Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
So if the intent is to thwart the demon, to foil its plans and make them impossible to achieve, that doesn't matter?
Do the ends justify the means? Will the players be justified in doing whatever is necessary to retrieve the item in the first place?
What happens if their plan fails and after they retrieve the item it falls into the demon's hands all the same? All of their good intentions go down the drain, and they have still played a hand in it retrieving its desired object (whether they wanted to or not). How may lives/souls are put at risk (from a cosmic standpoint) if these mortals bet on their plan and lose?
The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it. The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
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?
The DM was being a git in the first place, there was nothing right that you could do.
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
So if the intent is to thwart the demon, to foil its plans and make them impossible to achieve, that doesn't matter?
Do the ends justify the means? Will the players be justified in doing whatever is necessary to retrieve the item in the first place?
What happens if their plan fails and after they retrieve the item it falls into the demon's hands all the same? All of their good intentions go down the drain, and they have still played a hand in it retrieving its desired object (whether they wanted to or not). How may lives/souls are put at risk (from a cosmic standpoint) if these mortals bet on their plan and lose?
The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it. The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
I'm not a mod but this debate feels a bit off topic.
Me personally? I agree with most of the responces on the first page or two. It was probably mostly the DM's fault but still could have been avoided while still role-playing the character (whether or not it is theologically correct to pretend to help the demon then back stab, you could still have your character do it. Maybe it's a moment of weakness that they will try to atone for in the rest of the campaign, or the DM could kinda just "ignore it" as it's just a game anyway so a bit of suspension of disbelief could work.), and just in general more communication beforehand would have been better. I also think this was a bit of a railroad.
1) The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it.
2) The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
1) They don't know the demon needs them specifically, and it seems a big leap to make that assumption. The demon can't get it himself, yes, but that doesn't mean there's nobody other than them that can get the thing - in fact, it would be an amazing coincidence that the only three people in the world that can do what the demon needs done just happen to be in the neighbourhood right when the demon's there to enact the plan he desperately needs them for.
2) Yes, but again: going along doesn't mean seeing it through to completion and to the demon's satisfaction.
What happens if their plan fails and after they retrieve the item it falls into the demon's hands all the same?
Why is everyone assuming the PCs will absolutely retrieve the item? And what happens if the demon finds three more pliable mortals to do its bidding?
If the demon could pick any three mortals to do this job for it, then there is no reason for it to rely on clerics and paladins that would directly oppose it UNLESS it wants to use the opportunity to try and turn them away from their faith/oath. So, if the demon is picking them there is either a direct reason it needs them specifically or it wants to test them. Either way, going along with it is a bad idea.
1) The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it.
2) The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
1) They don't know the demon needs them specifically, and it seems a big leap to make that assumption. The demon can't get it himself, yes, but that doesn't mean there's nobody other than them that can get the thing - in fact, it would be an amazing coincidence that the only three people in the world that can do what the demon needs done just happen to be in the neighbourhood right when the demon's there to enact the plan he desperately needs them for.
Same response as above.
2) Yes, but again: going along doesn't mean seeing it through to completion and to the demon's satisfaction.
Best case scenario, you fib to the demon about helping it and the power you serve is okay with you pretending to turn your back on your oath. You just say "Yes we will do this" and then walk away with the demon just takes your word for it. Its a possibility for sure, but one I consider to be unlikely. The demon will likely either see through a ruse or the choices you make to convince the demon you are on its side will go against your oath in some way.
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!
Can we please stop arguing about what a "deal" is? It is far from relevant. The arguments surrounding the justifications of the character's actions can be had just as easily if we consider the interaction to be a "threat" instead of a deal.
Well, apparently the claim is that going along with a demon in any way corrupts one's immortal soul - possibly always, possibly only by the higher standards of paladins or clergy - regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent, with the argument for that claim being that doing so constitutes accepting a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent and accepting a deal from a demon is a no-no. The "regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent" part means that it doesn't matter if we consider the interaction to be a threat or not, so I'm not sure how I can argue against that claim without arguing against whether something is a deal regardless of circumstances, regardless of motivation and regardless of intent.
The intent doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if the demon threatened their lives. Choosing to save your own skin by aiding an unholy power is grounds for straying away from a holy path. They dont have to sign a contract saying they will help the demon for it to be a sinful act. Allowing yourself to promote evil deeds would more than likely be considered a sinful act.
