Murder Hobo advice

[MadBear]

Hi all,

So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.

On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.

What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

[Pyrophilios]

Revenants. Revenants with diseases. Revenants that come back no matter how often you have killed them - preferably just after the players have fought another battle.

[JLandan]

Hi all,

So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.

On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.

What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

It is most likely kids being kids. Back in the 70s we did some awful things in D&D land.

A suggestion: Start a new game with new PCs. The story line is they are hired or assigned by higher power to investigate the family's deaths and deal with the culprits. Present them with the horrible actions they've done, and see what, as new PCs, they do about it.

[MadBear]

It is most likely kids being kids. Back in the 70s we did some awful things in D&D land.

A suggestion: Start a new game with new PCs. The story line is they are hired or assigned by higher power to investigate the family's deaths and deal with the culprits. Present them with the horrible actions they've done, and see what, as new PCs, they do about it.

That's an interesting idea. I kinda like that.

It is 100% kids looking to be super edgy kids, which is why I'm looking for a way to get them to be better players without an outright "rocks fall you die" response.


Revenants. Revenants with diseases. Revenants that come back no matter how often you have killed them - preferably just after the players have fought another battle.

Hmm, I've never thought of using Revenants that way. I think I'll keep that in the back pocket for now, and use it if they insist on being pure murder hobos.

[KittenMagician]

on top of the revenants maybe one of them is taken and turned into a vengeful death knight. make the consequences for their actions be the BBEG. death knights can royally f*** s*** up.

[Yakmala]

I generally let my players know up front that most adventurers are considered heroes. But if you act like a villain, you will be treated like a villain.

Harming or killing villagers gets the town guards on your case. If you are too tough for the town guards, the town leadership will put out wanted posters both in the local village and in other nearby villages, towns and cities. Groups of good aligned adventurers of increasingly greater power level will start showing up to deal with you.

Congrats, murder hobo, you are now someone else's quest.

Alternately, you call on the popular trope from the fantasy genre that high level adventurers that survive eventually retire and open shops or taverns.
That friendly old couple running the potions shop might actually be level 20 wizards. The guy working the bar at the tavern might have once been a level 20 vengeance paladin. Harass them at your peril!

[DaPenguin]

Have the town guard investigate the missing family. Perhaps there becomes rumors around town and if they find out the PCs did it, because they were sloppy, some NPCs might be entirely unwilling to work with them as they are murderers. Perhaps they get recognized and attempted to be recruited by some evil group who wants murderers but more reputable groups like say Adventurer guilds don't allow them to get quests any longer.

This is not meant as a punishment, but as a natural reaction to those players taking evil actions, or at the very least unlawful (law of the land not the alignment) actions. They go from potential heroes on quests to wanted criminals who must hide their identities to go sell stuff or have the one member of the party who is still viewed in a positive light (because maybe they are not viewed as part of the group) has to be in charge of buying, selling, and procuring items in some cases. Some towns though may still welcome them especially if those towns are controlled by selfish oligarchs who want someone willing to commit murder without question.

Then lead them down a questionable path that slowly descends into more and more evil, after all someone willing to kill children and the innocent in many people's eyes will be willing to do just about anything for the right reason (money or otherwise).

Lean into it and make them decide what line their PC will draw and shift their alignments as nessecary.

[Jervis]

Hi all,

So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.

On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.

What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

Easy. It’s been said already but having the kid raise as a ghost and haunt him is a great way to handle this. Most murder hobos come from a lack of player buy in and lack of consequences. Just have the kid show up with a gaping stab wound is a good approach. Likewise having some random hobo murder his favorite pet is some fair karma.

[MadBear]

Most murder hobos come from a lack of player buy in and lack of consequences.

This is definitely true of most murder hobos, but this student and his friend are a weird breed of murder hobo. His friend, I ended up doing a rocks fall you die as DM, when he decided that in the middle of the night he was going to use his knife to slash the throats of every other students characters because "My character hates humans, so he's going to murder all these humans". When I explained that he was apart of a group, and this was going to cause the entire session to end if the rest of the players were killed he just responded "so what, it's what my character would do, I'm just being true to him". At that moment, a bolt of lightning hit his character instakilling him. I then let him know his next character needed to be willing to work with the party.

Both of them, are having most their fun in purposefully being as awful as they can be. I've definitely had my fair share of teenage angst, where you make morally dubious decisions, but these two currently are explicitly killing children to feed to monsters because 1. It's fun and funny and 2. It's what my character would do.

So I think I'm gonna start with putting up some wanted posters that has his face on it, and we'll move from there. (with the end goal being their targeted by revenants, ghosts, and worse if they don't change).

[Kurt Kurageous]

IMO as a guy who did what you did (D&D Club, high school) and dealt with the appearances and playstyle of the inevitable edge lords...

You are the DM, you are the teacher. This is, I imagine, some of your the students first experience with our hobby. Do you see the un-fun on the faces of the other players at the table? Do you think this will turn them off of D&D/RPGs, perhaps forever? You have a responsibility to the players, yourself, and ultimately to the game. For the sake of the game, talk to the ones making it un-fun.

They need to know it's not fun for everyone. If they are unwilling to do that, then suggest they find/become a DM who wants to run with that kind of setting. But I assume your game is about heroes, not video game avatars living in a consequence-free world. If they don't get it, they have to go.

