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.
Is the deity's stance actually relevant, like at all?
What is relevant is the characters interpretations and understanding of their deity's desires. That could be the complete opposite of what the deity wants - short of a divine apparition to instruct them, it's down to what the character believes, not what the deity wants or even necessarily what the religion teaches.
Who gets to decide what the character believes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
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.
There were supposedly 3 PC's involved in this 'rebellion.' That seems like a sizable portion of the party. Almost certainly half or more. If the preferred play style of the majority of the campaign is at odds with the campaign the DM is trying to run, is it they or the DM being disruptive?
They are being disruptive. Play the session and take it up with the DM afterwards, as I said about a hundred posts ago. There’s not much point engaging with a person who discards every previous statement on the subject at hand. Good day to you, sir.
I've not read every response, but the original post looks like it was indeed that the DM was too inflexible on how the game was going to go (they gave the players no agency - the players will strike a deal with this devil!). A party of holy warriors would probably act as they did.
The DM could have played the demon differently - having them shapeshift into a more trustworthy figure would be one option, so the players trust them unti lthey get detect good & evil, at which point they will see through the ruse. It sounds like the DM has fallen for one of the two classic blunders! The first being never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly lesser known is this: Never plan what your players will do!
They are being disruptive. Play the session and take it up with the DM afterwards, as I said about a hundred posts ago. There’s not much point engaging with a person who discards every previous statement on the subject at hand. Good day to you, sir.
Just because you posted it does not mean we all agree with you. Coming across as a little high-handed there, sir.
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.
In my experience players know the tenets of their faith better than the DM, if the DM has no special plans with that faith or religion in general in their campaign. This is of course not always the case.
When I play a Cleric/Paladin/Druid I will read as much as I can find about that faith and its tenets. When I'm the DM I will read the cliff notes so to speak. I will look deeper into it when say a Paladin starts to kill non combatants or a Druid starts a logging company.
So I would say that there is a higher probability that a good player knows their deity and its tenets better than a DM who is not planning to incorporate the faith in the campaign. That said it doesn't mean that a player can start inventing contradictory stuff because they feel like it.
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.
As an atheist I'd allow something approaching this. Friar Tuck and the Bishop of Hereford could have as different outlooks on the same god as an inquisition pope and Cliff Richard.
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.
I did not say the player's decisions were necessarily smart, merely that they should not have come as such a shock to the DM.
Smart isn't necessarily an issue. Smart mostly comes into play because "not smart" is unexpected, not because it's not smart. The "shock" to the DM didn't come from the decisions the players made. It was, best I can tell, frustration and annoyance that those decisions appear to have been made without paying any heed to what's good for the game. I'm not saying that consideration should overrule all else either, it shouldn't, but it should matter some at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with Pangurjan; Whilst your character may reject the demon out of principle, if you as a player can tell that the DM is riding everything on you doing a quest for the demon, then it's worth coming up with any convoluted reason you can make for your character to follow the plothook. Maybe they are trying to infiltrate the demons lair, or buy themselves time, wait for the demon to reveal its plans to them so they can scupper them, or just that they (being a level 1 paladin) mistake the demon for a troll in need, because they've never seen a demon before.
100% agree that a paladin and a cleric would not just do what a demon tells them because the demon said to, but they can come up with any number of other reasons that keeps the game flowing - buying time, waiting to tell their church of the demonic presence, simply knowing their limits, and so on.
So no, you weren't bad per se, but you could have done it differently. Same with the DM!
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.
I did not say the player's decisions were necessarily smart, merely that they should not have come as such a shock to the DM.
Smart isn't necessarily an issue. Smart mostly comes into play because "not smart" is unexpected, not because it's not smart. The "shock" to the DM didn't come from the decisions the players made. It was, best I can tell, frustration and annoyance that those decisions appear to have been made without paying any heed to what's good for the game. I'm not saying that consideration should overrule all else either, it shouldn't, but it should matter some at least.
Good for the game? When a DM pulls something like that they are not thinking about the good of the game. The DM didn't even look at what their players were playing! This is video game mentality!
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.
Is the deity's stance actually relevant, like at all?
What is relevant is the characters interpretations and understanding of their deity's desires. That could be the complete opposite of what the deity wants - short of a divine apparition to instruct them, it's down to what the character believes, not what the deity wants or even necessarily what the religion teaches.
Who gets to decide what the character believes?
You're not who I was asking, but sure -- it's the player who chooses. So the player was in no way obligated to have their character pursue this course of action. Just change what your god teaches. It probably hasn't come up before, so you're not gonna have to retcon it. I've already demonstrated a couple of options that aren't really that radical. It's not like you have to change your character into a worshipper of Lolth or something.