The only situation which could throw a wrench into it is if there is a third party involved (like if the demon threatened to drown a bag of puppies or school children if you dont comply). At that point we have a weird theological trolly problem on our hands. But thats not what happened so it hardly matters.
So, to summarize
Doing a demon's bidding for the sole purpose of saving your mortal life: A no-no {doesnt matter if it threatened you or offered you a fair trade}
Allowing the demon to behead you or whatever because you will not serve it: A righteous sacrifice (character becomes a martyr)
Fighting the demon to not only refuse to serve it but also have a chance at removing it from power: A heroic, righteous act.
So if the intent is to thwart the demon, to foil its plans and make them impossible to achieve, that doesn't matter?
Do the ends justify the means? Will the players be justified in doing whatever is necessary to retrieve the item in the first place?
What happens if their plan fails and after they retrieve the item it falls into the demon's hands all the same? All of their good intentions go down the drain, and they have still played a hand in it retrieving its desired object (whether they wanted to or not). How may lives/souls are put at risk (from a cosmic standpoint) if these mortals bet on their plan and lose?
The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it. The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
I'm not a mod but this debate feels a bit off topic.
Me personally? I agree with most of the responces on the first page or two. It was probably mostly the DM's fault but still could have been avoided while still role-playing the character (whether or not it is theologically correct to pretend to help the demon then back stab, you could still have your character do it. Maybe it's a moment of weakness that they will try to atone for in the rest of the campaign, or the DM could kinda just "ignore it" as it's just a game anyway so a bit of suspension of disbelief could work.), and just in general more communication beforehand would have been better. I also think this was a bit of a railroad.
You are correct. It is off topic. I think I have made my point about as well as I can so I will stop arguing about it at this point
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!
1) The demon could well need someone of holy calling to unseal wherever the item is stored. The party could be opening Pandora's Box for a round 2, for all they know and this time not even managing to retain Hope.
2) They may not be the only ones in the world capable of opening it, but might be the only ones who can who are also weak enough to be easily bullied. Plus they are there, unlike everyone else in the world. If the demon can literally go anywhere and is powerful to coerce anyone and everyone, regardless of where they are, then why would the demon be sitting with a bunch of low grade cultists? A demon of that power level would be already ruling the world.
1) Yes, they could. Doesn't mean they would. Certainly doesn't mean they would right there and then if they didn't heroically martyr themselves. Chances of things getting worse just because they restrained themselves for five minutes to see what's what would have been small.
2) If the demon was lucky enough to get them, it might get lucky enough to get someone else. Or it might find another way. I'm not saying the demon "can literally go anywhere and is powerful to coerce anyone and everyone, regardless of where they are". I'm saying getting killed effectively removes any chance of doing anything else.
The point is, you can keep telling me about all the horrible things that might have happened had they kept breathing a minute longer but everything they could have done carries risks. Everything, including the thing they did do. The DM made it right, big whoop. All that tells me is some shenanigans happened to save the campaign. How the DM set up the whole thing may or may not have been boneheaded, but from where I'm standing the chances of the DM just making up some "need them alive" excuse in order not to have to tell everyone it was a good game and he'll be expecting new character submissions a week from now seem pretty good. Dollars to donuts what saved the PCs was plot armor, and that's nothing to feel good about. Anything they could have done could be justified in some way, but the flip side of that is that everything they didn't do could have been justified all the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
...I'm honestly kind of astonished this thread is still going so furiously.
Like...okay. The DM railroaded the party with some hackneyed 'deal with the devil' plot to try and kick off the campaign and hamfisted the players into it with overwhelming force. The players punched the Lawful Stupid switch, jumped the tracks and derailed the campaign train. Frankly, sounds like inexperience on both sides. Not anybody's fault so much as just a snarl of ideals and nobody quite knowing how to unsnarl it until they sat down and talked it out. Yeah, the thread title is one of those "if you have to ask then yes, you're in the wrong" things, but everything else about the original story just kinda shouted 'First Time D&D' to me.
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?
I haven’t read through the past 9 pages, but I’m willing to bet the DM has never considered the fact that for that party, that scenario is tantamount to capture and PCs don’t do capture well and frequently choose a battle to the death instead.
