So bit of context one of my players a 2nd level Lizardman Monk ate a zombie during a battle on a plague ship. There reasoning was that being a lizardman he would want to waste any potential resources including the rotting flesh of the walking dead. I feel like I need there to be some repercussions for this behavior such as the contraction of an illness, but at the same time I don't want the player to feel like I am punishing them for role-playing thier character.
Ever seen a dead animal along the side of road that is so rotten even the vultures won't eat it? Even a pragmatic lizardman wouldn't eat a nasty rotting carcass, or in this case a nasty rotting zombie. It's role-playing to a degree, but lizard folk are not just eating machines.
I personally would just of had the player throw it up, and move on. Not worth punishing the player for what he feels is good role playing. Maybe a warning, lizard men are not sharks and don't eat anything and everything. That said, no rules says they can't use their bite ability on undead.
You could perhaps consider the rotting flesh as some kind of poison.
Or make him make a Constitution check on the next Long rest to see if he gets sleep or if he feels weird from eating something bad, and then get exhaustion if he doesn't get good sleep.
Then again, maybe Lizardfolk have very resistant digestive systems, so no repercussions other than it wasn't really filling, so doesn't make him satiated.
His rationalization was based on komodo dragons being able to consume raw, and rotted meat without any risk of contracting anything. I did make him role a CON save which he failed but haven't decided what to do from there. He's currently on a journey with another member of the party to discover emotions and as been brilliant at role-playing his character as an outsider when in town and cities. This other party member has been trying to teach him about certain taboos (such as eating zombies). I just kinda feel that it ruins any sense of danger to not have him get sick particularly because of the whole Plague ship and potential pandemic motif.
(I have seen FMA Brotherhood and I really like that comparison)
So, I'm still just a baby DM, so take all this with a grain of salt the size of an actual baby;
Personally, I think the komodo dragon thing is a slight bit of metagame thinking. Lizardfolk aren't komodo dragons. They aren't snakes. They aren't any real form of reptile or lizard. You can't just pick and choose which aspects of which animals you want to have as abilities on your character. However, I'm all about the "yes, and" aspect of improv in D&D. (The Matt Mercer "You can certainly try." attitude.) So I wouldn't really argue with them at the table. Maybe after the session I would speak to the player and let them know that; a) Lizardfolk in the rules don't have disease/sickness immunity. b) Lizardfolk aren't komodo dragons. c) If they would like to tweak the race a bit to have resistance/immunity to mundane sicknesses, we can work with that. But that zombieism isn't a mundane disease, it's magical.
But what I would do if this situation were to arise in my game, and a player wanted to eat zombie flesh, first I would ask them to make a Perception check with a low DC of 10-ish. If they fail, then they don't notice anything and then chomp on the flesh. More on that later. But success would give them the feeling that maybe this stuff isn't the best for them. In this players case I would state that it triggered their fear response. Instinctively, they know not to eat this.
This gives the player a choice, "waste" the meat (which is no good anyway, but if that's the feeling they want the character to have then that's valid role-play to me) or take the chance on it. If wasting material is something the character has an aversion to, then great, this makes for an opportunity for meaningful choice.
If they still insist on eating it, give another player that has an appropriate skill an opportunity to see what's happening and step in. Let them know that if the player eats the meat, it might make them sick, and after an Arcana check DC 10-15, they would feel like maybe even if it doesn't make the Lizardfolk sick, it might make them a carrier.
Roleplay opportunities abound.
Now, if they eat the meat anyway. (Or are just oblivious to the danger.) Then I would allow them to play into the idea that it won't hurt them. Much. The Lizardfolk character doesn't turn into a zombie. They might puke for a day or two, but their health is relatively unscathed. But from that point on, every time that character bit someone whoever they bit would contract zombieism and thusly turn undead.
Once they party figures out what's happening, then it can be their own little journey to figure out how to fix it.
I don't think this merits anything harsh. Give him the poisoned condition for 24 hours, or say he gets no benefit from his next long rest. Lesson learned about how he can't eat everything. Giving him some debilitating disease seems too harsh.
I don't think this merits anything harsh. Give him the poisoned condition for 24 hours, or say he gets no benefit from his next long rest. Lesson learned about how he can't eat everything. Giving him some debilitating disease seems to harsh.
I agree with this. Eating zombie is like eating Chipotle.
