So I'm new to D&D and have been playing weekly sessions in my university for a few months. I decided that I wanted to make my own D&D campaign with some friends who I know would like the game but can't play in the weekly sessions due to scheduling conflicts. So I started like a few weeks ago and I immediately ran into a problem.
One of the friends, let's call him N, he had a 'special' way of playing. He created a lawful evil character, which I didn't think much of it, and he took the criminal background which I kinda used to my advantage to humiliate him a bit, but it was a minor moment. Here's where the problem lies, since I've only had exposure to one-shots or 2 parters, I didn't have enough knowledge nor experience to make a whole campaign, so I opted for a more bland approach, which is just them being part of a guild to earn money. They watch a lot of anime, so it wasn't that hard for them to follow. The problem with this is that N thought he could do stupid things and make stupid faces at people just because he's lawful evil and a criminal. They didn't do too much with their character's backstory, so I just had him be a reformed criminal who joined the guild to earn easy money. That still doesn't stop him from trying to use an intimidating voice on the guildmaster in charge of them, nor did it stop him from trying to use thaumaturgy to make noises to try to disturb, annoy and even intimidate an equipment seller at one point. Let's also not forget the time he sat way behind the other friend in a bar 'just in case' there was something that was gonna go down so that he can be prepared, and trying to use phantasmal force on the guy who came up to the other friend just to see what happens.
While traversing through a forest, which I admit I do use every time in a campaign so it's partially my fault, he always tries to lag behind party members so that he won't be seen when they get attacked and also try to hide each time he gets the opportunity to. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any qualms about people trying to hide during combat to get an advantage, but there is seriously something wrong if you're trying to hide and stealth when you a) don't know what you're hiding from b) are trying to LOOK for something. If he says he wants to stealthily search for something, I would allow it, be he decides to try to hide in the bushes actively while searching for something, just cause he's being 'careful'.
The worst part? He doesn't trust any of the NPCs. Now, that's justifiable to some degree, especially when you're evil, but when your campaigns involve you trying to earn money by taking missions from CLIENTS, no matter what the form, whether it's a wizard, a knight or even just a random commoner, you're bound to have at least some NPC interactions where you have to at least be nice and not suspect that they will betray you at any given time. This stems from the time he witnessed my party getting our butts kicked because we were surprised by Frosty the Snowman (don't ask) and his legion of snowmen because we didn't perform an insight check. Sure it was stupid of us to not do that and we should've been more careful, being the type of careful he is is basically just metagaming to give himself the best advantage instead of having fun role-playing and thinking yourself in that situation. It's even worse since he constantly says that being careful is how he would role-play himself in that situation so that he wouldn't get killed.
And as I said earlier, he constantly uses thaumaturgy to make sounds to disrupt the conversation or to try to be 'funny' or to intimidate people just because he doesn't like their attitude. He also constantly reminds me that I was the one who let the rogue shoot him because he was having a very evil tone in his voice when he was talking about the reward for the quest with the guildmaster, stating that there was DM favourtism because the rogue didn't get in trouble for assault while I constantly chastise him for using spells in a normal setting to make a joke or to intimidate someone. I hadn't thought that he was going to be this kind of player at the time so I just let it slide. It's very hard to deal with this guy and it makes me sad because he's the one I made these sessions for in the first place.
I know this is a very long thread, and I'm sorry for that, but I just gotta ask, how do I deal with him? How do I make him understand that what he's doing breaks immersion and ruins the entire point of the game, and how do I get him to understand that he shouldn't use spells like that just to get a laugh in a normal situation like being at a bar or buying stuff? Thank you in advance.
Maybe a frank conversation about what kind of game you’re trying to run, and what his goals and intent in playing would help? Your party sounds like they have a competitive streak, and like to take shots at each other and each to things their own way. What is the reason for this party working together? Outside of the game, what does your group of friends enjoy?
It also sounds like this player assumes that the DM is the enemy of the players, and that you are going to try to trick or surprise them, and that this player invests a lot of time into trying to prevent that. It doesn’t sound like that’s happened outside of the “Frosty” incident, but maybe that’s a conversation to have as well. Or make there be penalties for being overly cautious - you can’t get to the burning temple in time to save people if you’re tiptoeing through the shadows the whole way, etc.
