…the DM can say 'take a hike' and have no disrupted sessions at all.
I’m pretty crap at getting the quote system to display the way I’d like but did you seriously just say that a DM can tell their players to take a hike and that results in no disrupted sessions at all? No kidding, because there are no sessions without a group. Good job, Captain Obvious. You are absolutely correct that a DM with no players can do anything they want…except play the bloody game.
Based on their recent activity on the boards, G3ralt appears to have a group of players who all believe the DM sucks and are looking for someone to blame. Except when different people try DM’ing the rest of the group remains dissatisfied. G3ralt complains about their DM. G3ralt also laments when no one wants to play the game they’re going to DM. It seems G3ralt and their group are not working together to build a group or a functional game, they are competing to see who is right and who is wrong. This is the problem and it’s a problem that will not be solved until they start cooperating to build something fun together instead of swinging their metaphorical D&D ***** around to see who’s the best.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day?
Because it's better to fight effectively against evil than to fight ineffectively. They could have simply refused, at which point if the demon kills them anyway, that's purely on the DM.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
Sure. If they don't see any other options, that is. "Guess I'll die then" isn't heroic or dramatic if there's nothing to die for and plenty to live for. Nothing in the OP tells us they were going to have to give the demon what it wanted and wouldn't have any choice going forward. They didn't die for a cause: they accomplished nothing beyond a temporary setback for the demon while it looked for others to retrieve the item it was looking for, which doesn't seem like a great prize to lay down their life and deprive their deity of a loyal agent in the world for. If they genuinely felt the only way of preventing the demon from getting the McGuffin was to kill themselves on the spot that choice would be sensible, but that seems more than a little far-fetched.
Standards exist for a reason. A typical goody paladin and goody cleric would have much higher standards of behaviour than the average adventurers. In this case their standards logically include not shaking hands with a demon, even under duress. That makes perfect sense. If the DM truly wanted them to agree, what the DM could've done is have the demon use hostages, in which case a goody paladin and goody cleric might think "we will go along for now for the sake of the innocent hostages". Because there were no third party hostages, paladins and clerics would absolutely choose death before dishonour. That's a core part of what those classes are supposed to represent.
I don't understand why some people are arguing that 2 goody paladins and 1 goody cleric would choose to bide their time and live another day? We're not talking about goody fighters or goody wizards. Paladins and clerics fully expect that they might have to die for their cause. Even if they think they will 100% lose they would still fight. Those are not the type of people where self preservation is no 1 priority. Martyrdom is something that the typical paladin and cleric see as a good ending to their life.
The other thing to consider is that the OP did check with the other party members and the entire party agreed to attack.
A cleric and two paladins are of far more use to their gods alive than they are dead. There’s a ton of ways to work within what the DM set up that don’t involve kamikaze deaths for the characters. It’s a distressing lack of imagination that can’t come up with a solution other than attack. Spies, undercover agents, provocateurs and consorts are just a few of the types of good people stuck working for or with bad people for good ends. Outsmart the demon. Use the information it gives you against it. Pretend you’re working for it while you undermine its entire organization. Short term compromise for long term gain and ultimate victory is not an alien concept; it’s commonly employed and generally preferable to attacking against insurmountable odds.
Death before dishonour? For the most part, people want to live at almost any cost. People don’t want to die and will pay almost any price. Not only that, I’m here in my basement with my friends to play a game and, as a player, I do what it take to make the game move forward because I’m not a wangrod. I work with my DM not against him. I understand that my DM is doing me a favour by making the game so I do him the favour in return of not wrecking it even if “it’s what my character would do”.
In a world where gods (and even mortals) can resurrect others. Who is to say that their deaths won't trigger some action from their gods/temples to send an army to take out the demon and cultists? 3 lives sacrificed to mobilize a true force that is capable of putting a stop to the cultists is a cheap price to pay. Also all of your examples are the exact opposite of what paladins and clerics stand for. Spies? Undercover agents? Provocateurs? Consorts? No goody cleric or paladin would do any of those jobs. If they were goody wizards and fighters, then sure they might choose to do that. The class matters a lot, you can't be using examples that don't apply to the characters being discussed. Doing things in secret behind people's back is not what a typical goody paladin or goody cleric would do. That's why I said above in my reply to the other poster, the DM should have introduced third party hostages if they really wanted the party to play along with the demon. But the DM didn't and the party took the only logical decision for a bunch of holy crusader types.