The DM could have simply let you wail on the monster for a round (or maybe two) and laughed it all off with a single spell or something to demonstrate it’s power and then proceeded with the story. Or the DM could have chosen a different monster than a Fiend. Or if the fiend was a purposeful choice, they could have hinted at certain other things (like innocents) that could have given your PCs a reason to surrender/go along. Or….
The DMs pro’ly just upset because they didn’t know what to do in that situation because they never made that mistake before. (That’s how people usu learn this stuff.) So you didn’t do anything wrong, and neither really did they. The “wrongest” thing was accusing you of sabotaging their story simply because they couldn’t think of a way to handle the situation immediately, but that was born of frustration and upset more than malice. (Human nature type stuff. 🤷♂️)
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?
The DM was being a git in the first place, there was nothing right that you could do.
Agreed! A goristro against three lvl 1 characters? That’s crazy!!!
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?
The DM was being a git in the first place, there was nothing right that you could do.
Agreed! A goristro against three lvl 1 characters? That’s crazy!!!
If you mean "crazy three lvl 1 characters decided to take on a goristro", sure. Not every encounter has to be winnable through force though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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?
I haven’t read through the past 9 pages, but I’m willing to bet the DM has never considered the fact that for that party, that scenario is tantamount to capture and PCs don’t do capture well and frequently choose a battle to the death instead.
The DM could have simply let you wail on the monster for a round (or maybe two) and laughed it all off with a single spell or something to demonstrate it’s power and then proceeded with the story. Or the DM could have chosen a different monster than a Fiend. Or if the fiend was a purposeful choice, they could have hinted at certain other things (like innocents) that could have given your PCs a reason to surrender/go along. Or….
The DMs pro’ly just upset because they didn’t know what to do in that situation because they never made that mistake before. (That’s how people usu learn this stuff.) So you didn’t do anything wrong, and neither really did they. The “wrongest” thing was accusing you of sabotaging their story simply because they couldn’t think of a way to handle the situation immediately, but that was born of frustration and upset more than malice. (Human nature type stuff. 🤷♂️)
We have said this time and time again but it seems that's not enough for @pangurjan.
All that said, whether it was fun for the players as players or not is the real bottom line and if the players have to metagame too much to progress the plot, it likely is not the campaign for them, at least not without the DM acknowledging that they bear the higher burden here.
I'm going to disagree with this. Way I see it, the DM created a campaign and it wasn't received well. That happens. The players' reactions gave the DM the impression they didn't care too much about the work he'd done on the campaign and he felt unappreciated. That happens too.
The bottom line isn't whether it was fun for the players. The bottom line is someone tried. It's unfortunate that it didn't work out as well as hoped, but like I said: it happens. I've had a campaign where I played up the exploration side of things because I thought the ranger player would like it, only to find out he just wanted to play a some amalgam of Drizzt, Aragorn and Lan Mandragoran, didn't really care about the exploration side other than stealth, and everybody tuned out whenever I'd get into it. I've had a group where the players really wanted to have a political intrigue campaign, but because I'd made the "our empire vs the evil empire" theme a whole lot of grey rather than easy black and white they told me they didn't have fun after we were four or five months in and I thought I'd been giving them exactly what they wanted. It happens.
AS for the DM bearing the higher burden, I think that's uncalled for. Another group might gleefully jump on the chance for their clerics and paladins to go up against the machinations of a powerful demon. He tried, it didn't work out. I don't think it's too much to hope for for the players not to blow up the campaign over that. If you're not having fun, you can just say so too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I do, however, stand on the greater burden being on the DM. They have full creative control. They have infinite power, representing not only every aspect of existence other than the PC"s themselves, but also bearing the ability to alter that reality at will. They are not bound by their own script. The players are far more limited in their options. If the players are to be limited further to actions that fit the DM's script with the DM having written a narrow script allowing only the specific solutions the DM chooses, then the DM should arguably just write books and entertain people by publishing said books for others to read. Or write computer games, where railroading is expected simply by virtue of everything having to be pre-programmed.
This is the difference between a DM and an Author or Programmer. A DM has to take into account live players. All three are entertainers, but with different expectations of them. And even for Author's or Programmers, any given reader or player is not obligated to read or play, or to keep reading or playing if they decide they do not like the writing. And there is none of these "Ruining they author's plot" talk if they do walk away.