Not having a problem per se with that style is ignoring the context of your game. This goes way beyond the scope of simple in-game consequences.

My game attracted many socially marginalized students who needed the group to help them learn how to interact with others. They needed shelter from others who would browbeat, dominate, and assert their will over them. You are that shelter. You are the DM, you are the teacher. What kind of game are you going to allow to happen? What kind of play are you rewarding?

[Demonslayer666]

If this isn't fun for you and the type of game you want to run, discuss some limits with them outside of game, rather than trying to handle it in game.

"It's what my character would do" is code for "I don't want to defend my character's actions".

[KorvinStarmast]

"It's what my character would do" is code for "I don't want to defend my character's actions". My suggestion: sit the student down, OOC, and explain what My Guy syndrome is and why it's bad behavior. I further suggest that you have them read the "making the tough decisions (https://web.archive.org/web/20181101075646/https://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)" article by Rich Burlew. (It's no longer on this site, it's somewhere on the wayback machine).

No character can act unless the player makes a choice for them, so you need to tell me why you are making that choice for that character.


Really, that's 90% of what a player does in a roleplaying game; he or she makes decisions. But too often, players fall into the mistaken belief that certain decisions are not really theirs to make, or are foregone conclusions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

=================

You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

[XmonkTad]

My game attracted many socially marginalized students who needed the group to help them learn how to interact with others. They needed shelter from others who would browbeat, dominate, and assert their will over them. You are that shelter. You are the DM, you are the teacher. What kind of game are you going to allow to happen? What kind of play are you rewarding?

This brings up a good point. You may not have a player with the best social skills. Depending on how comfortable you feel, RPGs do have some evidence behind them for teaching social skills. I believe "clinical roll" did some work on this, but my google-fu is failing me. Of course, this should not be done at the expense of the other players.

[Kurt Kurageous]

This brings up a good point. You may not have a player with the best social skills. Depending on how comfortable you feel, RPGs do have some evidence behind them for teaching social skills. I believe "clinical roll" did some work on this, but my google-fu is failing me. Of course, this should not be done at the expense of the other players.

https://nerdarchy.com/growing-the-dd-community-with-clinical-rolls-dr-megan-connell/

I'm thinking this is what you were thinking of.

[XmonkTad]

https://nerdarchy.com/growing-the-dd-community-with-clinical-rolls-dr-megan-connell/

I'm thinking this is what you were thinking of.
Yes! Dr. Connell! She has done some good work, and there are some papers backing up her approach. Replicating her approach might be difficult, but might be worth the effort?

[Willowhelm]

This is definitely true of most murder hobos, but this student and his friend are a weird breed of murder hobo. His friend, I ended up doing a rocks fall you die as DM, when he decided that in the middle of the night he was going to use his knife to slash the throats of every other students characters because "My character hates humans, so he's going to murder all these humans".

The other advice here might be good but might not be practical for your situation. No idea. I don’t envy you though.

This isn’t something where strangers can’t give you a correct answer because we cannot know all the complexities of the situation and what is up with this kid.

But why not let this play out?

He tries to do his murder plan. Insta-kill doesn’t really work in 5e unless you want to. So one PC takes damage (potentially), wakes up… all PCs now awake and he is standing with a bloody knife over his party member. Equally it can be as simple as a session 0 (or now) rule saying no PC on PC fighting (for all the social reasons and also because dnd’s rules are not balanced for it).

Actions have consequences. His character would not survive and/or stay with the party… lesson learned?

The party is also going to be more suspicious and less trusting of sketchy behaviour with a new member after that so his new character would probably need to be a little better behaved etc etc.

Murder hobo game play gets murder hobo consequences. Have fun role playing your character being put in jail and sentenced to death (assuming they don’t fight the guards and die immediately) while the rest of the party goes and has an adventure.

But that’s just my approach. Lean into it, show (don’t tell) how being a **** to those around you doesn’t work out well.

[Keravath]

This is definitely true of most murder hobos, but this student and his friend are a weird breed of murder hobo. His friend, I ended up doing a rocks fall you die as DM, when he decided that in the middle of the night he was going to use his knife to slash the throats of every other students characters because "My character hates humans, so he's going to murder all these humans". When I explained that he was apart of a group, and this was going to cause the entire session to end if the rest of the players were killed he just responded "so what, it's what my character would do, I'm just being true to him". At that moment, a bolt of lightning hit his character instakilling him. I then let him know his next character needed to be willing to work with the party.

Both of them, are having most their fun in purposefully being as awful as they can be. I've definitely had my fair share of teenage angst, where you make morally dubious decisions, but these two currently are explicitly killing children to feed to monsters because 1. It's fun and funny and 2. It's what my character would do.

So I think I'm gonna start with putting up some wanted posters that has his face on it, and we'll move from there. (with the end goal being their targeted by revenants, ghosts, and worse if they don't change).

"It's what my character would do." is probably the most well known statement used to try to justify actions that are actually totally out of character.

In your example - "My character hates humans, so he's going to murder all these humans" - how did this character wind up in a human town? Working with a party of humans? If the character hates humans so much he would have done this previously. The character would be known. Adventurers would have shared a description of someone who poses as a friend then murders their party. The actions described have little or no logic/consistency behind them and really don't align with "it's what my character would do."