While the players can try to make things work, that requires advance notice from the DM not a surprise "submit or die" moment. For example I played a short 6 session campaign last year with some friends. Our party was 2 goody paladins, 1 neutral bard, 1 neutral thief and 1 goody sorcerer. In session 3 our DM warned us that in order for us to reach the BBEG, our party would likely need to work with some slavers. The players OOC collectively discussed how we can convince the paladins to go along with it. One of the paladins in particular had a background of being a former slave, there was no way she was going to work with slavers, it would be hard enough to convince her not to attack on sight. So we decided that only the bard and thief will go to negotiate with the slavers, meanwhile the sorcerer distracts the two paladins with a shopping trip in town. Then we got both paladins drunk and when they woke up they had no idea that we had travelled through a smuggler's route with the help of slavers. The other three lied to the paladins and told them that we used an expensive teleportation spell. So all players know what really happened, but not all the characters know.
A paladin is not a fighter with high burst damage and a magic aura, they are the armour plated gauntlet of their divinity (or oath) and a cleric is not a mage who can heal and wear armour they are the representatives of their divinity (I don't subscribe to the atheist cleric thing, sorry).
You don't put your players in this situation. Just tell them at character creation that a party with two paladins and a good aligned cleric won't work in the campaign. Before they start to make the characters. This would be the same as allowing 2 wizards and a warlock in a setting that's a dead magic zone, or two rangers and a druid in a City only campaign.
A paladin is not a fighter with high burst damage and a magic aura, they are the armour plated gauntlet of their divinity (or oath) and a cleric is not a mage who can heal and wear armour they are the representatives of their divinity (I don't subscribe to the atheist cleric thing, sorry).
You don't put your players in this situation. Just tell them at character creation that a party with two paladins and a good aligned cleric won't work in the campaign. Before they start to make the characters. This would be the same as allowing 2 wizards and a warlock in a setting that's a dead magic zone, or two rangers and a druid in a City only campaign.
Work with each other.
Certainly, just tell them something such as "there could be situations where your party would need to choose between compromise or death". When they "discovered a camp of cultists" perhaps they could have kept their distance, captured a limited number of them and questioned/interrogated them. Paladins and clerics may not be best suited to more subtle approaches but maybe there were other hooks into the ancient crypt that might have worked.
A paladin is not a fighter with high burst damage and a magic aura, they are the armour plated gauntlet of their divinity (or oath) and a cleric is not a mage who can heal and wear armour they are the representatives of their divinity (I don't subscribe to the atheist cleric thing, sorry).
You don't put your players in this situation. Just tell them at character creation that a party with two paladins and a good aligned cleric won't work in the campaign. Before they start to make the characters. This would be the same as allowing 2 wizards and a warlock in a setting that's a dead magic zone, or two rangers and a druid in a City only campaign.
Work with each other.
Certainly, just tell them something such as "there could be situations where your party would need to choose between compromise or death". When they "discovered a camp of cultists" perhaps they could have kept their distance, captured a limited number of them and questioned/interrogated them. Paladins and clerics may not be best suited to more subtle approaches but maybe there were other hooks into the ancient crypt that might have worked.
Perhaps they could have but since the DM's plot seems to have required them to agree to help the demon, how would that have derailed things that much less?
The DM's set up has "a camp of cultists", a "leader's camp", "an ancient crypt" and cultists that, when given the chance, took the party to a demon.
The collaborative storytelling could certainly end up with outcomes such as either a TPK or an 'agreement' with a demon. It sounds like you say but we haven't heard from the DM. Maybe there were other possibilities but both those mentioned seem reasonable. It seems quite logical to me that a demon might want to kill paladins and clerics and, from the character's perspective, "He rather wants to die, than help such a creature." Those are the logical responses that might "screw over [the DM's] adventure".
Perhaps they could have but since the DM's plot seems to have required them to agree to help the demon, how would that have derailed things that much less?
