Chaotic Neutral aka Chaotic Stupid hurts the party

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Hello, our party Bard did some ridiculous things which guided the campaign to end more like Empire Strikes Back than Return of the Jedi. In retrospect I guess I should of seen it coming. Some backstory:

Half dozen levels ago the party had to pay a 50,000GP "fine" for killing some guards / soldiers. For awhile afterwards Ever since then I have had some people of questionable morals seek out the party.

Recently they took a mission from young King Jeffrey to bring back an attractive young lady to be his wife. In panic she talked the party into essentially killing the King and making her queen for their own benefit. Phew, they were a bit careless and had to kill the king's whole escorting party but at least felt like the greater good was served.

*****************************

The immediate problem:

Our CN Half Elf Bard took a mission from the new Queen to collect taxes from a town named Riza which had hints of being under the influence of a dark power.

The party teleports into a dirty brothel/inn the Bard "knew" from his days in the military. One of the waitresses still there after fifteen years even remembered him.

Well old boy goes and kills some patrons who don't just hand over coins when he said he was collecting taxes. Then leaving the bar they find a couple walking, the Bard kills the guy and takes the gal into the club and tells her she works there now. He's singing "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" during this.

As news travels at mid-evil speed among commoners, the party gets away from that mess after hearing the guards are coming and meets the mayor in a gambling house.

There mayor J.D. Swine tells them the tax money was collected but turned over to the new LuXor casino / circus. There are suspicions the circus is run by some underworld types and the party is generally hunting demons. In the crowd at the underground circus (its cooler underground of course), Bard fairly casts a mildly off color Vicious Mockery on a pony that's part of the show, rolls good and kills it. Its verbal, and has to be loud enough those nearby heard it and one kid points at the Bard saying "he killed the pony"! Probably a bit "un RAW" but the Bard unsheathes his sword and casts green flame blade causing it to flame green. The kid's father runs away, gets some employees / security and ends up kills himself when he points the Bard out to them before a pretty good fight ensues as the circus end is a front of Demon Lord Rakdos.

***********

Fast forward, after some unintentional collateral civilian damage from the Wizard's Meteor Swarm (I have a 3D printer but not enough mini's for everyone in the stands), the party Teleports back to their base in the taken over Forge of Fury which they have hired some Dwarves they're trying to train into Paladins of Tempus.

News travels fast among the well off here with sending spells, scrolls and the like. After a long rest news from Riza back to the capital and then to the Forge that Riza is breaking away due to unlawful tax collection attempts and the murder of civilians which has left a poor little boy an orphan. The Dwarves all leave except for one who loves making weapons that kill things. The old military NPC "father in law" of the Bard the party has running the place takes the Bard's possible child, goes and collects some aid then comes to try to kill them.

Oops, a well rolled 90% places the two big bad guys, Graz'zt and a Warlock of his and a few pets in the forge's main common room at the same time. This ends with the most of the party escaping but the Bard Feeble Minded and turned into a zombie then fed to a series of Barghests. The Druid for his part became a flea to escape btw. Not sure if Demon Lords should of been able to find him or not but it felt rewardable!

***********

In my mind the mistake of making an enemy of both the good but mildly corrupt kingdom the party was largely working for and the bad guys made the party easy prey.

***********

I think my DM mistakes were:

-Allowing a way out of a similar situation or two previously.

-Not finding a way for the party to turn over the offending member.

-Having morally ambiguous NPC's. They weren't chaotic stupid NPCs but things like a blue dragon in human form playing the long game of buying up property in a destroyed town wasn't the best of role models I suppose.

-Out of character I reminded some of the Players the kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing but it probably should of generated a whole session zero point five warning of, "if this gets out your reputation score will plummet" type thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hello, our party Bard did some ridiculous things which guided the campaign to end more like Empire Strikes Back than Return of the Jedi. In retrospect I guess I should of seen it coming. Some backstory:

Half dozen levels ago the party had to pay a 50,000GP "fine" for killing some guards / soldiers. For awhile afterwards Ever since then I have had some people of questionable morals seek out the party.

Recently they took a mission from young King Jeffrey to bring back an attractive young lady to be his wife. In panic she talked the party into essentially killing the King and making her queen for their own benefit. Phew, they were a bit careless and had to kill the king's whole escorting party but at least felt like the greater good was served.

*****************************

The immediate problem:

Our CN Half Elf Bard took a mission from the new Queen to collect taxes from a town named Riza which had hints of being under the influence of a dark power.

The party teleports into a dirty brothel/inn the Bard "knew" from his days in the military. One of the waitresses still there after fifteen years even remembered him.

Well old boy goes and kills some patrons who don't just hand over coins when he said he was collecting taxes. Then leaving the bar they find a couple walking, the Bard kills the guy and takes the gal into the club and tells her she works there now. He's singing "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" during this.

As news travels at mid-evil speed among commoners, the party gets away from that mess after hearing the guards are coming and meets the mayor in a gambling house.

There mayor J.D. Swine tells them the tax money was collected but turned over to the new LuXor casino / circus. There are suspicions the circus is run by some underworld types and the party is generally hunting demons. In the crowd at the underground circus (its cooler underground of course), Bard fairly casts a mildly off color Vicious Mockery on a pony that's part of the show, rolls good and kills it. Its verbal, and has to be loud enough those nearby heard it and one kid points at the Bard saying "he killed the pony"! Probably a bit "un RAW" but the Bard unsheathes his sword and casts green flame blade causing it to flame green. The kid's father runs away, gets some employees / security and ends up kills himself when he points the Bard out to them before a pretty good fight ensues as the circus end is a front of Demon Lord Rakdos.

***********

Fast forward, after some unintentional collateral civilian damage from the Wizard's Meteor Swarm (I have a 3D printer but not enough mini's for everyone in the stands), the party Teleports back to their base in the taken over Forge of Fury which they have hired some Dwarves they're trying to train into Paladins of Tempus.

News travels fast among the well off here with sending spells, scrolls and the like. After a long rest news from Riza back to the capital and then to the Forge that Riza is breaking away due to unlawful tax collection attempts and the murder of civilians which has left a poor little boy an orphan. The Dwarves all leave except for one who loves making weapons that kill things. The old military NPC "father in law" of the Bard the party has running the place takes the Bard's possible child, goes and collects some aid then comes to try to kill them.

