A player in my group wants to burn down a house. How can I handle this in a believable yet easy way? I've read the DM guide about it but it's too involved for my style.

The player is new and doesn't get the "role playing" part of it so well, especially in terms of alignment. This character is chaotic good. He acts like being chaotic means causing damage and treating npc's like crap, basically being a jerk. I could simply rule that by being "good" the person is acting out of character and has no real reason to burn the owner's house. (His reasoning is he didn't like the owner, who hasn't done anything hostile. He just finds the owner to be "annoying.")

Better yet, what is one way to dissuade a player from ever thinking of doing this?

Thank you.

If alignment matters to you...it doesn't matter to many DMs after all...then a conversation with the player about alignment is going to be necessary. To be honest they sound more Chaotic Neutral than anything else. I'd have a think first though about why alignment is important in your setting. For me, that's the least important thing there is here's a reason why: my party go to a town and while interrogating a commoner kill them by accident. They are able to escape the town having committed a crime, but when they returned they found out the law had been changed. The townsfolk now elect and then kill the town clerk every month. They do this so that they don't have to pay taxes. As it deflects attention from the goings on of the crooked lord, he changed the law to make killing of non-royal town officials legal. Imposing D&D's alignment system on this kind of world makes zero sense.

That said, talking with a player is always a good idea.

As for discouraging a player from even thinking about doing something like this to my mind is counter to the spirit of the game as a collaborative process. That's probably not what you want to hear, but in a game where anything is possible, it's pretty important that players can actually do that. Of course the consequences will have actions. In one game where the warlock incinerated a pickpocket and accidentally set light to the whole town, I had them locked up by the town watch. They were imprisoned. It took an NPC with a job and influence to get them out of trouble. Showing the players that even in the game their actions have consequences is important. I personally don't believe in dissuading a player's actions unless it actively impacts the rest of the players. 

And so I'd add, what was the response of the other players around the table? Were they in support of this plan? Did they want to help out? Did they want to join in? Or did they walk away? If the rest of the players at the table have no issue with it, then I'm going to guess it's an NPC you have put a lot of work into and have trouble letting go of. If they too have issues with this, then make it open and transparent. Have a discussion around the table: 'Player A wants to do this thing, I'm not sure it's a good idea and wanted to dissuade them. Can I ask what everyone else thinks about this? Why is it a good idea? Why is it not a good idea?'

Communication and transparency can go a long way. Just check yourself that you're not having problems 'killing your darlings' before you do hold such a conversation.

 my solution would be to interrupt the fire-causing preparations with a little voice on their shoulder. "oh, fine idea. very fine! your act of evil has caught someone's attention." an imp has appeared. the intent is for this to be derailing to the person caught in the act. i'm not evil, they might say. "sure, you're just misunderstood. me too! and so is my boss. cause this random person to suffer and he'll be interested. i know he will. show us what you're made of!" even if they've already tossed their torch or whatever, it'll seem to be taking a moment to conflagrate, almost as if waiting for a decision to be made. there's time to reconsider.

this is meant to be derailing, either causing the player to pause or forget entirely what they were doing. they can rebuke the imp, string it along, or even accept it's offer. but what's important is that in the moment the dm has a window to open a quick out-of-game dialog. "hey, guys, just a singular reminder that there are ways to play a non-good and/or 'chaotic' character that don't split the party or drive the plot over a cliff. for instance, there's a non-zero chance other party members might rationally decide to turn on an arsonist and bring them to justice. which, to put it lightly, isn't good for team cohesion. i'm not saying you can't do a thing and i'm not going to nag about morals going forward. this is intervention one of one. however, i wanted everyone to be aware that the game can play out very differently for everyone if one person starts flouting common sense. equally so if you start threatening kings, spitting at witches, throwing rocks at dragons, or discussing the inferior parentage of certain gods while standing on a wet hill in a thunderstorm and holding up a long metal pole. there might be a reaction, is what i'm saying. and i'd rather not get too used to introducing your newly re-rolled backup characters. anyway, back to the game..."

I would argue that disliking an NPC escalating immediately to "burn their house down" is chaotic evil. Neutral would be that they have no qualms about burning down a house but need a good reason to, or at least a good reason to them.

