DM: We had problems with a murder-hobo. OP: Wasn't that you? DM: Oh yeah. We can't have that. OP: I can play something else. DM: No, play your character; just don't be a murder-hobo. PAL: I'm going to be a murder-hobo and do PVP. DM: Sounds great! Violence is not the answer, but but I want to beat these two with a crowbar.

@shadiafifi54

2 жыл бұрын

You and me both.

@falxblade1352

2 жыл бұрын

I have two philosophies regarding violence. 1. Violence is never THE answer, but more often that it should be, it is AN answer. 2. (For ttrpg's most of the time) kzread.info/dash/bejne/l4eu0MmxhqzbXZc.html

@natemanning924

2 жыл бұрын

As a wise crustacean once said… “Violence is never the answer. It’s a question, and in this case the answer is FUCK YES!”

@lyoko348

Жыл бұрын

@@natemanning924 The crab of wisdom has appeared. All hail the crustacean lord

@PheoBlitz05

Жыл бұрын

​@@natemanning924 I read this as Krusty Crabbs...

I'm still confused at the "I want to avoid in-party conflict" paladin immediately metagaming and attacking the rogue.

@auburnkeyblade2491

2 жыл бұрын

Right? "I want to avoid in-party, so I'm going to DIRECTLY cause it."

@tabletoptotality2265

2 жыл бұрын

They lived long enough to become the villain... SMH lol

@Meanlucario

2 жыл бұрын

They likely saw themselves as the victim of someone who wants to play a evil problem character and justified their actions by "getting rid of a problem before it started." Funny enough, I also attacked an assassin party member years ago as a paladin. Difference was that it was in 3.5 where it mattered much more than 5e, we were nearing the end of the campaign, the assassin just joined, and I forgot my character sheet and felt like he had a good run and wanted to try a halfling ranger. I intended for my character to die, and everyone involved understood that.

@TranshumanMarissa

2 жыл бұрын

Hue. its pretty clear to me, that the DM and paladin had extreamly sterotypical and hardline ideas of wht alignment means, and so, playing lawful stupid, The paladin who hated interparty conflict, felt like the other player -playing- a rogue was at fault for the conflict. some people have really dumb ways of thinking.

@toribiogubert7729

2 жыл бұрын

Best rp of a zealot religious guy if you ask me XD

"No, it's your character so play what you want," the DM says after complaining about the character. PTSD flashbacks ensue.

So that first story.... the DM was bad enough, but the Paladin going full Ajantis on someone who'd done nothing wrong was painful.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

The implication that OP was somehow still friends with these exhaust pipes afterward was baffling to me.

I know this isn't the point but like... DETECT EVIL DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT IN 5E! what a mess

@orioncooper1705

2 жыл бұрын

That was my first thought.

@Stairdweller

2 жыл бұрын

Right??

I've played an evil character in an otherwise good party, and there were no real problems. The trick was, it was his goals and "the ends justify the means" methods that made him evil, not his behavior towards the rest of the group or random bystanders. Marukhos was a lawful evil wizard whose main aim in life was to amass enough power so he could raise an army, in order to invade the kingdom where he was kept as a slave in his youth, and get revenge on the Grand Vizier who murdered his mother and pretty much punish anyone else who benefitted from that power structure. And if he learned that an NPC was a slave-owner, or worse, a slave-trader, Marukhos would proceed directly to Kill-Them-Where-They-Stand without passing Go and collecting 200 gp. But outside of those two obsessions, he was as honest and loyal and just polite a comrade as the party could ask for. In fact, during his first session, when the group is hired by a village to deal with a gang of kobold bandits, Marukhos gave them the chance to lay down their weapons and surrender peacefully twice while all the good characters were already rolling for initiative. After the fight, all the kobolds were dead except for a pair of hatchlings he found hiding from the carnage. Marukhos immediately took them to the village elders who had hired the party, saying "These two are orphans now because you wanted their parents dealt with. Now it's *your* responsibility to raise them to be better people." And he did eventually change alignment to chaotic good, after a session wherein it was at last revealed that the mysterious villain known as the Emperor of the Forked Tongue was in fact Marukhos himself from years in the future, having gone full Sith Lord and discovering that finally getting what he wanted was the worst thing that could ever happen to him, so he had come back in time to try and change history. Over a decade later, I still applaud that DM for running a session at Christmas where an evil character is forced to reevaluate his life after a shadowy hooded figure shows him visions of what may yet come to pass.

@nintendoboy3605

2 жыл бұрын

Ok I really like your character

@ratboy2

Жыл бұрын

that sounds DOPE as hell. omg

With that first story, and this is just how I interpret it (after reading a post outlining it) is that "evil-aligned" just means self-serving, so you do what is best for you. Dealing with the party of could just be the most self-serving thing at the time. Get some money, power, whatever. Besides, alignment isn't set in stone and can change as the story progresses.

@orioncooper1705

2 жыл бұрын

I really do think the concepts that 'assassins are prerequisite: always evil' and 'evil means doing everything evil, including killing puppies' comes from some of the 3.0 D&D presentation of alignment, especially those that came from Monte Cook's Book of Vile Darkness. It kinda leads to a Skeletor ideal of evil, but cranked up to 11, as in evil people do evil for evil's sake, but also do ALL the evil that they possibly can. If you're evil, you don't just rob from a poor village; you murder everyone you can and enslave the survivors, even if you don't need to, because evil. 3.5 turned away from that a bit, and every edition after that has tried to turn alignment more into a roleplaying tool than a rigid identifier.

