Problem with a bard

[jjadned]

So I had a session with my new group and I started everyone at level 11 for reasons... (Not important) and so my bard talked to me and said he wants to use find greater steed to summon a Pegasus and then nightmare it.

I didn't have a problem with this given he is an evil alignment. Had him roll a religion check and he rolled like a 23 so I called it a success.

I had 4 PCs and one of them left halfway because I thought she just wasn't liking the session.

So I talk to my friend about the session today and apparently the nightmare is rubbing most if not all the PCs (not the bard) the wrong way...

I don't really know what to do from here. I can't really do much ingame to handle this nor out of game.

[the_brazenburn]

Not a lot you can do about it. If you need to, take the Nightmare away somehow (in game). Maybe it gets stolen, or turns on its owner. After all, he did chop off its wings.

[Sjappo]

Yes, you can.

First ask your players what exactly rubs them the wrong way. Is it the evil? Is it the spell. What.
Then talk to the Bard player and tell him you've made a mistake. Tell him the Nightmare is killing the fun for the other players. Work with him to find a suitable solution. You should have some idea about what would be acceptable.

[jjadned]

Not a lot you can do about it. If you need to, take the Nightmare away somehow (in game). Maybe it gets stolen, or turns on its owner. After all, he did chop off its wings.

Given the nature of find greater steed, he can either re summon it or use telepathy to talk to it to see whats happening given it gets attacked.


Yes, you can.

First ask your players what exactly rubs them the wrong way. Is it the evil? Is it the spell. What.
Then talk to the Bard player and tell him you've made a mistake. Tell him the Nightmare is killing the fun for the other players. Work with him to find a suitable solution. You should have some idea about what would be acceptable.

They find it cruel/evil that he did it. But ingame they don't know yet and they are mostly CN.

I mean I don't see a problem with it. Ive seen much worse things in a game of DND and just movie/games in general.

I just don't understand how this is even a problem for people who have played dnd quite a bit.

[Sjappo]

Not a lot you can do about it. If you need to, take the Nightmare away somehow (in game). Maybe it gets stolen, or turns on its owner. After all, he did chop off its wings.
Hmm, this seems to be an OOG issue. Which by definition cannot be solved in game.

[jjadned]

Hmm, this seems to be an OOG issue. Which by definition cannot be solved in game.

Yea its diffidently an OOG problem but I don't understand how to fix it.

The PCs have a problem with the Evil/Animal abuse side of things. but at this point its happened and the nightmare is there, if I take it away they will still resent the PC for doing it in the first place.

[Unoriginal]

So I had a session with my new group and I started everyone at level 11 for reasons... (Not important) and so my bard talked to me and said he wants to use find greater steed to summon a Pegasus and then nightmare it.

I didn't have a problem with this given he is an evil alignment. Had him roll a religion check and he rolled like a 23 so I called it a success.

I had 4 PCs and one of them left halfway because I thought she just wasn't liking the session.

So I talk to my friend about the session today and apparently the nightmare is rubbing most if not all the PCs (not the bard) the wrong way...

I don't really know what to do from here. I can't really do much ingame to handle this nor out of game.

The spell Greater Steed doesn't actually summon a Pegasus.


You summon a spirit that assumes the form of a loyal, majestic mount. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the spirit takes on a form you choose: a griffon, a pegasus, a peryton, a dire wolf, a rhinoceros, or a saber-toothed tiger. The creature has the statistics provided in the Monster Manual for the chosen form, though it is a celestial, a fey, or a fiend (your choice) instead of its normal creature type.


Also, personally, I certainly wouldn't let the secret ritual that transform a Pegasus into a Nightmare be just an Int (Religion) check.


Given the nature of find greater steed, he can either re summon it or use telepathy to talk to it to see whats happening given it gets attacked.

Given the nature of Find Greater Steed, his plan doesn't work at all.



They find it cruel/evil that he did it. But ingame they don't know yet and they are mostly CN.

I mean I don't see a problem with it. Ive seen much worse things in a game of DND and just movie/games in general.

I just don't understand how this is even a problem for people who have played dnd quite a bit.

You don't understand how the horrifying mutilation, violation, mind-break and eternal damnation of a sapient being might rub people the wrong way?


Have you tried talking with them and the bard player?

[Contrast]

...he wants to use find greater steed to summon a Pegasus and then nightmare it.

For future reference the spell summons a spirit that 'assumes the form' of a mount from the pre-set list and the spell indicates that the spirit in question can be fiendish in nature if the caster chooses. Clearly you were happy for it to have a different form. So if he just wanted his mount to be 'evil' there was no need to summon it as a pegasus and then mutilate it.

Edit - ninjad

[the_brazenburn]

Also, personally, I certainly wouldn't let the secret ritual that transform a Pegasus into a Nightmare be just an Int (Religion) check.

I'd go with three Religion checks, a few Animal Handling checks, possibly an Arcana, and a high-DC grapple check. Failure on any of the checks means that the pegasus figures out what's going on and either attacks or runs away.

Of course, you can hand-wave the whole thing and make him go on a special quest to figure out the ritual.

[jjadned]

The nightmare is already there...

The problem is already there.

[Unoriginal]

The nightmare is already there...

The problem is already there.

First, no it's not. It's no shame to say "look, re-reading the rules, I see I was wrong, it's not actually a Pegasus you summon. Just a spirit shaped like one."

Second, talk with your players. See what is their problem and if there is a way to act as mediator between each camp. Consider that not all players want their PCs to travel with a mind-rapist.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If your PLAYERS are feeling skeeved out, it's an out-of-game problem, and needs out-of-game solutions-- in particular, a discussion about character morality and what sorts of evil acts they are and aren't comfortable with happening in the campaign. And as for solutions... this is an out-of-game problem. You're fully allowed to recon things and say "sorry, [Player], I like the idea, but it's not going to work for this campaign. How about [alternative special mount/mild rebuild/new character] instead?"

[Tiadoppler]

Yea its diffidently an OOG problem but I don't understand how to fix it.

The PCs have a problem with the Evil/Animal abuse side of things. but at this point its happened and the nightmare is there, if I take it away they will still resent the PC for doing it in the first place.

This sounds like an problem at the table, not a problem in the game. Do the PCs have a problem, or do the Players have a problem?


If the PCs (the Player Characters, the people with fantasy names and superpowers) have a problem with each other, that should be handled in-game and in character. "Zackith, I've been speaking with Bobrak and Sarahtia, and we think what you did to that poor creature is appalling. You should heal its wings and send it on its way, or we will have to ask you to leave our Guild."

If the players at the table (the physical, real, human beings who live on Earth) have a problem with each other, that should be handled with a real discussion, possibly over email between sessions. "Hey Zack. Sarah and Bob weren't having a lot of fun last session. It's kind of gross the way you were talking about cutting wings off of an animal, and you know how serious Bob is about his pets. Do you think you could tone it way down? Also, I've been looking over the combo you used: I think Greater Steed doesn't actually summon a Pegasus, just something that looks like one. Maybe you can just cast it again and summon something that looks like a Nightmare."


TL;DR: I agree with the advice already given, and I type too slowly.

[white lancer]

Was there any sort of discussion before the game about whether the party as a whole was comfortable with Evil-aligned characters? This sort of thing is why such discussions are helpful. If you did, then the other party members should have at least had an idea that cruel actions like this were a possibility, though perhaps they didn't truly consider the implications of that. In which case, yeah, talking to the group about what they're comfortable with is a necessity.

I don't have a problem with the Find Greater Steed ruling, by the way. It doesn't strictly work, but I might have allowed it myself (or allowed the spell to summon a Nightmare directly for an evil char, depending on the CR)...although I typically wouldn't allow evil PCs in general. But the fact that it doesn't work by the rules does give you an out to the problem.

[jjadned]

The problem isn't the mount itself. It is that the players resent the bard for doing it in the first place. 1/2 or 3/4 (haven't talked to one of my players) don't like the fact he did it.

Even if I take it away or change how it works they won't like the player himself...


Was there any sort of discussion before the game about whether the party as a whole was comfortable with Evil-aligned characters? This sort of thing is why such discussions are helpful. If you did, then the other party members should have at least had an idea that cruel actions like this were a possibility, though perhaps they didn't truly consider the implications of that. In which case, yeah, talking to the group about what they're comfortable with is a necessity.

I don't have a problem with the Find Greater Steed ruling, by the way. It doesn't strictly work, but I might have allowed it myself (or allowed the spell to summon a Nightmare directly for an evil char, depending on the CR)...although I typically wouldn't allow evil PCs in general. But the fact that it doesn't work by the rules does give you an out to the problem.

They didn't really see "EVIL" as I allow in the campaign. Evil in my campaign is if you want to do something, you can if you can pull it off.

I mean at lvl 11 having a CR 3 mount over a CR 2 means little to nothing.

[Tiadoppler]

The problem isn't the mount itself. It is that the players resent the bard for doing it in the first place. 1/2 or 3/4 (haven't talked to one of my players) don't like the fact he did it.

Even if I take it away or change how it works they won't like the player himself...

They didn't really see "EVIL" as I allow in the campaign. Evil in my campaign is if you want to do something, you can if you can pull it off.


If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If your players can't emotionally deal with an Evil PC doing Evil things for their own benefit, don't play an Evil campaign... It sounds like most of your group is unhappy playing in a campaign that's "Evil" and would prefer alignments like "Neutral Good" or "Chaotic Naughty". Maybe you should have a session zero talk again to make sure people know what to expect from the campaign. A generally heroic campaign (Good or Neutral, perhaps on the wrong side of the law) might be a better fit for your players. It sounds like the rest of your party was shocked by the one player's 'faux pas', and may be unable to look at that real life person the same way again (like suddenly telling a very inappropriate joke in front of a kid).

The Evil PC may have been behaving consistently within the realm of the story, but violated the assumptions of the rest of the players.

[Zanthy1]

This is 100% a problem that your players are having, and instead of whining to us, you should be talking with them. Communication is key in this world, and if you aren't willing to retcon something or accept that your players aren't capable of handling some fantasy violence against a spirit, then don't play. If you come to a forum, any forum but these in particular, and ask for help and then ignore every piece of advice thrown at you, then I can see why your party seems to be falling apart. Get your act together and get the players to work it out with each other.

[jjadned]

This is 100% a problem that your players are having, and instead of whining to us, you should be talking with them.

I am Duh, But after all the 1 on 1 talks we need to talk as a group and thats what I'm trying to figure out. Also I am not whining, Aggressive much?

Communication is key in this world, and if you aren't willing to retcon something or accept that your players aren't capable of handling some fantasy violence against a spirit, then don't play.

I understand that, I am the DM if I don't play no one does... again why are you so aggressive for no reason?

If you come to a forum, any forum but these in particular, and ask for help and then ignore every piece of advice thrown at you, then I can see why your party seems to be falling apart.

Because a large majority of the forum is talking about how to correctly introduce nightmare, The problem is that the nightmare is there. No amount of taking away or reintroducing the nightmare is going to fix the problem. It is a player problem not an Ingame problem.

Get your act together and get the players to work it out with each other.

I have my act together I am talking to the players but I was asking help of experienced DMs who have dealt with this kind of stuff before.



Why must you be so rude? and you didn't add anything to the conversation you just made a post just to be an *******...

[KorvinStarmast]

Why must you be so rude? and you didn't add anything to the conversation you just made a post just to be an *******... While I agree that the tone was harsh, that post was somewhat correct in terms of what a DM is called upon to do in the D&D game the way it's built. Granted, there are GM-less games that don't build the table relationship the same way, and a variety of games (like Dungeon World) that put less burden on the GM to be a leader or have a certain amount of positional authority.