Treat it like he ate some bad chicken. He has the Poisoned condition needs an extra long rest. It doesn't interfere with play, but lets you nudge that "you can't eat anything", but doesn't "punish" the player.
Maybe play it up a bit so the other player might go "on no! is he *infected* ?!" But he's back the next day after a 24 hr stomach bug.
Why hasn't Medic mentioned they have Remove Curse. They should certainly realize they have it, right? Just because they're an NPC doesn't mean they can't share relevant information until they're asked about it.
@Cloudseeker - have you considered that the players want to become werewolves?
Fireball hurling werewolves, maybe?
Why would they want to cure something that could make their characters so much cooler? I just about remember playing D&D when I was 13, and that is the sort of cool stuff that would definitely have me coming back for more.
I use to believe in repercussions; now I call them twists. And if they are not fun, they are gone.
I think this gets at the heart of our difference of opinion. To me it sounds like you have almost borderline adversarial as you try to teach a group of 13 year olds how to think and game.
I see "punishing" or "consequences" for eating the zombie being significant is bad because I don't see anyone having fun with it. What does this add to the game? How does it make it better? How will the Lizardfolk being seriously ill improve the play for that player? How will it improve play for the entire group. IF the party wants to make a few sessions about a disease affecting the Lizardfolk and curing it great! I'd probably avoid the Poisoned Condition because the character can't succeed at anything and will feel disempowered at curing themselves. Instead have them lose max hp slowly like mummy's rot, so it's a "race against time" to fix it, but the character is still functional and has agency in curing themselves.
If you want the Lizardfolk to be incapacitated by the disease then the player is going to need an NPC to play for the session(s). Otherwise they don't get to play at all and they might as well not be there.
If the party doesn't want this to be the focus of session(s) then the party will be bored while the game focuses on the Lizardfolk. If they don't want to deal with it, do they just burn 2-3 days ingame while he gets better and the rest of the party has 2-3 days of downtime? It might let the other characters do interesting things, but the Lizardfolk isn't unless he picks up rumors while being tented to. If the party doesn't want to make this some quest, but you want to put limits on the Lizardfolk because you don't approve of the action. Then making them sick for a day or two and pushing the game clock forwards reinforces that it was a bad decision but the consequences are low... the consequences are low because they are felt by the whole party not just the player.
I have in the past introduced illness into games as a way to encourage players to to think of their actions in a physical sense. (ie not enough gear for winter journey... not enough food etc..)
I have not done this in 5e, but there is a pretty good in game mechanic to track this sort of thing. Give them 1-3 level of exhaustion from food poisoning. During each long rest have them roll a con save and the exhaustion gets cleared with a DC of... lets say... 14. If you want to make it harder up the DC or increase the level of exhaustion.
Not enough DMs use the exhaustion rules, and they can be pretty damn debilitating with disadvantage on all rolls.
FYI there is also a section in the DMG for disease and illness.
Here are some quotes from Volo's regarding Lizard folk that might be relevant.
"To a lizardfolk, a comrade who dies becomes a potential source of food. That companion might have once been a warrior or hunter, but now the body is just freshly killed meat."
"Yes, the fallen dwarf might be most useful as a meal, but hacking the body into steaks provokes aggression in the other humanoids and makes them less helpful in battle."
In this text, the reference is to fresh meat. I am not sure what other resources there might be on Lizardfolk diet but not all lizards are created equal and not all lizards can successfully consume rotting and decayed flesh. The komodo dragon may be one example but I don't think it applies to lizards in general (though I am not an expert).
In this case, I would probably just have the character regurgitate the "food" and realize that a zombie does not represent fresh meat even if it was recently moving. Let the player know that Lizardfolk prefer to eat their meat fresh and just move on from there. I don't think you need a long term penalty.
In this case, I would probably just have the character regurgitate the "food" and realize that a zombie does not represent fresh meat even if it was recently moving. Let the player know that Lizardfolk prefer to eat their meat fresh and just move on from there. I don't think you need a long term penalty.
I like David's take on this, but a minor and or long term penalty can always make a fun story hook. Maybe the disease didn't infect him but now he craves rotten flesh even if it's not good for him? Like some kind of awkward drug addiction.
