The DM is at least responsible for pushing the whole campaign heavily down the Asmodeus route and the other players seemingly embrace the evil stuff without any second thought for their characters.
I myself would also be totally unhappy with that development in a campaign.
Some blame falls on the DM if session zero made it out to be a good/neutral campaign, but then changed. But it’s not entirely their fault. It’s ok to introduce a moral dilemma to the group (should they work with an evil entity but for the greater good) but it can get dicey when all of a sudden another player wants to go down that rabbit hole full speed, like it seems like the case here.
That's the nature of the beast, though. Whenever you (as DM) introduce a choice, there is a risk that the party will split on the decision or have varying levels of enthusiasm. It's the job of the DM to ensure that the choices don't do that to the party, or rather, that the choices presented don't lead to situations where players are unhappy with the group decision (in a major way).
So, for example: if one of my players is uncomfortable with sexual violence, I won't ever intentionally present that as an option. Obviously, players have their own agency and the DM has no responsibility for that, but you can control the apparent choices.
By the sounds of it, this devil worship plotline was agreed to and pursued by the DM. It's absolutely fine (and good, even) to present moral dilemmas to the group, but it's also the DM's responsibility to ensure that the members of the group will be fine with whatever decision the group makes. If someone is uncomfortable with devil worship, present a different moral dilemma instead. The DM always has agency, and therefore responsibility.
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.
Some blame falls on the DM if session zero made it out to be a good/neutral campaign, but then changed. But it’s not entirely their fault. It’s ok to introduce a moral dilemma to the group (should they work with an evil entity but for the greater good) but it can get dicey when all of a sudden another player wants to go down that rabbit hole full speed, like it seems like the case here.
That's the nature of the beast, though. Whenever you (as DM) introduce a choice, there is a risk that the party will split on the decision or have varying levels of enthusiasm. It's the job of the DM to ensure that the choices don't do that to the party, or rather, that the choices presented don't lead to situations where players are unhappy with the group decision (in a major way).
So, for example: if one of my players is uncomfortable with sexual violence, I won't ever intentionally present that as an option. Obviously, players have their own agency and the DM has no responsibility for that, but you can control the apparent choices.
By the sounds of it, this devil worship plotline was agreed to and pursued by the DM. It's absolutely fine (and good, even) to present moral dilemmas to the group, but it's also the DM's responsibility to ensure that the members of the group will be fine with whatever decision the group makes. If someone is uncomfortable with devil worship, present a different moral dilemma instead. The DM always has agency, and therefore responsibility.
I agree. And it could also be that the player did not voice any concern about devil worship as an issue for them. It's hard to cover all possible eventualities in a session zero. If the DM had no idea this could be an issue, then it's hard to put full blame on them. If it was brought to the DM's attention that this was an issue, and they did nothing about it, then that's on the DM. If the player who is having the issue doesn't say anything and just clams up then some of the blame is on them. Communication is key when a player is not having fun or has issues with the game.
I think this is an important point: (in red)
In our DM's game, Cleric had accepted a bargain from Asmodeus to become one of his followers and do his bidding in exchange for occasional rewards early in the story, only known by a few party members at first and slowly becomes an open secret within the party. The game was not painted to be an evil-themed campaign in session zero, but because of how receptive Cleric is, the DM will often feed off of the energy she brings and provide adventure hooks via this vehicle to advance the plot. Essentially we know that she worships Asmodeus, we just don't talk about it and to varying degrees try to protect her from being discovered.
It seems Asmodeus was not integral to the plot of the campaign, but the DM made it so, after the fact, based on what the Cleric did. Is the DM focusing too much on one player at the expense of the others? It seems that all the other players have to rationalize how their character fits into the new scheme of things with Cleric as the focus. And the Paladin is having issues with it. It might not all be about the Cleric/Asmodeus story line, as the Paladin's input seems to be ignored or the party chooses otherwise. If the Paladin doesn't feel comfortable with talking to the DM about the problem, it does seem they are comfortable with voicing the "problem" with their alternate decisions they would prefer to go, but the rest of the party chooses differently. And is why I say it might be an issue with the Paladin not being right for the group, or at least this campaign (if they are not having issues in the second campaign the OP mentioned. Edit: never mind, it looks like Paladin is the DM of the second campaign)
There is a lot going on here, and we are only hearing one side so it is hard to give good feedback.
It seems Asmodeus was not integral to the plot of the campaign, but the DM made it so, after the fact, based on what the Cleric did.
It should be noted, the addition of Asmodeus is not a bad thing per se, even If not discussed in Session Zero—despite what all the “but I just want to play a hero(tm)” types on this thread are saying. This is exactly how DMing is supposed to work—you run the gauntlet of adjusting the game to your players’ choices, while manipulating your players into generally following the rails of the game. This is complicated by having multiple players you have to balance against and is why having a DM who can handle moral complexity and knows how to handle their players is invaluable.