But that's what you are as a DM: you are a leader in a group of peers. One of the hardest kinds of leadership to do well is peer leadership.

Asking for advice isn't a bad thing, but apparently ignoring advice (some of it quite good) is a perplexing response to the sincere advice offered.

Here is your path forward if you have the backbone to assert yourself as DM:
1. No play until this is resolved.
2. Sit down, before play, and have a conversation with all players.
3. You are asking for an honest feedback on what people are enjoying and not enjoying about the game so far.
4. Listen carefully, and be up front about there maybe being an expectations mismatch.
5. Ask the players how they'd like to reform the team. Focus on that. As written, 5e D&D is very much intended to be a team of adventurers. Granted, intercharacter conflict can come up and be entertaining, but not every player is interested in that. Ask about this explicitly: who enjoys intercharacter conflict and who does not?
6. get a consensus on how the team needs to work together.

7. Next time the nightmare gets killed, I'd suggest that you tell the bard that a wingless/mutiliated form will not be available for re-summoning. Pick a different form and play on.

Axiom: Bad gaming is not better than no gaming.

Or, ignore my advice also and muddle through as best you can with the risk that one of your players left due to another player manifesting the behavior known as "my guy syndrome (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37103/22566)." Feel free to look it up.

[jjadned]

But that's what you are as a DM: you are a leader in a group of peers. One of the hardest kinds of leadership to do well is peer leadership.

Asking for advice isn't a bad thing, but apparently ignoring advice (some of it quite good) is a perplexing response to the sincere advice offered.

Here is your path forward if you have the backbone to assert yourself as DM:
1. No play until this is resolved.
2. Sit down, before play, and have a conversation with all players.

Was planning next session to be talking about it before we start.

3. You are asking for an honest feedback on what people are enjoying and not enjoying about the game so far.

So far only the players bugged by this are having a problem, and the problem being the player who did that.

4. Listen carefully, and be up front about there maybe being an expectations mismatch.
5. Ask the players how they'd like to reform the team. Focus on that. As written, 5e D&D is very much intended to be a team of adventurers. Granted, intercharacter conflict can come up and be entertaining, but not every player is interested in that. Ask about this explicitly: who enjoys intercharacter conflict and who does not?
6. get a consensus on how the team needs to work together.

Ok

7. Next time the nightmare gets killed, I'd suggest that you tell the bard that a wingless/mutiliated form will not be available for re-summoning. Pick a different form and play on.

I was planning on having the nightmare cause problems for the PC and such

Axiom: Bad gaming is not better than no gaming.

Or, ignore my advice also and muddle through as best you can with the risk that one of your players left due to another player manifesting the behavior known as my guy syndrome

It may seem like I am ignoring advice but I am reading and thinking about what everyone said



If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If your players can't emotionally deal with an Evil PC doing Evil things for their own benefit, don't play an Evil campaign... It sounds like most of your group is unhappy playing in a campaign that's "Evil" and would prefer alignments like "Neutral Good" or "Chaotic Naughty". Maybe you should have a session zero talk again to make sure people know what to expect from the campaign.
All the PCs are CN to NE, like as PCs they shouldn't have a problem with it but the players themselves do. Planning on talking to them about it leading up and on Thursday
A generally heroic campaign (Good or Neutral, perhaps on the wrong side of the law) might be a better fit for your players. It sounds like the rest of your party was shocked by the one player's 'faux pas', and may be unable to look at that real life person the same way again (like suddenly telling a very inappropriate joke in front of a kid).

Yea this seems to be what the players were expecting with a hint of evil thrown in. But not much more than a hint.

The Evil PC may have been behaving consistently within the realm of the story, but violated the assumptions of the rest of the players.

I feel like the players were caught off guard and didn't expect the evil to be on the scale that it was. I feel like that is the problem they were expecting something much more tame.


This sounds like an problem at the table, not a problem in the game. Do the PCs have a problem, or do the Players have a problem?
Players

If the PCs (the Player Characters, the people with fantasy names and superpowers) have a problem with each other, that should be handled in-game and in character. "Zackith, I've been speaking with Bobrak and Sarahtia, and we think what you did to that poor creature is appalling. You should heal its wings and send it on its way, or we will have to ask you to leave our Guild."

If the players at the table (the physical, real, human beings who live on Earth) have a problem with each other, that should be handled with a real discussion, possibly over email between sessions. "Hey Zack. Sarah and Bob weren't having a lot of fun last session. It's kind of gross the way you were talking about cutting wings off of an animal, and you know how serious Bob is about his pets. Do you think you could tone it way down? Also, I've been looking over the combo you used: I think Greater Steed doesn't actually summon a Pegasus, just something that looks like one. Maybe you can just cast it again and summon something that looks like a Nightmare."

Yea the players need to talk to each other but that can't be done until Thursday, cause at this point the problem is player to player. There isn't a whole lot I can do outside removing players or giving serous talks about changing feels (which won't work.)



If your PLAYERS are feeling skeeved out, it's an out-of-game problem, and needs out-of-game solutions-- in particular, a discussion about character morality and what sorts of evil acts they are and aren't comfortable with happening in the campaign. And as for solutions... this is an out-of-game problem. You're fully allowed to recon things and say "sorry, [Player], I like the idea, but it's not going to work for this campaign. How about [alternative special mount/mild rebuild/new character] instead?"

I will talk to all the players and see what they are fine and not fine with.



First, no it's not. It's no shame to say "look, re-reading the rules, I see I was wrong, it's not actually a Pegasus you summon. Just a spirit shaped like one."

Second, talk with your players. See what is their problem and if there is a way to act as mediator between each camp. Consider that not all players want their PCs to travel with a mind-rapist.

Yea there are ways for me to remove the nightmare or just say he never did that and he can just summon a nightmare with FGS. but I still think that the problem will still be there



Because people are thinking I am ignoring advice let me respond to it. I am not ignoring it I just didn't comment on it.

[Armored Walrus]

Is the players' problem purely based on the fact that the pegasus became a nightmare, which they know or believe, off-screen, to be a terrible and cruel process, and they still have a problem with it? Or did the bard's player get into excrutiating detail of how he went about the torture in order to bring about the change? Those are two very different problems.

In the first, I'd be as baffled as you. If they don't like the idea of off-screen evil being done to animals, are you as DM never going to have them fight anything of which the fluff indicates that it's the product of evil experimentation?

If it's how the player went about it, that's easier to handle, because it isn't the nightmare itself they have a problem with, but the detail in which it was described. I've played with players that get a little too into the torture when trying to get captives to talk or when taking vengeance on a particularly hated enemy. I think that's an easy enough conversation to have with the player, and wouldn't necessarily entail taking away what you've already given him in game.

[jjadned]

Is the players' problem purely based on the fact that the pegasus became a nightmare, which they know or believe, off-screen, to be a terrible and cruel process, and they still have a problem with it? Or did the bard's player get into excrutiating detail of how he went about the torture in order to bring about the change? Those are two very different problems.

In the first, I'd be as baffled as you. If they don't like the idea of off-screen evil being done to animals, are you as DM never going to have them fight anything of which the fluff indicates that it's the product of evil experimentation?

If it's how the player went about it, that's easier to handle, because it isn't the nightmare itself they have a problem with, but the detail in which it was described. I've played with players that get a little too into the torture when trying to get captives to talk or when taking vengeance on a particularly hated enemy. I think that's an easy enough conversation to have with the player, and wouldn't necessarily entail taking away what you've already given him in game.

It was offscreen, The PC bought chains, summoned a Pegasus, Rolled a STR to bind the Pegasus, rolled a religion check and had a nightmare. That was it.

I just can't believe that is enough to completely off put everyone in the party but the bard. I mean I am used to playing D&D where **** happens, I don't sugar coat what happens but I don't go into detail either. If you get your gut sliced you get your gut sliced I don't go into detail explaining it though.

I just can't believe that 16-17 year olds who use the internet incredibly often would be so put off by such a thing. I care about animals but the stuff I've seen on the internet this is fairly tame.

I talked to one of the players and they are to the point where they want to break off completely. I suggested that we sit down and talk about this like adults because its a bard(the player) problem not a game problem. Thats happening Thursday...

[MarkVIIIMarc]

My guess is most of the players picked their allignment so they can loot and steal.

A line has been crossed though.

[Willie the Duck]

Even if I take it away or change how it works they won't like the player himself...
...
They didn't really see "EVIL" as I allow in the campaign. Evil in my campaign is if you want to do something, you can if you can pull it off.

It sounds like the players had different ideas about what kind of evil they were going to have in the campaign. And that's something that gets rehashed all the time in D&D forums. There's no consensus, and that's probably nor a bad thing. But group consensus is probably helpful.

My suggestion is have an after-the-fact session zero with the group, and hammer it out. Do you want scoundrels, criminals, callous-about-death, actively kills, eats babies, willing to destroy the world for a copper piece, or whathaveyou.

As for the bard, if they fall out of the new boundaries, be willing to retcon and see if people are okay with that. Something like, "Okay, Joe was playing his bard assuming a different evil threshold. Let's instead say that this bard is an alternate character interpretation who summons a pegusus and just sticks on a bunch of black-flame decals and evil-themed bumper stickers."

[Armored Walrus]

I suggested that we sit down and talk about this like adults. Thats happening Thursday...

I think that's about all you can do at this point. I have a hunch, when you get to the bottom of it, there's another reason this is a problem, and the nightmare thing is secondary - It's the objection they feel comfortable bringing up, but not what they're really upset about. That's just a hunch - I don't know your players, obviously - so do what you will with that.

Good luck in your talk. I think you're handling it correctly and hope it gets solved.

[jjadned]

My guess is most of the players picked their allignment so they can loot and steal.

A line has been crossed though.


I think that's about all you can do at this point. I have a hunch, when you get to the bottom of it, there's another reason this is a problem, and the nightmare thing is secondary - It's the objection they feel comfortable bringing up, but not what they're really upset about. That's just a hunch - I don't know your players, obviously - so do what you will with that.

Good luck in your talk. I think you're handling it correctly and hope it gets solved.

Yea its to the point where nothing ingame is going to do anything to fix this.


It sounds like the players had different ideas about what kind of evil they were going to have in the campaign. And that's something that gets rehashed all the time in D&D forums. There's no consensus, and that's probably nor a bad thing. But group consensus is probably helpful.

My suggestion is have an after-the-fact session zero with the group, and hammer it out. Do you want scoundrels, criminals, callous-about-death, actively kills, eats babies, willing to destroy the world for a copper piece, or whathaveyou.

As for the bard, if they fall out of the new boundaries, be willing to retcon and see if people are okay with that. Something like, "Okay, Joe was playing his bard assuming a different evil threshold. Let's instead say that this bard is an alternate character interpretation who summons a pegusus and just sticks on a bunch of black-flame decals and evil-themed bumper stickers."

I will work with everyone to lay out ground rules and what everyone expects.
I do expect the bard to bend things a bit but if it becomes I problem I will make sure it won't be a problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

It may seem like I am ignoring advice but I am reading and thinking about what everyone said

OK, I hope some of the various inputs are useful to you in getting your table back into a better situation. Best wishes.


I just can't believe that 16-17 year olds who use the internet incredibly often would be so put off by such a thing. People have varying levels of what they will put up with that are independent of age. You might have gotten the same reaction from people in their 20's or 30's, depending on the person.

[History_buff]

So I had a session with my new group and I started everyone at level 11 for reasons... (Not important) and so my bard talked to me and said he wants to use find greater steed to summon a Pegasus and then nightmare it.

I didn't have a problem with this given he is an evil alignment. Had him roll a religion check and he rolled like a 23 so I called it a success.

I had 4 PCs and one of them left halfway because I thought she just wasn't liking the session.

So I talk to my friend about the session today and apparently the nightmare is rubbing most if not all the PCs (not the bard) the wrong way...

I don't really know what to do from here. I can't really do much ingame to handle this nor out of game.

It’s not actually a Pegasus. It’s a spirit that assumes the form of a Pegasus.

It’s not actually a Pegasus so it can’t be turned into a nightmare.

[Vorpalchicken]

It seems like it's not the evil. It's not the violence.
It's the animal cruelty (even though it's not really an animal)
And your acceptance of it.
That player just doesn't want to game with you guys after that.

Nothing you can say will change her mind. Because rewriting the plot doesn't change the fact that this was permitted in the first place and you you remained oblivious to the problem.

You have to remember that animal cruelty is perceived as the most heinous thing on the Internet, ranking high above human torture or decapitation.

[Unoriginal]

It was offscreen, The PC bought chains, summoned a Pegasus, Rolled a STR to bind the Pegasus, rolled a religion check and had a nightmare. That was it.

I just can't believe that is enough to completely off put everyone in the party but the bard. I mean I am used to playing D&D where **** happens, I don't sugar coat what happens but I don't go into detail either. If you get your gut sliced you get your gut sliced I don't go into detail explaining it though.

I just can't believe that 16-17 year olds who use the internet incredibly often would be so put off by such a thing. I care about animals but the stuff I've seen on the internet this is fairly tame.

It's not because people have seen worse stuff that they can't be disgusted by it happening in-game.



I talked to one of the players and they are to the point where they want to break off completely. I suggested that we sit down and talk about this like adults because its a bard(the player) problem not a game problem. Thats happening Thursday...

Seems like a good idea, but just to know: are you *sure* there were no other similar incidents or other things that could make them want to leave the game?

[jjadned]

Seems like a good idea, but just to know: are you *sure* there were no other similar incidents or other things that could make them want to leave the game?

Nope it just seems to be the nightmare.

[LankyOgre]

I now, and as a highschooler, would not really have enjoyed/appreciated this style of campaign. Allowing Evil Characters and characters to do evil things needs to be clearly spelled out and accepted during a session 0, or as early as possible once it comes up.
Depending on the player in question, how well I know him, and what are interactions I have had, a situation like this could poison me off of the player. There are people who I have felt go over the top on Evil descriptions and I have had to separate myself from them.

[jjadned]

How would you as a player react?

[History_buff]

How would you as a player react?

A friend of mine jokes that he’ll cut the wings off my find greater steed mount (because it’s not actually a pegasus), to use the wings for winged boots.

It’s been a running joke. Course if his character did try it it’ll disappear if it drops to 0, and with 10 intelligence it’s not going to be taken alive. Lol

[LankyOgre]

How would you as a player react?

If this is directed at me.
I wasn't there and don't know all the particulars. It would depend on how well I knew everyone. Are these friends or a game at a FLGS? Is there a history of evil actions? How much was said about the action? Is it indicative of other evil actions? How much sleep did I get the night before? Is the game otherwise fun? What happened on the car ride over? Who knows.
My response would be anywhere from "I didn't know we were playing evil, thats not really what I was looking for," to "Dud, not okay,' to a chat with the DM outside of the game.
If it seemed like I was joining a group that was already established and playing and during the first session this happened, I would probably say, "this game isn't for me. Thanks for the offer," and pack up.

[Unoriginal]

How would you as a player react?

Personally, if one of my fellow players decided to go "DM, could I please horribly mutilate the body and twist the mind and soul of a sapient being as per an evil ritual?" I would go "wtf" and ask them what the heck is going on.

[jjadned]

If this is directed at me.
I wasn't there and don't know all the particulars. It would depend on how well I knew everyone. Are these friends or a game at a FLGS? Is there a history of evil actions? How much was said about the action? Is it indicative of other evil actions? How much sleep did I get the night before? Is the game otherwise fun? What happened on the car ride over? Who knows.
My response would be anywhere from "I didn't know we were playing evil, thats not really what I was looking for," to "Dud, not okay,' to a chat with the DM outside of the game.
If it seemed like I was joining a group that was already established and playing and during the first session this happened, I would probably say, "this game isn't for me. Thanks for the offer," and pack up.

It was session 1, with a group that I had been playing with and I was starting to DM. We all agreed evil was fine and they have played evil characters in the campaign before. There wasn't any details on the action it was all rather tame. everyone seem to be enjoying themselves up to and after it. The only reason it caught my attention was because a player bought it up two days later.


Personally, if one of my fellow players decided to go "DM, could I please horribly mutilate the body and twist the mind and soul of a sapient being as per an evil ritual?" I would go "wtf" and ask them what the heck is going on.

Yea they showed no reaction to it, I thought the girl left cause she was bored because it was mostly walking around town.

[Unoriginal]

It was session 1, with a group that I had been playing with and I was starting to DM. We all agreed evil was fine and they have played evil characters in the campaign before. There wasn't any details on the action it was all rather tame. everyone seem to be enjoying themselves up to and after it. The only reason it caught my attention was because a player bought it up two days later.



Yea they showed no reaction to it, I thought the girl left cause she was bored because it was mostly walking around town.

Well if they seemed fine at the moment, maybe it's not the actual problem?

[LankyOgre]

It was session 1, with a group that I had been playing with and I was starting to DM. We all agreed evil was fine and they have played evil characters in the campaign before. There wasn't any details on the action it was all rather tame. everyone seem to be enjoying themselves up to and after it. The only reason it caught my attention was because a player bought it up two days later.



Yea they showed no reaction to it, I thought the girl left cause she was bored because it was mostly walking around town.

I'm thinking that you are letting your perception seriously color the entire episode. It looks like YOU had no problem with it and didn't see it as a big deal, so now you don't understand why anybody else would either. It seems to me, like you are pretty dismissive of any negative reaction to the Nightmare creation. I am guessing that you are either leaving something out, downplaying something, or missed a reaction/nonverbal cue. There could also be some out of game stuff coloring the situation. If the PLAYER usually talks about evil actions, then it might be worrisome to some of the other players.

[Ganymede]

"Quick ret-con... we're going to roll back the whole evil mutilation thing and just say you summoned a fiendish, black Pegasus with glowing red eyes."


Problem solved.

[jjadned]

Well if they seemed fine at the moment, maybe it's not the actual problem?


I'm thinking that you are letting your perception seriously color the entire episode. It looks like YOU had no problem with it and didn't see it as a big deal, so now you don't understand why anybody else would either. It seems to me, like you are pretty dismissive of any negative reaction to the Nightmare creation. I am guessing that you are either leaving something out, downplaying something, or missed a reaction/nonverbal cue. There could also be some out of game stuff coloring the situation. If the PLAYER usually talks about evil actions, then it might be worrisome to some of the other players.

I don't remember exactly what the bard said but I didn't go into detail or anything. What the bard said I think off put the group. I have stated that if someone wants to do something they can, and they party is fine with that but not the bard's actions.


"Quick ret-con... we're going to roll back the whole evil mutilation thing and just say you summoned a fiendish, black Pegasus with glowing red eyes."


Problem solved.
Yea the problem is its already happened so I don't know if that would fix the problem.

[Unoriginal]

Yea the problem is its already happened so I don't know if that would fix the problem.

Ask your players if they'd prefer to make it un-happen

[KorvinStarmast]

It's the animal cruelty (even though it's not really an animal) And your acceptance of it.
That player just doesn't want to game with you guys after that. very possible, nice point.

You have to remember that animal cruelty is perceived as the most heinous thing on the Internet, ranking high above human torture or decapitation. In some circles.

There are people who I have felt go over the top on Evil descriptions and I have had to separate myself from them. Which is a good reason to leave a given table. (Nice posts in general during this discussion).

[Sigreid]

"Quick ret-con... we're going to roll back the whole evil mutilation thing and just say you summoned a fiendish, black Pegasus with glowing red eyes."


Problem solved.

You could just let him summon a nightmare as well.

[jjadned]

Ask your players if they'd prefer to make it un-happen


You could just let him summon a nightmare as well.

Yea I am just worried the problem will persist

[Sigreid]

Yea I am just worried the problem will persist

Really depends on the player. It's even possible this is just an excuse and they just plain don't want to play anymore right now.

[Unoriginal]

Just to be sure, you and your players know that Pegasi are persons, right?

[Willie the Duck]

Yea I am just worried the problem will persist

So are we addressing the problem of the bard who committed an evil act, or the player who you believe will continue to make others at the table uncomfortable, despite them knowing that they did so before, and why?

The first you can address in any number of ways, from reinterpreting the action, retconning what happened, to jumping ship to a slightly alternate universe where everything else in the world happened, but that party and that Pegasus never existed (roll up new characters, let's start again...).

The second, the only real answer is sitting down and talking with everyone and figuring out 1) how disturbed people are, 2) about what very specifically, and 3) what to do about it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So, the deeper problem is that you've all agreed to play an evil campaign, but there were some very different expectations as to what that meant?

Did you have a session zero? Have one now. (You're already planning on doing that, so good job.)

If mutilating sentient animals is taking things too far there may be a few more things you'd like to discuss. After all, some people would say they're being cheesily slapstickily evil when they hurt children and animals, torture and rape people, yell at toddlers that they'll never be good enough or kill or even save enemies and random villagers in the most sadistic way possible. Other people would like their evil a bit more Disneyfied. Or at the very least a bit more realistically characterized. See if you can get everybody on the same page. The hard part will doing so without looking like the most insensitive person in the world or unknowingly deeply offending anyone.

[Unoriginal]

So, the deeper problem is that you've all agreed to play an evil campaign, but there were some very different expectations as to what that meant?

Did you have a session zero? Have one now. (You're already planning on doing that, so good job.)

If mutilating sentient animals is taking things too far there may be a few more things you'd like to discuss. After all, some people would say they're being cheesily slapstickily evil when they hurt children and animals, torture and rape people, yell at toddlers that they'll never be good enough or kill or even save enemies and random villagers in the most sadistic way possible. Other people would like their evil a bit more Disneyfied. Or at the very least a bit more realistically characterized. See if you can get everybody on the same page. The hard part will doing so without looking like the most insensitive person in the world or unknowingly deeply offending anyone.

A Pegasus is as much an animal as an human.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

A Pegasus is as much an animal as an human.

Thank you for pointing that out again, that's what "sentient" means, given the context.

That was of course also not the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to debate how bad this particular act was, or if it was even possible, I'm saying if you're specifically playing an evil campaign but there are limits to how evil people are willing to go that's a topic to get the whole group on the same page on.

[Ganymede]

How would you as a player react?

I remember watching an episode of Critical Role in which Grog tore out the tongue of a captured prisoner. Personally, it made me very uncomfortable and I wasn't even at their table.

[zinycor]

The thing is, whenever you are playing evil, horror, dramatic or simply focused on roleplaying campaigns you have to constatly check for everyone's comfort. It is not enough to get the initial thumbs up for these things, because people may be taken by surprise by what upsets them, and have a greater emotional response than expected.

FOr me there 2 fundamental things to take into consideration

1) Right to veto: Any player (including the GM) has the absolute right to veto anything that happens at the table if it bothers them on a personal level. They would need to explain it, and the group would need to agree to this, But the right should be there.
2) Create an atmosphere where it is safe to feel: This is hard to do, especially if you don't know the Players personally, but when approaching storytelling is perfectly natural that things affect the player emotionally, Which is great, but may make the person (or the other players) feel awkward or rejected. These situations may prove to be problematic, but if dealt in the right way can turn into the most satisfying moments for your table.

[the secret fire]

So wait...your players, who are mostly playing chaotic neutral characters who I'm sure are all model citizens, can't deal with one among them doing something mean to an imaginary flying horse?!

It would be one thing if this were a campaign for good guys doing good things, but why should people who choose to play a bunch of d-bags with questionable morals have a problem with this? Sounds to me like what you've got is a bunch of whiny players. I'd suggest you force a succession of horrific moral dilemmas on the party until the bard and his summoned nightmare seem like a pleasant dream.

[zinycor]

So wait...your players, who are mostly playing chaotic neutral characters who I'm sure are all model citizens, can't deal with one among them doing something mean to an imaginary flying horse?!

It would be one thing if this were a campaign for good guys doing good things, but why should people who choose to play a bunch of d-bags with questionable morals have a problem with this? Sounds to me like what you've got is a bunch of whiny players. I'd suggest you force a succession of horrific moral dilemmas on the party until the bard and his summoned nightmare seem like a pleasant dream.

Because people feel diferently about the kind of evil they tolerate or enjoy. Maybe some people are okay with playing thieves, but have no tolerance for rape. Or in this case maye the players are okay with killing people but hate the idea of Animal abuse. Being okay with "evil" doesn't mean being okay with all the kinds of evil. Maybe a player has a particular history related to animal abuse and did not think to mention it before.

Why would you punish players for something like this?

[Malifice]

They find it cruel/evil that he did it. But ingame they don't know yet and they are mostly CN.

Your problem was you didnt do a session zero and get group consent for an evil PC (and by extension evil acts).

You failed to establish a social contract for the table.

In some groups they're fine. But you need everyone on board. You never bothered to ask from the looks of it.

If its evil stuff thats killing the game, restart the game, offer everyone a re-build and set the social contract early. 'How does everyone feel about a heroic campaign, where everyone must be a good alignment? I say this because people are not comfortable with evil acts. What say you all?'

[the secret fire]

Because people feel diferently about the kind of evil they tolerate or enjoy. Maybe some people are okay with playing thieves, but have no tolerance for rape. Or in this case maye the players are okay with killing people but hate the idea of Animal abuse. Being okay with "evil" doesn't mean being okay with all the kinds of evil. Maybe a player has a particular history related to animal abuse and did not think to mention it before.

Why would you punish players for something like this?

Because they are acting like crybabies and hypocrites. They have chosen to play characters whose alignments could best be described as "amoral jerkface" in a game where violently ending the lives of intelligent creatures in a normal part of a day's work, but they can't handle an imaginary flying horse being mistreated, and apparently aren't even mature enough to express their misgivings in clear terms, either to the "offending" player, or to the GM, who still doesn't seem to know quite why they are upset.

I'm not there, and I don't know these people, but from what OP has shared thus far, it sounds like his players are acting like whiny, entitled children. He doesn't have to give in to their foolishness.

[Pex]

I'll never understand the need of some players to play grossly* evil characters and freak everyone out.

I almost want to say "get therapy".

*Keyword is "grossly", not "evil".

[Unoriginal]

Because they are acting like crybabies and hypocrites. They have chosen to play characters whose alignments could best be described as "amoral jerkface" in a game where violently ending the lives of intelligent creatures in a normal part of a day's work, but they can't handle an imaginary flying horse being mistreated, and apparently aren't even mature enough to express their misgivings in clear terms, either to the "offending" player, or to the GM, who still doesn't seem to know quite why they are upset.

I'm not there, and I don't know these people, but from what OP has shared thus far, it sounds like his players are acting like whiny, entitled children. He doesn't have to give in to their foolishness.

Pegasi are people.

To turn one into a Nightmare requires Jigsaw level of horror. Except you also damn them forever.

It's not because someone is fine with playing a douche they have to be fine with one of the PCs going full Elizabeth Bathory.

[Theoboldi]

Whether someone is comfortable with something isn't something you just check once and you're done, in any situation in life, much less a make-believe elf game. People are not perfectly aware of their own limits, and often something we think we're okay with ends up bothering us a lot.

If your players didnt speak up in the moment, I doubt that means they're not being accurate about their reasons, or that something deeper is at play. It's possible, but I wouldn't count on this. The suituation simply might not have bothered them as much in the moment, and now they regret it, or maybe they just didn't want to ruin the session by speaking up.

I don't even understand why this is in any way controversial. :smallconfused:

I'm glad you decided to talk to your players about this, OP. Be careful about sounding dismissive towards their opinion, however. it's very easy to do so by accident. No matter whether you can agree with their issues with the situation, they still clearly feel that something is problematic. There's no point in saving the bard's steed if the game itself ends up no longer being fun for someone as a result.

[Willie the Duck]

I'll never understand the need of some players to play grossly* evil characters and freak everyone out.

I almost want to say "get therapy".

*Keyword is "grossly", not "evil".

Here's the thing. We don't really know that that is what the player was doing. What we have is OP's statement of the player's intent as, "to use find greater steed to summon a Pegasus and then nightmare it."

Now, this...


Pegasi are people.

To turn one into a Nightmare requires Jigsaw level of horror. Except you also damn them forever.

...may be true*, in that the books actually describe Pegasi as having humanesque agency, and the process of nightmarification being a form of eternal damnation**. But we have not heard that this was part of the bard's player's knowledge base. For all we know, his thought process was, "a Pegasus is a winged horse. That's a neat pet. For an evil character, a nightmare would be the equivalent thing. Let's do that."
*ignoring what we've discovered about find greater steed not actually summoning a Pegasus.
**which to me, highlights how ridiculous the D&D soul/afterlife/etc. system is. Actions someone else does to you can be the equivalent of a real-world 'mortal sin?' -- that just makes a mockery of the very concept.

Now, in a campaign where the DM is trying to play at writing Faust, maybe it would be great to have the player do that, and then say, "you know, your character just summoned a sentient entity and damned their soul, right?" and watched the player look aghast. But in this situation, where it seems that people wanted to play 'lightly evil' instead of 'operatic villain evil,' maybe someone should have stepped in and said, "okay, have you read the description of Pegasus and the Nightmare process in this edition? Do you know the ramifications of what you're suggesting your character do?"

[Unoriginal]

...may be true*, in that the books actually describe Pegasi as having humanesque agency, and the process of nightmarification being a form of eternal damnation**. But we have not heard that this was part of the bard's player's knowledge base. For all we know, his thought process was, "a Pegasus is a winged horse. That's a neat pet. For an evil character, a nightmare would be the equivalent thing. Let's do that."

I'm not saying the bard knew that, but the others might have, or might have checked the MM afterward to know what's up.


which to me, highlights how ridiculous the D&D soul/afterlife/etc. system is. Actions someone else does to you can be the equivalent of a real-world 'mortal sin?' -- that just makes a mockery of the very concept.

It's not damnation as in "you did something bad, so now you're punished in the afterlife", it's "hey, it's a nice soul you have here. I'm going to create a Fiend from it".

Calling it damnation is a bit of an incorrect use of the word by me, in the sense that there is no afterlife judgement and being sent where your soul belongs the most, but it is the horrifying twisting of a celestial, a re-writing of who they are.


maybe someone should have stepped in and said, "okay, have you read the description of Pegasus and the Nightmare process in this edition? Do you know the ramifications of what you're suggesting your character do?"

OP probably didn't point that out because they didn't see it as a big deal.

[Pex]

If what the bard player meant was to use Find Greater Steed to summon a nightmare instead of a pegasus that's not gross. He'd be using the words "make it" to mean "replacement", not a physical torturous transformation of an actual pegasus. If it was the latter, retcon it to the former.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'll never understand the need of some players to play grossly* evil characters and freak everyone out.

I almost want to say "get therapy".

*Keyword is "grossly", not "evil". I'm with you on the 'get therapy' approach in some cases, since it isn't everyone who can play an evil character and still separate their fantasy from reality. There are a number of professional actors in Hollywood who have mentioned that it's a real struggle to portray an evil role. Others can go back and forth from evil to normal with nearly no effort. Seems to be a case-by-case deal.

When I ran D&D for teenagers (junior high and high school), evil characters were forbidden for three reasons.
1. The maturity level of the group, as I assessed it
2. I was not interested in their parents getting on that old 70's/80's bandwagon of D&D as a satanic cult and possibly breaking up the group, and other drama
3. I'd seen some college aged and young adult players years prior play evil characters and I knew what the traps were.

[Sigreid]

The thing is, whenever you are playing evil, horror, dramatic or simply focused on roleplaying campaigns you have to constatly check for everyone's comfort. It is not enough to get the initial thumbs up for these things, because people may be taken by surprise by what upsets them, and have a greater emotional response than expected.

FOr me there 2 fundamental things to take into consideration

1) Right to veto: Any player (including the GM) has the absolute right to veto anything that happens at the table if it bothers them on a personal level. They would need to explain it, and the group would need to agree to this, But the right should be there.
2) Create an atmosphere where it is safe to feel: This is hard to do, especially if you don't know the Players personally, but when approaching storytelling is perfectly natural that things affect the player emotionally, Which is great, but may make the person (or the other players) feel awkward or rejected. These situations may prove to be problematic, but if dealt in the right way can turn into the most satisfying moments for your table.
I would not play with people who can't get into the 'it's just a game' mindset and had to he coddled.

[zinycor]

I would not play with people who can't get into the 'it's just a game' mindset and had to he coddled.

When did I say that?

[iHave2Tinkle]

Hi I'm the bard from his campaign. The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way, because I was doing what a ne character would do. The campagne was planned to be a serious one, but it can't be if everyone's too worried about the health of any animals mentioned. I also find it strange that they love to talk about abusing people and worhipping demons (out of game), but can't stand the thought of an animal getting hurt. I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.

[Sigreid]

When did I say that?

It's my words applied to what you described. Way to care bear for me.

[jjadned]

IHave2Tinkle is the bard btw

[Unoriginal]

Hi I'm the bard from his campaign. The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way, because I was doing what a ne character would do. The campagne was planned to be a serious one, but it can't be if everyone's too worried about the health of any animals mentioned. I also find it strange that they love to talk about abusing people and worhipping demons (out of game), but can't stand the thought of an animal getting hurt. I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.

Just to be sure: you know the Pegasus isn't an animal, right?

And that you don't just rip the wings to turn one into a Nightmare?

[the_brazenburn]

Hi I'm the bard from his campaign. The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way, because I was doing what a ne character would do. The campagne was planned to be a serious one, but it can't be if everyone's too worried about the health of any animals mentioned. I also find it strange that they love to talk about abusing people and worhipping demons (out of game), but can't stand the thought of an animal getting hurt. I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.

There are three of them, and one of you. If they are all "sensitive children", then you are the one out of place, not them.

I'm sorry to give you such a rough entry into GitP, but it must be said that "that's what my player would do" is the worst excuse for evil actions in-character ever. Look at the previous responses, and try to work something out with your GM instead of being a whiny **** on this forum.

Again, apologies for the difficult introduction to the forum. I've said what I needed to, but I hope you won't get the impression that we're all nasty people (although we kind of are).

[iHave2Tinkle]

Just to be sure: you know the Pegasus isn't an animal, right?

And that you don't just rip the wings to turn one into a Nightmare?
Th dm allowed it, so I'm that campaign it I am animal.

[Unoriginal]

Th dm allowed it, so I'm that campaign it I am animal.

What.

I meant, the Pegasus isn't an animal. It's a sapient being just like humans, elves, gnomes and the others.

Same thing with the Nightmare.

[iHave2Tinkle]

There are three of them, and one of you. If they are all "sensitive children", then you are the one out of place, not them.

I'm sorry to give you such a rough entry into GitP, but it must be said that "that's what my player would do" is the worst excuse for evil actions in-character ever. Look at the previous responses, and try to work something out with your GM instead of being a whiny **** on this forum.

Again, apologies for the difficult introduction to the forum. I've said what I needed to, but I hope you won't get the impression that we're all nasty people (although we kind of are).
I not whining about anything. I just didn't expect them to have that kind of reaction towards a make believe game.

[iHave2Tinkle]

What.

I meant, the Pegasus isn't an animal. It's a sapient being just like humans, elves, gnomes and the others.

Same thing with the Nightmare.
Oh I thought you were stating that technically I summoned a spirit in the shape of a Pegasus and not an actual one. My bad

[jjadned]

I'm sorry to give you such a rough entry into GitP, but it must be said that "that's what my player would do" is the worst excuse for evil actions in-character ever. Look at the previous responses, and try to work something out with your GM instead of being a whiny **** on this forum.

I agree that says thats my character isn't great but then again, It is your character. Playing a LG and killing a random commoner isn't ok.

And he isn't being whiny atleast not compared to the two of the four players of the party...


Oh I thought you were stating that technically I summoned a spirit in the shape of a Pegasus and not an actual one. My bad
technically its a spirit but that doesn't matter to me, also use the multi quote feature.

[zinycor]

Hi I'm the bard from his campaign. The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way, because I was doing what a ne character would do.

As an advice, whenever you are playing with other people, you should care if something rubs them the wrong way, That is usually more important than you playing your character. the enojoyment of the group is more important than the enjoyment of a single person.


The campagne was planned to be a serious one, but it can't be if everyone's too worried about the health of any animals mentioned. I also find it strange that they love to talk about abusing people and worhipping demons (out of game), but can't stand the thought of an animal getting hurt. I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.

How well do you know the other players? Do they have personal problems with animal cruelty in real life? If so this could have been easily avoidable.

In my opinion, you are kind of screwed here. Because if you start a new evil campaign with a new group, you will face similar problems. Tipically in order to play evil games, you should know and trust the other players, otherwise, you risk hurting other people feelings or derailing the campaign.

As an aside, In my experience, serious campaigns with evil campaigns rarely mix well.

[zinycor]

I believe you both have 2 options:

1. find a new group, make sure that the other group doesn't care about this sort of thing (I would play a more normal game first with the new group in order to understand better the group dinamics)

2. Adapt to this group, and determine what would be going over the line in order to avoid problems in the future.

[iHave2Tinkle]

How well do you know the other players? Do they have personal problems with animal cruelty in real life? If so this could have been easily avoidable.

1. I figured that they would be mature enough to not abandon a campaign simply because a make believe character got hurt. 2. I don't condone the amusement of any animal or person irl. 3. What did my problems with animal abuse in real life have to do with a dnd campagn?

[Willie the Duck]

why should people who choose to play a bunch of d-bags with questionable morals have a problem with this? Sounds to me like what you've got is a bunch of whiny players. I'd suggest you force a succession of horrific moral dilemmas on the party until the bard and his summoned nightmare seem like a pleasant dream.


Because they are acting like crybabies and hypocrites. ...
and apparently aren't even mature enough to ... it sounds like his players are acting like whiny, entitled children. He doesn't have to give in to their foolishness.


I would not play with people who can't get into the 'it's just a game' mindset and had to he coddled.


I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.


Way to care bear for me.


There are three of them, and one of you. If they are all "sensitive children", then you are the one out of place, not them.
...
Look at the previous responses, and try to work something out with your GM instead of being a whiny **** on this forum.


I not whining about anything. I just didn't expect them to have that kind of reaction towards a make believe game.


And he isn't being whiny atleast not compared to the two of the four players of the party...

It is not my job to tell people what to do. I am just going to say that all of this, from all these directions, to my ears, sounds like a bunch of school children in a circle pointing to everyone else, and yelling "No, they're the one's who need to grow up!"

I get it, everyone wants to cast the opposing side as the crybaby children. I'm just pointing out that we've hit peak saturation of those claims and continuing with this is probably going to have a drop-off in effectiveness (if there ever was one).

Now, yes, I think we can all agree that people who signed up for an evil campaign should not be surprised that, y'know, PCs will commit evil acts. OTOH, it's also completely reasonable for people to have thresholds of acceptability (and yes, sometimes murderhobo is a lesser evil than rapist or dog-kicker, or in this case possibly-sapient-imaginary-horse-debaser). That's why session-zeroes and shared consensus is important before attempting an evil campaign.

[Consensus]

I don't condone the amusement of any... person irl.
(emphasis mine)
Clearly:


The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way.

[Sigreid]

It is not my job to tell people what to do. I am just going to say that all of this, from all these directions, to my ears, sounds like a bunch of school children in a circle pointing to everyone else, and yelling "No, they're the one's who need to grow up!"

I get it, everyone wants to cast the opposing side as the crybaby children. I'm just pointing out that we've hit peak saturation of those claims and continuing with this is probably going to have a drop-off in effectiveness (if there ever was one).

Now, yes, I think we can all agree that people who signed up for an evil campaign should not be surprised that, y'know, PCs will commit evil acts. OTOH, it's also completely reasonable for people to have thresholds of acceptability (and yes, sometimes murderhobo is a lesser evil than rapist or dog-kicker, or in this case possibly-sapient-imaginary-horse-debaser). That's why session-zeroes and shared consensus is important before attempting an evil campaign.

In the end, you need to find a group that works within your parameters, including behaviour that is ok in game and out and how seriously you take the game. If you're one who "plays rough" like me, you don't belong at a table with people that are going to internalize everything.

[iHave2Tinkle]

(emphasis mine)
Clearly:
There's a difference between abusing an animal in real life and abusing one in the mythical world of dnd. By your logic, they should be acting like this evertime they're task to kill a human or elf.

[Consensus]

There's a difference between abusing an animal in real life and abusing one in the mythical world of dnd. By your logic, they should be acting like this evertime they're task to kill a human or elf.

Blue text usually means joking. I was referring to you typo of amusing instead of abusing

[iHave2Tinkle]

Blue text usually means joking. I was referring to you typo of amusing instead of abusing

Ahhh. That wooshed right over me

[zinycor]

1. I figured that they would be mature enough to not abandon a campaign simply because a make believe character got hurt. 2. I don't condone the amusement of any animal or person irl. 3. What did my problems with animal abuse in real life have to do with a dnd campagn?


I never stated that you condoned the suffering of animals irl, I was asking if the other players had personal problems with people hurting animals, because that could be something they are not willing to tolerate.

[iHave2Tinkle]

I never stated that you condoned the suffering of animals irl, I was asking if the other players had personal problems with people hurting animals, because that could be something they are not willing to tolerate.
My main point is that it's a fictional game that happens in your head. I never expected them to react like that to a fictional creature. I know atleast in of them plays skyrim, and you have to kill animals in that game. What's the difference here? Also you did ask I I had problems with animal abuse irl

[SirGraystone]

I read lots of thing about what the OP shouldn't have done or he should have handle thing but the fact is the nightmare is there already, and some peoples got upset about it. My advice would be, don't do anything about the bard or nightmare and just keep the game going. If the bard become too evil for the rest of the group to handle, let say he start murdering children or puppies for fun, let the other characters stop him. Just let it stay in game not outside.

Now a few things I would have done differently
- Not let it all happen outside the game, when no others characters could have stop him.
- The religion check, finding the proper ritual should have been an adventure in itself

Everyone make mistake, we all did starting to play (we still make some years later), the main thing is to learn from those mistakes and keep players :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

My main point is that it's a fictional game that happens in your head. I never expected them to react like that to a fictional creature. I know atleast in of them plays skyrim, and you have to kill animals in that game. What's the difference here? Also you did ask I I had problems with animal abuse irl

Your character kidnapped an innocent person, chained them, then cut off their limbs and horrifically tortured them with dark magic and sharp tools, to the point that their soul was permanently twisted.

It's not killing an animal.

[jjadned]

Your character kidnapped an innocent person, chained them, then cut off their limbs and horrifically tortured them with dark magic and sharp tools, to the point that their soul was permanently twisted.

It's not killing an animal.

I mean he didn't kidnapped he magically summoned it.

Just saying

[iHave2Tinkle]

Your character kidnapped an innocent person, chained them, then cut off their limbs and horrifically tortured them with dark magic and sharp tools, to the point that their soul was permanently twisted.

It's not killing an animal.
He deserved it tho, he looked at me funny.

[Unoriginal]

I mean he didn't kidnapped he magically summoned it.

Just saying

Pretty sure dragging someone out of their usual living space, magically compelling them to obey you and then chaining them so they're 100% defenseless while you violate them counts as kidnapping

[zinycor]

My main point is that it's a fictional game that happens in your head.

That's part of the problem, if it happens in my imagination, it has any kind of tones that I imagine it has. Maybe I imagine the Pegasus suffering and it reminds me of a pet that I had, or maybe I just gloss over it and see that the bard has a cool mount now. The fact that it happens in my head, give me the freedom to frame it however i feel like it.


I never expected them to react like that to a fictional creature.

Which is fair, the point is that NOW you know and it would have been nice to know beforehand.


I know atleast in of them plays skyrim, and you have to kill animals in that game. What's the difference here?

Several:
1.- The level of disconnection between your character in skyrim and your character on DnD is different. For example, is hard to think of the NPCs skyrim as real characters given their behaviour and obvious programming, on a DnD is much easier because the NPCs are controlled by an actual person and behave more naturally. So, if I have to do something horrible in skyrim I can do it with no second thoughts, because I don't buy into the idea that it is horrible. On DnD I might not becasue I might care on a deeper level.

2.- Generally on Skyrim the animals that you kill are hostile towards you or you hunt them in order to craft items or eat them. Mutating their souls is another subject.

In the end, emotions are tricky. The separation between what is good, acceptable and bad is never clear and varies from person to person.

My advice is that whenever you have the talk with the other players, don't call them immature or make them feel bad for feeling things. Just tell them that you didn't think this would offend them and try to reach a compromise. Otherwise find a new group, but you might face similar problems.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, it's important to respect their feelings and to have them respect yours.

[LankyOgre]

1. I figured that they would be mature enough to not abandon a campaign simply because a make believe character got hurt. 2. I don't condone the amusement of any animal or person irl. 3. What did my problems with animal abuse in real life have to do with a dnd campagn?

From what I’m reading, it sounds like an “evil” game was started and the other players expected a fairly mild I’m playing evil in a CRPG and just saying mean things or don’t save the princess. And then you showed up and turned things up to 11. I actually think that the “should we play an evil campaign?” was probably met with “ooookay?” not “yes!”
Now, you and jjadned are repeatedly trivializing the other players and say, “they should just grow up.” Unless you are all really good friends IRL or this is part of a school club that you can’t separate, you all just shouldn’t game together.
And no, just because you can be evil and angst and torture animals, does not mean you are more mature.

[zinycor]

I read lots of thing about what the OP shouldn't have done or he should have handle thing but the fact is the nightmare is there already, and some peoples got upset about it. My advice would be, don't do anything about the bard or nightmare and just keep the game going. If the bard become too evil for the rest of the group to handle, let say he start murdering children or puppies for fun, let the other characters stop him. Just let it stay in game not outside.

Now a few things I would have done differently
- Not let it all happen outside the game, when no others characters could have stop him.
- The religion check, finding the proper ritual should have been an adventure in itself

Everyone make mistake, we all did starting to play (we still make some years later), the main thing is to learn from those mistakes and keep players :smallsmile:

The problem is that a player already left the group, this is an OoG problem and should have an OoG solution.

[jjadned]

From what I’m reading, it sounds like an “evil” game was started and the other players expected a fairly mild I’m playing evil in a CRPG and just saying mean things or don’t save the princess. And then you showed up and turned things up to 11. I actually think that the “should we play an evil campaign?” was probably met with “ooookay?” not “yes!”
Now, you and jjadned are repeatedly trivializing the other players and say, “they should just grow up.” Unless you are all really good friends IRL or this is part of a school club that you can’t separate, you all just shouldn’t game together.
And no, just because you can be evil and angst and torture animals, does not mean you are more mature.

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things. I would like to continuing DMing the group because I had fun first session but the only problem is the girl wants to quit and DM herself and one of the guys wants to leave and join her. If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem.

[Unoriginal]

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things. I would like to continuing DMing the group because I had fun first session but the only problem is the girl wants to quit and DM herself and one of the guys wants to leave and join her. If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem.

You had fun, they didn't. If they want to leave, well, you can try to convince them to stay, but there isn't any real advice we can give you for that. Especially as you keep dismissing their reactions.

Actually, there is one piece of advice, but it depends on the answer to this question: what was the different people's experience with RPGs, before that?

[Sigreid]

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things. I would like to continuing DMing the group because I had fun first session but the only problem is the girl wants to quit and DM herself and one of the guys wants to leave and join her. If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem.

<inapropriatejoke> Join her game and make a nightmare </inapropriatejoke>

[the secret fire]

It is not my job to tell people what to do. I am just going to say that all of this, from all these directions, to my ears, sounds like a bunch of school children in a circle pointing to everyone else, and yelling "No, they're the one's who need to grow up!".

I strongly suspect that we are discussing the trials and tribulations of actual school children here (or at least high schoolers).

[zinycor]

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things.

Then, you should have been more clear on that, and maybe run a more neutral game if not everyone agreed to play that evil.


I would like to continuing DMing the group because I had fun first session but the only problem is the girl wants to quit and DM herself and one of the guys wants to leave and join her. If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem.

How is this a problem? This exactly what they should do. Overreaction or not, they are on the right, they should not be on games that they don't enjoy. You cannot blame people for feeling in whatever way they feel.

I believe you should find new players, be more clear about the expectations of the campaign. Maybe don't start with an evil campaign and wait until you can trust them all.

[LankyOgre]

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things. I would like to continuing DMing the group because I had fun first session but the only problem is the girl wants to quit and DM herself and one of the guys wants to leave and join her. If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem.

And here’s the problem. They wanted to play NotGood. You wanted EVIL. And now you are completely dismissing their feelings as having any validity. I could completely see the opposite conversation on here if the other player would have posted instead, and everybody would be telling thhem to go start their own group. At this point, I think they are better off playing their own game and you and Tinkle can go shock each other with being evil and angsty.

[History_buff]

Oh I thought you were stating that technically I summoned a spirit in the shape of a Pegasus and not an actual one. My bad

I’m the one that said that.

It’s not a Pegasus anymore than a familiar from the find familiar spell is an actual cat or owl.

[Unoriginal]

I’m the one that said that.

I said it too, but it was at the start of the thread.

[History_buff]

I said it too, but it was at the start of the thread.

Ah yeah you did.

But seems like the best solution is to just summon a fiendish templated “pegasus” with fire in its eyes and black feathers.

There. Cool, “edgy” mount no mutilation needed. Alternative ask the dm if the form can take the form of a Nightmare (properly adjusted for balance).

[Sigreid]

Ah yeah you did.

But seems like the best solution is to just summon a fiendish templated “pegasus” with fire in its eyes and black feathers.

There. Cool, “edgy” mount no mutilation needed. Alternative ask the dm if the form can take the form of a Nightmare (properly adjusted for balance).

Eh, this situation was a catalyst and not a cause. Sooner or later the group would have discovered they want a different limit and tone.

[jjadned]

Then, you should have been more clear on that, and maybe run a more neutral game if not everyone agreed to play that evil.

How is this a problem? This exactly what they should do. Overreaction or not, they are on the right, they should not be on games that they don't enjoy. You cannot blame people for feeling in whatever way they feel.

I believe you should find new players, be more clear about the expectations of the campaign. Maybe don't start with an evil campaign and wait until you can trust them all.

Everyone said LE and NE was fine, my dnd group was made because the normal DM was getting overwhelmed. He likes to run games with 3-4 people He was hoping people would play in my game to keep him at a small group. Only 4 people joined out of like 12. So if they split off they would be the DM and a player, and I would be DM and 2 players. So it would ruin my campaign and hers would be one person which isn't much of a campaign.

Its not an evil campaign it is one evil person and 3 CN people.


And here’s the problem. They wanted to play NotGood. You wanted EVIL. And now you are completely dismissing their feelings as having any validity. I could completely see the opposite conversation on here if the other player would have posted instead, and everybody would be telling thhem to go start their own group. At this point, I think they are better off playing their own game and you and Tinkle can go shock each other with being evil and angsty.

The problem is currently the two campaigns couldn't coexist, we don't have the space nor the players interested in leaving the big campaign. Cause right now its 1DM/7Players and 1DM/4Players and they want to make it 1DM/7Players and 1DM/1Player and 1DM/2Player.

The whole reason I am DMing (outside of wanting to do it) is to take the load of the main campagin and splitting it just ruins the fun for me and the other group because a campaigns that consist of 2 PCs and 1 PC aren't fun.

I talked to one of the PCs that I was wrong about the spell but nonetheless he can summon a nightmare with it and he still wants to leave even though I said it never happened.
If both players leave it ****s up the campaign and they can't play in the big campaign. That is a childish thing to do when I am going to be toning it down and changing things not to upset them.

TL;DR
After retconning it and changing the tone of things the player's still want to leave and start a 2 person game of D&D

[iHave2Tinkle]

Ah yeah you did.

But seems like the best solution is to just summon a fiendish templated “pegasus” with fire in its eyes and black feathers.

There. Cool, “edgy” mount no mutilation needed. Alternative ask the dm if the form can take the form of a Nightmare (properly adjusted for balance).

The damage is done and I don't think they could look at me the same way. I find this whole situation halarious.

[the secret fire]

TL;DR
After retconning it and changing the tone of things the player's still want to leave and start a 2 person game of D&D

Could they have a reason for this that they are not telling you? Maybe they just want to play hide the falchion?

[Pelle]

TL;DR
After retconning it and changing the tone of things the player's still want to leave and start a 2 person game of D&D

Tough luck.


[...] splitting it just ruins the fun for me and the other group because a campaigns that consist of 2 PCs and 1 PC aren't fun.

People are not obliged to play with you so that you can have fun. If you want them to play with you, try to focus on their fun instead of yours. Respect their feelings, even if they are irrational or they apparently have changed their minds. Not accepting their reaction when they realized they were uncomfortable might have made it too late now.

[Pex]

The damage is done and I don't think they could look at me the same way. I find this whole situation halarious.

That has potential problems down the road. You can disagree, but if you can't or won't understand their point of view you will have the same issue happen again and again. Your character is important, but it's not only about you. Don't be a "That Guy" who gets his jollies only caring about his character and you put up with other players at the table as the price for playing.

[jjadned]

People are not obliged to play with you so that you can have fun. If you want them to play with you, try to focus on their fun instead of yours. Respect their feelings, even if they are irrational or they apparently have changed their minds. Not accepting their reaction when they realized they were uncomfortable might have made it too late now.
What do you think I am trying to do?

I have tried talking tried reasoning I've changed my whole roadmap, they are too busy being childish and ruining the fun for me and my players...

I haven't expressed any negative emotions towards them only try to make the table a suitable environment for them and they work with me. They would rather run off and play 1 DM and 1 player. and I would be fine with this if it

DIDN'T REMOVE THE WHOLE POINT OF MY SESSION IN THE FIRST PLACE

[Unoriginal]

What do you think I am trying to do?

I have tried talking tried reasoning I've changed my whole roadmap, they are too busy being childish and ruining the fun for me and my players...

If they're such fun-ruinners for you, you're better off without them.



I haven't expressed any negative emotions towards them

You keep calling them childish, unreasonable and saying they're ruining your fun.


They would rather run off and play 1 DM and 1 player. and I would be fine with this if it

DIDN'T REMOVE THE WHOLE POINT OF MY SESSION IN THE FIRST PLACE

You should probably try to ask different people from the former 12 people group if they want to join now.

[iHave2Tinkle]

That has potential problems down the road. You can disagree, but if you can't or won't understand their point of view you will have the same issue happen again and again. Your character is important, but it's not only about you. Don't be a "That Guy" who gets his jollies only caring about his character and you put up with other players at the table as the price for playing.

I only find the situation halarious because of his much they're overeacting. I am more than willing to comply with their demands if it means not disbanding the campaign.

[jjadned]

If they're such fun-ruinners for you, you're better off without them.

You keep calling them childish, unreasonable and saying they're ruining your fun.

You should probably try to ask different people from the former 12 people group if they want to join now.

1. I would agree but running a game of two people is just boring.
2. Yes I have, but when talking to them I have been respectful.
3. Trust me I tried

[History_buff]

Dismissing the others player’s qualms as no big deal is really a pretty terrible way to go.

Pegasi have INT 10. They understand languages. They have feelings. Yes they’re imaginary horses, but in the game they’re “real”. In which case the biggest difference between a humanoid and a pegasus is body shape.

The nightmare ritual is maiming an intelligent being. It’s understandable that some people would have a problem with it. Dismissing their issue with it out of hand without talking about it isn’t a good way to go.

[jjadned]

Dismissing the others player’s qualms as no big deal is really a pretty terrible way to go.

Pegasi have INT 10. They understand languages. They have feelings. Yes they’re imaginary horses, but in the game they’re “real”. In which case the biggest difference between a humanoid and a pegasus is body shape.

The nightmare ritual is maiming an intelligent being. It’s understandable that some people would have a problem with it. Dismissing their issue with it out of hand without talking about it isn’t a good way to go.

Yes that is why I decided to Retcon it and still nothing

[Pelle]

It doesn't sound like the main problem is Pegasus/Nightmare thing. To me it seems more likely that they want to play with sympathetic people that respects their feelings. So if you want them back, ret-conning isn't enough, you should also apologize (even though you feel it wasn't your fault) so that you show that you are sympathetic.

If they still want to run their own game, you just have to realize and accept that you can't expect other people to do something they don't find fun.

[jjadned]

It doesn't sound like the main problem is Pegasus/Nightmare thing. To me it seems more likely that they want to play with sympathetic people that respects their feelings. So if you want them back, ret-conning isn't enough, you should also apologize (even though you feel it wasn't your fault) so that you show that you are sympathetic.

If they still want to run their own game, you just have to realize and accept that you can't expect other people to do something they don't find fun.

Apologize for what? I haven't blasted them like I have on the forums to their face. I'm not an ******* (well not directly an ******* :P)

[zinycor]

1. I would agree but running a game of two people is just boring.
2. Yes I have, but when talking to them I have been respectful.
3. Trust me I tried

Ask people outside of the 12 players. Get new players that would fit better. You don't need to have your players come from this 12 people that play under that other GM.

[jjadned]

Ask people outside of the 12 players. Get new players that would fit better. You don't need to have your players come from this 12 people that play under that other GM.

Most of my friends are doing things during the weekdays that's why my normal D&D campaign takes place sundays.

[Pelle]

For allowing the whatever made them upset. Doesn't matter, just acknowledge their feelings. The actual matter of contention (Pegasus, animal abuse, or something) isn't important.

[zinycor]

Most of my friends are doing things during the weekdays that's why my normal D&D campaign takes place sundays.

Then ask outside your usual group of friends, ask on the internet, gamestores or conventions.

[Unoriginal]

1. I would agree but running a game of two people is just boring.
2. Yes I have, but when talking to them I have been respectful.
3. Trust me I tried

Well, here's the last advice I can give:

Ask if you and the others can join their game. The only difference is a change of DM. Then see how your former player is handling it, and if you and others are having fun.

From what you said you didn't particularly care about DMing, so maybe just letting her try and see how difficult it can be will be for the best.

[jjadned]

Well, here's the last advice I can give:

Ask if you and the others can join their game. The only difference is a change of DM. Then see how your former player is handling it, and if you and others are having fun.

From what you said you didn't particularly care about DMing, so maybe just letting her try and see how difficult it can be will be for the best.

I enjoy DMing I would rather DM than play anyone’s game over than Alex’s campagin (Runs my LGS)

The only reason they needed a DM is cause 12 ppl is to much for one game of D&D

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way, because I was doing what a ne character would do. Not sure if you have ever read up on what 'my guy syndrome' (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37103/22566)is but there's a whiff of it here. That said, your point on you seeing this as a serious campaign, and apparently some others having a different expectation, is a classic case of expectations mismatch. Sometimes, that can't be resolved. What people expect from a TTRPG isn't uniform. Gaming, and particularly TTRP gaming, is a social experience.
And no, just because you can be evil and angst and torture animals, does not mean you are more mature. While a little harsh, a point worth making. Their maturity level isn't necessarily the trigger to the decisions taken. The "what's fun for me" factor is more likely.

The problem is they are more than fine with evil. but they have no clue what evil is... Evil people do evil things, they expected them to do neutral things. ... If one of the would stop overreacting there wouldn't be a problem. Expectations mismatch, assumptions mismatch. Boils down to about the same thing. In your defense, you can't mind read and sometimes the only way to find out things like this is when play begins.
They wanted to play NotGood. You wanted EVIL. And now you are completely dismissing their feelings as having any validity. At least on forum posts. Not sure how this is going IRL.

Everyone said LE and NE was fine, my dnd group was made because the normal DM was getting overwhelmed. Its not an evil campaign it is one evil person and 3 CN people. Hmm, an interesting way to present your problem. What I think is going on is that at least two people perceive that when the DM allows something "that evil," then the nature of the campaign they thought they were getting into had either changed, or they'd been mislead, or they had been mistaken in the first place. See above on assumptions and expectations mismatch.

The problem is currently the two campaigns couldn't coexist, we don't have the space nor the players interested in leaving the big campaign. Cause right now its 1DM/7Players and 1DM/4Players and they want to make it 1DM/7Players and 1DM/1Player and 1DM/2Player. And now we get to the heart of the matter. Logistics. :smallcool:

If both players leave it ****s up the campaign and they can't play in the big campaign. That is a childish thing to do when I am going to be toning it down and changing things not to upset them
After retconning it and changing the tone of things the player's still want to leave and start a 2 person game of D&D I now understand your frustration better. This is a matter of "if I can't have it, nobody can have it" that you see as their PoV, or at least the consequence of their choice to play separately. A lose-lose situation.

Could they have a reason for this that they are not telling you? Maybe they just want to play hide the falchion? A possible underlying root cause. (Lord, me and my awful puns, our Aussie friends will shake their fingers at me)

Your character is important, but it's not only about you. Don't be a "That Guy" who gets his jollies only caring about his character and you put up with other players at the table as the price for playing. Can't be said often enough. A TTRPG is a social activity.

@jjadned: I am going to suggest going with one of the "out of the box" suggestions from further above: offer to join her game as players, in whatever tone of game they are running. Then you get to play, and she gets to have the headaches. ( A variation on 'living well is the best revenge' but it will do in the short term). After some time, after your trust relationship is built/restored, you can all consider your campaign with a better "session 0" understanding between all of you.

Might work.

[Xihirli]

Apologize for what? I haven't blasted them like I have on the forums to their face. I'm not an ******* (well not directly an ******* :P)

Well, if you have this attitude for people they can tell.
Humans aren't stupid. We can tell when someone's just tolerating us to serve an end instead of enjoying our company.

[Vorpalchicken]

Bard: "and then I step on its neck and slice off the other wing with my ritual dagger. It screams in horror as I pour vile burning liquid over its stupid horse face."

DM: "Awesome!"

Girl: "Uh. I don't want to play with you guys any more."

Bard: "Grow Up! This is only make believe sadistic animal abuse."

DM: "No! Don't leave. I'm only doing this for the chicks!"

Girl: "Come on, Donny. Let's get out of here and I'll let you explore my dungeon! "

Donny: "I'll ready my falchion."

[jjadned]

Bard: "and then I step on its neck and slice off the other wing with my ritual dagger. It screams in horror as I pour vile burning liquid over its stupid horse face."

DM: "Awesome!"

Girl: "Uh. I don't want to play with you guys any more."

Bard: "Grow Up! This is only make believe sadistic animal abuse."

DM: "No! Don't leave. I'm only doing this for the chicks!"

Girl: "Come on, Donny. Let's get out of here and I'll let you explore my dungeon! "

Donny: "I'll ready my falchion."

I see the point your trying to make here,

1: lol
2: we didn't go anything any details at all, if we do I would understand that they would want to leave. I have said how it when down in the forum already.
3: I retconned it and changed the tone of the setting and still nothing
4: 90% sure donny only cares about exploring dungeons in real life tbh
5: I prefer than donny stays because the girl just seems way to over the top and silly

[KorvinStarmast]

3: I retconned it and changed the tone of the setting and still nothing
4: 90% sure donny only cares about exploring dungeons in real life tbh
Sadly, that "tone" won't change in her perception until you make a better reconciliation with her somehow.
I'll say again what I suggested above.

@jjadned: I am going to suggest going with one of the "out of the box" suggestions from further above: offer to join her game as players, in whatever tone of game they are running. Then you get to play, and she gets to have the headaches. ( A variation on 'living well is the best revenge' but it will do in the short term). After some time, after your trust relationship is built/restored, you can all consider your campaign with a better "session 0" understanding between all of you.

Might work. Not sure if you and she are generally simpatico, but playing in her game (the both of you) might be a good short term move to shore up the Away From Table friendship so that in time the trust that "tone is different" is perceived or accepted more readily.

Best wishes.

@VorpalChicken
Giggled, I did. I have a whole host of bad rejoinder gags that go with your last two lines, and I will first ask: did Phandelver? OK, this is not helpful to our OP ...

[Unoriginal]

Maybe ask for the help of an acquaintance who doesn't have a stake in this issue?

For example, the DM of the 12 player group you mentioned ealier.

[jjadned]

Maybe ask for the help of an acquaintance who doesn't have a stake in this issue?

For example, the DM of the 12 player group you mentioned ealier.

Doing that later today but that DM I don't see outside of thursday's where the sessions take place at the same time.

[Whit]

It’s pretty simple.
1. Is the group a normal play group every week or random players fir adventire league stuff.
1a. Normal group of friends. First talk to bard explain spell. You summon a fiend spirit that looks like nightmare but has Pegasus stats.
No mutilation.
1b. Random players. Explain what Happened with spell was allowed but error on how it was used. Move on

2. If it’s because he’s evil alignment talk to everyone at the table and ask them what they think Chaotic neutral is to them.

Not to delve to much into alignment. Your willing to do good or evil acts so CG CE. It’s kinda like I don’t want to write down evil but I can do whatever I want alignment. otherwise tfey would be CG

[willdaBEAST]

I didn't read beyond the first and last page, so if someone else mentioned this, I apologize.

A Pegasus is a CR 2 creature and a Nightmare is CR 3 with 2 key additional features in addition to slightly more attack damage: immunity to fire that confers fire resistance to the rider and the ability Ethereal Stride. Ethereal Stride is game changing, fire resistance is impactful. I wasn't clear if you were only refluffing a Pegasus into something that looks like a Nightmare, but it can be a real challenge to design encounters if up to 3 members of your party can shift into to the ethereal plane at will.

So overlooking how the evil act itself affected the party, I would recommend as a DM to be very careful about how you allow players to alter already powerful abilities like find greater steed.

[LankyOgre]

Apologize for what? I haven't blasted them like I have on the forums to their face. I'm not an ******* (well not directly an ******* :P)

I’m going to comment here one more time and then bow out. I don’t think you can salvage this anymore. The two of you have repeatedly dismissed and trashed the other players for their opinions and reactions. Even IF, (and big if) you have not said a single disparaging thing to them, they most likely have picked up on the body language. I don’t think they will play with you unless you both apologize, make serious effort to validate their opinions, and take all of the blame. And I don’t see any of those three things happening. At this point, the Nightmare is almost inconsequential. I think they are better off without you, and you are repeatedly showing why no gaming is better than bad gaming. You see no fault in yourself and are continuing to dig your heels in.
Edit: and I’m not sure you actually want to solve it beyond, “how do I make them play with me again.” You aren’t 5 and your parents can’t make you play together anymore.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Hi I'm the bard from his campaign. The way I see the situation is, they're overeacting about my character ripping wings off a make believe creature in a make believe game that happens in our heads. Suspicion confirmed, no session zero, players are not on the same page.


I don't care of it rubs them the wrong way,
This is slightly more worrying, no will to compromise or even have a session zero about this stuff.


because I was doing what a ne character would do.
And that one's never an excuse. It's still your character, you made it up, and you actively went looking for the opportunity to do this.

That in itself wasn't wrong or bad, but the mistake you made as a group was to not discus what the campaign would be like beforehand.


I think we'd be better off playing with people who aren't sensitive children.
Then why are we still talking about this? If the group is already split up and not getting back together the only reason I can see for this topic existing is that you two want people to say you were right.

[jjadned]

I’m going to comment here one more time and then bow out. I don’t think you can salvage this anymore. The two of you have repeatedly dismissed and trashed the other players for their opinions and reactions. Even IF, (and big if) you have not said a single disparaging thing to them, they most likely have picked up on the body language. I don’t think they will play with you unless you both apologize, make serious effort to validate their opinions, and take all of the blame. And I don’t see any of those three things happening. At this point, the Nightmare is almost inconsequential. I think they are better off without you, and you are repeatedly showing why no gaming is better than bad gaming. You see no fault in yourself and are continuing to dig your heels in.
Edit: and I’m not sure you actually want to solve it beyond, “how do I make them play with me again.” You aren’t 5 and your parents can’t make you play together anymore.

One of our players has a problem with it and I have yet to talk to her.

The other player that is quitting is just chasing her because 90% sure he likes her. (Which is interesting because her boyfriend is staying)

I have dismissed their feels nor displayed negative body language. I try to keep track of what I am when talking to people person to person.

The only thing that I could be blamed for is failing to correctly judge RAW. The bard can't be blamed for anything, he asked me before summoning the pegasus and I allowed it. He didn't make it say cruel things or go into detail about turning it. If he would have gone into detail I would have asked him to stop and would have punished him. Because I myself do not like animal abuse IRL.

The problem is the two players. They are getting upset by the fact that he is doing it in the first place. Even with the nightmare gone us toning down the setting and an offer to redo the first session as a hole. the fact that the bard would do it is the first place is so repulsing that they can't be near him. After they allowed evil PCs. they are overreacting...

[zinycor]

One of our players has a problem with it and I have yet to talk to her.

The other player that is quitting is just chasing her because 90% sure he likes her. (Which is interesting because her boyfriend is staying)

I have dismissed their feels nor displayed negative body language. I try to keep track of what I am when talking to people person to person.

The only thing that I could be blamed for is failing to correctly judge RAW. The bard can't be blamed for anything, he asked me before summoning the pegasus and I allowed it. He didn't make it say cruel things or go into detail about turning it. If he would have gone into detail I would have asked him to stop and would have punished him. Because I myself do not like animal abuse IRL.

The problem is the two players. They are getting upset by the fact that he is doing it in the first place. Even with the nightmare gone us toning down the setting and an offer to redo the first session as a hole. the fact that the bard would do it is the first place is so repulsing that they can't be near him. After they allowed evil PCs. they are overreacting...

So what?... tehy are within their rights to do so. the problem is that you still want to play with them, when it would be so muh easier for you to find other players.

[Sigreid]

So, as a practical suggestion you could allow the remaining characters to hire a henchman each to get party strength back to where you need it and Sally forth. If you're all playing in the same area on the same day, and your group is having mad fun some of the others will ask about your table.

[Scripten]

The puerility in this thread is staggering.

Listen, this is not going to end the way you guys want it to. This situation sounds unsalvageable and your interpersonal relations are, to put it mildly, not going to work out. Frankly, I wouldn't particularly want to play with people who've acted in such a way as you have and the more posts I see from you guys, the more sure I am. The issue is not (and never really was) the Nightmare, but your reactions to the people who expressed discomfort.

I would advise either finding a different group entirely to supplement the people who are leaving or, more preferably, take some time to be introspective and work out how to respect the people you are gaming with. Judging by what is apparent in the thread alone (which is, of course, a limited subset of reality) I would imagine that the larger game is likely to be uncomfortable because of this, so you may want to work on showing the players that have left your willingness to work with them during those sessions to build trust.

[zinycor]

The puerility in this thread is staggering.

Listen, this is not going to end the way you guys want it to. This situation sounds unsalvageable and your interpersonal relations are, to put it mildly, not going to work out. Frankly, I wouldn't particularly want to play with people who've acted in such a way as you have and the more posts I see from you guys, the more sure I am. The issue is (and never really was) the Nightmare, but your reactions to the people who expressed discomfort.

I would advise either finding a different group entirely to supplement the people who are leaving or, more preferably, take some time to be introspective and work out how to respect the people you are gaming with. Judging by what is apparent in the thread alone (which is, of course, a limited subset of reality) I would imagine that the larger game is likely to be uncomfortable because of this, so you may want to work on showing the players that have left your willingness to work with them during those sessions to build trust.

Preach it brother!

[MxKit]

Well, if you have this attitude for people they can tell.
Humans aren't stupid. We can tell when someone's just tolerating us to serve an end instead of enjoying our company.

Yep.

You might not be blasting them, you might think you are being super super sneaky about what you're actually thinking and feeling about them, that you're not giving anything away with your words or facial expressions or body language. Believe me, you're not that good. It's almost certain that both of them are picking up on the fact that you think they're whiny little children whose concerns aren't reasonable and are the ones at fault here, that you absolutely encourage your Bard player in thinking so as well, and that you think "the girl" is being silly and hysterical most of all and is obviously the only one of the two who has an actual problem with things.

At this point, you're absolutely right about what you said before, that a retcon won't fix things at this point, that an IC fix won't actually fix an OOC problem. But that's not because "oh it was already done, the damage has been done" (which was a pretty disingenuous way to put it when the truth was "I'm willing to change it but I think they're being completely whiny and unreasonable, they're the only ones actually making a problem, I want answers on how to get them to be 'mature' and not leave a game they're not having fun in"). The OOC problem is the atmosphere, which you can't exactly retcon since neither of you seem willing to actually take their feelings into account.

[iHave2Tinkle]

Yep.

You might not be blasting them, you might think you are being super super sneaky about what you're actually thinking and feeling about them, that you're not giving anything away with your words or facial expressions or body language. Believe me, you're not that good. It's almost certain that both of them are picking up on the fact that you think they're whiny little children whose concerns aren't reasonable and are the ones at fault here, that you absolutely encourage your Bard player in thinking so as well, and that you think "the girl" is being silly and hysterical most of all and is obviously the only one of the two who has an actual problem with things.

At this point, you're absolutely right about what you said before, that a retcon won't fix things at this point, that an IC fix won't actually fix an OOC problem. But that's not because "oh it was already done, the damage has been done" (which was a pretty disingenuous way to put it when the truth was "I'm willing to change it but I think they're being completely whiny and unreasonable, they're the only ones actually making a problem, I want answers on how to get them to be 'mature' and not leave a game they're not having fun in"). The OOC problem is the atmosphere, which you can't exactly retcon since neither of you seem willing to actually take their feelings into account.
Ding dong ur opinion is wrong

[Consensus]

Ding dong ur opinion is wrong

That is the single most well supported argument I have EVER seen.

[Scripten]

Ding dong ur opinion is wrong

I can't imagine how people might have a problem playing D&D with you.

[Keravath]

It seems to me that it is a case of fundamentally mismatched expectations mixed with a bunch of teenage drama.

1) Three CN characters and an Evil one pretty much indicates that the 3CN ones have one idea for an "EVIL" campaign and the Evil player has another. If folks are going to play an evil campaign then all or most of the characters should be evil and the limits (if any) to what types of evil acts may occur should be spelled out at the beginning. There are lots of folks who don't mind breaking the law and acting selfishly but don't want to be put in the middle of a campaign drawn straight from a horror movie.

For some folks playing an "evil" campaign just means being bad or liking to break the rules ... more Chaotic Neutral to be honest :). On the other hand, real evil is more like being cruel, sadistic, ritual murder, dismemberment, betrayal, torture, rape and more.

2) So .. the campaign started off and the 3CN characters are exposed to some really evil behavior by the bard. Even described mildly, ripping the wings off a pegasus is pretty brutal. Personally, IRL, I couldn't stand folks who enjoyed ripping the wings from insects and I wouldn't play a D&D campaign that incorporated similarly nasty character behaviors. That is just my personal preference. D&D is a game of the imagination in which YOU play the role of a character in an imaginary world. However, there are a number of things I would rather not imagine and a player character enjoying torturing imaginary creatures/beings in a fantasy world is probably one of them. As a result, I can understand the reaction of the players whose expectations of what "evil" would mean weren't set correctly. In game, my character would probably just decide not to associate with the evil character since they were too evil for the player character.

3) I've had a few campaigns in which the characters either had or developed mutually incompatible character traits. Eventually, one or the other of the conflicting characters left the party and the campaign since at some point a conflict became inevitable. It was great fun role playing it up to that point but once both characters in game became aware of the fundamental incompatibility the days of adventuring together were numbered. (one example was a game with the barbarian that despised magic and the chaotic neutral gnome illusionist thief ... eventually the thief ran off with a chunk of the party loot but the players had fun with it until then).

The point of that story is that sometimes the characters in a party can't and won't get along. Neutral characters (even chaotic neutral ones) may either not care about overtly evil acts or they might not tolerate them. Neutral in some cases means balance and characters who are neutral might well object to both very evil and very good actions. In this case, it sounds like the players were bothered by the evil acts and presumably so were the characters.

4) The solutions are likely pretty limited. The DM can't really retcon the realization that one of the party members is actually EVIL and will actually commit truly heinous EVIL acts. In game, the other character is basically just incompatible with this group of chaotic neutrals. They would probably just dump him as soon as possible (probably politely rather than disposing of him) and move onto enjoyable adventures without worrying that the next thing he might decide to rip the limbs off of might be one of them. The bard simply crossed a line which is fine in a role playing game but it made the character unplayable with the others in the campaign. C'est la vie. Out of game, as a player, there are two options, find another campaign or, if the DM seemed to be pretty good, see if he is willing to dump the offending character entirely and have the player roll a replacement. Trying to adjust the situation by coming up with another explanation for the nightmare doesn't solve the fundamental problem that the truly evil character is just not compatible with the rest of the party and that isn't going to change. The rest of the party also has no idea what the next heinous evil thing the character/player will think up ... maybe it will be fun for him to torture one of the other characters?

Although we are missing a lot of the story, it seems like expectations were not set correctly and that everyone was not on board for an overtly evil horror movie type campaign. In addition, when trying to create such a campaign, the characters need a lot of thought since the motivations for forming a party at all need to be very explicit. Evil characters don't tend to hang out much together since there are fundamental trust issues. As a result, there has to be a very good reason why each of these characters would choose to spend time with the others. It seems pretty clear that this also wasn't done so when it becomes clear that one character isn't compatible with the others and lacking any external factors, the party will just not adventure together.

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to me that it is a case of fundamentally mismatched expectations mixed with a bunch of teenage drama.
snip to the good bits:


The solutions are likely pretty limited.
In game, the other character is basically just incompatible with this group of chaotic neutrals.
They would probably just dump him as soon as possible (probably politely rather than disposing of him) and move onto enjoyable adventures without worrying that the next thing he might decide to rip the limbs off of might be one of them. The bard simply crossed a line which is fine in a role playing game but it made the character unplayable with the others in the campaign. C'est la vie.

Out of game, as a player, there are two options,

find another campaign or,
if the DM seemed to be pretty good, see if he is willing to dump the offending character entirely and have the player roll a replacement.

Trying to adjust the situation by coming up with another explanation for the nightmare doesn't solve the fundamental problem that the truly evil character is just not compatible with the rest of the party and that isn't going to change.
It would appear that the bard with the bladder problem may not wish to roll up another character. Not sure if that's true, or not. We may or may not hear back from either of them.

[jjadned]

So we talked to them and donny (hehe love that) explained that they didn’t really care in the first place and were just there because DM #1 wanted to decrease the load

[KorvinStarmast]

If I understand you, they didn't want to play with you in the first place? OK, this would appear to be a case of "can this marriage be saved" where the answer is "no."

[zinycor]

So we talked to them and donny (hehe love that) explained that they didn’t really care in the first place and were just there because DM #1 wanted to decrease the load

Then let they go. Find people that actually want to play with you.

[Joe dirt]

how is he able to walk around with an evil creature? does he leave it outside towns? does he mask it with illusions? if not then he would be either placed under arrest or an arrest warrant would be issued. civilization would not be kind to someone with a nightmare unless they are in an evil setting campaign. the locals would get out the pitchforks and torches.

however if its supposed to be an evil campaign and they dont mind living outside "civilization" for the most part. then its the other players that need to change expectations. of course evil characters want to consort with devils and demons and they would also be concerned about appearances so not to set off the angry hoard of peasants.

[Sigreid]

how is he able to walk around with an evil creature? does he leave it outside towns? does he mask it with illusions? if not then he would be either placed under arrest or an arrest warrant would be issued. civilization would not be kind to someone with a nightmare unless they are in an evil setting campaign. the locals would get out the pitchforks and torches.

however if its supposed to be an evil campaign and they dont mind living outside "civilization" for the most part. then its the other players that need to change expectations. of course evil characters want to consort with devils and demons and they would also be concerned about appearances so not to set off the angry hoard of peasants.

Depends on where they are. A frontier town with little hope of getting support may be willing to tolerate a known evil as long as it leaves it's evil outside town. Like the old west towns that may not have been thrilled to have the outlaw gunslinger in town, but on the other hand no one wants to get shot...