The DM's set up has "a camp of cultists", a "leader's camp", "an ancient crypt" and cultists that, when given the chance, took the party to a demon.
The collaborative storytelling could certainly end up with outcomes such as either a TPK or an 'agreement' with a demon. It sounds like you say but we haven't heard from the DM. Maybe there were other possibilities but both those mentioned seem reasonable. It seems quite logical to me that a demon might want to kill paladins and clerics and, from the character's perspective, "He rather wants to die, than help such a creature." Those are the logical responses that might "screw over [the DM's] adventure".
Pardon, but re-reading the OP might be useful.
The cultist's leader does not seem to be in some separate camp and the demon seems to be the leader the cultists brought the party to. Not sure why it would be done any more complex than that either. The party also learned of the ancient crypt from the demon, so if they had not gone to talk to the demon, they would likely never have learned of it.
We are two paladins and a cleric. We are lvl1. We travelled the desert, in search for a lost caravan, and discovered a camp of cultists. The cultists "insisted" to take us to their leader. There were 30 of them and only 3 of us, so we went along with it. they lead us to the leaders camp, and it turns out the leader is a Goristro, a demon. Our characters are shocked! (We have a paladin of Pelor, a Cleric of Lathander and a Paladin of Bahamut.). The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die. There is no possibility of escape, because the cultists surround the camp, but we also don't want to help a demon. So my character decides that he will attack the demon. He rather wants to die, then help such a creature. I think this action was in-character, because my guy is a bit overzealous and doesn't have a very high wisdom. I ask the other players if they are on board, and they nod. We don't know how strong of a monster the demon is, but we attack him anyway. We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists. After this, the DM complains that I just wanted to screw over his adventure, and that I am a bad player. I replied that I thought that this was what my character would do. We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize?
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
So I would think the gods know that mortals make dumb choices, and a truly benevolent one wouldn't discard their followers' souls for making a misguided choice that pretty much lined up with their ideals.
Also in game, Commune is a 5th level spell which they wouldn't have had access to. For me, that's enough to not tell my players exactly what their gods would want. It really depends on the world, but having direct contact with mortals is very rare, and direct intervention is something that really only happens with clerics. I think at best they could have been asked (or asked themselves) to make a check in an attempt to steer them back on track.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
So I would think the gods know that mortals make dumb choices, and a truly benevolent one wouldn't discard their followers' souls for making a misguided choice that pretty much lined up with their ideals.
Also in game, Commune is a 5th level spell which they wouldn't have had access to. For me, that's enough to not tell my players exactly what their gods would want. It really depends on the world, but having direct contact with mortals is very rare, and direct intervention is something that really only happens with clerics. I think at best they could have been asked (or asked themselves) to make a check in an attempt to steer them back on track.
Yeah, fair enough. Surely their respective temples or churches must have opinions on this matter though. And presumably the heroes know what these opinions are.
Perhaps they could have but since the DM's plot seems to have required them to agree to help the demon, how would that have derailed things that much less?
The DM's set up has "a camp of cultists", a "leader's camp", "an ancient crypt" and cultists that, when given the chance, took the party to a demon.
The collaborative storytelling could certainly end up with outcomes such as either a TPK or an 'agreement' with a demon. It sounds like you say but we haven't heard from the DM. Maybe there were other possibilities but both those mentioned seem reasonable. It seems quite logical to me that a demon might want to kill paladins and clerics and, from the character's perspective, "He rather wants to die, than help such a creature." Those are the logical responses that might "screw over [the DM's] adventure".
Pardon, but re-reading the OP might be useful.
The cultist's leader does not seem to be in some separate camp and the demon seems to be the leader the cultists brought the party to. Not sure why it would be done any more complex than that either. The party also learned of the ancient crypt from the demon, so if they had not gone to talk to the demon, they would likely never have learned of it.