I guess it all depends if you're doing an RP heavy campaign. If the characters are RP'ing a lizard folk in a way that they make these obviously questionable decisions then I think the DM should RP a story element that gives them some sort of temporary debuff as a result. You shouldn't think of it as punishing the player, that's not a DMs job, but rather RPing back at them against their RP decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So bit of context one of my players a 2nd level Lizardman Monk ate a zombie during a battle on a plague ship. There reasoning was that being a lizardman he would want to waste any potential resources including the rotting flesh of the walking dead. I feel like I need there to be some repercussions for this behavior such as the contraction of an illness, but at the same time I don't want the player to feel like I am punishing them for role-playing thier character.
Ever seen a dead animal along the side of road that is so rotten even the vultures won't eat it? Even a pragmatic lizardman wouldn't eat a nasty rotting carcass, or in this case a nasty rotting zombie. It's role-playing to a degree, but lizard folk are not just eating machines.
I personally would just of had the player throw it up, and move on. Not worth punishing the player for what he feels is good role playing. Maybe a warning, lizard men are not sharks and don't eat anything and everything. That said, no rules says they can't use their bite ability on undead.
You could perhaps consider the rotting flesh as some kind of poison.
Or make him make a Constitution check on the next Long rest to see if he gets sleep or if he feels weird from eating something bad, and then get exhaustion if he doesn't get good sleep.
Then again, maybe Lizardfolk have very resistant digestive systems, so no repercussions other than it wasn't really filling, so doesn't make him satiated.
Dungeon Master – MelGon's Tales from the Yawning Portal
Hawk of the Night (Hawk) – Level 2 Tabaxi Ranger – Swift's Storm King's Thunder
Lavandula Angustia – Level 1 Tiefling Rogue – LMoP campaign, DM: novaskyr
His rationalization was based on komodo dragons being able to consume raw, and rotted meat without any risk of contracting anything. I did make him role a CON save which he failed but haven't decided what to do from there. He's currently on a journey with another member of the party to discover emotions and as been brilliant at role-playing his character as an outsider when in town and cities. This other party member has been trying to teach him about certain taboos (such as eating zombies). I just kinda feel that it ruins any sense of danger to not have him get sick particularly because of the whole Plague ship and potential pandemic motif.
(I have seen FMA Brotherhood and I really like that comparison)
So, I'm still just a baby DM, so take all this with a grain of salt the size of an actual baby;
Personally, I think the komodo dragon thing is a slight bit of metagame thinking. Lizardfolk aren't komodo dragons. They aren't snakes. They aren't any real form of reptile or lizard. You can't just pick and choose which aspects of which animals you want to have as abilities on your character. However, I'm all about the "yes, and" aspect of improv in D&D. (The Matt Mercer "You can certainly try." attitude.) So I wouldn't really argue with them at the table. Maybe after the session I would speak to the player and let them know that; a) Lizardfolk in the rules don't have disease/sickness immunity. b) Lizardfolk aren't komodo dragons. c) If they would like to tweak the race a bit to have resistance/immunity to mundane sicknesses, we can work with that. But that zombieism isn't a mundane disease, it's magical.
But what I would do if this situation were to arise in my game, and a player wanted to eat zombie flesh, first I would ask them to make a Perception check with a low DC of 10-ish. If they fail, then they don't notice anything and then chomp on the flesh. More on that later. But success would give them the feeling that maybe this stuff isn't the best for them. In this players case I would state that it triggered their fear response. Instinctively, they know not to eat this.
This gives the player a choice, "waste" the meat (which is no good anyway, but if that's the feeling they want the character to have then that's valid role-play to me) or take the chance on it. If wasting material is something the character has an aversion to, then great, this makes for an opportunity for meaningful choice.
If they still insist on eating it, give another player that has an appropriate skill an opportunity to see what's happening and step in. Let them know that if the player eats the meat, it might make them sick, and after an Arcana check DC 10-15, they would feel like maybe even if it doesn't make the Lizardfolk sick, it might make them a carrier.
Roleplay opportunities abound.
Now, if they eat the meat anyway. (Or are just oblivious to the danger.) Then I would allow them to play into the idea that it won't hurt them. Much. The Lizardfolk character doesn't turn into a zombie. They might puke for a day or two, but their health is relatively unscathed. But from that point on, every time that character bit someone whoever they bit would contract zombieism and thusly turn undead.
Once they party figures out what's happening, then it can be their own little journey to figure out how to fix it.
That's my take on it anyway.
