Being an evil character doesn't mean you have to randomly screw over the people who are a potential power base for you. It's self defeating to kill off the ones you will be able to use for advancement in your future world conquest dreams.

@shadenox8164

Жыл бұрын

Or even just the fact they help you get gold is plenty of reason. That being said evil characters are actually allowed to like people.

I played an evil character in a one shot recently, but she was an agent of an evil expansionist empire and thus was gathering intel for her to report back to inform their military choices. She was very lawful evil, but she actually liked the party, and worked with them and even invited one of them back to her home where they would be treated like war heroes. I don't know if it would have worked in a campaign as they would have eventually discovered her machinations, but in a one shot it worked great. People have to stop assuming evil means automatically against the party.

@AuntLoopy123

Жыл бұрын

I was telling my own gaming group about an idea for an evil character that would definitely work well with an entire heroic party. The Evil PC is a megalomanica with plans to become an evil tyrant, ruling his own empire, and in particular, CRUSHING the country that done him wrong, when he was a youth. But, in order to take over the whole region, he (and his cohorts) are going to become famous HEROES, well-known for their goodness and kindness, so he gives to every beggar, and heals every wounded person, etc. Finally, once he's very high level, and famous for being SO GOOD, he will quietly plant the seeds of "Oh, the king is just TOO TIRED. And, OH, NO! His only heir is dead! We'll have a war of succession when he dies, unless he chooses his successor NOW, before he dies, which will happen soon, because he's just too tired. He might even consider abdicating, especially with his mind in turmoil from his grief at losing his heir, so mysteriously." So, he acts all good and everything, but does a few evil acts ONLY as ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (keeping his risk to a minimum) and in absolute secrecy, or using tools that cannot be traced back to him. Once he takes the throne, he can then evilly set up the other country he hates, because it done him wrong, to "commit a war crime against us, justifying our country in going to war against them!" Then, he will crush the country upon which he has a vendetta. And maybe expand into a few other countries, as well. That's up to him. However, you can see how a "good" character can wind up "serving" as king, and conquering another country (or three), and then "serving" as emperor. And if he turns a bit evil, once he is totally secure upon his throne, well... Power corrupts, right? But really, evil does NOT mean "mean or cruel." It just means the opposite of good. NOT being altruistic. He does things for other people, but for his own (eventual) gain, not because he's just kind or "it's the right thing to do." Evil can simply mean selfish. And even an evil megalomaniac can say, "Everyone else in the world is a goldfish, but these are MY goldfish," and treat the group kindly, and go along with them, just to make them happy, because they are "MY goldfish." Evil does not have to be "psychopath."

That first story is why I never allow pvp in my games because usually only one person ends up having fun at the expense of everyone else

@oddmanout1914

Жыл бұрын

I've been slowly allowing pvp in my games but I've made a hard line rule that both players must be consenting to the conflict before that starts. Generally nobody pvps but it's an option for them if they want to. Slight edit: I should mention I don't allow outright evil characters at my table as well but players still find party conflict nonetheless.

@Thundarr100

Жыл бұрын

I’m the same. I also don’t allow evil PCs, because I’ve never met a player who is mature or wise enough to play an evil PC without immediately trying to double cross/murder the entire party.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

I allow it, but I make it clear that is what we are doing and there is a clear meta game happening that drives tension. "Open secrets" are used so the dm can make objective rulings, ie "I hand them the poisoned wine," is appropriate so the dm can decide if they need to call for insight, perception, or an int save for "wait a minute, why is this dead eyed psycho suddenly being nice to me?" Generally the biggest problem with this story is the dm is allowing the murder plots to bypass the rules. There is not a sleeping drought that will make you sleep after taking damage, most magic classes have something for teleportation or putting out fire, fire does not really do that much damage per round, and a stone wall has 50 hp, raw. The pc's should be able to get out of that if they were level 5 or above. The dm had just been letting the rougue get away with murder (litterally) but telling them a tale and not asking for rolls or using mechanics of the game.

@ezsoterica

Жыл бұрын

Once had a DM that tried to get me and my twin brother into PvP during DnD. As anyone with siblings know, competition can run hot, doubly so as twins.