We are two paladins and a cleric. We are lvl1. We travelled the desert, in search for a lost caravan, and discovered a camp of cultists. The cultists "insisted" to take us to their leader. There were 30 of them and only 3 of us, so we went along with it. they lead us to the leaders camp, and it turns out the leader is a Goristro, a demon. Our characters are shocked! (We have a paladin of Pelor, a Cleric of Lathander and a Paladin of Bahamut.). The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die. There is no possibility of escape, because the cultists surround the camp, but we also don't want to help a demon. So my character decides that he will attack the demon. He rather wants to die, then help such a creature. I think this action was in-character, because my guy is a bit overzealous and doesn't have a very high wisdom. I ask the other players if they are on board, and they nod. We don't know how strong of a monster the demon is, but we attack him anyway. We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists. After this, the DM complains that I just wanted to screw over his adventure, and that I am a bad player. I replied that I thought that this was what my character would do. We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize?
Ok, one extra step. But the leader is the demon and they do still learn of the crypt from said demon. It unclear, though, what really did happen to the caravan...
A lot depends on what the DM thought that the players were doing wrong in trying to "screw up his adventure". Was it solely that they didn't accept a railroaded deal with the demon or was it also that they didn't bother to look into options prior to arrival at the leader's camp? It certainly doesn't sound like the party bothered with perception, insight, religion etc. checks on things like the potential power of the demon. I'm left to wonder what other opportunities might have gone by the wayside. For all I know there might have been a way to bypass the leader's camp entirely - if it wasn't being [too strongly] railroaded.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
The DM always has a choice as to how the world reacts. By attacking, the Demon's bluff could have been called. Perhaps it really didn't have the authority to kill them or really did need them alive and loses too somehow by killing them so at worst only takes them captive. Or only takes them captive to 'play' with them, try further to tempt them.
Many ways the DM could have rolled with the situation and salvaged the situation rather than just outright killing them.
"We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists."
Regardless of anything else, the DM appears to have done just that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The catch is that the DM supposedly complained about one player being disruptive by having to rescue the party for a bad decision instigated by one character whose flaw is being short-sighted when it comes to thinking things through. Short sighted characters a risky to play.
That stated, putting holy characters in servitude to Evil seems like a derail waiting to happen if the story requires the players to obey an Evil entity.
So, while the DM did rescue the situation, the DM and the player both caused the situation while the DM blamed the player for it and the player made an excuse for doing it.
There's no good way to look at this, but even this isn't a point of no return for the campaign if they'll forgive, learn, and move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
WOuld be interesting to hear the other side to this.
IF the DM expected that the characters would try and attack them after being given the ultimatum, then just when beating them, only knocked them unconscious, rather then killing outright, and then imprisoning them (or trapping them in the crypt), then that would work towards keeping the story going.
THe party now has an out, (somewhere in the crypt would be an escape route), and a BBEG that they can come back later in the campaign and kill when they've levelled up.
(Apologies if this has been said before - I've skimmed a fair bit as there was a lot of repetition)
But I agree, there has been a fair amount of angst and miscommunication here
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
No? A paladin and a cleric go through indoctrination and training before they go out into the world. They are the word of their divinity for all purposes. Being one means taking on the mantle of responsibility with all that entails. Dealing with a Demon with only their own lives at stake would sully their divinity.
I'm seeing this mentality more and more in 5th and with the coming removal of the alignment system it's going to get even worse. Atheist Clerics, Paladins only serving an Oath this is a broken mechanic leading to situations like this.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
The DM always has a choice as to how the world reacts. By attacking, the Demon's bluff could have been called. Perhaps it really didn't have the authority to kill them or really did need them alive and loses too somehow by killing them so at worst only takes them captive. Or only takes them captive to 'play' with them, try further to tempt them.
Many ways the DM could have rolled with the situation and salvaged the situation rather than just outright killing them.
"We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists."
Regardless of anything else, the DM appears to have done just that.
And the player seems to have gone along with it afterwards, the campaign continuing.
"We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize? "
It really does depend at that point how the DM handled it further. If it was with an iron hand, ensuring the players were kept in their place and on the DM's rails, or whether the campaign really did become more reasonable since then.
However, I still maintain that one should not place what clearly looks like an enemy in front of a bunch of PC's and then get mad if they attack said apparent enemy, even if it is a suicide charge.
Plenty of examples of this from myth and literature. Heracles charged his way into Hades' realm purely by strength and bravado to rescue a friend. Robin fought Little John at a river crossing in their first meeting. It is (or at least was for decades) a running gag in Marvel Comics that heroes would fight each other on first encounter. And those last two examples are even meetings between allies let alone heroes.
