I'm reasonably new to DMing (and dnd in total...lockdown made me do it;) I've got a player and his character and I don't know how to handle him going forward, they all know this is a world where laws apply in towns and they can /will die in the game, I'm not going to tip the scales (much) to protect players from their mistakes...which brings me to the player in question;
He's an artificer gobin, he thought it was a good idea to prove how strong he was by dropping thunderbolt...in a confined stone room...with 6 other pc in there, needless to say he almost killed them all and some of the players did notice how close they came to death. I enjoy having him in the game but he's a compleat loose canon, I'm not to concerned about him getting himself killed, either through crime or over confidence, I'm worried he'll take a load of pc with him first (he nearly killed my character in another game so.) so I've been thinking how to handle him or even clip his wings a bit but I'm not sure if thats a good idea or just to give him enough rope to hang himself with? I have a few options I can think of with ease:
1) prison / execution: he's a chaotic evil character and we discussed it when he made him that he might get killed so if he makes too much of a mess it might be time for a bit of choppy choppy.
2)dead: he really wants to take on a bear... he tried calling one the last game when he was on his own and thankfully he rolled 2. 3. and 2 for perfomance so no bear but I could let him run into a bear monster that he could really struggle to kill, or more likley kill him in one shot?
3) Lobotomised: this is the weirdest option and I'm not sure about it, his character is mad (he stood in the open all last game on his own, diging in the mud, then making bear mateing calls...and the aformentioned explosion) and there is a hospitol in the town, if he really gets wild its not inconceivable he might be restrained for his own safety and then either put in a padded cell for ever (its an option) or have his magic abilities removed with antimagic shackles (thats already a part of the world, magic is common so they will have a way to restrain a magic user)
So...Yea, what do I do, I don't want to talk to him about it first (I mean I have talked to him about his playing style, but I dont want to give the game away about whats going to happen), I dont want to upset him, but he is being enourmasly disruptive. Help please? if it was your character like this would you feel hard done by if you got locked up or had your magic removed?
You need to talk to the player. This is not a situation in which you should worry about "spoilers."
You need to explain to the player that he is being enormously disruptive, and having a game in which one of the characters is fully insane and just does random stuff for the heck of it is not the sort of campaign you envisioned, and does not fit into your preferred play style. Ask the player to retire the character and make up a new one. If the player is receptive and cooperative, then I would, after a new PC is made up, SANE, and approved for game play, allow the player to collaborate on the nature of the insane goblin's send-off. That is, you can ask him would he rather die in a crazy fiery kind of death, or go off on an insane quest never to be seen again, or just turn into a gibbering drooling weirdo who is held in a padded room from now on.
You cannot allow him to continue to disrupt the sessions, make you miserable, and threaten (no doubt against their players' wishes) all the other PCs in the game. This player is being selfish (maybe without realizing it) and this is not acceptable behavior in a cooperative game like D&D.
Talk to the player. Make sure the player knows that under no circumstances will this crazy/wild/insane RP be allowed to continue in the game -- if may be fun for him, but it's not fun for everyone else. So it must stop. PERIOD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Don't actively seek out to kill or otherwise restrain him. But if he does something bad, the logical consequences befall him. If he stabs someone, wait that's illegal, call the police. If he wants to fight a bear, I mean, let the crazy lad go ahead with it I guess. He'll probably be able to take one, though, if he can cast lightning bolt. If he tries to kill a party member, the party will probably not take too kindly to that. But don't go seeking out his death.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Don't actively seek out to kill or otherwise restrain him. But if he does something bad, the logical consequences befall him. If he stabs someone, wait that's illegal, call the police. If he wants to fight a bear, I mean, let the crazy lad go ahead with it I guess. He'll probably be able to take one, though, if he can cast lightning bolt. If he tries to kill a party member, the party will probably not take too kindly to that. But don't go seeking out his death.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this advice. Following this advice could potentially allow this player to derail, disrupt, or do worse, to multiple sessions before psycho-character finally meets his ultimate fate. It will drag the RP off into places where it seems like no one but this player wants to go. Asking the rest of the table to sit through what might be hours or even multiple sessions of disruptive insane RP waiting for the axe to finally actually fall on the guy is not a winning strategy. It will risk one or more of the other players at the table just walking away -- and if they walk away, they're not going to come back after psycho-boy is dead. They're just going to be gone -- because they will rightfully judge that the DM is not capable of keeping things on track and ensuring fun for everyone, and that no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I strongly recommend having an OOC chat with the player and explaining that his choice of RP style is not conducive to fun at the table, and is not what the DM wants for the campaign. He needs to either make up a new character and get with the program, or find another table at which to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
What is the rest of the players feelings about his chaotic behavior?? Are they having fun with it? If the whole table is having fun with him, let it ride and he will see his demise well on his own. Think back to when they almost died because of him and their reaction to it, should give you some insight on their feelings toward this. If the group is all having fun, look inward. Good luck. If they are not having fun, they will usually police themselves and let him know.
