Is my chivalrous character problematic?

[Trask]

I just played in a D&D session last night wherein my character refused to do damage to an old woman we were fighting in a tournament and my party got a little angry at me for it. I think I was playing reasonably, but I'd be open to hearing outside opinions on that.

A little background; My party and I signed up for a colosseum-style fighting tournament in an Arabian-themed land, it wasn't to the death, but it involved live steel and spells. I say it wasn't to the death, but killing someone only results in a disqualification and its been known to happen so it was still fairly brutal. Our party was me, a rune knight fighter, an oath of glory paladin, an abjuration wizard, and a pact of the genie warlock. The party leans a little bit towards an "evil" or at least edgy theme in general, the Paladin is kind of a dark paladin sworn to a dark god that values power at any cost in order to do what is necessary, the wizard is a quiet and contemplative character who is mostly good but she has a fascination with learning "blood magic" (our DM's invention), and the warlock is a showboat and a performer at heart, he's somewhat callous, but he's not evil. My fighter is a young man from a small village on the edge of the wilderness, he's very earnest, but a bit of a bumpkin and not especially bright or canny. The group likes roleplay a lot, they get really into character

So in the first bout our enemies included a dopey and inexperienced fighter, an evil wizard, an experienced gladiator, and an unassuming old woman who turned out to be a powerful monk. The old woman ended up being the last one standing and I decided that character would be very hesitant to hurt an old lady, even if she was a threat. I tried to talk her into surrendering, which didn't work, and then physically picking her up and putting her in the stands hoping for an "out-of-bounds" rule, but no such luck. I ended up kind of sitting by for a round, before pushing her prone and grappling her, at which point she (and maybe the DM) felt bad for me and just had her pretend to be knocked out and surrender.

My fellow players got very annoyed at me during this whole fight which surprised me a lot, because I was having a good time roleplaying what I perceived as a pretty classic kind of character trait. The female paladin player got especially upset at me, even saying that my character was acting sexist for not respecting this old lady as a warrior. Although she was kind of right, I didn't really see it that way. I think my character would just have a difficult time doing combat with a woman, especially an old one, due to his simple nature and origins from a small isolated village, and that was a reasonable and pretty mild character flaw all things considered. Also this was just a tournament for some prize money, it wasn't supposed to be life and death, the fight wasn't personal and no one was supposed to be in any real danger, so I reasoned that made my character's reluctance all the greater. The following back-and-forth wasn't very productive or didn't really make anyone feel better, so we just brushed past it.

I would like to not cause group discord, and I really don't want to abuse "but its what my character would do", but frankly I'm a little annoyed myself at having to correct behavior that I don't see as wrong. I'm willing to hear some outside opinions and I could always just pass off this incident as a one-time thing and that my character has learned to push past his reluctance at hurting women and the elderly when they're a threat. I'm considering doing just that, because ultimately its not that important.

Thoughts and opinions?

[Xervous]

I’d be upset if there wasn’t precedent. This tournament was entered to be WON. Apologies can come later, hesitation is costly. Everyone who stepped in knew the rules. Take their lunch money, or someone will take yours.

Better it happened here rather than with Palpatine.

[Trask]

I’d be upset if there wasn’t precedent. This tournament was entered to be WON. Apologies can come later, hesitation is costly. Everyone who stepped in knew the rules. Take their lunch money, or someone will take yours.

Better it happened here rather than with Palpatine.

That's true, but is there nothing to be said for roleplay in this instance? My character did enter the tournament willingly and expecting to fight, but expecting to fight more typical gladiators.

[Vahnavoi]

You are asking two different questions. If you're asking "was my character guilty of good old-fashioned sexism?", the answer is yes, as you pretty much already agree. If you're asking "were my actions enough of a problem to not do this kind of thing in the future?", the answer is no. Yes, these kinds of things cause friction between real people, but unless you signed a blood pact saying "any friction between player characters is strictly prohibited", then other players can suck it up. "It's what my character would do" is proper and sufficient defense for things as petty as this. Just remember it cuts both ways: the other players are justified for acting annoyed under the same principle.

[Trask]

You are asking two different questions. If you're asking "was my character guilty of good old-fashioned sexism?", the answer is yes, as you pretty much already agree. If you're asking "were my actions enough of a problem to not do this kind of thing in the future?", the answer is no. Yes, these kinds of things cause friction between real people, but unless you signed a blood pact saying "any friction between player characters is strictly prohibited", then other players can suck it up. "It's what my character would do" is proper and sufficient defense for things as petty as this. Just remember it cuts both ways: the other players are justified for acting annoyed under the same principle.

Yeah I suppose I am asking two different questions. I really just wanted to get a gauge if I'm not seeing it for as bad as it was due to my own bias/defensiveness.

As for it cutting both ways, I agree to an extent. I'm perfectly happy accepting that the other characters would be annoyed at me, but having the other players be upset at me outside of the game is a different matter.

[Xervous]

That's true, but is there nothing to be said for roleplay in this instance? My character did enter the tournament willingly and expecting to fight, but expecting to fight more typical gladiators.

At the roleplay level it boils down to expectations. Is there table approved precedent to sandbag the party because it’s in character? If yes, that’s what people signed on for and the matter should be handled IC. If no, it’s reasonable that some people are surprised and the matter is best handled by talking things over to make sure everyone has the same expectations for the game.

[Trask]

At the roleplay level it boils down to expectations. Is there table approved precedent to sandbag the party because it’s in character? If yes, that’s what people signed on for and the matter should be handled IC. If no, it’s reasonable that some people are surprised and the matter is best handled by talking things over to make sure everyone has the same expectations for the game.

Not to be glib, but I thought the universal expectation was that it was a roleplaying game. I don't see why that should stop just because initiative was rolled. Also I think sandbagging is a little harsh. I did still try to win by persuasion and then I did grapple her, I just wasn't playing optimally at that moment.

[GloatingSwine]

and then physically picking her up and putting her in the stands hoping for an "out-of-bounds" rule, but no such luck. I ended up kind of sitting by for a round, before pushing her prone and grappling her, at which point she (and maybe the DM) felt bad for me and just had her pretend to be knocked out and surrender.

If your character was sufficiently in control of the situation that they were able to do that without significant cost or resistance, the DM should have stopped messing about and had her yield when it became clear she was outmatched.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think you did anything wrong. It's an old person. Sure, the paladin can say you didn't respect them. That's fine. That's part of the roleplay for the paladin to feel that way, while your character feels different. There is absolutely nothing to be angry over out of game here. I will defend you to the death #TraskDidNothingWrong.

And I also agree with GloatingSwine. Seems like your character was handling this little old lady. Not sure why it went on the way it did.

[Vahnavoi]

Yeah I suppose I am asking two different questions. I really just wanted to get a gauge if I'm not seeing it for as bad as it was due to my own bias/defensiveness.

As for it cutting both ways, I agree to an extent. I'm perfectly happy accepting that the other characters would be annoyed at me, but having the other players be upset at me outside of the game is a different matter.

Separation between player and character only goes so far. The simplest explanation for what's going on is that your fellow players are annoyed for the exact same reasons their characters would be. Them being upset is, in itself, beneath least concern. What you need to ask them is, "what you're going to do about it?"

Most players, hopefully, are savvy enough to realize that while this is a legitimate in-character squabble, there is no point in extending it beyond the context of the game, and they will cease to act on their upsetness outside this specific context.

If they don't do that, you have to ask what, exactly, their problem is.

[Satinavian]

Not to be glib, but I thought the universal expectation was that it was a roleplaying game. I don't see why that should stop just because initiative was rolled. Also I think sandbagging is a little harsh. I did still try to win by persuasion and then I did grapple her, I just wasn't playing optimally at that moment.
It is not about roleplaying vs. playing optimally. The same issue happens when only the roleplaying angle is considered.

Your characters idea of chivalry does not really fit an equal world. When a fighter can expect that half of all enemy mercenaries, bandits, soldiers etc. are women and as deadly as men, it would be foolish to not fight them properly. And someone who does not properly fight against a significant part of enemies will probably annoy his comrades or even enrage them if this produces real danger.

See it like this : With perfect gender equality your idea of chivalry makes as much sense as a character who doesn't want to fight red-haired people. Does this seem sensible ?


Now not every game world really has gender equality. And you obviously didn't expect one if you consider a "typical gladiator" to e male. I don't know what the GMs world really has. But when everyone else expected realized gender equality, chances are tha is the premise.


So in short : You did nothing wrong but it is very possible that your character concept does not fit the world.

[Vahnavoi]

Unless Trask wrote a blood pact reading "characters must act sensibly at all times", having a character not be sensible when it comes to the opposite sex, or old people, or red-haired people for that matter, is fair game. Considering how often real bigotry is barely conversant with reality, using such lack of sense to argue a character does not fit into a world is pretty weak.

[Jack of Spades]

Specific politics of the moment aside, this is a classic "it's what my character would do!" argument. So it's a matter of your table's specific explicit and/or implicit social contract. If the rest of the table got upset with you, it's because you acted outside of their expectations or comfort in a way that caused that. We randos on the internet don't get to pick (and also have no idea) what is right for your table. That's between you and them.

[Trask]

If your character was sufficiently in control of the situation that they were able to do that without significant cost or resistance, the DM should have stopped messing about and had her yield when it became clear she was outmatched.


I don't think you did anything wrong. It's an old person. Sure, the paladin can say you didn't respect them. That's fine. That's part of the roleplay for the paladin to feel that way, while your character feels different. There is absolutely nothing to be angry over out of game here. I will defend you to the death #TraskDidNothingWrong.

And I also agree with GloatingSwine. Seems like your character was handling this little old lady. Not sure why it went on the way it did.

Thanks Dr. Samurai, but hopefully it wont come to that :smallbiggrin:

Also I didn't mean to give the impression that the old lady was helpless, she was fighting back the whole time. As a heavily armored Rune Knight with the Hill Rune though, I could eat it up pretty well. She was clearly outmatched though. Maybe my DM was trying to do all he could to get damage on us, we had another bout after that.


Separation between player and character only goes so far. The simplest explanation for what's going on is that your fellow players are annoyed for the exact same reasons their characters would be. Them being upset is, in itself, beneath least concern. What you need to ask them is, "what you're going to do about it?"

Most players, hopefully, are savvy enough to realize that while this is a legitimate in-character squabble, there is no point in extending it beyond the context of the game, and they will cease to act on their upsetness outside this specific context.

If they don't do that, you have to ask what, exactly, their problem is.

Yeah I guess it is a little unreasonable to ask for that much character/player separation. I like to play that way most of the time, but I do know that plenty of people do not. The only person who seemed actually a bit upset was the paladin player, the other two gave me crap about it but basically backed off and just teased me, which was fine. I'll probably just keep an eye on the table mood and see if it requires me to try and talk to her.



It is not about roleplaying vs. playing optimally. The same issue happens when only the roleplaying angle is considered.

Your characters idea of chivalry does not really fit an equal world. When a fighter can expect that half of all enemy mercenaries, bandits, soldiers etc. are women and as deadly as men, it would be foolish to not fight them properly. And someone who does not properly fight against a significant part of enemies will probably annoy his comrades or even enrage them if this produces real danger.

See it like this : With perfect gender equality your idea of chivalry makes as much sense as a character who doesn't want to fight red-haired people. Does this seem sensible ?


Now not every game world really has gender equality. And you obviously didn't expect one if you consider a "typical gladiator" to e male. I don't know what the GMs world really has. But when everyone else expected realized gender equality, chances are tha is the premise.


So in short : You did nothing wrong but it is very possible that your character concept does not fit the world.


Unless Trask wrote a blood pact reading "characters must act sensibly at all times", having a character not be sensible when it comes to the opposite sex, or old people, or red-haired people for that matter, is fair game. Considering how often real bigotry is barely conversant with reality, using such lack of sense to argue a character does not fit into a world is pretty weak.