Oops, a well rolled 90% places the two big bad guys, Graz'zt and a Warlock of his and a few pets in the forge's main common room at the same time. This ends with the most of the party escaping but the Bard Feeble Minded and turned into a zombie then fed to a series of Barghests. The Druid for his part became a flea to escape btw. Not sure if Demon Lords should of been able to find him or not but it felt rewardable!

***********

In my mind the mistake of making an enemy of both the good but mildly corrupt kingdom the party was largely working for and the bad guys made the party easy prey.

***********

I think my DM mistakes were:

-Allowing a way out of a similar situation or two previously.

-Not finding a way for the party to turn over the offending member.

-Having morally ambiguous NPC's. They weren't chaotic stupid NPCs but things like a blue dragon in human form playing the long game of buying up property in a destroyed town wasn't the best of role models I suppose.

-Out of character I reminded some of the Players the kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing but it probably should of generated a whole session zero point five warning of, "if this gets out your reputation score will plummet" type thing. How is this CN bard's death an indicator of DM mistakes? The bard looks to me like he had it coming to him. I guess tastes will differ on that.
Editor's note: should have (not should of), which can be shortened into the contraction should've.

[Keltest]

That sounds like Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Stupid. Murdering a bunch of civilians for not giving you money the moment you demand it is shockingly evil. Murdering a random showanimal and threatening a child when he calls it out, doubly so.

I think you need to ask yourself, and especially your players, if theyre comfortable having an overtly evil party member. If they are, cool, carry on, everyone is having fun, i guess. If not, its time to talk to the bard's player and ask him to either tone it down with the unprovoked violence or to roll up a new character because the bard is becoming an NPC. You know, assuming he gets the bard back.

[RogueJK]

That sounds like Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Stupid. Murdering a bunch of civilians for not giving you money the moment you demand it is shockingly evil. Murdering a random showanimal and threatening a child when he calls it out, doubly so.

Exactly. That's straight up Chaotic Evil.

Essentially, a CE murderhobo was allowed to take the party lead and derail the campaign.

Since it appears that's problematic for you as the DM, that Bard character needs to be retired/left dead, and some new/different ground rules need to be laid out for the group (starting with that player when they roll up a new character).

[Frogreaver]

DM can fix that situation by allowing the party to intervene when he started. No initiative even needs rolled. Fighter player sees bard about to kill a patron for no good reason and confronts/incapacitated/kills him. DM can rule the bard was too distracted to even get a chance to retaliate. HP/AC doesn’t even become a factor unless the DM desires it to. Bard issue is now resolved. Roll up a new character.

This is a case where overt railroading is good.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think the Bard's actions are well enough covered, I agree with the previous posters on that. I just want to touch on the one off line about the Wizard real quick.

"unintentional collateral civilian damage" and "Meteor Swarm" do not fit together. Meteor Swarm is such an enormous and destructive AoE that casting it in an at all populated area is willful negligence at best. If I'm following the chain of events correctly, this is still happening in the underground circus, I'm a bit shocked the entire structure didn't risk collapse, especially considering that only creatures are limited to one instance of damage, objects can be obliterated with 160d6 damage.

[Keltest]

I think the Bard's actions are well enough covered, I agree with the previous posters on that. I just want to touch on the one off line about the Wizard real quick.

"unintentional collateral civilian damage" and "Meteor Swarm" do not fit together. Meteor Swarm is such an enormous and destructive AoE that casting it in an at all populated area is willful negligence at best. If I'm following the chain of events correctly, this is still happening in the underground circus, I'm a bit shocked the entire structure didn't risk collapse, especially considering that only creatures are limited to one instance of damage, objects can be obliterated with 160d6 damage.

If im reading the post right, the wizard player assumed there was a 1:1 ratio of tokens to civilians, and targeted areas that had civilians but no tokens for them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If im reading the post right, the wizard player assumed there was a 1:1 ratio of tokens to civilians, and targeted areas that had civilians but no tokens for them.

If that is the case I would have recommended letting the Wizard reconsider the action with that knowledge rather than allowing them to harm them. It's a minor complaint anyway, the focus should be on the Bard's continuous problematic actions than the Wizards ( as far as we know) one time.

[MoiMagnus]

I think my DM mistakes were:

-Allowing a way out of a similar situation or two previously.


It's not that much that they got away, more that they got away without feeling that things could easily have been much worse.



-Not finding a way for the party to turn over the offending member.


That one is difficult to handle without some OOC discusio



-Having morally ambiguous NPC's. They weren't chaotic stupid NPCs but things like a blue dragon in human form playing the long game of buying up property in a destroyed town wasn't the best of role models I suppose.


Or you should have accepted that the PCs might take them as role model occasionally, and also showed the level of care they put in not ending dead by mistake or targetted by assassins (and not just "they have Deus Ex Machina that allow them to get away", something that the players can see as "well, if we want to be morally gray, we can't afford to be stupid")



-Out of character I reminded some of the Players the kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing but it probably should of generated a whole session zero point five warning of, "if this gets out your reputation score will plummet" type thing.

Though don't present it as "you'll be EVIL", you need to present it as "good aligned NPCs will start to try to get rid of you".

[Unoriginal]

The Druid for his part became a flea to escape btw. Not sure if Demon Lords should of been able to find him or not but it felt rewardable!

Well, in the lore Gra'azt at least know people and entities who can.



-Out of character I reminded some of the Players the kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing

Adventurers kidnapping people for a corrupt kind is only *mildly* disturbing?

[tokek]

This feels like one of those "where do we start" problems.

You seem to have wanted to play out a morally complex game. But lacking a clear vision you ended up playing an amoral game - one with no morality or ethics worth mentioning.

The fact that you present this bard as being CN when anyone even glancing at this would see almost a parody of bad CE behaviour says you rather lost sight of having an ethical vision for your game.

I think you needed to have a repeat session zero some time ago, not just for the sake of the players but also to clarify your own thoughts on how you wanted this to go. Right now you are deep down the murderhobo hole, unless you like it there its time to stop digging.

[Segev]

Just going to add my two cents: the described behaviors are CE or even NE, not CN. CN is "ignore the rules to get things done, and maybe don't care too much about the morality of it if it's inconvenient." Murdering people for not giving you money is straight-up evil. I know it can be tricky, sometimes, to identify CN vs. CE, since CN can be incredibly dangerous and violent and prone to evil acts, but the main difference is that CN isn't motivated by the evil acts, themselves.

Deadpool wavers on the cusp between CN and CE, depending on the writer, but Ryan Reynolds's version is more on the N side of it. He'll casually kill, but it isn't because the killing itself is fun, or convenient. He kills when it's the easy solution. It's still evil, mind, but N can do evil things. Deadpool also takes on missions for "good causes," even if he'll whine about it if somebody tries to deliberately appeal to his better nature.

Deadpool threatens people who aren't already fighting him before he kills them, and he won't kill them if they back down or comply (or have a funny enough counterargument). Deadpool likes fighting, but he isn't in it for the killing so much as the winning.

This bard jumped straight to murdering people for pocket change as a means of "tax collection." He murdered a man and enslaved his date for...no apparent reason at all (maybe he thought that would somehow make money he could tax appear?). That's evil. Nothing in his behaviors has had the "neutral" quality, let alone the off-setting "good" that can make a CN character stay out of the deep end of the alignment pool.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I think the Bard's actions are well enough covered, I agree with the previous posters on that. I just want to touch on the one off line about the Wizard real quick.

"unintentional collateral civilian damage" and "Meteor Swarm" do not fit together. Meteor Swarm is such an enormous and destructive AoE that casting it in an at all populated area is willful negligence at best. If I'm following the chain of events correctly, this is still happening in the underground circus, I'm a bit shocked the entire structure didn't risk collapse, especially considering that only creatures are limited to one instance of damage, objects can be obliterated with 160d6 damage.


If im reading the post right, the wizard player assumed there was a 1:1 ratio of tokens to civilians, and targeted areas that had civilians but no tokens for them.


If that is the case I would have recommended letting the Wizard reconsider the action with that knowledge rather than allowing them to harm them. It's a minor complaint anyway, the focus should be on the Bard's continuous problematic actions than the Wizards ( as far as we know) one time.

I really think the Wizard's player just goofed. He's our guy who takes great notes and says things like, "Unfortunately that's what I said I was doing darn it" with a frown on his face. He is lucky it just didn't collapse. I want them to be able to user their cool spells so I've been soft on that one.

Its my fault for putting a couple spectators out but not all of them. I should of run all or nothing.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Thank you all for the kind words and good advice over the years. I do feel partially responsible. At least next time I'll try a few more things before we make it that far.


Well, in the lore Gra'azt at least know people and entities who can.



Adventurers kidnapping people for a corrupt kind is only *mildly* disturbing?

And to clarify, I should have used better words there. Its quite disturbing to say the least. The inflection in my voice is lost in text.

[sithlordnergal]

Yeaaaah...so first things first, the Bard wasn't Chaotic Neutral. I play Chaotic Neutral a lot, and the stuff the Bard did fell waaaay outside of what Chaotic Neutral does. For example, lets say I was playing a Chaotic Neutral Bard, asked for Taxes, and someone refused to pay me. I would likely do the following:

- First show them proof that I am a legit tax collector, so give me the taxes

- Attempt an Intimidation or Persuasion check to get them to give me the money

- If that failed, attempt to bring them to the proper authorities and force them to hand over the taxes

- If for some reason the authorities do nothing, like if I'm taking money from a powerful Lord, I attempt to charm the person via spells to make them give me the money

- If that failed I'd try to steal the tax money

- And only at the end, if ALL of that failed, would I resort to violence. And even then I would not be out to kill the guy unless they really forced my hand on the issue

Even if they did force my hand and made me use violence, I'd try to knock them out, not kill them. And I certainly wouldn't kidnap anyone and force them to work.

[Schwann145]

Sounds like a classic case of, "Chaotic Neutral means I can do whatever I want and it's not evil." :P

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds like a classic case of, "Chaotic Neutral means I can do whatever I want and it's not evil." :P

Whaddya mean I'm Evil. Say's Neutral right here on my character sheet!

[Leon]

Any alignment played poorly (and in this case maliciously) will hurt the party. Sounds like the campaign ending was for the best with a character so off the rails it was disrupting everything for everyone.

[Bosh]

Any alignment played poorly (and in this case maliciously) will hurt the party. Sounds like the campaign ending was for the best with a character so off the rails it was disrupting everything for everyone.

Yeah, it's about how things are played not the basic concept. Even the worst character concepts can be fun for the party if played with tongue firmly in cheek instead of the player thinking that their horrible character is an awesome badass.

[AntiAuthority]

OP, this Bard is going around killing people for not handing over money, killing random people, forced a woman into prostitution, tried to kill a child for pointing something out and...

What good or neutral acts are offsetting the more depraved bits? Are there any positive traits? Without anything offsetting it, I would say they're Evil.

If this were an NPC doing this (as opposed to a PC), and the party encountered an NPC doing all these actions, would you genuinely write Chaotic Neutral on their character sheet?


Any alignment played poorly (and in this case maliciously) will hurt the party. Sounds like the campaign ending was for the best with a character so off the rails it was disrupting everything for everyone.

Yep, just like Lawful Good characters encountering an Ogre that's staying away from civilization and just wants to be left alone... And may even help the Party find their way to the nearest city if it means they leave its territory faster. The Party then kill it because, "Ogres are evil." It's not the Lawful Good that made them do it.

[tokek]

Yep, just like Lawful Good characters encountering an Ogre that's staying away from civilization and just wants to be left alone... And may even help the Party find their way to the nearest city if it means they leave its territory faster. The Party then kill it because, "Ogres are evil." It's not the Lawful Good that made them do it.

The typical Ogre is a rampaging serial killer that decorates itself with the skin and bones of the humanoids it has murdered and eaten. Its up to the DM to make it clear that a particular NPC ogre looks nothing like that if they want to set out a non-evil Ogre NPC. A bit of foreshadowing would help too. Typical ogres are evil and they do evil things - it says so right there in their write-up and that follows the folklore around ogres and its the primary meaning of the word Ogre.

[AntiAuthority]

The typical Ogre is a rampaging serial killer that decorates itself with the skin and bones of the humanoids it has murdered and eaten. Its up to the DM to make it clear that a particular NPC ogre looks nothing like that if they want to set out a non-evil Ogre NPC. A bit of foreshadowing would help too. Typical ogres are evil and they do evil things - it says so right there in their write-up and that follows the folklore around ogres and its the primary meaning of the word Ogre.

I understand, but there are players that would kill non-hostile or even friendly monstrous NPCs because they're monsters was my point. I recall a story about a helpful Kobold being shot at after it healed someone in the party because a player just felt it being a monster meant it had to die... Because they wrote Paladin or Lawful Good on their character sheet and Kobolds are "Evil" so...

[tokek]

I understand, but there are players that would kill non-hostile or even friendly monstrous NPCs because they're monsters. I recall a story about a helpful Kobold being shot at after it healed someone in the party because a player just felt it being a monster meant it had to die.

Its part of the challenge of setting up a morally complex game.

I dropped out of a game recently due to time pressure (on me) but during that game we had the archetypical problem with a character mis-treating a kobold captive. I had a word with the DM who had instituted a no PvP rule and said that if anyone tried anything like that again my sorcerer wanted permission in advance to Subtle Metamagic Suggestion spell the culprit to stop them. The DM agreed, but the incident had happened because no DM can think of everything in advance and sometimes players just do dumb ****.

To run those games - which are super-rewarding by the way - you need the DM to have a clear vision and be strong in enforcing that vision for how morality and ethics will work. My longest running game has a lot of this and also has had to boot characters - one player is fully on their last chance now and the player will be booted if they break the feel of the game with dumb **** again. That is how you make this sort of campaign work, you need to make it a significant part of the game and you need to put effort into it.

[arnin77]

Sounds like the player was playing Evil Stupid to me…

[KorvinStarmast]

For more commentary on CN, we have this picture.
https://vulcanstev.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/demo-poster-2.jpg

[MarkVIIIMarc]

OP, this Bard is going around killing people for not handing over money, killing random people, forced a woman into prostitution, tried to kill a child for pointing something out and...

What good or neutral acts are offsetting the more depraved bits? Are there any positive traits? Without anything offsetting it, I would say they're Evil.

If this were an NPC doing this (as opposed to a PC), and the party encountered an NPC doing all these actions, would you genuinely write Chaotic Neutral on their character sheet?



Yep, just like Lawful Good characters encountering an Ogre that's staying away from civilization and just wants to be left alone... And may even help the Party find their way to the nearest city if it means they leave its territory faster. The Party then kill it because, "Ogres are evil." It's not the Lawful Good that made them do it.

Valid points.

Back years ago they rescued a gnome I think it was in the Sunless Citadel so there used to be hope.

We have had it happen where what happens in the Dungon stays in the Dungon because there are few witnesses. The party knows and out of survival they may not want to leave a now begging Drow or something behind them if they can't incapacitate it.

Juat the niddle of town seemed a ridiculous place to kill with no reason.

Far as what good acts, there was a quest to stop invading Mind Flayers which got the party some very positive reputation and kill a creature which was destroying an aquaduct afterwards for quite a reward.

Are you hinting that if the good acts are equally good to the evilness of the evil acts then CN may be a legit label? I was now of the opinion I mislabeled the thead and should of been cussin out the CE character.

[Keltest]

Valid points.

Back years ago they rescued a gnome I think it was in the Sunless Citadel so there used to be hope.

We have had it happen where what happens in the Dungon stays in the Dungon because there are few witnesses. The party knows and out of survival they may not want to leave a now begging Drow or something behind them if they can't incapacitate it.

Juat the niddle of town seemed a ridiculous place to kill with no reason.

Far as what good acts, there was a quest to stop invading Mind Flayers which got the party some very positive reputation and kill a creature which was destroying an aquaduct afterwards for quite a reward.

Are you hinting that if the good acts are equally good to the evilness of the evil acts then CN may be a legit label? I was now of the opinion I mislabeled the thead and should of been cussin out the CE character.

"Neutral by way of Cosmic Balance" is technically a way to play neutrality, but its pretty disfavored due to mostly just being Evil with some good publicity. It requires that a character actually be specifically setting out to keep their acts neutral as well as a belief in some metaphysical danger of letting the balance of good and evil get out of whack.

More often, this has been used as an excuse for ostensibly neutral characters like Druids in older editions to still pal around with good characters and do exclusively good stuff; theyre fighting the potential imbalance caused by the actions of Evil, and would be just as happy to do it to Good if they ever get uppity. The Dragonlance setting in particular relies on this form of Neutral in its pantheon.


Having said all this, this is almost certainly not what the bard was doing. This very much reads like typical "CN is just CE but without getting kicked out of the party for calling myself evil." behavior.

[MoiMagnus]

Are you hinting that if the good acts are equally good to the evilness of the evil acts then CN may be a legit label?

I'd say yes, but with a lot of emphasis on the "may".

One important thing is that doing good acts is often self-serving: peoples are nicer with you, some peoples might even help or reward you, etc. If you do good acts only when they're self-serving, and a fair share of evil acts, then you're still evil.

And even if you get the CN neutral label from doing both good and evil, this is IMO only a temporary label (probably linked to some internal conflict if you really wanted to RP that), as the character will likely eventually be forced to double-down or atone for his evil acts (the heroic sacrifice being the standard Good-aligned exit in fiction).

[Keravath]

The alignment of a character isn't written on the character sheet - it is how the player decides to play the character. The player may have wanted to aim to be chaotic neutral but it seems pretty clear that the player had no idea what that might mean and their actual behaviour fits Chaotic Evil far more than Chaotic Neutral. The issue is that such behavior can only really be dealt with by in game responses to the character activities (or by an out of character discussion with the players) and it sounds like in this case the DM left it really late in the adventure to do so, such that the groups that the party had aggravated were all powerful enough to obliterate the party especially when the party was faced with multiple groups simultaneously.

The issue should probably have been headed off 10 levels ago through an out of character chat with the players about what kind of game they want to play and a discussion of how certain actions they may take will brand them as evil no matter how many "good" things they do on top of that.

In my opinion, being "Neutral" does not mean - I do big "good" things and big "evil" things and they balance out. I find that is usually a player's statement to justify a character they want to be neutral to be permitted to do evil things without consequences or feeling bad for their actions. To be honest though, imaging a character with that sort of outlook on life is probably some sort of psychosis since a character who imagines themselves capable of doing heinous evil things one day and decides to do something good the next day has a problem. In addition, in my opinion, there is no global balance achieved by doing both really good and really evil actions. A character who saves a child from drowning one day and then arbitrarily kills their parent the next day isn't creating any sort of balance. Finally, again my opinion, neutral tends to be self-centered - neither helping nor harming others much.

----

There is nothing wrong with running a morally ambiguous game but it is up to the players to CHOOSE for their characters where their moral compass lies and use that to guide their decisions.

"Recently they took a mission from young King Jeffrey to bring back an attractive young lady to be his wife. In panic she talked the party into essentially killing the King and making her queen for their own benefit. Phew, they were a bit careless and had to kill the king's whole escorting party but at least felt like the greater good was served."

What? This is pure evil vs evil. Kidnapping a woman to be a sexual slave even if she gets to call herself queen is wrong. The characters agreeing to do so was evil. Listening to the words of this woman to kill the king so that she can become queen is also evil - both evil on her part and evil on the characters part. Killing the kings entire party to achieve the complete overthrow of the government and install their puppet queen (or were the characters the puppets) - pure evil. There was no greater good served anywhere in that story.

What would be good in this case? The party says no to the king and convinces him to approach the woman, show what a decent person he is, and see if he can get her consent to marry. He might be unlikely to do this because he is evil to consider her kidnapping in the first place but if she is evil she will say yes anyway to become queen and have the king assassinated without the players needing to be involved. On the other hand, if they are actually more or less good at heart they can work it out in a much less violent way. Another good approach by the characters could be when they realize the kind is evil they rescue the woman instead of kidnapping her, take her to safety and arrange for her defense. There are lots of good or even neutral ways to resolve that one but both the characters and the NPC went evil all the way.

The following comment seems to actually capture part of the issue at the table:
"kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing but it probably should of generated a whole session zero point five warning of, "if this gets out your reputation score will plummet" type thing."

"Mildly disturbing"? and even the out of character consequence is that the characters reputation would be impacted. Neither the description or the response actually address the issue that the actions are evil. That if the players want to take these actions then with the existing pattern of behavior everyone should just acknowledge that the party is delusional, believe themselves to be good or neutral but are actually evil by nature - change the alignment on the character sheets - and just play an evil campaign. It is what you are doing already, why not just acknowledge it?

Sometimes the DM and players just get so into a pattern of behavior by the characters in a game that starts off pretty neutral or good that they don't even notice when everything has taken a strong turn towards evil on the part of the characters and a lot of their evil actions become "normalized." Killing guards/soldiers and having to pay a fine? Honestly, in an RPG like D&D that often isn't much of a penalty. However, somewhere in there was likely where the game started to take a turn to the dark side when the players/characters realized they could do bad things with little or no significant consequences. I've seen this sort of thing happen and it usually requires an out of character chat where everyone takes a step back and asks if these are really the characters that they want to be playing.

[AntiAuthority]

Valid points.

Back years ago they rescued a gnome I think it was in the Sunless Citadel so there used to be hope.

We have had it happen where what happens in the Dungon stays in the Dungon because there are few witnesses. The party knows and out of survival they may not want to leave a now begging Drow or something behind them if they can't incapacitate it.

Juat the niddle of town seemed a ridiculous place to kill with no reason.

Far as what good acts, there was a quest to stop invading Mind Flayers which got the party some very positive reputation and kill a creature which was destroying an aquaduct afterwards for quite a reward.

Are you hinting that if the good acts are equally good to the evilness of the evil acts then CN may be a legit label? I was now of the opinion I mislabeled the thead and should of been cussin out the CE character.

You're right, killing people in the middle of town for practically no reason is ridiculous.

But as for offsetting... It depends. People can do things for various reasons. Take the Mindflayer... Were they doing it to protect the people out of concern, or were they doing it to get a good reputation/ because the party got some sort of benefit from it. There are examples of Evil characters fighting other Evil characters for selfish reasons. Sometimes Evil characters may do things for altruistic reasons, but that doesn't change they're still Evil most of the time. If a person kills a monster that was terrorizing a town, but it was because it didn't want any competition and started tormenting the townspeople soon after... I'd consider this person Evil. Evil can get rid of other Evils if it's convenient.

In a sense, but someone intentionally putting in Good points to avoid being Evil... They're probably so close that it doesn't matter and they just want to be as close to Evil as possible without wanting to change their character sheet.

But if this were an NPC killing people for money/no reason, trying to kidnap a woman for forced marriage (this a nicer term for what it really means they're assisting in), forcing a woman into prostitution and trying to murder a child out of annoyance/convenience (because of the NPC's own actions), what alignment would you give such an NPC?

[Ganryu]

I'd like to preemptively say, CE by itself isn't bad, or any alignment {And that bard is CE}, but there's a golden rule half the party isn't playing. Don't screw over the rest of the party!!!

I had a CE pixie that loved fire and explosions. She once 'won' a barfight by igniting a dwarf on fire. But she viewed the party as her friends, and therefore would do anything to help them. She was asked to retrieve an NPC, and found they were in prison. Being CE, the solution ended with the prison on fire, half the guards dead and locked in a burning cell, but the NPC was returned and it helped the party achieve their goals. My character was an absolute menace to the world... but useful to the party.

Same party had a LG goodie two shoes who saw my character was evil, and took it as their responsibility for the realm to make sure she died, because she was a menace. Constantly sabotaged them, and got in the way of the party doing so, rarely following plot lines. I didn't mind when I near died for my char's stupidity, but real teeth grating when I'm pretty much abandoned fighting a cult camp by myself because my character was tricked...

Guess which character the DM preferred?

Do not attack the party!

Problem is alot of chaotic players go "I'm Chaotic, screw the plot AND the party!" That's the real trouble! Yes, game is to have fun, but it's a team game, more fun to be had as a team. It's an improv game, and the first rule of improv is 'don't say no' {I.e., don't negate other actors in the scene, build upon what they've done, it makes a better scene}. Same in Dnd. Build upon the party!

This is where the most annoying tropes are normally found. The horny bard who's CG. The thief who steals constantly, CN. The murderhobo CE. It's not so much their alignments as much as how they forget about the party...

Remember the DM worked hard for their plot. Think about how one's character fits into that plot, not against it.

You can still be a rule breaker who's willing to do what the rest of the party isn't to help them. Shank people for info? Sure. Steal an item FOR them? Great! Burn down an ally's nemesis's home? Hilarious! {Hey, I know you and Lilith really don't get along, so guess what I got you...!}

Just be team focused!

Side note, Lawful stupid often falls into the same trap. "I must follow the law! Officers, arrest my party!"

Oh, and btw, I play LG too. Infact, it's rare I play evil. But just as an example. It's less the alignments, and more the attitudes of the players.

[Keltest]

One of the explicit questions I expect my players to be able to answer as part of vetting a new character is "why would the party want you around?" Sometimes it's self evident and I don't bring it up, but there are a couple concepts I've rejected or heavily altered for not having a good answer for me.

[PattThe]

I'd like to preemptively say, CE by itself isn't bad, or any alignment {And that bard is CE}, but there's a golden rule half the party isn't playing. Don't screw over the rest of the party!!!

mmmmbut sometimes it's dramatic. We had a slick CE noob who was a freaking star of a player and enjoyed every second of each session. First campaign-season ended in an extremely sudden heel-turn and party conflict, but it was awesome. Things aren't seen as "screwing over" when you have everyone at the table loving everything you do.
Spend the whole campaign one way or another protecting this NPC and bonding with them, then at the end of that campaign-season the NPC is missing but presumed safe and everyone's celebrating at their favorite tavern after the big fight- but they go, "wait where's X ???" when the player playing the CE character says "Oh I'm not there, I'm at my shrine."
CE player character gets a divine message to take out a person in a location that everyone at the table meta realizes must be the NPC that's been hiding. The table starts going wild when they realize this and quickly come to the conclusion in-character to go to that location as "the one place they wouldn't think to look" and then rushes out in the rain. Half a city away everyone's in the place and the party is cornering the CE player character as they get to the NPC. Stand-off and words tossed. CE player character smashes necklace of fireballs at their feet.
NPC makes their save and doesn't insta-die and is healed. One PC was 1hp from being a black shadow on the wall. CE player character is knocked to zero but nowhere near insta-death. BUT HERE COMES THE CG PLAYER CHARACTER WITH THE ACTION ATTACK DAGGER BA ATTACK DAGGER and kills him there on the floor. They were best frieeeends. Dramaa. Everyone loved it.
Memories, man.

[strangebloke]

THE most important conversation to have in session zero is about what the "campaign concept" is going to be. Before deciding anything else, what is the party trying to do? What is the core fiction you're trying to emulate?

Sword and Sorcery adventures having episodic funtimes as they take morally dubious actions to accrue power in an indifferent world where death is sudden and unpredictable?
Pirates on the high seas contending against evil repressive colonial powers?
Grueling dungeon crawls with little to no roleplay but lots of loot and traps?
Rebels in a fantastic super city fighting the power?
Evil warlords out to conquer the world and increase their power?
Holy knights sent out to dispense with the enemies of the True King?

DND can't simulate all fantasy, but it can simulate a lot of fantasy, and nobody should commit to a character concept until the above is settled. Coming to a campaign with a character designed in isolation from any knowledge about the campaign is a recipe for pissing off players. Nobody wants a chaotic 'neutral' murderhobo floating in their in the 'holy knights' stew. Nobody wants a goody two shoes with no sense of humor in the morally dubious merc campaign.

Many players do this anyway though and its a hard lesson to learn. In fact, many DMs don't really think about what tone they're trying to set, which makes the problem even worse.

[Damon_Tor]

One thing bugging me: no chaotic character, his hat be white or black or grey, would be a tax collector. So even if we ignore the whole "neutral or evil" thing, he's STILL acting out of alignment because chaotic characters don't use the law to justify their actions. A tax collector who uses lack of payment as a pretext for murder would be closer to neutral evil, or lawful evil assuming the tax code in this nation ACTUALLY allows tax collectors to execute citizens who refuse to pay.

In other words, he's betraying BOTH aspects of his alignment.

[hamishspence]

One thing bugging me: no chaotic character, his hat be white or black or grey, would be a tax collector. So even if we ignore the whole "neutral or evil" thing, he's STILL acting out of alignment because chaotic characters don't use the law to justify their actions.

CE characters can work for villains, even LE villains. A CE thug "demanding money with menaces" on the orders of their LE boss, is still CE.

A thug who's willing to do "the legalised version of demanding money with menaces" doesn't instantly become NE merely because they've found a legal outlet for their talents:

"I can do what I've been doing all the time, but this time the local law won't go after me? Sign me up"

[ProsecutorGodot]

CE characters can work for villains, even LE villains. A CE thug "demanding money with menaces" on the orders of their LE boss, is still CE.

A thug who's willing to do "the legalised version of demanding money with menaces" doesn't instantly become NE merely because they've found a legal outlet for their talents:

"I can do what I've been doing all the time, but this time the local law won't go after me? Sign me up"

Pretty much, chaotic in this context doesn't mean they'll never work under an authority, it just means they were probably going to be violent with you anyway whether it's "legal" or not.

[Lunali]

One thing bugging me: no chaotic character, his hat be white or black or grey, would be a tax collector. So even if we ignore the whole "neutral or evil" thing, he's STILL acting out of alignment because chaotic characters don't use the law to justify their actions. A tax collector who uses lack of payment as a pretext for murder would be closer to neutral evil, or lawful evil assuming the tax code in this nation ACTUALLY allows tax collectors to execute citizens who refuse to pay.

In other words, he's betraying BOTH aspects of his alignment.

It's entirely reasonable for a chaotic character to be a tax collector. A chaotic good character might make exceptions for people in need or help them find loopholes, a chaotic evil character might increase the effective tax rate and pocket the difference.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's entirely reasonable for a chaotic character to be a tax collector. A chaotic good character might make exceptions for people in need or help them find loopholes, a chaotic evil character might increase the effective tax rate and pocket the difference. Or even a lawful evil one. This was a common practice in the Roman-occupied Levant, for but one example. In a bio of Edward I (Longshanks) I read recently, this was something he tried to crack down on during his reign (particularly during the early half) since it was a source of much frustration among numerous layers of society. He was only successful in part, and by the end of his reign was as much a part of the problem as not, given his being on a war footing with France, Scotland, and Wales.
The modern understanding of tax/revenue collection doesn't fit into the pseudo medieval reality very well at all.

[Damon_Tor]

CE characters can work for villains, even LE villains. A CE thug "demanding money with menaces" on the orders of their LE boss, is still CE.

A thug who's willing to do "the legalised version of demanding money with menaces" doesn't instantly become NE merely because they've found a legal outlet for their talents:

"I can do what I've been doing all the time, but this time the local law won't go after me? Sign me up"

If you have no ideological opposition to law, then you probably aren't very chaotic. You are describing someone neutral on the law/chaos axis.

[MoiMagnus]

One thing bugging me: no chaotic character, his hat be white or black or grey, would be a tax collector. So even if we ignore the whole "neutral or evil" thing, he's STILL acting out of alignment because chaotic characters don't use the law to justify their actions. A tax collector who uses lack of payment as a pretext for murder would be closer to neutral evil, or lawful evil assuming the tax code in this nation ACTUALLY allows tax collectors to execute citizens who refuse to pay.

In other words, he's betraying BOTH aspects of his alignment.

Just because they're acting as tax collector doesn't mean they use the law to justify their action. They have other justification for their action (personal interest, morality, etc) and just find it practical to collaborate with the law. Especially for "tax collecting as a mercenary", where the character only pledged to help with a single issue.

That would be like saying the no chaotic character would ever accept to help the police unroot a "cult that want to destroy the world". There is in popular fictions a lot of "chaotic heroes that help the law enforcement but is a massive headache for their supervisor since they always break protocols".

In a fundamentally corrupt societies where most of the power is not held by the state but by other institutions (mafia & co), a chaotic character might find that the most practical way of going against the "de facto law" (enforced by mafia & co) is to help the "de jure law" (failed to be enforced by the state). Chaotic characters being less bound by inflexible codes than lawful ones mean that they should not have any problem collaborating with the law when they judge that it's circumstantially the best course of action.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just because they're acting as tax collector doesn't mean they use the law to justify their action. They have other justification for their action (personal interest, morality, etc) and just find it practical to collaborate with the law.
See also protection rackets. They become a small business tax (even though the extortionists may refer to it as insurance to give it an air of legitimacy).

[Lunali]

If you have no ideological opposition to law, then you probably aren't very chaotic. You are describing someone neutral on the law/chaos axis.

Obedience to the law is a subjective way to evaluate morality as the law can vary greatly. A better measure is whether the character considers the consequences of their actions.

[False God]

If you have no ideological opposition to law, then you probably aren't very chaotic. You are describing someone neutral on the law/chaos axis.

The problem with this portrayal of "chaotic" is that it relies heavily on strong internal codes of action. Someone who has a very strong definition of what they will or won't do is inherently orderly. Ideology, even one of freedom and anarchy, is inherently an aspect of order.

A CG character, for example, should have no real objection to a rules-heavy society where everyone is well-treated, well-fed and generally happy. They may believe that the society could do better with more freedom, but they would be opposing their other element "Good" by holding an ideological objection to the comprehensive and codified set of laws that are making this society function so well. They may not like it, but they can't deny it works.

"Chaotic" relies on internal definitions, whimsy, and selfishness. The only rule is that "What I want to do trumps everything else." Which at times means they appear to be aligning with the law because the law happens to be in favor of the thing you want to do, but at other times they are opposed. The Chaotic character is not ideologically opposed to order (though they can be) or the law, the Chaotic character is just concerned about what they think over what external elements might think.

Of course, D&D could also use some grading element to their black and white morality system to allow for "Hard/Soft" Law/Chaos, Good/Evil. So then a person could indeed be "Hard Chaotic", doing whatever they want to heck with everyone else, or "Soft Chaotic", doing what they want with some regard given to certain others they particularly respect or like.

[tokek]

If you have no ideological opposition to law, then you probably aren't very chaotic. You are describing someone neutral on the law/chaos axis.

This is a slightly negative - law-centric - view of chaotic alignment. Its not invalid but its not the only possible approach.

I've had fund developing my CG character as believing in taking personal responsibility for actions and the consequences of actions. They take a very dim view of people who claim that their actions are legitimate because the law permits them, that to my character is dodging responsibility and hiding behind rules and regulations.

He's not an extremist on it. If someone obeys the law and is doing no harm by it then he's perfectly fine with that person. But he will react more negatively to someone doing harm and claiming they are in the right because they obeyed the law than another person doing harm who does not try to justify it with the legality of their acts.

By comparison with the average person (pretty much by definition neutral) he's distinctly more sceptical of laws and hence is chaotic on the scale. Given a choice between doing the right thing and doing the legal thing he will strongly tend towards doing the right thing - but often there is no such stark choice therefore often its not really that obvious.

[Unoriginal]

If you have no ideological opposition to law, then you probably aren't very chaotic. You are describing someone neutral on the law/chaos axis.

"Ideology doesn't fill your pockets" - many chaotic characters.

You don't need ideological opposition to law to be chaotic, you just need to "act as [your] conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect" or "follow [your] whims, holding [your] personal freedom above all else" or "act with arbitrary violence, spurred by [your] greed, hatred, or bloodlust."

If your whims, conscience or arbitrary violence manifests themselves as an ideological opposition to law, then sure, but it's far from a requirement.

Also, you don't need to be *very* chaotic to be chaotic. You just need to be more chaotic than you are lawful or neutral.

[Yakmala]

When a party engages in this level of indiscriminate killing of civilians, it's time for them to become a "quest" for a higher level party of good aligned adventurers.

[Damon_Tor]

Chaotic can't be "lacks a philosophical basis for their actions" because that's the role of the neutral/unaligned alignment. Oppressing another person using the law as a justification or pretext is not a chaotic act.

That's not to say that chaotic characters cannot ever engage in non-chaotic actions, because alignment is not a straightjacket, but it's silly to think that a chaotic evil character can act exactly like a lawful evil character as long as their "whims" direct them to do so.

A character who "does whatever they want to do" has an alignment based around the sorts of things they want to do. Low int does not make you chaotic.

[Unoriginal]

Chaotic can't be "lacks a philosophical basis for their actions" because that's the role of the neutral/unaligned alignment.

Untrue. You don't have to have philosophical basis to stab someone 'cause they looked at you funny and you didn't like it. Yet it is arbitrary violence based on your whims, therefore fitting the behavior of a chaotic evil character.



Oppressing another person using the law as a justification or pretext is not a chaotic act.

Depends to whom the justification/pretext is.

Do you think that a chaotic evil bandit who gets told "law enforcement can't punish you in this country if you targets dwarven traveling merchants, because the country is at war with the nearby Dwarf realm and the authorities use this to put pressure on the Dwarf ruler" would not take advantage of it?

The captain of the guards who impassibly watch Dwarf merchants be slaughtered in front of them, in accordance to the rules, would be lawful evil (assuming they tend to act like that) as they are methodically oppressing people within their set of rules. The noble who came uo with the idea would be neutral evil if they don't care for the principle of the thing, but think that using legal power to get an advantage over the Dwarf ruler is just what the spin doctor ordered. And the chaotic evil bandit who slaughter and robs the merchants to satisfy their bloodlust and greed then pull off a 'I wasn't doing anything you can arrest me for" if questioned about it is still acting coherently with the descriptor of chaotic evil.


it's silly to think that a chaotic evil character can act exactly like a lawful evil character as long as their "whims" direct them to do so.

They wouldn't be acting the same, though.

A lawful evil tax collector would oppress people within the bindings of the law they follow. If Farmer Brown owes 40gp and can't pay, they will apply the law, malevolently so perhaps, and in a way that benefits them, but the law still.

A chaotic evil tax collector would act with arbitrary violence. Farmer Browns owes 40gp? How about 60, rather, since settling this case was suuuuch an hastle? Or how about making so their good friend Farmer Brown who's always paying rounds at the tavern pay next to nothing this year, because after all there are plenty of junior clercs the tax collector can bully or throw under the bus to explain why the expected total is slightly lower (or just plainly falsify the expected total to be lower, removing the gold the collector embezzled too).

[Damon_Tor]

Untrue. You don't have to have philosophical basis to stab someone 'cause they looked at you funny and you didn't like it. Yet it is arbitrary violence based on your whims, therefore fitting the behavior of a chaotic evil character.

Animals are considered unaligned precisely because they have no philosophical basis for their actions. If a bear attacks you because it reads your posture as agressive, that's not chaotic, that's an animal doing what an animal does. A person either understands the ramifications of his actions in the context of societal norms and chooses to align himself with those norms or against them, choosing law or chaos with his actions, or he does not understand the ramifications, which makes his decision no more aligned than the animal's.

Depending on the norms and customs of a society it might be perfectly lawful to strike someone who disrespects you in some way. It might be a breach of etiquette to refuse to fight someone who challenges you.


Do you think that a chaotic evil bandit who gets told "law enforcement can't punish you in this country if you targets dwarven traveling merchants, because the country is at war with the nearby Dwarf realm and the authorities use this to put pressure on the Dwarf ruler" would not take advantage of it?

I would consider it a neutral evil act, which is something a chaotic evil character can partake in.


A chaotic evil tax collector would act with arbitrary violence. Farmer Browns owes 40gp? How about 60, rather, since settling this case was suuuuch an hastle? Or how about making so their good friend Farmer Brown who's always paying rounds at the tavern pay next to nothing this year, because after all there are plenty of junior clercs the tax collector can bully or throw under the bus to explain why the expected total is slightly lower (or just plainly falsify the expected total to be lower, removing the gold the collector embezzled too).

Points to lawful/evil for using a position of authority to oppress, points to chaotic/evil for breaking law in the execution. Net result is a neutralish/evil action depending on how much he's violating the law.

[Sigreid]

I think my DM mistakes were:

-Allowing a way out of a similar situation or two previously.

-Not finding a way for the party to turn over the offending member.

-Having morally ambiguous NPC's. They weren't chaotic stupid NPCs but things like a blue dragon in human form playing the long game of buying up property in a destroyed town wasn't the best of role models I suppose.

-Out of character I reminded some of the Players the kidnapping women for a corrupt king was mildly disturbing but it probably should of generated a whole session zero point five warning of, "if this gets out your reputation score will plummet" type thing.

1. Bard definitely is evil, not neutral.
2. Allowing a way out a time or 2 isn't a problem.
3. If the party wants to turn him in, that's up to them to decide to do and figure out how.
4. Most NPCs will be pretty morally neutral. And a blue dragon buying up land on the cheap sounds pretty reasonable to me.
5. If the party can't figure out that abducting women to probably be sex slaves of the king is not going to paint them as the good guys, I don't know what to tell you.

[Unoriginal]

Animals are considered unaligned precisely because they have no philosophical basis for their actions. If a bear attacks you because it reads your posture as agressive, that's not chaotic, that's an animal doing what an animal does. A person either understands the ramifications of his actions in the context of societal norms and chooses to align himself with those norms or against them, choosing law or chaos with his actions, or he does not understand the ramifications, which makes his decision no more aligned than the animal's.

I think we're talking past each other due to significant differences in our definitions of the term "philosophical basis".

Would you say that someone who poison their elderly uncle after learning they've been named the uncle's main heir just to get the inheritance sooner is doing so with a "philosophical basis"?




Depending on the norms and customs of a society it might be perfectly lawful to strike someone who disrespects you in some way. It might be a breach of etiquette to refuse to fight someone who challenges you.

Indeed, but in this case it would not be "arbitrary violence". "Etiquette demands I answer your challenge, even if personally I'd rather let this go" and "etiquette demands I answer your challenge, which is a good thing because I wanted a reason to break your skull" both are lawful mindsets.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Bard definitely is evil, not neutral.
2. Allowing a way out a time or 2 isn't a problem.
3. If the party wants to turn him in, that's up to them to decide to do and figure out how.
4. Most NPCs will be pretty morally neutral. And a blue dragon buying up land on the cheap sounds pretty reasonable to me.
5. If the party can't figure out that abducting women to probably be sex slaves of the king is not going to paint them as the good guys, I don't know what to tell you. Point 5 got a grin out of me. :smallsmile: And the king thinks they are the good guys, right? Doesn't that count for something? :smalleek:

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Point 5 got a grin out of me. :smallsmile: And the king thinks they are the good guys, right? Doesn't that count for something? :smalleek:

That is interesting. King Geoffery or however we spelt it was not good and may not of been a good king in most senses except trying to expand the kingdom.

I played it where he saw or recognized something in the party which made him think they'd take the assignment. Me personally I thought they'd take an assignment from one of his reasonable Generals and go attack the Thayans. Oops! The npc king understood them better than I.

I tell you, the saving grace may of been the Bard being absent the week the party found their target and our lady playing the lady rogue hitting it off with the target.

OMG, if I recall the rogue missed the week they took the kidnapping assignment. And double omg, a rogue was the voice of reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

That is interesting. King Geoffery or however we spelt it was not good and may not of been a good king in most senses except trying to expand the kingdom.

I played it where he saw or recognized something in the party which made him think they'd take the assignment. Me personally I thought they'd take an assignment from one of his reasonable Generals and go attack the Thayans. Oops! The npc king understood them better than I.

I tell you, the saving grace may of been the Bard being absent the week the party found their target and our lady playing the lady rogue hitting it off with the target.

OMG, if I recall the rogue missed the week they took the kidnapping assignment. And double omg, a rogue was the voice of reason.
I love the rogue being the voice of reason. :smallsmile:
Don't love 'could of' rather than 'could have' aka could've but that's a just a thing with me.