Why are your other players putting up with this hostile chaotic evil character? If he was in my group, he would have been dead along time ago. We would have seen to it.
But alas it is probably the player. I can tell by how you said he almost killed you in another game... He would just roll up an equally toxic character.
Its tricky, I know one player was miffed by it as had he not just leveled up he'd be dead, the others took it well so I'm tempted to let it run for now but keep ways to deal with the character as an option, I think I might need to have a talk with them and find out what they think their plan is going forward. He knows his character is a menace and is playing it as such but still...
To paraphrase BioWizard, talk with him OOC. Do it at the beginning of the very next session, ask your other players how they feel and if they are willing to go on with it. Asking them outright could save you sooo much trouble. From what I've read so far, you don't seem to have any problems with him disrupting your storyline, but if he is make sure you include how you feel when you talk with your players. Everyone at the table just wants have fun, so spending a few minutes to talk about it will be better in the long run.
Don't actively seek out to kill or otherwise restrain him. But if he does something bad, the logical consequences befall him. If he stabs someone, wait that's illegal, call the police. If he wants to fight a bear, I mean, let the crazy lad go ahead with it I guess. He'll probably be able to take one, though, if he can cast lightning bolt. If he tries to kill a party member, the party will probably not take too kindly to that. But don't go seeking out his death.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this advice. Following this advice could potentially allow this player to derail, disrupt, or do worse, to multiple sessions before psycho-character finally meets his ultimate fate. It will drag the RP off into places where it seems like no one but this player wants to go. Asking the rest of the table to sit through what might be hours or even multiple sessions of disruptive insane RP waiting for the axe to finally actually fall on the guy is not a winning strategy. It will risk one or more of the other players at the table just walking away -- and if they walk away, they're not going to come back after psycho-boy is dead. They're just going to be gone -- because they will rightfully judge that the DM is not capable of keeping things on track and ensuring fun for everyone, and that no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I strongly recommend having an OOC chat with the player and explaining that his choice of RP style is not conducive to fun at the table, and is not what the DM wants for the campaign. He needs to either make up a new character and get with the program, or find another table at which to play.
And if the player still does it in-game, it is amazing when 100d6 Lighting Bolts strike in a clear blue sky. I would have zero issues with killing off a disruptive player's char by DM Fiat. At that point the player either gets it, and calms down, or they walk away in a huff. Either way, a better situation than the present one.
What's thunderbolt, and how did it endanger anyone? Lightning Bolt? Thunderwave?
I'm not seeing how he hit anyone he wasn't directly targeting, catching one or two allies in a mass of foes with an AoE spell can be tactically sound if all those foes would have dealt more damage than the allies.
As for trying to punish a character in game for bad player behavior, spoilers are irrelevant, this isn't a child, and you should address the player, not the character. If he doesn't respect his playmates and the game, than playing petty in game justice will just protract the difficulty and sour feelings. Some players don't mind some reckless roleplay or inter party conflict, you've made it sound like one player was offended though, and group concensus is actually irrelevant, justice isn't a social consensus, if one player is abused and the rest are fine with it, it's your responsibility as the DM to stop abuse.
You should either talk to the player individually about fostering shared entertainment and enjoying the game cooperatively, or you can play a little psychology if you want to manipulate the person, and start by asking them if they are having fun, if they prefer the entertainment of playing with a group, and than let them know that the group will only survive if he respects the other players and works cooperatively for mutual enjoyment.
if you detect that the player is selfish or apathetic to the desires of others, you should respectfully deny him participation in the game. Spending time abusing an abusive person sounds like justice, but it's actually vengeance, and you sully yourself by participating in such. In game consequence is for wrongdoing that's practical and entertaining to the group, not to address actual strife at the table. As another player you might try to negotiate or retaliate in game to see if the player will learn consequence, as a DM, using your unlimited authority in game to attack a players avatar is a bully move, and disrespects the fact that you are all autonomous people who are voluntarily present to play the game. He's not your subject, he's not your child, and you should address him like an adult.