A lot of this falls under the action-have-consequences header. If he messes with people, they will treat him accordingly. If he casts a spell at someone, they (and their friends, and possibly the town guard) will respond to that attack. If he’s hanging behind the party as they walk along, that’s just a bad idea. if there’s bandits in the woods, who are they logically going to go for, the group, or the lone guy way behind them who looks like an easier target? Attack him in the back and he’ll realize why one of the first rules of D&D is don’t split the party
The bigger problem here is probably him playing an evil character. Unless it’s an all evil campaign, Most people do that because they think it gives them license to be a jerk. They do whatever they like and say, but that’s what my character would do. It’s absurd, they have control over their character, not the other way around. If the character is being a jerk, it’s because the player is making him be one.
It’s never too late to have a session 0, and that might also fix a lot of this. Have an out of character discussion about the kind of campaign everyone wants to have. Make sure you all agree on what kind of behavior is ok, and what is not. It helps give players some boundaries for how far they can push anti-social behavior, so they know when it will start to annoy others at the table.
I've tried having a conversation with him and he just wouldn't listen. He's still trying to find ways to use spells on people without getting into trouble, whining about the fact that he should've taken subtle spell instead so that he wouldn't get into trouble.
It certainly does seem like he thinks the DM is the enemy, considering he doesn't take it too well when I said that I have power over everything. I've also tried to have a conversation with him about this, he still just wouldn't listen. And the worst part is that the 'Frosty' incident didn't even happen to him, he was watching me play with another party. I'm been trying the penalty thing, with varying success, yet he still doesn't get that being careful breaks the immersion, still opting for a more 'safe' approach even though the other approach is as good or even better result-wise.
And trust me, he's the only one with an actual competitive streak. The other friend doesn't really care about what he does because he's not as into the game, but even then he's still much more ethical both in and out of game, but that's a conversation for another time.
Overall, this problem's been taking quite a toll on my psyche and I've been getting a lot of unfounded stress in this, which is really bad if you're a college student with a lot of extracurricular activities. This is the first time I've felt this kind of stress in a very long time and I'm opting to just try my best to kill their characters in a fair fight next time rather than continuing.
A lot of this falls under the action-have-consequences header. If he messes with people, they will treat him accordingly. If he casts a spell at someone, they (and their friends, and possibly the town guard) will respond to that attack. If he’s hanging behind the party as they walk along, that’s just a bad idea. if there’s bandits in the woods, who are they logically going to go for, the group, or the lone guy way behind them who looks like an easier target? Attack him in the back and he’ll realize why one of the first rules of D&D is don’t split the party
The bigger problem here is probably him playing an evil character. Unless it’s an all evil campaign, Most people do that because they think it gives them license to be a jerk. They do whatever they like and say, but that’s what my character would do. It’s absurd, they have control over their character, not the other way around. If the character is being a jerk, it’s because the player is making him be one.
It’s never too late to have a session 0, and that might also fix a lot of this. Have an out of character discussion about the kind of campaign everyone wants to have. Make sure you all agree on what kind of behavior is ok, and what is not. It helps give players some boundaries for how far they can push anti-social behavior, so they know when it will start to annoy others at the table.
I guess so. Though some clarifications, him lagging behind is more so being a few squares behind rather than being very far behind, so it really isn't splitting the party that much. And also because the 3rd guy bailed on us so we're stuck with 2 people now.
The thing about him using spells is that he always uses thaumaturgy and recently started using phantasmal force, 2 spells that don't do direct damage but would obviously fall under the disturbance of peace crime, yet he still tries to justify that he's not physically harming people so he shouldn't get into trouble and always chastise me for responding with an attack spell because he was not actively attacking the NPC.
I guess the session 0 is a good idea. I might actually get through him with that. I'll try as soon as I can.
Maybe don't respond with an attack spell, but if he starts casting spells on NPCs in a tavern when they're minding their own business? The barkeep's going to throw him out and say "we don't serve troublemakers here!" (And the barkeep is a retired adventurer that shrugs off charm spells and just says "I've killed stirges tougher than you - get out.") Then, while he's stuck alone outside the tavern? He's probably going to get mugged. In a bigger town? the Watch will haul him off for disturbing the peace.
Also, about the lagging behind in forests, etc., remember traveling speeds. He can travel while hiding or being stealthy, but he moves at *half speed* relative to the rest of the party. By the rules he cannot keep up with the others if he's being stealthy and they're not. He gets left behind and jumped by an owlbear.
If he keeps trying to intimidate / annoy shopkeepers and quest givers? They're going to stop doing business with the party REAL fast, and suddenly the party is blamed for some sort of criminal activity (which they of course didn't commit) because no one freakin' likes them.
Honestly? A lot of this stuff sounds really mild. Lagging behind your party when traveling, as a stealthy character, is a smart way to utilize your skills and I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to prepare for trouble some traveling through the wilds.