1: If you think they're derailing your game, talk to them outside of the game. Say that burning peoples houses down and attacking people for small reasons is an evil thing to do, and you want to chronicle to tales of a group of heroes doing things which history can polish to at least a reasonably "good" shine. How do the other players feel about it? You may have a group that wants a consequence-free sandbox, and that's not what you had planned on providing. Session 0 is a good thing t odo, where you agree on the themes and silliness-level of the game before you start. It's never too late to have a session 0, because the "new" campaign can start where the old one stopped, but with everyone knowing what to expect.

2: If you're happy for him to burn down the house, then make sure you find out how he does it, and take him through step by step of it, along with anyone seeing him and trying t ostop him or report him to the guards!

Honestly, it sounds to me like this player is operating under video game logic rather than RPG logic - which is very common among new players. 

In a video game, you can burn down houses when an NPC slights you and there's probably not going to be much fallout from that after you leave. In an RPG, those actions don't take place in a vacuum - you're going to have consequences that follow you. When players understand their choices have real effects on the game world (and therefore how they continue playing in said game world), they often get a lot less destructive. 

My suggestion is to talk to him and introduce realistic consequences for his choices. 

Chaotic good is more "random acts of kindness" and "wanton displays of violence".

I will third and fourth and fifth the "sit down and explain role playing and alignment" and note that "this is what happens if you burn that NPC's house down". And make it horrible. Prison (magical bounty hunters are seriously hard to escape when they are ten levels higher than you), punishment, being kicked out of the city or town -- and not that anyone associated with him will be as well, alignment change (which used to cost levels, but I guess doesn't anymore).

D&D is not a video game. It is a living world around him, with consequences and players he cannot see engaged in stuff. What he is doing has an impact on the other players, and may end up the same way it would for anyone who did that kind of thing back then: dead in a ditch out back and down by the river.

I appreciate your opinions. I don't emphasize alignment as though characters must act according to morality, but it is important to stay in character. 

@aquilain The one person who wanted to burn the house is a dominating personality and reacts before considering the outcome. Another one of them is rational and considers actions first. The rest are followers. Five players were in this session. Three were against burning, one for it, and the last was undecided.

@loverumlove I explained the possible outcomes of arson: prison, expulsion, execution. The players need to make decisions as a party rather than as individuals in this case. This is not a video game but it's not real either; however, it is realistic, and permanent death is possible. Maybe they don't understand that yet.

@AEdorsay and @theology The real problems I have with this are, first, that it makes it harder for me to come up with plans to handle a mob scene when the town demands revenge and, second, the player wants to burn down the Miner's Exchange (Icespire Peak), which is owned by Halia Thornton of the Zhentarim. This would create a huge mess and end up with the party dead.

I think the easiest decision is to say for now that I won't allow this action until the party completes more quests.

I will say this: As someone whose player did, in fact, decide to commit arson and caused a mob scene and retributive fallout, I completely get why you'd want to avoid it. It is obnoxious and disruptive and a lot of work to DM. But boy, did my player learn his lesson, in the end.

For your (and everyone's) sake, I hope calmer heads prevail and you can help your players understand what game world interaction is really like before one of them derails things too badly. Hang in there. 

Quote from Yarrow_Cirdan >>

I appreciate your opinions. I don't emphasize alignment as though characters must act according to morality, but it is important to stay in character. 

@aquilain The one person who wanted to burn the house is a dominating personality and reacts before considering the outcome. Another one of them is rational and considers actions first. The rest are followers. Five players were in this session. Three were against burning, one for it, and the last was undecided.

Almost the exact same is true of the group that I referenced. Yes it can be a lot of work to reign that personality in, but closing down roleplay options is a very slippery slope and can result in player dissatisfaction. I would still highly recommend allowing them to commit that course of action and imposing big consequences. If you make player actions have game world consequences they are more likely to reconsider such actions in the future. Limiting roleplay options (which is what you propose in your post) should be the absolute last option. You might believe it's poor roleplay, but the player might believe it isn't. The road you're proposing only leads to that same player deciding to outright stab an NPC because you won't let them burn the house down...or maybe they'll pickpocket instead. It does not lead where you think it will lead. 

The way you have responded leads me to conclude that you're only thinking about how you are going to have to deal with the mess. That isn't in the collaborative spirit.

That said, the party who committed arson, they too act as individuals. Frequently. They rarely act as a team and they've now got to the point of understanding...oh yeah we did these things...we don't have any allies to go to for help. They currently find themselves in a town where they've unleashed three vampires, attracted a demon with whom they've made a deal, and trying to prepare to destroy a lich posing as the ruler of the town council. Instead of going to the only place open at night, the tavern, and ensuring the vampires didn't massacre those within, they camped outside of town...then found the massacre where the hungry vampires wiped out like a third of the town population. They know 100% that this is a result of their actions and I love them for still sticking to their roleplay styles.