Hmmm, Satinavian makes a very good point, this DM tends to prefer pretty bioware style gender equal worlds with women warriors being commonplace, so my character is probably somewhat odd for his beliefs.

Although it wasn't just that she was a woman but also old. Like described as being in her eighties, mostly skin and bones. A whole party just beating on an old lady, even if its in a tournament she signed up for...I mean I'm sure some DM's have all ages present in all professions but that feels uncommon to me. I think it was pretty deliberately put there as a curveball, but whats the point if it doesn't affect anything? He was pretty tight lipped during the whole thing though, so I'm not sure.

I also agree with Vahnavoi in the sense that even if my character was out of place in this world, thats kind of the point no? He's a bumpkin from nowheresville out adventuring in the world, becoming strong. Its already an established trope of my character that I enjoy playing (not understanding social cues with nobility, being overly trusting and forgiving to his enemies, he doesn't really understand a lot of the lore we learn about the gods and ancient wars even though I do, he has a sometimes humorously poor understanding of faraway places and rare things). He's not a joke character by any means, but I lean into his occasional inexperience as a way to showcase character. Most of the time the party is okay with it, the only other time I've annoyed them was when I refused to tell a white lie to a knight-captain even though it would have gotten us a reward that we didn't really earn, but that was more just teasing.


Specific politics of the moment aside, this is a classic "it's what my character would do!" argument. So it's a matter of your table's specific explicit and/or implicit social contract. If the rest of the table got upset with you, it's because you acted outside of their expectations or comfort in a way that caused that. We randos on the internet don't get to pick (and also have no idea) what is right for your table. That's between you and them.

Yeah you're right, I just wanted to get more takes on it because I don't think it would be wise to immediately get back into a discussion about it with the group. I think posting here in this way can be helpful for people (like me) who sometimes don't realize when they've been insensitive or stubborn.

[Jack of Spades]

To answer the question in the title, yes, your character who ascribes to "chivalrous" sexism is problematic. Establishing whether problematic character concepts are on the table is the exact reason that things like X cards, lines and veils, or what-have-you, exist.

Brushing this incident under the table and hoping it won't come up again is a great way to make it happen again, but with worse consequences. You have to talk these things out.

As pointed out by the woman in your group, having the fight (discussion, preferably) even when it's uncomfortable is a matter of respect. (Sorry couldn't resist)

[Trask]

To answer the question in the title, yes, your character who ascribes to "chivalrous" sexism is problematic. Establishing whether problematic character concepts are on the table is the exact reason that things like X cards, lines and veils, or what-have-you, exist.

Brushing this incident under the table and hoping it won't come up again is a great way to make it happen again, but with worse consequences. You have to talk these things out.

As pointed out by the woman in your group, having the fight (discussion, preferably) even when it's uncomfortable is a matter of respect. (Sorry couldn't resist)

You're fine, I mean you are basically right. Although it was also about the fact that she was very old and frail looking. If she looked like Xena Warrior Princess it probably would've been different, although I would've still had some initial reservation, not as much.

[Wintermoot]

I'm confused. Why wasn't the old lady monk beating you senseless while you were hesitating? I don't understand why you were able to do things like "pick her up and put her in the stands" without her kung-fuing you into the dirt?

Honestly, the whole things sounds poorly contrived. What was going on while you were doing all of this?

[Trask]

I'm confused. Why wasn't the old lady monk beating you senseless while you were hesitating? I don't understand why you were able to do things like "pick her up and put her in the stands" without her kung-fuing you into the dirt?

Honestly, the whole things sounds poorly contrived. What was going on while you were doing all of this?

Grappling in D&D 5e works in such a way that you can still attack your grappler. I basically took her away from my party and tried those things, while taking damage. I was just able to take it very well because of my class features.

The paladin was mostly repositioning and the other two were healing themselves and shooting various attacks at her while I had her grappled.

[Wintermoot]

Kind of sounds like your DM didn't do a very good job of making a challenging encounter for your group then. I mean, we can talk about whether or not you "respected" the elderly woman whom you carted about to and fro, but it doesn't seem like she was ever a meaningful threat to you even while she was trying to hurt you. So not really worthy of respect as a combatant regardless of age or gender.

The right way to get your character to change his perception of old women would be for the old woman to beat your *** down for hesitating.

[Dr.Samurai]

You're fine, I mean you are basically right. Although it was also about the fact that she was very old and frail looking. If she looked like Xena Warrior Princess it probably would've been different, although I would've still had some initial reservation, not as much.
Eh, I wouldn't capitulate to that point so easily.

You know why you hesitated. If other people have a problem with it, that's on them. If it really is a problem for your group out of game, you'll have to contend with it, and possibly change your character's attitude to comply with your groups bloodlust and simultaneous sensitivities.

But don't be so eager to give in to these complaints. They seem innocuous on the surface, but they aren't. There is great merit in chivalry, and it's a shame that it is being killed. The least we can do is play at it in a roleplaying game for crying out loud.

You're entitled to your views. Your character isn't problematic, but it sounds like people at your table are :smallamused:.

[Jay R]

Let's separate out several issues.

1. What does chivalry require? First and foremost, the "chivalry" needs to be consistent. I can understand saying "I won't fight this person," and therefore refusing to enter the arena, or stopping and withdrawing when you first see who you are facing.

But when you accepted the fight you, well, accepted the fight. Refusing to continue the fight when you had committed to support your friends in that fight, is not chivalrous.

[To use a mundane example. You can say "I won't play in a baseball game," and not join the game. But you can't reasonably object that the game is baseball, and stop helping your team, in the eighth inning.]

Furthermore, if you object to hurting somebody who isn't a serious threat, the first on on your list should have been the "dopey and inexperienced fighter". If you didn't consider going easy on him, then your motive wasn't chivalry. The older woman had already earned respect in that fight; the person you should "be very hesitant to hurt" isn't usually the last one standing.

2. Consider your teammates. You have described the paladin's god as "a dark god that values power at any cost in order to do what is necessary." OF COURSE the paladin will object to your actions; they are directly opposed to her god's values.

The question is not whether the character is problematic. The question is whether the character is problematic for this party. The answer is yes.

Similarly, the other characters would be problematic in a stalwart, chivalrous party. But this party 'leans a little bit towards an "evil" or at least edgy theme in general' (your words). That's what you need to fit in with.

As I wrote in my Rules for Players,

7. The basic unit of D&D isn’t the PC; it’s the party. Fit in with the party. Support the party’s goals, and defend your allies.

a. Don’t betray the party; they know where you sleep.
b. You can have personal goals and secrets, but don’t let them get in the party’s way.
c. Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players.

3. Gender-based chivalry. D&D games are usually set in a medievaloid setting, but mostly have modern views. Saying that the opponent is inherently too weak for you to fight because she's a woman is an indirect sneer at your paladin and wizard allies.

At the very least, you should have couched it in terms of "that monk is too old for me to fight," and never mentioned her gender.

Your action would have fit in just fine in a 1970s game of original D&D. But in that game, neither players nor PCs were likely to be women, and the primary martial class was officially named "Fighting Man".


My recommendation:
Going forward, your character needs to show the wizard and paladin, and you need to show the players who are women, that they are fully respected.

[J-H]

In my experience, when the word "problematic" is thrown around, it's typically used to control the behaviors or beliefs of other people through social shaming, rather than rational discussion. I find that... problematic.

The answer to your question is going to vary based on the location, age, and culture of the people you're playing with. What's "problematic" for some is "good, polite behavior" for others, especially if there's an age difference involved. 25 years ago in high school, if you were a young man, "you don't hit or push girls, even if they hit or push you first." I don't know how things are on that front with kids these days.

The codes and definitions of chivalry and "epitome virtuous warrior" have shifted over time, and there's a whole digression we could go down on how chivalry is seen now, versus then, but that would get into IRL history and is thus outside the bounds of the forum. There's also the way D&D uses a vaguely Anglo-French pastiche of European history for some things, while throwing a lot of the social rules that went with it (literacy, roles of men and women, importance of nobles and oaths, religion being important to everyone, etc etc.) out the door in favor of modern sensibilities dressed up in plate armor and wizard robes, which includes Brienne of Tarth being just as much accepted as a knight as Sir Roland. As the others above have pointed out, Old Woman Monk has put herself on the field as a combatant and is trying to kill you. She no longer has any protections that go to non-combatants, so then it's up to your character getting over that issue.

As far as in-game behavior goes, anything that keeps your character from participating in combat should be discussed out of character, preferably in advance. D&D is a game rooted in war and battle. Characters that are "pacifists" or "don't want to fight" can end up causing discord at the table just as much as "I want to be an edgelord necromancer who murders people to reanimate them in the same party as a LG paladin" does.
On the other hand, I have seen people pull "I cower away from the spiders due to my arachnaphobia" and nobody at the table had an issue with it, despite it meaning the character wasn't participating in the fight for a round.

Ultimately, this is something to discuss with the people you are playing with at your table, and I don't think a forum of strangers from around the world is going to be able to solve this for you.

[Trask]

Let's separate out several issues.

1. What does chivalry require? First and foremost, the "chivalry" needs to be consistent. I can understand saying "I won't fight this person," and therefore refusing to enter the arena, or stopping and withdrawing when you first see who you are facing.

But when you accepted the fight you, well, accepted the fight. Refusing to continue the fight when you had committed to support your friends in that fight, is not chivalrous.

[To use a mundane example. You can say "I won't play in a baseball game," and not join the game. But you can't reasonably object that the game is baseball, and stop helping your team, in the eighth inning.]

Furthermore, if you object to hurting somebody who isn't a serious threat, the first on on your list should have been the "dopey and inexperienced fighter". If you didn't consider going easy on him, then your motive wasn't chivalry. The older woman had already earned respect in that fight; the person you should "be very hesitant to hurt" isn't usually the last one standing.

2. Consider your teammates. You have described the paladin's god as "a dark god that values power at any cost in order to do what is necessary." OF COURSE the paladin will object to your actions; they are directly opposed to her god's values.

The question is not whether the character is problematic. The question is whether the character is problematic for this party. The answer is yes.

Similarly, the other characters would be problematic in a stalwart, chivalrous party. But this party 'leans a little bit towards an "evil" or at least edgy theme in general' (your words). That's what you need to fit in with.

As I wrote in my Rules for Players,

7. The basic unit of D&D isn’t the PC; it’s the party. Fit in with the party. Support the party’s goals, and defend your allies.

a. Don’t betray the party; they know where you sleep.
b. You can have personal goals and secrets, but don’t let them get in the party’s way.
c. Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players.

3. Gender-based chivalry. D&D games are usually set in a medievaloid setting, but mostly have modern views. Saying that the opponent is inherently too weak for you to fight because she's a woman is an indirect sneer at your paladin and wizard allies.

At the very least, you should have couched it in terms of "that monk is too old for me to fight," and never mentioned her gender.

Your action would have fit in just fine in a 1970s game of original D&D. But in that game, neither players nor PCs were likely to be women, and the primary martial class was officially named "Fighting Man".


My recommendation:
Going forward, your character needs to show the wizard and paladin, and you need to show the players who are women, that they are fully respected.

I accepted the fight, but we didn't know who are enemies would be until we were in it. And it was for sport, ultimately not that important to any of us, that's part of the reason I felt it was appropriate at this time.

Also as for the dopey fighter, I actually did something similar. I pushed him into a shallow pit after he tried to attack me unsuccessfully and told him "trust me, stay down". He didn't listen but I made a point of not using any real class features against him.


In my experience, when the word "problematic" is thrown around, it's typically used to control the behaviors or beliefs of other people through social shaming, rather than rational discussion. I find that... problematic.

The answer to your question is going to vary based on the location, age, and culture of the people you're playing with. What's "problematic" for some is "good, polite behavior" for others, especially if there's an age difference involved. 25 years ago in high school, if you were a young man, "you don't hit or push girls, even if they hit or push you first." I don't know how things are on that front with kids these days.

