Code. That counts as lawful. Someone Chaotic makes decisions more wholly on the moment, as opposed to a pre-existing set of personal rules. -Evil v Good This one I determine more as a sort of... selfish/selflessness. Someone who is purely 'evil' is going to always go for the outcome that gives them the best benefit, without regard for what it might cause for others, whereas someone who is good would be more likely to take a personal sacrifice, to help someone else. And, of course, in the end, like Barbossa said, "The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules." Alignment can be strayed from, especially on the case by case basis. It's used to get an idea of how a character would be more inclined to consider based on the scenario, not some strict rule they have to follow. Of course, if someone says lawful good, and always makes people suffer for their own benefit, that's when I would talk to them. Not saying they have to change their alignment, but discussing what they picked, and helping them see if they would rather shift it themselves, or review the behavior.

The way I run alignment is that the gods of the world embody some aspects of the various alignments, and essentially set the standard of measure. Then, for whatever of those alignments characters demonstrate the most aspects in their behaviour (selflessness being Good, pragmatism Neutral, etc.), that is what the character's alignment is marked as. As the campaign and character progress, though, it is very fluid and changes along with the character's overall behavior. Evil characters can be redeemed to paragons of good and vice versa.

Story 1 contains a spineless gm for giving into the ego of players who can't separate fantasy from reality who took this "betrayal" too seriously. Nothing loss with you gone as these fake people exposed themselves not to be real friends. 2nd story just another guy just not knowing how to use alignment. There is a way to use alignment, and 5e is not that system because it mechanically has no advantage or disadvantage (from what I've most played) compared to older D&D systems or Pathfinder. I think it has a place and a use in rp and even character creation, but modern (5e) players just ignore or do away with it.

Man, that first story sucks. Those players can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. That's gross.

Alignment is definitely a general attidude. Just because your character is lawful it doesn't mean they can't do something chaotic once in a while, or vice versa. And their attitudes can be completely different about certain things, such as an evil character that is anti-slavery (something that is universally considered a good trait). I even play Pathfinder 2e, where alignment has an actual mechanical effect like aligned damage where if your cleric blasts someone with good damage it will only harm them if they are evil. Forcing people to play the caricatures of each alignment (such as lawful stupid and chaotic stupid) is just narrow-minded.

Simba looks high as heaven XD

Yeah, the first story's DM is trash. They should have simply told the other players that it was their idea and that was the only way to beat the dragon. They had already put a lot of the research and stuff onto the magical character, so the explanation would make perfect sense.

In my games, I asked players to pick 2 alignments, a primary and secondary, to express the extremes of their personality. They had to be adjacent though, like Chaotic Good and Neutral Good, or Neutral and Neutral Evil. But no Lawful Evil and Lawful Good, etc, as that makes no sense, and would end up some kind of Neutral anyway. I both love and hate alignment; hate, because people can really abuse it in stupid ways (such as the story told). And love, because it can be used to overview a character's moral compass and behavior in a broad way. More of a guideline than a rule, or just a very flexible rule. I myself am very flexible about most rules, in favor of story, player/group dynamics, enjoyment, creativity, involvement, passion, and lore/worldbuilding. Even so, I still like to be fair and balanced when possible, and if one person happens to get too many benefits, I'm happy to give other players opportunity for "extra credit" if they want more as well. And at the same time, while this may all sound too cushy, and I DO hold hands whenever anyone needs it, I just as often manage to scare my players shitless and unnerve them on the regular with unexpected surprises. Especially given that I believe failure is just as important as success in roleplaying, as you often learn tough lessons best though mistakes (my life is a mess but my friends tend to get inspired in new ways by me and my suggestions, and we're all proud and appreciative of one another.)

I like to use alignment as a part of a given character. In my world, I've changed how paladin's divine sense works so that they can sense the alignment of any creature within range that isn't immune to divination effects as well as some homebrew items that work in certain ways with certain alignments. That said, I don't believe that any one action can change an alignment and I'm pretty lax about alignments in general, mostly just using them as a potential thing to incorporate in a story thread. I will, however, override a PC's alignment following a consistent pattern of behaviour that is antithetical to the alignment that they claim to be.

Story 1: I sware to Christ, some people need to get it in their heads, this is a game. Edit: OP is NOT at fault here, for anything. Those morons refuse to separate fiction from reality and use metagame knowledge to punish another player. Seriously, stop making excuses for spinless DMs and backstabbing pricks for players.