The Thaumaturgy stuff doesn't seem harmful, if anything the image of them waggling their fingers in a corner making the window slam open and closed or causing the ground to tremble slightly while an increasingly annoyed shopkeeper just grumbles about it in the corner is quite funny. It's important to note that Thaumaturgy is not a harmful spell, so this action shouldn't be construed as hostile, so in this situation I wouldn't even say anyone was even wronged by the "evil" behavior. Your shopkeeper is (presumably) an adult so should know the best way to deal with that kind of thing is to ignore it.
As for intimidating your boss, who hasn't thought about it? Before deciding that it breaks your game, consider how the boss would react to that in a way that wouldn't. Do they even consider N's character a threat? Surely the boss of the adventuring guild would be a formidable figure in her own right, so I'd say there isn't an amount of attempted intimidation from a low level member that they'd take seriously, so it isn't really much of a problem. If I was running that NPC, their response to an intimidation attempt from a subordinate would range between "haha that's cute you think you're scary" to "wow, power move. That was dumb but here's some grudging respect."
And maybe the mistrust of other party members is an RP choice and the player plans to slowly open up to the group as characters develope. If not, I'd say maybe have a conversation about how they ought to consider it since D&D doesn't really work without "player buy-in" and part of that is players accepting that they are part of a party. They can play paranoid or slow to trust, but if it stops making sense why your character would choose to travel with this party, it's either time to make changes to your character or retire them and roll another.
Overall though, I'd say you really lucked out with the "inexperienced player playing an evil PC" department. Making faces and annoying NPC's isn't particularly harmful or evil, while a lot of inexperienced players playing evil characters use their alignment to justify stealing all the party's magic item, killing important NPC's just to watch the DM sweat, and generally ruining the other player's fun.
I think a lot of these things may *appear* to be problems to an inexperienced DM, but mostly seem to be harmless and at times even creative character choices. It only starts to be a problem if it takes away from other people's fun.
Also im not sure why casting spells out of combat is a problem? Spells can be cast at any time, and there are various spells that are designed for social encounters.
Edit- also, I wouldn't say there's a problem inherent in being a "careful" player. In some games if you're not careful, you die. I would say either explain to N that that isn't the kind of game you're trying to run, or, reward their planning and maybe just up the amount of potential encounters. Throw more stuff at them to be careful about.
Yeah, I agree with the above a bit. You're over-reacting. I would definitely have impacts for his actions, but they would be mild. 1: You can't hide and search. If you're hiding in the bushes, you can't search under the log. It's illogical. You can hide in the bushes and look around, but if you can't see it, that's it. 2: If you're going to act like a child to NPC's, they're not going to give you the job. Create a few different sounding hooks for the same task. When he meets a client, if he carries on like a tool, the client calls him out and says he'll "find someone who will take the job with the seriousness it deserves" or somesuch. And keep doing that until he gets the idea, or you end up with the really horrible jobs that no one else will take. Like clearing out a rat infestation from the latrine reservoir. 3: If you're rude to your boss, see the above. Eventually you'll get kicked out of the guild, or they'll give you a job to get you killed. If THAT happens and you survive it, they'll be grudgingly impressed and maybe find better ways to use your "talents", even though they think you're a pain.
Sidenote: as a DM, don't lord your power over others. It's not becoming.
Wow there is a lot to unpack here. I will snip most of it and just respond to a few things that jumped out at me.
He created a lawful evil character, which I didn't think much of it, and he took the criminal background which I kinda used to my advantage to humiliate him a bit, but it was a minor moment.
Why would you call humiliating one of the characters "using it to your advantage?" I don't think it's generally a good idea to start things off by humiliating the characters (I assume you mean the character and not the player -- it's 100% unacceptable to purposely humiliate the actual players at the table). The guy picked an alignment, and a background that you approved. Now it sounds like after you approved it, you regretted the decision, and so you decided to punish the character for having entirely legal character creation options. That's not cool in my book.
Itnige said in an earlier response that "N" seems to think that the DM is the enemy of the players. Well, if you, the DM, are purposely setting out to humiliate a character just because of a background option that you allowed, then maybe N isn't so far off the mark. A good DM would not try to humiliate characters on purpose. Apply consequences, yes. Humiliate, no. Not cool.
The problem with this is that N thought he could do stupid things and make stupid faces at people just because he's lawful evil and a criminal.