This is part of dignity and true character, you are not molded by his misbehavior, and you can address the situation for the benefit of you, the other players, and the accused.
One small point in your post points to the fundamental problem, he is chaotic evil. As a new DM my advice to you is insist your players are only neutral or good. As an experienced DM from experience I will only allow evil characters if the player is very experienced and has a really good backstory and will never allow chaotic evil, only lawful and possibly neutral.
I would sit down with the player and have a very serious conversation. If he wants to play a goblin artificer that’s fine, change his alignment. No story reason no explanation just do it and at the same time talk to him about his character, why does his character act this way, what journey does he want to take him on, how does he want him to develop in game. Talk through the options and then, most importantly, talk to the other players and explain the changes he is making to his character and why. if you don’t address this behavior you are at risk of losing the other players. It is funny for a session or 2 but pretty soon it just becomes irritating, if we are irritated we are not having fun, if we are not having fun we won’t bother showing up. It is perfectly fine to tell a player, sorry I think this is the wrong group for you ou play styles just don’t fit.
As a GM I sit down with every player and as much agency in character creation as I give them I still will veto outright, or work with them to adjust, character traits, backgrounds or alignments that I can see will not work in the campaign or with the other players. For me that means talking to a player who tells me his plan is to constantly steal stuff from everyone else. That’s great, but why, what’s the motivation, think about the outcome and reaction. My main aim as a DM is to try and ensure the party don’t have a reason to permanently kick out a character, there has to be reasons for them to want to stay together. A flawed character is great but the player needs to understand that over time they need to start trusting the other characters and stop just being an ass.
Chaotic evil, yes, is another problem. Actually, two problems.
A lot of people have trouble playing both Chaotic and Evil... and the two together are usually just an excuse to do whatever the player wants without needing any sort of rationale or justification.
And Evil can work, but is nearly impossible in a neutral to evil party -- not in a party in which everyone else is neutral to good. If you're going to allow Evil, as a DM, you need to have a conversation with the table and decide, do we want to do an evil/unethical/unscrupulous party this campaign? If so, then we all make up such characters. Having one person be actively Chaotic Evil in a more typical party of LG/NG/CG/LN, you are going to have all kinds of trouble.
I really good player can pull off Evil, but probably not chaotic evil, in a good-leaning party. I've done it with Lawful Evil... the commonality with my character and the rest was the Lawfulness. She didn't just randomly kill things. She was highly organized and efficient. Yes, she would do things "off camera" or when no one else was looking that the good PCs would not approve of, but she was smart and orderly enough not to just randomly do crazy evil stuff in front of the party.
For some players, fun is a zero sum game. The most important thing you need to establish is whether this is the root of the problem. If so, the player should be excised from the group as they are unlikely to change. If their goal is chaos and conflict, they'll find a way to create it regardless of what their character sheet says.
Maybe you've known the person for a long time, they've played 'normally' in the past, and they're just trying to experiment with something a little different. Take them aside and point out that the experiment isn't working, and needs to be removed for the good of the overall game. If he refuses, show him the door.
It takes a strong group of experienced RPers and a strong DM to handle extreme inter-party conflict and keep it completely separate from real life. One of two things are near certain to happen. Either you'll lose the other players, or the party will kill the disruptive pc and that player will assume victimhood and either leave or become even more toxic with his next character. Get ahead of it while you can.
... and to add to what DougL just said, which I agree with 100%... this player has apparently done this before. So the root of the problem may be the zero-sum attitude in the player in question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with Biowizard. As a new DM, your instinct will be to seek out an in-game solution for this problem, but just know that suddenly having agency over their character taken away is *not* going to make them realize the error of their ways and cooperate. At best they just roll up a new character and the issues continue, but at worst they get angry at you for lobotomizing their character and double-down on their disruptive behavior to "get back" at your game, since you've shown them that it's something of a "player vs DM" mentality. You don't want that. It's no fun and everyone loses.
You want to talk to the disruptive player and be honest with them. Tell them that, as a new DM who's still figuring things out, the way they're playing their character is a bit much, and ask them respectfully if they'd consider toning their character down a little. The character doesn't have to die, the player just needs to decide to play them differently (since it's, even the "but that's what my character would do" types are, in fact, the ones in control of what their character 'would' do), a little less insane and a little more functional eccentric. If the player decides there's no point in playing *this* character if they can't try to kill the other players, then you can offer them the chance to create a new character. Just appeal to the collaborative nature of the game and tell them that you're working hard to make sure *everyone* has a good time.