The codes and definitions of chivalry and "epitome virtuous warrior" have shifted over time, and there's a whole digression we could go down on how chivalry is seen now, versus then, but that would get into IRL history and is thus outside the bounds of the forum. There's also the way D&D uses a vaguely Anglo-French pastiche of European history for some things, while throwing a lot of the social rules that went with it (literacy, roles of men and women, importance of nobles and oaths, religion being important to everyone, etc etc.) out the door in favor of modern sensibilities dressed up in plate armor and wizard robes, which includes Brienne of Tarth being just as much accepted as a knight as Sir Roland. As the others above have pointed out, Old Woman Monk has put herself on the field as a combatant and is trying to kill you. She no longer has any protections that go to non-combatants, so then it's up to your character getting over that issue.

As far as in-game behavior goes, anything that keeps your character from participating in combat should be discussed out of character, preferably in advance. D&D is a game rooted in war and battle. Characters that are "pacifists" or "don't want to fight" can end up causing discord at the table just as much as "I want to be an edgelord necromancer who murders people to reanimate them in the same party as a LG paladin" does.
On the other hand, I have seen people pull "I cower away from the spiders due to my arachnaphobia" and nobody at the table had an issue with it, despite it meaning the character wasn't participating in the fight for a round.

Ultimately, this is something to discuss with the people you are playing with at your table, and I don't think a forum of strangers from around the world is going to be able to solve this for you.

Well taken, but one small quibble. The old lady monk was not trying to kill us, it was a tournament for sport with no killing allowed. That factored largely into this whole thing, if my friends were in real danger my character absolutely would have fought back more ferociously. But this is for money, basically, and not a critical campaign moment or anything of the sort. I think that should allow for more leeway.

[GloatingSwine]

Thanks Dr. Samurai, but hopefully it wont come to that :smallbiggrin:

Also I didn't mean to give the impression that the old lady was helpless, she was fighting back the whole time. As a heavily armored Rune Knight with the Hill Rune though, I could eat it up pretty well. She was clearly outmatched though. Maybe my DM was trying to do all he could to get damage on us, we had another bout after that.


From the fact that you were able to manhandle the opponent out of the ring whilst eating up whatever she could dish out *and then* immobilise her it was clearly pretty one sided.



1. What does chivalry require? First and foremost, the "chivalry" needs to be consistent. I can understand saying "I won't fight this person," and therefore refusing to enter the arena, or stopping and withdrawing when you first see who you are facing.

But when you accepted the fight you, well, accepted the fight. Refusing to continue the fight when you had committed to support your friends in that fight, is not chivalrous.

But he did continue the fight. He was attempting to get an outmatched opponent to yield for their own good whilst attempting to control their ability to contribute otherwise to the fight. And eventually it worked.

The DM should just have had the clearly beaten opponent tap out faster, not only to save all the mucking around but also because this was the opening round in a tournament clearly established as not being to the death and so it would be expected for a defeated opponent to do so.

[animorte]

My first thought is amusement that the party was upset that you weren't actively dealing damage when, in fact, a well-known method of martial combat anyway is outright locking an enemy down, which you seemed to be focusing on. I'm sure if your character had preexisting features focused specifically for grappling/shoving/knocking prone/etc., you would have emerged a legend instead! :smalltongue:

Now that I've got that out of the way, I see how it could be taken as an insult that your character seems to express mercy for a certain demographic. Those never go over well. One thing I learned long ago in management is that you're expected to treat everyone equally (which one would hope applies everywhere anyway).

I think another problem in this specific instance is your character's apparent ambiguity. Had you chosen to not participate in the fight at all or commit full force to the attack, I don't believe this concern would have arisen. The only time indecision is generally accepted is if you're newer with the game. Even if your character's primary trope actively involves being indecisive, it doesn't roleplay particularly well.

All that being said, I don't necessarily think your character was entirely out of line, but you should certainly make it a point to "learn from the experience" as it were. A big part of the fun is when the group is able to communicate and trust each other. You don't always need to be on the same page as long as you're in the same book.

Another note: I think it's awesome that all the players enjoy getting into the roleplay aspect of the game! I've never had a full table of such. However, it's still important being able to separate IC from OOC (not that it's always required) and beneficial when one does not inadvertently control the other (as odd as that sounds, since the player literally controls the character).

[NichG]

If the other characters feel offended? That's fine. If the players feel like they don't like what your character stands for, but aren't offended at you, that's also fine. You're in an evil party, people should hopefully even be disgusted with some of the things their own characters do!

If the players feel offended at you, that's not fine, and should be resolved. But the resolution is tricky here, and its not automatically 'the offended party is correct'. Any sort of interaction between people requires compromises and space given for people to have different values, considerations, triggers, for people to choose to act differently than the others would act in their place, etc. Someone not giving space in a direction because its very serious for them is one thing, and the group has to consider if its possible to fulfill their needs while also agreeing to accommodate that - if not, those people should not play together. On the other hand, if its just that one person isn't giving the same space and leeway to others that they're receiving from them then that's a different problem entirely and my tendency (if I were a third party mediating) would be to basically say 'look,you each get to play your own characters, their virtues and flaws and oddities - that's the freedom you're each given here, and as a player part of your responsibility is to respect the other players' right to make those choices for themselves - your character doesn't have to like it and you don't have to be a fan of the other player's character, but you do have to let the other player do their thing here'

[KorvinStarmast]

My party and I signed up for a colosseum-style fighting tournament in an Arabian-themed land Based on your description, if you weren't in it to win it, why were you even in the tournament? Seriously, why are you on a team if you won't go all in for the team to win the tournament?
(This is more an IC question than an OC question, since mostly you are there with your friends to play a game).

Teamwork: it's a thing.

The other players are justified in being disappointed at your lack of focus on team goals in a tournament that you all entered as a team.

Buddy is half a word is a phrase coined to describe what you did there.

I just wasn't playing optimally at that moment.
If you aren't playing to win, get off of the field of play.
You were in a tournament that your team entered in the hopes of winning.

[MonochromeTiger]

I accepted the fight, but we didn't know who are enemies would be until we were in it. And it was for sport, ultimately not that important to any of us, that's part of the reason I felt it was appropriate at this time.

Also as for the dopey fighter, I actually did something similar. I pushed him into a shallow pit after he tried to attack me unsuccessfully and told him "trust me, stay down". He didn't listen but I made a point of not using any real class features against him.

Alright you have two things here worth noting.

First, the point that you didn't really try and that does give plenty of ground for the other players to be annoyed both in and out of character. You entered a tournament, you signed up for fights, you then did your best not to do what you signed up for because the opponents you got matched up with were a woman and a weaker fighter. You agreed to something then decided after a fact that despite knowing you wouldn't be expected to kill them or do any lasting damage it was still too much to do more than the equivalent of pushing them over and saying give up. That in itself is a betrayal of your team's trust, they rely on you to do your part to win for the team and you let your character's personal hangups jeopardize that after things had already been put in place to assuage them.

Second, the actual chauvinism part where your character specifically refused to fight a woman. A woman who had evidently already proven she was a capable enough combatant to get that far and who was actively attacking and hurting him while he was trying to get her to give up without hitting her and who was being treated as a peer opponent by the rest of the party and pelted with spells anyway. In a fight you signed up for you can either acknowledge them as a competitor or you can willingly lose, your character took the middle ground which acknowledged they were competing but considered them such a non-issue that you could take your time and all their hits doing nothing but shuffle them around while there are other opponents to deal with wasting your time, their time, and your party's time and just dragging out more opportunities for them to land a hit that actually matters and kick whatever organ governs smugness out of your character's body.

Either of those are perfectly valid grounds for the rest of your party to be upset. You refused to take a group activity everyone had agreed on seriously and even justify after the matter that it "doesn't matter all that much" when the part that matters is your team trusting you to take part. You refused to change your stance even after evidence had been given that it was in error and instead doubled down at a point when most people would go "alright I may still think that way for most people but this person is enough of a threat for the view to bend a bit."


Well taken, but one small quibble. The old lady monk was not trying to kill us, it was a tournament for sport with no killing allowed. That factored largely into this whole thing, if my friends were in real danger my character absolutely would have fought back more ferociously. But this is for money, basically, and not a critical campaign moment or anything of the sort. I think that should allow for more leeway.

She wasn't trying to kill you, but she was trying to hurt you and she was a competitor. That still makes her both a combat threat and a threat to your team's immediate goals. You don't convince her, or worse you spend so much time trying that she manages to knock you out, and she goes to try bludgeoning your party senseless which isn't exactly a good thing for their health. Meanwhile you do engage her and it's literally what she signed up for, a risk everyone going in took, and just from what you've said of your party makeup there was no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any women competing against you, you had women competing with you already so they're clearly not excluded. In character ignorance to the possibility kinda goes out the window when you've got a team that regularly proves it's a non zero chance, heck in character ignorance to "women can absolutely beat me senseless" is kind of a weird thing to hold onto when you've got some on your team who are fighting as peers.

[Tanarii]

The term problematic is problematic :smallamused:

Sounds like you as a player are okay with acknowledging the character as having behaved with a bit of old-fashioned chivalry that might also reasonably be viewed as somewhat sexist by other characters and even other players.

I'd say just tell the player of the female Paladin exactly that. Maybe tack on that while your character might be a little confused by the haranguing in-game by female Paladin character, you as a player are not and you get it. And ask if it's a problem in the future for her as a player, or if she can accept your character might sometimes behave with old-fashioned chivalry even if it's sometimes (or even often) misplaced, and have it acknowledged as an in-game friction point between the characters.

[Dr.Samurai]

Alright you have two things here worth noting.

First, the point that you didn't really try and that does give plenty of ground for the other players to be annoyed both in and out of character. You entered a tournament, you signed up for fights, you then did your best not to do what you signed up for because the opponents you got matched up with were a woman and a weaker fighter. You agreed to something then decided after a fact that despite knowing you wouldn't be expected to kill them or do any lasting damage it was still too much to do more than the equivalent of pushing them over and saying give up. That in itself is a betrayal of your team's trust, they rely on you to do your part to win for the team and you let your character's personal hangups jeopardize that after things had already been put in place to assuage them.

Second, the actual chauvinism part where your character specifically refused to fight a woman. A woman who had evidently already proven she was a capable enough combatant to get that far and who was actively attacking and hurting him while he was trying to get her to give up without hitting her and who was being treated as a peer opponent by the rest of the party and pelted with spells anyway. In a fight you signed up for you can either acknowledge them as a competitor or you can willingly lose, your character took the middle ground which acknowledged they were competing but considered them such a non-issue that you could take your time and all their hits doing nothing but shuffle them around while there are other opponents to deal with wasting your time, their time, and your party's time and just dragging out more opportunities for them to land a hit that actually matters and kick whatever organ governs smugness out of your character's body.

Either of those are perfectly valid grounds for the rest of your party to be upset. You refused to take a group activity everyone had agreed on seriously and even justify after the matter that it "doesn't matter all that much" when the part that matters is your team trusting you to take part. You refused to change your stance even after evidence had been given that it was in error and instead doubled down at a point when most people would go "alright I may still think that way for most people but this person is enough of a threat for the view to bend a bit."