That's your view, and it's not wrong necessarily. I just take a different one. I don't really care that the DM controls more. I think that the burden to do what's in your power to make a good game is equal, regardless of any discrepancy in what's in your power. You do your part, that's your burden.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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?
The DM was being a git in the first place, there was nothing right that you could do.
Agreed! A goristro against three lvl 1 characters? That’s crazy!!!
That’s pro'ly what the DM thought, which is pro’ly why they never in a million years figured the party would attack it. That was pro’ly a conscious decision on their part to specifically forestall actions precisely like the ones the PCs took. Like I said, they never figured the PCs would attack “because that would be crazy.” As Yurei stated, the whole thing screams “new DM,” and the only fix for that is making mistakes like this.
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?
I haven’t read through the past 9 pages, but I’m willing to bet the DM has never considered the fact that for that party, that scenario is tantamount to capture and PCs don’t do capture well and frequently choose a battle to the death instead.
The DM could have simply let you wail on the monster for a round (or maybe two) and laughed it all off with a single spell or something to demonstrate it’s power and then proceeded with the story. Or the DM could have chosen a different monster than a Fiend. Or if the fiend was a purposeful choice, they could have hinted at certain other things (like innocents) that could have given your PCs a reason to surrender/go along. Or….
The DMs pro’ly just upset because they didn’t know what to do in that situation because they never made that mistake before. (That’s how people usu learn this stuff.) So you didn’t do anything wrong, and neither really did they. The “wrongest” thing was accusing you of sabotaging their story simply because they couldn’t think of a way to handle the situation immediately, but that was born of frustration and upset more than malice. (Human nature type stuff. 🤷♂️)
We have said this time and time again but it seems that's not enough for @pangurjan.
I'd be willing to bet five bucks Pangurjan was not at this table, no.
I think it really was as simple as a new DM not understanding how big a deal capture/coercion is for players. Capturing/coercing a player's character in the game triggers many of the same responses in their brain as if you're capturing/coercing the player themself, and it takes a certain degree of both game experience and player buy-in for 'Capture' scenes to work. You either have to lay out explicitly, ahead of time, "you guys are going to start off as captured, but it won't stick, you'll have plenty of chances to escape", or you have to have a greater than average amount of player-DM trust. The players have to know the DM's not out to screwjob them for his own jollies and is gonna do his best to run a fair game of D&D. The PCs may not think it's fair, and the deck may well be stacked hard against them, but defeating the scenario is still possible if the players are canny and play well.
If that trust doesn't exist, then Custer's Last Stand is basically the only option PCs are gonna take when a DM tries to force-feed them a Captured Party scenario like this. The "Well, at least I'll get one cool fight/story out of this, and I'll show this jerkwad he can't yank me around like this" reaction a player arrives at when they believe - wrongly or otherwise - that their agency has already been stripped from them and there's no point in anything they do otherwise. And that's if they bother to continue playing at all, rather than just picking their stuff up and walking away.
I'd be willing to bet five bucks Pangurjan was not at this table, no.
I had assumed they weren’t, was just making sure.
Can confirm, or I wouldn't have repeated so often that there is very little we actually know about how it went down, what was said, and especially what was done to salvage the game. Lest we forget, we do know it was salvaged - brownie points for everyone involved on that front, at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Welcome to the gritty realism of adventuring raising its head 😳. If you stop to think about adventuring happening in a “real” world (even if fictional) then many times beginning adventurers are going to face off with things they can’t handle and die as happened here. I agree with Yurei and Sposta that this was a combination of beginning DM and Begining players but as far as I can tell in this case playing “lawful stupid” was not an unreasonable piece of role play. I’ve been in that position at a lot higher level than first and only the dice gods saved me and the party from a TPK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do the ends justify the means? Will the players be justified in doing whatever is necessary to retrieve the item in the first place?
What happens if their plan fails and after they retrieve the item it falls into the demon's hands all the same? All of their good intentions go down the drain, and they have still played a hand in it retrieving its desired object (whether they wanted to or not). How may lives/souls are put at risk (from a cosmic standpoint) if these mortals bet on their plan and lose?
The only thing the party knows now is that the demon wants this item and for some reason wants/needs them in order to get it. The best way to deny it what it wants is to not serve in the first place.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The DM was being a git in the first place, there was nothing right that you could do.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I'm not a mod but this debate feels a bit off topic.