If the player is unresponsive to a frank discussion, then maybe they're not a friend for your DnD group. Which is fine, not every group of friends is a good DnD group. As Matt Coville said: "Not every band is Rush."
This is 100% true... not every band is Rush. Not every group of real life friends would make a good group of D&D players. If you all want vastly different things out of a game, no matter how much you otherwise like each other, it may not work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with Biowizard. As a new DM, your instinct will be to seek out an in-game solution for this problem, but just know that suddenly having agency over their character taken away is *not* going to make them realize the error of their ways and cooperate. At best they just roll up a new character and the issues continue, but at worst they get angry at you for lobotomizing their character and double-down on their disruptive behavior to "get back" at your game, since you've shown them that it's something of a "player vs DM" mentality. You don't want that. It's no fun and everyone loses.
You want to talk to the disruptive player and be honest with them. Tell them that, as a new DM who's still figuring things out, the way they're playing their character is a bit much, and ask them respectfully if they'd consider toning their character down a little. The character doesn't have to die, the player just needs to decide to play them differently (since it's, even the "but that's what my character would do" types are, in fact, the ones in control of what their character 'would' do), a little less insane and a little more functional eccentric. If the player decides there's no point in playing *this* character if they can't try to kill the other players, then you can offer them the chance to create a new character. Just appeal to the collaborative nature of the game and tell them that you're working hard to make sure *everyone* has a good time.
If the player is unresponsive to a frank discussion, then maybe they're not a friend for your DnD group. Which is fine, not every group of friends is a good DnD group. As Matt Coville said: "Not every band is Rush."
Is Colville Canadian? Few non-Canadians would go to Rush for an analogy.
Chaotic evil, yes, is another problem. Actually, two problems.
A lot of people have trouble playing both Chaotic and Evil... and the two together are usually just an excuse to do whatever the player wants without needing any sort of rationale or justification.
And Evil can work, but is nearly impossible in a neutral to evil party -- not in a party in which everyone else is neutral to good. If you're going to allow Evil, as a DM, you need to have a conversation with the table and decide, do we want to do an evil/unethical/unscrupulous party this campaign? If so, then we all make up such characters. Having one person be actively Chaotic Evil in a more typical party of LG/NG/CG/LN, you are going to have all kinds of trouble.
I really good player can pull off Evil, but probably not chaotic evil, in a good-leaning party. I've done it with Lawful Evil... the commonality with my character and the rest was the Lawfulness. She didn't just randomly kill things. She was highly organized and efficient. Yes, she would do things "off camera" or when no one else was looking that the good PCs would not approve of, but she was smart and orderly enough not to just randomly do crazy evil stuff in front of the party.
Yeah, any time any player picks any type of chaotic or evil, I ask them to define those alignments for me.
Most players define chaotic as reckless and stupid, and evil as idiotically selfish and abusive. Any observations about NPCs and lore will show you that is incorrect. Most elves are chaotic neutral, which represents their dedication to come to rational conclusions for each challenge rather than differ to a legal determination set by a higher authority. This is why evil can be lawful and chaotic can be good.
While evil does not preclude intelligence and cooperation, I demonstrate to them that even chaotic evil lords use organization and plots. They are typically treacherous, but they don't sabotage themselves by attacking useful assets.
When a player describes chaotic as reckless and evil as stupid, I direct them to the intelligence stat, which is where actual stupid characters belong. And let them know that if they want to play chaotic stupid, that they can't participate in a cooperative game, and chaotic evil miscreants are typically slaves to superior chaotic evil lords who force them to behave, because that's the only party a chaotic evil stupid character belongs. Chaotic evil stupid lords get replaced by chaotic evil smart usurpers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm reasonably new to DMing (and dnd in total...lockdown made me do it;) I've got a player and his character and I don't know how to handle him going forward, they all know this is a world where laws apply in towns and they can /will die in the game, I'm not going to tip the scales (much) to protect players from their mistakes...which brings me to the player in question;
He's an artificer gobin, he thought it was a good idea to prove how strong he was by dropping thunderbolt...in a confined stone room...with 6 other pc in there, needless to say he almost killed them all and some of the players did notice how close they came to death. I enjoy having him in the game but he's a compleat loose canon, I'm not to concerned about him getting himself killed, either through crime or over confidence, I'm worried he'll take a load of pc with him first (he nearly killed my character in another game so.) so I've been thinking how to handle him or even clip his wings a bit but I'm not sure if thats a good idea or just to give him enough rope to hang himself with? I have a few options I can think of with ease:
1) prison / execution: he's a chaotic evil character and we discussed it when he made him that he might get killed so if he makes too much of a mess it might be time for a bit of choppy choppy.