You know the students better than we do but the entire scenario described above sounds like a student pushing the limits just to see how the adult reacts just for giggles if no other reason. They are probably hoping for the adult to get angry or frustrated, show some emotion, the student just wants to be disruptive for the teacher and the other students in the group, "role-playing" likely has little or nothing to do with it. The other students also get to see them taking actions counter to authority in a context where they can get away with a lot more than they could in a classroom.

Similar concepts go with killing innocents to feed monsters or murdering children. It is likely mostly for the "shock" factor, the offense to sensibilities of most of the other players - again it has nothing to do with role playing in this context.

Even explicitly evil characters, when role-played, don't usually go around murdering folks at random. Why? The main reason is that they won't survive long. This is D&D, lawful authority is often far away and adventurers become judge, jury and executioner. A character that was that bad, that murdered many innocents and betrayed or attacked their party members would simply be dealt with by the rest of the party or by a bounty hunter of some sort.

Anyway, you are in charge, you know the players to some extent, unless everyone else playing is ok with that behavior and I would guess that most aren't and just won't say anything due to peer pressure (expressing an opinion against another student/player may be seen to align the speaker with the teacher/authority figure ... teacher's pet etc (when the teacher isn't around) ... so for many students it is safer not to express their opinion about the actions of the other students).

As DM, watch for the reactions of the other students - don't pay attention to the student taking the action intended to provoke a reaction - watch how the others around the table seem to react, do they look down, do they look away, do they play with their pencil, do they look at their character sheet or phone, do their expressions change - if the other players don't feel very confident in themselves, they aren't that likely to call out another player for behavior they don't like - eventually, they might just start not showing up since they don't like the direction the game takes. None of us are there so all of our comments don't have the full context but I'd be wary of "edginess" being a bit over the top for some folks at the table and turning them off the game. The DM has a responsibility for everyone there, not just the most outrageous ones.

[someguy]

Agree with most other posters that you should think of the other players here as well. One in game thing could be that the other characters do a heroic act and restrain and turn In the murder hobo.

[animorte]

I generally have basic stat blocks prepared for just about anybody the party might encounter. I keep them within arms reach (written or printed).

I also have a huge list of names that I keep at the ready and apply randomly with a little note to organize after the session.

People have had some grand ideas here. Keep in mind that actions have consequences. What drives the party? Did someone of their past suffer a terrible fate which they are in the process of avenging? Etc... Then it would certainly make sense that someone they bring to an end would have a friend or family member whose adventure begins there, to hunt down the so-and-so to commit the deed, whether in the right or wrong. NPCs have feelings too!

[Frogreaver]

Hi all,

So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.

On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.

What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

Why might the player be engaging in that type of behavior?
Attention?
Control?
Boredom?
Wanting to tame dire spiders to use as mounts?
Testing fictional boundaries?
Just for the lols?
An alliance with the dire spiders would be beneficial to the PCs objectives?
A worldview that even the 'bad creatures' shouldn't be wantonly murdered?

Depending on why you think the player is doing that should determine your response. If you are not sure the first thing to do in game is ask the player what he hopes to accomplish by his declared actions.

As an example, new kids to D&D often test the boundaries of what's allowed in the game. That's often at everyone else's expense but they probably don't realize this. If that's what's happening a brief out of game talk about how players pick their characters actions and the goal of a cooperative RPG is for the characters to mostly cooperate to achieve shared goals as that will be fun for everyone... this would likely do a world of good IMO.

[Sigreid]

You could have demons and devils take a notice of their good work and see how they respond to that.

[CTurbo]

I've had players like this over the years. The best thing to do is talk things out with them and try to get them to understand that his in-game actions will have serious in-game consequences. The next time he attacks a "helpless" NPC, that NPC was a retired level 20 Fighter. That old man? A level 20 Monk. The little old lady? She's an ancient silver dragon in human form. If the player still doesn't get it after his character gets killed a few times, then I'd explain to him that he's not allowed to play anymore.

I used to keep a high level Vengeance Paladin on hand as a NPC "bounty hunter" that would hunt down characters for committing villainous acts.

[Sigreid]

I've had players like this over the years. The best thing to do is talk things out with them and try to get them to understand that his in-game actions will have serious in-game consequences. The next time he attacks a "helpless" NPC, that NPC was a retired level 20 Fighter. That old man? A level 20 Monk. The little old lady? She's an ancient silver dragon in human form. If the player still doesn't get it after his character gets killed a few times, then I'd explain to him that he's not allowed to play anymore.

I used to keep a high level Vengeance Paladin on hand as a NPC "bounty hunter" that would hunt down characters for committing villainous acts.

I'd advise against this, but if he's careless with his murder; word will eventually get around. Then there can be an endless stream of people seeking justice/vengeance for his actions. Possibly even some acts that are blamed on him that he didn't do. Likewise, if there's no one around that wants to challenge him, the party may find that when they get to town they roll up the sidewalk and bolt the doors because nobody wants anything to do with them.