@Jubilation457

2 жыл бұрын

Jumpy Paladin: Naw I’m a good character which means I strike first without much provocation cuz that’s what good guys do.

@hel117

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jubilation457 because if the random person who you are murdering is evil it's fine, obvs /j

@Jubilation457

2 жыл бұрын

@@hel117 I especially love how deranged paladin comes across some Dark Elf just walks in through the door of some tavern or whatever & his immediate instinct is kill him because “I can sense that he’s evil, my god who speaks to me says so”😂😂😂😂

@Jubilation457

2 жыл бұрын

@@hel117 Apparently all dark elves are evil so let’s add unapologetically racist on top of that, which is fine having your “oh so righteous” paladin not be all that righteous & be kind of a troubled or flawed character could make for some interesting rp.

"i smite him" *any reasonable DM* "and your smite fails you lose all your powers as your god is agianst needless violence and reckless murder."

@nintendoboy3605

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think that can happen in 5e

@tazkol

2 жыл бұрын

@@nintendoboy3605 i mean technically it can given the way paladin is written in 5e it's more just something the dm and the paladin need to discuss, however in this instant it would seem fitting as a punishment, remember that the GM technically has the power to punish as they see fit. 'rocks fall everyone dies' is a meme for a reason.

@nintendoboy3605

2 жыл бұрын

@@tazkol Ok I guess

@ss3nm0dn4r8

2 ай бұрын

@@nintendoboy3605 Its not spelled out exactly how a paladin (or cleric or warlock) would lose powers but there are recommendations and theres 2 subclasses for paladins that break their oaths

So working with someone who's evil is a big no no but randomly attacking a person you just meet I'd ok? What if they were trying to turn their life around? Doesn't sound very lawful good to attack someone without a good reason

@Meanlucario

2 жыл бұрын

That's what us paladin veterans call "lawful stupid."

@eospolaris9472

2 жыл бұрын

...I gotta say something about that tho, which I just realized. And it's that paladins in third edition could literally lose their paladin abilities if they just worked with an evil person. Though 5e likely changed that...so it doesn't make sense anyway. Still a horror story, especially since the DM practically forced the player to play evil...knowing that the paladin would have issues with it...and I think paladin is also at fault cause this is something to be talked out (and a session 0 would've been good...assuming they didn't just set up rogue which it honestly looks like they did)

@marknezanuto

Жыл бұрын

I mean its about 1/3 of population who is evil if i understand aliment sistem correct, and defenetly not all of them are criminals or servants of oppressive government, many of them may be just egoistic, greedy and so on. So paladin is just mass murderer if he regularly cast this and kill everybody who is evil.

A church assassin acutely sounds like a great idea, the role play idea of his conflict to kill or not kill would be interesting. The time for that girl to jump was right after he said "sausage fest." NEVER, a good term to use in front of a girl, no mater what. The druid sounds like she wanted to be the main character in her own head. Ah yes, that guy that try's to use his background to force his greatness... nice.

@Zeromegas

2 жыл бұрын

Hehehe I played a Church Assassin and be Lawful Evil. There Slayers in PF that have archetype to be a Church Assassin

@kyriss12

2 жыл бұрын

For reason I was picturing alaxander anderson from tfs helsing ultimate

@ultimateninjaboi

2 жыл бұрын

Hell. Sausage fest isnt a good term to use when there ISNT a girl around. Its a gross, predatory-sounding, borderline homophobic (depending on context) thing to unironically say.

@ArcmageZaln

2 жыл бұрын

@@ultimateninjaboi true.

@pepekovallin

Жыл бұрын

A church assassin seems like something straight out of a hack and slash or the elder scrolls game, the idea of church assassin started as a means to protect people from the absurd amount of monsters that threatened the commoners lives, bit they slowly began to corrupt themselves and started to send assassin's to kill whoever they considered deserving of such end

Paladin players that always try to enact “justice” no matter what circumstances are the most annoying lawful good characters ever. I have a Paladin player rn whose trait of always being ready to launch into a fight with anybody she thinks is a bit of a bitch (but still backs down when she knows she’s not equipped to just throw herself and the party into a battle) but that’s obviously more of a character flaw since she’s a newly formed Paladin that wants to prove her worth

@drpepper7747

2 жыл бұрын

Our lawful good fighter was such a dick to the three neutral characters we had that our party split super early on and we have been doing parallel narratives since. The irony is the DM has taken advantage of the LG's rediculousness and tricked him into basically being a terrorist bomber for a fascist organization while we, the so called "bad people", are starting a populist movement to feed the poor (at a very minor profit)

@lolitabubbles26

2 жыл бұрын

I rolled an oathbreaker on purpose after hearing so many horror stories on lawful good paladin player asshats. it just felt right.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

@@lolitabubbles26 I have an Oathbreaker character concept in which the character never actually broke his oath, but refused to swear it at level 3 to become an Oathbreaker immediately. Embracing the dark power that comes with it, but using it to do good.

@kyriss12

2 жыл бұрын

There’s a reason people refer to them as lawful stupid

@BlazeTube626

2 жыл бұрын

I personally blame WoTC for restricting paladin to lawful good. I made my half orc paladin chaotic good

Gotta say, losing alignment restrictions on classes was perhaps one of the best changes from 3.5 to 5th edition. Far too restrictive on character concepts, and is one of the reasons why I'm not so excited to play pathfinder other than cantrips being sucky.

Oof, the sheer level of dm's and jumpy's hypocrisy or degeneracy (whatever it was) is just. Damn. INFURIATING. I'm mostly phlegmatic type and days when my blood boils are indeed rare, but today is the day, alright.

The best advice I've ever heard on alignment is that it should be *descriptive* not *prescriptive*. In other words, your actions dictate your alignment, not the other way around. For example, I know if I met a character who instantly tries to murder someone just for walking into the room and introducing themselves, I'd immediately smack them with a Chaotic Evil alignment and have their player roll a new character.

I will note that even if the village had been full of bandits, cultists, or both it still would have been incredibly cruel to destroy their food supply. I would expect a Good character to feel something about that, especially if that action causes them to resort to cannibalism to survive. Bandits are just people who don't think they have a better choice right now and can make different choices in the future (The character I'm currently playing was a bandit before she became a priestess of the goddess of death) and whether cultists are evil depends a lot on what those cultists actually *do*. The existence of an entire village also implies the presence of children who by definition don't deserve this kind of hardship and possible captives/slaves who would get the worst of whatever negative effect food scarcity would have here. A neutral character might be able to write off inflicting that kind of suffering on someone if they're the enemy, but I would expect a Good character to seek other solutions and be constantly bothered by the outcome of this decision they made.

"She trusted the church" Always a mistake

"Damsels in distress" in D&D pretty much have to exist sometimes, but 1: it should be a 50/50 split if they're men or women, 2: it shouldn't be the tanky 20 strength 18 con party badass. That doesn't even make sense.

@letsplaysvonaja1714

2 жыл бұрын

Well, the physically strong damsel in distress could have a trauma which keeps them from beating their problems up or they get put into distress by magic and need the wimpy caster to be their hero and cast dispel magic XD

@PaladinGear15

2 жыл бұрын

@@letsplaysvonaja1714 I actually love to have big strong characters in need of help from the party xD But my point was, if they were trying to send someone to look all helpless and needy, why not send the wizard? the sorc? the bard? someone wearing regular clothes and stick thin, no visible weapons even on them, that'd be best X3

@animeotaku307

2 жыл бұрын

@@PaladinGear15 Or, even better, have an NPC so that the players keep their agency.

@PaladinGear15

2 жыл бұрын

@@animeotaku307 As I said, it's cool to have big strong NPC's who need help from the party. In this case where they wanted someone from the party to act as bait, they chose the worst choice xD

@pLanetstarBerry

2 жыл бұрын

Now I'm just thinking of my noodly-armed, STR 8 twig of a bard that keeps getting into trouble and needing to be rescued. If he's not being carried of by carrion crawlers, he's almost getting kidnapped by a shield guardian or ambushed by shadow creatures. I know it's no malice on the DM's end, I just keep making shitty saves to avoid getting poisoned or captured, lol. On the bright side, he's good at talking to people and keeps the party out of social trouble (but occasionally, on accident, encourages an NPC to choose anarchy.)

Oh, wow. I fuckin' love that. "We had a chaotic evil rogue in the last game and he really messed things up." "...that was YOU." "Yeah, lol 😂"

The first story is...a shame. I picked up D&D last year, and my first (and so-far only still active) character is a lawful evil Great Old One Tiefling warlock among a party of mostly good-aligned characters. He would even consider one of them a friend. As long as no one actively gets in his way, he doesn't have a reason to harm them. If his friend tries to stop him one day, it will be a really hard moment to play, but it's more likely that he'd try to silver-tongue his way out of it.

I totally agree with the idea of consequences and conflict. at the climax of my game, my party and I decided to fight against the main antagonist instead of joining him to fight monsters in a different dimension. as a result, we basically jump-started the apocalypse. lol.

Pertaining to evil and good characters in the same campaign, lemme tell you about Stumbleduck the Lawful Evil bard, and Fifteen, the neutral good fighter. I played Fifteen, my friend played Stumbleduck. They were best friends. He'd look out for her, she'd carry him around for funsies, and all in all they worked really well together. Fifteen was the sort of person who was always trying to do what she saw as right, and respect other people. She recognized that Stumbleduck also did this, but his values were generally different. He was also never cruel, which was the big thing Fifteen couldn't abide by. Being evil doesn't mean you're a moustache twirling villain, and it doesn't mean you aren't a person. You still have wants, needs, and relationships with different people. There's lots there to form a compelling dynamic with, even if characters don't agree.

Story 1: Those guys are idiots. If killing people for money is only viable for evildoers then ALL ADVENTURERS WOULD BE EVIL! Story 2: That DM needs to NEVER DM AGAIN! Story 3: Hahaha-Holy Shit! That was a shitshow! Get rid of that attention seeking whoarse! Story 4: it's always amusing to see dumb people who try to play characters who are smarter than the the actual players🤣

@letsplaysvonaja1714

2 жыл бұрын

Depends Killing people for money is evil (by the given narrative), but adventures usually fight "monsters" or animals Lets be honest, most player don't think too hard about such stuff and don't want to consider that from the Goblins' perspective they are the Goblins as Goblin Slayer would put it

@AtelierGod

2 жыл бұрын

@@letsplaysvonaja1714 “killing people for money is evil” you hear that adventures you can’t take that bandit hunting quest unless you want to be branded as “EVIL” by the gods and have your divine powers stripped from you because while the bandits are murdering and enslaving people on the roads you’d be no better than them if you did it for money. Muhahaha!

@letsplaysvonaja1714

2 жыл бұрын

@@AtelierGod well, if you do it purely for the money and not because people need your help that would be pretty "bad" Honestly I couldn't care much personally, the only scenario where I am 100% nice is star wars Kotor since you get bonus stats for being either purely evil or purely good and being purely evil requires you to do some pretty messed up things

The party in the first story sounds absolutely exhausting. That would have been my last game with them.

Problem DM's really are the worst

I made an assassin/rogue/Psion years and years ago. She was lawful evil. The paladin in the party never pointed detect evil in her direction so he never found out she was evil. This was a conscious effort on the players part. It became a running gag, and we had a lot of fun with it. You don't have to be a jerk player.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

Which edition was this?

2 of the three characters I've actually gotten a chance to play have been rogues. They are great to play, and you don't need to roleplay them as horrible angst machines that hurt everyone around them if you are not an asshole.

What amazes me is that the Druid doesn't realize that accepting the mistake is better narratively. Actually should make the party respect them more as the could rp them owning a bad call, and growing from it. Way better than throwing an entitled fit.

@larad9180

8 ай бұрын

Honestly, my last character became a lot more fleshed out due to a mistake, the DM basically just suggested that I find an IC reason for it and it ended up shaping the character a lot going forward

Honestly alignment changes they made was one I liked. To have the stereotype character actually as a different path. And a religious assassin character sounds really cool. To take out evil and demons, really cool. What is a good site to look for a dnd group anyway? I've been wanting to play again since its been so long.

Oh I remember starting to join an online game, where I was told to be creative with my back story, and create anything from the official material. I made a rogue who was nobility and acted as a spy for a rebellion that the DM wanted the PCs to be part of. I worked hard on it, and then the response I got was: Would you mind playing a different class instead of rogue? I find them boring because they're all the same. I hadn't thought I'd made a stereotypical rogue. I was sort of discouraged by the DM's failure to communicate restrictions to me ahead of time, and decided not to play with that person.

I love the way you have your cartoon avatar's hackles stand on end.

Regarding the DM interrupting the planning, the only time I feel it's appropriate to do so is to correct information or point out something that their character would know that the player might be forgetting or not taking into account. I had to butt into a planning discussion in a recent session because one of the players misunderstood an aspect of the terrain and the others didn't realize it, and that player's plan relied upon that misunderstanding. After I pointed this error out, that player came up with a better use of her character and I think made the encounter more enjoyable.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

Now that is good DM'ing! Yeah, the DM should be silent when the party is planning except in the situations you outlined as such. (Or when the enemy spots them or something because they planned too long, if it makes sense.)

Ah yes. The Lawful Stupid Paladin. The one that think that if it's "eViL", then they must smite.

1st story and I already want to do toss out contradictory DM, and "Paladin" who allegedly want to avoid conflict yet directly causes confrontation. I would've probably stuck around and spited them before leaving. Their passive aggressiveness and lying was a huge red flag. And yes, it's weird how many of these bad DMs hate/want to nerf or remove rogues.

Its people like these that make me want to break out a branding iron that says; "Banned From D&D". And mark their forehead for everyone to see their eternal shame, and warn others to their terrorible ways.

Druid: Cause a famine Party: Don't respected druid bc people are dying Druid: Confused pikachu face

@kyriss12

2 жыл бұрын

Judging off the druids interaction with the dm I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume that wasn’t the only instance that might cause the party to loose respect for her.

@hdnfbp

2 жыл бұрын

@@kyriss12 yeah, respect is earned, not given, no matter if the dm give her a easy win, it will be just that

Gotta admit, i had already taken up having players take part in a one shot or two before joining a long campaign before finding the channel here, but some of the folks in these stories just solidify that decision to me. There are many wonderful people out there, and i hope everyone who is trying can find a party that fits them well :)

The main 2 destroyers of parties: Chaotic Murderous Rouges, and Lawful Stupid Paladins. For the “good guy” class, Paladins sure are some of the hardest to properly play in a party without being terrible.

Opening story: Laugh at the sheer absurdity of it. Then laugh nervously as so far, 3 out of the 4 characters I have used for DND have been rogues. Briask, Bael and Tascus. "Chuckles". I'm in danger. Gen. Gomer Pyle dumbass story: Da fuq is a core aft flank? That's naval and army jargon! That infuriates me!! Also: "You will respect my authoritaie!"

If that druid wanted respect, she should have owned up to her mistakes. You don't get respect by being seemingly perfect, you get respect by being respectable. Part of which involves owning up to your own mistakes and making it right, not making excuses.

My group: Welcome to "whose alignment is it anyway?" Where characters do what they want and alignment doesn't matter.

I have no military expertise and I’m terrible at strategy, but even I know that an entire encampment won’t come out to extinguish a small field fire. And even if it did, one guy isn’t enough to take a fortress from a whole group unless he happens to be the Dragonborn.

Not only did they change the whole alignment thing with assassins in 5e, that player's concept of a religious rogue who kills enemies of the church was the entire premise of 4e's Avenger class. Likewise, the rule about Paladins not being able to party with evil teammates wasn't a change introduced in 5e, it was carried over from 4e.

the druid from story 3 is what happens when a mary sue isnt allowed to be a mary sue

I've actually played a good assassin rogue. It was a rogue employed by the temple of Waukeen to help eliminate threats along the carriageways. In her backstory, she would investigate incidents, and then go after bandits. She would find the bandits, and either take them out or refer the job to the temple or authorities to deal with. She was also hired on occasion to test the security of the temple's clients and to collect/repossess debts for the temple.

Having watched several of your video, I cannot believe how lucky I have been in never having come across any players or DMs like those in these stories. Which is amazing when you consider that I have been playing TTRPGs for 39 years, playing numerous systems and that many campaigns that I have lost count, some where I have been DM and others where I have been a player. In all those years the worst that I have seen has been the occasional player who looks to exploit any loop-holes in the rules, or pushes things to see how much they can get away with.

Both the DM and the paladin gave off big warning signs before the first game began. I suspect a lot of the rogue-hate comes from PVP thefts that happen in dodgier games.

Most of it boils down to people not understanding how alignment works and people wanting to play a ‘LOLRANDOM’ character.

That first story, "Assassins must be evil" railroading reminds me of the "all undead( read vampires, zombies etc) are evil" think when it comes to games. Like sure they can be, but not all are. :-/

The first story was more anti-assassian (which in 3.5 is a prestige class that has being evil as a requirement) than anti-rogue. Still, if the rules say that the subclass doesn't have to be evil in 5e, than it doesn't need to be in 5e. When I transferred from 3.5 to 5e, my issue was wrapping my head around that paladins weren't so restricted (something I actually liked). Forcing her character to be evil than bitching about it because you can't accept that the system changed isn't excusable. And in story 2 (the Damsel one), the DM should have told the teen that he needs to respect everyone's bounties to stay in the group like everyone else. Too bad the DM was just as bad, if not worst, than the teenage boy.

@Meanlucario

2 жыл бұрын

Wait, in 3.5, warlocks (they appear in Complete Arcane), and in it they have to be evil and/or chaotic. The pact-of-fiends warlock was lawful good. That DM has no excuse. That just proves that he had it out for OP and wanted to force party conflict.

That’s not even how detect good and evil works in 5e, it only highlights specific creature types and consecrated/deconsecrated spaces Any decent DM would know that

I've tried convincing my groups that evil doesn't necessarily mean murderhobo, or that assassins didn't have to be traditionally evil. They won't hear it.

My assassin: hey im- Their paladin: smite. Me: switch your alignment from lawful good to chaotic neutral. Them: what? Their clearly evil. Me: you got that from a greeting? Them: ... Yes. Me: never mind, go to chaotic evil oath breaking paladin. Them: I go lower!? That's bullshit! Me: dont judge a book by its cover and dont try to just kill every assassin you see because "drrr hrrr all contract killers and theives are evil"

6 vs. 1 seems like terrible odds, but of he was playing his Battlemaster Fighter effectively he could have still made it out on top if he had practiced the most simplistic of zone control tactics. He could have scouted for choke points before he lit the fire. He could have stuck to the edge of the fire so they couldn't surround him. He had many options that the character he imagined he was playing would have definitely considered, that likely never entered his head.

Yeah, no one, not even a DM can tell you what your character’s alignment is, especially before you even start.

Hilariously, attacking a random person is evil. So the paladin should have lost his powers. But the DM is to ignorant to understand how alignment works.

Story 1: "I don't want interparty conflict," said the paladin, whose first act when meeting the character they didn't want conflict with is to attack that character for no reason. Story 2: Dude's so horny he'll go after any character (or player) just because they're a woman? Sounds like a really cool dude that actually has a smoking hot gf that brings him sandwiches and chips while braless and completely unasked for. 11:50 Yeah, DM's "plan" sounded like he wanted to get the opportunity to get OP's character alone so that he could spring some kind of trap to capture OP's character and "have some fun" with her, which is what I'm sure he'd call it if he'd gotten the chance. From the brief description OP gave of their character, it sounded like she wasn't made to be some kind of attractive damsel-type, but a brick shithouse made to take hits and deal damage; while that might be some people's cup of tea, it isn't everyone's, and I'm willing to bet DM would've gone along with his bandits getting their asses kicked as some kind of weird kink shit just for the chance to pseudo-ERP with an actual girl. Story 3: You think the party doesn't respect you because of your decisions? First, make sure that is actually the case. It sounds like that's all in her head (though there are missing details that could show that the party's lost respect for her, possibly). She should've talked to the other players to see where she stands in that regard; if they don't care, she should let it go. Second, you want the party to respect you? Earn their respect and trust back. You made a bad call that screwed people over? Work towards solving the problem you caused, and ensure that the same problem doesn't happen again in the future. The eco-terrorists want you to burn down a factory or kill a merchant or whatever? Have your character think about what the consequences of that action could be and then work towards resolving the mission in a way that doesn't cause damage, or flat-out refuse the mission. Show your party that you're capable of learning from your mistakes. That's how you earn respect. Not getting upset and running away from the problems you cause. Story 4: I've got nothing further to say. Dude's just a dumbass.

First and to that intro I agree.... Not the horse kick part but I'd rather play any game than play DnD with that guy

@ashfister9949

2 жыл бұрын

TBH I have been kicked by a horse and it is, in fact, less painful.

I just added orange juice to my pasta sauce. Probably *not the best plan* I've ever had.

He should have just wrote his alignment as Lawful Good, throwing a wrench into that whole moment by showing the group his sheet where his alignment is the one he wanted from the start. Then went off on the Paladin for being a meta gaming tool and the DM for not understanding alignments are no longer forced based on class. Good on him for leaving though. Also, what's the deal with people not friending people in these stories? You find players who are chill, why not, while the game is going, shoot them a friend request. Then if things go slant ways you can party up and find a new game together? Like the DM in story two and the kid were the problem, so everyone else group up and either find a DM or maybe one of them does it and keeps the group together. Can always block later if they turn out to be a tool.

The irish potatoes famine exists, the lesser known year without summer (not sure name but like 1816 the sun was blocked out by volcanic ash) also happened

Easier solution; if the PC's don't want the townies to die because of the crops, give them an option to focus on helping the town relocate rather than doubling down on trying to make them undo it and bring the crops back. It wasn't a bad plan, it was just an incomplete one. The player is clearly feeling pressured by the focus on undoing her idea rather than trying to find other solutions.

I agree that forcing a character to be played a particular way that is the opposite of the player's character concept is bullying.

Not the best plan :P Also I love military tactics in DnD. Been a huge fan of military history, and I enjoy using room clearing tactics to deal with enemies in TTRPGs. Here is the thing though, DnD is a cooperative game, and generally a band of adventurers are not going to agree to be sudden soldiers under a a controlling player. Ideally, the players should bond naturally and organically grow into a cohesive unit to take down legendary foes. Military tactical players can work in DnD, but those people have to work -with- the other players, not just start yelling commands in Sessions 1, that's a recipe for disaster. LOve the channel Crispy, keep those tales coming!~

I think on the first story about the evil-made rogue. I think the rest still went with the 3.5 version of the classes. Where a assassin needs to be evil to take assassin levels, and paladins do lose their class features when having evil party members and detect evil does indeed detect evil alignment. I think the paladin in the story thought the rogue was out to get him and his class features. On the third story,

Yeah you're definitely gonna need to do the rouge vid cause that first story was just pain. I'm not even the type of guy to play a rogue, those guys where just d*cks.

The General Dumbass story sounds like a really funny character concept, if the player is upfront about it being a joke: if his character is intentionally a buffoon. But it kinda sounds like he was earnest.

In regards to the druid making a mistake. Own your mistakes. Use them as role-play moments to grow your character instead of trying to get the DM to retcon your mistake. The party will respect your growth a lot more than a hand wave of the story.

I would've named him General Jackass for the alliteration.

I usually make a neutral or evil (NOT chaotic) rogue when I make one, but good rogues DO exist. I get the stereotype, but a rogue doesn't HAVE to be evil or a trap monkey.

Just a minor thing, but I like the voices you use for all the "that guy" players.

If General Dumbass was actually in charge of a military unit: "A route, a massacre...a complete and total failure of command" Seriously, even a basic understanding of actual tactics would've allowed them to realize the importance of dictating terms of engagement by using stealth, which is part of the ambush battle-master maneuver is viable (if as a later pick) and pass-without-trace is actually an amazing spell. Fire is useful tool in warfare, but any tool is only as good as its wielder and it was being wielded very poorly. That is to say nothing of not using sub-class features being a prime example of how bad players with good builds can end up being less useful than good players with bad builds. I've made tactical errors of my own, but learning from them and knowing how to adapt to different situations and enemies and knowing _how your own character even works_ are just as, if not more important to winning than combat encounters than using optimized powerbuilds.

First Story So an assassin of the church is lawful evil, but a party of mercenaries is good? Also paladin attacks a random stranger and he is good? This is a mess.

Topic: Evil characters in a good party. I personally made almost every character I came up with so far _formally_ "evil". As in it says "evil" in the alignment section of their character sheet. This is not because I view them as evil, but because they do something that I think the "good" gods would disapprove of. Such as: - Have a strong dislike of the "good" gods. - Cannibalism (only enemies that had to be slain anyway, but it's still people-meat). - Creating undead thralls. - Working for an evil dragon (more out of self preservation than actual malice, though; these ones are NPC's for if I ever DM). None of them are what I would personally call evil. But I still wrote "(Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) Evil" on their character sheet.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

Topic: The Incel Story When the DM won't kick out someone who's making trouble before the actual campaign even begins, that is not a red flag. That is an outright transgression. A red flag is a warning sign, but not necessarily something bad by itself. Even a good DM or player can send red flags, only for them to turn out to not be a problem after all. But that teen was already sending images that were causing discomfort, and the DM made a cheap excuse to keep them in anyway. Your rights as a player are _already_ being violated, it's time to get out because things are not going to get better. The DM already stated this outright.

jumpy paladin is the definition of Lawful Stupid. Kord's Glistening Biceps couldn't get me to play with putzes like that. our Paladin gets along well enough with our Tiefling Druid, although the Tiefling might be a bit of an Evil influence on him... *Ferengi Voice:* "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemale" now i'm imagining my 8 foot tall Goliath Battle Master backup build trying the "decoy damsel" "strategy." not the best plan.

Random little note on the druid destroying crops thing, im not even sure if that was the logic that was seen as questionable but since druid was the emphasized word Imma go with it. I know people generally play druids as these tree hugging magic users but druids don't have to be. They get a handful of destructive spells and even some fire ones from what I've seen playing one. The class is more about bending nature to your want as opposed to just being a magical hippie who protects nature at all costs. Note this is all coming from someone who plays a nature loving druid. Edit: not trying to defend the player in any way she was clearly rather paranoid and such but I just wanted to make the point that a druid destroying crops isn't the most farfetched idea out there.

Some classes, like warlocks and Rogues are historically more on the evil or morally questionable side and maybe hard to play as good characters but that does not mean that all of them are automatically evil aligned.

@falionna3587

2 жыл бұрын

And assassin the PRC had evil as a requirement. The party seems more used to the 3.5 way of things. Even when 5e doesn't do such things.

The best plan

People insisting assassin or rogues have to be evil are simply show how childish their thinking is. If they're children, that would be a great learning opportunity. If they're adults, they really need to grow up

So I feel it should be noted that Van Richten was a Lawful Good thief in second edition then that was against the RAW.

The story about the rogue assassin. Honestly I have an RP character I wanted to turn into a DnD one for for some time. He's wound up being a fighter for the potential group I'm joining because they already have a rogue and I didn't want to be redundant. But he's an ex-thief who was pressed into service on account of having his life saved and then foolishly pledging to repay the debt before finding out it was the leader of a thieves guild who saved him. He escapes it after a couple years and now has some experience but kicked the dust form his heels once away from that. If multi-classing into fighter was/is a thing I'd have him do that since he's looking to just be a sword-hire and do good in the world. But I had a couple other ideas shot own and didn't want to bother asking if I could multiclass. So I did make him more of a dexterity fighter because of his background. I really hope it goes well for this online group because since moving back home for health reasons I miss my dnd friends a lot and trying to play over video chat to a room full of people is depressing because I can't hear anything and RP is my favorite part of DnD.

That first story made it sound like the OP kept playing with the group after that incident. If that happened to me, and especially if these asshats made fun for years about it, I wouldn’t be caught dead at a table with them again.

Why do people hate rogues? I powered up the rogue in my campaign, because in later lvls, as a damages dealer the damage becomes laughable in my opinion. So in my camapign the rogues gets an extra attack at lvl 5. Like all the other dmg classes. Yeah, and don't come with "But that's OP. They get sneak attack.". Yes, and the Paladin get's Smite AND Hunter Mark and the fighter multiple extra attacks. I compared my GF battlemaster fighter character and my phantom rogue character on lvl 14 in a campaign we're playing and i would never come near the damage she will dish out.

I actually had a lawful evil Arcane trickster rouge/ Pack of the Blade warlock in a good party he was a mob leader/con man who joined because the bbeg was creating a drug and the bbeg didn’t want to hand my character a cut.

Personally I see nothing wrong with playing a damsel in distress character as long as it is done with respect for player agency and adds something t the story. My half elf cleric princess (Zelda) is often the damsel in distress in our group's Curse of Strahd campaign. Zelda is the heir to Neverwinter and is currently being protected by the forgotten prince of Barovia, Alexander Von Roeyen (Zarovich) who often comes to the aid of the princess when needed. What makes our dynamic work is that we established a reason for Alexander wanting to protect Zelda in that she is the only mortal he cares about. (Note: Alexander is a vampire like his brother.) So it is only natural for him to act as her knight given the setup and relationship between the party and Count Strahd Von Zarovich as well as the relationship Zelda has with Alexander and the rest of the party. Without this setup, the situation would feel awkward and contrived. The important part of using a damsel in distress is to not forget the character in the heart of the distress and show respect for your fellow players.

Lawful good pact of the fiend warlock.....but the FM has never heard of Seal Team 6? And yes I know what I typed.

@wargrizzero5158

2 жыл бұрын

I could see if the warlock was pushed into serving his patron, but was a good person

There used to be an Assassin class, and it had to be evil. In 5e, though, there are no alignment restrictions on any class. And there's no Assassin class, either; "assassin" is more of a character concept now, and can easily come from any of several classes. Bards, Rogues, Monks, Rangers, Druids, Wizards and Warlocks can all be excellent assassins, and by choosing the right options you could probably make at least a competent assassin out of any class. And assassination isn't even necessarily an evil act; under the right circumstances, murdering one bad person might prevent thousands of wartime deaths, for example. Not to mention the fact that sneaking through a dungeon and looking for any advantage you can get while fighting the bad guys there is just considered playing smart, not evil. Nobody thinks it's evil to kill that orc sentry quietly while he's off by himself using a latrine, for example. I also found this line from the DM humorous... "Yeah, lol. It's stupid, but yeah, assassins are evil." Not in 5e. "Assassins are evil" is technically your house rule, pal, and you just straight-up admitted that your house rule is stupid. So, what's keeping you from changing it?

@nondescriptcat5620

2 жыл бұрын

Rogues do have a specific Assassin subclass, but there's no alignment restriction on it. in fact, the description specifically gives the example of a Divine Exterminator the OP wanted.

@biffwellington6144

2 жыл бұрын

@@nondescriptcat5620 You're right! I forgot about that. I probably should've looked that up before I made my comment, but I think most of my points still hold up well.

I normally tend to play lawful-evil characters. The problem with story one is, if we take everything at face value is the OP's party doesn't understand the word nuance. Also murder hobo lawful stupid paladin DRINK!

when a DM says roll initiative for a situation like party infighting they forced, I just suicide inform them of the suicide note that reads "fuck the gods and the asshat that made them" and walk out. when they ask I tell them, you aren't taking away player agency if I have any say. so revive the character if you want, but I'm not dealing with that.

I'm in a CoS game. We just had our first session. DM tells us we only get to take one piece of equipment with us when we are teleported to Death House. Totally fine. This girl with a magical pocket watch and a magical umbrella brings BOTH items. I call it out. DM says the umbrella is "attached to her". Okay. Like...to her body?? So is all of my items that I gave up. I drop it cus I could tell I was making everyone nervous. Later. I confront the DM about it and he says "the umbrella was given to her by her patron". Okay, so if I had specified that one of my items was given to me by my patron, I could have snuck in with a second item? Cut to the DM backtracking. Saying that it's "part of her backstory" and saying I'll be getting all of my equipment back soon anyway. I told him okay, but if I see other red flags of favoritism or main character syndrome, I'm out of here. It is the first time I've seen this happen. And the simp DM trying to dodge this bullshit is pathetic. EDIT: Oh yeah, and if I, a grave cleric and their only healer decides to leave, I wish them all the best in the fight against the big man.

