I feel, that the player did not play according to her backstory that she wrote. I also feel that this cannot go unpunished. Am I mistaken to think/feel that?
That's not ok. It's not your job to to punish players for not running their character they way you would've. It's their character, not yours, and if there's only one acceptable outcome, you're not really giving them a choice. This is a very harmful mindset to have in a co-op game.
Unless the soulmate is better equipped to kill the evil creature, I'd say she made the right choice for all parties involved. I get fed up with stupid stories about people sacrificing themselves for each other resulting in everyone being in a worse spot.
It's one thing to be/play a heroic character, it's quite another to, in character, willingly choose to be killed in a horrible, agonizing way over and over again for eternity. Why would you expect this to be the only acceptable decision based on a backstory?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As you lay it out, it sounds like you are unbelievably mistaken on what backstories are for, the role of the DM in entertaining or at least accommodating a character's backstory, and what "soul mates" are actually compelled to do. It seems like you're upset the character didn't enter the death cycle mechanism to save the soul mate. Why does that have to happen? It sounds like your constraints of what character love and how love plot functions are are far too narrow for any reasonable player to play within. That's a narrative constraint you're imposing, I guess you thought it looked cool, but D&D is actually not a torture fiction narrated by the DM to a player in 2nd person. It seems you think otherwise. This is definitely not a player problem, this is a DM problem. It rather sounds like you abused the character's backstory to put the character through a tortuous scenario, where any reasonable person would recognize that the obligation you're commanding isn't the only possible resolution or response. As a DM you failed to consider how a reasonable player would react in a situation that would be emotionally painful for a character.
A DM can use backstory to instigate, provoke, inspire, interest a player character; but it seems the way you're outlining things you're presuming back stories enable a DM to dictate a character behavior. The remedy to your dilemma is to get over that misconception ASAP.
I've known people who claimed someone was their soul mate and broke up with them over far, far less. Heck, I've had girlfriends like it. I'm not convinced it is necessarily contradictory, from personal experience.
As others have said, it's not your role to dictate their story, that's theirs; your role is to provide the consequences of those actions. In that case, perhaps the beloved notices that she backed out and hates her for it. Or he's compassionate and forgives her, thereby strengthening their relationship. Or maybe it's all a ruse to break the trap. That's for you to figure out with the player. Your role is to give meaningful and logical consequences for her actions, not to punish her for disagreeing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The player has already been punished. The player wrote a motivation to adventure through a bond to a person. You decide to endlessly torture that person and then propose that the player be endlessly tortured instead. How did you expect that to go? The player would do the "right thing" and toss their character sheet?
This could be a great dramatic scene at the end of a campaign, but it would require some trust and cooperation between player and DM and it doesn't sound like you've earned that trust. Every player has a motivation that extends beyond their backstory - the motivation to play D&D. It sounds like what you were offering was a choice between being a hero and losing the character. That is only a fun choice if the player is totally on board with it.
I think this is something that needs a midcampaign session zero, and have everyone update what their expectations and boundaries of the campaign are. Have you at least talked with your player after the session and check if she is okay? D&D is about having fun, NOT punishment out of malice.
There is nothing wrong with some fictional psychological and emotional torment, IF AND ONLY IF the players agree to it in the first place, and this stuff definitely is not something you can just throw at anybody out of the blue. I love dark and heavy subjects, but I this is something that I will talk with my players beforehand.
Like, the first thing on my mind right now is to just check on the player immediately: send a text, message, voice mail, whatever. After that, at the next session, I would have a session zero and do a quick check up on everyone. I would make sure my players are actually having fun, and they are not just playing D&D with me just because they do not have another GM to run the game for them.
The fact that you feel you have any right to punish someone...
It's their character, they have the right to do whatever they want. Your job is not to pigeonhole anyone into making certain decisions.
No, but we also don't understand all the context and to immediately jump down the OPs throat isn't going to be constructive, nor are they going to take it constructive.
So that being said, OP, here are the things I'm personally gleaning from your post:
"When she finally found him he was killed in a horrible and agonizing way and resurrected over and over again in front of her by that same creature." - This speaks to me that this campaign has gone on a bit, or as a character, they have existed for a fair bit without their love. This means the character, not the players backstory has had time to evolve and the character has had time to evolve in terms of personal feelings. What was once the love of their life might now be their greatest love, but someone whom those feelings are in the past.