[Frogreaver]

I'd advise against this, but if he's careless with his murder; word will eventually get around. Then there can be an endless stream of people seeking justice/vengeance for his actions. Possibly even some acts that are blamed on him that he didn't do. Likewise, if there's no one around that wants to challenge him, the party may find that when they get to town they roll up the sidewalk and bolt the doors because nobody wants anything to do with them.

IMO, most player actions that are going to tend to derail the game into territory most other players at the table aren't interested in the DM should avoid playing out via framing the next scene well past whatever the player was doing. The DM shouldn't enlist consequences by sucking the fun out of the game for everyone because of 1 player.

One thing that can sometimes work is a table vote where the players characters just leave that PC behind and the DM tells the character to roll up a new PC that his character is now an NPC.

[sambojin]

Celestials are always fun. Pick a god, any god. That family of villagers just so happened to worship them. And that god hates this sort of injustice, and just so happens to have an army of archons, couatls, and many other beings at their disposal, just for stuff like this.

Good guys fight daemons and devils and reveal their machinations.

Bad guys? Well, they still get whomped, but it's by angels. And heroes. And adventurers. And basic bits of society (lords, knights, counts, barons, any of their leiutenants or lackeys, even other evil people and their power groups) will squash stuff like that. Stopping a "bad-guy" enhances their reputation pretty well in the eyes of others, even if they are one themselves, the rest of the time. Fighting flavour-of-the-week evil pays, even if you are evil too. And there's no deeper plot involved. It was just "you were really really bad, in/justice has cometh to thee!".
And make sure the angels/ societal/ even badder-people take away some of the bad-guy PCs character's toys and/or abilities, so there's mechanical hits for the player's abilities to play like this as well. Maybe they'll even be able to redeem themselves and get their toys back? Maybe....

Problem solved.

[Mastikator]

1) Have him change his alignment to evil
2) Make sure future NPCs are more personable so the players are more likely to feel like they are people
3) Use reputation, also for the good PCs, give them rewards, explicitly tell in NPC character that Mr Murderhobo is not trusted because he's a cold blooded killer

This should help him with a) getting it out of his system and b) having some closure when you kill the PC, all murderhobo PCs should find the same ending: death.

[Burley]

Hi all,

So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.

On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.

What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

Well, spider's want live prey. This spider probably sees this murder hobo as a threat: some other animal that's killing and leaving its own food in the spider's territory. When the murder hobo goes to check on the spider, those bodies will have been moved to another, more open location. When the PC goes to check, we find out that its a Dire Trapdoor Spider and it wants to eliminate this encroaching enemy. The idea here isn't to kill the player, but to A) scare them away, if they succeed on some escape checks/dex saves or B) to capture them, giving the rest of the party a rescue mission, while the other player thinks about his choices.

Every time the MH PC does some MH-ing, they should feel a direct consequence. It's not always the town guard, but its also not never the town guard.

[Sigreid]

IMO, most player actions that are going to tend to derail the game into territory most other players at the table aren't interested in the DM should avoid playing out via framing the next scene well past whatever the player was doing. The DM shouldn't enlist consequences by sucking the fun out of the game for everyone because of 1 player.

One thing that can sometimes work is a table vote where the players characters just leave that PC behind and the DM tells the character to roll up a new PC that his character is now an NPC.

It's really the old man is awesome thing I'd avoid. I'd be totally cool with some immediate divine justice though.

[sambojin]

Just remember, there's no CR4 or less humanoid or beast being, that a Couatl can't be. And the next person this PC "kills" just flies away as an eagle *bamf*, a few HP before death. Divine retribution is at hand...

[Slipjig]

I'd personally avoid the Hidden Badasses trope. I mean, if the PCs try to round up and massacre an entire village, maybe 1-2 residents are retired adventurers. But once it turns out that several people in a row are actually CR 15 encounters, you have to wonder why they are hiring the PCs to begin with.

The town guard or bounty hunters should be sufficient to deal with this in-game, combined with a general unwillingness by decent people to deal with the characters. Also, even if the characters attempt to be sneaky about their murders, most pre-modern societies had very low thresholds for evidence. "Strangers show up in town" followed shortly by "murders happen" will probably be enough for the Town Guard or a mob to show up with nooses already tied.

[Sigreid]

There's also to the group as a whole stating "The road you're going down is going to mark you all as the villains in some hero's story. Are you all ok with that?"

[Willowhelm]

The other thing about having divine intervention or OP NPCs fight them is it teaches (in my opinion) the wrong lesson. It's teaching that the only reason not to do the bad thing is because a someone else who is bigger and stronger is going to stop you or punish you. Might makes right? That's what you want to impart here?

Let them play out the consequences of their actions and have real feelings and understanding that will actually benefit them. Sure, this can be fantastical - the ghosts that haunt them and visit their dreams. It can be mechanical - their long rests no longer work is they fail a wisdom save against the ghosts haunting etc.

But those are just ways to reflect the consequences of the actions in game and force the player to confront them. (Making them "real" for the player).

[animorte]

Celestials are always fun. Pick a god, any god. That family of villagers just so happened to worship them. And that god hates this sort of injustice, and just so happens to have an army of archons, couatls, and many other beings at their disposal, just for stuff like this.

Good guys fight daemons and devils and reveal their machinations.