Me personally? I agree with most of the responces on the first page or two. It was probably mostly the DM's fault but still could have been avoided while still role-playing the character (whether or not it is theologically correct to pretend to help the demon then back stab, you could still have your character do it. Maybe it's a moment of weakness that they will try to atone for in the rest of the campaign, or the DM could kinda just "ignore it" as it's just a game anyway so a bit of suspension of disbelief could work.), and just in general more communication beforehand would have been better. I also think this was a bit of a railroad.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Why is everyone assuming the PCs will absolutely retrieve the item? And what happens if the demon finds three more pliable mortals to do its bidding?
1) They don't know the demon needs them specifically, and it seems a big leap to make that assumption. The demon can't get it himself, yes, but that doesn't mean there's nobody other than them that can get the thing - in fact, it would be an amazing coincidence that the only three people in the world that can do what the demon needs done just happen to be in the neighbourhood right when the demon's there to enact the plan he desperately needs them for.
2) Yes, but again: going along doesn't mean seeing it through to completion and to the demon's satisfaction.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If the demon could pick any three mortals to do this job for it, then there is no reason for it to rely on clerics and paladins that would directly oppose it UNLESS it wants to use the opportunity to try and turn them away from their faith/oath. So, if the demon is picking them there is either a direct reason it needs them specifically or it wants to test them. Either way, going along with it is a bad idea.
Same response as above.
Best case scenario, you fib to the demon about helping it and the power you serve is okay with you pretending to turn your back on your oath. You just say "Yes we will do this" and then walk away with the demon just takes your word for it. Its a possibility for sure, but one I consider to be unlikely. The demon will likely either see through a ruse or the choices you make to convince the demon you are on its side will go against your oath in some way.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You are correct. It is off topic. I think I have made my point about as well as I can so I will stop arguing about it at this point
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
1) Yes, they could. Doesn't mean they would. Certainly doesn't mean they would right there and then if they didn't heroically martyr themselves. Chances of things getting worse just because they restrained themselves for five minutes to see what's what would have been small.
2) If the demon was lucky enough to get them, it might get lucky enough to get someone else. Or it might find another way. I'm not saying the demon "can literally go anywhere and is powerful to coerce anyone and everyone, regardless of where they are". I'm saying getting killed effectively removes any chance of doing anything else.
The point is, you can keep telling me about all the horrible things that might have happened had they kept breathing a minute longer but everything they could have done carries risks. Everything, including the thing they did do. The DM made it right, big whoop. All that tells me is some shenanigans happened to save the campaign. How the DM set up the whole thing may or may not have been boneheaded, but from where I'm standing the chances of the DM just making up some "need them alive" excuse in order not to have to tell everyone it was a good game and he'll be expecting new character submissions a week from now seem pretty good. Dollars to donuts what saved the PCs was plot armor, and that's nothing to feel good about. Anything they could have done could be justified in some way, but the flip side of that is that everything they didn't do could have been justified all the same.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
...I'm honestly kind of astonished this thread is still going so furiously.
Like...okay. The DM railroaded the party with some hackneyed 'deal with the devil' plot to try and kick off the campaign and hamfisted the players into it with overwhelming force. The players punched the Lawful Stupid switch, jumped the tracks and derailed the campaign train. Frankly, sounds like inexperience on both sides. Not anybody's fault so much as just a snarl of ideals and nobody quite knowing how to unsnarl it until they sat down and talked it out. Yeah, the thread title is one of those "if you have to ask then yes, you're in the wrong" things, but everything else about the original story just kinda shouted 'First Time D&D' to me.
Is that not the case?
Please do not contact or message me.
I haven’t read through the past 9 pages, but I’m willing to bet the DM has never considered the fact that for that party, that scenario is tantamount to capture and PCs don’t do capture well and frequently choose a battle to the death instead.
The DM could have simply let you wail on the monster for a round (or maybe two) and laughed it all off with a single spell or something to demonstrate it’s power and then proceeded with the story. Or the DM could have chosen a different monster than a Fiend. Or if the fiend was a purposeful choice, they could have hinted at certain other things (like innocents) that could have given your PCs a reason to surrender/go along. Or….