Developments of this sort cannot accurately be foretold in Session Zero, which is one of many reasons over-reliance on Session Zero to dictate the course of a potentially years-long campaign is a bit of a fool’s errand. Players do not even know themselves what they will be playing at that point, let alone know how the game itself will develop. I think a lot of the “this person did not sign up for this in Session Zero” posts on this thread ignore how the game actually works and ignore that players might change over time.
Session Zero is great for weeding out things like emotional triggers; it is not great for saying “this will be a good campaign” since that has different meanings for different people. A cleric who sees Asmodeus as “the enemy of my enemy and therefore my friend” and doing some unsavoury things is not necessarily making an “evil campaign”—and to say so is to ignore the unsavoury decisions good characters have made in reality and fiction dating to time immemorial.
Which is why it is important that the DM be open to player criticism and feedback; and why players should try not to be be too upset when other players might not think the same way they do.
It should be noted, the addition of Asmodeus is not a bad thing per se, even If not discussed in Session Zero—despite what all the “but I just want to play a hero(tm)” types on this thread are saying. This is exactly how DMing is supposed to work—you run the gauntlet of adjusting the game to your players’ choices, while manipulating your players into generally following the rails of the game. This is complicated by having multiple players you have to balance against and is why having a DM who can handle moral complexity and knows how to handle their players is invaluable.
Developments of this sort cannot accurately be foretold in Session Zero, which is one of many reasons over-reliance on Session Zero to dictate the course of a potentially years-long campaign is a bit of a fool’s errand. Players do not even know themselves what they will be playing at that point, let alone know how the game itself will develop. I think a lot of the “this person did not sign up for this in Session Zero” posts on this thread ignore how the game actually works and ignore that players might change over time.
Session Zero is great for weeding out things like emotional triggers; it is not great for saying “this will be a good campaign” since that has different meanings for different people. A cleric who sees Asmodeus as “the enemy of my enemy and therefore my friend” and doing some unsavoury things is not necessarily making an “evil campaign”—and to say so is to ignore the unsavoury decisions good characters have made in reality and fiction dating to time immemorial.
Which is why it is important that the DM be open to player criticism and feedback; and why players should try not to be be too upset when other players might not think the same way they do.
It's a fair point, but that's why Session 0's are not just for the beginning of a campaign. They are also for the beginning and end of each arc as well as for whenever the DM senses any player might not be comfortable or having fun. As the referee of the game, a DM's responsibility is to keep ongoing tabs of player engagement and comfort. It's also a player's responsibility to express their feelings, but it's more the purview of the DM to pause the game and check in with the players. Players usually don't feel as comfortable halting the game to speak up about not having fun anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Sounds like the DM is just not running a campaign the player is interested in.
Some of us love moral shades of gray and making tough decisions about necessary evils. But some of us just want a break from the world that already throws so much of that at us - a chance to be a hero and do right and see the world benefit from it.
Honestly the campaign sounds a bit too edgelord-y for me too. From the way it's been described it feels really contrived, with the primary DM motivation seeming to be how far he can push the party into doing evil in the name of good. It's just not that fun when it's overdone. I don't blame the player for wanting to leave.
Hey everyone, thanks a bunch for all of your posts up to this point and I honestly can't thank all of you enough for your input. I totally get that you only have my side of things, but thats the only side I can offer right? I just wanted to follow up with a few of my own thoughts on some of the common things I see across posts, then give an update below.
I do agree that my sentiment of considering Paladin "melodramatic" was probably fueled by frustration at the time I was recounting the events; I have a lot of respect for this player as a player and a friend, so I was caught off-guard when he said he was considering backing out completely.
Some of you have mentioned the importance of session zero and establishing trigger points... maybe suggesting that devil worship as a concept would be a hot spot in our group? I assure you; I'm the only one who could come close to that sentiment regarding that specific topic. I come from a religious family and still practice to this day, but this kind of stuff in fantasy games doesn't bug me. The rest of the players are not very spiritual people, and I've known all of these players (except DM and Druid) for almost two decades now. I've even known Cleric for that long and we finally broke through on getting her to play after all this time lol. In short, no worries about the trigger points, nobody is offended beyond feeling like they may be getting bullied by each other.
Regarding the group sentiment on Alignment; Myself and Bard have spoken extensively about how Alignment has changed over the editions and how it is a good character building tool but a bad choice of roleplay crutch, especially considering that WOTC implemented Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws which is arguably a much stronger roleplay baseline tool. Still, our group came up playing 3.5 so outside of Bard and I, Alignment is more relevant than what it should be... however it still doesn't feel good being called evil murderhobos.