Bad guys? Well, they still get whomped, but it's by angels. And heroes. And adventurers. And basic bits of society (lords, knights, counts, barons, any of their leiutenants or lackeys, even other evil people and their power groups) will squash stuff like that. Stopping a "bad-guy" enhances their reputation pretty well in the eyes of others, even if they are one themselves, the rest of the time. Fighting flavour-of-the-week evil pays, even if you are evil too. And there's no deeper plot involved. It was just "you were really really bad, in/justice has cometh to thee!".
And make sure the angels/ societal/ even badder-people take away some of the bad-guy PCs character's toys and/or abilities, so there's mechanical hits for the player's abilities to play like this as well. Maybe they'll even be able to redeem themselves and get their toys back? Maybe....

Problem solved.

That's a really good thing to keep in mind. The monster manual is essentially designed to provide blatant opposition for HEROES. It doesn't give nearly as many meat roadblocks for VILLAINS.

[Tawmis]

Hi all,
So I run D&D for my school's D&D club. For teenagers, most are playing exactly as you'd expect, but I have one student who is really running around as a true murder hobo. I don't have a problem with a player going this route per se, but I do want to find a way to impose meaningful consequences for his actions without it becoming the sole focus of everything that happens. For example, they wanted to help "feed" the local dire spider, so they murdered a family living in a nearby cottage and placed the bodies in the spiders lair.
On the one hand, I could just completely ignore said behaviors, and in the other extreme I could have the guild come under attack from the formal government as they have a member committing wanton murder for fun.
What is a realistic in-between that imposes some meaningful consequences for a player who's main goal is to murder anyone/anything that gets in their way (or things that are not in their way, that they go out of the way to kill)?

There's some great ideas.
But I'd go with one already mentioned - the town guard begins to investigate the murders.
There was someone (a kid works best - I'll say why in a minute) who was a witness (on the way to see said family) and dove in the bushes when they heard screaming and witnessed the players doing it.
The guard questions the players. But perhaps not having enough evidence - and not sure how much to trust the child witness.
They begin tailing the party. Just doing that typical cop thing of following them around.
If the party considers murdering whoever is following them - let them know this will truly make the guards alert to their activities.
Maybe, they encounter the kid witness - who gives the party a sob story of how this was a family that adopted him and saved him from Drow, who had enslaved him and his family. And his family died, so he could escape. So the people they killed were the people who adopted him. Any idea of killing him, would also raise the alert of the guards that the witness turned up dead.

Enforce MILESTONES rather than XP for level, if you haven't already. (This helps decease murder hobo to some degree so they're not killing just to get XP)

[Xervous]

You should avoid doing any of the suggestions that tailor the scenario to the player’s disruptive IC acts. Go over the expectations for the game again if need be.

If another “it’s what my character would do” gets played, ask a few questions to guide them to why it’s nonsensical or potentially unfun. The typical disconnect point is “if your character was so obviously this way, why did the others agree to adventure with you in the first place?”

[MadBear]

Update:
Since my last post we had another session. 2 of the other groups (there are 3 DM's) played out perfectly. I had a conversation with the problem player along with their 2 friends about consequences and why they're actions are leading them down the path of a villain (I say this rather then straight out calling them villains, mostly because I want them to think that pulling back from this path is an option). I also posted a notice on the guild missions that the local town had hired the guild to investigate the murders.

The player opted to double down. He lead his friends back to the town where they specifically looked to find isolated guards and murder them. After that, the went and targeted civilians including children. The session ended with them running away.

Current plan:

1. Out of character, I told them that if they continue down this line, I will take their characters and just make them the new BBEG, since that's what they're playing. His friends agreed that this wasn't really the kinda game they signed up for and wouldn't be killing random people for no reason anymore. The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play.

2. I posted an updated notice that increased the reward for capturing them significantly, and now that witnesses were around, the notice includes details of how they look. The problem player is already hoping to take this mission and find a way to transmute a body to look like him (He doesn't currently have this ability at all). Mostly this notice is there to signal that the world has taken notice and there will be consequences.

3. A reoccuring Revenant will start haunting this player.

[Burley]

1. Out of character, I told them that if they continue down this line, I will take their characters and just make them the new BBEG, since that's what they're playing. His friends agreed that this wasn't really the kinda game they signed up for and wouldn't be killing random people for no reason anymore. The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play.



I still think, if you want to course correct and have it mean something, the spider is the way to do it. A spider has no need for dead bodies, because they eat by injecting venom that liquifies the prey's insides and the venom spreads through the body vascularly. The spider doesn't want pre-dead bodies, which only attract other animals, like carrion feeders or maybe a stray wolf (coyote). If you feel like this is actually a boon to the spider, because it attracts more prey, then it makes sense that the spider would capture any prey that comes around this new bait, including the PC who brings the bait.

When the player insists that the spider wouldn't hurt them, ask what they think a dire spider's INT stat is or if they think it has a lawful alignment. You've warned them about the path they walk. If they insist on walking into a spider's web, entangle them. Its their own fault that the spider uses traps and bait now.

[Xervous]

Update:
Since my last post we had another session. 2 of the other groups (there are 3 DM's) played out perfectly. I had a conversation with the problem player along with their 2 friends about consequences and why they're actions are leading them down the path of a villain (I say this rather then straight out calling them villains, mostly because I want them to think that pulling back from this path is an option). I also posted a notice on the guild missions that the local town had hired the guild to investigate the murders.

