Am I the jerk here? Just finished a heated session.

[Spo]

Just want to grab others' perspective on what happened today during a session I just finished. I'll try to be concise.

Just finished a session with long time players (been playing with these guys for over 2 years and on the 7th session of this current campaign). We have the GM, Aritificier (my PC), Order Cleric and Blade Singer. All level 6 doing a hex crawl through the swamp with the mission to stop snake people from conducting anymore human sacrifices.

Party gets attacked at night by multiple (8) swarms of insects. Bladesinger turns invisible and runs and hides. Swarms attack the Artificier and cleric. After 5 rounds of combat, Artifier takes 26 damage, and cleric takes about 10. We finally kill bugs without without bladesingers help - he casts no spells because he didn't want to lose his invisibility.

In character Artiificer confronts Bladesinger about his inactivity and his reply was the insects were just looking for a meal and player says he doesn't want to be a "murder hobo like we always are". I counter that the meal they were looking for was his teammates and it's called self-defense when they attack us first." Player sighs and replies, "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then." The debate continues with him saying, "I'm just playing my character different now and his character respects all life."

We move on down the road and spot a patrol of 3 snake men. They move to attack but with the last discussion still in our minds we capture them with sleep spells and hold person. Tie them up and interrogate them with the aid of a zone of truth. They are part of the human sacrificing clan of snake people.

Artificier asks Bladesinger what do you want to do with them. If we release them they will run and get reinforcements to hunt us down. He replies let's knock them out to which the GM says that we know if we did that they would surely be eaten by something once we left the area (we have encountered crocs, bugs, snakes (large and small) and frog people in this place). Bladesinger then says "I'll let the order cleric decide". My question then to the Bladesinger was, what do you think the Order Cleric is going to want to do with these prisoners? He said, "kill them."

Am I a jerk for asking, "so you want someone else to do the dirty work so you can maintain moral superiority?" (BTW - this upset player who then told the the GM, "fine, my bladesinger chops off their heads.")

My thoughts were this was "role playing" with my neutral evil character interacting with the bladesinger - who has fought in every battle before todays' conflicts without hesitation (he usually does bladesong then fireball/firebolt staying at distance). We ended the session shortly afterwards with plans to resume action next week so this was not a game ending ordeal.

[Kane0]

(1)
"I'm just playing my character different now and his character respects all life."

(2)
Am I a jerk for asking, "so you want someone else to do the dirty work so you can maintain moral superiority?" (BTW - this upset player who then told the the GM, "fine, my bladesinger chops off their heads.")

(3)
My thoughts were this was "role playing" with my neutral evil character interacting with the bladesinger - who has fought in every battle before todays' conflicts without hesitation (he usually does bladesong then fireball/firebolt staying at distance).


1) Was this communicated at all beforehand? Its not anyone elses fault if the player suddenly decided to change their character differently and didnt tell anyone.

2) Perhaps, I err on the side of not risking antagonising players if possible. If antagonising the character is the goal then I make sure that is established and OKd by the players beforehand.

3) Alignment is no excuse. If your character has a problem with their character be extra careful that IC conflict does not spill into OoC conflict.

As always, best to have a chat with the player to clear the air and make arrangements going forward so it doesnt happen again and get worse the next time. Away from the group setting of course, you and/or the player can talk to the DM and other players separately afterwards.

[Waazraath]

Really can't answer the question, I think to honestly say something about that would require observation of the session, for tone of voice and all that.

Having said that, I think not participating in a fight (that's not exactly morally ambigious, like insect swarms attacking sleeping characters) is pretty bad teamplay. Both 'in character' (why would does somebody who has a problem with killing agressive bugs become an adventurer?) as well as out of character (team game, if you don't help your team mates something is going wrong, and not wanting to do anything due to not wanting to loose an invisibility spell is bad manner). Furhtermore, respoding to bugs trying to eat you by killing them is not what the term 'murderhobo' was coined for, I think.

[Rynjin]

So the player decides, out of the blue, 7 sessions into a campaign, that their character is not only a pacifist, but quite literally would not hurt a fly?

Unless this character was suddenly retired and started slowly making his way offscreen, using a broom to sweep his path and ensure no insects are harmed by his passage, I'm gonna say that my nostrils are filled with the earthy scent of field pies.

[Frogreaver]

Based solely off the details on your post (more details can change this).

1. That player was a jerk - not helping in a fight for your lives is t morally ambiguous. Even if it’s just trying to scare away the thing trying to eat your friends instead of kill them. That would have been fine.

2. You were not a jerk. You confronted in character and even were open to handling encounters differently going forward, by knocking out the snake people.


3. The DM was a jerk. There was no reason he couldn’t have allowed the plan not to kill them to work. Or provided some suggestion for how it could.

IMO, it sounds like the player wanted more roleplay with enemies and less fight to the death all the time and didn’t know how to express that to the group.

[Sparky McDibben]

IMO, it sounds like the player wanted more roleplay with enemies and less fight to the death all the time and didn’t know how to express that to the group.

Seconded. I recommend reaching out to that player. "Hey friend, seems like there was some frustration at our last session." Explain what's giving you that impression, and then just ask what kind of play experience they're looking for. They might have just been defensive over the swarm thing, too.

[CapnWildefyr]

This one is fraught with peril. First, not worth losing a friend over a game session. And without having been there, hard to say what's going on. Talk it out.

Having said that, the DM probably should have had the bugs keep attacking the bladesinger too -- they don't hunt by sight, but by scent, usually. Depends on the bugs I guess, or how they got there.

You could've pointed out that a humane death would've been better than letting them get eaten alive. Or ask what the penalty for "human" sacrifice is? Or the bladesinger could've said "Let's bring them along, they might still be useful. Maybe we can trade them for hostages." (And you could use them as meat shields.)

But it does sound like the bladesinger player needs to better communicate his roleplaying. And was there any chance he got charmed or something? Doesn't sound like it... but could the bladesinger be trying to roleplay having been turned?

[Valmark]

Honestly, in my standard IRL group said bladesinger might have been murdered (the character for obvious reasons) or ostracized because that was basically trying to murder the rest of the group (did the bladesinger at least warn the two of you?) and if you can't be trusted to be on the group's side you shouldn't be in the group.

Ooc, that would be the moment everybody stops and asks the player what the hell they are doing, including the DM. It's fine to have the character go through change, but if I understood correctly that was seemingly completely random. It would be important to iron out any possible issue that might have led the player to decide their character suddenly becomes a team-killing idiot ('cause you can't say all life matters if you're not gonna defend it, including your teammates. I call bull**** on that explanation).

In the snakemen situation it's more iffy. The way it's presented I'd say the player, not the character, definitely has something more going on that makes them want to play the character that way. I don't think they would have been upset otherwise for what seems to have been fairly plausible character talk. That said, if the bladesinger (the character, now) is fine with feeding the party to insects I wouldn't think it strange if they want somebody else to do the dirty work.

Tl;dr I'd say the player seems to have some unspoken issue, while the character should be dropped off at the nearest inhabitated non-hostile place. Since your character's evil the last specification may not be required.

[KorvinStarmast]

We finally kill bugs without without bladesingers help - he casts no spells because he didn't want to lose his invisibility. That's a jerk move right there. In a team of 3, having 1/3 of the team disappear as the fight begins is jerk move.

"Are you part of this team or not?" That's the question this person has to answer. Not sure how detailed your conversations have been with them, but from your narration they have not definitively answered that question yet.


he doesn't want to be a "murder hobo like we always are". That by itself isn't a problem, but it does indicate that the party needs a new session zero to iron out "how are we going to approach things As A Team." Small group cohesion usually goes through Forming, Storming, and Norming, before solidly Performing. You all are in the Storming phase.

GM wasn't being a jerk; you all could have left them tied up and knocked out. From the GM perspective here, if the swamp eats them{die roll?} so be it. If not, they'll eventually wake up, chew through the bonds, and then run back to their local clan/group. That means that the PCs are on a timer, in their own heads. (That's how my GM thinking on this situation would go).

Am I a jerk for asking, "so you want someone else to do the dirty work so you can maintain moral superiority?" Nope. You called it, and you called them out. Why are they adventuring with you if they have taken this new look at life? They need to answer that question both IC and OOC.
Time to retire the character or time for a new session 0 for the group.


My thoughts were this was "role playing" with my neutral evil character interacting with the bladesinger - who has fought in every battle before todays' conflicts without hesitation (he usually does bladesong then fireball/firebolt staying at distance). We ended the session shortly afterwards with plans to resume action next week so this was not a game ending ordeal.
You all need a new session 0. Your team has some fractures, player side, that could use some mending.

Unless this character was suddenly retired and started slowly making his way offscreen, using a broom to sweep his path and ensure no insects are harmed by his passage, I'm gonna say that my nostrils are filled with the earthy scent of field pies. Nicely put.

IMO, it sounds like the player wanted more roleplay with enemies and less fight to the death all the time and didn’t know how to express that to the group. Good point.

Honestly, in my standard IRL group said bladesinger might have been murdered (the character for obvious reasons) or ostracized because that was basically trying to murder the rest of the group (did the bladesinger at least warn the two of you?) and if you can't be trusted to be on the group's side you shouldn't be in the group. Yep.

Ooc, that would be the moment everybody stops and asks the player what the hell they are doing, including the DM. It's fine to have the character go through change, but if I understood correctly that was seemingly completely random. "Why are you an adventurer?" That's a question that some players never ask themselves.
('cause you can't say all life matters if you're not gonna defend it, including your teammates. I call bull**** on that explanation). Ooh, nice. :smallsmile:

I'd say the player seems to have some unspoken issue, while the character should be dropped off at the nearest inhabitated non-hostile place. Since your character's evil the last specification may not be required. Or the group might need to all consider how alignment influences their play, and include the DM in the discussion. Another thing to sit down and discuss in the next Session zero for this group.

[Amnestic]

In character Artiificer confronts Bladesinger about his inactivity and his reply was the insects were just looking for a meal and player says he doesn't want to be a "murder hobo like we always are". I counter that the meal they were looking for was his teammates and it's called self-defense when they attack us first." Player sighs and replies, "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then." The debate continues with him saying, "I'm just playing my character different now and his character respects all life."

It's at this point that the game should have stopped so you could talk it out without any sort of time pressure. There's nothing wrong with playing a character who wants to preserve life - that's basically the Redemption paladin's entire deal - but it's a sudden change which clearly the group both IC and OOC as not aware of. It's ideally the sort of thing where the player should have brought it up before the session even started to give them a heads up, and so you could talk through what it means for the group.

It's good that the player wants to do more than just kill everything they see, that sort of thing shouldn't be discouraged, just needs to make sure that everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet on it so no one's taken by surprise like this again.

[Keravath]

Based solely off the details on your post (more details can change this).

1. That player was a jerk - not helping in a fight for your lives is t morally ambiguous. Even if it’s just trying to scare away the thing trying to eat your friends instead of kill them. That would have been fine.

2. You were not a jerk. You confronted in character and even were open to handling encounters differently going forward, by knocking out the snake people.


3. The DM was a jerk. There was no reason he couldn’t have allowed the plan not to kill them to work. Or provided some suggestion for how it could.

IMO, it sounds like the player wanted more roleplay with enemies and less fight to the death all the time and didn’t know how to express that to the group.

I agreed with the first two .. not the third.

The DMs job is to adjudicate the player actions when interacting with the game world. The DM does not come up with a magical fairy that will safely imprison some evil creatures that perform humanoid sacrifices just because a player/character decides they don't want to kill them.

Player/character deciding they don't want to kill them is fine. However, it is incumbent on the players to come up with a solution that satisfies them within the world context.

In the middle of a jungle, filled with dangerous creatures, no assistants/NPCs available to be guards (the DM introducing a group of wandering guards who just happen to be in the same area at the same time and willing to take over some snake men prisoners would be an extremely unlikely event).

What are YOU going to do with evil prisoners that will kill you if they can, you can't take them with you and you feel guilty about leaving them behind. This is not on the DM to solve ... it is a player/character created situation and it is an aspect of emergent game play that the players/characters need to resolve.

P.S. As a player stuck in such a situation with these goals, I'd probably use ropes to suspend them in a tree. They will free themselves or not but at least they are less likely to die from large ground predators. In such a situation, giving the bad guys a chance is really all that the players/characters can reasonably ask for ... however, given the back story, the heinous crimes performed by these creatures and the stated alignment of at least some of the party members, I'd expect a more direct approach would fit this party.

[Jervis]

He really should have communicated that he wanted to make a run for it. These are random bugs, this isn’t a moral issue unless he’s playing a Buddhist priest style character who thinks killing insects is immoral, which is a level of passivism that honestly shouldn’t be in a dnd party tbh. As for the snake men it really did seem like he just wanted to keep on his high horse. Then again I play the sort of LG that’s the “The best thing you can do to a evil person is kill them, that way they can’t hurt anyone and they have fewer crimes to atone for in the afterlife” sort. So take that as you will.

[Keravath]

...
My thoughts were this was "role playing" with my neutral evil character interacting with the bladesinger - who has fought in every battle before todays' conflicts without hesitation (he usually does bladesong then fireball/firebolt staying at distance). We ended the session shortly afterwards with plans to resume action next week so this was not a game ending ordeal.

Just wondering ... but they wouldn't happen to be playing the only good character in an evil party would they?

I'm also wondering if some aspect of the play style simply got to them (as not being consistent with how they see their character) and they did not express their concern well. (Frogreaver suggested something similar). Or perhaps they had a bad day or were in a bad mood?

Alternatively, is there any chance this is a setup? Could the character have acquired a cursed magic item/sentient magic item/be a secret member of the snake cult/being blackmailed? - setup with or by the DM in a private chat? Standing aside to let some bugs attack the party and then convincing the party to use non-lethal damage to preserve the lives of the snake people - sounds almost like a party member trying to role play out becoming a forced supporter of the bad guys without letting the other players/characters know in game. If that is the case, then the entire issue is the DMs fault since setting up a PVP situation is never a good idea without the players agreeing or at least knowing it is possible. It can also be extremely frustrating for the player involved since they aren't supposed to tell the other players what is going on and as a result you get them making some really contradictory statements to justify the character actions since the change might not have been their idea.

[Burley]

I've been in similar situations:
One time, a (don't remember) caster in our group found a book and decided to sit down and read while the rest of us confronted the BBEG. Another party member (fighter or barbarian?) came back and slapped the caster in fury. The caster's player was so upset that he was hit, that his party "turned on" him, and he quit the group that week.
Another time, my own character (a gnome divine-caster who believed his power came from his prized collection of random stuff) sat out a kobold den because his wagon (containing all his possessions) was burned. While the party was slaughtering kobolds (we were too high level to bother, so, I, the player, didn't feel bad sitting it out), my character discovered that one of the rusty old swords in his wagon wasn't damaged and was a legendary weapon. Our tank was furious that they killed all the enemies, while I received the only magic item. And, even though the tank player and I were best friends, I kept the sword just to spite him. I dunno... it seemed funny at the time.


I guess, if I were to answer your original question "Are you the jerk?": I wouldn't say so, if events went down how you say they did. But, they never quite do, do they? Few people have the tact, in the moment, to avoid being jerky, especially when they're justifiably upset. I'd say, probably, you were both being jerks and that's why you're feeling so hot.

Since your character is "neutral" and the cleric is "order," I think its very reasonable to set some ground rules, in character, next session. If the bladesinger doesn't help, you'll find a new party member. Why adventure with somebody who inhibits your success by not even trying? Let them know that your small group relies heavily on everyone's contributions. If the bladesinger truly has become a pacifist caster with no support spells or abilities, they're a liability. Continue on without them and let the DM deal with the in-game ramifications.

The grain of salt here is: Even if you're correct, don't expect to be right. Sometimes, instead of fighting for logic, its best to lean into the chaos. If the bladesinger refuses to fight, you refuse to fight, too. Let the path you disagree with be the one you follow. It may highlight to the other player how their choices are affecting you, when its also affecting them.

[Mastikator]

Party gets attacked at night by multiple (8) swarms of insects. Bladesinger turns invisible and runs and hides. Swarms attack the Artificier and cleric. After 5 rounds of combat, Artifier takes 26 damage, and cleric takes about 10. We finally kill bugs without without bladesingers help - he casts no spells because he didn't want to lose his invisibility.
IMO this is borderline PVPing. If he wanted the conflict resolved peacefully he could invis the group and told them to hide. This is something you discuss with the group before combat starts "hey I think we should try non-violence in the future". To just bail on the group out of the blue is a big no-no.

[Segev]

Regardless of who was in the right or wrong here, I think your best bet is to set up a meeting with the other players and DM to discuss how you're going to play this going forward. As another person mentioned, a second "session 0," essentially.

Try your best to avoid recriminations, point out that it doesn't matter, OOC, who was right or wrong and that you're all ideally friends who want the game to be fun going forward. So put the argument behind you, as a group, and focus on what to expect going forwards. Bring up the possibility of IC conflict, and how it is to be handled. Nobody did more than level insults, unless you consider "not participating in a fight" doing something worse than that. And again, don't bring that up as recriminatory. Do explain that it's a problem and discuss how the party will handle it.

[Jak]

As others have said. Talk it out, have a new session zero. No one has to be the jerk.

Sometimes our game morals get weird, and we react in the moment. Doesn't mean someone is a jerk; the player may have gotten stuck in their own head. With some group think and talk while not at a game session, I'm sure it'll turn out okay.

[KorvinStarmast]

Try your best to avoid recriminations, point out that it doesn't matter, OOC, who was right or wrong and that you're all ideally friends who want the game to be fun going forward. Tip of the cap for taking the "new session zero" suggestion and expanding on it with helpful advice. :smallsmile:

[loki_ragnarock]

It's the suddenly abandoning their (newly found?) moral compass to behead them that strikes me as a bit jarring.


That said, most AITA things I see where there's enough details provided to adequately illustrate the larger situation, the answer is usually that everyone sucks. And most people suck when there isn't dedication to clear communication.

So... people on a forum can't really tell you with incomplete information. You're gonna have to talk to your table.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Spo: It is hard to know everyone's intentions from your retelling of what occurred, just because we weren't there to notice a lot of other things. It sounds like the player made a change in character without discussing it with the group.

But more importantly, it sounds like the player also does not know how to address the consequences in-game or out-of-game. Meaning, when confronted in-character about his actions, he immediately switches to out-of-character reactions (I don't want to be a murder-hobo, fine I'll behead them). Again, this is according to what you've told us and I recognize it's likely more nuanced than this.

But the point is that maybe there is only so far this player can take these interactions and doesn't know how to handle it beyond "I don't want to kill monsters anymore". It sounds like you and the other player made an attempt to change behavior to accommodate the other player's new behavior (and hopefully not to entrap him with a dilemma). I would have a new session zero as others have recommended and hash out what everyone is expecting and looking forward to and wants to avoid.

If the player wants to avoid violence to the point of pacificism, well, that is likely going to continue to be a problem.

[Segev]

It's the suddenly abandoning their (newly found?) moral compass to behead them that strikes me as a bit jarring.

IC/OOC conflation. The player isn't, personally, morally opposed to having fictional characters execute fictional enemies. After all, they're all fictional. He didn't play in character both ways. He was, OOC, saying, "Fine, I'll not play the non-murder-hobo I wanted to, and just have my PC kill them. We can be murder-hobos, since that's what I am asserting you must want since you're not letting me have my PC foist responsibility off on another PC." I am, honestly, probably being less charitable than I should be, as that's still not how the player likely saw it.

The player likely saw it in a sense of, "Okay, fine, if you're against me not playing a murder-hobo, I'll just drop RP and we can move on. So there." It was done in a snit. It was an OOC choice entirely, not an IC one at all, even though it involved the PC taking an IC action.

At least, that's my best guess as to the mindset/thought process. Such things happen when things get heated. Angry people do impulsive things. And no real harm was done, because it was a PC doing something to NPCs who, even if they were handed off to proper authorities or something, would likely never appear in the story again. THe only impact is on the characterization of the PCs. Which is what the argument is over, at least on the surface.

I suspect there's more boiling beneath what we're being shown. Sudden shifts to "I don't watn to be a murder-hobo" that involve refusal to take down insect swarms trying to kill your friends are...usually symptomatic, not the pure, unadulterated cause.

[Jerrykhor]

That guy sounds like a total ****.

Anyway, I never like people who deal with extremes, in d&d or IRL. Also, if he was so quick to compromise his principles, maybe he doesn't have much conviction to begin with.

I've had a DM who had a houserule that stated: "Your character must be one that can play nice with others. Don't make it unfun for others."

It was unnecessary for us of course, unless your party has a wangrod. But wangrods are a dime a dozen these days, and its the DMs job to spot them. I feel that DMs who just let that happen are kind of bad DMs as well. Too many just take the neutral stance and do nothing.

Also even in game, at some point it would make sense to question why would anyone travel with a guy who contributes nothing, and constantly clashes with the party. Roll up a new character Bob, or we will kick him out of the party.

[Segev]

That guy sounds like a total ****.

Anyway, I never like people who deal with extremes, in d&d or IRL. Also, if he was so quick to compromise his principles, maybe he doesn't have much conviction to begin with.

Again, I think this was more likely not his IC "not a murder hobo" acting "in character," so much as it was the OOC player saying, "Fine, if you are going to be [the way I perceive you as being] about this, I'll just BE a murder-hobo!"

The PC's convictions aren't in play at all in the swerve, because the player is making a point OOC.

[Frogreaver]

I agreed with the first two .. not the third.

The DMs job is to adjudicate the player actions when interacting with the game world. The DM does not come up with a magical fairy that will safely imprison some evil creatures that perform humanoid sacrifices just because a player/character decides they don't want to kill them.

Agree. If the players want a game world with less murder hoboing then the DM should jump on board. Many plausible things can happen. The particular one I had in mind was that they tied them up, their arms and bodies together and knocked them out. Nothing had to wander in to eat them before they escaped their bonds or found a way to work together to get up and walk back to their tribe.


Player/character deciding they don't want to kill them is fine. However, it is incumbent on the players to come up with a solution that satisfies them within the world context.

It's also incumbent on the DM to provide general knowledge and make decisions not just on what is most likely but what may be plausible. It's also incumbent on him to guide players to other potential options. 'you would know the ground predators would get them if you just tied them up'. The DM made an arbitrary decision that those guards would surely be eater which totally pushed one player outside his intended playstyle. That comes across as railroading to me.


In the middle of a jungle, filled with dangerous creatures, no assistants/NPCs available to be guards (the DM introducing a group of wandering guards who just happen to be in the same area at the same time and willing to take over some snake men prisoners would be an extremely unlikely event).

IMO, the most interesting fiction often doesn't regress to 'most likely', but instead unlikely but plausible. There's no guarantee a large predator comes upon them before they wake up and free themselves.


What are YOU going to do with evil prisoners that will kill you if they can, you can't take them with you and you feel guilty about leaving them behind. This is not on the DM to solve ... it is a player/character created situation and it is an aspect of emergent game play that the players/characters need to resolve.

It's for the DM to be open to the player solutions instead of only accepting 1 solution to the problem.


P.S. As a player stuck in such a situation with these goals, I'd probably use ropes to suspend them in a tree. They will free themselves or not but at least they are less likely to die from large ground predators. In such a situation, giving the bad guys a chance is really all that the players/characters can reasonably ask for ... however, given the back story, the heinous crimes performed by these creatures and the stated alignment of at least some of the party members, I'd expect a more direct approach would fit this party.

It's funny how you accept hanging them in a tree, but not tieing them up on the ground as being a plausible way of dealing with them.

[Corran]

Just want to grab others' perspective on what happened today during a session I just finished. I'll try to be concise.

Just finished a session with long time players (been playing with these guys for over 2 years and on the 7th session of this current campaign). We have the GM, Aritificier (my PC), Order Cleric and Blade Singer. All level 6 doing a hex crawl through the swamp with the mission to stop snake people from conducting anymore human sacrifices.

Party gets attacked at night by multiple (8) swarms of insects. Bladesinger turns invisible and runs and hides. Swarms attack the Artificier and cleric. After 5 rounds of combat, Artifier takes 26 damage, and cleric takes about 10. We finally kill bugs without without bladesingers help - he casts no spells because he didn't want to lose his invisibility.

In character Artiificer confronts Bladesinger about his inactivity and his reply was the insects were just looking for a meal and player says he doesn't want to be a "murder hobo like we always are". I counter that the meal they were looking for was his teammates and it's called self-defense when they attack us first." Player sighs and replies, "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then." The debate continues with him saying, "I'm just playing my character different now and his character respects all life."

We move on down the road and spot a patrol of 3 snake men. They move to attack but with the last discussion still in our minds we capture them with sleep spells and hold person. Tie them up and interrogate them with the aid of a zone of truth. They are part of the human sacrificing clan of snake people.

Artificier asks Bladesinger what do you want to do with them. If we release them they will run and get reinforcements to hunt us down. He replies let's knock them out to which the GM says that we know if we did that they would surely be eaten by something once we left the area (we have encountered crocs, bugs, snakes (large and small) and frog people in this place). Bladesinger then says "I'll let the order cleric decide". My question then to the Bladesinger was, what do you think the Order Cleric is going to want to do with these prisoners? He said, "kill them."

Am I a jerk for asking, "so you want someone else to do the dirty work so you can maintain moral superiority?" (BTW - this upset player who then told the the GM, "fine, my bladesinger chops off their heads.")

My thoughts were this was "role playing" with my neutral evil character interacting with the bladesinger - who has fought in every battle before todays' conflicts without hesitation (he usually does bladesong then fireball/firebolt staying at distance). We ended the session shortly afterwards with plans to resume action next week so this was not a game ending ordeal.
Sometimes characters are incompatible with one another, sometimes they are incompatible with the campaign. For example, playing a characer who never kills or use leathal force can be fine, but you'll want the DM backing up this style of play if you want to avoid any terrible consequences. Either way, it's not a big deal, so long as you roleplay it out. I wouldn't talk OoC at all in these scenes, and if the other player did I would urge them to stay in character. This kind of roleplaying can be enjoyable. But if it's not, or if you reach an impass, then and only then it's time to talk OoC (ie after exloring the roleplaying opportunity, cause you might find that you enjoy it). Decide what kind of game you want to play, and check with the DM that they are willing to support it, if you want that support that is (eg defeated enemies dont ambush you or get eaten by monsters; or they do ambush you or are eaten by monsters; figure out which between you and the DM, but make sure you are all playing the same kind of game if you want to avoid the tension).

[Easy e]

If you ever have to ask "If I was the jerk?" in a situation; then some sort of discussion is needed next with the people involved.

There is no right or wrong in this discussion. You only want to seek to understand.

[tokek]

In character Artiificer confronts Bladesinger about his inactivity and his reply was the insects were just looking for a meal and player says he doesn't want to be a "murder hobo like we always are". I counter that the meal they were looking for was his teammates and it's called self-defense when they attack us first." Player sighs and replies, "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then." The debate continues with him saying, "I'm just playing my character different now and his character respects all life."



When I read that paragraph I stopped thinking that this is about the session you think it is about - its about the previous sessions. I would suggest that the player is unhappy with what has been happening and they walked into this session already unhappy. This was their reaction to that. This reads like a player so unhappy with things that they are disengaging from the group and refusing to play along with whatever you have all been doing.

Its hard to know what that is about because you say nothing about what happened in the earlier sessions. All we can tell from this section is that those are where the roots of the problem lie.

Adding in another question here - have you all been playing evil parties before or is this your first run at playing evil?

[Tawmis]

If you ever have to ask "If I was the jerk?" in a situation; then some sort of discussion is needed next with the people involved.
There is no right or wrong in this discussion. You only want to seek to understand.

Pretty much this.

It always depends on the table, when things like this happen.

I was in a game, where the entire party had been captured. We were all in separate cages. The Rogue managed to get out of their cage, and didn't release the rest of us. Just went off sneaking into the tunnels to escape.

This was, in the end, in character. While the rest of the characters were in a dire situation, the players actually laughed about it. (The person playing the Rogue was very quirky in real life)

Another set of people, in the same exact situation, may not have laughed and had a bad time.

Personalities, of both the players, and the characters come into play.

[arnin77]

I definitely don’t agree with telling other people how to play their characters, in game or out; but that player was being kind of selfish. You might want to meet them half way and say, “we can try role playing more, but in a combat; if you run and hide and we don’t know where you are, we can’t guarantee something that can smell you or has blindsight won’t find you and kill your character without us being able to help. Splitting the party is very dangerous.”

It might be a good idea to ask the DM for more role playing opportunities on behalf of the other player too, so they feel like you are on their side. It sounds like the game itself is a bit hack and slash, so maybe they aren’t having fun and want some variety. I don’t agree with their methods, but I’m sure their feelings could be respected and addressed?

[Sigreid]

I'd say the discussion needed is about the difference between a murder hobo who kills out of greed, convenience or lols and killing because it's necessary to preserve your own life, the lives of friends or allies, or the innocent.

[CapnWildefyr]

I'd say the discussion needed is about the difference between a murder hobo who kills out of greed, convenience or lols and killing because it's necessary to preserve your own life, the lives of friends or allies, or the innocent.

Murderhobo vs killerhobo. There really is a difference.

But I still want to know if the guy got turned by the snake peeps. Getting charmed could explain a lot. Not that a player has to kill every in-world opponent encountered during the game, but to suddenly re-spin your moral compass without having had a formative encounter that causes reflection is an unusual roleplaying technique...

[TyGuy]

The only issue I see in what has been shared is the pacifist PC. It's usually a disruptive element in a game about heroic violence.

[Tawmis]

It could be fun to play a pacifist - but there's some expectations.
If you're an adventurer, you going to end up killing things. Doesn't mean you're a murder hobo. Self defense, in the fantasy would, usually meant violence.
A pacifist could roleplay, each attack, saying (in character, to things that can understand him), "I regret with all of my soul it has come to this. I wish there could be a way for this to end peacefully."
And insects and such, "My regret is you can not understand me, but are only seeking to do what you must to feed - but so too, must I defend myself and my friends."

[Rashagar]

I don't think anyone is a jerk here tbh. I just think communication is hard, and access to information is imperfect.

[Sigreid]

Murderhobo vs killerhobo. There really is a difference.

But I still want to know if the guy got turned by the snake peeps. Getting charmed could explain a lot. Not that a player has to kill every in-world opponent encountered during the game, but to suddenly re-spin your moral compass without having had a formative encounter that causes reflection is an unusual roleplaying technique...

Don't know if I'd call it killer hobo so much as practical. lol

Edit at the post above, a guy I used to work with liked to say that the biggest myth about communication is that it actually happens.

[Jervis]

It could be fun to play a pacifist - but there's some expectations.
If you're an adventurer, you going to end up killing things. Doesn't mean you're a murder hobo. Self defense, in the fantasy would, usually meant violence.
A pacifist could roleplay, each attack, saying (in character, to things that can understand him), "I regret with all of my soul it has come to this. I wish there could be a way for this to end peacefully."
And insects and such, "My regret is you can not understand me, but are only seeking to do what you must to feed - but so too, must I defend myself and my friends."
My issue is that at that point pacifism is kind of pointless. You come off very holier than thou. I’ve played and run games with pacifist characters plenty of times and to this day it’s the only character concept that’s never added to the fun in any way. In fact it almost universally causes more conflict in a party than anyone else at the table. In fact I had the displeasure of playing with someone who took the feat Vow of Peace in 3.5 once and everyone, and I mean everyone, at the table wanted to strangle the player by the end of it. To this day pacifist is one of only 3 character concepts i hard Veto in any dnd game I run. The other two are Goliath basketball player and Kender if you’re curious.

My point is that a game where 90% of the rules and class features are built around combat and most parties are made up of people that kill no less than 20 people a day on average isn’t exactly friendly to pacifists and that pacifists in universe probably shouldn’t go with a adventure party.

[Sigreid]

My issue is that at that point pacifism is kind of pointless. You come off very holier than thou. I’ve played and run games with pacifist characters plenty of times and to this day it’s the only character concept that’s never added to the fun in any way. In fact it almost universally causes more conflict in a party than anyone else at the table. In fact I had the displeasure of playing with someone who took the feat Vow of Peace in 3.5 once and everyone, and I mean everyone, at the table wanted to strangle the player by the end of it. To this day pacifist is one of only 3 character concepts i hard Veto in any dnd game I run. The other two are Goliath basketball player and Kender if you’re curious.

My point is that a game where 90% of the rules and class features are built around combat and most parties are made up of people that kill no less than 20 people a day on average isn’t exactly friendly to pacifists and that pacifists in universe probably shouldn’t go with a adventure party.

Had a GURPS character that the DM thought was a pacifist initially, but the truth was I dumped all her points into healing and manipulative abilities and she simply didn't have any offensive abilities at all. He realized she was not, in fact; a pacifist once she had obtained the loyalty of a tribe of lizard men and animated a skeletal servant. :smallbiggrin:

[Spo]

Thank you everyone for your insights into what happened to me yesterday! Let me address some points brought up.

Was he turned? He was not. Given our playstyle, prior communications amongst us and the parties involved, confident this was not the case.

Why the sudden change in playstyle? In the last session and beginning of this session, it was commented on that bladesinger may need an extra large map become he liked to shoot fireballs and run away (off the play map). Perhaps he was feeling self conscious about his cautious approach to combat. Given how the swarms were around his teammates, he could not use his fire ball antics (although he could still use sleep and fire bolt but that would have broken invisibility).

Was there poor communication? Definitely. Even the GM acknowledged that Bladesinger changed how his character played without any notice whatsoever and in the 5 combat rounds where he stayed invisibile, watching his teammates being attacked, he didn't relate to anyone his desires to save the bug's lives nor his overall intentions. When his turn came up he just said, "I stay where I am invisible and don't do anything else."

To be honest, it is my opinion that player didn't think he would be called out for his cowardice and started scrambling for reasons for not helping out. He was being intentionally obtuse. After the battle, Artificer inquired with Cleric about the whereabouts of Bladesinger (after the player said he was going to remain invisible and continue hiding until the spell wore off (1 hour)). When Artificier started calling his name out and wanting to search for him, Bladesinger appeared and said the bugs were just looking for a meal. When I pointed out his teammates were the meal, then he said we could have done things like run away (into the swamp, away from the camp fire, in difficult terrain). I countered that he could have casted sleep on the bugs then. It was faced with that logic that he could have done other things that would be aligned to his new found way of thinking, that the player then started to play the victim card of being cornered by saying "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then".

[Jervis]

Had a GURPS character that the DM thought was a pacifist initially, but the truth was I dumped all her points into healing and manipulative abilities and she simply didn't have any offensive abilities at all. He realized she was not, in fact; a pacifist once she had obtained the loyalty of a tribe of lizard men and animated a skeletal servant. :smallbiggrin:

Playing a campaign of Gurps is on my RPG bucket list, right between playing Ascendent and playing in a anime rpg set in HunterxHunter, One Piece, and or Naruto.

[Leon]

These are random bugs, this isn’t a moral issue unless he’s playing a Buddhist priest style character who thinks killing insects is immoral, which is a level of passivism that honestly shouldn’t be in a dnd party tbh.

It can work quite well but its something you have to plan around the idea rather than have it randomly in the middle of a active adventure

[Reach Weapon]

It may be worth running through how you'd approach things if you postulate you were the jerk. Would you need to sacrifice anything you'd be loath to lose?

You said this is a group you've been playing with for years; were the reactions of the Bladesinger's Player in keeping with their usual demeanor and attitudes? Unless they've always kinda sucked, it seems like, if nothing else, you missed an opportunity to be a friend.

[Keravath]

It's also incumbent on the DM to provide general knowledge and make decisions not just on what is most likely but what may be plausible. It's also incumbent on him to guide players to other potential options. 'you would know the ground predators would get them if you just tied them up'. The DM made an arbitrary decision that those guards would surely be eater which totally pushed one player outside his intended playstyle. That comes across as railroading to me.


It could be. On the other hand, neither of us have any idea what that particular game world is like. The jungle could be a very dangerous place such that a defenseless creature is unlikely to last more than an hour (think biting insect swarms, ground predators and scavengers, who knows what). I agree that an off the cuff "They will die if left tied up" leaves few options but maybe that is what the game world is like.




It's for the DM to be open to the player solutions instead of only accepting 1 solution to the problem.


Sure. However, from the sounds of it the players didn't come up with any other solutions. They suggested leaving them tied up on the ground. The DM says they will likely die. Players don't suggest anything else and switch to lopping heads off instead. That isn't the DM's fault in my opinion. The DM isn't supposed to tell the characters solutions that might work, only tell them what their characters would know about solutions the players suggest. In this case, the DM says that if they are left on the ground tied up they will likely die.




It's funny how you accept hanging them in a tree, but not tieing them up on the ground as being a plausible way of dealing with them.

Lol. The DM already said they would likely die if left tied up on the ground. I just proposed a simple solution (which the party could have asked about if they actually tried to come up with solutions) that might result in the captives living longer by removing them from some of the danger. On the other hand, the trees could be infested with giant snakes that make them as dangerous as the ground but at least it was another suggestion. Other options could be - look for a cave you can seal off to hide them away in - see if you could build a shelter of some sort from wood or local materials that would keep them alive - see if there is a plateau or other terrain feature nearby where it would be safer to leave them ... lots of options for the party to suggest when a DM says their first idea of leaving them tied up on the ground is likely for them to wind up dead.

However, by the time the party was trying to come up with ways to save the snake people - it was pretty clear that the entire session had already gone sideways and that at least one of the characters really didn't see why the party should put any effort into saving the evil, humanoid sacrificing snake people - most of the party really wasn't invested in figuring out how to save these creatures. As a result, when the player who wanted to save them found that their first idea wouldn't work they weren't motivated to explore alternatives.

[Pex]

The absolute pacifist is as bad as kill everything. Combat is part of the game. You don't have to kill. It's perfectly fine to play the support character who buffs party members, debuffs enemies, alters terrain. You need never roll a die for damage, though it means playing a spellcaster. You help the party in combat, not run away to hide or even worse take the treasure meant as party loot for yourself while everyone else does the fighting.

[elyktsorb]

It's the kind of situation where if I didn't know the people well, I'd probably just dip, there are enough dnd campaigns on the internet where I don't have to share one with someone who just suddenly decided to be a curmudgeon, or if they were being 'meh' already and now doing that. Either way. I understand a lot of the forum people are about communicating to a group to work things out, but I find that when you try to bring this stuff up, it usually just ends up making the one person get worse, or leave themselves.

The entirety of the insect encounter is just a foul move. And his response to why he didn't do anything is just asking for a 'alright, the next time an animal decides to attack you we'll let it because obviously them getting a meal is more important than your characters life, at least, that's what your telling us in this moment'

The snake people encounter I think killing them was probably the best option as opposed to letting them be eaten alive. I mean the 'moral' option would have been to take them with the party till they reach a point they can do something with them, of course that involves a lot of other stuff, and outside of Lawful Good, most regular people would just be like. 'Yeah we'd better just kill them'

[Sigreid]

It's the kind of situation where if I didn't know the people well, I'd probably just dip, there are enough dnd campaigns on the internet where I don't have to share one with someone who just suddenly decided to be a curmudgeon, or if they were being 'meh' already and now doing that. Either way. I understand a lot of the forum people are about communicating to a group to work things out, but I find that when you try to bring this stuff up, it usually just ends up making the one person get worse, or leave themselves.

The entirety of the insect encounter is just a foul move. And his response to why he didn't do anything is just asking for a 'alright, the next time an animal decides to attack you we'll let it because obviously them getting a meal is more important than your characters life, at least, that's what your telling us in this moment'

The snake people encounter I think killing them was probably the best option as opposed to letting them be eaten alive. I mean the 'moral' option would have been to take them with the party till they reach a point they can do something with them, of course that involves a lot of other stuff, and outside of Lawful Good, most regular people would just be like. 'Yeah we'd better just kill them'

He probably just didn't think of anything he thought would be useful to do and didn't want to own up to that. TBH, if you don't have access to a safe AOE attack, swarms are pretty hard to fight against. I'd rather fight a werewolf most of the time.

[Tawmis]

My issue is that at that point pacifism is kind of pointless. You come off very holier than thou.


But there are those kinds of people in the world. That come off as holier than thou.
Now, first - I will say, it seems in the OP's case - the Bladesinger switched with no reason to become this pacifist.
That's an issue, if there isn't a reason (were they charmed, did they witness some traumatic event that rocked them to their core, etc)
But out the gate, pacifist type character - I think, should be fine. Because, as I said, those "holier than thou" people exist.
And character wise, if RP'ed correctly, could provide some good banter between characters, if the players know how to bounce off of it.



I’ve played and run games with pacifist characters plenty of times and to this day it’s the only character concept that’s never added to the fun in any way. In fact it almost universally causes more conflict in a party than anyone else at the table. In fact I had the displeasure of playing with someone who took the feat Vow of Peace in 3.5 once and everyone, and I mean everyone, at the table wanted to strangle the player by the end of it. To this day pacifist is one of only 3 character concepts i hard Veto in any dnd game I run. The other two are Goliath basketball player and Kender if you’re curious.


Wasn't aware basketball player was a thing in D&D...
And Kender, I get it.
Because again, people play Kender incorrectly and look for it as an excuse to steal everything.
And if they're at all familiar with Dragonlance, that's not how a Kender is.
It's unconscious actions when they do it - so, things just "fall into their pouch."
So the DM should be the one determining what the Kender has "taken" rather than the player saying, "Oh, Dave got a shiny dagger? Can I try to steal it?"
But that's how I DM'ed Kender, to prevent the clepto feel.



My point is that a game where 90% of the rules and class features are built around combat and most parties are made up of people that kill no less than 20 people a day on average isn’t exactly friendly to pacifists and that pacifists in universe probably shouldn’t go with a adventure party.

Ah, but just because the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" - is all that you explore - just Dungeons and fight Dragons?
Of course not.
Because you'd need some variety.
I am not saying "You're wrong!" By no means. Different players, different DMs, all have their different styles.
I even have two different styles between two D&D games I am running.
There's one I call the "work game" - where the party hasn't gotten much in the way of magic items, the characters, definitely struggle.
There's the off week game, as I call it, where I am far more willy nilly. Hand out magic items. Sessions are all improv. And it's three of the six same people from the work game.

Whatever makes it fun for the table is what matters the most.

[elyktsorb]

He probably just didn't think of anything he thought would be useful to do and didn't want to own up to that. TBH, if you don't have access to a safe AOE attack, swarms are pretty hard to fight against. I'd rather fight a werewolf most of the time.

Yeah but the follow up of the bugs being justified is what makes it bad. If you just own it then it's fine, and clearly it wasn't just that alone as evidenced by the next bit.

[Jervis]

-snip-

For context the Goliath is because of a single particularly bad player who made a annoying character based around improvised weapon damage that threw all of his money into enchanting a rock so he could be a professional player at some Goliath sport from some book or something. That in and of itself isn’t the reason he was annoying, it was more the fact he brought a Feral Goliath to games and complained about other players MinMaxing, appointed himself as the team leader and got angry when people didn’t go along with his half baked plans unquestioningly, had a massive case of main character syndrome, went on the biggest tantrum I’ve ever seen after a character with 8 AC died to a pair of full attacks he did nothing to avoid, and generally made everyone around him miserable whenever they tried to do anything but attack the enemy and pass turn so he could take 3 minutes to figure out what his bonus to attack rolls was. The fact I specifically ban Goliath barbarians/improvised attackers is because seeing a dumb Goliath makes me want to plop my Tiamat token on the table and end the campaign immediately. That’s not fair to any player who just wants to play a Goliath that hits things so I tell them that in advance. So just a case of a single that guy so bad his favorite character concept makes me want to go full Gygax and burn every character sheet in 30 miles now.

Oh, and Kender. A DM just having things show up in your inventory takes away player agency IMO and role playing them in a lore accurate way just makes them annoying for everyone else in the party. They’re sort of the designated kleptomaniac race and the idea of a entire species like that existing in a setting raises too many questions I don’t want to answer about how people react to them so I just say they don’t exist. They’re a Dragonlance thing anyway so saying they aren’t a thing in my settings is a pretty easy way to deal with it.

As for the stuff about pacifists that’s fair enough. They just tend to drag down most games in my experience and usually raises the questions of why they’re in this party to begin with to me.

[NecessaryWeevil]

So probably nobody was the jerk here; I agree with what other people have said about being a team player and about communication. But I think I can see it from the other player's perspective:
They try to be a total pacifist and get criticized for it. So, next fight, they try to find a happy medium: let's take them out nonlethally and then leave them tied up. Nope, they'll die. Fine, I won't get in the way, I'll let the other players decide. Nope, that's not good enough either; we're gonna criticize you again, and force you, the guy who's trying to be a pacifist, to get blood on your hands. If they were already feeling frustrated / defensive, I can see why they'd take it poorly.

[kingcheesepants]

It feels like that guy was being kinda ingenuous. He goes invisible and then rather than saying "hey let's run" or asking to make an animal handling check to throw some rations or something to distract the animals he just sits there and doesn't do anything. You don't want to fight the animals, fine but you still have to help your team or at least tell them what's going on. And then when they captured the Yuan-ti he gave up basically immediately when the DM said yeah tying them up and leaving them in the swamp is as good as a death sentence. Did he suggest talking to them when they came around so that maybe they could convince them to leave them in peace? It sounds like he didn't float a single idea at all aside from leave them tied up and then leave it to the rest of the party if that's no good. The guy isn't trying to be a non murder hobo he's just being a selfish fool.

[Mastikator]

Murderhobo vs killerhobo. There really is a difference.

But I still want to know if the guy got turned by the snake peeps. Getting charmed could explain a lot. Not that a player has to kill every in-world opponent encountered during the game, but to suddenly re-spin your moral compass without having had a formative encounter that causes reflection is an unusual roleplaying technique...

What's a killerhobo?

[Amnestic]

What's a killerhobo?

It's a murderhobo with a license to kill.

[tokek]

The absolute pacifist is as bad as kill everything. Combat is part of the game. You don't have to kill. It's perfectly fine to play the support character who buffs party members, debuffs enemies, alters terrain. You need never roll a die for damage, though it means playing a spellcaster. You help the party in combat, not run away to hide or even worse take the treasure meant as party loot for yourself while everyone else does the fighting.

This is true but the OP is sort of avoiding the question of why someone they have played with for a long time is suddenly like this.

As per the initial post they have played with this other player for a while but this is a new campaign. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines here too much but i think that player is not enjoying this campaign at all and that's probably for a number of reasons. A hex crawl can turn into a grinding apparently pointless murder-fest very easily and their responses about murderhobo (plus the evil character factor) both indicate that this is much further along that spectrum than they find enjoyable.

Sometimes you have to step back from a thing that annoys you at the table and ask if its happening for a reason.

[Keravath]

It could be fun to play a pacifist - but there's some expectations.
If you're an adventurer, you going to end up killing things. Doesn't mean you're a murder hobo. Self defense, in the fantasy would, usually meant violence.
A pacifist could roleplay, each attack, saying (in character, to things that can understand him), "I regret with all of my soul it has come to this. I wish there could be a way for this to end peacefully."
And insects and such, "My regret is you can not understand me, but are only seeking to do what you must to feed - but so too, must I defend myself and my friends."

I met one person who played a complete pacifist. As far as I know they never took any action against another creature directly though they did seem to believe in the motivations of those they assisted. They played a life cleric. They healed, supported the party, blessed and were generally very effective in that role. However, when combat happened they stood as far away as possible. It was an interesting play style to watch and everyone at the table was aware of how the character would be played so it worked fine. Last I heard the character was in tier 4, possibly level 20 - without actually killing anything :)

[Sigreid]

Yeah but the follow up of the bugs being justified is what makes it bad. If you just own it then it's fine, and clearly it wasn't just that alone as evidenced by the next bit.

People do weird things to save face.

[KorvinStarmast]

It was faced with that logic that he could have done other things that would be aligned to his new found way of thinking, that the player then started to play the victim card of being cornered by saying "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then".Bladesinger needs to learn Wil Wheaton's rule. :smallyuk:

Now, first - I will say, it seems in the OP's case - the Bladesinger switched with no reason to become this pacifist. Which is of course player being a hypocrite.
I choose the magical school, Bladesinger, that emphasizes my skill with a sword, fused with magic. (That is a combat/fighting wizard school). Oh, but wait, I am a pacifist.
Someone needs a tap on the noggin with a clue bat.

[da newt]

Sorry - I didn't read all the replies - but from the first few:

This is a great time for a time out - stop the game - stop the RP - lets talk this through Player to Player.

With no accusation of 'you are wrong' or anything like that (because folks get defensive when confronted), it's time for a 'hey what's going on here? - I'm not sure, lets talk about this.'

These sorts of (moral) dilemmas can become contentious. What about teamwork? What about team defense? Can my guy count on your guy in a fight or will your guy become a pacifist / combat liability who abandons his 'friends'? Is this an opportunity for some interesting conversations in character about morality and goals etc?

Any discussion that starts with an accusation of 'you did X wrong' is hard to overcome - a better tactic may be 'this is interesting - what are you going for? How can I lean into this thread?' etc ...

I've had campaigns sort of implode as the various PC's had differences of ideals and it can lead to very tense Player issues if it isn't handled early and maturely / kindly.

[Spo]

.
I choose the magical school, Bladesinger, that emphasizes my skill with a sword, fused with magic. (That is a combat/fighting wizard school). Oh, but wait, I am a pacifist.
Someone needs a tap on the noggin with a clue bat.

I think this is where I am making the mistake. I assumed by him playing Bladesinger that his style would be more in-line with the sterotypical Sword/Magic user/using spells to supplement melee prowess. Instead, he, I believe, chose bladesinger for the AC bump but still fights at range with fireball and firebolt. Our 4th player, a bear totem barbarian failed to show up last session so without that safety net of a tank/meat shield, perhaps the possibility of his character getting hurt was too much for him?

[Tanarii]

If you have to write a forum post about it, the answer is always yes.

The thing that jumped out at me, as a DM, is that the DM fell into the classic problem of forcing the PCs to kill captives with their answer. I've made the mistake of not considering what the PCs will do with captives before. And if you tell them pragmatic details in an attempt to be impartial, you are effectively telling the player "just kill them already".


Murderhobo vs killerhobo. There really is a difference.
Murderhobo vs Murderhero.

[Rynjin]

Remember kids: bandits do not have rights under the law (hence the term "outlaw"), so you are technically incapable of "murdering" a bandit.

[CapnWildefyr]

What's a killerhobo?


It's a murderhobo with a license to kill.


If you have to write a forum post about it, the answer is always yes.

The thing that jumped out at me, as a DM, is that the DM fell into the classic problem of forcing the PCs to kill captives with their answer. I've made the mistake of not considering what the PCs will do with captives before. And if you tell them pragmatic details in an attempt to be impartial, you are effectively telling the player "just kill them already".


Murderhobo vs Murderhero.

Murder is killing without justification (in the eyes of society at least). Killing because you enjoy it vs killing in self-defense. Killing because you're mad over cold oatmeal (I mean who wouldn't be? :smallwink:) vs executing a traitor who got condemned after he got your city invaded and 500 people dead. So a killerhobo would be someone who roams around killing, but not indiscriminately, not wantonly. Basically, most DnD characters. You go to an area, there is a problem that can be solved by violence, you solve it with violence. Doesn't mean you wouldn't try a non-violent solution.

[Amnestic]

The thing that jumped out at me, as a DM, is that the DM fell into the classic problem of forcing the PCs to kill captives with their answer. I've made the mistake of not considering what the PCs will do with captives before. And if you tell them pragmatic details in an attempt to be impartial, you are effectively telling the player "just kill them already".


Only if they want the easy route. Of course keeping prisoners safe, secure and alive (fed/watered) until you can drag them back to civilisation is going to seem less enticing once you list out the reasons why that will be difficult in the relevant situation.

The players should still be able to make that choice in an informed manner. 9 times out of 10 I expect the answer to still be kill them, because that's generally the lawful punishment that the prisoners would receive anyway and you're just speeding the process along - but speaking from experience they don't always. I've seen parties simply let captives go with what amounts to a stern warning. It helped that they absolutely dominated them in the fight leading up to their capture, like it wasn't even a challenge, but still.

[CapnWildefyr]

Thank you everyone for your insights into what happened to me yesterday! Let me address some points brought up.

Was he turned? He was not. Given our playstyle, prior communications amongst us and the parties involved, confident this was not the case.

Why the sudden change in playstyle? In the last session and beginning of this session, it was commented on that bladesinger may need an extra large map become he liked to shoot fireballs and run away (off the play map). Perhaps he was feeling self conscious about his cautious approach to combat. Given how the swarms were around his teammates, he could not use his fire ball antics (although he could still use sleep and fire bolt but that would have broken invisibility).

Was there poor communication? Definitely. Even the GM acknowledged that Bladesinger changed how his character played without any notice whatsoever and in the 5 combat rounds where he stayed invisibile, watching his teammates being attacked, he didn't relate to anyone his desires to save the bug's lives nor his overall intentions. When his turn came up he just said, "I stay where I am invisible and don't do anything else."

To be honest, it is my opinion that player didn't think he would be called out for his cowardice and started scrambling for reasons for not helping out. He was being intentionally obtuse. After the battle, Artificer inquired with Cleric about the whereabouts of Bladesinger (after the player said he was going to remain invisible and continue hiding until the spell wore off (1 hour)). When Artificier started calling his name out and wanting to search for him, Bladesinger appeared and said the bugs were just looking for a meal. When I pointed out his teammates were the meal, then he said we could have done things like run away (into the swamp, away from the camp fire, in difficult terrain). I countered that he could have casted sleep on the bugs then. It was faced with that logic that he could have done other things that would be aligned to his new found way of thinking, that the player then started to play the victim card of being cornered by saying "fine, I'll just play a murder hobo then".

I did see you replied and answered the questions.:smallsmile:

Yeah, in that case the other player turned up the Jerk Dial a bit, but as someone else said above, maybe he's just afraid his character is weaker than he thought and can't help out in a situation like that? I'm a forgiving sort, maybe once more talk through how he can contribute and not let everyone else get killed.

And unless he changes, let him fight his own battles. Maybe when you're fighting 2 snake peeps at once, suggest to one opponent that the wizard is not armored...

This is one reason I like alignments. It gives the DM a compact tool to tell the player that they are not running their character like they designed it. Which can be fine btw, you can change/evolve however you want -- alignment to me is a guidepost, like a different kind of bond.

Maybe he needs a nickname. Is he an elf? What's the elvish word for "Chicken"?