I actually ran Icespire Peak for this group when one player was away for a few weeks. They wanted to kickdown the Townmaster's front door, and did in fact try. They decided to leave the NPC at the mine overun by wererats, because hey we completed the quest. They did all sorts of crazy stuff, including almost massacring the entire of Gnomengarden. That is their group dynamic though. I as DM had to make a decision: do I give myself over to this group dynamic and have fun with creating the consequences, or do I walk away from DMing for this group? Because those are your options. The group dynamic won't change no matter how much you want it to. The crazy will manifest in different ways instead. Accepting and understanding that is part of the journey of learning to DM. 

I say this because my other group are a very team focused group. They work together, they talk, they strategise, they make sure everyone's views are considered. That is their playstyle. And that's how I can say with confidence, the table's dynamic isn't going to change...because every table has a different dynamic. If you are the only person who takes issue with that playstyle...you are the problem, not the players. I've trapped myself in the same mistake with other groups over the decade and a half I've been played TTRPGs...so I'm trying to share that mistake with you to hopefully save you from making it.

Quote from Yarrow_Cirdan >>

I appreciate your opinions. I don't emphasize alignment as though characters must act according to morality, but it is important to stay in character. 

...

I think the easiest decision is to say for now that I won't allow this action until the party completes more quests.

 i think there's a lot to be said for the dungeon master taking off their glasses, pinching the skin between their eyes, and admitting "this isn't going to be over quickly and, honestly, doesn't sound like fun to me." and the impact of this statement comes from just how infrequently the DM imposes their will upon the characters. i'm in the camp that says the DM isn't just a narrator and DM's get to enjoy the game too, but even so i'd strongly recommend finding a way to avoid "no, this isn't allowed" boldface. i see D&D as akin to improv and the one thing about improv is never saying "no," always saying "yes! and..."

since it's early in the campaign maybe spin it as tying up a lingering session zero matter: "...narrating you going to jail doesn't sound like fun to me, but, more importantly, the background you gave and the actions you're about to take don't seem in line with one another. how did it come to this? if you've got a hidden dark side you'd like to explore, then you and i can work on that in an email exchange later. we can expose it gradually and fish for reactions from the party before a reveal or something. eventually i want the story that's unfolding to include a little bit of everyone. for now, would you like to narrate your thoughts instead of acting on impulse or maybe take an alternate action like tying their shoelaces together instead?"

@rumloverum @aqulain To add more to this, at one point one of the players antagonized Halia (I don't get what their problem is with this lady). To contain this potential disaster, I invented a level 5 fighter bodyguard who enjoyed cutting off people's hands and fingers. He told the group politely that it was time to leave, which they did, thankfully. The arson idea is just not in line with anything. Halia didn't do anything hostile except be somewhat dismissive of them, but that's how I played her. Can we find a happy medium here instead of going full tilt?

A lot of it is that these players are inexperienced and haven't had their asses kicked yet. Maybe a death in the party will show them the light. They're moving onto the Umbrage Hill quest now. We'll see how they deal with the manticore. It'll all be fine. After I lay down the law they'll get in line, because I'm not designing new content when there's still 90 percent of the campaign left.

Quote from Yarrow_Cirdan >>

@rumloverum @aqulain To add more to this, at one point one of the players antagonized Halia (I don't get what their problem is with this lady). To contain this potential disaster, I invented a level 5 fighter bodyguard who enjoyed cutting off people's hands and fingers. He told the group politely that it was time to leave, which they did, thankfully. The arson idea is just not in line with anything. Halia didn't do anything hostile except be somewhat dismissive of them, but that's how I played her. Can we find a happy medium here instead of going full tilt?

A lot of it is that these players are inexperienced and haven't had their asses kicked yet. Maybe a death in the party will show them the light. They're moving onto the Umbrage Hill quest now. We'll see how they deal with the manticore. It'll all be fine. After I lay down the law they'll get in line, because I'm not designing new content when there's still 90 percent of the campaign left.