The player opted to double down. He lead his friends back to the town where they specifically looked to find isolated guards and murder them. After that, the went and targeted civilians including children. The session ended with them running away.

Current plan:

1. Out of character, I told them that if they continue down this line, I will take their characters and just make them the new BBEG, since that's what they're playing. His friends agreed that this wasn't really the kinda game they signed up for and wouldn't be killing random people for no reason anymore. The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play.

2. I posted an updated notice that increased the reward for capturing them significantly, and now that witnesses were around, the notice includes details of how they look. The problem player is already hoping to take this mission and find a way to transmute a body to look like him (He doesn't currently have this ability at all). Mostly this notice is there to signal that the world has taken notice and there will be consequences.

3. A reoccuring Revenant will start haunting this player.

While I’m not there, it looks like the problem player is taking the focus on his actions as encouragement. Dog whines: dog gets let outside. Kid takes out trash: kid gets screen time. Kid acts out: kid gets attention in the form of the game focusing on his character.

Don’t solve this though in game methods. It’s likely any future in game attempts to change the player’s mindset will get misinterpreted as positive reinforcement of the behavior.

The issue you have is the player is not trying to play the same game as the others. Clarify things at a player level so it can’t be confused for being another round of his character being in the spotlight.

[Cygnia]

Yeah, actions have consequences. Kicking the murder hobo out of the club IS a consequence.

[Sigreid]

Update:
Since my last post we had another session. 2 of the other groups (there are 3 DM's) played out perfectly. I had a conversation with the problem player along with their 2 friends about consequences and why they're actions are leading them down the path of a villain (I say this rather then straight out calling them villains, mostly because I want them to think that pulling back from this path is an option). I also posted a notice on the guild missions that the local town had hired the guild to investigate the murders.

The player opted to double down. He lead his friends back to the town where they specifically looked to find isolated guards and murder them. After that, the went and targeted civilians including children. The session ended with them running away.

Current plan:

1. Out of character, I told them that if they continue down this line, I will take their characters and just make them the new BBEG, since that's what they're playing. His friends agreed that this wasn't really the kinda game they signed up for and wouldn't be killing random people for no reason anymore. The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play.

2. I posted an updated notice that increased the reward for capturing them significantly, and now that witnesses were around, the notice includes details of how they look. The problem player is already hoping to take this mission and find a way to transmute a body to look like him (He doesn't currently have this ability at all). Mostly this notice is there to signal that the world has taken notice and there will be consequences.

3. A reoccuring Revenant will start haunting this player.

Are you sure the problem player isn't a problem person? I've done some messed up stuff in the game, but that bolded part is the reasoning of an actual sociopath.

[MadBear]

Are you sure the problem player isn't a problem person? I've done some messed up stuff in the game, but that bolded part is the reasoning of an actual sociopath.

That's something I'm genuinely concerned about actually (but for other reasons). Separately, there is a likely phone call home to parents to discuss this and other red flags.

[Kurt Kurageous]

"I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil".


Sigreid is right, this is classic sociopath. I'm not a mental health professional, but as we might say here in Texas, "That ain't normal!" I'd have to report it if it had happened in my club.

Depending on your state, you may be required to contact some kind of child protective services (out of an abundance of caution, of course), as the child may be disturbed. I'm not sure I'd want to keep playing with him, nor would I think the parents of the other kids would be happy about it. You may be playing with fire here. I think it's time you started managing the risk.

[Tawmis]

Or...

They're just being a kid and wanting to excuse their behavior in game, to act the way they did.

I just ran a game, with one kid in it, and two adults. All three new to D&D.

The kid just wanted to keep unarmed striking the giant rats, even though as a rogue, he'd clearly do more damage with his dagger.

But he thought it was funnier - because it was sillier.

Yeah, that's not murdering fictional people to give to a fictional giant spider...

But I feel like the idea is the same. They're just looking for a way to be disruptive, because they think it's funny.

[Sigreid]

Or...

They're just being a kid and wanting to excuse their behavior in game, to act the way they did.

I just ran a game, with one kid in it, and two adults. All three new to D&D.

The kid just wanted to keep unarmed striking the giant rats, even though as a rogue, he'd clearly do more damage with his dagger.

But he thought it was funnier - because it was sillier.

Yeah, that's not murdering fictional people to give to a fictional giant spider...

But I feel like the idea is the same. They're just looking for a way to be disruptive, because they think it's funny.

Definitely possible that he's just trying to be as edgy as he can. It's still a concerning line of reasoning to come up with. Wouldn't be concerning at all if he straight said "I'm just having fun playing evil".

[Frogreaver]

Update:
Since my last post we had another session. 2 of the other groups (there are 3 DM's) played out perfectly. I had a conversation with the problem player along with their 2 friends about consequences and why they're actions are leading them down the path of a villain (I say this rather then straight out calling them villains, mostly because I want them to think that pulling back from this path is an option). I also posted a notice on the guild missions that the local town had hired the guild to investigate the murders.

The player opted to double down. He lead his friends back to the town where they specifically looked to find isolated guards and murder them. After that, the went and targeted civilians including children. The session ended with them running away.