2)dead: he really wants to take on a bear... he tried calling one the last game when he was on his own and thankfully he rolled 2. 3. and 2 for perfomance so no bear but I could let him run into a bear monster that he could really struggle to kill, or more likley kill him in one shot?
3) Lobotomised: this is the weirdest option and I'm not sure about it, his character is mad (he stood in the open all last game on his own, diging in the mud, then making bear mateing calls...and the aformentioned explosion) and there is a hospitol in the town, if he really gets wild its not inconceivable he might be restrained for his own safety and then either put in a padded cell for ever (its an option) or have his magic abilities removed with antimagic shackles (thats already a part of the world, magic is common so they will have a way to restrain a magic user)
So...Yea, what do I do, I don't want to talk to him about it first (I mean I have talked to him about his playing style, but I dont want to give the game away about whats going to happen), I dont want to upset him, but he is being enourmasly disruptive. Help please? if it was your character like this would you feel hard done by if you got locked up or had your magic removed?
You need to talk to the player. This is not a situation in which you should worry about "spoilers."
You need to explain to the player that he is being enormously disruptive, and having a game in which one of the characters is fully insane and just does random stuff for the heck of it is not the sort of campaign you envisioned, and does not fit into your preferred play style. Ask the player to retire the character and make up a new one. If the player is receptive and cooperative, then I would, after a new PC is made up, SANE, and approved for game play, allow the player to collaborate on the nature of the insane goblin's send-off. That is, you can ask him would he rather die in a crazy fiery kind of death, or go off on an insane quest never to be seen again, or just turn into a gibbering drooling weirdo who is held in a padded room from now on.
You cannot allow him to continue to disrupt the sessions, make you miserable, and threaten (no doubt against their players' wishes) all the other PCs in the game. This player is being selfish (maybe without realizing it) and this is not acceptable behavior in a cooperative game like D&D.
Talk to the player. Make sure the player knows that under no circumstances will this crazy/wild/insane RP be allowed to continue in the game -- if may be fun for him, but it's not fun for everyone else. So it must stop. PERIOD.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Don't actively seek out to kill or otherwise restrain him. But if he does something bad, the logical consequences befall him. If he stabs someone, wait that's illegal, call the police. If he wants to fight a bear, I mean, let the crazy lad go ahead with it I guess. He'll probably be able to take one, though, if he can cast lightning bolt. If he tries to kill a party member, the party will probably not take too kindly to that. But don't go seeking out his death.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this advice. Following this advice could potentially allow this player to derail, disrupt, or do worse, to multiple sessions before psycho-character finally meets his ultimate fate. It will drag the RP off into places where it seems like no one but this player wants to go. Asking the rest of the table to sit through what might be hours or even multiple sessions of disruptive insane RP waiting for the axe to finally actually fall on the guy is not a winning strategy. It will risk one or more of the other players at the table just walking away -- and if they walk away, they're not going to come back after psycho-boy is dead. They're just going to be gone -- because they will rightfully judge that the DM is not capable of keeping things on track and ensuring fun for everyone, and that no D&D is better than bad D&D.
I strongly recommend having an OOC chat with the player and explaining that his choice of RP style is not conducive to fun at the table, and is not what the DM wants for the campaign. He needs to either make up a new character and get with the program, or find another table at which to play.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
What is the rest of the players feelings about his chaotic behavior?? Are they having fun with it? If the whole table is having fun with him, let it ride and he will see his demise well on his own. Think back to when they almost died because of him and their reaction to it, should give you some insight on their feelings toward this. If the group is all having fun, look inward. Good luck. If they are not having fun, they will usually police themselves and let him know.
Why are your other players putting up with this hostile chaotic evil character? If he was in my group, he would have been dead along time ago. We would have seen to it.
But alas it is probably the player. I can tell by how you said he almost killed you in another game... He would just roll up an equally toxic character.