The charge of the light brigade during the Crimean War really did happen, just over a combination of miscommunication and misplaced pride an honour.
The PC's were likely not trying to sabotage the campaign. If they were, wouldn't they have simply quit when the DM saved their characters after all?
It's also possible that, by that point, the DM was thinking something like "there are still ways the party can save this".
A lot depends on what the DM thought that the players were doing wrong in trying to "screw up his adventure". Was it solely that they didn't accept a railroaded deal with the demon or was it also that they didn't bother to look into options prior to arrival at the leader's camp? It certainly doesn't sound like the party bothered with perception, insight, religion etc. checks on things like the potential power of the demon. I'm left to wonder what other opportunities might have gone by the wayside. For all I know there might have been a way to bypass the leader's camp entirely - if it wasn't being [too strongly] railroaded.
1) The charge of the light brigade during the Crimean War really did happen, just over a combination of miscommunication and misplaced pride an honour.
2) The PC's were likely not trying to sabotage the campaign. If they were, wouldn't they have simply quit when the DM saved their characters after all?
1) The charge of the light brigade has been a cautionary tale ever since, and was an atrociously bad command decision. I'm having some trouble figuring out how it's supposed to make the player's decision look better, to be honest.
2) I'm sure they weren't, not actively anyway. I expect the DM felt they weren't putting in any effort to make it a good game either though. There's supposed to be some give and take, and the DM shouldn't be assumed to just fix whatever or it's all his fault if things aren't great. I imagine there may have been some give and take since though, if the campaign is still going.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The days of the lawful stupid paladin are over. Really though, people are way too focused on the particulars of the incident and missing the bigger picture. The very title of this post is indicative of more trouble to come. There is no right or wrong in D&D, there is only fun or not fun. OP isn’t asking how to improve the game, they’re asking for validation of their disruptive play. They want to be assured it’s ok to upset the DM if the player doing the upsetting is right. This is toxic, no matter what the DM puts in front of them. By all means, continue to ignore the forest for the trees though. Have on with the examples of real life battlefield massacres resulting from regretful strategic choices because the point of this post is how to play a properly idiotic paladin, not how to get along with your DM.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
No? A paladin and a cleric go through indoctrination and training before they go out into the world. They are the word of their divinity for all purposes. Being one means taking on the mantle of responsibility with all that entails. Dealing with a Demon with only their own lives at stake would sully their divinity.
I'm seeing this mentality more and more in 5th and with the coming removal of the alignment system it's going to get even worse. Atheist Clerics, Paladins only serving an Oath this is a broken mechanic leading to situations like this.
Are you saying the player is the one in control of what the teachings and principles of their character's religion are? That a player has the freedom to declare that their character's god says X, and have it be true in the game?
Just trying to get a clear picture of your stance here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m pretty crap at getting the quote system to display the way I’d like but did you seriously just say that a DM can tell their players to take a hike and that results in no disrupted sessions at all? No kidding, because there are no sessions without a group. Good job, Captain Obvious. You are absolutely correct that a DM with no players can do anything they want…except play the bloody game.
Based on their recent activity on the boards, G3ralt appears to have a group of players who all believe the DM sucks and are looking for someone to blame. Except when different people try DM’ing the rest of the group remains dissatisfied. G3ralt complains about their DM. G3ralt also laments when no one wants to play the game they’re going to DM. It seems G3ralt and their group are not working together to build a group or a functional game, they are competing to see who is right and who is wrong. This is the problem and it’s a problem that will not be solved until they start cooperating to build something fun together instead of swinging their metaphorical D&D ***** around to see who’s the best.
If the choice they were given is "submit or die" and they plan to refuse, then a pre-emptive strike makes perfect tactical sense. Because in that scenario they believe that if they refuse they will die. So why not try and get one surprise strike in.