Just how old is this "N"? He sounds very new to D&D and possibly quite young. Additionally, he doesn't understand alignment, which I know some people hate, but if he is using alignment to justify his actions then he should at least get it right. Doing random things like making stupid faces at people for no reason is a trait I'd expect of chaotic characters, not lawful ones. Lawful characters ought to be predictable and constant, not doing random s--t. So you might need to explain how alignment works to him. A lawful evil character would obey authority even to the point of murdering those who reject it, not walk around the streets making goofy faces at people. Chaotic neutral characters might, but not Lawful Evil.
That still doesn't stop him from trying to use an intimidating voice on the guildmaster in charge of them,
Why did the guild master put up with it? The guildmaster should be much higher level than the party, if he is their boss, so an intimidation check should not work on him (he would have tons more proficiency in the relevant counter-skill). Think of the old Crocodile Dundee line, "You call that a knife? That's not a knife. THIS is a knife!" Guildmaster should pull that on him. "You call that an intimidating voice? No, THIS IS!"
nor did it stop him from trying to use thaumaturgy to make noises to try to disturb, annoy and even intimidate an equipment seller at one point. Let's also not forget the time he sat way behind the other friend in a bar 'just in case' there was something that was gonna go down so that he can be prepared, and trying to use phantasmal force on the guy who came up to the other friend just to see what happens.
Again, this is the kind of thing I'd expect to see of a chaotic character, not a lawful one. He's playing Chaotic Neutral based on your description, not Lawful Evil. And again, alignment doesn't even have to be used in games but if he's gonna fall back on LE as his reason for doing things, he's way off the mark.
he always tries to lag behind party members so that he won't be seen when they get attacked and also try to hide each time he gets the opportunity to.
And what do the other PCs say about this? How do they like it that he is letting them be the targets and he potentially can just run away and leave them. He is evil, after all -- he should not have any concerns about their well-being. If the party is OK with this, I see no reason to complain as DM. It's up to them. It might be interesting to see what happens if he lags behind and gets caught by something nasty tracking them, like an owlbear. But I would not do this to punish him, as I see nothing wrong with this from the DM's perspective, but rather to see how everyone reacts. And I'd make sure it was a reasonable challenge not OP.
As a player, I suspect I might have some words for him if he is acting overtly cowardly. If he is doing a good job of covering our butts, I'd let it go.
there is seriously something wrong if you're trying to hide and stealth when you a) don't know what you're hiding from b) are trying to LOOK for something. If he says he wants to stealthily search for something,
I am not aware of any stealth rule in D&D or any other game for that matter, which requires the character to know what they are hiding from in order to make a check and be stealthy. You can hide in shadows as long as there are shadows, and whether or not you know who might come along in a few minutes and see you. Stealthing can only move at 2/3 speed though, right? So in a few rounds won't the party be so far ahead he's out of earshot? He's gonna have to catch up, or else ask them all to move at 2/3 speed, which if they're all with him is gonna defeat the purpose of him (by himself) stealthing, because the rest of the party will make noise.
As for stealth AND search. I'd probably say he can either stealth or search but not do both at the same time, as searching will prevent you from hiding in the darkest shadows, force you to move aside branches, etc.
being the type of careful he is is basically just metagaming to give himself the best advantage instead of having fun role-playing and thinking yourself in that situation. It's even worse since he constantly says that being careful is how he would role-play himself in that situation so that he wouldn't get killed.
Well, at least here he sounds like he understands the "evil" part of the L.E. alignment. Evil characters should put self-preservation first, ahead of all others, and sacrificing all others to do so. That's sort of the everyday definition of "evil" (with "good" being, to sacrifice of yourself to help others, i.e. the opposite). I would agree that "N" is doing some things I would probably clamp down on as a DM, but I don't consider most of it to be as beyond the pale as you seem to. I suggest that "N" is just testing the waters to see what you will let him get away with. It's your job to set the rules and stick with them, but you should not punish him for testing things out, and definitely should not be purposely trying to humiliate his character. Again, if you started things out that way, his attitude may be understandable.
And as I said earlier, he constantly uses thaumaturgy to make sounds to disrupt the conversation or to try to be 'funny' or to intimidate people just because he doesn't like their attitude.
If you want to stop this kind of behavior (using cantrips over and over again in what sound like silly or world-breaking ways) then you, as a DM, need to find a graceful way to deal with it. It may be too late for it now but you could have a law in the town that use of magic in the public square is forbidden except in self defense. If he keeps doing this he can find himself on the wrong side of the law -- not where he would want to be given his background. However, again, we should not as DMs be about "punishing" people but about helping players who are having their characters behave in negative ways, to see the potential consequences of their actions. Also, here again, he seems to be acting like a chaotic character, because he is just doing random stuff ant random times -- being "disruptive" is a symptom of chaotic, not lawful behavior.