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.
I did not say the player's decisions were necessarily smart, merely that they should not have come as such a shock to the DM.
Smart isn't necessarily an issue. Smart mostly comes into play because "not smart" is unexpected, not because it's not smart. The "shock" to the DM didn't come from the decisions the players made. It was, best I can tell, frustration and annoyance that those decisions appear to have been made without paying any heed to what's good for the game. I'm not saying that consideration should overrule all else either, it shouldn't, but it should matter some at least.
Good for the game? When a DM pulls something like that they are not thinking about the good of the game. The DM didn't even look at what their players were playing! This is video game mentality!
Really? Looking at three characters with a strong religious foundation and deciding it might be cool to have a demon as antagonist seems weird to you? I can't speak for this DM, but it's certainly something I might do. It creates immediate tension and given the little we know about the scenario provides a plausible reason why the demon might need them to fetch this thing it can't fetch itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
I did not say the player's decisions were necessarily smart, merely that they should not have come as such a shock to the DM.
Smart isn't necessarily an issue. Smart mostly comes into play because "not smart" is unexpected, not because it's not smart. The "shock" to the DM didn't come from the decisions the players made. It was, best I can tell, frustration and annoyance that those decisions appear to have been made without paying any heed to what's good for the game. I'm not saying that consideration should overrule all else either, it shouldn't, but it should matter some at least.
Good for the game? When a DM pulls something like that they are not thinking about the good of the game. The DM didn't even look at what their players were playing! This is video game mentality!
Really? Looking at three characters with a strong religious foundation and deciding it might be cool to have a demon as antagonist seems weird to you? I can't speak for this DM, but it's certainly something I might do. It creates immediate tension and given the little we know about the scenario provides a plausible reason why the demon might need them to fetch this thing it can't fetch itself.
demon as an antagonist? Hell yeah
demon as an employer? Heavens no
Possible fix that was suggested by someone else earlier: Have the demon take a hostage or something and demand the party's help, so that there is a noble reason for them to assist their enemy besides saving their own skin.
I know that the teachings of D&D pantheons may be a bit open ended, but I feel like if these characters are serving any god of good alignment, then aiding a demon/devil is likely gonna be a big no-no. If they serve any god of netural or evil alignment, then things are much more open to interpretation of the teachings. But thats just my 2 cents.
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.
In my experience players know the tenets of their faith better than the DM, if the DM has no special plans with that faith or religion in general in their campaign. This is of course not always the case.
When I play a Cleric/Paladin/Druid I will read as much as I can find about that faith and its tenets. When I'm the DM I will read the cliff notes so to speak. I will look deeper into it when say a Paladin starts to kill non combatants or a Druid starts a logging company.
So I would say that there is a higher probability that a good player knows their deity and its tenets better than a DM who is not planning to incorporate the faith in the campaign. That said it doesn't mean that a player can start inventing contradictory stuff because they feel like it.
Effectively what you're suggesting is that the player can assume that the teachings are one way, because the DM hasn't contradicted it yet. Which is just a circuitous way to get to the real answer: the DM is in control of what the gods and churches teach. The player is in control of what their character believes, but in most cases it's going to match up with at least one of those two.
So, back to the point: if a player is ever in a situation where it's important to know what their religion has to say -- like, for example, if it will compel them to charge to their death -- they would be wise to ask the DM.
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
"Employer" was probably poor word choice, but the point I was trying to get across is that making a deal with a demon for any reason is pretty fundamentally a religious no-no (unless you are in a religion dedicated to serving demons, but that doesnt sound like the case for these characters).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
"Employer" was probably poor word choice, but the point I was trying to get across is that making a deal with a demon for any reason is pretty fundamentally a religious no-no (unless you are in a religion dedicated to serving demons, but that doesnt sound like the case for these characters).
"Do this thing or die" isn't much of a deal, especially since it's not "you're dying, but I can save you if you do this thing" but "do this thing or I kill you". It's a threat, plain and simple. They're being bullied, not enticed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
"Employer" was probably poor word choice, but the point I was trying to get across is that making a deal with a demon for any reason is pretty fundamentally a religious no-no (unless you are in a religion dedicated to serving demons, but that doesnt sound like the case for these characters).
The players know their characters wouldn't make a deal with a demon. The paladins and clerics know that they wouldn't make a deal with a demon. The demon knows that the paladin and clerics wouldn't make a deal with it. The only person that hasn't cottoned on is the DM.
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
If one of the paladins was following Oath of the Crown, they may well have that kind of employer-employee relationship, depending on the liege to whom they are sworn.