@funnyblog100

Жыл бұрын

@@Thundarr100Actually an evil PC had plenty reason to work with the party. First of all you don’t want competition and having help dealing with the Big bad opens the path for you to take over. The gold you gain on your adventures with the party will help finance your evil schemes. You can even be affably evil and genuinely friendly, and charming. The devil was an angel once after all.

“The shop owner is also chaotic evil and cheated you. The sleep is slight and they awaken. How do you get out of the tavern room?” At least one person is going to try the window. They all escape. The CE rogue is now a big bad. And the town is after him, too. Arson is a very bad thing.

The pleasing story at the end makes the videos far more palatable to listen to, thank you for that.

@DnDDoge

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

@luckywhiskle8447

Жыл бұрын

@@DnDDoge honestly would be nice to hear more glory stories than horror stories. Everyone's doing horror stories but we never hear about the epic or tearjerker stories anymore.

That last story is a great example of working with what you've got. XD

I like the new idea of a glory story to end out the week. Keep it up with the cats and tales!

@DnDDoge

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! Will do!

@AuntLoopy123

Жыл бұрын

Seconded!

Rogue: "You know what would be fun for me? If I suddenly ruined the fun for all my friends. Wait. You actually want to have fun even though I decided you didn't get to!? How rude! I'm out!"

Evil characters can be great for the party when done right but the last thing anybody wants is a murderhobo playing as a evil character

@informitas0117

Жыл бұрын

Alignment doesn't matter to murderhobos, seen more lawful good paladins killing waitresses than evildoers. I'm not disagreeing with you just mentioning. A well played evil character is, imo, way more interesting than good aligned ones.

@pugking4518

Жыл бұрын

@@informitas0117 True murderhobos are going to be murderhobos but I think them playing as a evil character brings out the very worst in them because they think that just because they are playing as a evil character they can go on a killing spree which is not doing evil justice in fact the most evil thing you can do as a player does not even involve violence it's manipulating others to do what your evil character wants them to do

@unluckyone1655

Жыл бұрын

It's easier to make murder hobos out of evil characters, but I have seen "good" aligned paladins and clerics go the murder hobo route. But it's blatently clear to me that rogue in first story had this planned even before the game started, the book of grieviences is a dead giveaway. A classic cringe edgelord "just as planned(tm). I refuse to play with those types, as they also tend to be bullies as players

Blessed be Sir Lucky, the Lycan comet kitty. 🐺 ☄️🐱

Rogue pulled a Dennis Reynolds, and honestly I'm not mad, I'm entertained.

I really hope these sort of stories don't put people off from playing rogues. They're so much fun, and as someone who favors rogues and warlocks, you don't have to have some dark and brooding backstory/personality. I favor playing fairly upbeat and relaxed characters, including my rogues (I absolutely LOVE the swashbuckler subclass) Anyway, all this to say that rogues are a fantastic class to play with and edgelord is not a requirement to it

@DnDDoge

Жыл бұрын

My first character was a Rogue. He was part of an assassin syndicate, but wanted to get out of it and pursue acting. May have been inspired by Barry.

@littlegiantj8761

Жыл бұрын

Bring back the dandy/temptress rogues Enough horny bards

@workdangit7

Жыл бұрын

My first favorite character I ever played with a rogue. He was a thief that in the beginning would steal from everyone equally. He later evolved to find a lover, have a pet mouse and a pet dragon, a baby dragon. He also grew up into a redemption arc.

Oh, I love Lucky's face, and hey a cameo by Ziggy too. Love me some baby house panthers. Love me all your family of kittens. I do like on a Friday - ending with a happy story. Hey cutie...I mean Doge - and I know most of this year I was all about your kitties - and I love them all - but you Doge is what makes it best for me - good boy. So thank you for 2022 and I want you and your little brood to have a safe New Years Eve - and a Superior 2023.

The last glory story aside, I'm laughing at how ingenious the rogue was in the first story.

That last glory story was truly epic! A wonderful way to end a week with the Doge. Give your kitties lots of pets from me, love to see how they're doing.

Plotting for a number of sessions to enact a plan is pretty much the opposite of chaotic.