Despite the third group giving their DM acolades for being entertaining, etc., I'd say he's a bad DM because he failed at his most important duty: that of a fair arbiter of the rules. A DC of 30 is considered virtually impossible to achieve in D&D 5e, and people are failing at a roll of 35 on Persuasion checks?! That's fucking bullshit. That DM was not interested in letting their players explore a virtual world; they wanted the players to hop on his railroad. If preparation was the issue, then the preparation that DM lacked was in providing proper motivations for their NPCs as real people, not as barriers to content the DM didn't have prepared. DMs, prepare by portraying realistic NPCs, not by trying to come up with a contingency for every possible thing the PCs can do. That way lies madness and dissatisfaction for all involved.

Simba the wise judges us on how we click.

In D&D, Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are actual forces. That's why spells like _Detect Evil_ work, and why some magical weapons will only work with lawful characters. In D&D (as written) your alignment is a physical aspect of your character (like Strength or Dexterity) and not simply a description. Of course you can house-rule it differently, but if you do you should also do away with spells (and abilities) like _Protection from Evil_ to be consistent.

It's possible in story 4 that the DM had given proper hints that the guards were slimy, the farmer inconsolably depressed, and that not every NPC had to competent or even well informed. Also, I don't really have full context on the skill rolls, as a high roll doesn't necessarily mean success. For example RAW 5e the only guaranteed success provided by a nat 20 is for Attack Rolls. Sometimes the DC is just absurdly high, and if the DM knows all your modifiers s/he may just not ask for an impossible roll. Its also possible players were rolling skill checks before asking, or even declaring they wanted to use a skill that didn't match their RP. That still should have been something the DM could have rectified, but it just seems like the gameplay the players wanted didn't match the DM was ruling.

I like alignment for one simple thing: my players tell me how they interpret it. It has RP quite a bit when PCs have to wax philosophical as to how a LE character can be charitable, because they view Evil as selfish and the group they donate to directly helps them.

Alignments are important Because there's certain items, abilities, even locations that are Alignment reactionary that only specific people can interact with

The DM in the first story was an issue for not supporting the OP. The story had it so it was literally impossible to defeat the dracolich with the preparations they had made. Also, the players pulling in-game gripes out to real-world discrimination is stupid. "We won on our own terms!" I understand why the DM went with the group but this was frustrating. Ultimately, it's probably good they left because of the others' difficulty separating the game from reality.

The first story sounds like they were just using that plot twist as an excuse to rid themselves of a player they didn't like (probably because they saw him/her as stealing the spotlight too often).

Alignment is very important to a character. It should reflect what you expect them to do the majority of the time. Deviating from that once in awhile isn't unusual, but if you're frequently cruel and doing self-serving or self-righteous stuff, you might have to move your alignment off good. That last story was odd. It makes sense that few people know a secret, but it's not a stretch to imagine that a murder or case of arson would be at least the subject of local gossip enough that you'd be able to figure out who to ask for the specific details and where to find them in short order.

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

I actually don't think it is, newer players tend not to understand what it means and players experienced enough to understand its nuances don't need it.

The DM of the first story is a coward and a disloyal friend. The players brain dead, that reasoning of "if your character is evil so are you" never made sense, if that waa the case a lot of actors would just get the death sentence because they killed in the movies. Unless the player thinks all characters they play as are obligatory self inserts????

Kicked... I want to know who the hell these people are, becuase I don't want to play with them or the GM. The OP made a great call. Alignment is the worst mechanism in D&D. Used well, it's not a problem. The issue is that players and GMs turn it into a straight jacket. Remember that "lawful" is location dependent, and "good" isn't always universal. 3rd... Not a murderhobo. Just following orders, in a lawful good manner, and consistent with backstory PROVIDED BY THE DAMN GM!

None of my games have been particularly strict about alignment. While mechanically it used to matter more, I am glad D&D has moved away from that. In my own world about the only place that it comes up is an Inn/tavern that can't be seen by anyone with a lawful alignment.