I do agree that the DM is probably making some bad choices here, and honestly when I look at it through that objective lens he might not really be putting much thought into the story choices he's presenting us. Now that I think about it, does like creating darker characters who tend to sit on the Lawful Evil side of things when he is a player, so this really might be something he doesn't think twice about... maybe we are in an evil campaign haha. Needless to say he is great at roleplaying Asmodeus lol.
Finally, I spoke with Paladin again and we had a good long talk where I spoke plainly with him about my concerns with his outlook on us. I agreed with him that Cleric is definitely sitting in the evil camp, but the rest of us designed characters who want to be some degree of good and that it bugged me that we were being blanketed. I outlined the plot as we understand it to him in a bare-bones way which helped break down the reasons why we individually chose what we did, and that I think a major theme of this campaign is "Using Good for Evil, using Evil for Good". I said that we still have more about that story to explore, but if he pulls his character out on us now we won't have that moral foil to Cleric that would bring us back to the light.
He kindof seemed to be surprised and explained that his character is 100% meant to be the stereotypical hero's hero; LG all the way as he'd put it. With that he told me Paladin would demand that we do not serve Asmodeus any more; no more errands, no more deals, and we have to find a way to break Cleric's contract with Asmodeus. I expressed to him that my Ranger wouldn't see the point in continuing to serve Asmodeus; the immediate threat was settled and so the "desperate times call for desperate measures" trope is played out... continuing down that path would only mean we were truly evil and seeking easy routes to power. I even commented on how Ranger will be having issues coping with the thought of "I didn't know I was capable of such evil" in the upcoming sessions to kindof echo the moral quandary his Paladin went through following the assassinations. I'm not trying to appease him either; these really are the issues I expect my character would tangle with after-the-fact.
In the end, Paladin's player said he will play a few more sessions and if he feels like we are still going down that Asmodeus path, he will likely pull out. Overall I think it was mission success; I got him to hang in there for just a bit longer so we can see how this stuff shakes out. I have a lot of you to thank for helping me put my head on straight so I could talk to him constructively!
In a not totally surprising turn, I spoke with Bard since he had asked me what was going on and well... Bard isn't too happy about Paladin's in-character demands; he says Paladin shouldn't be able to tell Cleric how to play the game and that Bard will choose whatever actions guarantees that the McGuffin is kept safe... Can't win 'em all I guess... but at least my Ranger and the Druid are cool. Nature is the way forward haha.
First, well done on having a decent and productive conversation.
Two, Ophidimancer is correct - this conversation needs to happen again but with the DM. It was the DM's choices that lead here, and he needs to make the changes to being more viable "Good" choices so the party can redeem themselves.
Three is actually two points about devil worship. When we were using it as a catch-all phrase for the fact that you were serving an entity of pure evil and committing atrocities. That is potentially an issue for people even outside of the question "should I, the player, be even roleplaying this stuff given that I believe in [insert appropriate religion here]?" In other words, even hardcore secularist atheists can legitimately have concerns about this.
The other aspect is more generalised. You can never know for sure what's going on in someone's life. The Paladin could have recently started to believe in God, as an example. Or maybe they just feel a strong aversion to the topic. You can't know that they don't. I'll give myself as an example. I despise the use of the term "Nazi" when used as an insult, I'm actually quite offended by it. I have my reasons...but beyond what I'd consider blindingly obvious (but judging by how liberally people use the term, apparently it's not that obvious), it's not that evident to the vast majority of people why I would feel it so keenly...but I do, and for good reason. I will get up and leave if people start using like that (to be clear, using it in historical context, playing games where you fight Nazis, etc is absolutely fine, I despise it when people use it as an insult against another person for cheap debate points). We don't know what's going on in their lives, so we can't judge and say that they shouldn't be offended by something. Not least because that assumes that the problem is that they're too sensitive rather than we're not sensitive enough.
That's why session zero is so important, and ongoing check ups are a must. Did the Paladin raise his concerns in your session 0? Maybe, maybe not, he might not have heard anything that would make it a concern. However, by the sounds of it, your campaign veered way off course into devil worship. Those are not one but two major flags of concern that should have prompted a mini session zero. At the end of the session, the DM should have had a quick check that people were happy with:
a) The campaign veering off course and
b) The whole idea of devil worship, doing evil in the name of good, getting into pacts with the devil, and so forth.
I'm sorry, I just felt that was an important topic to discuss, not just for your benefit, but for others as well, and it helps me coalesce my thoughts on the matter as well by getting them into words. Well done for having an open discussion with the Paladin though, that's a really important step in reconciliation - and one that most people refuse to have, and then wonder why things don't get fixed.