She wasn't trying to kill you, but she was trying to hurt you and she was a competitor. That still makes her both a combat threat and a threat to your team's immediate goals. You don't convince her, or worse you spend so much time trying that she manages to knock you out, and she goes to try bludgeoning your party senseless which isn't exactly a good thing for their health. Meanwhile you do engage her and it's literally what she signed up for, a risk everyone going in took, and just from what you've said of your party makeup there was no reason whatsoever to assume there wouldn't be any women competing against you, you had women competing with you already so they're clearly not excluded. In character ignorance to the possibility kinda goes out the window when you've got a team that regularly proves it's a non zero chance, heck in character ignorance to "women can absolutely beat me senseless" is kind of a weird thing to hold onto when you've got some on your team who are fighting as peers.
This all seems way too much for what occurred. If you replace "old woman" with "little girl" all of this would still apply. But we all understand that the situation would be different. He didn't want to beat up on an old woman. That's fine. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's a worthy competitor; clearly she wasn't since he took all her hits and pinned her to the ground without trying too hard. The world doesn't revolve around a single person. Just because she thinks one thing, doesn't mean Traask's character's own thoughts and opinions and perspectives have to transform to align with hers. He essentially did the same thing as putting your hand on a kid's forehead and keeping them out of reach while they swing wild haymakers at you and miss each time. The kid might think they are fierce, but in reality they aren't, at least not against you.

Traask's character's instincts were correct; he defeated the opponent without betraying his own values.

Compare to Critical Role when Grog refuses to fight the old man, right up until the old man starts whupping Grog's behind. When Grog realizes this old person is a major threat, he begins to fight back. It doesn't appear Traask's character ever got to the point where the old person became a major threat, especially since he forced them to tap out without landing a single blow.

The party in-game can be annoyed with Traask for the risk he took, but he didn't cost them the tournament, so it's bizarre to hold some type of long term grudge. Out of game people need to stop being so authoritarian and accept that not everything needs to align with their own views.

And +1 to Tanarii as well.

[MonochromeTiger]

This all seems way too much for what occurred. If you replace "old woman" with "little girl" all of this would still apply. But we all understand that the situation would be different.

Not really? The only difference would be the age of the NPC, something that really doesn't matter when the full context is "they're trying to hit you, they've proven they can hit you even if not for a high amount per hit, and you literally agreed to join a tournament where knocking them out and not being knocked out is the goal."


He didn't want to beat up on an old woman. That's fine. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's a worthy competitor; clearly she wasn't since he took all her hits and pinned her to the ground without trying too hard. The world doesn't revolve around a single person. Just because she thinks one thing, doesn't mean Traask's character's own thoughts and opinions and perspectives have to transform to align with hers. He essentially did the same thing as putting your hand on a kid's forehead and keeping them out of reach while they swing wild haymakers at you and miss each time. The kid might think they are fierce, but in reality they aren't, at least not against you.

A small threat remains a threat, just one that takes longer to get to where it's an immediate danger. When resolving that threat can be done as easily as knocking them out and moving on there's no reason not to do it. We can bring up "old fashion chivalry" but that has to weigh against both the commitment of Traask's character to their party and the commitment of Traask as a player to take part in the game with their group, at the end of the day "what your character would do" is entirely up to the person playing them at any given time and basic table etiquette is to make sure it's not blowing off party goals at random.


Traask's character's instincts were correct; he defeated the opponent without betraying his own values.

He apparently just waddled around carrying an old lady who was still consistently hitting him until the DM got tired of it and decided she was knocked out, which is only functionally different from knocking her out himself in that he gave more time for her to land hits. This isn't some stunning victory for personal values it's a player extending a fight long past where it could've ended for the exact same result, if anything with the rest of his group there he could've just focused on the other combatants and let them handle it if he was so against fighting her.


Compare to Critical Role when Grog refuses to fight the old man, right up until the old man starts whupping Grog's behind. When Grog realizes this old person is a major threat, he begins to fight back. It doesn't appear Traask's character ever got to the point where the old person became a major threat, especially since he forced them to tap out without landing a single blow.

Not really a Critical Role watcher but honestly? If the circumstances are actually similar I'd have the same issue with that situation, I doubt they are but the point remains. If you agree to a fight then you try to ignore the fight while you're in it against an opponent who can hit you, even if not for a high amount of damage, you are actively letting a minor threat get worse and acting against the interests of the group.


The party in-game can be annoyed with Traask for the risk he took, but he didn't cost them the tournament, so it's bizarre to hold some type of long term grudge. Out of game people need to stop being so authoritarian and accept that not everything needs to align with their own views.

In character: he basically just let somebody hit him repeatedly and didn't contribute to the rest of the fight for that entire time making everyone else have to deal with more of it on their own, left them down a party member for that whole situation, and all for what you consider an opponent incapable of hurting him. Enemies not being able to quickly beat him really just makes this look worse because there's still a fight going on that would be resolved faster with everybody fighting in it but time was taken out to try hugging an old lady into submission.

From the rest of the party's perspective he agreed and joined up to fight then decided not to take it remotely seriously which could've jeopardized their goals. The fact he ended up not losing it for them is inconsequential next to the possibility that behavior entirely under his control could cost them their win. Then throw in the party is apparently leaning toward "evil" and "edgy" and the entire thing sounds like a personal weakness they'd likely want fixed before anything more important comes up to make sure their party member doesn't just shrug off what they're doing in the future.

Out of character: spent X turns on a weaker enemy. Contributed less on the shared goal of getting the win and the money which presumably people had plans for. Excused it with the infamous "it's what my character would do" which is widely hated as an excuse to be disruptive or do something controversial. Those three things are annoying enough that I can see players being upset about it.

The whole sexism angle is honestly just a personal issue on top of it between the Paladin player and Traask, that can be resolved by just talking. It will absolutely annoy some people, others will just see it as playing the game, who has what reaction really depends on who's playing and how it's done, but it's something that could easily have just been resolved by talking with the group ahead of time and figuring out what people are uncomfortable with. Is the Paladin player right to be upset? Maybe, who the heck knows, it's the kind of thing Traask would really have to talk with them about, if he stepped on a sensitive topic for the player that's the kind of thing that really should've been worked out before they all started playing but not every group has that kind of session zero for what's off limits. Should Traask feel bad for it? Questionable, there's nothing wrong with playing a character with flaws or issues since it's a character and not your own personal values, and if this wasn't brought up before Traask has no way of knowing it would set people off. It is much stranger that it even became an issue when everyone is apparently trying to play various types of grim and gritty character and that kind of comes with not being the greatest person, plenty of worse issues to get hung up on than someone not wanting to be violent towards a specific subset of people.

The "I will drag this encounter out instead of letting someone else resolve it quickly for the same result" is what can set groups off. It's a cooperative game and quite often it's a slow game. Spending more session time on a character's personal issues in the middle of an encounter for the whole group not only makes it so you're less likely to get through the rest of the session it also gets plenty of flak for "spotlight hogging." There's plenty in this story a group can be annoyed about that only relates to the "I won't fight women" thing because that's the excuse that was used to cause it but that's getting largely ignored because the question that ended up being asked was about sexism.

[Rynjin]

A lot of people in this thread seem to take elfgames way too seriously.

I could see the argument that this is an issue if the character in question wasn't doing anything to win the fight. Just standing there and not doing anything, saying "I would never hit a lady!", etc. Being Sanji at his worst, basically.

But OP won the fight, through doing things. The only thing they didn't do was smack the old lady, which is a suboptimal strat in a tournament where the main wincon is surrender anyway.

If the party wanted to handle it differently they should have stepped in. They get 3 turns for every one Trask gets. If they're too incompetent to beat the **** out of an octagenarian while someone else holds their arms behind their back they have zero right to cry about anything being "optimal" or not, and need to turn in their edgelord badges, they're not cut out for it.

That said as a DM in that scenario, you better believe I would have made the old lady by far the biggest threat on the enemy team. You kidding me? She'd go full Genkai on your ass, it'd be hilarious. Big miss by the DM there.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the party wanted to handle it differently they should have stepped in. They get 3 turns for every one Trask gets. If they're too incompetent to beat the **** out of an octagenarian while someone else holds their arms behind their back they have zero right to cry about anything being "optimal" or not, and need to turn in their edgelord badges, they're not cut out for it.. That's a fair critique of the party.

[Duff]

If the rest of the players at the table are angry with you for "It's what my character would do", then, yes your character is problematic.
That doesn't make it a bad character, nor does it make you a bad player (nor a bad person)

But it does show miscommunication about expectations in session 0 (or a lack of session 0)

Did you say in session 0 "My character won't hit a lady unless it's literally the party's lives at stake"?
Did the others say "Sure, that'll be hilarious"?
Did the GM know to set the difficulty lower because your character wouldn't go all out?
Was the table consensus "Once we start to fight, everyone commits to winning the fight - no separate agendas?"
Did anyone raise concerns about your character, with it's built in risk of a separate agenda?

It may be, this problem shows your table need better session 0 conversations
It also may be, your table need to look at better ways to separate character and player conflict. Sometimes having formal tools can help here. My in between calls at work googling has failed at finding such tools

[KorvinStarmast]

If the rest of the players at the table are angry with you for "It's what my character would do", then, yes your character is problematic.
That doesn't make it a bad character, nor does it make you a bad player (nor a bad person)

But it does show miscommunication about expectations in session 0 (or a lack of session 0)

Did you say in session 0 "My character won't hit a lady unless it's literally the party's lives at stake"?
Did the others say "Sure, that'll be hilarious"?
Did the GM know to set the difficulty lower because your character wouldn't go all out?
Was the table consensus "Once we start to fight, everyone commits to winning the fight - no separate agendas?"
Did anyone raise concerns about your character, with it's built in risk of a separate agenda?

It may be, this problem shows your table need better session 0 conversations
It also may be, your table need to look at better ways to separate character and player conflict. Sometimes having formal tools can help here. My in between calls at work googling has failed at finding such tools
I'll say this in a lot fewer words:
If you are on a team, and you are not a team player, you are the problem.
Small group dynamics, 101.

[Composer99]

I just played in a D&D session last night wherein my character refused to do damage to an old woman we were fighting in a tournament and my party got a little angry at me for it. I think I was playing reasonably, but I'd be open to hearing outside opinions on that.

A little background; My party and I signed up for a colosseum-style fighting tournament in an Arabian-themed land, it wasn't to the death, but it involved live steel and spells. I say it wasn't to the death, but killing someone only results in a disqualification and its been known to happen so it was still fairly brutal. Our party was me, a rune knight fighter, an oath of glory paladin, an abjuration wizard, and a pact of the genie warlock. The party leans a little bit towards an "evil" or at least edgy theme in general, the Paladin is kind of a dark paladin sworn to a dark god that values power at any cost in order to do what is necessary, the wizard is a quiet and contemplative character who is mostly good but she has a fascination with learning "blood magic" (our DM's invention), and the warlock is a showboat and a performer at heart, he's somewhat callous, but he's not evil. My fighter is a young man from a small village on the edge of the wilderness, he's very earnest, but a bit of a bumpkin and not especially bright or canny. The group likes roleplay a lot, they get really into character

So in the first bout our enemies included a dopey and inexperienced fighter, an evil wizard, an experienced gladiator, and an unassuming old woman who turned out to be a powerful monk. The old woman ended up being the last one standing and I decided that character would be very hesitant to hurt an old lady, even if she was a threat. I tried to talk her into surrendering, which didn't work, and then physically picking her up and putting her in the stands hoping for an "out-of-bounds" rule, but no such luck. I ended up kind of sitting by for a round, before pushing her prone and grappling her, at which point she (and maybe the DM) felt bad for me and just had her pretend to be knocked out and surrender.

My fellow players got very annoyed at me during this whole fight which surprised me a lot, because I was having a good time roleplaying what I perceived as a pretty classic kind of character trait. The female paladin player got especially upset at me, even saying that my character was acting sexist for not respecting this old lady as a warrior. Although she was kind of right, I didn't really see it that way. I think my character would just have a difficult time doing combat with a woman, especially an old one, due to his simple nature and origins from a small isolated village, and that was a reasonable and pretty mild character flaw all things considered. Also this was just a tournament for some prize money, it wasn't supposed to be life and death, the fight wasn't personal and no one was supposed to be in any real danger, so I reasoned that made my character's reluctance all the greater. The following back-and-forth wasn't very productive or didn't really make anyone feel better, so we just brushed past it.