Hard disagree on the first story. It was a shitty move to kick OP without talking to them and it was pretty bad of the DM to not stand up for them, but OP was hardly blameless. They had enough awareness to notice that the other players were bothered by how much the spotlight was fixed on their character, and they still chose to go behind everyone else's back with the DM to do something that they knew the other players wouldn't like. It doesn't matter if it made for a good story moment if all of the other players don't like it. The party reacted very badly, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

1st story: DMs fault. He thought the idea was great and ran a session with the player to make it happen When the rest of the players didn't threw a fit and demanded retcon, he folded and let them change his story. The [If I was the DM] I would either (a.) want to get a new group. Why do i want a full table of people who metagame to the point of treating all of a persons characters if they were another from a different game, different world the new characters knew nothing about or didn't even happen in their world. Or (b.) If I did stay and they wanted to retcon, Okay, give me all your character sheets, I need to make adjustments. Then I'd put them in my folder and tell them why they all died in the final fight with the Dracolich that was to powerful. Tell them what they didn't do that would have made it possible, (give the example of an official DND book that did this same thing ie: Rise of Tiamat) then have a conversation about what they were doing is full blown metagaming, who the player to turned their character into the next BBEG basically saved them, and why they wouldn't rather quest to take down the new threat that is the old player character but insist on changing the story and writing a false victory and patting them selves each others backs. At that point, if that is what they wanted, go back to scenario (a.) 2nd story. Lawful good isn't lawful stupid or lawful suicidal. 3rd story: DM gave murder hobo: drow. to the player as his backstory. Player even tried to communicate. DM is mostly at fault. A second thought: It wasn't mentioned if the other player expressing the idea of taking a prisoner alive until they helped kill everything. Can't join in the bloodshed then point a finger at the other player, "oh my.. what did you do? You should have taken one alive.". Lastly, its not ruining the game as the DM to suggest, "hey, maybe you want to not kill everyone." especially if you throw your players kill on sight backstory that you created for your player enemy aggressively at your player and make the kill on sight enemy's survival be essential to the plot hook. At that point, maybe you need to rethink things. 4th story: After hearing the story that everything else about the game was awesome, my thought changed a bit. As a player, after the first couple no help npc's I would have wanted to stop the game and have a powwow with the DM. What's going on? Why are people going out of their way to shun us? This isn't natural. NPC telling the party the town has a horrible problem.. but you need to give me some gold or I wont tell you.. What is that? I'd say the DM was horrible but its told later on they aren't. Maybe they don't understand or lack social skills? Before the story finished, I would have either played boring in town. Go to the bar, go to sleep for the night. Can't get anything the next day? Lets leave and go else where. Nobody wants to give any information on orcs that are ransacking the town? Let them deal with it then. If I didn't go this way, my first impulse at the farmer abosulting refusing to help the party and seemingly protect the orcs that just killed everyone would be, " I attack the farmer." Yup, everyone died, he hopes to the Gods he'll join them soon. I'll be the hand of the gods for him. Kill him. No plot hook. Lets go home. You can only do so much. One of the players even killed his character to make a new character for the sole purpose to be able to get information from NPCs about THE PLOT HOOK AND THE CAMPAIGN!!! How insane is that really?

That kicked wizard is in no way the problem here...her idiot groupmates don't sound like they understand the concept of RP...what she did was amazingly good roleplay and they took it as a meta problem with her? What a good story, one of your PCs turning evil and becoming the next BBEG. That DM should have smacked them down for being so stupid

Well since you asked.. I use Allignments very loosly since its just directions. Nobody is always good or evil. I also pretty much replace the word evil with selfish to make clear that an evil person does NOT do evil things all the Time. They just want to get paid thats it. To explain Allignments better i invented the slave Triangle which goes as followed. You found a runaway slave and have three options. Letting him go free, bringing him back to his owner (maybe small reward) or selling him to slave Market. A righteous good Paladin struggles between owner and letting him go. An chaotic good one always lets him go. An righteous evil one struggles between owner and selling him and an neutral one considres all three choices around equily and so on. You can really explain every allignment with this. However as stated theese are all just directions. The Situation affects this a lot. Like How much do you need the Money? How good or bad are the people in question? (slave, owner), how strict are the laws? and so on. Especially neutral characters might lean to one side, but based on the situation take the other side this once. Also everyone can draw lines at some different position. Someone might be ok with pickpocket, but hates betrayal. Just because you steal money it doesnt mean you are fine with a buisness which sells leather made from skinned babies. And finally, no i would not change allignment like that- It takes a lot more for me to do something like that.