So, if I'm in this situation, I would ask if he really wants to be lawful evil, when he really seems like he is being CN/CE. If he insists on LE, then I would have a conversation about what "lawfulness" means in my world... which would include being respectful of authority, following chains of command, following prescribed norms of behavior in social situations, etc. Sure, he's evil, but he is also lawful. That means he goes along with evil authorities, not that he keeps subverting the existing authority.
He also constantly reminds me that I was the one who let the rogue shoot him because he was having a very evil tone in his voice when he was talking about the reward for the quest with the guildmaster, stating that there was DM favourtism because the rogue didn't get in trouble for assault while I constantly chastise him for using spells in a normal setting to make a joke or to intimidate someone.
The rogue is a PC? And you let one PC shoot another as you describe, without a consequence? In front of the guildmaster? Why didn't the guildmaster reprimand the rogue for taking matters into his own hands? Given what little you have stated here, I think that "N" has something to complain about.
Now, all that said, this guy may just not be a good fit for you as a DM. You want a grave and serious campaign, and he is acting like a chaotic neutral trickery cleric who wants to play practical jokes on everyone he meets. So you may just have to part ways. However, I think he's not alone at being at fault here -- some of what's happened is a result of things you have done (or not done) as a DM.
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.
So I'm new to D&D and have been playing weekly sessions in my university for a few months. I decided that I wanted to make my own D&D campaign with some friends who I know would like the game but can't play in the weekly sessions due to scheduling conflicts. So I started like a few weeks ago and I immediately ran into a problem.
One of the friends, let's call him N, he had a 'special' way of playing. He created a lawful evil character, which I didn't think much of it, and he took the criminal background which I kinda used to my advantage to humiliate him a bit, but it was a minor moment. Here's where the problem lies, since I've only had exposure to one-shots or 2 parters, I didn't have enough knowledge nor experience to make a whole campaign, so I opted for a more bland approach, which is just them being part of a guild to earn money. They watch a lot of anime, so it wasn't that hard for them to follow. The problem with this is that N thought he could do stupid things and make stupid faces at people just because he's lawful evil and a criminal. They didn't do too much with their character's backstory, so I just had him be a reformed criminal who joined the guild to earn easy money. That still doesn't stop him from trying to use an intimidating voice on the guildmaster in charge of them, nor did it stop him from trying to use thaumaturgy to make noises to try to disturb, annoy and even intimidate an equipment seller at one point. Let's also not forget the time he sat way behind the other friend in a bar 'just in case' there was something that was gonna go down so that he can be prepared, and trying to use phantasmal force on the guy who came up to the other friend just to see what happens.
While traversing through a forest, which I admit I do use every time in a campaign so it's partially my fault, he always tries to lag behind party members so that he won't be seen when they get attacked and also try to hide each time he gets the opportunity to. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any qualms about people trying to hide during combat to get an advantage, but there is seriously something wrong if you're trying to hide and stealth when you a) don't know what you're hiding from b) are trying to LOOK for something. If he says he wants to stealthily search for something, I would allow it, be he decides to try to hide in the bushes actively while searching for something, just cause he's being 'careful'.
The worst part? He doesn't trust any of the NPCs. Now, that's justifiable to some degree, especially when you're evil, but when your campaigns involve you trying to earn money by taking missions from CLIENTS, no matter what the form, whether it's a wizard, a knight or even just a random commoner, you're bound to have at least some NPC interactions where you have to at least be nice and not suspect that they will betray you at any given time. This stems from the time he witnessed my party getting our butts kicked because we were surprised by Frosty the Snowman (don't ask) and his legion of snowmen because we didn't perform an insight check. Sure it was stupid of us to not do that and we should've been more careful, being the type of careful he is is basically just metagaming to give himself the best advantage instead of having fun role-playing and thinking yourself in that situation. It's even worse since he constantly says that being careful is how he would role-play himself in that situation so that he wouldn't get killed.
And as I said earlier, he constantly uses thaumaturgy to make sounds to disrupt the conversation or to try to be 'funny' or to intimidate people just because he doesn't like their attitude. He also constantly reminds me that I was the one who let the rogue shoot him because he was having a very evil tone in his voice when he was talking about the reward for the quest with the guildmaster, stating that there was DM favourtism because the rogue didn't get in trouble for assault while I constantly chastise him for using spells in a normal setting to make a joke or to intimidate someone. I hadn't thought that he was going to be this kind of player at the time so I just let it slide. It's very hard to deal with this guy and it makes me sad because he's the one I made these sessions for in the first place.