I would like to not cause group discord, and I really don't want to abuse "but its what my character would do", but frankly I'm a little annoyed myself at having to correct behavior that I don't see as wrong. I'm willing to hear some outside opinions and I could always just pass off this incident as a one-time thing and that my character has learned to push past his reluctance at hurting women and the elderly when they're a threat. I'm considering doing just that, because ultimately its not that important.

Thoughts and opinions?

(1) Looking at things strictly in character, based on your description of the other characters, they absolutely would have been annoyed with your character for "pulling his punches"; rightly so, in character. (Can you seriously imagine a paladin of a dark god who values power not getting annoyed?)

(2) Moving to out of character, it seems there is a mismatch between your conception of the "social trappings" of the game setting and the other players' own conceptions of same.

You come across as having a conception of the game setting where someone from an isolated rural/small-town social environment might reasonably grow up with what amounts to gendered expectations as to what forms of courtesy are extended to others, and the other players did not (whether or not they had even given the matter much thought).

I can't really say what's right for your table, but I can say this:
- It's better for the table if you (the players) are roughly in concordance with your conceptions of the "social trappings" of the game.

- Having gendered expectations as regards how one extends courtesy to others is chauvinist. (The problem isn't usually the behaviours as such - being courteous isn't usually rude, after all - it's the gendered expectations that are the problem.) I could see someone being uncomfortable, annoyed, or upset that your character might seemingly act from a set of chauvinist social expectations, especially if (a) they are obliged to tolerate such things in their daily lives and prefer not to have to during their leisure time and (b) such a thing wasn't a pre-existing agreed-upon element of the setting.

This is not to say anything about you, Trask, the player, of course - but it remains the case that chivalry, with its highly gendered conception of courtesies, is chauvinist.

(3) I think there is also a mismatch between fiction and mechanics - or perhaps too much allowing of mechanics to dictate your response to the fiction? As soon as the old lady threw a punch that clearly does more damage than ordinary unarmed strike, to my mind it would be obvious in the fiction that she's not to be underestimated. (Also there's the part where she was the last one standing among your opponents - kind of a big tell there to my mind.)

Putting (2) and (3) together a bit:

"Don't beat up old people" is, I think, a fairly anodyne concept; but even so could you not conceive of your character's hometown having, say, that one wiry, tough-as-nails gammer who still hogties the hefty hogs and sows and who can still win an arm wrestling match against a strapping farmhand on a good day? The kind of person where you oughtn't pick a fight with her yourself (because you don't like to beat up old people), but if she picks a fight with you, you'd better fight to win, 'cause she sure as the Nine Hells will! - that sort of thing?

[Kraynic]

Chivalry is a lot of things. It meant slightly different (though related) things at different points in time. This list from the Song of Roland has a fairly high number of points/aspects:

https://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-knights/code-of-chivalry.htm

From the description of the OP, there seems to me to be a bit of leaning towards "To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit". Gender doesn't enter into the idea of fairness and meanness. In a fight with people that were totally outmatched by you, you sought to bring the fight to a fair and somewhat kind (as opposed to mean) end. This would be a fairly minimal change to the overall philosophy of the character if the gender focus is the main issue. If they take issue with that as well, then maybe that group just isn't for you.

To be totally honest, I would lean towards simply finding a different group. If being a raging murder hobo is necessary to be in the group, and that isn't what interests you in a game, then you might as well move on. That way, they can enjoy the game the way they like to play, and you don't have to "put up with it" as part of your game time. I expect a good many characters I have played wouldn't be appreciated in that group either.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not really? The only difference would be the age of the NPC, something that really doesn't matter when the full context is "they're trying to hit you, they've proven they can hit you even if not for a high amount per hit, and you literally agreed to join a tournament where knocking them out and not being knocked out is the goal."
I mean... you can dismiss age all you want, but that's just your opinion that it makes no difference. That's your opinion that anyone that joins a tournament should immediately and completely get over any hangups they have about fighting very old or very young people.

Feel free to roleplay your characters that way. OP clearly has a different character that he is playing, that thinks about these things differently.

This is not uncommon. Like the movie Warriors where, spoiler alert, two brothers that both joined a UFC tournament willingly wind up fighting against each other for the grand prize. And the older brother is really torn up about this, especially after he injures his younger brother, and he wants to throw in the towel. Everything that you said about joining a tournament and worthy opponents applies here.

It's not a big deal. It's a roleplaying opportunity. People aren't robots once they decide to enter a tournament.

A small threat remains a threat, just one that takes longer to get to where it's an immediate danger.
In this case, it was perfectly manageable, to the point that the DM had to throw in the towel.

He apparently just waddled around carrying an old lady who was still consistently hitting him until the DM got tired of it and decided she was knocked out, which is only functionally different from knocking her out himself in that he gave more time for her to land hits. This isn't some stunning victory for personal values it's a player extending a fight long past where it could've ended for the exact same result, if anything with the rest of his group there he could've just focused on the other combatants and let them handle it if he was so against fighting her.
This is one way to perceive it. Another way is that the party is whining after the fact when they could have intervened. Another way is that the DM really wanted to force the issue, but instead should have read the room and ended the fight sooner.

A lot of people in this thread seem to take elfgames way too seriously.
1000%

[GloatingSwine]

That said as a DM in that scenario, you better believe I would have made the old lady by far the biggest threat on the enemy team. You kidding me? She'd go full Genkai on your ass, it'd be hilarious. Big miss by the DM there.

Nah, it's the first round of a fighting tournament where the no-hopers like Yamcha get sent to the benches.

The DM should have just taken the L when it was clear the NPC fighter was out of their league because the OP could handily out-grapple a monk...

[Rynjin]

Nah, it's the first round of a fighting tournament where the no-hopers like Yamcha get sent to the benches.

Yamcha always makes it to the quarterfinals, and without exception gets blown out by whoever the strongest guy actually at the tournament is (Roshi, Tien, and Kami in order). My man's reputation has been dragged through the streets these last few decades, he doesn't deserve this.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nah, it's the first round of a fighting tournament where the no-hopers like Yamcha get sent to the benches.
This violence was unnecessary...

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/CD7Zvq5WMAEtFQP.png

[kyoryu]

Well, clearly your party thinks the character is problematic.

Practically, I think you ran your character as one dimensional. "HIT WOMAN BAD." That's understandable, but it's really just a single, overriding factor.

Your character in this situation has a few goals:

1. Maintain honor
2. Win the fight
3. Keep the party on their good side (you're playing a party-based game, this should always be a goal).

Additionally, you know a few things:

1. You're in D&D, and being powerful is not limited to males or to young people
2. You and they have all signed up for a colosseum battle.

So, what does your character do? Ideally, it considers all of these things. That's a lot more complex than "HIT WOMAN BAD", but also allows a lot more flexibility.

The two things you know suggest that maaaaaaybe the woman might be more powerful than she appears. Which was the case.

So now maintaining your honor can start to look more like "I'm dealing with a probably dangerous opponent, here. I need to take her seriously, but I also want to not use excessive force." So preferring non-lethal or non-overwhelming attacks can be an option. This allows you to still achieve your other two goals, while maintaining your honor. And it's frankly better roleplaying.

[Rynjin]

preferring non-lethal or non-overwhelming attacks can be an option. This allows you to still achieve your other two goals, while maintaining your honor. And it's frankly better roleplaying.

You mean like what he actually did?

[Jay R]

A couple of comments:

1. In the D&D rules, and therefore in the world that character grew up in, women are not weaker than men. That notion of chivalry could not develop in that world.

2. The word "problematic" is problematic. If characters A and B don't get along, each player can believe that the other one's PC is being "problematic". By the lights of the other players, your character is problematic. But equally, their characters are problematic for you. It isn't a question of which one is problematic and which one is playing "correctly". Each is problematic for the other.

The real issue is that the party isn't getting along, because they don't agree on the basics of what the party should do. My advice is to play your PC in a way that makes the game better for all the players. Note that I would give the same advice to the players who are upset with your character.

[kyoryu]

You mean like what he actually did?

Kinda?

Grabbing the opponent didn't really do much to defeat them, it just kinda delayed what was going on. It's a colosseum fight. You can still, ya know, fight. Just in that case maybe you won't use your Super Ultra Mondo Death Skull Splitter attack, or choosing to do non-lethal damage if that's an option.

[gbaji]

Hmmm... Well. Given that this is a tournament, and killing people gets you disqualified, all the arguments of "you weren't trying your hardest" really kinda fall flat to me, because, somewhat by necessity, no one is "trying their hardest". If they were, there would be corpses litering the field, right? In a non-lethal fight, grappling, disabling, or pushing your opponent out of the arena is often considered "sufficient to win". And at least part of the OP made it seem like there was an expecation that this would be the case, but the GM didn't actually run it that way.

So... Maybe the GM needs to set up more clear rules on how this non-lethal tournament is actually supposed to work?

Also seen a heck of a lot of automatic leaping to the "woman" part of the description while ignoring the "old/frail" part. Is that actually the determinant here? Trask made it fairly clear that the main point was that this opponent seemed well outmatched, so he was trying to end the fight in the least harmful manner possible. Chivalry does not automatically equate to Chauvanism. There are some very simple tests for this:

Would Trask have fought more seriously/harder if the opponent had been female, but young/healthy/fit? (he seems to have already answered this one)
Would Trask have fought more seriously/harder if the opponent had been equally old and frail looking, but male?
Would Trask have fought more seriously/harder if the opponent had been similarly non-threatening (but not "old"), but male? (he seems to have already answered this one)

This can allow us to determine if this is really about sex/gender of the opponent or the percieved (and apparently very real, given the description of the fight) lack of "threat" this opponent actually posed. And from his previous posts, it's clear that had he been facing a Xena like warrior, he would have fought hard. And had he been facing a non-threatening looking male, he would have fought the same as he did with the old female monk. So...

I strongly suspect the latter (that is was about "percieved threat). And guess what? Chivarly can absolutely require that one does not attack "the weak", without making any assumptions about what makes someone weak in the first place. Yes. It would have been a funny bit to have his character holding back initially out of fear of seriously injuring this "frail/old" person, only to have her start whipping his butt. But the question here is: Had she been doing that, and seriously kicking ass, would Trask have continued to try to play with kid gloves on? Or (I'm asssuming) would he merely re-assess his appraisal of the opponent and respond in kind?

There's nothing "problematic" about a character having a "code" that says "I'm not going to cause unnecessary harm to others". If anything it speaks more volumes to the "problematic" assumptions of the other player that they zeroed in on the sex of the opponent and not the "mostly harmless" nature of that opponent.


If I had one suggestion to make. It's that you make clear what this code actually is. And make it clear that it's not at all about the sex of an opponent, but that your charcter does not enjoy harming people who are not threats to him and would rather find more peaceful solutions. Nothing wrong with that.

Now if the character's personality actually is "I would never strike a woman", then yeah, you're going to run into some conflicts with other players over that. And if I were GMing a game, and a player came to me with a character like that, you can bet the next entire campagin would revolve around the PCs having to deal with a whole tribe of Amazons causing them all sorts of problems, just to force that player/character to face the absurdity of that sort of thing. In games where sex has no relevance to stats and capabilities, there's no reason for any character to adopt such beliefs. Not merely because modern players may take offense (and many will), but because (as someone previously pointed out), there would be no reason for anyone growing up in such a setting to ever develop such an idea in the first place.

[Tanarii]

A couple of comments:

1. In the D&D rules, and therefore in the world that character grew up in, women are not weaker than men. That notion of chivalry could not develop in that world.Most people don't play in a setting that is a logical extension of the rules of the game they are playing. C.f. tippyverse

Mostly fantasy worlds seem to default to one of:
stereotypical views of 'medieval', which is usually a mashup of Late Middle Ages and Early Modern concepts rather than Early or High Middle Ages ... plus magic;
Movie Westerns ... plus swords, armor and magic;
Modern world concepts ... plus swords, armor and magic;
Mashup of all of the above.