Story 1; Great idea by the O{. Rest of party overreacted - my guess is they'd had past experience with other players backstabbing them. DM was gutless, and should have backed OP up. Story 2: DM was an idiot. if the Paladin had been cravenly hiding while the dragon ripped apart other party members, there would have been an issue. 'But this wasn't what happened. Lawful Good Paladins' are all about exemplary conduct, not being stupid. Story 3. Basically, the OP failed to read the DM's mind and make the desired response. Sounds familiar.. Drow are supposedly the enemy here. If the DM was actually dropping solid hints and/or having drow specifically NOT initiate combat, then there would be reason for the OP to NOT allegedly 'murderhobo'. Story 4. No idea what this DM's malfunction was. But it was clearly his problem. But it is nice that things worked out (more or less).

so not standing in enemy fire is evil

Alignment is great for roll play character development and should rarely be implimented in game play. Unless you kill the shit out of an orphanage or something.

That last story was odd. I can't help but wonder if the players ever tried actually using gold to get npcs to talk or, if like most penny pinching players, kept trying to persuade their way into getting information. Maybe the gm was stubborn and prideful and wanted to get back at the players for being too stingy. Probably not, though that would be a strange reason.

@tuomasronnberg5244

Жыл бұрын

Yea but if you hire adventurers to do something for you then you're expected to tell them what they need to know to complete the task. That's how jobs work.

@Karajorma

Жыл бұрын

Help! Save me! How? Give me some gold and I'll tell you. The best way to deal with that DM would have been for the adventurers to just say "If you don't want us to help you against the orcs we'll just go find someone who does want help"

RE: Alignment My group definitely uses it, but unless it's something integral to the character it doesn't usually come up that often. We mostly play Pathfinder 1E though so alignment matters for certain classes, IE Druids have to have some kind of neutral alignment to them or that Barbarians are always some kind of chaotic. I'm playing a Paladin in this case, who is default Lawful Good (though I'd argue that they should be just any kind of lawful to allow for variety in motivations but I digress). It's been fun to play the alignment and the struggles that come with it, especially with the campaign we're currently in. It's probably the most seriously I've taken alignment for a character, being honest. That said, policing alignment because of a single action that may or may not be an outlier isn't cool. I'd watch for a pattern. I had a character go through an alignment shift because of a repeated pattern of protecting his comrades, even the ones he wasn't that close to, causing an alignment shift from Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Good. That was justified and talked over with the DM ahead of time, and I believe any good DM will go "hey this action might be what tips the scales is that cool with you?" at the least.

@davidtherwhanger6795

Жыл бұрын

I think it was Professor Dungeon Master that talked about using a sliding scale for alignment changes. A character starts at various points along the scale depending on starting alignment IIRC. A single major act out side of alignment are numerous small acts moves the character further away from their starting point by one point. A single extreme act out side of alignment (like lawful good paladin straight murdering all children in an orphanage) would move them 2 points. Get enough points and your alignment changes. It's been a while so I could have stuff wrong here. If you want you could look up his video on the Dungeon Craft channel here on KZread.

S2, should have listened to the dm and just blindly charged into battle until death, then defended it as being required by alignment. Honestly all these stories feel like they deserve malicious compliance. S3 never hit anyone again to fight the stigma of being a murder hobo. S4 wait at the bar for the story to appear since you can't find it anywhere else.

I feel like there is some critical information we were missing about the horse story if the DM felt like he needed to take op aside and talk to him.

Story 2 is the PERFECT example of why I hate Alignment systems in general. To the point I just throw it away. It also shows why I'm hesitant to play a paladin unless I know the dm well enough so they don't screw me over. Dnd 5e has its flaws but making Alignment less important was a good change. Its also why I love Starfinder. No shitty Alignment system to ruin your day. Its a shame Alignment locking is in Pf 2e but its less agresgus then 1e.

Personally, I think alignment is kind of a stupid way to put a “you can kill this guy without moral repercussions” tag on NPCs, without getting into actual motivations for why someone might perform evil

Anyone else wish that they name of the game being played would show? Sometimes I know and other times I go “that looks fun, never seen it”

@DnDDoge

Жыл бұрын

This one is final fantasy 12

The problem with the first story is that op was clearly favored by the dm, he himself said that many of the campaign problems could only be solved by him and then there was the situation with the BBG the dm created an impossible situation to solve without sacrificing a character probably knowing that the other players wouldn't want to sacrifice so OP could steal the show and save the day for the umpteenth time without the other players even being able to give their opinion

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Nope. It sounds like the other characters didn't have any knowledge skills they were good at. Which is a choice but don't be surprised when the wizard does know things. We've also been told that there were other options, the party didn't pursue them. And given how quickly they were willing to kill the wizard I doubt sacrificing a character was the problem.