I know this is a very long thread, and I'm sorry for that, but I just gotta ask, how do I deal with him? How do I make him understand that what he's doing breaks immersion and ruins the entire point of the game, and how do I get him to understand that he shouldn't use spells like that just to get a laugh in a normal situation like being at a bar or buying stuff? Thank you in advance.
Huh, sounds like a real puzzle.
Maybe a frank conversation about what kind of game you’re trying to run, and what his goals and intent in playing would help? Your party sounds like they have a competitive streak, and like to take shots at each other and each to things their own way. What is the reason for this party working together? Outside of the game, what does your group of friends enjoy?
It also sounds like this player assumes that the DM is the enemy of the players, and that you are going to try to trick or surprise them, and that this player invests a lot of time into trying to prevent that. It doesn’t sound like that’s happened outside of the “Frosty” incident, but maybe that’s a conversation to have as well. Or make there be penalties for being overly cautious - you can’t get to the burning temple in time to save people if you’re tiptoeing through the shadows the whole way, etc.
A lot of this falls under the action-have-consequences header. If he messes with people, they will treat him accordingly. If he casts a spell at someone, they (and their friends, and possibly the town guard) will respond to that attack. If he’s hanging behind the party as they walk along, that’s just a bad idea. if there’s bandits in the woods, who are they logically going to go for, the group, or the lone guy way behind them who looks like an easier target? Attack him in the back and he’ll realize why one of the first rules of D&D is don’t split the party
The bigger problem here is probably him playing an evil character. Unless it’s an all evil campaign, Most people do that because they think it gives them license to be a jerk. They do whatever they like and say, but that’s what my character would do. It’s absurd, they have control over their character, not the other way around. If the character is being a jerk, it’s because the player is making him be one.
It’s never too late to have a session 0, and that might also fix a lot of this. Have an out of character discussion about the kind of campaign everyone wants to have. Make sure you all agree on what kind of behavior is ok, and what is not. It helps give players some boundaries for how far they can push anti-social behavior, so they know when it will start to annoy others at the table.
I've tried having a conversation with him and he just wouldn't listen. He's still trying to find ways to use spells on people without getting into trouble, whining about the fact that he should've taken subtle spell instead so that he wouldn't get into trouble.
It certainly does seem like he thinks the DM is the enemy, considering he doesn't take it too well when I said that I have power over everything. I've also tried to have a conversation with him about this, he still just wouldn't listen. And the worst part is that the 'Frosty' incident didn't even happen to him, he was watching me play with another party. I'm been trying the penalty thing, with varying success, yet he still doesn't get that being careful breaks the immersion, still opting for a more 'safe' approach even though the other approach is as good or even better result-wise.
And trust me, he's the only one with an actual competitive streak. The other friend doesn't really care about what he does because he's not as into the game, but even then he's still much more ethical both in and out of game, but that's a conversation for another time.
Overall, this problem's been taking quite a toll on my psyche and I've been getting a lot of unfounded stress in this, which is really bad if you're a college student with a lot of extracurricular activities. This is the first time I've felt this kind of stress in a very long time and I'm opting to just try my best to kill their characters in a fair fight next time rather than continuing.
I guess so. Though some clarifications, him lagging behind is more so being a few squares behind rather than being very far behind, so it really isn't splitting the party that much. And also because the 3rd guy bailed on us so we're stuck with 2 people now.
The thing about him using spells is that he always uses thaumaturgy and recently started using phantasmal force, 2 spells that don't do direct damage but would obviously fall under the disturbance of peace crime, yet he still tries to justify that he's not physically harming people so he shouldn't get into trouble and always chastise me for responding with an attack spell because he was not actively attacking the NPC.
I guess the session 0 is a good idea. I might actually get through him with that. I'll try as soon as I can.
Maybe don't respond with an attack spell, but if he starts casting spells on NPCs in a tavern when they're minding their own business? The barkeep's going to throw him out and say "we don't serve troublemakers here!" (And the barkeep is a retired adventurer that shrugs off charm spells and just says "I've killed stirges tougher than you - get out.") Then, while he's stuck alone outside the tavern? He's probably going to get mugged. In a bigger town? the Watch will haul him off for disturbing the peace.
Also, about the lagging behind in forests, etc., remember traveling speeds. He can travel while hiding or being stealthy, but he moves at *half speed* relative to the rest of the party. By the rules he cannot keep up with the others if he's being stealthy and they're not. He gets left behind and jumped by an owlbear.
If he keeps trying to intimidate / annoy shopkeepers and quest givers? They're going to stop doing business with the party REAL fast, and suddenly the party is blamed for some sort of criminal activity (which they of course didn't commit) because no one freakin' likes them.