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.
In a not totally surprising turn, I spoke with Bard since he had asked me what was going on and well... Bard isn't too happy about Paladin's in-character demands; he says Paladinshouldn't be able to tell Cleric how to play the game and that Bard will choose whatever actions guarantees that the McGuffin is kept safe... Can't win 'em all I guess... but at least my Ranger and the Druid are cool. Nature is the way forward haha.
it would probably be a good idea to have a group discussion or at least with the DM including the bard. If Paladin is telling Cleric how to play their character, that’s bad. If the Paladin is role playing his character “as a foil” to the Cleric, that’s ok. If the Bard doesn’t see that or is misinterpreting it, it should be addressed so no animosity forms between them.
In a not totally surprising turn, I spoke with Bard since he had asked me what was going on and well... Bard isn't too happy about Paladin's in-character demands; he says Paladinshouldn't be able to tell Cleric how to play the game and that Bard will choose whatever actions guarantees that the McGuffin is kept safe... Can't win 'em all I guess... but at least my Ranger and the Druid are cool. Nature is the way forward haha.
it would probably be a good idea to have a group discussion or at least with the DM including the bard. If Paladin is telling Cleric how to play their character, that’s bad. If the Paladin is role playing his character “as a foil” to the Cleric, that’s ok. If the Bard doesn’t see that or is misinterpreting it, it should be addressed so no animosity forms between them.
Roleplay-wise, Paladin should be telling Cleric what can and can't happen. That's the primary job of a Paladin. In the old days (1st ed.), if a Paladin went along with any of these evil actions, he'd probably lose his Paladinhood and have to do a quest and/or do penance to get it back., which would likely separate him from the party for a while. We had that happen, and the DM and the player met on a separate day for a while to play it out.
And that's why I'm glad they moved away from that kind of mentality. I much prefer the flexibility that is fostered by 5e, and the fluidity that comes from it being an interpretation of an Oath rather than alignment. If I were to run a redemption quest, it would be with the whole party working together on it as well.
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.
And that's why I'm glad they moved away from that kind of mentality. I much prefer the flexibility that is fostered by 5e, and the fluidity that comes from it being an interpretation of an Oath rather than alignment. If I were to run a redemption quest, it would be with the whole party working together on it as well.
And that's why I'm glad they moved away from that kind of mentality. I much prefer the flexibility that is fostered by 5e, and the fluidity that comes from it being an interpretation of an Oath rather than alignment. If I were to run a redemption quest, it would be with the whole party working together on it as well.
Some people like absolutes, some people don't.
Sith, for instance, love absolutes. So if you have dark force wielders at your table, be prepared to stick to those rules!
Good job on having a conversation with Paladin. That being said, here are some of my thoughts on the problems that still remain:
1) Paladin needs to talk with DM. The DM seems to have ineptly handled the path he set before your party and I too would be very frustrated if I signed up for a game that went off the rails. If Paladin wants this game to go back on course, then he needs to tell the DM that. I guess you could do it for him if need be, but the DM needs to know that not all players all comfortable with the way the game is to change it. At this point, it's possible that he thinks nothing is wrong.
2) Let Paladin leave the group if he wants to. Paladin's frustration is justified and if your attempts to satisfy him don't work out, then just let him leave. You already have two other games and losing one player out of six is much worse than potentially losing your whole group (and perhaps the other two groups since they're with the same players) if this situation escalates far more than it already has.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
In my opinion, evil campaigns are only fun if everyone in the party is evil. I would talk to the DM and the rest of the group and try to steer the campaign into a different direction. The cleric and the DM seem to be the main problem, and are not willing to accommodate a different style of character. You definitely need to talk to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
The DM set up the situation with the vampires In control of the MacGuffin and the Holy Army attacking. That forced the characters to want to side with vampires to preserve the MacGuffin. That was the root of the problem.
Maybe the DM has something in mind with all of this that will turn out to be neat and fun for all the players and characters, some reason for the decisions they are making that are there, but that nobody (or perhaps nobody except for perhaps the cleric sees or knows about yet). just in case, it seems like it would be worth asking, if all of this is ultimately going some place that would be palpable to all the characters and all the players (and also how quickly it is going to get there).
regardless of that I think maybe the important thing to solve is the possible conflicts, this may have caused in the relationships between the people playing the characters.