Standards exist for a reason. A typical goody paladin and goody cleric would have much higher standards of behaviour than the average adventurers. In this case their standards logically include not shaking hands with a demon, even under duress. That makes perfect sense. If the DM truly wanted them to agree, what the DM could've done is have the demon use hostages, in which case a goody paladin and goody cleric might think "we will go along for now for the sake of the innocent hostages". Because there were no third party hostages, paladins and clerics would absolutely choose death before dishonour. That's a core part of what those classes are supposed to represent.
In a world where gods (and even mortals) can resurrect others. Who is to say that their deaths won't trigger some action from their gods/temples to send an army to take out the demon and cultists? 3 lives sacrificed to mobilize a true force that is capable of putting a stop to the cultists is a cheap price to pay. Also all of your examples are the exact opposite of what paladins and clerics stand for. Spies? Undercover agents? Provocateurs? Consorts? No goody cleric or paladin would do any of those jobs. If they were goody wizards and fighters, then sure they might choose to do that. The class matters a lot, you can't be using examples that don't apply to the characters being discussed. Doing things in secret behind people's back is not what a typical goody paladin or goody cleric would do. That's why I said above in my reply to the other poster, the DM should have introduced third party hostages if they really wanted the party to play along with the demon. But the DM didn't and the party took the only logical decision for a bunch of holy crusader types.
While the players can try to make things work, that requires advance notice from the DM not a surprise "submit or die" moment. For example I played a short 6 session campaign last year with some friends. Our party was 2 goody paladins, 1 neutral bard, 1 neutral thief and 1 goody sorcerer. In session 3 our DM warned us that in order for us to reach the BBEG, our party would likely need to work with some slavers. The players OOC collectively discussed how we can convince the paladins to go along with it. One of the paladins in particular had a background of being a former slave, there was no way she was going to work with slavers, it would be hard enough to convince her not to attack on sight. So we decided that only the bard and thief will go to negotiate with the slavers, meanwhile the sorcerer distracts the two paladins with a shopping trip in town. Then we got both paladins drunk and when they woke up they had no idea that we had travelled through a smuggler's route with the help of slavers. The other three lied to the paladins and told them that we used an expensive teleportation spell. So all players know what really happened, but not all the characters know.
And people still keep defending the undefendable.
A paladin is not a fighter with high burst damage and a magic aura, they are the armour plated gauntlet of their divinity (or oath) and a cleric is not a mage who can heal and wear armour they are the representatives of their divinity (I don't subscribe to the atheist cleric thing, sorry).
You don't put your players in this situation. Just tell them at character creation that a party with two paladins and a good aligned cleric won't work in the campaign. Before they start to make the characters. This would be the same as allowing 2 wizards and a warlock in a setting that's a dead magic zone, or two rangers and a druid in a City only campaign.
Work with each other.
Certainly, just tell them something such as "there could be situations where your party would need to choose between compromise or death".
When they "discovered a camp of cultists" perhaps they could have kept their distance, captured a limited number of them and questioned/interrogated them. Paladins and clerics may not be best suited to more subtle approaches but maybe there were other hooks into the ancient crypt that might have worked.
The DM's set up has "a camp of cultists", a "leader's camp", "an ancient crypt" and cultists that, when given the chance, took the party to a demon.
The collaborative storytelling could certainly end up with outcomes such as either a TPK or an 'agreement' with a demon. It sounds like you say but we haven't heard from the DM. Maybe there were other possibilities but both those mentioned seem reasonable. It seems quite logical to me that a demon might want to kill paladins and clerics and, from the character's perspective, "He rather wants to die, than help such a creature." Those are the logical responses that might "screw over [the DM's] adventure".
"the OP"
Because they're going to fail. No-one is going to be surprised by that.
Well dying gets them a place in their heavens as martyrs, obeying brands them as heretics. What's the biggest fail for holy warriors?
Counterpoint: Their gods know they're being strongarmed into it and don't blame them for obeying, and would discard their souls for being idiots if they tried to martyr themselves.
Wouldn't you think they should at least inquire with the DM -- who essentially plays the role of said gods -- how their gods would feel?
So I would think the gods know that mortals make dumb choices, and a truly benevolent one wouldn't discard their followers' souls for making a misguided choice that pretty much lined up with their ideals.