The DMs pro’ly just upset because they didn’t know what to do in that situation because they never made that mistake before. (That’s how people usu learn this stuff.) So you didn’t do anything wrong, and neither really did they. The “wrongest” thing was accusing you of sabotaging their story simply because they couldn’t think of a way to handle the situation immediately, but that was born of frustration and upset more than malice. (Human nature type stuff. 🤷♂️)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed! A goristro against three lvl 1 characters? That’s crazy!!!
If you mean "crazy three lvl 1 characters decided to take on a goristro", sure. Not every encounter has to be winnable through force though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
We have said this time and time again but it seems that's not enough for @pangurjan.
I'm going to disagree with this. Way I see it, the DM created a campaign and it wasn't received well. That happens. The players' reactions gave the DM the impression they didn't care too much about the work he'd done on the campaign and he felt unappreciated. That happens too.
The bottom line isn't whether it was fun for the players. The bottom line is someone tried. It's unfortunate that it didn't work out as well as hoped, but like I said: it happens. I've had a campaign where I played up the exploration side of things because I thought the ranger player would like it, only to find out he just wanted to play a some amalgam of Drizzt, Aragorn and Lan Mandragoran, didn't really care about the exploration side other than stealth, and everybody tuned out whenever I'd get into it. I've had a group where the players really wanted to have a political intrigue campaign, but because I'd made the "our empire vs the evil empire" theme a whole lot of grey rather than easy black and white they told me they didn't have fun after we were four or five months in and I thought I'd been giving them exactly what they wanted. It happens.
AS for the DM bearing the higher burden, I think that's uncalled for. Another group might gleefully jump on the chance for their clerics and paladins to go up against the machinations of a powerful demon. He tried, it didn't work out. I don't think it's too much to hope for for the players not to blow up the campaign over that. If you're not having fun, you can just say so too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's your view, and it's not wrong necessarily. I just take a different one. I don't really care that the DM controls more. I think that the burden to do what's in your power to make a good game is equal, regardless of any discrepancy in what's in your power. You do your part, that's your burden.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That’s pro'ly what the DM thought, which is pro’ly why they never in a million years figured the party would attack it. That was pro’ly a conscious decision on their part to specifically forestall actions precisely like the ones the PCs took. Like I said, they never figured the PCs would attack “because that would be crazy.” As Yurei stated, the whole thing screams “new DM,” and the only fix for that is making mistakes like this.
Was Pang the DM?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd be willing to bet five bucks Pangurjan was not at this table, no.
I think it really was as simple as a new DM not understanding how big a deal capture/coercion is for players. Capturing/coercing a player's character in the game triggers many of the same responses in their brain as if you're capturing/coercing the player themself, and it takes a certain degree of both game experience and player buy-in for 'Capture' scenes to work. You either have to lay out explicitly, ahead of time, "you guys are going to start off as captured, but it won't stick, you'll have plenty of chances to escape", or you have to have a greater than average amount of player-DM trust. The players have to know the DM's not out to screwjob them for his own jollies and is gonna do his best to run a fair game of D&D. The PCs may not think it's fair, and the deck may well be stacked hard against them, but defeating the scenario is still possible if the players are canny and play well.
If that trust doesn't exist, then Custer's Last Stand is basically the only option PCs are gonna take when a DM tries to force-feed them a Captured Party scenario like this. The "Well, at least I'll get one cool fight/story out of this, and I'll show this jerkwad he can't yank me around like this" reaction a player arrives at when they believe - wrongly or otherwise - that their agency has already been stripped from them and there's no point in anything they do otherwise. And that's if they bother to continue playing at all, rather than just picking their stuff up and walking away.
Please do not contact or message me.
I had assumed they weren’t, was just making sure.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can confirm, or I wouldn't have repeated so often that there is very little we actually know about how it went down, what was said, and especially what was done to salvage the game. Lest we forget, we do know it was salvaged - brownie points for everyone involved on that front, at least.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Like I said, I skipped the first 9 pages. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Welcome to the gritty realism of adventuring raising its head 😳. If you stop to think about adventuring happening in a “real” world (even if fictional) then many times beginning adventurers are going to face off with things they can’t handle and die as happened here. I agree with Yurei and Sposta that this was a combination of beginning DM and Begining players but as far as I can tell in this case playing “lawful stupid” was not an unreasonable piece of role play. I’ve been in that position at a lot higher level than first and only the dice gods saved me and the party from a TPK.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.