"She asked him to stop and the creature agreed on one condition, she will take her loved one's place." - People, as a construct, are selfish. Seeing the agony of what someone is going through doesn't mean they wish that on themselves. I personally think its completely in the right for a person to see the suffering occurring on a supernatural level and going NOPE DONT WANT THAT.
"Am I mistaken to think/feel that?" - No, because feelings are valid. Kneejerk reactions are valid, but that doesn't mean it's the way it should go. You obviously have an intent on where you want the story to go, but so does the player for their character. It's also hard to speak on behalf of the character in the heat of the moment. I have 20 years of roleplaying under my belt, but MOST don't. Some of the loudest voices on this forum do, but that isn't the vast majority of the 5th player base. There are also VALID reasons why in game character punishments might happen on this. Was this a Paladin of some oath that required some form of self sacrifice? A cleric of a good deity who would have shunned them for not attempting to save that soul by any means? Someone bound by an oath/contract to a powerful Fae creature, where debts owed are treated EXTREMELY serious?
How would I handle the player? With all the knowledge that I had? Well, first I have to start where you left off, with what I know. Their in game love is dead, tortured, and now the character is potentially emotionally scarred. Gonna have a conversation with the person, make sure they are alright. After that, we keep playing. Communication is by and large the most important thing at our tables, and that doesn't just mean the quality of roleplay. Picking up on the clues of what our table is dropping is important. If that player seemed OK with the decision, don't need to pull them aside. If there was wincing, some sort of line about it, discussion after the fact, then do it. In character, after the fact, going to have someone come up to the character themselves and ask if the character is ok.
I will dissent. I think a GM is fair to punish bad behaviour from their players. Sometimes you have players who are selfish jerks and, yeah, putting them down a peg is a legit thing to do.
That said, if you think she made a bad choice, then make an interesting consequence to the choice. But there wasn't really even a choice there. And if she attempted to, her soulmate should have stopped her. Expecting a character to sacrifice themselves in the middle of a campaign is silly. It's just asking that middle to become the end. Furthermore, people change and the more interesting question you should have asked was why did someone who felt the way she did (according to her backstory) decide to act counter to their earlier decision.
You should be constructive and use behaviours like this to build a more interesting world, not try to get people to make the decisions you want them to.
No, but we also don't understand all the context and to immediately jump down the OPs throat isn't going to be constructive, nor are they going to take it constructive.
Frankly, I'm at a loss to imagine any context in which what OP said here makes a lick of sense.
Backstory isn't alignment, nor is it supposed to be. Players aren't required to "play according to their backstory". Backstory is intended to inform the character's reactions and personality (among other things), but it doesn't control them. In fact it's usually the exact opposite. A character should be expected to evolve beyond their backstory, not become a slave to it.
As for "punishing" a player for doing what they (presumably) thought was right for their character... I can't even begin with that.
Online pile-ons are rarely constructive, but this could be an exception if it's the only way to get through to OP that everything they presented here paints them as being completely in the wrong. If there were a D&D version of AITA, the answer would be a resounding and unanimous "yes".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The GM's job is not to punish "bad" behavior from a player. A player character might face punishment for something, but the player only ever faces consequences of their decisions. It's especially not appropriate to decide that you're going to get back at a player for not role-playing in the way that you want them to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, but we also don't understand all the context and to immediately jump down the OPs throat isn't going to be constructive, nor are they going to take it constructive.
Frankly, I'm at a loss to imagine any context in which what OP said here makes a lick of sense.
Backstory isn't alignment, nor is it supposed to be. Players aren't required to "play according to their backstory". Backstory is intended to inform the character's reactions and personality (among other things), but it doesn't control them. In fact it's usually the exact opposite. A character should be expected to evolve beyond their backstory, not become a slave to it.
As for "punishing" a player for doing what they (presumably) thought was right for their character... I can't even begin with that.
Online pile-ons are rarely constructive, but this could be an exception if it's the only way to get through to OP that everything they presented here paints them as being completely in the wrong. If there were a D&D version of AITA, the answer would be a resounding and unanimous "yes".