But then back to the game (because that aspect of it seems interesting too)
"Because of the partial success Asmodeus is pretty upset with Cleric, but because she's pretty good at being his follower, Asmodeus offers her a new deal and a chance to redeem herself. Her three choices are: 1) She finds a way to summon and kill an angel to harvest it's wings to be used in a ritual that would effectively destroy the Holy Army. This option makes the party 100% even-steven with Asmodeus. 2) Asmodeus kills her, takes her soul, doesn't lift a finger to help anything at all, and instead sends his other followers out to hunt the rest of us down and sacrifice us. 3) She kills Paladin and Druid for interfering with the original contract, which basically only saves her and we still have the invasion to deal with."
Re: Asmodeus could there be some kind of a 4th creative, out of the box option of how to move forward that the Paladin/Paladin's player might approve of and consider their kind of fun and a direction that would be consistent with their vision of that character (even if it is not an option that Asmodeus would approve of)? What about if the Cleric has their redemptive moment early, based on how crummy the three choices that Asmodeus provided are and they renounce Asmodeus and find a different deity to worship (and perhaps be under the protection of and maybe oppose or thwart the forces of Asmodeus in the future).
"Some events in our world have caused the Holy Army to assemble and prepare to invade a city whose ruling family is made up of vampires. Contained inside the city is this McGuffin that is being guarded by the vampiric family because they believe that if it falls into the wrong hands it could mean the literal end of all reality. Basically the vampiric family is being used as a scapegoat by the actual bad guys so the Holy Army wipes them out, leaving the McGuffin defenseless. In any case, the Party knows that the vampires are not to blame for the events that kicked off the crusade and we feel a sense of urgency to stop it. Paladin isn't keen on working with the vampires because they are innately evil in the lore of Forgotten Realms (our overarching setting), and often times refuses to participate in corresponding with the vampiric family. "
To me, this setup seem fun/interesting, an interesting moral conflict, maybe it would be reasonable or pragmatic to pick the lesser of two evils (seemingly well-meaning, for the moment at least, family of vampires over "the literal end of all reality"). Shades of grey and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. It seems like things are moving away from the concept of certain races and all members of those races being "innately evil"; maybe it's an antiquated concept (and perhaps a tiny bit accidentally "racist", but only in the context of D&D, or at least a narrow viewpoint that is somewhat limiting). If the party stopped going along with Asmodeus, could the Paladin/Paladin's player get on board with perhaps cooporating with the family of vampires, for as long as they seem to be doing decent stuff like trying to prevent "the literal end of all reality"?
I have to admit that this situation sort of reinforces in my mind, that I don't think I'm very interested in playing a Paladin myself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just read the stuff above.
Not melodramatic is my verdict.
The DM is at least responsible for pushing the whole campaign heavily down the Asmodeus route and the other players seemingly embrace the evil stuff without any second thought for their characters.
I myself would also be totally unhappy with that development in a campaign.
That's the nature of the beast, though. Whenever you (as DM) introduce a choice, there is a risk that the party will split on the decision or have varying levels of enthusiasm. It's the job of the DM to ensure that the choices don't do that to the party, or rather, that the choices presented don't lead to situations where players are unhappy with the group decision (in a major way).
So, for example: if one of my players is uncomfortable with sexual violence, I won't ever intentionally present that as an option. Obviously, players have their own agency and the DM has no responsibility for that, but you can control the apparent choices.
By the sounds of it, this devil worship plotline was agreed to and pursued by the DM. It's absolutely fine (and good, even) to present moral dilemmas to the group, but it's also the DM's responsibility to ensure that the members of the group will be fine with whatever decision the group makes. If someone is uncomfortable with devil worship, present a different moral dilemma instead. The DM always has agency, and therefore responsibility.
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.
I agree. And it could also be that the player did not voice any concern about devil worship as an issue for them. It's hard to cover all possible eventualities in a session zero. If the DM had no idea this could be an issue, then it's hard to put full blame on them. If it was brought to the DM's attention that this was an issue, and they did nothing about it, then that's on the DM. If the player who is having the issue doesn't say anything and just clams up then some of the blame is on them. Communication is key when a player is not having fun or has issues with the game.
I think this is an important point: (in red)
It seems Asmodeus was not integral to the plot of the campaign, but the DM made it so, after the fact, based on what the Cleric did. Is the DM focusing too much on one player at the expense of the others? It seems that all the other players have to rationalize how their character fits into the new scheme of things with Cleric as the focus. And the Paladin is having issues with it. It might not all be about the Cleric/Asmodeus story line, as the Paladin's input seems to be ignored or the party chooses otherwise. If the Paladin doesn't feel comfortable with talking to the DM about the problem, it does seem they are comfortable with voicing the "problem" with their alternate decisions they would prefer to go, but the rest of the party chooses differently. And is why I say it might be an issue with the Paladin not being right for the group, or at least this campaign (
if they are not having issues in the second campaign the OP mentioned.Edit: never mind, it looks like Paladin is the DM of the second campaign)There is a lot going on here, and we are only hearing one side so it is hard to give good feedback.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It should be noted, the addition of Asmodeus is not a bad thing per se, even If not discussed in Session Zero—despite what all the “but I just want to play a hero(tm)” types on this thread are saying. This is exactly how DMing is supposed to work—you run the gauntlet of adjusting the game to your players’ choices, while manipulating your players into generally following the rails of the game. This is complicated by having multiple players you have to balance against and is why having a DM who can handle moral complexity and knows how to handle their players is invaluable.