Only if the thing to do in order not to die was taking that oath in the first place, which would pretty much invalidate it anyway - barring some seriously messed up bit of world building.
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
"Employer" was probably poor word choice, but the point I was trying to get across is that making a deal with a demon for any reason is pretty fundamentally a religious no-no (unless you are in a religion dedicated to serving demons, but that doesnt sound like the case for these characters).
The players know their characters wouldn't make a deal with a demon. The paladins and clerics know that they wouldn't make a deal with a demon. The demon knows that the paladin and clerics wouldn't make a deal with it. The only person that hasn't cottoned on is the DM.
Again, nobody said anything about a deal when describing the session. "I kill you if you don't do this" is not a deal. And barring any knowledge of how the demon would try to ensure it wouldn't be doublecrossed, we have no Earthly idea of whether the PCs could avoid gining it what it wanted or how.
Effectively what you're suggesting is that the player can assume that the teachings are one way, because the DM hasn't contradicted it yet. Which is just a circuitous way to get to the real answer: the DM is in control of what the gods and churches teach. The player is in control of what their character believes, but in most cases it's going to match up with at least one of those two.
So, back to the point: if a player is ever in a situation where it's important to know what their religion has to say -- like, for example, if it will compel them to charge to their death -- they would be wise to ask the DM.
The problem with that approach is that it is all stuff that should be worked out in advance. This is not a question of what types of bread are available at the local bakery, but rather the philosophy these characters believe in and have dedicated their lives to and if that philosophy is not one that any of those players want to play, isn't the DM telling them not merely what they consider fact but what ideals they have, well after character creation and in play?
If they want to play the shining white knights of heroic fantasy and the DM wants to run a campaign only suitable for deeply troubled dark grey noir style characters, the whole thing is likely to fall apart no matter how good the intentions from either side.
You're right. And yet, here we are. So clearly *someone* messed up, and OP isn't responding anymore because they got what they wanted many pages ago. We're all just out here debating for sport.
I'm only bothering to respond at this point because you reminded me that everyone's treating this like it's definitely obviously the start of an entire working-for-a-demon campaign, rather than just one quest, or even a random encounter. Like, we have no idea. The party was already working a different quest when this started, so I am inclined to think that no, this isn't the inciting incident, this is just a thing that's happening. It doesn't mark the beginning of a life of servitude to a demon. Does the goblin attack in Lost Mine of Phandelver indicate that the rest of the adventure will just be trying to drive your wagon and getting accosted by bandit monsters over and over??
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?
You are in the right - you roleplayed your character exactly as you should have. Your DM was trying to railroad you and then complained when it didn't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is the deity's stance actually relevant, like at all?
What is relevant is the characters interpretations and understanding of their deity's desires. That could be the complete opposite of what the deity wants - short of a divine apparition to instruct them, it's down to what the character believes, not what the deity wants or even necessarily what the religion teaches.
Who gets to decide what the character believes?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They are being disruptive. Play the session and take it up with the DM afterwards, as I said about a hundred posts ago. There’s not much point engaging with a person who discards every previous statement on the subject at hand. Good day to you, sir.
I've not read every response, but the original post looks like it was indeed that the DM was too inflexible on how the game was going to go (they gave the players no agency - the players will strike a deal with this devil!). A party of holy warriors would probably act as they did.
The DM could have played the demon differently - having them shapeshift into a more trustworthy figure would be one option, so the players trust them unti lthey get detect good & evil, at which point they will see through the ruse. It sounds like the DM has fallen for one of the two classic blunders! The first being never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly lesser known is this: Never plan what your players will do!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Just because you posted it does not mean we all agree with you. Coming across as a little high-handed there, sir.
In my experience players know the tenets of their faith better than the DM, if the DM has no special plans with that faith or religion in general in their campaign. This is of course not always the case.
When I play a Cleric/Paladin/Druid I will read as much as I can find about that faith and its tenets. When I'm the DM I will read the cliff notes so to speak. I will look deeper into it when say a Paladin starts to kill non combatants or a Druid starts a logging company.
So I would say that there is a higher probability that a good player knows their deity and its tenets better than a DM who is not planning to incorporate the faith in the campaign. That said it doesn't mean that a player can start inventing contradictory stuff because they feel like it.
As an atheist I'd allow something approaching this. Friar Tuck and the Bishop of Hereford could have as different outlooks on the same god as an inquisition pope and Cliff Richard.