Current plan:

1. Out of character, I told them that if they continue down this line, I will take their characters and just make them the new BBEG, since that's what they're playing. His friends agreed that this wasn't really the kinda game they signed up for and wouldn't be killing random people for no reason anymore. The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play.

Well done. I'm kind of curious what greater purpose he thinks feeding people to a giant spider serves?


2. I posted an updated notice that increased the reward for capturing them significantly, and now that witnesses were around, the notice includes details of how they look. The problem player is already hoping to take this mission and find a way to transmute a body to look like him (He doesn't currently have this ability at all). Mostly this notice is there to signal that the world has taken notice and there will be consequences.

It seems to me that structuring most of the actual gameplay around his actions is letting him drive the narrative while the other players lack agency to steer the game away from such play. In a sense, this kind of in game 'consequence' is only enabling said behavior by providing him agency to continue having fun doing it.


3. A reoccuring Revenant will start haunting this player.

Now that you know the problem I'm not really sure focusing on in game consequences for his bad actions is a solution to that problem. It's just enabling the game to revolve more and more around him.

[Foolwise]

This brings back memories of my teenaged D&D group that ended because my paladin was investigating a goblin church inside a dungeon when the two squishier party members were being attacked in another part of the dungeon. The DM wanted me to immediately run over and save them, but I argued my paladin would be too engrossed with this heathen religion. When he then said my paladin heard the fighting, I argued against that, noting we went in different directions and the numerous feet of stone and earth would prevent the sound from reaching me. Hindsight, he should have leaned into the religious bit and had some divine intervention lead me to the fight. But instead our stubbornness got the better of us and that was our last session.

Rather tame compared to kids these days and yet the kids play on.

[BullyWog]

One person earlier said "I'm not a mental health professional but... "Well I am a psychiatrist and this is my two cents worth.
A lot of adolescents will I push the envelope and test limits. It's the job of a good parent, a good teacher, a good counselor, a good responsible adult, to know what's a reasonable limit and what isn't. This player seems to have gone way past the limit and limits need to be set and enforced. Most things are very complicated but this seems fairly straightforward. This group is about having fun and group process I believe. I'm pretty sure this is not supposed to be an evil campaign. It is certainly the DM's prerogative to change a character's alignment when the situation dictates. I think the DM should say this is an evil character this is not an evil campaign and so the player needs to either re-roll the character or agree to a quest for rehabilitation and realignment. Probably this player cannot fit into the group, possibly they can, but this character cannot fit into the group and continuing to make the campaign about reining in this character is just counterproductive to fostering good group dynamics.

[Cygnia]

Any new updates yet about this game?

[Sigreid]

One person earlier said "I'm not a mental health professional but... "Well I am a psychiatrist and this is my two cents worth.
A lot of adolescents will I push the envelope and test limits. It's the job of a good parent, a good teacher, a good counselor, a good responsible adult, to know what's a reasonable limit and what isn't. This player seems to have gone way past the limit and limits need to be set and enforced. Most things are very complicated but this seems fairly straightforward. This group is about having fun and group process I believe. I'm pretty sure this is not supposed to be an evil campaign. It is certainly the DM's prerogative to change a character's alignment when the situation dictates. I think the DM should say this is an evil character this is not an evil campaign and so the player needs to either re-roll the character or agree to a quest for rehabilitation and realignment. Probably this player cannot fit into the group, possibly they can, but this character cannot fit into the group and continuing to make the campaign about reining in this character is just counterproductive to fostering good group dynamics.

When I made my comment I was thinking that the OP might want to just watch and see if this is a kid trying to be the edgiest of Edge Lords or if there were other things not related to the game that would raise concern. The OP indicated that this was just one thing that worries them a bit. Of course, none of us have met this kid or the OP for that matter.

[Burley]

One person earlier said "I'm not a mental health professional but... "Well I am a psychiatrist and this is my two cents worth.
A lot of adolescents will I push the envelope and test limits. It's the job of a good parent, a good teacher, a good counselor, a good responsible adult, to know what's a reasonable limit and what isn't. This player seems to have gone way past the limit and limits need to be set and enforced. Most things are very complicated but this seems fairly straightforward. This group is about having fun and group process I believe. I'm pretty sure this is not supposed to be an evil campaign. It is certainly the DM's prerogative to change a character's alignment when the situation dictates. I think the DM should say this is an evil character this is not an evil campaign and so the player needs to either re-roll the character or agree to a quest for rehabilitation and realignment. Probably this player cannot fit into the group, possibly they can, but this character cannot fit into the group and continuing to make the campaign about reining in this character is just counterproductive to fostering good group dynamics.

+1

I run the Tabletop Gaming club at the school where I work and, sure, we have kids that act up a bit. And, while dark thoughts could be a sign of something greater, remember that this is a kid who is voluntarily playing a game. They're not anti-social or abusive to their peers. They're just trying to have a crazy fantasy experience.

Don't treat the kid like a psychopath or they'll start to act like a psychopath. This is a young game enthusiast and, if you kick them out and call them a crazy trash person, they'll act like that in the future, expecting to be kicked out as the eventual, natural result of their involvement in the hobby. That's how trolls are made.