Developments of this sort cannot accurately be foretold in Session Zero, which is one of many reasons over-reliance on Session Zero to dictate the course of a potentially years-long campaign is a bit of a fool’s errand. Players do not even know themselves what they will be playing at that point, let alone know how the game itself will develop. I think a lot of the “this person did not sign up for this in Session Zero” posts on this thread ignore how the game actually works and ignore that players might change over time.
Session Zero is great for weeding out things like emotional triggers; it is not great for saying “this will be a good campaign” since that has different meanings for different people. A cleric who sees Asmodeus as “the enemy of my enemy and therefore my friend” and doing some unsavoury things is not necessarily making an “evil campaign”—and to say so is to ignore the unsavoury decisions good characters have made in reality and fiction dating to time immemorial.
Which is why it is important that the DM be open to player criticism and feedback; and why players should try not to be be too upset when other players might not think the same way they do.
It's a fair point, but that's why Session 0's are not just for the beginning of a campaign. They are also for the beginning and end of each arc as well as for whenever the DM senses any player might not be comfortable or having fun. As the referee of the game, a DM's responsibility is to keep ongoing tabs of player engagement and comfort. It's also a player's responsibility to express their feelings, but it's more the purview of the DM to pause the game and check in with the players. Players usually don't feel as comfortable halting the game to speak up about not having fun anymore.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Sounds like the DM is just not running a campaign the player is interested in.
Some of us love moral shades of gray and making tough decisions about necessary evils. But some of us just want a break from the world that already throws so much of that at us - a chance to be a hero and do right and see the world benefit from it.
Honestly the campaign sounds a bit too edgelord-y for me too. From the way it's been described it feels really contrived, with the primary DM motivation seeming to be how far he can push the party into doing evil in the name of good. It's just not that fun when it's overdone. I don't blame the player for wanting to leave.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
*UPDATE*
Hey everyone, thanks a bunch for all of your posts up to this point and I honestly can't thank all of you enough for your input. I totally get that you only have my side of things, but thats the only side I can offer right? I just wanted to follow up with a few of my own thoughts on some of the common things I see across posts, then give an update below.
I do agree that my sentiment of considering Paladin "melodramatic" was probably fueled by frustration at the time I was recounting the events; I have a lot of respect for this player as a player and a friend, so I was caught off-guard when he said he was considering backing out completely.
Some of you have mentioned the importance of session zero and establishing trigger points... maybe suggesting that devil worship as a concept would be a hot spot in our group? I assure you; I'm the only one who could come close to that sentiment regarding that specific topic. I come from a religious family and still practice to this day, but this kind of stuff in fantasy games doesn't bug me. The rest of the players are not very spiritual people, and I've known all of these players (except DM and Druid) for almost two decades now. I've even known Cleric for that long and we finally broke through on getting her to play after all this time lol. In short, no worries about the trigger points, nobody is offended beyond feeling like they may be getting bullied by each other.
Regarding the group sentiment on Alignment; Myself and Bard have spoken extensively about how Alignment has changed over the editions and how it is a good character building tool but a bad choice of roleplay crutch, especially considering that WOTC implemented Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws which is arguably a much stronger roleplay baseline tool. Still, our group came up playing 3.5 so outside of Bard and I, Alignment is more relevant than what it should be... however it still doesn't feel good being called evil murderhobos.
I do agree that the DM is probably making some bad choices here, and honestly when I look at it through that objective lens he might not really be putting much thought into the story choices he's presenting us. Now that I think about it, does like creating darker characters who tend to sit on the Lawful Evil side of things when he is a player, so this really might be something he doesn't think twice about... maybe we are in an evil campaign haha. Needless to say he is great at roleplaying Asmodeus lol.
Finally, I spoke with Paladin again and we had a good long talk where I spoke plainly with him about my concerns with his outlook on us. I agreed with him that Cleric is definitely sitting in the evil camp, but the rest of us designed characters who want to be some degree of good and that it bugged me that we were being blanketed. I outlined the plot as we understand it to him in a bare-bones way which helped break down the reasons why we individually chose what we did, and that I think a major theme of this campaign is "Using Good for Evil, using Evil for Good". I said that we still have more about that story to explore, but if he pulls his character out on us now we won't have that moral foil to Cleric that would bring us back to the light.