In this case it's a conflict between stereotypical view of medieval by one player and modern world concept by another.

[MonochromeTiger]

Hmmm... Well. Given that this is a tournament, and killing people gets you disqualified, all the arguments of "you weren't trying your hardest" really kinda fall flat to me, because, somewhat by necessity, no one is "trying their hardest". If they were, there would be corpses litering the field, right?

No. "Trying their hardest" is contextual. Trying your hardest to fight to the death, sure there would be bodies everywhere, that's your goal, that's what you're trying your hardest to make happen. Trying your hardest to win a nonlethal tournament however? That's just knocking people out, if anything trying your hardest there would be making sure you don't do it in a way that kills or causes too much lasting harm because that's going to get you disqualified.

You're conflating a no killing rule with not trying. That isn't the case, it's just a change of what the effort should be going toward.


In a non-lethal fight, grappling, disabling, or pushing your opponent out of the arena is often considered "sufficient to win". And at least part of the OP made it seem like there was an expecation that this would be the case, but the GM didn't actually run it that way.

It's an arena, I'm guessing in the style of the popularized image of the Roman arena, i.e. big circular pit with the audience off to the side out of the way. Between that kind of structure and the fact the stated "ring out" attempt was putting the opponent in the audience it should be pretty clear that wasn't a method of winning that was included in the rules. The goal was to fight and to knock out the opponents until only the winners were left, that isn't exactly unusual for a competition in a fantasy setting.

It's not going off real world values here, well more accurately it's not going off of realistic real world values. This is the same kind of game where in some campaigns animals will rabidly fight to the death instead of running off when it's clear an opponent isn't going down, where bandits fight to the last man instead of cutting losses and legging it. The basic conceit is that a fight carries on to its conclusion unless stopped in a way that it can't continue or talked down, which in turn requires combatants to be in a situation where that's an option and willing to listen. It logically follows that "sufficient to win" by our standards and the standards of the game world are probably different.


So... Maybe the GM needs to set up more clear rules on how this non-lethal tournament is actually supposed to work?

"Go in, beat up the other combatants, win fight" all sounds pretty clear to me. The idea of trying to avoid fighting in a fighting tournament is, if anything, the unclear part.


Also seen a heck of a lot of automatic leaping to the "woman" part of the description while ignoring the "old/frail" part. Is that actually the determinant here? Trask made it fairly clear that the main point was that this opponent seemed well outmatched, so he was trying to end the fight in the least harmful manner possible. Chivalry does not automatically equate to Chauvanism. There are some very simple tests for this:

Counterpoint. Traask literally stated that the combatant being a woman was a contributing factor. It wasn't the only factor as being old was the other but it was absolutely a factor and it was the one both the Paladin's player and Traask singled out. Even in the other example that gave a bit of cover, the weaker fighter, the response wasn't the same. Instead they just got a few warnings to stay down but they were still fought, even if Traask didn't use any class abilities to do it. The ship for it being a code not to harm weaker opponents kinda sailed at that point and that makes it pretty understandable where the Chauvinism angle comes from, because it wasn't a case of trying the same thing for both.

Despite neither being a major combatant one got knocked out, the win condition for the fight, while the other just got carried around awkwardly until the GM got tired of it and threw Traask a bone.



This can allow us to determine if this is really about sex/gender of the opponent or the percieved (and apparently very real, given the description of the fight) lack of "threat" this opponent actually posed. And from his previous posts, it's clear that had he been facing a Xena like warrior, he would have fought hard. And had he been facing a non-threatening looking male, he would have fought the same as he did with the old female monk. So...

Except we got a mention of him fighting a non threatening looking male. The result was giving them a few chances then knocking them out. It was by no means the same.


There's nothing "problematic" about a character having a "code" that says "I'm not going to cause unnecessary harm to others". If anything it speaks more volumes to the "problematic" assumptions of the other player that they zeroed in on the sex of the opponent and not the "mostly harmless" nature of that opponent.

They zeroed in on a thing that has been clearly stated as a factor. And no, there's nothing bad about a character having a personal code. There is something disruptive about not communicating that code with the other players so that people know what to expect, just as there's something wrong about nobody bringing up something as off limits, in this case the Paladin's player and sexism.

That problem there is a simple one however, communication. Clearly the group as a whole didn't communicate matters clearly and it led to this situation happening. That isn't a one person at fault thing, Traask just happened to stumble onto a point that another player had as a sensitive or offending topic. If their group doesn't communicate on what's bothering them then odds are there will be more issues like this in the future, if no one points out lines not to cross then people are eventually going to cross them because they thought nothing was there.

[Zanos]

Neither being a woman nor being old contribute in any way to being incapable of combat in basically any D&D game I've played. I'm not sure that the classic fictional interpretations of chivalry, which IRL was a lot more complicated than "hit woman bad", would realistically ever apply in a setting where a 90 year old geriatric can flay your soul with a word and a gesture. Chivalry should probably focus on the "defending the weak" and "doing your duty" parts, and clearly this person wasn't weak if OP is describing them as a "powerful monk".

[Rynjin]

Neither being a woman nor being old contribute in any way to being incapable of combat in basically any D&D game I've played. I'm not sure that the classic fictional interpretations of chivalry, which IRL was a lot more complicated than "hit woman bad", would realistically ever apply in a setting where a 90 year old geriatric can flay your soul with a word and a gesture. Chivalry should probably focus on the "defending the weak" and "doing your duty" parts, and clearly this person wasn't weak if OP is describing them as a "powerful monk".

They were indeed so powerful they got completely folded by a dude who wasn't even trying

[Mechalich]

1. In the D&D rules, and therefore in the world that character grew up in, women are not weaker than men. That notion of chivalry could not develop in that world.

This is one of those things that's true until it isn't though. Women aren't weaker then men in strict game mechanical terms, sure, but D&D settings generally aren't written reflecting this and often have considerable chauvinism present in various cultures, traditional divisions of labor, and so forth. There are also groups with beliefs, knighted orders being a common one, that have been essentially ported into D&D without being properly modified to account for this. The result is selective female warriors who are just as capable as men but who still appear somehow anomalous outside of the sub-culture of adventuring parties.

This issue arises inevitably because D&D relies extremely heavily on real-world inspirations for basically everything, but of course in the real world humans are significantly sexually dimorphic. Eliminating that trait requires reimaging societies down to very basic principles to try and get a grasp on what would result. This is even something that can easily be observed in other fantasy or science fiction species that don't possess that trait (or have it reversed, there being many clades in which females are larger and stronger than males, like hawks and sharks).

I think, in part, this situation has arisen because the table isn't quite clear on how they want to handle this incongruity. That's not surprising. The normal solution is to simply pretend it doesn't exist, which works pretty well most of the time.

[Zanos]

They were indeed so powerful they got completely folded by a dude who wasn't even trying
I'm not the one who described her.

[NichG]

This is one of those things that's true until it isn't though. Women aren't weaker then men in strict game mechanical terms, sure, but D&D settings generally aren't written reflecting this and often have considerable chauvinism present in various cultures, traditional divisions of labor, and so forth. There are also groups with beliefs, knighted orders being a common one, that have been essentially ported into D&D without being properly modified to account for this. The result is selective female warriors who are just as capable as men but who still appear somehow anomalous outside of the sub-culture of adventuring parties.

This issue arises inevitably because D&D relies extremely heavily on real-world inspirations for basically everything, but of course in the real world humans are significantly sexually dimorphic. Eliminating that trait requires reimaging societies down to very basic principles to try and get a grasp on what would result. This is even something that can easily be observed in other fantasy or science fiction species that don't possess that trait (or have it reversed, there being many clades in which females are larger and stronger than males, like hawks and sharks).

I think, in part, this situation has arisen because the table isn't quite clear on how they want to handle this incongruity. That's not surprising. The normal solution is to simply pretend it doesn't exist, which works pretty well most of the time.

It's not like real world societies need an actual difference in ability in order to have a reason to discriminate...

'Is it realistic for chivalry to exist in D&D?' is the wrong question here anyhow. In general players can choose all sorts of quirks for a character to have, and those need not be based in any kind of rational, utilitarian, practical, etc stance. The question is whether the quirk picked here is making people uncomfortable OOC, and if it is doing so beyond the threshold of general willingness to compromise with other people that the group (wants to) entertain.

[Vahnavoi]

Indeed, bigotry does not need to be rational or evidence-based. But it's actually possible to prove, statistically, that the "it's not realistic!" argument is itself not realistic. As in, it does not pay attention to fine detail.

This is fairly simple to explain: games like D&D assume that abilities in a population are distributed normally, as approximated by bell curve created by 3d6. So, across large population, both men and women trend towards the same averages.

But, small subpopulations don't always fall to the mean*). There is a chance that in isolated subpopulations, such as a single family or even a small community, it just so happens that the women are weaker than men, or vice versa. Hence, someone growing up in the backwoods of the middle of nowhere could easily develop exaggarated views of sex differences simply because they did not observe a statistically significant amount of people and thus never experienced the mean.

The same thing can be used to explain wide variety of bigoted or otherwise bizarre views, fully fitting the idea of a pre-modern world where most people don't know all that much of the world beyond their own experience. Just ditch the notion that characters know rules of how new characters are created (they explicitly don't, correct knowledge of facts and other characters' abilities are dependent on Appraise and Knowledge skills, which a lot of characters don't even invest in), and focus on the reality they would've actually experienced.

*) or to put it another way: if you thought all NPCs are meant to have the average array, you were wrong.

[Rynjin]

*) or to put it another way: if you thought all NPCs are meant to have the average array, you were wrong.

Considering every single NPC since 3.5 has been explicitly built in a standard way (arrays for 3.5, as "monsters" by 5e)...no, it's not wrong.

The cultural/regional/etc. difference is accounted for by shuffling those locked in numbers around, but the numbers themselves never change. There is no 3d6 at play in the arrays, and no Point Buy involved either. They are locked arrays, and all NPCs are built using them.

[Vahnavoi]

Congratulations on being wrong. The average array in d20 is used as the default for convenience, so that monsters can be used off the shelf without excessive die rolling. It's still transparently average of 3d6 roll and the option to roll still exists. Ignoring what the array is derived from and making it a world-building rule is an obviously fallacious use, equivalent to stating every NPC is of average weight and height because you're too lazy to model a distribution.

[Rynjin]

Congratulations on being wrong. The average array in d20 is used as the default for convenience, so that monsters can be used off the shelf without excessive die rolling. It's still transparently average of 3d6 roll and the option to roll still exists. Ignoring what the array is derived from and making it a world-building rule is an obviously fallacious use, equivalent to stating every NPC is of average weight and height because you're too lazy to model a distribution.

The option to roll doesn't exist for NPCs because they do not have a will. It doesn't matter what the average is modeled off of because the array is still a fixed, known factor.

[Dr.Samurai]

Indeed, bigotry does not need to be rational or evidence-based.
Or even brought into this discussion.

[gbaji]

No. "Trying their hardest" is contextual. Trying your hardest to fight to the death, sure there would be bodies everywhere, that's your goal, that's what you're trying your hardest to make happen. Trying your hardest to win a nonlethal tournament however? That's just knocking people out, if anything trying your hardest there would be making sure you don't do it in a way that kills or causes too much lasting harm because that's going to get you disqualified.

You're conflating a no killing rule with not trying. That isn't the case, it's just a change of what the effort should be going toward.

I'm not conflating them at all. I'm cautioning others against conflating them. The combat methods were described as "live steel with spells". It's unclear to me what "non-lethal" can mean in this context other than "avoid doing enough lethal damage to actually kill people". Since this was also described as a D&D session, that becomes problematic due to the damage construct literally being "your opponnent is absolutely 100% fine until they run out of HPs, at which point they die". I'm also not sure what edition of D&D is being played, nor what specific rules may exist for doing "non lethal" damage. But at the end of the day, any attempt to defeat, but not kill, opponents in D&D requires that one basically "guess" how many HPs they have, and that in turn may result from the players perception based on the GMs description.