Honestly? A lot of this stuff sounds really mild. Lagging behind your party when traveling, as a stealthy character, is a smart way to utilize your skills and I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to prepare for trouble some traveling through the wilds.
The Thaumaturgy stuff doesn't seem harmful, if anything the image of them waggling their fingers in a corner making the window slam open and closed or causing the ground to tremble slightly while an increasingly annoyed shopkeeper just grumbles about it in the corner is quite funny. It's important to note that Thaumaturgy is not a harmful spell, so this action shouldn't be construed as hostile, so in this situation I wouldn't even say anyone was even wronged by the "evil" behavior. Your shopkeeper is (presumably) an adult so should know the best way to deal with that kind of thing is to ignore it.
As for intimidating your boss, who hasn't thought about it? Before deciding that it breaks your game, consider how the boss would react to that in a way that wouldn't. Do they even consider N's character a threat? Surely the boss of the adventuring guild would be a formidable figure in her own right, so I'd say there isn't an amount of attempted intimidation from a low level member that they'd take seriously, so it isn't really much of a problem. If I was running that NPC, their response to an intimidation attempt from a subordinate would range between "haha that's cute you think you're scary" to "wow, power move. That was dumb but here's some grudging respect."
And maybe the mistrust of other party members is an RP choice and the player plans to slowly open up to the group as characters develope. If not, I'd say maybe have a conversation about how they ought to consider it since D&D doesn't really work without "player buy-in" and part of that is players accepting that they are part of a party. They can play paranoid or slow to trust, but if it stops making sense why your character would choose to travel with this party, it's either time to make changes to your character or retire them and roll another.
Overall though, I'd say you really lucked out with the "inexperienced player playing an evil PC" department. Making faces and annoying NPC's isn't particularly harmful or evil, while a lot of inexperienced players playing evil characters use their alignment to justify stealing all the party's magic item, killing important NPC's just to watch the DM sweat, and generally ruining the other player's fun.
I think a lot of these things may *appear* to be problems to an inexperienced DM, but mostly seem to be harmless and at times even creative character choices. It only starts to be a problem if it takes away from other people's fun.
Also im not sure why casting spells out of combat is a problem? Spells can be cast at any time, and there are various spells that are designed for social encounters.
Edit- also, I wouldn't say there's a problem inherent in being a "careful" player. In some games if you're not careful, you die. I would say either explain to N that that isn't the kind of game you're trying to run, or, reward their planning and maybe just up the amount of potential encounters. Throw more stuff at them to be careful about.
Yeah, I agree with the above a bit. You're over-reacting. I would definitely have impacts for his actions, but they would be mild.
1: You can't hide and search. If you're hiding in the bushes, you can't search under the log. It's illogical. You can hide in the bushes and look around, but if you can't see it, that's it.
2: If you're going to act like a child to NPC's, they're not going to give you the job. Create a few different sounding hooks for the same task. When he meets a client, if he carries on like a tool, the client calls him out and says he'll "find someone who will take the job with the seriousness it deserves" or somesuch. And keep doing that until he gets the idea, or you end up with the really horrible jobs that no one else will take. Like clearing out a rat infestation from the latrine reservoir.
3: If you're rude to your boss, see the above. Eventually you'll get kicked out of the guild, or they'll give you a job to get you killed. If THAT happens and you survive it, they'll be grudgingly impressed and maybe find better ways to use your "talents", even though they think you're a pain.
Sidenote: as a DM, don't lord your power over others. It's not becoming.
Wow there is a lot to unpack here. I will snip most of it and just respond to a few things that jumped out at me.
Why would you call humiliating one of the characters "using it to your advantage?" I don't think it's generally a good idea to start things off by humiliating the characters (I assume you mean the character and not the player -- it's 100% unacceptable to purposely humiliate the actual players at the table). The guy picked an alignment, and a background that you approved. Now it sounds like after you approved it, you regretted the decision, and so you decided to punish the character for having entirely legal character creation options. That's not cool in my book.
Itnige said in an earlier response that "N" seems to think that the DM is the enemy of the players. Well, if you, the DM, are purposely setting out to humiliate a character just because of a background option that you allowed, then maybe N isn't so far off the mark. A good DM would not try to humiliate characters on purpose. Apply consequences, yes. Humiliate, no. Not cool.