Oh, man thank you for starting a tradition of including happy stories every Friday. While I like and miss TTRPGs in my way, I quit them for a reason. Let's just say that some of the horror stories hit a little too close sometimes. As popular as I'm sure D&D horror stories are, there's more value in the fun, upbeat stories than folks tend to realize.

I really find myself pondering what did the rogue's player honestly think would happen if dm didn't end up retconning the event? Cause it'd be near guaranteed that if at least one player didn't make someone with the intent of offing his character then the group as a whole likely would've refused to help him in any way shape or form until he is killed. And something in me says he wouldn't be much of a good sport if his character was offed

In 4e instead of bunch of "that guys" playing rogues we had edgelocks. That type of person seems to gravitate towards whatever does high damage with the least effort.

holy cow, uploading on the eve of New Year's Eve?? I appreciate, you mad lad.

Lucky, blesses us, on this final Friday of 2022. And my DM never allows PVP, since are really good friends and that may cause hurt feelings.

Was the rogue player a Dwarf? He'd have to be with the way he whipped out the Book of Grudges

The Ranger from the last story had some Shonen-level plot armor and singlehandedly pulled off a save that would’ve otherwise been botched if not done well. Kudos to her!

Oh, I like the idea of ending with a happy story. Good palate cleanser and keeps that "Tabletop is horrible because horror stories exist" idea down a bit.

I know how to handle the rogue situation. First, beat the rogues IRL ass then retcon it while you're hiding the body.

That last story was wtfh with weponizing stupidity. But damn it was an idiotic and heroic move.

Sleep potion be damned, tthe party wakes up from the pain of being on fire and are given the opportunity to kill the fire and/or break out of the room. They are all burnt and bruised, and quite scarred, but very much alive. They quickly notice the Rogue is not in their group and realise he's behind all this. Now everyone gets a chance to take their revenge on the Rogue. No retcons, and Rogue is no longer so smug. There, fixed it.

In God of war Ragnarok when fighting Nightmares it’s always best to just use the blades of chaos and throw the blade at them, they will latch on and drag the enemy to your hands where he’ll either kill them or use them as projectiles which kills them and hurts whatever it hits.

I love the Monika thumbnail.

I never get tired of listening to the Doge's narrations. Happy new year all

"....and the Rogue ended up leaving the campaign..." Say what? If I am ever a player at a game like that (and after several deep breathes) I would say "Well, I guess we are done for today." I would then turn to the DM and say "You will let me know when the next time we can generate new characters/session zero? Oh, by the way, if that festering piece of human garbage (pointing at the problem player) is here, I will not be staying" and then I will politely exit stage left. Any friendship I ever had with the "problem player" will be dead as a doornail. The critical element is that the person in question knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will not tolerate his/her noxious presence.

Another simple rule to avoid the situation in story 1 is "No PvP without prior consent from ALL parties." So, if the rogue reveals that he had drugged the party, you just ask, "Players, do each and every one of you consent to being drugged? No? In that case, Rogue, you didn't drug them, at all. Period." Or, if they consent to the drugging, out of curiosity, you ask, "Players, do each and every one of you consent to being set ablaze, while locked in and asleep? No? In that case, Rogue, you didn't light the fire. They will wake up, locked in and oily, but they WILL wake up, and live. You do NOT light the room, OR the inn, which would spread to their specific room, on fire. Also, we need to have a talk about your behavior." Although, just to avoid annoyance of DRAGGING along a character who doesn't have a reason to come along, I DO like the rule that your character needs a reason to adventure with the party. But what if that particular story arc is over? You still need to protect your other PCs from that PC. And that's where the "No PvP without consent from ALL parties" rule comes in. It's funny that the rogue was willing to kill off the entire party, and END THE CAMPAIGN, without anyone's consent or buy-in, or even prior knowledge, but he has a snit fit and rage-quits when told, "No, we will not allow you to destroy a year of work, without even asking us if we're on-board with it." Did he ACTUALLY EXPECT you to continue your wonderful storyline, JUST FOR HIM, while the other players looked on? Or did he expect all of them to create new characters, and then TRUST HIM and work with him again? No. Either way, it was a situation of game-suicide on his part, because NOBODY was going to play with him again, not in that game, and certainly NOT with that character. Honestly, he should have been on his knees, thanking you for allowing him to continue with the gaming group, AT ALL, after that. Seriously, what did he expect would happen? Why would anybody believe that they could continue after that? I can fathom doing it, but I cannot fathom expecting to be forgiven (without even an apology) or expecting the game to just continue without the rest of the party, and the with the DM just saying, "OK, so you're now wanted for burning down the inn, and murdering the PCs. Players, please create new PCs. Oh, and you have to work with this guy, because you ARE an adventuring party together," or "OK, so you're now wanted for burning down the inn, and murdering the PCs. But you still have this whole storyline I created, and all the already existing loose ends, so I'll just be running this game solo for you, and the rest of the players can just watch or leave the group." I mean, just WHAT did this guy expect would happen after his stunt?