We all are at a loss, all we know is what they posted, which is vague at best. Knowing that, it's best to go into it with a helpful mentally. Dogpiles aren't constructive, period. They also happen far too often on these forums in these types of threads.
When I read this line "I also feel that this cannot go unpunished." I don't read it as the DM going after the player. I read it as the DM presenting consequences for the character based on their actions. I HOPE that's the intent, and again, not knowing everything, in the context of the world it might make sense. If the DM is being spiteful toward the player because they didn't "honor their backstory" and that was how the DM forsaw the character ending, in some form of self sacrifice? 100%, that's bad DMing. It's not unrecoverable though. It's a learning moment. As DMs we sometimes get caught up in very intricate and wonderful ideas about what our stories can be, and then the main actors don't walk in that direction. It's frustrating and I could see a new DM having this sort of storyhook in place, and now not knowing what to do.
I think a GM is fair to punish bad behaviour from their players. Sometimes you have players who are selfish jerks and, yeah, putting them down a peg is a legit thing to do.
I have literally never seen this do any good. You may think of it as some kind of teachable moment, but in my experience it just doesn't work like that. You're far more likely to foster resentment and feelings of being treated unfairly. If there's a problem with a player, it's not one with a character - deal with the player, not the character, to deal with the problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It seems like an impossible choice. Keep witnessing their soulmate being killed over and over or subjecting their soulmate to that scenario. I mean if their soulmate loved the pc as much as pc loved him would the pc want their soulmate to have to witness what they are witnessing over and over, I feel that the OP created an impossible situation where there can be no correct answer and wanting to 'punish' the player for picking the 'wrong' choice is bad form for a DM.
Why offer the player a choice if you’re just going to get mad when they make the “wrong” one? That defeats the purpose of a choice.
Not to get too personal but this was said so elegantly that I'll be using this sentence with my wife.
Me: "Hey babe, would you rather I go get Italian or Chinese for dinner?"
Her: "I don't know. Whatever you'd rather have? What would you like?"
Me: "Ok, fine, I'll just pick something. I'll be back soon. Love ya."
Her: distracted. "Yep. Love you too."
42 mins later..
Her: "Oh you bought Chinese? Damn. I kinda wanted Italian food. I thought you didn't like that Chinese restaurant? Was it expensive? I don't know why you got that? So you didn't pass that one Italian place on the way out? I don't know."
Me: "What??! So you don't want this?"
Her: "No, it's fine. I'm just kinda disappointed in dinner now, that's all."
And yes, I'm exaggerating and being dramatic but there's a shred of truth here. Well said SAGA.
Hello,
One of my players has written a background story in which she sets off to find her beloved who was kidnapped by an evil creature.
According to the story he was her greatest love. A soulmate.
When she finally found him he was killed in a horrible and agonizing way and resurrected over and over again in front of her by that same creature.
She asked him to stop and the creature agreed on one condition, she will take her loved one's place.
She refused and as a result sacrificing him.
I feel, that the player did not play according to her backstory that she wrote.
I also feel that this cannot go unpunished.
Am I mistaken to think/feel that?
How would you handle this player?
Thank you.
A
That's not ok. It's not your job to to punish players for not running their character they way you would've. It's their character, not yours, and if there's only one acceptable outcome, you're not really giving them a choice. This is a very harmful mindset to have in a co-op game.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Unless the soulmate is better equipped to kill the evil creature, I'd say she made the right choice for all parties involved. I get fed up with stupid stories about people sacrificing themselves for each other resulting in everyone being in a worse spot.
Why offer the player a choice if you’re just going to get mad when they make the “wrong” one? That defeats the purpose of a choice.