The guy is just a troll my dude. Cut him loose.
Its tricky, I know one player was miffed by it as had he not just leveled up he'd be dead, the others took it well so I'm tempted to let it run for now but keep ways to deal with the character as an option, I think I might need to have a talk with them and find out what they think their plan is going forward. He knows his character is a menace and is playing it as such but still...
To paraphrase BioWizard, talk with him OOC. Do it at the beginning of the very next session, ask your other players how they feel and if they are willing to go on with it. Asking them outright could save you sooo much trouble. From what I've read so far, you don't seem to have any problems with him disrupting your storyline, but if he is make sure you include how you feel when you talk with your players. Everyone at the table just wants have fun, so spending a few minutes to talk about it will be better in the long run.
Keep your friends close, and enemies closer.
And if the player still does it in-game, it is amazing when 100d6 Lighting Bolts strike in a clear blue sky. I would have zero issues with killing off a disruptive player's char by DM Fiat. At that point the player either gets it, and calms down, or they walk away in a huff. Either way, a better situation than the present one.
What's thunderbolt, and how did it endanger anyone? Lightning Bolt? Thunderwave?
I'm not seeing how he hit anyone he wasn't directly targeting, catching one or two allies in a mass of foes with an AoE spell can be tactically sound if all those foes would have dealt more damage than the allies.
As for trying to punish a character in game for bad player behavior, spoilers are irrelevant, this isn't a child, and you should address the player, not the character. If he doesn't respect his playmates and the game, than playing petty in game justice will just protract the difficulty and sour feelings. Some players don't mind some reckless roleplay or inter party conflict, you've made it sound like one player was offended though, and group concensus is actually irrelevant, justice isn't a social consensus, if one player is abused and the rest are fine with it, it's your responsibility as the DM to stop abuse.
You should either talk to the player individually about fostering shared entertainment and enjoying the game cooperatively, or you can play a little psychology if you want to manipulate the person, and start by asking them if they are having fun, if they prefer the entertainment of playing with a group, and than let them know that the group will only survive if he respects the other players and works cooperatively for mutual enjoyment.
if you detect that the player is selfish or apathetic to the desires of others, you should respectfully deny him participation in the game. Spending time abusing an abusive person sounds like justice, but it's actually vengeance, and you sully yourself by participating in such. In game consequence is for wrongdoing that's practical and entertaining to the group, not to address actual strife at the table. As another player you might try to negotiate or retaliate in game to see if the player will learn consequence, as a DM, using your unlimited authority in game to attack a players avatar is a bully move, and disrespects the fact that you are all autonomous people who are voluntarily present to play the game. He's not your subject, he's not your child, and you should address him like an adult.
This is part of dignity and true character, you are not molded by his misbehavior, and you can address the situation for the benefit of you, the other players, and the accused.
Sorry, yes it was an AOE for thunderwave.
One small point in your post points to the fundamental problem, he is chaotic evil. As a new DM my advice to you is insist your players are only neutral or good. As an experienced DM from experience I will only allow evil characters if the player is very experienced and has a really good backstory and will never allow chaotic evil, only lawful and possibly neutral.
I would sit down with the player and have a very serious conversation. If he wants to play a goblin artificer that’s fine, change his alignment. No story reason no explanation just do it and at the same time talk to him about his character, why does his character act this way, what journey does he want to take him on, how does he want him to develop in game. Talk through the options and then, most importantly, talk to the other players and explain the changes he is making to his character and why. if you don’t address this behavior you are at risk of losing the other players. It is funny for a session or 2 but pretty soon it just becomes irritating, if we are irritated we are not having fun, if we are not having fun we won’t bother showing up. It is perfectly fine to tell a player, sorry I think this is the wrong group for you ou play styles just don’t fit.
As a GM I sit down with every player and as much agency in character creation as I give them I still will veto outright, or work with them to adjust, character traits, backgrounds or alignments that I can see will not work in the campaign or with the other players. For me that means talking to a player who tells me his plan is to constantly steal stuff from everyone else. That’s great, but why, what’s the motivation, think about the outcome and reaction. My main aim as a DM is to try and ensure the party don’t have a reason to permanently kick out a character, there has to be reasons for them to want to stay together. A flawed character is great but the player needs to understand that over time they need to start trusting the other characters and stop just being an ass.
Chaotic evil, yes, is another problem. Actually, two problems.