Oh boy that story sounds like what's happening in my own campaign at the moment. Except switch out the rogue for a Barbarian. Short version is, in session 1 we have to take a quiz where if we get questions wrong we take damage. He intentionally got questions wrong. In session 2, he takes the first magic item we got and destroys it while we are in the first combat we got into and causes mass damage to most of the party that was around him. In session 3. He intentionally provokes/freaks out an NPC guard that ended up attacking him which he proceeded to try and kill. Fast forwarding to the incident to his last transgression. He decided to attempt to set an NPCs home on fire with them alive inside of it, in what he considered a "mercy killing" based on information he solely got through metagaming.

This is generally why I don't let PVP in my games normally. And situations where it comes up like this, i always give the aggressor disadvantages or the attacked advantages. This is entirely to discourage PvP. Lock the party in a room? Party has advantage on breaking the door down or escaping. Poison the party? Advantage on resistance to the poison. Decide to set the room the party is in on fire? Disadvantage to actually getting the room to light. This instance? he'd be lighting the room as the town guard is standing right behind him to beat his head into a bloody pulp. Rogue: "haha! i'll burn them all alive" The Town guard who was drinking at the tavern and spotted him, standing behind him with a warhammer raised "i'm about to ruin this man's whole career". That sort of thing. Just things to make the murderhobo's day that much more unpleasant. All to teach the murderhobo that it's not ok. Maybe he gets upset and leaves. good. that's perfect. maybe he learns his lesson. but I know that murderhobos are basically only interested in their own fun at the cost of the party, so i make sure the murderhobos fun is sacrificed for the fun of the party. Especially if they were plotting the murder for months. As to "A-hole" characters, I warn those people very plainly, "A-hole characters will be treated like A-holes. People will dislike you. people will push back against A-hole things you do. You will have conflict with the rest of the party." And the other thing i warn against "If it's 'what my character would do' then explain why. just saying 'cause that's what my character would do' is insufficient justification. It's not a good excuse for bad behavior. If you are called out on A-hole behavior, don't even utter those words. You need to have a damn good reason, or as DM, i WILL block your actions" I've seen and dealt with enough never let players set up to start trouble.

Thanks for the video. Especially the cats. My black cat is currently missing so nice to see some happy cats.

That glory story gave me goosebumps. That was so frickin cool.

i love balancing horror stories with glory stories :) especially for the weekend!

I second everyone with beginning the tradition of ending the videos with a glory story!

That last story is pretty epic! A great way to wrap up.

Good thing my Paladin doesn't drink. And apparently a tell tale sign of a 'that guy'.....playing a Rouge.

That last story was epic!

To many people think "chaotic evil" actually means "psychotic insane". People who play like that is releasing their true personality in the game and should be seen as an insane psychopath. "Evil" could just mean "selfish" and "chaotic" could just mean "follows no rules" - this version could make an intresting role playing experience.

Glory story fridays? All for it!

Well I guess a large amount of Murder Hobo's flock to the Rouge Class but I'd have to say not all of them do. But yes it does seem like a good way to tell if you're gonna deal with one or not, taking pvp off the table is a good way of dealing with it.

When it comes to 'it's what my character would do' I respond with 'you were the one who designed your character to be this way. You intentionally picked a personality, decided how they would react, and steered the situation towards this conclusion. This is not something like a nature-loving druid reacting hostilely to a group of woodsmen engaging in clearcutting a forest; this is you knowingly and intentionally provoking a conflict for the sole purpose of your own self-gratification.'