I don't think this merits anything harsh. Give him the poisoned condition for 24 hours, or say he gets no benefit from his next long rest. Lesson learned about how he can't eat everything. Giving him some debilitating disease seems too harsh.
I agree with this. Eating zombie is like eating Chipotle.
Treat it like he ate some bad chicken. He has the Poisoned condition needs an extra long rest.
It doesn't interfere with play, but lets you nudge that "you can't eat anything", but doesn't "punish" the player.
Maybe play it up a bit so the other player might go "on no! is he *infected* ?!"
But he's back the next day after a 24 hr stomach bug.
@Cloudseeker42
Why hasn't Medic mentioned they have Remove Curse. They should certainly realize they have it, right? Just because they're an NPC doesn't mean they can't share relevant information until they're asked about it.
@Cloudseeker - have you considered that the players want to become werewolves?
Fireball hurling werewolves, maybe?
Why would they want to cure something that could make their characters so much cooler?
I just about remember playing D&D when I was 13, and that is the sort of cool stuff that would definitely have me coming back for more.
I use to believe in repercussions; now I call them twists. And if they are not fun, they are gone.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I see "punishing" or "consequences" for eating the zombie being significant is bad because I don't see anyone having fun with it. What does this add to the game? How does it make it better? How will the Lizardfolk being seriously ill improve the play for that player? How will it improve play for the entire group. IF the party wants to make a few sessions about a disease affecting the Lizardfolk and curing it great! I'd probably avoid the Poisoned Condition because the character can't succeed at anything and will feel disempowered at curing themselves. Instead have them lose max hp slowly like mummy's rot, so it's a "race against time" to fix it, but the character is still functional and has agency in curing themselves.
If you want the Lizardfolk to be incapacitated by the disease then the player is going to need an NPC to play for the session(s). Otherwise they don't get to play at all and they might as well not be there.
If the party doesn't want this to be the focus of session(s) then the party will be bored while the game focuses on the Lizardfolk. If they don't want to deal with it, do they just burn 2-3 days ingame while he gets better and the rest of the party has 2-3 days of downtime? It might let the other characters do interesting things, but the Lizardfolk isn't unless he picks up rumors while being tented to.
If the party doesn't want to make this some quest, but you want to put limits on the Lizardfolk because you don't approve of the action. Then making them sick for a day or two and pushing the game clock forwards reinforces that it was a bad decision but the consequences are low... the consequences are low because they are felt by the whole party not just the player.
I have in the past introduced illness into games as a way to encourage players to to think of their actions in a physical sense. (ie not enough gear for winter journey... not enough food etc..)
I have not done this in 5e, but there is a pretty good in game mechanic to track this sort of thing. Give them 1-3 level of exhaustion from food poisoning. During each long rest have them roll a con save and the exhaustion gets cleared with a DC of... lets say... 14. If you want to make it harder up the DC or increase the level of exhaustion.
Not enough DMs use the exhaustion rules, and they can be pretty damn debilitating with disadvantage on all rolls.
FYI there is also a section in the DMG for disease and illness.
Here are some quotes from Volo's regarding Lizard folk that might be relevant.
"To a lizardfolk, a comrade who dies becomes a potential source of food. That companion might have once been a warrior or hunter, but now the body is just freshly killed meat."
"Yes, the fallen dwarf might be most useful as a meal, but hacking the body into steaks provokes aggression in the other humanoids and makes them less helpful in battle."
In this text, the reference is to fresh meat. I am not sure what other resources there might be on Lizardfolk diet but not all lizards are created equal and not all lizards can successfully consume rotting and decayed flesh. The komodo dragon may be one example but I don't think it applies to lizards in general (though I am not an expert).
In this case, I would probably just have the character regurgitate the "food" and realize that a zombie does not represent fresh meat even if it was recently moving. Let the player know that Lizardfolk prefer to eat their meat fresh and just move on from there. I don't think you need a long term penalty.
I like David's take on this, but a minor and or long term penalty can always make a fun story hook. Maybe the disease didn't infect him but now he craves rotten flesh even if it's not good for him? Like some kind of awkward drug addiction.
Karmafleet is recruiting.
I guess it all depends if you're doing an RP heavy campaign. If the characters are RP'ing a lizard folk in a way that they make these obviously questionable decisions then I think the DM should RP a story element that gives them some sort of temporary debuff as a result. You shouldn't think of it as punishing the player, that's not a DMs job, but rather RPing back at them against their RP decision.