It's a crappy system to start with. Adding in a likely intentional description of an "unassuming" person in the arena, just adds to the problem. Yes. An experienced character might realize that this unarmed person is probably a decently skilled monk, but would a character described as being a bit of a country bumpkin leap to this conclusion rather than "unarmored person I'll likely kill in one shot if I hit them with full strength".


It's an arena, I'm guessing in the style of the popularized image of the Roman arena, i.e. big circular pit with the audience off to the side out of the way. Between that kind of structure and the fact the stated "ring out" attempt was putting the opponent in the audience it should be pretty clear that wasn't a method of winning that was included in the rules. The goal was to fight and to knock out the opponents until only the winners were left, that isn't exactly unusual for a competition in a fantasy setting.

It's not going off real world values here, well more accurately it's not going off of realistic real world values. This is the same kind of game where in some campaigns animals will rabidly fight to the death instead of running off when it's clear an opponent isn't going down, where bandits fight to the last man instead of cutting losses and legging it. The basic conceit is that a fight carries on to its conclusion unless stopped in a way that it can't continue or talked down, which in turn requires combatants to be in a situation where that's an option and willing to listen. It logically follows that "sufficient to win" by our standards and the standards of the game world are probably different.

Yeah. That's basically where I was going with this. The default D&D rules just don't handle non-lethal tournament style fighting well. Like at all. It's really up to the GM to contrive some sort of rules to manage this. What kinds of weapons can be used (blunted maybe)? Restrict spells to non-direct-damage spells maybe? Rules for pinning, immobilizing, "removing from the field", etc. Otherwise, it's frankly absurd that people didn't just die constantly in that arena. Doubly so if we assume any sort of level differential among the opponents at all, and no real way to know this (characters don't actually walk around with a number floating over their heads telling you what level they are, nor do they have floating hp bars either).

It's unclear from the OP what instructions or "special rules" were being used for this tournament. So hard to judge this on that level. The OP did state this though:


... and then physically picking her up and putting her in the stands hoping for an "out-of-bounds" rule, but no such luck. I ended up kind of sitting by for a round, before pushing her prone and grappling her, at which point she (and maybe the DM) felt bad for me and just had her pretend to be knocked out and surrender.

Sure seems as though the player thought these methods should work. I'm just suggesting that the GM should have firmly defined rules for this rather than just "whack on them until they stop moving". And if that was the method, then the GM should have had the NPCs surrender when it was clear they could not win.



"Go in, beat up the other combatants, win fight" all sounds pretty clear to me. The idea of trying to avoid fighting in a fighting tournament is, if anything, the unclear part.

Again. The problem is that the default rules don't distinquish between "winning" and "killing". Yet, the tournament was non-lethal, with killing resulting in disqualification. This is made doubly difficult, given that for some bizarre reason the GM chose to have this character continue trying to fight long after it was clear that her "side" had lost, and she had no hope.

Barring some additional instructions from the GM for managing this, I don't see this as "clear" at all. Yes. This is totally tangential to the "harming a woman" aspect, but it does go to the multiple arguments that somehow his methods were "wong" for some reason. We can debate his decision process as to whom he decided to use less dangerous attacks on, but here I'm just discussing exactly what "less lethal" should look like in the first place, and whether that would really be him "not trying to win", as several posters have suggested.

I'm breaking the issue into discrete parts, and examining each separately. And when I look at the tourney bit by itself, I find it problemaatic that there were no rules for how to actually do things like "win without just hitting them with regular weapons, doing regular (lethal) damage, and hope we just happen to hit a range of HPs on the target at which we win". That seems like a really poor way to manage this IMO.



Counterpoint. Traask literally stated that the combatant being a woman was a contributing factor. It wasn't the only factor as being old was the other but it was absolutely a factor and it was the one both the Paladin's player and Traask singled out. Even in the other example that gave a bit of cover, the weaker fighter, the response wasn't the same. Instead they just got a few warnings to stay down but they were still fought, even if Traask didn't use any class abilities to do it. The ship for it being a code not to harm weaker opponents kinda sailed at that point and that makes it pretty understandable where the Chauvinism angle comes from, because it wasn't a case of trying the same thing for both.

Trask said this in the OP:

I decided that character would be very hesitant to hurt an old lady, even if she was a threat.

"Old" and "lady" have equal value in that phrase. There's no reason to assume one or the other is more important, or that both are perhaps required in tandem for the assessment. I guess an interesting thought/social experiement would be for someone to post the exact same thing, but change the sex of the combatant to male, and say "I was hesitant to hurt an old man...", and see what the reaction would be. I suspect that many people would not have the same negative reaction to that statement, and would certainly not have lept to "sexism", or even likely been upset.

Which speaks far more to the bias in the readers (other players too), than the person making the statement. Just pointing out that maybe we should check our own biases and assumptions before assuming them in others.

When pressed, he then clarified that had she been described as a strong looking female warrior, he would not have reacted this way. He didn't specifically state what the "old man" scenario would have looked like, but given that he similarly played "nice" with the goofy incompetant looking male fighter, I think it's reasonable to suspect that he wasn't pulling his punches just because this was a femal opponent.

Although, to be fair, he did also make statements suggesting that the sex of the opponent did play into things (and the other players reacted negative, and... well... they were there and we were not). He also suggested (after the fact) that he viewed it as playing his character, who he felt would be more hesitant to strike a woman, and perhaps a frail old (skin and bones) looking woman to boot. Dunno. I try not to assume sexism where mere poorly worded explanations/descriptions could do. Although, he could certainly have been intentionally trying to RP a "country bumpkin" who was raised (for whatever reason) to "not hit women", and this entire bit is about RPing his character growth as he goes out into the world and learns that the backwards things he was taught are perhaps not great rules to follow.

And yeah, modern "taboo" social issues are somewhat a third rail at gaming tables. You would think that someone could roleplay this out, but some players will expect that every character, regardless of background, must hold to the strict beliefs that the modern players at the table hold on all issues (well "some" issues). Which, honestly, is somewhat odd, given that many of these same players will gleefully kill, maim, torture, kidnap, etc, in the course of playing out their own characters in the game, and have no problem handwaving away those (anti-social in our world) acts as "I'm just playing my character".



They zeroed in on a thing that has been clearly stated as a factor. And no, there's nothing bad about a character having a personal code. There is something disruptive about not communicating that code with the other players so that people know what to expect, just as there's something wrong about nobody bringing up something as off limits, in this case the Paladin's player and sexism.

That problem there is a simple one however, communication. Clearly the group as a whole didn't communicate matters clearly and it led to this situation happening. That isn't a one person at fault thing, Traask just happened to stumble onto a point that another player had as a sensitive or offending topic. If their group doesn't communicate on what's bothering them then odds are there will be more issues like this in the future, if no one points out lines not to cross then people are eventually going to cross them because they thought nothing was there.

Yeah. And to be honest, as third party observers here, it's hard to know how much of this was Trask's own biased actions, versus Trask roleplying a character with those biases, or just a horrible misunderstanding where the perception was much worse than the actual initial thought process. I've seen cases where people didn't have any intentional biased motivation for doing something, but someone else interpreted it as such, and protested, and the original person, possibly somewhat confused or flustered, initially attempts to defend the bias itself, rather than defend the action as not bieng based on bias in the first place.

Some people do, unfortunately, panic and try to defend the strawman/bias/<insert bad action here>, rather than rejecting/denying it in the first place. And having done that, they get put into a very difficult position. Some part of me wonders if this is what happened here.


They were indeed so powerful they got completely folded by a dude who wasn't even trying

And that's another element I keep coming back to. Trasks character was clearly much more physically capable than the monk he was fightinig. Making that clear, via inetntionally not going full out, trying "ridiculous" things like grappling, carring them around, etc would seem to be kinda like putting an exclaimation point on "I'm more powerful than you, just stop fighting now".

And again, I also come back to "D&D is just a terrible game system to do this sort of thing anyway". In any realistic situation where you were actually trying to win in an arena without killing people, tactics like "knock people down and threaten them so they surrender", or "pushing them out of the ring", or "pinning them to the ground", are exactly how this is actually done. In any sort of realistic tourney fight like this, the members of one "side" should be surrendering the moment it becomes obvious that they are outmatched, specifically to avoid lethal outcomes. And there should also be rules for "tapping out", when any one member of a team realizes that they are going to lose, again, with an eye towards avoiding actual deaths.

It kinda feels like the GM was treating this as a "grind" situation, where the first few rounds of opponents continue fighting long past when they should stop, merely to consume resources for the PCs, to make the final fight(s) more difficult. Which, again, is a terrible way to do this IMO.

[kyoryu]

I'd also like to point out that the expectations of the scenario were clearly that it was supposed to be a colosseum battle, and that the PC really just refused to engage with that.

The kind of meta assumption is that you go along with whatever the basic expectations of the game are. And, whenever possible, you find a way to do so.

[Dr.Samurai]

He literally dumped her outside of the ring thinking she'd be DQ'ed.

How do you call that refusing to engage?

[gbaji]

I'd also like to point out that the expectations of the scenario were clearly that it was supposed to be a colosseum battle, and that the PC really just refused to engage with that.

In a game system that has no actual rules for managing non-lethal combat situations well. But with a condition that "if you accidentally kill someone, you get disqualified", and then describing someone as "old/frail" and "80 years old and skin and bones". Any sane person would hold back with full on attacks in that situation IMO.

A clever person might even try to come up with ways to get this old, frail, skin and bones looking person to surrender by convincing them they have no chance to win the fight rather than risk disqualification by whaling on them, and risking the DM going "Ok. You hit them, and they're dead now. You lose".



The kind of meta assumption is that you go along with whatever the basic expectations of the game are. And, whenever possible, you find a way to do so.

My meta assumptions are that if the GM puts a non-lethal tourney scenario in front of me, that the GM will provide clear instructions and rules for how to manage a non-lethal tourney scenario. It's unclear from Trask's posts what, if any, special rules the GM actually provided, but given his confusion at attempting something "non-lethal" to end the fight (pushing her out of the arena, then trying to immobilize her, both perfectly valid tactics), and having the GM basically say "Nope", and "Nope, but... Ok, I'll go along with it because the other players are getting annoyed with this" somewhat suggests said GM didn't actually think this through very well, or provide sufficient instruction to the players as to exactly what constituted "non-lethal victory".

I'm honestly curious here. The default rules of D&D (not sure what edition was being played though) provide that characters are fully functional until they reach zero HPs, at which point they are bleeding to death (and only have a 10 hp range, which is not very large at higher levels). How exactly are you supposed to do a non-lethal combat unless there are some means to "defeat" the opponents other than just hitting them until they stop? And if the NPCs are not stopping until you do sufficient damage to "make them stop", how are you supposed to avoid accidentally killing people?

Now maybe the GM said something like "Ok. There's some magic on the tourney field that makes all damage non-lethal, so any damage taken below 0HPs just knocks people out", and the point is moot. However, Trask's actual post suggested that this was not the case, and that death was a possibilty. So...


He literally dumped her outside of the ring thinking she'd be DQ'ed.

How do you call that refusing to engage?

Exactly. That's absolutely "engaging". It's also "thinking outside the box" and "being quite clever". Again, setting aside the potentially questionable motivations for doing so in the first place (cause that's been discussed to death already), his ideas were very sound, and should have been rewarded instead of essentially penalized. I'll repeat again that this feels to me (admittedly reading between the lines here) like the GM intentionally had the early round opponents fight long past the point at which a sane/real person would have surrendered purely to make those early rounds a resource consumption proceess, with the intention of making the final round(s) more difficult. And yeah, the other players recognized this fact and played to it (and were annoyed that Trask was not), but from an honest actual roleplaying POV? Should not have happened that way.