It's one thing to be/play a heroic character, it's quite another to, in character, willingly choose to be killed in a horrible, agonizing way over and over again for eternity. Why would you expect this to be the only acceptable decision based on a backstory?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As you lay it out, it sounds like you are unbelievably mistaken on what backstories are for, the role of the DM in entertaining or at least accommodating a character's backstory, and what "soul mates" are actually compelled to do. It seems like you're upset the character didn't enter the death cycle mechanism to save the soul mate. Why does that have to happen? It sounds like your constraints of what character love and how love plot functions are are far too narrow for any reasonable player to play within. That's a narrative constraint you're imposing, I guess you thought it looked cool, but D&D is actually not a torture fiction narrated by the DM to a player in 2nd person. It seems you think otherwise. This is definitely not a player problem, this is a DM problem. It rather sounds like you abused the character's backstory to put the character through a tortuous scenario, where any reasonable person would recognize that the obligation you're commanding isn't the only possible resolution or response. As a DM you failed to consider how a reasonable player would react in a situation that would be emotionally painful for a character.
A DM can use backstory to instigate, provoke, inspire, interest a player character; but it seems the way you're outlining things you're presuming back stories enable a DM to dictate a character behavior. The remedy to your dilemma is to get over that misconception ASAP.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've known people who claimed someone was their soul mate and broke up with them over far, far less. Heck, I've had girlfriends like it. I'm not convinced it is necessarily contradictory, from personal experience.
As others have said, it's not your role to dictate their story, that's theirs; your role is to provide the consequences of those actions. In that case, perhaps the beloved notices that she backed out and hates her for it. Or he's compassionate and forgives her, thereby strengthening their relationship. Or maybe it's all a ruse to break the trap. That's for you to figure out with the player. Your role is to give meaningful and logical consequences for her actions, not to punish her for disagreeing.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This right here...
The fact that you feel you have any right to punish someone...
It's their character, they have the right to do whatever they want. Your job is not to pigeonhole anyone into making certain decisions.
The player has already been punished. The player wrote a motivation to adventure through a bond to a person. You decide to endlessly torture that person and then propose that the player be endlessly tortured instead. How did you expect that to go? The player would do the "right thing" and toss their character sheet?
This could be a great dramatic scene at the end of a campaign, but it would require some trust and cooperation between player and DM and it doesn't sound like you've earned that trust. Every player has a motivation that extends beyond their backstory - the motivation to play D&D. It sounds like what you were offering was a choice between being a hero and losing the character. That is only a fun choice if the player is totally on board with it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You probably shouldn’t be a dm if you think you are actually in the right here.
I think this is something that needs a midcampaign session zero, and have everyone update what their expectations and boundaries of the campaign are. Have you at least talked with your player after the session and check if she is okay? D&D is about having fun, NOT punishment out of malice.
There is nothing wrong with some fictional psychological and emotional torment, IF AND ONLY IF the players agree to it in the first place, and this stuff definitely is not something you can just throw at anybody out of the blue. I love dark and heavy subjects, but I this is something that I will talk with my players beforehand.
Like, the first thing on my mind right now is to just check on the player immediately: send a text, message, voice mail, whatever. After that, at the next session, I would have a session zero and do a quick check up on everyone. I would make sure my players are actually having fun, and they are not just playing D&D with me just because they do not have another GM to run the game for them.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
No, but we also don't understand all the context and to immediately jump down the OPs throat isn't going to be constructive, nor are they going to take it constructive.
So that being said, OP, here are the things I'm personally gleaning from your post:
"When she finally found him he was killed in a horrible and agonizing way and resurrected over and over again in front of her by that same creature." - This speaks to me that this campaign has gone on a bit, or as a character, they have existed for a fair bit without their love. This means the character, not the players backstory has had time to evolve and the character has had time to evolve in terms of personal feelings. What was once the love of their life might now be their greatest love, but someone whom those feelings are in the past.
"She asked him to stop and the creature agreed on one condition, she will take her loved one's place." - People, as a construct, are selfish. Seeing the agony of what someone is going through doesn't mean they wish that on themselves. I personally think its completely in the right for a person to see the suffering occurring on a supernatural level and going NOPE DONT WANT THAT.
"Am I mistaken to think/feel that?" - No, because feelings are valid. Kneejerk reactions are valid, but that doesn't mean it's the way it should go. You obviously have an intent on where you want the story to go, but so does the player for their character. It's also hard to speak on behalf of the character in the heat of the moment. I have 20 years of roleplaying under my belt, but MOST don't. Some of the loudest voices on this forum do, but that isn't the vast majority of the 5th player base. There are also VALID reasons why in game character punishments might happen on this. Was this a Paladin of some oath that required some form of self sacrifice? A cleric of a good deity who would have shunned them for not attempting to save that soul by any means? Someone bound by an oath/contract to a powerful Fae creature, where debts owed are treated EXTREMELY serious?