@theuncalledfor

2 жыл бұрын

Leave. There's nothing good waiting for you in that campaign. Leave before it gets worse, because there is no way it could possibly get better. Unless of course you want to watch the trainwreck unfold, but that's the only reason I could possibly come up with to even consider coming back to the next session. (Ultimately it is of course your decision, and we're both strangers to each other. Consider this to be advice from a well-meaning stranger.)

I wouldn't mind seeing a joke alignment in unearthed arcana as lawful stupid.

**facepalm** Okay, while DM and Jumpy are both dumb in that first one, OP frustrates me by bothering to even continue in that game, least of all with that character. Even if I had never heard a horror story before, literally every part of those conversations were red flags.

@danielramsey6141

2 жыл бұрын

That was some BULLSHIT! I would Absolutely Fucking Screenshot everything and Post it. And tell people to Avoid DM and Jumpy. Cause not only was that unfair, that was straight up targeting! I would be Livid if I had to undergo this Bullshit! And this is after Confirming everything with Both DM and Jumpy at the start.

Assassin's were forced to be evil like paladins were lawful good in the old editions. Heck Paladins used to be able to see evil for free constantly like a radar system.

As a woman who has dated several nerds and geeks, I learned early on that being a either does not automatically make you a good dude. Granted, I did end up marrying a guy with several geeky interests who got me into TTRPGs, so, you know, don't be a Nice GuyTM.

@danielramsey6141

2 жыл бұрын

In Addition, don't be a Cringy, Incel NiceGuy.

Okay, so... I was in a short campaign a while back (it was Waterdeep) and I played a Lawful Good human rogue with the Investigator background. Basically, I wanted him to be a criminal investigator in the City Watch and his whole angle with the party was to put a stop to criminal organizations by gathering sufficient evidence for a sting and arrest the heads. Unfortunately, he ended up being wasted because the party was dysfunctional and couldn't coordinate play times. Which was sad, because I really liked him and I enjoyed trying to solve my problems through investigation.

Guarantee the incel DM's "smoking hot girlfriend" was either non-existent or a printed body pillow. At least, I have to hope that, because the alternative is someone actually dating a person with that view of women.

@360entertainment2

Жыл бұрын

Some of the running theories on Reddit (one of them also being his GF is a body pillow) are: 1. The hot girlfriend was some food delivery girl he’s been harassing. 2. His hand. 3. He’s actually a teenager who lives with his Mom and has a super strict bed time (disproven, the OP has seen him). 4. “She’s from another school, in Canada, who does modeling, and that’s why she’s never around!”

Robin Hood - is a Neutral Good Rogue / Ranger.

fuckin christ i feel bad for rogues now in the campaign i'm in, myself (forge cleric), rogue and paladin met over BAGPIPES. we're now amazing friends

In my opinion assassins should be some form of neutral unless they have some sort of affiliation. I made my drow assassin chaotic neutral specifically because he's an assassin. Doesn't matter much to him who he works for as long as he get paid

Story 3: I'm sure we all know that the player was indeed problematic in how they dealt with a situation that was, of course, largely in her head and fueled by anxiety, most likely, BUT. Yes, there are consequences to the party's actions. You know who decides WHAT they are going to be? THE DM. Situations that complex don't have obvious developments that can be justified by 'you throw a rock into a pond and it sinks', they actively CHOSE to make the consequences for the party's plan into a *very* soul-crushing endeavor. Maybe the people could rely on their emergency stocks, rationing, getting increasingly worried about how they'd get food in a week or two. That'd be concerning enough for the players to understand that ' Oh, yeah, I guess we could have given this a little more thought before dropping this settlement's quality of life significantly', but dude. Cannibalism? What if they sent people to the nearest settlement to ask for temporary aid until they figured things out, and the players could even possibly try to remedy the situation by helping in the decision-making, escorting the representatives and helping them negotiate, etcetera? Who knows, the plan could have even worked if the people agreed on abandoning the land and settling anew elsewhere. D&D doesn't *have* to be a heavy game with endless butterfly effects springing from every mistake, leading to misery and pain. If you think hard enough, the mere fact that you're READING this comment could be spun into something with incredible consequences, too. I think we can admit that the DM twisted the knife on the party, and you can't deny that if the Druid player is an anxious person, it's reasonable that they'd feel targeted by how it all went down. It seems like a reaction born out of unfamiliarity with a game tone this harsh, and given that the party *went along* with the plan it could mean that perhaps they weren't anticipating the outcome either, but I can't elaborate because I'm not part of the gaming group. There is space for games in which you need to think very seriously about what you're doing, and they can be incredibly complex and enjoyable experiences, but no matter what kind of game you're playing, communicate it well in a session 0 and try to stick to it. DMing is hard, but it honestly does get a little easier when you understand what your players expect and how to accommodate it in your plan! I know a lot of DMs out there are BIG fans of shaking things up and throwing twists up the wazoo, I was one of them, but you gotta know how hard to be and how often in order to not make things uncomfortable and to make your twists truly iconic in the narrative.

Haven’t been this early in a long ass time.