A lot of people have trouble playing both Chaotic and Evil... and the two together are usually just an excuse to do whatever the player wants without needing any sort of rationale or justification.
And Evil can work, but is nearly impossible in a neutral to evil party -- not in a party in which everyone else is neutral to good. If you're going to allow Evil, as a DM, you need to have a conversation with the table and decide, do we want to do an evil/unethical/unscrupulous party this campaign? If so, then we all make up such characters. Having one person be actively Chaotic Evil in a more typical party of LG/NG/CG/LN, you are going to have all kinds of trouble.
I really good player can pull off Evil, but probably not chaotic evil, in a good-leaning party. I've done it with Lawful Evil... the commonality with my character and the rest was the Lawfulness. She didn't just randomly kill things. She was highly organized and efficient. Yes, she would do things "off camera" or when no one else was looking that the good PCs would not approve of, but she was smart and orderly enough not to just randomly do crazy evil stuff in front of the party.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
For some players, fun is a zero sum game. The most important thing you need to establish is whether this is the root of the problem. If so, the player should be excised from the group as they are unlikely to change. If their goal is chaos and conflict, they'll find a way to create it regardless of what their character sheet says.
Maybe you've known the person for a long time, they've played 'normally' in the past, and they're just trying to experiment with something a little different. Take them aside and point out that the experiment isn't working, and needs to be removed for the good of the overall game. If he refuses, show him the door.
It takes a strong group of experienced RPers and a strong DM to handle extreme inter-party conflict and keep it completely separate from real life. One of two things are near certain to happen. Either you'll lose the other players, or the party will kill the disruptive pc and that player will assume victimhood and either leave or become even more toxic with his next character. Get ahead of it while you can.
... and to add to what DougL just said, which I agree with 100%... this player has apparently done this before. So the root of the problem may be the zero-sum attitude in the player in question.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with Biowizard. As a new DM, your instinct will be to seek out an in-game solution for this problem, but just know that suddenly having agency over their character taken away is *not* going to make them realize the error of their ways and cooperate. At best they just roll up a new character and the issues continue, but at worst they get angry at you for lobotomizing their character and double-down on their disruptive behavior to "get back" at your game, since you've shown them that it's something of a "player vs DM" mentality. You don't want that. It's no fun and everyone loses.
You want to talk to the disruptive player and be honest with them. Tell them that, as a new DM who's still figuring things out, the way they're playing their character is a bit much, and ask them respectfully if they'd consider toning their character down a little. The character doesn't have to die, the player just needs to decide to play them differently (since it's, even the "but that's what my character would do" types are, in fact, the ones in control of what their character 'would' do), a little less insane and a little more functional eccentric. If the player decides there's no point in playing *this* character if they can't try to kill the other players, then you can offer them the chance to create a new character. Just appeal to the collaborative nature of the game and tell them that you're working hard to make sure *everyone* has a good time.
If the player is unresponsive to a frank discussion, then maybe they're not a friend for your DnD group. Which is fine, not every group of friends is a good DnD group. As Matt Coville said: "Not every band is Rush."
This is 100% true... not every band is Rush. Not every group of real life friends would make a good group of D&D players. If you all want vastly different things out of a game, no matter how much you otherwise like each other, it may not work.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Is Colville Canadian? Few non-Canadians would go to Rush for an analogy.
I'm pretty sure it's a nerd thing. Lot of nerds in the US were/are really into Rush. Though he could be Canadian, I'm not sure...
Yeah, any time any player picks any type of chaotic or evil, I ask them to define those alignments for me.
Most players define chaotic as reckless and stupid, and evil as idiotically selfish and abusive. Any observations about NPCs and lore will show you that is incorrect. Most elves are chaotic neutral, which represents their dedication to come to rational conclusions for each challenge rather than differ to a legal determination set by a higher authority. This is why evil can be lawful and chaotic can be good.
While evil does not preclude intelligence and cooperation, I demonstrate to them that even chaotic evil lords use organization and plots. They are typically treacherous, but they don't sabotage themselves by attacking useful assets.
When a player describes chaotic as reckless and evil as stupid, I direct them to the intelligence stat, which is where actual stupid characters belong. And let them know that if they want to play chaotic stupid, that they can't participate in a cooperative game, and chaotic evil miscreants are typically slaves to superior chaotic evil lords who force them to behave, because that's the only party a chaotic evil stupid character belongs. Chaotic evil stupid lords get replaced by chaotic evil smart usurpers.