Just how old is this "N"? He sounds very new to D&D and possibly quite young. Additionally, he doesn't understand alignment, which I know some people hate, but if he is using alignment to justify his actions then he should at least get it right. Doing random things like making stupid faces at people for no reason is a trait I'd expect of chaotic characters, not lawful ones. Lawful characters ought to be predictable and constant, not doing random s--t. So you might need to explain how alignment works to him. A lawful evil character would obey authority even to the point of murdering those who reject it, not walk around the streets making goofy faces at people. Chaotic neutral characters might, but not Lawful Evil.
Why did the guild master put up with it? The guildmaster should be much higher level than the party, if he is their boss, so an intimidation check should not work on him (he would have tons more proficiency in the relevant counter-skill). Think of the old Crocodile Dundee line, "You call that a knife? That's not a knife. THIS is a knife!" Guildmaster should pull that on him. "You call that an intimidating voice? No, THIS IS!"
Again, this is the kind of thing I'd expect to see of a chaotic character, not a lawful one. He's playing Chaotic Neutral based on your description, not Lawful Evil. And again, alignment doesn't even have to be used in games but if he's gonna fall back on LE as his reason for doing things, he's way off the mark.
And what do the other PCs say about this? How do they like it that he is letting them be the targets and he potentially can just run away and leave them. He is evil, after all -- he should not have any concerns about their well-being. If the party is OK with this, I see no reason to complain as DM. It's up to them. It might be interesting to see what happens if he lags behind and gets caught by something nasty tracking them, like an owlbear. But I would not do this to punish him, as I see nothing wrong with this from the DM's perspective, but rather to see how everyone reacts. And I'd make sure it was a reasonable challenge not OP.
As a player, I suspect I might have some words for him if he is acting overtly cowardly. If he is doing a good job of covering our butts, I'd let it go.
I am not aware of any stealth rule in D&D or any other game for that matter, which requires the character to know what they are hiding from in order to make a check and be stealthy. You can hide in shadows as long as there are shadows, and whether or not you know who might come along in a few minutes and see you. Stealthing can only move at 2/3 speed though, right? So in a few rounds won't the party be so far ahead he's out of earshot? He's gonna have to catch up, or else ask them all to move at 2/3 speed, which if they're all with him is gonna defeat the purpose of him (by himself) stealthing, because the rest of the party will make noise.
As for stealth AND search. I'd probably say he can either stealth or search but not do both at the same time, as searching will prevent you from hiding in the darkest shadows, force you to move aside branches, etc.
Well, at least here he sounds like he understands the "evil" part of the L.E. alignment. Evil characters should put self-preservation first, ahead of all others, and sacrificing all others to do so. That's sort of the everyday definition of "evil" (with "good" being, to sacrifice of yourself to help others, i.e. the opposite). I would agree that "N" is doing some things I would probably clamp down on as a DM, but I don't consider most of it to be as beyond the pale as you seem to. I suggest that "N" is just testing the waters to see what you will let him get away with. It's your job to set the rules and stick with them, but you should not punish him for testing things out, and definitely should not be purposely trying to humiliate his character. Again, if you started things out that way, his attitude may be understandable.
If you want to stop this kind of behavior (using cantrips over and over again in what sound like silly or world-breaking ways) then you, as a DM, need to find a graceful way to deal with it. It may be too late for it now but you could have a law in the town that use of magic in the public square is forbidden except in self defense. If he keeps doing this he can find himself on the wrong side of the law -- not where he would want to be given his background. However, again, we should not as DMs be about "punishing" people but about helping players who are having their characters behave in negative ways, to see the potential consequences of their actions. Also, here again, he seems to be acting like a chaotic character, because he is just doing random stuff ant random times -- being "disruptive" is a symptom of chaotic, not lawful behavior.
So, if I'm in this situation, I would ask if he really wants to be lawful evil, when he really seems like he is being CN/CE. If he insists on LE, then I would have a conversation about what "lawfulness" means in my world... which would include being respectful of authority, following chains of command, following prescribed norms of behavior in social situations, etc. Sure, he's evil, but he is also lawful. That means he goes along with evil authorities, not that he keeps subverting the existing authority.
The rogue is a PC? And you let one PC shoot another as you describe, without a consequence? In front of the guildmaster? Why didn't the guildmaster reprimand the rogue for taking matters into his own hands? Given what little you have stated here, I think that "N" has something to complain about.
Now, all that said, this guy may just not be a good fit for you as a DM. You want a grave and serious campaign, and he is acting like a chaotic neutral trickery cleric who wants to play practical jokes on everyone he meets. So you may just have to part ways. However, I think he's not alone at being at fault here -- some of what's happened is a result of things you have done (or not done) as a DM.
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.
Just let Nevil do it but not get a reaction. He will get bored and stop