Also in game, Commune is a 5th level spell which they wouldn't have had access to. For me, that's enough to not tell my players exactly what their gods would want. It really depends on the world, but having direct contact with mortals is very rare, and direct intervention is something that really only happens with clerics. I think at best they could have been asked (or asked themselves) to make a check in an attempt to steer them back on track.
Yeah, fair enough. Surely their respective temples or churches must have opinions on this matter though. And presumably the heroes know what these opinions are.
A lot depends on what the DM thought that the players were doing wrong in trying to "screw up his adventure". Was it solely that they didn't accept a railroaded deal with the demon or was it also that they didn't bother to look into options prior to arrival at the leader's camp? It certainly doesn't sound like the party bothered with perception, insight, religion etc. checks on things like the potential power of the demon. I'm left to wonder what other opportunities might have gone by the wayside. For all I know there might have been a way to bypass the leader's camp entirely - if it wasn't being [too strongly] railroaded.
"We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists."
Regardless of anything else, the DM appears to have done just that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The catch is that the DM supposedly complained about one player being disruptive by having to rescue the party for a bad decision instigated by one character whose flaw is being short-sighted when it comes to thinking things through. Short sighted characters a risky to play.
That stated, putting holy characters in servitude to Evil seems like a derail waiting to happen if the story requires the players to obey an Evil entity.
So, while the DM did rescue the situation, the DM and the player both caused the situation while the DM blamed the player for it and the player made an excuse for doing it.
There's no good way to look at this, but even this isn't a point of no return for the campaign if they'll forgive, learn, and move on.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
WOuld be interesting to hear the other side to this.
IF the DM expected that the characters would try and attack them after being given the ultimatum, then just when beating them, only knocked them unconscious, rather then killing outright, and then imprisoning them (or trapping them in the crypt), then that would work towards keeping the story going.
THe party now has an out, (somewhere in the crypt would be an escape route), and a BBEG that they can come back later in the campaign and kill when they've levelled up.
(Apologies if this has been said before - I've skimmed a fair bit as there was a lot of repetition)
But I agree, there has been a fair amount of angst and miscommunication here
Odo Proudfoot - Lvl 10 Halfling Monk - Princes of the Apocalypse (Campaign Finished)
Orryn Pebblefoot - Lvl 5 Rock Gnome Wizard (Deceased) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist (Deceased)
Anerin Ap Tewdr - Lvl 5 Human (Variant) Bard (College of Valor) - Waterdeep: Dragon Heist
No? A paladin and a cleric go through indoctrination and training before they go out into the world. They are the word of their divinity for all purposes. Being one means taking on the mantle of responsibility with all that entails. Dealing with a Demon with only their own lives at stake would sully their divinity.
I'm seeing this mentality more and more in 5th and with the coming removal of the alignment system it's going to get even worse. Atheist Clerics, Paladins only serving an Oath this is a broken mechanic leading to situations like this.
It's also possible that, by that point, the DM was thinking something like "there are still ways the party can save this".
1) The charge of the light brigade has been a cautionary tale ever since, and was an atrociously bad command decision. I'm having some trouble figuring out how it's supposed to make the player's decision look better, to be honest.
2) I'm sure they weren't, not actively anyway. I expect the DM felt they weren't putting in any effort to make it a good game either though. There's supposed to be some give and take, and the DM shouldn't be assumed to just fix whatever or it's all his fault if things aren't great. I imagine there may have been some give and take since though, if the campaign is still going.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The days of the lawful stupid paladin are over. Really though, people are way too focused on the particulars of the incident and missing the bigger picture. The very title of this post is indicative of more trouble to come. There is no right or wrong in D&D, there is only fun or not fun. OP isn’t asking how to improve the game, they’re asking for validation of their disruptive play. They want to be assured it’s ok to upset the DM if the player doing the upsetting is right. This is toxic, no matter what the DM puts in front of them. By all means, continue to ignore the forest for the trees though. Have on with the examples of real life battlefield massacres resulting from regretful strategic choices because the point of this post is how to play a properly idiotic paladin, not how to get along with your DM.
Are you saying the player is the one in control of what the teachings and principles of their character's religion are? That a player has the freedom to declare that their character's god says X, and have it be true in the game?
Just trying to get a clear picture of your stance here.