How would I handle the player? With all the knowledge that I had? Well, first I have to start where you left off, with what I know. Their in game love is dead, tortured, and now the character is potentially emotionally scarred. Gonna have a conversation with the person, make sure they are alright. After that, we keep playing. Communication is by and large the most important thing at our tables, and that doesn't just mean the quality of roleplay. Picking up on the clues of what our table is dropping is important. If that player seemed OK with the decision, don't need to pull them aside. If there was wincing, some sort of line about it, discussion after the fact, then do it. In character, after the fact, going to have someone come up to the character themselves and ask if the character is ok.
I will dissent. I think a GM is fair to punish bad behaviour from their players. Sometimes you have players who are selfish jerks and, yeah, putting them down a peg is a legit thing to do.
That said, if you think she made a bad choice, then make an interesting consequence to the choice. But there wasn't really even a choice there. And if she attempted to, her soulmate should have stopped her. Expecting a character to sacrifice themselves in the middle of a campaign is silly. It's just asking that middle to become the end. Furthermore, people change and the more interesting question you should have asked was why did someone who felt the way she did (according to her backstory) decide to act counter to their earlier decision.
You should be constructive and use behaviours like this to build a more interesting world, not try to get people to make the decisions you want them to.
Frankly, I'm at a loss to imagine any context in which what OP said here makes a lick of sense.
Backstory isn't alignment, nor is it supposed to be. Players aren't required to "play according to their backstory". Backstory is intended to inform the character's reactions and personality (among other things), but it doesn't control them. In fact it's usually the exact opposite. A character should be expected to evolve beyond their backstory, not become a slave to it.
As for "punishing" a player for doing what they (presumably) thought was right for their character... I can't even begin with that.
Online pile-ons are rarely constructive, but this could be an exception if it's the only way to get through to OP that everything they presented here paints them as being completely in the wrong. If there were a D&D version of AITA, the answer would be a resounding and unanimous "yes".
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The GM's job is not to punish "bad" behavior from a player. A player character might face punishment for something, but the player only ever faces consequences of their decisions. It's especially not appropriate to decide that you're going to get back at a player for not role-playing in the way that you want them to.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
We all are at a loss, all we know is what they posted, which is vague at best. Knowing that, it's best to go into it with a helpful mentally. Dogpiles aren't constructive, period. They also happen far too often on these forums in these types of threads.
When I read this line "I also feel that this cannot go unpunished." I don't read it as the DM going after the player. I read it as the DM presenting consequences for the character based on their actions. I HOPE that's the intent, and again, not knowing everything, in the context of the world it might make sense. If the DM is being spiteful toward the player because they didn't "honor their backstory" and that was how the DM forsaw the character ending, in some form of self sacrifice? 100%, that's bad DMing. It's not unrecoverable though. It's a learning moment. As DMs we sometimes get caught up in very intricate and wonderful ideas about what our stories can be, and then the main actors don't walk in that direction. It's frustrating and I could see a new DM having this sort of storyhook in place, and now not knowing what to do.
I've said my pieces though.
I have literally never seen this do any good. You may think of it as some kind of teachable moment, but in my experience it just doesn't work like that. You're far more likely to foster resentment and feelings of being treated unfairly. If there's a problem with a player, it's not one with a character - deal with the player, not the character, to deal with the problem.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It seems like an impossible choice. Keep witnessing their soulmate being killed over and over or subjecting their soulmate to that scenario. I mean if their soulmate loved the pc as much as pc loved him would the pc want their soulmate to have to witness what they are witnessing over and over, I feel that the OP created an impossible situation where there can be no correct answer and wanting to 'punish' the player for picking the 'wrong' choice is bad form for a DM.
Thank you all for making me see it from other points of view.
I see now that I looked at it the wrong way.
I did not expect so many comments.
Thank you,
A
Not to get too personal but this was said so elegantly that I'll be using this sentence with my wife.
42 mins later..
And yes, I'm exaggerating and being dramatic but there's a shred of truth here. Well said SAGA.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans