PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Innocent-Killing Ruined Game; What Do?



GreatWyrmGold
2019-07-21, 06:03 PM
(Sorry for the terrible title.)

My group is playing the Skull & Shackles adventure path, and we wound up invading a sahuagin lair in search of treasure. We came across a group of old, young, and infirm sahuagin having a "feeding frenzy" with a few warriors. The necromancer wanted to kill some of the noncombatants for raw materials, and I objected. (We only wound up killing a couple before ) Another player decided to lean into the "atrocities against innocents" thing in the next room specifically to irritate me, which (for me) killed the mood for the entire session. He argued that it's silly to get worked up over fictional violence, especially in a pirate campaign; I pointed out the many differences between Superman punching Zod and us players killing helpless innocents. It didn't really help either way.
The atrocity thing isn't the only thing that bothers me. It's also how the other players reacted. Most didn't care, and the one who intentionally irritated me said that if I didn't want to participate I should just leave. I didn't really speak up about how much it made the session suck until afterwards, but he didn't seem upset that he had literally ruined the game for me.

Is it stupid to get worked up like this over an RPG? Should I apologize to him for letting my feelings get in the way of his fun? What should I say to him? I don't know, just give me advice or perspective or something. This whole situation is bothering me.

Particle_Man
2019-07-21, 06:14 PM
Find another group more in line with what you want in the game. Ideally have a “session zero” where you can discuss stuff like this before a game starts. And if you cannot find a group maybe run a game and make clear what you expect in that session zero (and even in the previous advertising).

Different gamers want different things out of their games. No right or wrong way to play here (well the guy doing things just to irritate you is a red flag but we don’t know their side of the story) but conflicting styles won’t be fun for you.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-07-21, 06:21 PM
If you're the one out of tune with the rest of the group then you're sort of, by definition, the one in the wrong. It's kind of hard to judge who was primarily responsible for escalating beyond that without being present for it. I could see you being an annoying wet blanket whining at the rest of the group out of character until someone got fed up and told you you should leave. Or I could see you making a valid comment in character and him overreacting to it and getting personal for no reason.

In general, though, yes I do think it's stupid to get worked up about fictional monsters dying. If everyone else is fine with it and it ruins the game for you then you should probably leave the group and find people more suited to your preferences. Or just try embracing it, maybe you'll have fun.

Mr Beer
2019-07-21, 06:51 PM
It's fine to have party conflict and having differences over moral issues is the classic source of such conflict. Player conflict is totally different and not useful. I don't think you're out of line not being OK with being a murderhobo and I don't think other people are out of line for being murderhobos.

Tawmis
2019-07-21, 07:57 PM
As stated, party conflict is pretty normal. It's a good chance to RP the moment, and have each character have their say in how things go.
However, when the player conflict arises, that's another matter entirely.

I don't think you should apologize. But I would talk to them (or try, though that may be hard if they already have the attitude of "if you don't like it, leave"). You may also want to speak to the DM on the side to explain your take on the matter.

Simple fact is, some people play D&D for the story. Some people just play it as a means of meeting up and socializing, and the D&D is a side aspect of it. And some people want to really dive into their characters and RP things. And some people just want to roll dice and kill anything and everything that stands in front of them, innocent or not. Naturally, the more people you have, the more likely you're going to have someone who is there for a different reason than you.

Ideally find a way to resolve it all peacefully, or as others said (if these aren't good friends of yours), bow out and find another game more in line with what you want.

Kaptin Keen
2019-07-22, 03:37 AM
My view is that the GM should decide how long or short a leash he wants to keep the players on. For my part, and purely as an example, I'm quite ironclad that actions have consequences: If you're a murdering bastard, eventually heroes will come and cut you down. Specifically, if I ever mention the Grey Guard, players need to be scared.

The stated intent for a game can be anything - maybe there are no limits, maybe the GM accepts no evil alignments, who knows. Regardless, players should respect the intent, and GM's should enforce them (with reasonable means - my Grey Guards are reasonable for a given value of being reasonable).

And if a given action is inside the intended limits, then it's fine. For the game. That doesn't mean it has to be fine for any given character. I've had giant, in-character fights between my LG paladin and my friends NE wizard. But in-character, that's the point: We'd laugh uproarioushly at the whole thing OOC, but in-character, it was lifeblood for our respective characters.

Those were some of the finest moments of my roleplaying career.

Kardwill
2019-07-22, 04:25 AM
Is it stupid to get worked up like this over an RPG?

It's not. We frequently put an awful lot of ourself in our little avatars of paper and dice, we get invested in them, get to vicariously live their lives. We can even sometimes feel responsible for their actions, as silly as the notion might sound. Of course there will be some "bleed" from the fictional world into our moods, that's how works of fiction work, and RPGs are a more immersive fiction than most other medias.

We build an image of our character in our mind, and we can sometimes get upset when said image gets stomped (the good guy becoming accomplice of atrocities, the badass warrior utterly ridiculed by the GM after a bad diceroll, the charm spell that forces the unflappable hero into a romance...).

Add to this that we all have things that we don't like at the table because we find them unconfortable as game material (it can be inter-PC romance and sex, war crimes, torture, mind-control, rape...) and that can be unsettling when it's sprung on us unexpectedly.

Note that it goes also for the other player : He obviously had some "bleed" from the game, since your character's action constrained his, created frustration and he lashed at you. On that point, neither of you is "right", you just had a clash of expectation (sounds like a "playing a PC you can empathise with" vs "being free to do whatever stuff you feel like" conflict)
Purposefully doing stuff ingame only to spite you as a player, though? It's crossing a line. That's the kind of stuff that can have me leave a game/throw a player out if we can't have an honest conversation afterward once the tempers had time to cool off.

That kind of diconnect between the expectations of 2 players is the reason why I insist nowadays on having a "session 0" before any game : We can decide what kind of investment we want for the game (RP heavy character centered stuff or lighthearted murderhobo...), what kind of thematics we expect and which to avoid, what kind of heroes we'll play, what the group dynamic will be (agreeing on a level of character conflicts between 2 consenting players for example)...
I've had too many cases where the game premise was insufficiently discussed and it ended in bruised feelings and failed campaigns. Your case is a prime example : "It's a pirate game" is utterly useless as a premise, since it can fall anywhere from "Erroll Flynn heroics with chivalry and idealistic rogues" to "pillage, rape and torture fantasy, the game".

Pex
2019-07-22, 04:37 AM
If you're the one out of tune with the rest of the group then you're sort of, by definition, the one in the wrong. It's kind of hard to judge who was primarily responsible for escalating beyond that without being present for it. I could see you being an annoying wet blanket whining at the rest of the group out of character until someone got fed up and told you you should leave. Or I could see you making a valid comment in character and him overreacting to it and getting personal for no reason.

In general, though, yes I do think it's stupid to get worked up about fictional monsters dying. If everyone else is fine with it and it ruins the game for you then you should probably leave the group and find people more suited to your preferences. Or just try embracing it, maybe you'll have fun.

I don't think it's stupid. It's called empathy. It's what allows us to enjoy fictional stories of books, tv shows, and movies. You care about the characters and what happens to them. Same holds true in an RPG.

However, it appears the OP is the odd man out. The other players don't care about the callousness of treating NPCs as garbage. They lack the empathy you do. It will not change. You are not wrong, but you don't fit with this group or this campaign. Decide for yourself if you can get into the mood of what the campaign is. If you cannot, leave. It's hard to do. It's disappointing to have to leave a game, but if you can't enjoy it it will only get worse. I know it will. I've been there done that. I recently had to quit a Star Wars game for the lack of heroics the party wants that I preferred. The apathy against NPCs was appalling to me.

GreatWyrmGold
2019-07-22, 12:17 PM
Find another group more in line with what you want in the game. Ideally have a “session zero” where you can discuss stuff like this before a game starts. And if you cannot find a group maybe run a game and make clear what you expect in that session zero (and even in the previous advertising).
Half of the group is family and half of the group is a bunch of people who we've been gaming with for years. This is the first time this sort of player conflict has screwed up the game in this way (not counting one problem player who left a while ago, long story).
This solution is always proposed when someone talks about one bad game. It's rarely practical.



If you're the one out of tune with the rest of the group then you're sort of, by definition, the one in the wrong.
There was another player who was uncomfortable about the killing (though I don't think as much), and like I said, most of the group didn't really seem to care. I'd say that strong feelings either way are equally out of tune with apathy.


In general, though, yes I do think it's stupid to get worked up about fictional monsters dying.
1. Then why should other players get worked up about fictional monsters not dying?
2. If it was just a matter of fictional monsters dying, I'd be fine with it. Then the adventure designers had to throw in some senior citizens and cripples and kids, and suddenly it's a matter of fictional people dying. Why do they do that? You can have your over-the-top pure evil bad guys, or you can have a society of people with the same kind of variety as real societies, but putting them together goes wrong very quickly. Especially if you shove the varieties of people who don't deserve to be treated as monsters in the players' face.


Or just try embracing it, maybe you'll have fun.
Yes, I should clearly embrace the thing that killed my interest in the entire session and put me in a bad mood for the rest of the evening. Maybe I'll have fun the next time we slaughter helpless noncombatants! That is clearly not an idiotic idea that shows an exceptional lack of reading comprehension! Obviously, this guy who's been on a D&D forum for more than a decade just hasn't figured out what he really likes about D&D, and he'll come around to murderhoboing if he just opens his eyes!


Thanks to all the people who gave advice that I couldn't think of anything to say about. I'll keep all of this in mind next time I see the guy.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-07-22, 01:00 PM
1. Then why should other players get worked up about fictional monsters not dying?

Like I said, it's hard to judge without being there. I'm predisposed to believe that he was worked up about you being annoying about it, not about the fiction itself, but maybe he's actually very strongly invested in slaughtering helpless monsters. Can't say.


2. If it was just a matter of fictional monsters dying, I'd be fine with it. Then the adventure designers had to throw in some senior citizens and cripples and kids, and suddenly it's a matter of fictional people dying. Why do they do that? You can have your over-the-top pure evil bad guys, or you can have a society of people with the same kind of variety as real societies, but putting them together goes wrong very quickly. Especially if you shove the varieties of people who don't deserve to be treated as monsters in the players' face.

I personally think it's somewhat poor scenario design to include a bunch of monster civilians in the game, because D&D isn't really about that. However, if they are there, there is nothing wrong with playing characters that dash the skulls of orc babies against walls because orcs are a malignant blight upon the land and all that is good in the world.


Yes, I should clearly embrace the thing that killed my interest in the entire session and put me in a bad mood for the rest of the evening. Maybe I'll have fun the next time we slaughter helpless noncombatants! That is clearly not an idiotic idea that shows an exceptional lack of reading comprehension! Obviously, this guy who's been on a D&D forum for more than a decade just hasn't figured out what he really likes about D&D, and he'll come around to murderhoboing if he just opens his eyes!

Sounds to me like you're stuck in a rut and should try some new things. ;)

Particle_Man
2019-07-22, 01:58 PM
Half of the group is family and half of the group is a bunch of people who we've been gaming with for years. This is the first time this sort of player conflict has screwed up the game in this way (not counting one problem player who left a while ago, long story).
This solution is always proposed when someone talks about one bad game. It’s rarely practical.

Look do you actually want advice or are you just venting? If the latter, fine. If the former, either talk to your group, get another group, stop gaming entirely for a while, or suck it up and embrace the baby killing.

Rynjin
2019-07-22, 02:08 PM
The guy specifically trying to bonk your nose is a dork, but there is also the point that you signed up to be a pirate.

The first book does a pretty good job of setting up the tone of this AP. You watch a guy get keelhauled in the first 15 minutes of the first session and SOMEBODY in your party (if not most of them) failed some kind of chore and caught enough lashes from the whip to get knocked unconscious.

Pirates aren't nice people. You are pirates.

Hell, a large portion of book 2 involves actually doing the piracy to get enough money to fund the next leg of your adventure. You start knocking off merchant ships and raiding the coast for money and (potentially) slaves to sell.

So killing a bunch of Sahuagin babies which is, at best, morally ambiguous rather than outright evil (like pillaging and slave trading) shouldn't clock on your top ten things wrong with playing this AP.

halfeye
2019-07-22, 03:18 PM
The thing is, pirates are very not nice people.

Their flag is the "jolly roger" which can be translated as the "pleasant sexual experience", and it's a skeleton.

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-22, 07:06 PM
If I had to guess, apropos of only knowing what you've told us, I would say the following happened:

1) Your group started a campaign that is, at best, full of antiheroes. More likely its one of those "Does the Devil know he is a Devil?" things, or even just an unbridled evil campaign.

2) The other players, by and large, bought in to this.

3) You did not.

4) At the moment of impact, your CHARACTER did not raise moral objections, you as the PLAYER called everyone else out for being bad. Rather than having a ray-of-humanity-in-this-grim-world CHARACTER in the party, you told the other PLAYERS they were morally wrong. For adhering to the theme of the campaign.

5) They got defensive. You got defensive. Everything went to ****.

6) You are now at a point where, indeed, they will probably continue to do "evil" things. Not "we killed the city watch in manly and consensual combat" faux-evil things where both sides are noble-if-misunderstood-and-respectful-foes, "we pick the easiest fights we can against the most helpless people we can in order to further our power and wealth" evil things. You can choose to fight this in character, but fighting against the group won't end well.

False God
2019-07-22, 07:26 PM
I don't think you're in the wrong for being upset. Being upset is not an entirely conscious decision. Some things, like extreme violence are upsetting, regardless of if they are make believe or not. I personally walk away very quickly when I run into players who laugh and chuckle as they slaughter orc babies. I don't care that Orc-God says they're all born evil and they're all going to turn into evil murderers. Neither of these things are elements of gameplay I enjoy and I find them quite upsetting to be around.

I'm not very strong on the player/character dichotomy, there are a lot of folks here who clearly feel you should only be upset about game things through your character, and you shouldn't bring that out.

I'm not really buying that. The character IS you, at least a part of you. And the other PCs are their players, at least a part of them. Those characters will never do anything you don't want them to unless the DM takes them over. So at some level, there must be a degree of "the player wants to do this" in order for their character to want to do it.

I don't think it's wrong to call out the players for the actions of their characters, particularly when they are extremely violent and disturbing. I would immediately call out any player who attempted to have their character rape another (N)PC in game for example, and demand the DM expel them or I walk and encourage other players to do the same, and probably name and shame the player IRL around other gamers. Some behaviors, even pretend ones are NOT acceptable.

---
Getting back to this situation though, I find it hard to see that you didn't see this coming. I mean, pirate campaign sure, ya'll don't have to be horrible murderers but it's sort of implied that you're not the best of people. You've played with these people for a long time, so it seems you know them and would know if they're inclined to do these sorts of things in similar situations.

At the end of the day, the only real solution you have, especially given the out-of-game proximity you have to some of the players, is to have a big old chat about how this made you feel and how you really would like if folks could keep their evil "PG". If that doesn't work, or worse if the players tell you "deal or GTFO" again, then GTFO-ing might be your best option, if nothing else to show them that you're firm in your belief that this was too much, and I would also suggest you walk away from any offers to play a new game without some kind of serious Session Zero guarantee that this won't happen again.

icefractal
2019-07-22, 09:00 PM
The thing is, pirates are very not nice people.

Their flag is the "jolly roger" which can be translated as the "pleasant sexual experience", and it's a skeleton.Eh, real pirates maybe. Look at the fiction featuring pirates, and you get a different picture, one with plenty of non-horrible, even nice, characters in it.

Also, this is a Paizo AP - I would not be surprised at all if the later parts are straight-up heroic.


More importantly, for most people, being a really evil bastard only looks fun from a distance. You get up close and personal, and it turns to disgust - the character isn't someone you want to see succeed. And while that fits fine in some games (Fiasco maybe), I don't think it works well in D&D.

Rynjin
2019-07-22, 09:13 PM
Eh, real pirates maybe. Look at the fiction featuring pirates, and you get a different picture, one with plenty of non-horrible, even nice, characters in it.

Also, this is a Paizo AP - I would not be surprised at all if the later parts are straight-up heroic.

"Heroic" in the sense that you fight off the evil empire (Cheliax) at the end, but given it's to preserve the way of life of the Shackles (a lawless wasteland of the sea ruled by the Pirate Council), it's gray neutral at best.

Phhase
2019-07-22, 10:11 PM
Hold on, are you the DM or a player?

If not the DM, how did the DM react?

If you're a player, it is a valid option for your character to object and try to avoid or curb that type of situation if it's in character to do so.

Also, incidentally, allow me to express my utter disdain for the false dichotomy (I think that's the proper term, or close to) that people always use when talking about morality in games and stuff like that.

Argument 1: "It's a game, our morality is immaterial as the world is entirely fictitious."

Argument 2: "We are supposed to be <x> (In this case pirates), and <x> are not good people."

There's no reason you can't be a neutral or good aligned pirate, even though such things are fairly unrealistic. Who's gonna stop you from being Jack Sparrow or Will Rogers (whoever the protag is in that one movie series)? Within the bounds of the game, it's perfectly reasonable. Your desire is no less valid than that of your fellow players'.

Rynjin
2019-07-22, 10:51 PM
... false dichotomy...
Argument 2: "We are supposed to be <x> (In this case pirates), and <x> are not good people."

It's not a false dichotomy. They are pirates. They are demonstrably not good people based on the actions they have taken, up to and including this point.

There are 4-5 other people at this table, OP is the only one with an issue.

His desire IS 'less valid' in the sense that while it is as valid as any other individual's, it is by extension 4-5 times less valid than all those other peoples' desires combined.

He's not wrong to disagree, but he's wrong to try to change the group for his own desires at the expense of everyone else's.

False God
2019-07-23, 12:02 AM
It's not a false dichotomy. They are pirates. They are demonstrably not good people based on the actions they have taken, up to and including this point.

There are 4-5 other people at this table, OP is the only one with an issue.

His desire IS 'less valid' in the sense that while it is as valid as any other individual's, it is by extension 4-5 times less valid than all those other peoples' desires combined.

He's not wrong to disagree, but he's wrong to try to change the group for his own desires at the expense of everyone else's.

Again, with emphasis: the fact that people have opinions does not make their opinions equally valid. Some opinions suck and have no value.

Vknight
2019-07-23, 12:39 AM
Also they are Shaugains so its fine they are evil by nature

This is D&D and well you got to accept some of that within the mechanics nad more of the world and setting at large because of narrative cohesion

Rynjin
2019-07-23, 01:33 AM
Again, with emphasis: the fact that people have opinions does not make their opinions equally valid. Some opinions suck and have no value.

The opinion of "I want to play the game this way" is not one of those, so this feels like just baiting for topics against board rules.

Kardwill
2019-07-23, 01:38 AM
It's not a false dichotomy. They are pirates. They are demonstrably not good people based on the actions they have taken, up to and including this point.


The problem is that there are plenty of "chaotic good" or "chaotic neutral" pirates in fiction, from Captain Blood to Jack Sparrow, and quite a few example of dangerous-but-not-completely-psychotic rogues in history (even for Blackbeard, the classic "Evil killer pirate" example, his reputation of bloodthirsty ruthlessness was mostly an exagerated PR stunt. He WAS brutal, but not baby-eating-insane)

So "assuming" the mood of this kind of campaign is dangerous : It will cause disconnect when one player thinks "Errol Flynn adventures on the sea", another one thinks "Poison'd grimdark stuff", and the third decides it's "Evil for the lulz"

For "evil" campaigns, the session 0 pre-game discussion is critical, to lay out stuff like "what is the mood?", "what kind of characters do we bring to the table?" or the ever important "how far will we go?"
Otherwise, well, there's a real risk of crash-and-burn, as we see here.

--> GreatWyrmGold
Maybe it's still possible to salvage the situation by having that discussion now, before the next game? Don't tell them they have badwrongfun, but tell them this kind of stuff will kill your enjoyment of the game. Maybe you'll find a confortable middle ground/group dynamic for everyone to have fun. Or maybe you'll see that this level of nasty IS what everybody else wants out of the campaign, and that it's better for you to sit that one out. No shame in bowing out of one game you know you won't enjoy, and still play with them when another, more heroic game will launch.

Knaight
2019-07-23, 04:21 AM
This sounds like a tone and communication issue. A game where you play a straight up terrorist cell in a setting so bleak and full of atrocities that you still end up being the closest thing the major conflict has to the good guys is fine. A romantic swashbuckling setting with largely lighthearted conflict is fine. Making a character for one of these, playing that character as conceptualized, and running right into conflict with the way other people have made their characters because both of these could have been the case? That's less fine, and pirates in particular can easily end up towards both of these ends.

If the group is lucky, everyone interested in the one they thought was going on is also interested in the other. That might still take some adjustment (if I'm playing a character drama of a terrible person I'm not making the same character as I would for some heroic adventure), but it's workable. If what the campaign is is repellent that's more of a problem.

It seems like the vast majority of the group doesn't care, and I'm definitely getting a bit of an "in it for the fights" or "in it to socialize" vibe, so see if they're good leaning more towards light fantasy combat and less towards war crimes. Otherwise this might be a case where you sit this one out. I'm not saying leave the group by any means, just sitting out this one campaign and doing something else with your time for it. Admittedly that would have been a lot easier prior to the blowup, but you can probably still present this as "this particular game isn't my jam, you guys have fun with it, I'll be back for the next one". Doing that is a lot easier when it's more common, but it's generally not a big deal.

My player group does that all the time, and the only reason I don't is that I'm the perma-GM. We all have other hobbies, we all have other ways of interacting, and honestly the process is even pretty predictable as to who is going to show up when. N will almost always be interested, and is a guaranteed player for anything superhero while sitting out hard sci-fi. A has this as a more minor hobby, but will show up to the siren call of the words "in space". D is down for most games, but loses interest fast if there isn't a strong genre element, whether that's pulp, fantasy, or sci-fi. Etc. We just try to find who even has viable schedule overlap at the moment, and then tend to try and prioritize stuff that'll interest whoever is most feeling RPGs at the moment.

MoiMagnus
2019-07-23, 04:30 AM
Is it stupid to get worked up like this over an RPG? Should I apologize to him for letting my feelings get in the way of his fun? What should I say to him? I don't know, just give me advice or perspective or something. This whole situation is bothering me.

No it isn't stupid. The contrary wouldn't be stupid either.
This is a Game, that the place where you're the least expected to restrain yourself to do stuff you don't like, and suffer things you don't like. You don't have to force yourself. You don't have to apologize.
The only exception is when you actually make the experience worse for someone else around the table. That's the only boundary: the other players comfort zone. And if you really annoyed them, you should apologized for annoying them, but NOT for feeling bad. That's your right to feel bad. And that's usually a sign the table/campaign is unfit to you.

From what I read, this group is around this table to enjoy consequence-free RPG where you do horrible stuff because you benefit from it, but you don't get any of the guilt because of the fictional setting. They want to play in a place where there is no "bad choice", and any choice is acceptable.

From what I read, that's not at all what you're seeking. Your seeking a more empathic experience, where you actually care about the character in the universe, and where your character behave in a way you morally approve.

You're not compatible with this table, or at least not with the direction the campaign is going. If you're indeed the only one who has problem with this, leaving the table (possibly coming back for a latter campaign more adequate to you) is likely the best choice. There is no point going to a gaming session where you feel bad at the end. And you don't have the right to expect the full table to drastically change the way they play just to please you.

If the situation was less extreme (or if I over-interpreted the situation), you could probably find a compromise by talking to them and suggesting a taboo on killing innocent scenes (in the same way some players really don't like sexual/sensual scene, so most tables avoid them). But I do feel like the gap is too big.

RNightstalker
2019-07-25, 11:19 PM
First off, your emotions are your emotions. We can seek a measure of control over them, but welcome to being a human. Don't kick yourself for that.

That being said, I see an interesting detail to distinguish. "The necromancer did x and I objected..." You objected to what a character did. You remind me of myself when I would put too much of myself into my characters, and it was tough to separate the two. You also mentioned another "player" decided to jump in and that's what set you over the edge. What character is that player playing?

I did a quick search for a synopsis of the campaign you said y'all were in, and from the little I saw it doesn't have to be an overtly evil campaign. But given that you're playing with a necromancer, I imagine that it is or at the least it's allowed. If I was going to play in an evil campaign (I wouldn't, but that's where I'm personally at with my convictions) I wouldn't bat an eye at a necromancer doing such a thing.

There is an OOC issue to address. Some people can't handle diversity of thoughts and want to separate themselves from anyone who challenges their ideas/ways of thinking. To tell you to join in (in character) or get out (out of character) there's another disconnect there. That they're family and longtime family friends indicate that this should be a hurdle that can be cleared. Then of course, families can also suck.

There are more details that could alter advice that was asked for, but for now I'd say take a deep breath, take a step back and then take another look at the situation. You definitely seem to have a moral objection (rightly so I'd say) at what happened but that doesn't seem to be shared by the party. If this is supposed to be an evil campaign, I'd sit that one out. To say anything else I would need to know more about the jerk who intentionally got under your skin.

Gallowglass
2019-07-26, 10:51 AM
(Sorry for the terrible title.)

My group is playing the Skull & Shackles adventure path, and we wound up invading a sahuagin lair in search of treasure. We came across a group of old, young, and infirm sahuagin having a "feeding frenzy" with a few warriors.

First of all- For this scenario it means that either the DM specifically narrated that the sauhauguin were "Old and Infirm or youngsters" or you supplied that in your own head-cannon.

If the DM specifically narrated that, then the DM was baiting for a morality play. "Oh, they want to go through the lair and slaughter all the monsters for treasure eh? Well, lets see when I introduce a little moral ambiguity, hee hee." In which case, you were the only player who latched onto it "What we are doing and by extension what we are, is wrong!" while the rest of the players were like "sigh. here we go, why can't we just have a dungeon crawl for crying out loud"

So then we enter into the justification stage. "Evil is Evil in D&D. That sauhaguin was born evil. Its a monster that needs to be killed to make the world safe. There is no moral wrong in this."



The atrocity thing isn't the only thing that bothers me. It's also how the other players reacted. Most didn't care, and the one who intentionally irritated me said that if I didn't want to participate I should just leave. I didn't really speak up about how much it made the session suck until afterwards, but he didn't seem upset that he had literally ruined the game for me.


In another forum, at this moment there is someone posting this:

"There we were, having a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, having fun, when this other player started harping on and on about the moral pitfall of killing the monsters. I mean, come on. They are Evil with a capital E here. None of the rest of the party wanted to go through the whole "lets capture them and train them to be good neighbors to the humans." BORING. But they just wouldn't let it go. Afterwards, we had a discussion and its like the other player didn't seem to be upset that they had literally ruined the game for the rest of us."



Is it stupid to get worked up like this over an RPG? Should I apologize to him for letting my feelings get in the way of his fun? What should I say to him? I don't know, just give me advice or perspective or something. This whole situation is bothering me.

You said later on in the forum that these were family and friends. If that's true, once -YOUR- emotions have cooled off, you -SHOULD- be able to have a simple conversation about it.

"Hey guys, I realize that sometimes you just want to do a simple roll-play session, but for me, I really get invested in the actual morality behind the story. Its not okay to me to do morally objectionable things like killing the elderly and the children. I don't want to just leave like <you> suggested. Can we come up with some kind of compromise here. I mean how about the next time we have a dungeoncrawl the DM just NOT include elderly and children. I mean, why were they even there. This wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't randomly described them as being there. But if the DM does put them there, then I feel like he's asking for us to address is in a more realistic fashion and less muderhobo-ey. Maybe if we had not slaughtered them mercilessly, we would've found out why they were there."

Let me restate that for emphasis.

The ONLY reason this is a problem is because the DM put OLD, INFIRM and BABY in the description of the monsters. Just tell him 'don't do that anymore.' I don't care if he thinks "the worlds isn't realistic if there aren't babies in the monster's lair!" Nothing about it is realistic. Go back and rewatch the Lord of the Rings movies. (we'll wait). Now show me where the Orc women and children and elderly are. I guess Aragorp and Legolamb were just always slaughtering them right off screen. You get to choose where to draw the line, so draw it on the side where these pointless morality plays don't cause conflict between the players. Because that's all it is doing.

And, of course, I wasn't there so I don't know if the DM actually put that in or if you did. I personally have witnessed the following multiple times:

DM: "Okay, you are deep in the Goblin lair. You come on a room where a huge gang of goblins are gathers around a pile consuming something in a frenzy"

P1: "Oh crap, have they seen us yet."

DM: "No, you, for the moment, have surprise."

P2: "Okay, can we get a map so we can strategize."

P3: "What kind of goblins?"

DM: "Uh... normal... goblins?"

P3: "No, I mean, this is their lair right? So for this to be a functional group, they must have more than just adult male warriors. So are there females? Children?"

DM: "Yeah I guess there would be."

P3: "YOU GUYS! Killing women and children and the elderly is wrong! We can't do this!"

Everyone else: "..."

GrayDeath
2019-07-26, 01:06 PM
The guy specifically trying to bonk your nose is a dork, but there is also the point that you signed up to be a pirate.

The first book does a pretty good job of setting up the tone of this AP. You watch a guy get keelhauled in the first 15 minutes of the first session and SOMEBODY in your party (if not most of them) failed some kind of chore and caught enough lashes from the whip to get knocked unconscious.

Pirates aren't nice people. You are pirates.

Hell, a large portion of book 2 involves actually doing the piracy to get enough money to fund the next leg of your adventure. You start knocking off merchant ships and raiding the coast for money and (potentially) slaves to sell.

So killing a bunch of Sahuagin babies which is, at best, morally ambiguous rather than outright evil (like pillaging and slave trading) shouldn't clock on your top ten things wrong with playing this AP.

Quoted for emphasis.

This is the InGame reality, and your Character (not you, see below) unless he was built very...weirdly for the AP, should not have many qualms killing them off.
Maybe totally different if it was lets torture them for fun" or sell them to Cheliax" for "Too Evil lolz" and Setting reasons, though.

Now, a lot of poeple already said similar things, but let me reiterate: This seems a classic problem of disconnected expectations.

Please answer the following questions honestly:

Did your group do a Session 0 before the start of the AP? If so, was there a strong conflict of "what we expect out of the Game" and did the GM explain what the AP would be about?

Does your group usually play "happy go Lucky good guys"? Ban Evil Characters? Similar limitations?

Aand lastly, though it seems quite clear so far (given your wording and the fact NOTHING at allw as described about ypour characters CLass, Alignment, etc) it is YOU having "moral" Problems with these action, correct? Not your Character?



More detailed help must wait until the above has been answerred, but preemptively let me agree: Talk to your group. Explain why you were upset. Check back with them/the GM how you all can find a compromise that all can enjoy.

GreatWyrmGold
2019-07-29, 12:25 PM
Look do you actually want advice or are you just venting? If the latter, fine. If the former, either talk to your group, get another group, stop gaming entirely for a while, or suck it up and embrace the baby killing.
I've gotten enough advice in the vein of "It's alright to care" that I feel comfortable making arguments against people who say "Your empathy is stupid". So I'm going to continue to argue with them, in case they can explain why their initial statements are valid.



Like I said, it's hard to judge without being there. I'm predisposed to believe that he was worked up about you being annoying about it, not about the fiction itself, but maybe he's actually very strongly invested in slaughtering helpless monsters. Can't say.
Any particular reason you're making that assumption?


Sounds to me like you're stuck in a rut and should try some new things. ;)
I'm going to be polite and assume that you just didn't think that statement and/or the context through properly and that it wasn't intended as a mild insult.
I've tried many different kinds of games over the years. I've tried games with excuse plots that would make Mario blush, papered over combat with paper-thin enemies. I've tried games based around exploration and discovery, with combat being more of a checkbox than a central pillar. I've tried games based around story, with writing both okay and terrible. If we expand this beyond D&D and its derivatives, I've tried everything from cyberpunk corporate espionage to magical girl personal drama, and that's not counting the video games I've played with more immersive storytelling than most D&D campaigns I've played. I've played games across the spectrum from light and fluffy to dark and gritty.
In the half of my life that I've been playing TRPGs, I've come to some conclusions about what I like about gaming. Most TRPG combat is barely worth the character sheets your stats are printed on, barring table banter or unusually good encounter design. Overarching stories can be lots of fun, but PC interactions are more consistently engaging. And I am not comfortable doing things if I don't have some kind of justification for them. Doesn't matter if they're footnotes in an adventure book or pixels on a screen or whatever—if I'm at all invested in the game world, I don't do bad stuff without good reasons.


I personally think it's somewhat poor scenario design to include a bunch of monster civilians in the game, because D&D isn't really about that. However, if they are there, there is nothing wrong with playing characters that dash the skulls of orc babies against walls because orcs are a malignant blight upon the land and all that is good in the world.
Why? [More on this below.]



The guy specifically trying to bonk your nose is a dork, but there is also the point that you signed up to be a pirate.

The first book does a pretty good job of setting up the tone of this AP. You watch a guy get keelhauled in the first 15 minutes of the first session and SOMEBODY in your party (if not most of them) failed some kind of chore and caught enough lashes from the whip to get knocked unconscious.

Pirates aren't nice people. You are pirates.

Hell, a large portion of book 2 involves actually doing the piracy to get enough money to fund the next leg of your adventure. You start knocking off merchant ships and raiding the coast for money and (potentially) slaves to sell.

So killing a bunch of Sahuagin babies which is, at best, morally ambiguous rather than outright evil (like pillaging and slave trading) shouldn't clock on your top ten things wrong with playing this AP.
My group has actually been pretty moral pirates, for the most part. We steal your stuff, but we don't kill anyone who doesn't fight back and we don't take slaves. Given the circumstances we're in, I'm comfortable slotting that piracy into the same folder as killing guards and ruining wageslaves' careers to advance some heartless corporate agenda in Shadowrun.
Killing babies, whether orc or sahuagin, is another matter entirely. You can justify the former as just being the best available option to make a living and avoid getting killed by your enemies; the justification isn't flawless by any means, but it's enough to make me think "Yes, my non-puppy-kicking character is fine with that". No such justification exists for killing babies.

{Scrubbed}



The thing is, pirates are very not nice people.

Their flag is the "jolly roger" which can be translated as the "pleasant sexual experience", and it's a skeleton.
Not all pirates kill noncombatants for no dang reason, even before you start getting into the Errol Flynns and Johnny Depps. The game thus far has been leaning more towards the romantic pirate image (though not going full Disney) than the grim, gritty, and boring life of realistic pirates.



4) At the moment of impact, your CHARACTER did not raise moral objections, you as the PLAYER called everyone else out for being bad. Rather than having a ray-of-humanity-in-this-grim-world CHARACTER in the party, you told the other PLAYERS they were morally wrong. For adhering to the theme of the campaign.
First off, I'd like to repeat the arguments I and others have made that "pirate game" does not automatically mean "everyone is morally bankrupt". Second, I'd argue that even morally bankrupt characters wouldn't necessarily see reason in all of what they were discussing.
Third...I know this is a weak defense, but I'd just brought in a new character and was trying to work through where her lines were, how hard she'd push them, and the like. (Also trying to establish core character traits with the rest of the group.) Not the best time to have an in-character argument.



Hold on, are you the DM or a player?

If not the DM, how did the DM react?
Not much, that I recall. The DM in that campaign is generally the quietest and most reserved player in other campaigns, so that doesn't surprise me. (Before you ask, the other players either didn't want to DM or were already DMing other things.)



First of all- For this scenario it means that either the DM specifically narrated that the sauhauguin were "Old and Infirm or youngsters" or you supplied that in your own head-cannon.

If the DM specifically narrated that, then the DM was baiting for a morality play. "Oh, they want to go through the lair and slaughter all the monsters for treasure eh? Well, lets see when I introduce a little moral ambiguity, hee hee." In which case, you were the only player who latched onto it "What we are doing and by extension what we are, is wrong!" while the rest of the players were like "sigh. here we go, why can't we just have a dungeon crawl for crying out loud"

So then we enter into the justification stage. "Evil is Evil in D&D. That sauhaguin was born evil. Its a monster that needs to be killed to make the world safe. There is no moral wrong in this."
I don't remember the exact words, but they were described that way. I think the DM was just reading/summarizing what the adventure said, though, so I can point my finger directly at Paizo when I ask why the heck "Do you kill the noncombatants of a settlement who you invaded just because they have green skin or scales?" is considered a serious moral question.


You said later on in the forum that these were family and friends. If that's true, once -YOUR- emotions have cooled off, you -SHOULD- be able to have a simple conversation about it.
Two problems with that.
One, it's not that simple. I'm not the kind of person who can talk about this kind of thing easily; in meatspace, I tend towards being non-confrontational, bottling up my emotions, etc. (It probably doesn't seem that way to people who've seen me argue online, but I am not GreatWyrmGold out there.) I don't have a lot of experience talking with people (siblings and sometimes online people aside) and explaining that something they did bothered me and why. So no, it's not simple for everyone to have that kind of conversation, and {Scrubbed} Who, perhaps, finds it so non-simple that they search a neutral third party for advice and perspective.
Two, by the time emotions cooled and we found time to talk, it was hard to explain my emotions. The first question asked was why that was a problem when other stuff we'd done wasn't, and I didn't have a good answer. Worse, our memories of what actually happened had faded to the point that the stuff I was trying to explain bothered me wasn't what anyone else thought had happened, because the human brain is a terrible hard drive.


The ONLY reason this is a problem is because the DM put OLD, INFIRM and BABY in the description of the monsters. Just tell him 'don't do that anymore.'
To reiterate, this was a published adventure. AFAIK, the DM made no more conscious decision about what kind of sahuagin were in that particular room than I did about the vermin infesting the dungeon I ran yesterday.



Did your group do a Session 0 before the start of the AP? If so, was there a strong conflict of "what we expect out of the Game" and did the GM explain what the AP would be about?
There was no session 0, or if there was there wasn't any discussion of tone. We had discussed the adventure path in broad terms beforehand.


Does your group usually play "happy go Lucky good guys"? Ban Evil Characters? Similar limitations?
My group doesn't consistently play either of those; they usually fall somewhere in the middle.


Aand lastly, though it seems quite clear so far (given your wording and the fact NOTHING at allw as described about ypour characters CLass, Alignment, etc) it is YOU having "moral" Problems with these action, correct? Not your Character?
As noted, I hadn't defined my character well by that point. I was confident that she wouldn't be fine with killing innocent people for no god reason, because I go with "doesn't like pointless violence" on all my characters if I don't have a specific reason not to, but I hadn't really defined any part of my character's psyche beyond the ones that would interfere with any serious discussion (like her cloudcuckoolanderiness).



I've mentioned having a conversation with my group, and...I did. Technically. It sort of stalled after I had trouble explaining why I had the reaction I did, circling around the side issue of what we were killing them for in the first place before just kind of ending. I'm not sure how to pick up the discussion again at this point, or if I even should.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-07-29, 01:09 PM
Any particular reason you're making that assumption?

Your posting history.

Quertus
2019-07-29, 01:43 PM
Your feelings are yours. Just like if you had a fear of spiders, they are valid.

However, if you cannot express them, and there isn't a "Dragon whisperer" to explain them for you, your group cannot help with avoiding scenarios you have problems with.

In that vein:


{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}.

You've killed things in games, right? What, to you, is a valid justification for killing?

Because I think that the poster to whom you were responding would be confused if "being irredeemably evil" was not a justification for characters in most games to kill.

Now, yes, thanks to Mindrape, and its evil twin Sanctify the Wicked, technically, there is no such thing as irredeemable evil. The flesh can house a twisted mirror of the old personality, "redeemed" to "goodness".

But, barring such measures, there is irredeemable evil in the world. Like mosquitos.

Now, I would kill baby mosquitos without batting an eye. Even observing their behavior, realizing that it *is* behavior, and requires thought. So, even considering them sentient, I consider mosquitos an irredeemable evil, and kill them. For reference, I catch and release flies, spiders, mice, snakes, and most other living beings that enter my domicile. But mosquitos I kill as an irredeemable evil. Even as babies.

My question is, what can you accept? Either you can accept that your foes were irredeemable evil, or you can't. Either you can accept killing irredeemable evil, or you can't. Either you can accept killing baby Hitler, or you can't. (But what you can't do is dictate the morality of the game on your onesie, savvy?) Figuring out where your line is will, IMO, help you have the conversation you still need to have with your friends & family about what bothered you.

EDIT: regardless of whether / how quickly you can understand your feelings, you should apologize to your fellow players for detracting from their enjoyment (and, IMO, simultaneously express that you are working to understand what bothers you about the scenario / session / actions).

Rynjin
2019-07-29, 02:03 PM
My group has actually been pretty moral pirates, for the most part. We steal your stuff, but we don't kill anyone who doesn't fight back and we don't take slaves. Given the circumstances we're in, I'm comfortable slotting that piracy into the same folder as killing guards and ruining wageslaves' careers to advance some heartless corporate agenda in Shadowrun.

Golly gee, so your character is JUST a thief and a murderer but she's kind of nice about it I guess, what a saint.


Killing babies, whether orc or sahuagin, is another matter entirely. You can justify the former as just being the best available option to make a living and avoid getting killed by your enemies; the justification isn't flawless by any means, but it's enough to make me think "Yes, my non-puppy-kicking character is fine with that". No such justification exists for killing babies.

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}.

Yes, it's because they're monsters. They are Pirates+. They eat people, and torture them for fun. And if you leave them alive, they will come after you. The exact same justifications you use to be fine with murdering innocent people can be used to greater effect to justify murdering equally as innocent people, but more so because they're not actually equally as innocent.

Checked the book BTW, they're not babies. "Elderly, infirm, and young", certainly, but they're clearly meant to be adolescents, not babies (who are referred to as "fingerlings" later on) or children (referred to as "fry").

Also by your own logic these Sahuagin aren't innocent at all; even the children kill and eat other sahuagin children, a fun sahuagin fact mentioned in the flavor text for a different room.




Not all pirates kill noncombatants for no dang reason, even before you start getting into the Errol Flynns and Johnny Depps. The game thus far has been leaning more towards the romantic pirate image (though not going full Disney) than the grim, gritty, and boring life of realistic pirates.

...But you still murder people. Or is it okay when someone robs a bank if they "just kill the guards, but not the noncombatants"?

You've got a weird bit of doublethink going on.



First off, I'd like to repeat the arguments I and others have made that "pirate game" does not automatically mean "everyone is morally bankrupt". Second, I'd argue that even morally bankrupt characters wouldn't necessarily see reason in all of what they were discussing.
Third...I know this is a weak defense, but I'd just brought in a new character and was trying to work through where her lines were, how hard she'd push them, and the like. (Also trying to establish core character traits with the rest of the group.) Not the best time to have an in-character argument.

If your character isn't even established yet, you pretty much have no excuse for starting the argument in the first place. You could have simply chosen not to make a scene of it and have that be part of her character traits, since you were still working through where her lines were.

You don't even have to be fine with it, simply conflicted, and have a nice discussion IC and OOC about how next time you would be more comfortable if that kind of thing didn't happen after the job is done.

halfeye
2019-07-29, 02:08 PM
Not all pirates kill noncombatants for no dang reason, even before you start getting into the Errol Flynns and Johnny Depps. The game thus far has been leaning more towards the romantic pirate image (though not going full Disney) than the grim, gritty, and boring life of realistic pirates.

Disney pirates are pretty much not pirates.

Are baby hornets cute? How about baby tapeworms? I am very strongly against treating humans or any species that can learn as if they were tapeworms, but tapeworms are tapeworms.

Tvtyrant
2019-07-29, 02:10 PM
Discussing expectations here is the best option. "I feel that we should be steering clear of killing innocent people" and then if everyone disagrees excuse yourself from the game. Staying when you know it is going to lead to ruin the game for yourself and others is a bad move, even if you are friends and family.

KineticDiplomat
2019-07-29, 02:39 PM
So, before we get to moralizing here, there are the key points that:

1) Your group is clearly invested in playing a more "evil" campaign. I mean, they all bought in to it when your necromancer friend got down to the business of it. And said they disagreed with you. So I think we can safely assume their version of this campaign's moral flavor was different than yours.

2) As many others have noted, the campaign is grim in tone. While killing evil-predator babies maybe would strike a dischordant ring in a campaign about being Sir Galahad as he drives off the witch, it does not strike me that a "grim campaign based around robbing people and killing them if they don't let us rob them" would be one where anyone would bat an eye about exterminating evil predators you cannot reason with. Particularly as its not as if he described it as some Gorn where he maxed out on the EviLulz.. He described a utilitarian transaction where he killed someone - in this case, someone far less innocent on account of being a definable Evil, Cannibalistic, Predator-That-Lives-To-Kill-You-For-Nothing-More-Than-Joy-And-Food-And-Won't-Reason that the poor sailor who thought you shouldn't rob him and he wasn't taking it lying down - for increased wealth and power. Which more or less describes D&D.

I mean, real world I don't think twice when the city department of pest control tells me they are exterminating a bunch of crocodiles, babies and all, who have otherwise would occasionally snack on a tourist or a toddler. And I can't say I'm even half as merciless as a "Good" adventuring party. So it's not like they were acting in a way that blows minds. I also like a good veal cutlet or lamb chop, for what it's worth.

3) Based on one and two, your OOC "I am holier than thou and you PEOPLE are morally bankrupt scum, how could you KILL BABIES!" approach to your group comes across as pretentious and heavy handed. So yes, it is probably on you to make amends and realize that you were in the wrong on this one before the group dynamic can profitably move forward.

darkrose50
2019-07-29, 02:49 PM
Pirates were mostly a bunch of broken men raging against the machine of oppression.

Press gangs would round up men, kidnap them, force them to work on a ship, beat the hell out of them, and bring them thousands of miles away from home. You know slavery.

They literally had a guy on the ship who's job is was to beat the hell out of the crew! Like with whips and such! Not good working conditions at all!

This would (a) drive them mad, and (b) drive them to violence against those who oppressed them.

This is pretty much how we got pirates. Sure some just lived in captivity, and some did not go full murder-hobo . . . but some totally went full murder-hobo.

-----

One day I am the son of a local constable. I have a girlfriend. I saved up enough to get married, and I am learning a profession. I get drunk on the docks with some friends. Then *BAM* I am kidnapped and I am FORCED to crew a ship. I refuse, so they beat the hell out of me . . . early and often. YEARS later and THOUSANDS of miles away from home I escape and join a crew to murder the lowlife scum who ruined my life, and to free others who were kidnapped like I was. Far from home, life ruined, no money to get home, and a real fear of being kidnapped again . . . what do I do? I join a gang who kills the kidnappers and frees others like myself! I mean it seems reasonable.

The problem is that those who have the power and money are either doing the kidnapping, do not know or care about it, or are okay with the kidnapping. What do you do with folks who are supporting the institution that ruined your life? Might as well murder them as well! It was not a good time or place to be.

-----

Pirates are not happy folks. They are not afraid of a fight. They have experienced worse violence and mistreatment that just about anyone can dish out. They are broken and angry! They are also part freedom fighter mixed in with part murderous scumbag.

-----

The tone of the pirate game should have been talked over before jumping into a pirate game. There MUST be a section about tone in the setting book! Right? I mean not having this mentioned in the sourcebook smacks of ignorance of history!

-----
Modern pirates are a different story.

Rynjin
2019-07-29, 04:19 PM
This post is pretty funny because it basically details the setup of the AP to a tee:


Pirates were mostly a bunch of broken men raging against the machine of oppression.

Press gangs would round up men, kidnap them, force them to work on a ship, beat the hell out of them, and bring them thousands of miles away from home. You know slavery.

This is literally how the AP starts. Every member of the party was in some bar when Harrigan's men drugged their drinks (or just cudgeled them in a back alley after they were too drunk to see straight) and bundled them onto the ship, only to wake up hours out to sea.


They literally had a guy on the ship who's job is was to beat the hell out of the crew! Like with whips and such! Not good working conditions at all!

This guy's name was Plugg, he was the first mate. There is a very detailed list of punishments (from rope bashing, to whipping, to getting stuck in a hot box, to straight up keelhauling) and what triggers them, which Plugg will carry out at "The Bloody Hour" every single day.


This would (a) drive them mad, and (b) drive them to violence against those who oppressed them.

Midway through book 1, you get to mutiny against the Wormwood (this is not a spoiler, book 1 is literally called "The Wormwood Mutiny", don't @ me) and hijack a ship they raided and sent a skeleton crew (including the party) to man, and at the current point the OP is at they're trying to gather enough funds to squib (change the name and basic profile of the ship to make it unrecognizable) that ship so Harrigan's men have a hard time hunting them down.

Not sure how much GWG's GM hammered home Harrigan's relative power level, so I'll spoiler this bit.


Harrigan is a level 16 Rogue/Fighter hybrid (I rebuilt him as a Slayer in my game, the class didn't exist yet when the AP was written) with a hair trigger temper and a pretty solid Two-Weapon Fighting build. The man is an absolute beast and could singlehandedly slaughter every member of the PC's crew at this point in time without breaking a sweat.

I went out of my way to hammer this in very early into the first session (had Harrigan make a challenge of "Get to work, unless any of you pissants want to fight me. Beat me in a duel and you can be the captain! Har har!" kind of thing) so the PCs wouldn't get the idea of "let's just fight him, we're the main characters, what could go wrong?" and die, but it's not written in.

In a lot of senses the AP is a very good depiction of pirates, translated into a fantasy setting.

GreatWyrmGold
2019-07-29, 07:13 PM
{Scrubbed.}

Rynjin
2019-07-29, 07:29 PM
Already starting to discount your arguments just from the tone and lack of understanding in this one sentence.
Yes, my character isn't perfect. All of my TRPG characters do things I wouldn't want to do; there is not a 1:1 correspondence between their personalities and mine. That would be dumb. But that doesn't mean there aren't lines I'm 100% against crossing, things none of my characters will do.
I don't know why I'm responding to anything else

Then why make this thread? It's basically over here. You were looking for validation, not actual advice, case closed, peace out.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-07-29, 08:04 PM
{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}.

{scrubbed}

Ventruenox
2019-07-29, 09:44 PM
Mödley Crüe: Locked for review.