I wouldn't call just wanting to play a rogue to be a red flag as there are potentially good types (Like the "Robin Hood" type or the "Gentleman Thief" type) It's when allowing PVP or evil characters in the wrong campaign that make it bad

not only is the first story not good morally but also mechanically. if you use the right rules at least one of the characters would resist the narcotic/be resistant to the narcotic or see through the rouge's lies and then his plan would fail if the dm used the right rules

The title sounds like something a Sims player would do.

You know, variant human, which is the core of 93% of any power playing build are underpowered xd

Thanks for the stories the positive story at the end is great Idea that I for one hopes that it continues in to the new year and on that note happy new year to you and all the kittens

I pull a Deus ex Machina that the rest of the characters survives and hunt the rogue.

If you believe in yourself and with a tiny pinch of magic, all your dreams can come true

Welp guess rogue was a dwarf.

Not all people who play rogues are bad I play an assassin subclass but I tend to also work with the party in tandem using arrows with poisons to either a deal status effects or take out specific targets that the party needs taken care of

human variant can take eldritch invocation feat to get super darkvision

The first story: I don't think the player was really in the wrong, there. Sure, he could've communicated more out of character to make sure the other players were into it, but really, masterfully done. But having said that, I would've been pissed, too, if my character was suddenly betrayed and murdered by a party member. Communication is key, here, and it could've been done well. With some foreshadowing, for example, and some actual dice rolls...

The first story, just have the adventure go into the afterlife. Fight/prove yourself worthy to go back to the mortal realms again. Rogue makes new character that "wont" kill the party this time, and rejoins. Otherwise, besides the fact I didn't hear saves being done on the poison and attempts to wake up from, you know, pain of burning... It could be a cool thing to have happen in a story. Of course, better if it was, you know, planned with the GM rather than sprung on them...

When someone says they like to play a-hole characters just drop them.

MICRO-PANTHERS!!!!!!!

year old video idc... this is where the dm goes "uh no you never past me a note sooo no its not laced at all but everyone make a role (idk what it be) to see if you can sense the bloodlust from rogue"

Bro I play a chaotic evil rouge tiefling and I wouldn't do anything like that! In my definition, chaotic evil =/= murderhobo, it simply means that his morals are twisted and not necessarily socially acceptable. For example, he doesn't consider stealing stealing if the other doesn't notice the item missing, or if they "won't need it anyway" or if he needs the item more than the one he steals from.

i wanna play your videos while i stream so wont have to talk during minecraft haha

Why is it always the person who brings a friend group together who ends up being the problem friend of the group?

I have some simple questions to ask the DM for that Rogue fire story. What agent thingy did he use to knock out everyone? How and when did he acquire this concoction? Did the DM even know he had this? Follow up question. Why didnt any of the players get a chance to roll CON or whatever to resist the effect?

Genuine question from a relatively new player: What's wrong with "it's what my character would do", if the point is to be in-character? Is it just a matter of it being used as an excuse too much by bad people for bad things? What if I genuinely want my character to be a bad guy doing bad things, and want the party and NPCs to punish him for what he does? Is it fine as long as it's agreed to before hand. Like, I have a character who has almost zero morals. He'll assault anyone in any way to get what he wants... and I WANT the party to punish him for it. I want guards to chase him, and for the party to bruise him up. Maybe try to give him a redemption arc, or maybe give him a big dramatic death when he never learns what it means to be a good person. I hear a lot of experienced players complain about characters like this, is it just because they're used as excuses for bad fantasies? Is it because the party isn't warned ahead of time about the character?

@liangshanlun5142

Жыл бұрын

I think because generally that's not a team player, that's an antagonist. If the majority of the time is spent on wrangling a party member instead of engaging with an exciting adventure, it's annoying to the other players. It has to be handled carefully I think.

Thanks KZread. This channel is way better than crispys ( gender studies) tavern. Quick subscription from me.

Look.. people are gonna hate this but: You can't hate on the chaotic evil player for living as chaotic evil. Especially if DM doesn't state that pvp isn't allowed.