He kindof seemed to be surprised and explained that his character is 100% meant to be the stereotypical hero's hero; LG all the way as he'd put it. With that he told me Paladin would demand that we do not serve Asmodeus any more; no more errands, no more deals, and we have to find a way to break Cleric's contract with Asmodeus. I expressed to him that my Ranger wouldn't see the point in continuing to serve Asmodeus; the immediate threat was settled and so the "desperate times call for desperate measures" trope is played out... continuing down that path would only mean we were truly evil and seeking easy routes to power. I even commented on how Ranger will be having issues coping with the thought of "I didn't know I was capable of such evil" in the upcoming sessions to kindof echo the moral quandary his Paladin went through following the assassinations. I'm not trying to appease him either; these really are the issues I expect my character would tangle with after-the-fact.
In the end, Paladin's player said he will play a few more sessions and if he feels like we are still going down that Asmodeus path, he will likely pull out. Overall I think it was mission success; I got him to hang in there for just a bit longer so we can see how this stuff shakes out. I have a lot of you to thank for helping me put my head on straight so I could talk to him constructively!
In a not totally surprising turn, I spoke with Bard since he had asked me what was going on and well... Bard isn't too happy about Paladin's in-character demands; he says Paladin shouldn't be able to tell Cleric how to play the game and that Bard will choose whatever actions guarantees that the McGuffin is kept safe... Can't win 'em all I guess... but at least my Ranger and the Druid are cool. Nature is the way forward haha.
That's great that you had a talk with a fellow player, but it's pretty important that he let the DM know how he's feeling.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I just wanted to say three things.
First, well done on having a decent and productive conversation.
Two, Ophidimancer is correct - this conversation needs to happen again but with the DM. It was the DM's choices that lead here, and he needs to make the changes to being more viable "Good" choices so the party can redeem themselves.
Three is actually two points about devil worship. When we were using it as a catch-all phrase for the fact that you were serving an entity of pure evil and committing atrocities. That is potentially an issue for people even outside of the question "should I, the player, be even roleplaying this stuff given that I believe in [insert appropriate religion here]?" In other words, even hardcore secularist atheists can legitimately have concerns about this.
The other aspect is more generalised. You can never know for sure what's going on in someone's life. The Paladin could have recently started to believe in God, as an example. Or maybe they just feel a strong aversion to the topic. You can't know that they don't. I'll give myself as an example. I despise the use of the term "Nazi" when used as an insult, I'm actually quite offended by it. I have my reasons...but beyond what I'd consider blindingly obvious (but judging by how liberally people use the term, apparently it's not that obvious), it's not that evident to the vast majority of people why I would feel it so keenly...but I do, and for good reason. I will get up and leave if people start using like that (to be clear, using it in historical context, playing games where you fight Nazis, etc is absolutely fine, I despise it when people use it as an insult against another person for cheap debate points). We don't know what's going on in their lives, so we can't judge and say that they shouldn't be offended by something. Not least because that assumes that the problem is that they're too sensitive rather than we're not sensitive enough.
That's why session zero is so important, and ongoing check ups are a must. Did the Paladin raise his concerns in your session 0? Maybe, maybe not, he might not have heard anything that would make it a concern. However, by the sounds of it, your campaign veered way off course into devil worship. Those are not one but two major flags of concern that should have prompted a mini session zero. At the end of the session, the DM should have had a quick check that people were happy with:
a) The campaign veering off course and
b) The whole idea of devil worship, doing evil in the name of good, getting into pacts with the devil, and so forth.
I'm sorry, I just felt that was an important topic to discuss, not just for your benefit, but for others as well, and it helps me coalesce my thoughts on the matter as well by getting them into words. Well done for having an open discussion with the Paladin though, that's a really important step in reconciliation - and one that most people refuse to have, and then wonder why things don't get fixed.
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.
it would probably be a good idea to have a group discussion or at least with the DM including the bard. If Paladin is telling Cleric how to play their character, that’s bad. If the Paladin is role playing his character “as a foil” to the Cleric, that’s ok. If the Bard doesn’t see that or is misinterpreting it, it should be addressed so no animosity forms between them.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Roleplay-wise, Paladin should be telling Cleric what can and can't happen. That's the primary job of a Paladin. In the old days (1st ed.), if a Paladin went along with any of these evil actions, he'd probably lose his Paladinhood and have to do a quest and/or do penance to get it back., which would likely separate him from the party for a while. We had that happen, and the DM and the player met on a separate day for a while to play it out.