Smart isn't necessarily an issue. Smart mostly comes into play because "not smart" is unexpected, not because it's not smart. The "shock" to the DM didn't come from the decisions the players made. It was, best I can tell, frustration and annoyance that those decisions appear to have been made without paying any heed to what's good for the game. I'm not saying that consideration should overrule all else either, it shouldn't, but it should matter some at least.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I agree with Pangurjan; Whilst your character may reject the demon out of principle, if you as a player can tell that the DM is riding everything on you doing a quest for the demon, then it's worth coming up with any convoluted reason you can make for your character to follow the plothook. Maybe they are trying to infiltrate the demons lair, or buy themselves time, wait for the demon to reveal its plans to them so they can scupper them, or just that they (being a level 1 paladin) mistake the demon for a troll in need, because they've never seen a demon before.
100% agree that a paladin and a cleric would not just do what a demon tells them because the demon said to, but they can come up with any number of other reasons that keeps the game flowing - buying time, waiting to tell their church of the demonic presence, simply knowing their limits, and so on.
So no, you weren't bad per se, but you could have done it differently. Same with the DM!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Good for the game? When a DM pulls something like that they are not thinking about the good of the game. The DM didn't even look at what their players were playing! This is video game mentality!
You're not who I was asking, but sure -- it's the player who chooses. So the player was in no way obligated to have their character pursue this course of action. Just change what your god teaches. It probably hasn't come up before, so you're not gonna have to retcon it. I've already demonstrated a couple of options that aren't really that radical. It's not like you have to change your character into a worshipper of Lolth or something.
Really? Looking at three characters with a strong religious foundation and deciding it might be cool to have a demon as antagonist seems weird to you? I can't speak for this DM, but it's certainly something I might do. It creates immediate tension and given the little we know about the scenario provides a plausible reason why the demon might need them to fetch this thing it can't fetch itself.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
demon as an antagonist? Hell yeah
demon as an employer? Heavens no
Possible fix that was suggested by someone else earlier: Have the demon take a hostage or something and demand the party's help, so that there is a noble reason for them to assist their enemy besides saving their own skin.
I know that the teachings of D&D pantheons may be a bit open ended, but I feel like if these characters are serving any god of good alignment, then aiding a demon/devil is likely gonna be a big no-no. If they serve any god of netural or evil alignment, then things are much more open to interpretation of the teachings. But thats just my 2 cents.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Effectively what you're suggesting is that the player can assume that the teachings are one way, because the DM hasn't contradicted it yet. Which is just a circuitous way to get to the real answer: the DM is in control of what the gods and churches teach. The player is in control of what their character believes, but in most cases it's going to match up with at least one of those two.
So, back to the point: if a player is ever in a situation where it's important to know what their religion has to say -- like, for example, if it will compel them to charge to their death -- they would be wise to ask the DM.
"Do this thing or die" doesn't match any employer-employee relationship I've ever heard of, but coercion seems like it would be in the antagonist handbook. I'd love to know how the demon was going to force the party to comply though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Employer" was probably poor word choice, but the point I was trying to get across is that making a deal with a demon for any reason is pretty fundamentally a religious no-no (unless you are in a religion dedicated to serving demons, but that doesnt sound like the case for these characters).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
"Do this thing or die" isn't much of a deal, especially since it's not "you're dying, but I can save you if you do this thing" but "do this thing or I kill you". It's a threat, plain and simple. They're being bullied, not enticed.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The players know their characters wouldn't make a deal with a demon.
The paladins and clerics know that they wouldn't make a deal with a demon.
The demon knows that the paladin and clerics wouldn't make a deal with it.
The only person that hasn't cottoned on is the DM.
Only if the thing to do in order not to die was taking that oath in the first place, which would pretty much invalidate it anyway - barring some seriously messed up bit of world building.
Again, nobody said anything about a deal when describing the session. "I kill you if you don't do this" is not a deal. And barring any knowledge of how the demon would try to ensure it wouldn't be doublecrossed, we have no Earthly idea of whether the PCs could avoid gining it what it wanted or how.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're right. And yet, here we are. So clearly *someone* messed up, and OP isn't responding anymore because they got what they wanted many pages ago. We're all just out here debating for sport.
I'm only bothering to respond at this point because you reminded me that everyone's treating this like it's definitely obviously the start of an entire working-for-a-demon campaign, rather than just one quest, or even a random encounter. Like, we have no idea. The party was already working a different quest when this started, so I am inclined to think that no, this isn't the inciting incident, this is just a thing that's happening. It doesn't mark the beginning of a life of servitude to a demon. Does the goblin attack in Lost Mine of Phandelver indicate that the rest of the adventure will just be trying to drive your wagon and getting accosted by bandit monsters over and over??
You are in the right - you roleplayed your character exactly as you should have. Your DM was trying to railroad you and then complained when it didn't work.