Here's how I would handle the first story. "I light the room ablaze and leave." "You find the door is locked. The fire is spreading very fast, so you cannot take 10 on your lockpicking." "I roll to unlock the door." "Despite your nat 20, you find the door is not locked normally. It's locked with a spell." "I try the window." "It's also magically locked." "This isn't fair! I planned this perfectly!" "Turns out the guy you got all your poisons from knows what you're like and he opted to just kill you now before you can try to go after him. Turns out, you're very well known in the criminal underworld and the guild would rather a loose cannon like you just disappear. The fire is spreading faster. The flames are at your feet and the room itself is burning; you're aware the room is getting hard to breathe and see in with all the smoke." "Well, at least I'm taking these assholes with me." "With a flash of magic, the others vanish from the room. You know enough about magic to recognize it as the effect of a teleportation spell. Since they're all unconscious, they cannot resist the spell and they're pulled out. Seems someone with access to magic found out about your attempted murder and decided to interject. Now the only person in this blazing building is you. And you're magically trapped within. You burn to a crisp and nothing is left of you but ash. The next day, the guild gives the guards the scoop; you were the one responsible for all the disappearances. They hand over proof they'd gathered, secretly, to tie you to every single one. The guards publicly identify you as a serial killer. By the end, no man or woman the world over would even consider resurrecting your character. The crown even expressly forbids it and anyone who attempts to resurrect you is immediately executed. Don't bother rolling a new character. As for the rest of you, you wake up and..."

So I have an honest question for DMs that watch this channel; how kosher is it to retcon stuff like the first story? Retcons in general are sucky, but TPKs caused by one player being an ass are suckier. At the same time, depending on when it happens, some important plot might've happened meaning players know what's coming.

I had characters keep journals on other characters, writing down nice things and bad things they did. Never had a character use the list to plot murder. I've had characters plot murder of other pcs and even told the pc this but never did it during the campaign. Waited till the end and by then the pc would have chilled out and stopped doing the things that had my toon want to kill theirs. Except one, where my toon told said guy when it was all over he'd end him. I had to pull sacrifice play to save the group so I roll new toon and I play fresh slate. Instantly gets threatened by that character, laugh it off, see all the things weren't really jokes. Tell them again will stop them when job is done. I don't even get to kill them but they died ironically the same way I planned in the final fight. Hold Person paralysis and Disintegrate combo. Cause for whatever reason despite their good wisdom and save they always failed against hold person. I felt disappointed I didn't get to be the one to end him.

We always talk about awful players, but almost 100% of those aren't even a problem if the dm acts accordingly to their job If cops irl were eating donuts 24-7 the streets would be full of murder hobos after a few days, you can't impede those weirdos from being what they are, but we can prevent giving them a single chance to act

Happy New Year folks ♥

Sorry but I have resistance to psychic damage from 2 different sources under different names and a third ability that halves the damage I take.

Yay lucky and ziggy

Then give her the eldritch adept feat, have them pick devil sight and handwave the prereq

First story: I am not going to doge pile (very punny, I know), on the dm because they admit there were a lot of new dm flaws that they own and learned from. It is hard to start and no one is born good at a skill; everything is a learning curve. That having been said; issues seem to revolve around the party not having a problem with traveling with a psycho. This was not a problem with one murder hobo so much as a party full of them that egged the rougue on. Murder hobos do not take any action seriously, so they are going to throw wrenches whenever they are bored. This is not a dm only problem; you have to be willfully ignorant to ignore the trail of bodies that follow you wherever you go. Eventually, the murder hobo gets tired of killing npc's made for them. On the other side, I will say that the rougue in this story was given free reign to "explain a plan after the fact" for a lot of the murder plots. This is an overly permissive dm as he let the rougue murder an npc if they told them a story without asking for dice rolls or introducing complications. It is a problem that they only saw a problem with it when the pc's are the victims; a dm should be fair and objective in these matters. By making it easy for this player to do whatever they want, it made it boring for the murder hobo, so they went for a challenging opponent. PC's are on the menu... really, this is a cautionary tale for having dm's make consequences matter.

Yay listening to doge while making husbandos.