Fix this problem in character. If the character is the problem, kill the character, or otherwise remove it from the player's control. Then, let the player try again, with a character who wouldn't kill random families. Give them as many chances as you can to get it right, because that's the way we should treat our friends.
(Frankly, I'll bet this kid's teachers see him as a "problem child" with "behavior issues," and I'll bet dimes-to-dollars that they tell this kid exactly that, to his face. He's used to being treated like a problem, so, he plays the role he's expected to play. That's the way he's been trained to receive attention and, if you want to be a good role model, you should be showing him an alternative.)

[Keravath]

I agree with the folks suggesting that the problem has gone beyond the point where it can be appropriately dealt with by in game consequences.

The comments and actions of the player have shown that they do not care at all about in game consequences. They seem to be enjoying being the center of attention and driving the game narrative by their actions, causing the guild to react with wanted posters just makes their character famous or infamous. "Doubling down" may well be the player rebelling against any form of authority and pushing the limits to see what the "teacher" will do. The "teacher" can't just stand aside, try to apply in-game solutions, and expect any other effect than the player to continue with their actions.

I don't think the following will work - but it is the only sort of in game approach that might be effective (if the player can even be convinced to play differently).

An in-game solution needs to absolutely prevent the character from doing the things they are trying to do, and prevent them from driving the narrative, making the character effectively unplayable as they currently are - (1) Whenever the character tries to kill an innocent person, a revenent of one of the earlier victims steps in the way, grabbing the weapon and preventing ANY action that harms innocents - basically, in game mechanic that prevents the unacceptable behaviour. (2) Another adventuring party kills off the spider so they lose their tenuous justification - make it clear that the dead bodies of all the villagers made the town think the spider was participating and had become a threat to the village (do NOT use an actual group to do this - narrate it off screen - you do not want the player to fixate on some other students killing their spider - have him blame the DMs. However, that sort of solution might be much more of a problem if the player has other issues.

The DM has already explained to the player, out of character, that this is not the type of game they signed up for, that the behavior isn't acceptable but the response is ...

"The problem player doubled down, saying that they're actions weren't evil, because and I quote "I'm feeding their bodies to a giant spider, and a greater purpose like that overrides the action from being considered wrong or evil". I let him know that regardless, he's playing a game that no one else is ok with, and he needs to change, or he needs to be ok with the other players no longer working with him and therefore him not actually getting to play."

I'm not a psychologist, none of us are there, I would not make any sort of statement whether this represents a red flag of anything more significant ... but the fact that the situation has been explained, that the behavior won't work in this game, that the character actions are not compatible with the group and yet the player still wants to persist playing that way, really sounds like a fight for power. Is the DM in charge of the game or is the player in charge by using their character actions to drive the narrative? The longer the player strings along the DM, the more they win. It is certainly anti-social but they were able to convince two of the other players to go along with their actions - which gives them even more of a win.

The DM probably needs to have a 1:1 chat with the player (with another adult present as a witness - it may make the discussion more difficult but if this is a student-teacher power struggle it is safer for all involved to have another adult present in the room) and discuss how they are choosing to play their character but more importantly WHY they are choosing to play that way. There are reasons and the DM (since they are a teacher and have some responsibility for their students) really needs to get a better idea of what is going on since the behavior is beyond typical in game murder hobo - doubling down several times after it being made clear that the behavior won't work seems to indicate that there is more going on than just playing a game.

[Burley]

I agree with the folks suggesting that the problem has gone beyond the point where it can be appropriately dealt with by in game consequences.
~snip~
There are reasons and the DM (since they are a teacher and have some responsibility for their students) really needs to get a better idea of what is going on since the behavior is beyond typical in game murder hobo - doubling down several times after it being made clear that the behavior won't work seems to indicate that there is more going on than just playing a game.

The "more going on" is that it's a kid. Kid's push boundaries and sometimes don't follow instruction well, especially when their head is in a different place than where they're asked to be. The kid isn't hitting other players. They're "being disruptive" which, in my experience, means they "want attention." When you kick kids out of peer groups for "being disruptive" (rather than being violent or offensive), you're teaching them that they don't belong. If this kid does have something going on, the best place he could possibly be is with you and a small group of peers who are practicing teamwork and exploring the concept of cause-and-effect.

New idea: Maybe instead of treating this kid like he's crazy and calling his parents, you roll with what the character has done (deal with it in-game) and then tell the players "Hey, we went down this plot line with This Kid, so, we're going to take turns and follow a plot line for another character now." Then, if the player tries to steal the spotlight like this when another character is supposed the be the focus, just say "No, we're following the cleric's story right now."


Edit: I know you're not saying "Kick the kid out," Keravath. I was just using your words as a springboard.

[MadBear]

Any new updates yet about this game?

No big update. Our game day is Thursday, which is when we'll have a chance to play again. I have had some longer out of character conversations with the student, which I've relayed to his parents, just out of an abundance of caution in regards to the game + other outside issues which I'm not going to go into. With that said, I'm still fairly confident that he's just trying to be super edgy.

The other thing I have done is talk to the other players away from him, asking them if they're enjoying his characters actions, or finding it a distraction. Pretty universally, they are finding it frustrating to be playing a game where they're either heroes or at least hero adjacent, and having to play with a character whose a sociopath (the character, not the player). So I'm pretty confident in moving away from focusing on his behavior and just letting him know he needs to try out a different character to fit into this game world