I use alignments more as a suggestion and general set of ideals, not as a hard rule. Still tend to play more along the lines of neutral in case anyone gets mad if my character does something they object to, though. My drow necromancer from a nation that has, IN-CANON, used torture on prisoners of war for information can absolutely justify it as a lawful course of action.

That first story was a group of idiots and a trash dm. That player did nothing wrong

Story 1: It sounds like the rest of the party had difficulty separating reality from fantasy, making their characters reflections of themselves, morality and all. The GM should NOT have left it to a vote. Losing that group would have been better than sacrificing a good story because the players are salty about it. But my friends all understand the GM is the final say, regardless of the group's opinion, so that might be influencing my position on the matter.

Huh, the DM insisting on the stereotype of Lawful Good Paladins being total dimwits?

I'm not so sure about the first story. 'I was the only mage so of course I was the key to the magical conflict' could look like main character syndrome from the other side of the table. Was the DM giving _everybody_ a private session to perfect their character concept, or just the wizard? I don't think the DM or player were _trying_ to sideline anybody, but it kinda sounds like that was the effect.

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately its all too easy for that, because its not just spells. Wizards depending on settings can be better at things like religion checks than fricking clerics, (this is why 5e made Religion a wisdom roll). I know in my current game which is a final fantasy adaption of pathfinder my character has the highest intel score so I can roll better in knowledge checks and I'm consciously trying to avoid doing it for things other characters are good at, but if none of the other party members were able I'd kinda have to. I wouldn't be surprised if the problem is they just aren't good at any mental skills.

The DMs in these stories sound like a bunch of religious 15-year-olds with absolutely no mental flexibility.

i think alignments aren't neccessarily a bad thing, at least because i usually take it as a base for how my character will act or use it as an example when i come up with a personality beforehand i can say it does help with roleplay a little, but it also doesn't excuse in any way being forced a different alignment specially in a situation as nonsensical as that lol

1 first story OP was tottaly wrong, he has main character symdrome and loves the spotlight.

first story reminds me of my brothers fuckwit ex-friend. While playing warframe they started talking about one piece my brother mentioned ace's death friend hadn't watch that far ahead and through a fit, while everyone was sleeping he disassembled the clan's in-game dojo in a massive bitchfit. Dumbass part of the whole situation the episode that involved ace's death had aired over 10 years ago.

I love me an extreme Simba close up.

Eh I see where the party from the first story is coming from. I completely disagree on how they handled it, but I at least understand WHY they're angry. OP gets all these hooks thrown at them because they're the magic guy with, from the sounds of it, no one else getting similar opportunities to show off their characters' stuff. Then, after putting up with all that, the party manages to take down the bbeg only for OP to go ACKHTUALLY I'M THE NEW BBEG! YOU ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING! NOW MY CHARACTER IS REVIVING THE ENEMIES YOU KILLED AND PREPARING FOR ANOTHER ASSAULT IN A FUTURE CAMPAIGN SINCE THAT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!" It was a fun moment for OP and the DM but they didn't consider how it would feel to be the rest of the group in that moment. Now, how that leads into them banning OP but not DM and how OP is forever branded as that guy who plays untrustworthy characters I haven't figured out either but that's my 2 cents.

I dont use alignment as in good or evil as thats as what's one persons good can be anothers evil when it comes to characters like a paladin or cleric, i go off are their ideals and motivations are they aligned with the tenants of their god or church/religion... if they go against it is the player showing a conflict etc

Ok drow speaks unknown language and then throws a spear so time to defend yourself. Also dm could say the drow surrendered after taking a few hits if need be. This is not murder hoboing this is the correct reaction to clearly a hostile act.

'shown your true colors by allying with our enemy' either these people don't know how to differentiate characters from people, or theyre hard core atheists that treat all gods as evil monsters they must fight. which is more ridiculous

How do You interrogate clearly antagonistic drow, who speaks in a different language? If GM really wanted there to be a hook, he should have placed a note in dead bodies' belongins. That's much more reasonable!

The first story might be issue from what OP/DM and what rest of the players wanted. Rest of the players might want to just play heroes and want whole party to cooperate and be good so their play style didn't match OP's play style. In this case DM should negotiate, make either another session explaining everything or sacrifice some session time to sit down and talk. There's nothing wrong with not wanting evil PC or wanting to be one but if not everybody is on the same page people won't have fun

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Except they weren't evil, they were explicitly doing something heroic. Self sacrifice.