Do people still not understand that natural 20's and 1's are only for attack rolls? There is no such thing as a critical knowledge check

I truly know that evil has a place in D&d but in my heroic games the players have to be some kind of good .. they are heroes are they not? I will allow character erosion ..I.E.. being seduced by an evil artifact and so on and so forth but they always have to actively; strive for becoming good again usually within 3 sessions .. it can make for some awesome RP moments when someone blatantly disregards my warning that continuing on the path they are going down will result in alignment change they then need to roll con saving throw if successful they dodged the bullet if not they pass out for 4d6 hours and wake up evil .. it makes for some great content

Hahahahaa! That was a bitch move!

Pour some kitty on me in the name of warding off cringe

@theinquisitorisamage1653

Жыл бұрын

🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈 Here ya go, friend-o 🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈🐈

Hey what was your favorite video you did this year?

Why are the DMs always worthless in these stories? Seriously.

Even my more vicious and cruel characters aren’t inclined to set everyone on fire like that for petty reasons. Except maybe my sorceress if you say she’s not attractive. Then she’s probably going to kill you. Unless yiu arent attracted to women, then she’ll brush it off as you having no taste.

11:13 Custom lineage, just play custom lineage.

Why is it always the rogue that is the troublesome character? This is like 80% of horror stories I've noticed.

@MarquisLeary34

Жыл бұрын

This is why Rogues have now joined "Chaotic Neutral" in my "NEVER ALLOW IN THE PARTY" list. Can't trust em. To quote Reservoir Dogs, "Psychopath ain't no fucking professional."

@Derginator

Жыл бұрын

@@MarquisLeary34 banning a class because of RPG horror stories is absolutely daft

@joshuawiener5003

Жыл бұрын

Because: 1. Rogues are "cool" and they tend to be used as a crutch for most personalities. People seem to think that just because you are a cunning stealth master you are super cool. 2. Rogues can do a lot of things that enable the player to get away with their antics with no repercussions because why get in trouble when you can just sneak away or talk your way out? Plus they can, as I said, better screw people over without other characters noticing. Poisoning a drink? Everyone catches you and you get in trouble. Poisoning a drink with a stealth/SOH roll? Wasn't me, I was over there. Rogues have a lot of tools designed for "not getting caught" which can make players think that they are invincible. (They aren't.)

@MarquisLeary34

Жыл бұрын

@@Derginator You want problems at your table, champ, you do it. It's your group. I believe in stopping fires before they start.

@Derginator

Жыл бұрын

@@MarquisLeary34 you’re the problem

I see monika on the thumbnail i click^^

I liked the First Story. Brah has been plotting their demise since from the start, and he just been keeping tabs on them until he finally popped. In my eyes that's not a Murder Hobo... That's a Super Villain

Seventh

To me the rogue class (which can be the best fit for a lot of character concepts) isn't generally a red flag, but CN or CE alignments are serious ones.

I have concerns that the guy in the first story might be a straight up sociopath or psychopath. Doing that to your friends, even just their in-game alter-egos is messed up, particularly when it could have been permanent. I mean, this isn't some video game where death is a five second time-out.

I'mma be honest, I don't fully agree with retconning the first story. Yeah, it's a shitty situation and the outcome is not what anyone expected, but... well, as shitty as it is to said, that's life. It's an unexpected rollercoaster, and the players were honestly a little stunted and spoiled by the old DM enforcing a "heroic" environment. The rogue was an affront to the system at play, and the players were probably too used to everyone being "good guys" that his antics were initially amusing and freeing, but pressed against the status quo of yore after a while. I'm not saying they all deserved to die, but treating the rogue's early murder sprees as comedy was a party-wide error. They really should have taken him a serious, internal threat, with a potential to turn against them. And, for his credit and effort, going so far as to keep a physical journal of his own character's psychosis and mental break, the rogue should have been able to keep his win, and just asked to leave the table with his victory, and then reset the campaign next session. That's just my two cents as a DM and PC.

Nothing wrong with playing an evil character, but is your responsability to rp in a way that the character can work with the rest of the party. If you are playing a evil character and using it as an excuse to ruin the fun for everyone else, you are not "acting in character", you are being a dick.