 
So, just to highlight something that could happen...what if the party decide they'll strike a deal to feed the manticore rather than fight it. What if they see the manticore and decide they don't want to bother helping the woman? What happens when the party decide they're just going to knock Adabra unconscious and drag her back to town 'for her own good'? I've seen players react really differently to Umbrage hill including one party who split up half keeping the manticore there and ensuring it kept it's word, while the other half went off to hunt and capture live animals so as to give the manticore a full week's supply of meat/prey. I've also had a party decide to leave the hill because 'f*$% that, I don't want to fight a manticore'. Finally, I had a party scare off the manticore and accidentally kill Adabra trying to take her to Pandalin so that they know she's safe.

Sure, maybe your party will start to get the hint, but sooner or later you'll end up having to improvise something. To take Umbrage hill and hunting for wildlife to give a food supply to the manticore, that's not in the book. Nor is it an obvious way of dealing with said manticore. However, it is a clever way of getting the manticore to leave. What that requires of a DM is to improvise the circumstances and even location of the party hunting wildlife. It requires of a DM to realise that manticore is actually able to be bargined with in the book as written.

What I'm getting at is that I can't see you getting through the rest of the 90% of the campaign without having to improvise at least some of the content unless you're going to railroad and dictate the player pathways. Gnomengarde, Logger's Camp and Mountains Toe can all go sideways really quick requiring you to improv at least something not in the book.

To spin this in a different way though...your viewpoint was that your NPC Halia didn't do anything but be dismissive. To your player's their characters are the heroes of the story. They're the ones in control and here's this random, ambitious NPC being dismissive of them? 'How dare they?!'

I wasn't as tactful as I might have been in my previous post, for which I really should apologise, so I am sorry. That said, you know all those memes where the players' fate is in the DM's hands? Yeah, they're nonsense. It isn't your job as DM to 'lay down the law'. 'Your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!' (Dungeon Master's Guide, p.4). Obviously the emboldened sections are my addition and my commentary for emphasis on the quoted text. I'd also highly recommending re-reading the DM Tips section of Dragon of Icespire Peak. Yeah, your players are causing you a headache...that is sadly what many players do. But you have said it yourself in previous forum posts...you have to compromise...there are certain things we can do like create the physics and way communities and towns work, you get to interpret the rules, but really once you establish the rules it's the players who are really in charge and you then are just one of them. I feel like the lack of experience is just as much your lack of experience as they players. Remember that being a GM is a journey. The more different groups of players you GM for the wider that experience grows and the sooner you end up realising that players...they'll always find a way to surprise you.

All that said. It is your group's table. If you want to just rule that 'no you can't do that' it's your perogative. If I were a player and a DM did that I would seriously consider if I wanted to continue at that table. 

I've only once in my two current D&D groups come close to saying no. The party were on three separate blocks of ice in the middle of a cove with a 350ft deep water below them. They were charmed by vampires and one of their number using cloak of the bat wanted to throw a bead of force at the group to kill the vampires. With most PCs less than 5hp from death in that circumstance...my reaction was as follows 'look, if you want to do this you can. I'm not going to stop you...but this action could cause a TPK. Your fellow players are very distressed that you're considering this course of action...do you still want to throw the bead?' Even with that said I'd have let the player throw the bead if they had persisted...mainly because they'd have needed to let go of the cloak and then would have fallen from the sky. 

I think there's also something to be said about the art of saying "No, but"  rather than just a flat "no." You can honor player agency without giving into their every whim.

So a player wants to burn down a house. That sucks, but...have you ever tried to burn timber? It's not that easy. So maybe he lights a fire and the rafters catch, but NPCs notice it and intervene before it spreads, or the dampness of the thatch prevents it from burning well. It's a "no, you cannot burn this house down, but you do make your point and here are the consequences" that still lets the player make choices. Or maybe you let the house burn down after all...but who says it has to be a mob situation? You are the DM. You alone control how the story world reacts to your players' input. Heck, you can decide that Halia was looking for an excuse to rebuild her house anyway and make it a non-issue, if you want. 

One other note to build on Aquilain's point: players will constantly go off-script, and that's simply because they don't know what the script is. A module can in no way anticipate every player choice, so there's always going to be uncharted territory with modules and even homebrew adventures. The great thing about players not knowing what comes next is that they will also never know if you reorder or massage the story to accommodate their choices. 

good luck. as Aquilain says, it'll be interesting to hear what your players come up with during the manticore. some players are just dying to play out those children's books where the main character purposefully gets the narrator to say 'banana' or 'underwear' or whatever. the novelty won't wear off until they're invested in their character. again, good luck!