And that's why I'm glad they moved away from that kind of mentality. I much prefer the flexibility that is fostered by 5e, and the fluidity that comes from it being an interpretation of an Oath rather than alignment. If I were to run a redemption quest, it would be with the whole party working together on it as well.
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.
Some people like absolutes, some people don't.
Sith, for instance, love absolutes. So if you have dark force wielders at your table, be prepared to stick to those rules!
Good job on having a conversation with Paladin. That being said, here are some of my thoughts on the problems that still remain:
1) Paladin needs to talk with DM. The DM seems to have ineptly handled the path he set before your party and I too would be very frustrated if I signed up for a game that went off the rails. If Paladin wants this game to go back on course, then he needs to tell the DM that. I guess you could do it for him if need be, but the DM needs to know that not all players all comfortable with the way the game is to change it. At this point, it's possible that he thinks nothing is wrong.
2) Let Paladin leave the group if he wants to. Paladin's frustration is justified and if your attempts to satisfy him don't work out, then just let him leave. You already have two other games and losing one player out of six is much worse than potentially losing your whole group (and perhaps the other two groups since they're with the same players) if this situation escalates far more than it already has.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.In my opinion, evil campaigns are only fun if everyone in the party is evil. I would talk to the DM and the rest of the group and try to steer the campaign into a different direction. The cleric and the DM seem to be the main problem, and are not willing to accommodate a different style of character. You definitely need to talk to them.
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
The DM set up the situation with the vampires In control of the MacGuffin and the Holy Army attacking. That forced the characters to want to side with vampires to preserve the MacGuffin. That was the root of the problem.
Maybe the DM has something in mind with all of this that will turn out to be neat and fun for all the players and characters, some reason for the decisions they are making that are there, but that nobody (or perhaps nobody except for perhaps the cleric sees or knows about yet). just in case, it seems like it would be worth asking, if all of this is ultimately going some place that would be palpable to all the characters and all the players (and also how quickly it is going to get there).
regardless of that I think maybe the important thing to solve is the possible conflicts, this may have caused in the relationships between the people playing the characters.
But then back to the game (because that aspect of it seems interesting too)
"Because of the partial success Asmodeus is pretty upset with Cleric, but because she's pretty good at being his follower, Asmodeus offers her a new deal and a chance to redeem herself. Her three choices are:
1) She finds a way to summon and kill an angel to harvest it's wings to be used in a ritual that would effectively destroy the Holy Army. This option makes the party 100% even-steven with Asmodeus.
2) Asmodeus kills her, takes her soul, doesn't lift a finger to help anything at all, and instead sends his other followers out to hunt the rest of us down and sacrifice us.
3) She kills Paladin and Druid for interfering with the original contract, which basically only saves her and we still have the invasion to deal with."
Re: Asmodeus could there be some kind of a 4th creative, out of the box option of how to move forward that the Paladin/Paladin's player might approve of and consider their kind of fun and a direction that would be consistent with their vision of that character (even if it is not an option that Asmodeus would approve of)? What about if the Cleric has their redemptive moment early, based on how crummy the three choices that Asmodeus provided are and they renounce Asmodeus and find a different deity to worship (and perhaps be under the protection of and maybe oppose or thwart the forces of Asmodeus in the future).
Quote from ZBear720
"Some events in our world have caused the Holy Army to assemble and prepare to invade a city whose ruling family is made up of vampires. Contained inside the city is this McGuffin that is being guarded by the vampiric family because they believe that if it falls into the wrong hands it could mean the literal end of all reality. Basically the vampiric family is being used as a scapegoat by the actual bad guys so the Holy Army wipes them out, leaving the McGuffin defenseless. In any case, the Party knows that the vampires are not to blame for the events that kicked off the crusade and we feel a sense of urgency to stop it. Paladin isn't keen on working with the vampires because they are innately evil in the lore of Forgotten Realms (our overarching setting), and often times refuses to participate in corresponding with the vampiric family. "
To me, this setup seem fun/interesting, an interesting moral conflict, maybe it would be reasonable or pragmatic to pick the lesser of two evils (seemingly well-meaning, for the moment at least, family of vampires over "the literal end of all reality"). Shades of grey and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. It seems like things are moving away from the concept of certain races and all members of those races being "innately evil"; maybe it's an antiquated concept (and perhaps a tiny bit accidentally "racist", but only in the context of D&D, or at least a narrow viewpoint that is somewhat limiting). If the party stopped going along with Asmodeus, could the Paladin/Paladin's player get on board with perhaps cooporating with the family of vampires, for as long as they seem to be doing decent stuff like trying to prevent "the literal end of all reality"?
I have to admit that this situation sort of reinforces in my mind, that I don't think I'm very interested in playing a Paladin myself.