I find a number of things problematic about how the GM ran this session. And yeah, that's outside the question Trask proposed, but it certainly seems to have amplified the problem presented in the OP itself. Had there been clearer rules as to how to actually do this non-lethal fighting, perhaps Trask would not have been as concerned about his character's actions, and the entire situation may have been avoided.

Or maybe not? We don't know. But the apparent absense of such clear special rules certainly muddies the waters a bit IMO.

[Rynjin]

He literally dumped her outside of the ring thinking she'd be DQ'ed.

How do you call that refusing to engage?

I blame 5e as a system TBH. Its players are so conditioned to understand that HP damage is the only way to end a combat that when the once in a blue moon circumstances occur to make something that isn't "I attack" or "I cast damage spell" a viable way to contribute to a combat the instant, visceral response is "Bro is trolling, throwing the game, I can't believe this".

[KorvinStarmast]

Its players are so conditioned to understand that HP damage is the only way to end a combat that when the once in a blue moon circumstances occur to make something that isn't "I attack" or "I cast damage spell" a viable way to contribute to a combat the instant, visceral response is "Bro is trolling, throwing the game, I can't believe this". Painting with a rather broad brush there, Bro.
As soon as you make a sweeping statement like that, you open yourself up to the fair criticism of being wrong because if some groups do that others do not.

More to the point, the CRPG mindset has conditioned a lot of players (be it from WoW, Diablo, various FPS games, Guild Wars, before PvP games, LoL, and more that teaches the health-bar-based-on-off-switch, summarized as:
"have HP it's not over" versus "have no HP and it's over"
(And yes, thanks for asking, I am enjoying the heck out of Diablo IV's little beta, which may be why this come so quickly to mind).

I've been play D&D for a while. I have DMs in 5e who will - once the tide of the battle has decisively turned- either have the enemies flee, surrender, or they will end the battle as "and now there are none" or similar concluding remark.

There is also the D&D 5e rule for Knocking them out from the PHB/Basic Rules that every group I have been in has used at various times in order to take a prisoner rather than kill an opponent.

Do I wish that the game still had the formal mechanism of the morale check that I got used to in the original game? Personal taste wise, yes. I still use a 2d6 morale check now and again when I, as a DM, can't decide on how the NPC/Monster Fight or Flight response should go.

(As I don't have the DMG with me right now, I can't share where in the DMG a "they might flee" bit is, but I do have numerous published adventures with "if this happens, NPC x will try to flee" to include the Lost Mines of Phandelver)

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, it's much more likely that "enemy must run out of HP in gameplay even if they survive in the cutscene afterwards" is videogame thinking not 5e thinking.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't help that bypassing HPs to remove a creature from a fight for any significant amount of time is usually considered OP by rules designers (for good reason), so such effects can be very limited or hard to pull off.

So I think it's fair to say that when the rules of combat for a game primarily focus on whatever form of damage the rules use to remove a creature from a fighting, and the scenario requires or strongly encourages using other methods than that default, some players may not adapt to the change gracefully. And/or the rules may actively fight trying to use those other methods to the point where they get frustrated at someone else using them.

[KorvinStarmast]

It doesn't help that bypassing HPs to remove a creature from a fight for any significant amount of time is usually considered OP by rules designers (for good reason), so such effects can be very limited or hard to pull off.

So I think it's fair to say that when the rules of combat for a game primarily focus on whatever form of damage the rules use to remove a creature from a fighting, and the scenario requires or strongly encourages using other methods than that default, some players may not adapt to the change gracefully. And/or the rules may actively fight trying to use those other methods to the point where they get frustrated at someone else using them.

My current rant on how the devs are messing up the 5e banishment spell in their D&Done UAs is related to this. For beings not from the plane where the encounter is happening, it is kind of neat that you can 'send them away' without the HP grind provided the save is missed and concentration is not broken. That's a way to defeat an enemy without the HP grind.

That the devs are more or less requiring the HP grind for that spell now makes me go :smallfurious: and it makes me empathize with the critics of this iteration of the game who point to "they are making it too video gamey" - somewhat.

[Ionathus]

Although she was kind of right, I didn't really see it that way. I think my character would just have a difficult time doing combat with a woman, especially an old one, due to his simple nature and origins from a small isolated village, and that was a reasonable and pretty mild character flaw all things considered...I could always just pass off this incident as a one-time thing and that my character has learned to push past his reluctance at hurting women and the elderly when they're a threat.

Even though it's a real thing and it makes perfect sense in context, something about the phrasing of pitching "finally learned how to hurt women and the elderly" as a source of character development really tickled me. :smallbiggrin:


My fellow players got very annoyed at me during this whole fight which surprised me a lot, because I was having a good time roleplaying what I perceived as a pretty classic kind of character trait. The female paladin player got especially upset at me, even saying that my character was acting sexist for not respecting this old lady as a warrior.


This quote pairs nicely with this response:


Your characters idea of chivalry does not really fit an equal world. When a fighter can expect that half of all enemy mercenaries, bandits, soldiers etc. are women and as deadly as men, it would be foolish to not fight them properly. And someone who does not properly fight against a significant part of enemies will probably annoy his comrades or even enrage them if this produces real danger.

See it like this : With perfect gender equality your idea of chivalry makes as much sense as a character who doesn't want to fight red-haired people. Does this seem sensible ?

Now not every game world really has gender equality. And you obviously didn't expect one if you consider a "typical gladiator" to e male. I don't know what the GMs world really has. But when everyone else expected realized gender equality, chances are tha is the premise.

So in short : You did nothing wrong but it is very possible that your character concept does not fit the world.

(Emphases mine)

There are 2 things at play here.

1. "Not accepting the conceit of the tournament" has been fairly well analyzed here. Sometimes it can be fun to refuse the basic premise of an encounter, as long as your PC's alternate solution is interesting and moves the story forward (rather than just pissing about for 4x as long and wasting everyone's time). It depends on your table and only you can answer that.

2. The other thing, and my biggest takeaway, is that your PC concept doesn't fit this world and the play experience everyone else signed on for.

If you want to play with prejudice in RPGs (or fiction in general, really), you have two main options: either create a world that acknowledges and explores those issues, or create a world that normalizes equality.

The problem might be that you chose "acknowledge and explore" for gender and everyone else chose "normalize."

The two approaches are incompatible because it's impossible for you to roleplay your "country bumpkin unlearning his prejudice" if nobody else even agrees that country bumpkins would struggle with this. To build on what Satinavian said above, it'd be like someone rocking up to my D&D campaign going "I'd really love to play someone who has to slowly get over his disgust of people with red hair" -- unless they want to play it for humor or treat it like cult brainwashing, I'm not gonna be very interested in running that world for them. And if we have a redhead player, I definitely wouldn't blame them for getting annoyed with that player's choice.

Doubly so for your paladin player, who is already treated differently in real life for being a woman. I give it 100:1 odds that she sees D&D as an escape, where her paladin can throw down just as effectively as everyone else and never has to navigate a social minefield in relation to her gender. She probably sees gender equality as "normalized" in this fantasy world, and she doesn't want you bringing real-world "chivalry" prejudice into it as a character flaw...even if your ultimate goal is to affirm gender equality.


Yeah you're right, I just wanted to get more takes on it because I don't think it would be wise to immediately get back into a discussion about it with the group. I think posting here in this way can be helpful for people (like me) who sometimes don't realize when they've been insensitive or stubborn.

Props for the self-awareness. Not everyone is willing to pick apart their own behavior like this.

[icefractal]

I'm honestly curious here. The default rules of D&D (not sure what edition was being played though) provide that characters are fully functional until they reach zero HPs, at which point they are bleeding to death (and only have a 10 hp range, which is not very large at higher levels). How exactly are you supposed to do a non-lethal combat unless there are some means to "defeat" the opponents other than just hitting them until they stop? And if the NPCs are not stopping until you do sufficient damage to "make them stop", how are you supposed to avoid accidentally killing people?

Now maybe the GM said something like "Ok. There's some magic on the tourney field that makes all damage non-lethal, so any damage taken below 0HPs just knocks people out", and the point is moot. However, Trask's actual post suggested that this was not the case, and that death was a possibilty. So...In 1E/2E maybe? In 3E through 5E, you can knock people out nonlethally by hitting them -

3E: Choose to do nonlethal/subdual damage, taking -4 unless you're using certain weapons which have that specified
4E/5E: When you land the finishing blow, you determine whether it's lethal or not. Some GMs house-rule otherwise in 5E, but the default rule is that not only can you knock someone out but it's equally easy to do as killing them.


That said, my personal feeling that the party's reaction is over the top here, but there's a lot we don't know - did the OP's actions result in the fight taking much more real-time than it otherwise would? Did it cause that character to look good at the expense of the others? Did it lead them to think that character expected a Paladin-esque code of conduct for the whole group? Lots of reasons they could potentially be upset.

And for that matter - while I'd personally run like hell from a group so obsessed with tactical excellence that they'd get pissed over un-optimal combat behavior in a low-stakes fight that still resulted in a win, because that sounds miserable - it is a playstyle, and if the rest of the group has that playstyle then either put on your combat hat or look elsewhere.

[gbaji]

That the devs are more or less requiring the HP grind for that spell now makes me go :smallfurious: and it makes me empathize with the critics of this iteration of the game who point to "they are making it too video gamey" - somewhat.

Which is itself tied to the game "balanced" around X encounters of Y difficulty per day/long-rest. Once you have that math as a core balancing component, there's a strong incentive present to eliminate anything that may trivialize or bypass any of the "X encounters", because it affects the entire "days" difficulty calculation. Personally, I hate such calculationes (maybe "hate" is a strong word), and avoid them as often as possible. My encounters in my games are designed to challenge the players on an intellectual/RP level, not so much their characters physically/magically. Sure, I use such calculations as a guideline for when I'm crafting something intended to be a difficult grind situation (pushing through a series of tough encounters to get to the prize, rescue the prince, save the day, whatever). But I'm perfectly fine having like one encounter in a day, and maybe serveral days between encounters. I just like to make that one encounter "interesting" for the players instead of just a HP/exp grind.


The two approaches are incompatible because it's impossible for you to roleplay your "country bumpkin unlearning his prejudice" if nobody else even agrees that country bumpkins would struggle with this. To build on what Satinavian said above, it'd be like someone rocking up to my D&D campaign going "I'd really love to play someone who has to slowly get over his disgust of people with red hair" -- unless they want to play it for humor or treat it like cult brainwashing, I'm not gonna be very interested in running that world for them. And if we have a redhead player, I definitely wouldn't blame them for getting annoyed with that player's choice.

Hah! I must have a lot of just crazy/lax players though. If someone did that, the redhead would not only not take offense, but would make a point of making a redheaded character just to mess with the other person as much as possible. Probably including romantic overtures as well... And heaven help that character if the party ever comes across some hair dye.


Doubly so for your paladin player, who is already treated differently in real life for being a woman. I give it 100:1 odds that she sees D&D as an escape, where her paladin can throw down just as effectively as everyone else and never has to navigate a social minefield in relation to her gender. She probably sees gender equality as "normalized" in this fantasy world, and she doesn't want you bringing real-world "chivalry" prejudice into it as a character flaw...even if your ultimate goal is to affirm gender equality.

Yeah. I think that "know your fellow players" is really important here. It would be really nice if every player were capable of actually leaving "real world hangups/issues/foibles" at the door and outside the fanstasy world. But a lot of players just can't. And you have to be aware of that and deal with it.


In 1E/2E maybe? In 3E through 5E, you can knock people out nonlethally by hitting them -

3E: Choose to do nonlethal/subdual damage, taking -4 unless you're using certain weapons which have that specified
4E/5E: When you land the finishing blow, you determine whether it's lethal or not. Some GMs house-rule otherwise in 5E, but the default rule is that not only can you knock someone out but it's equally easy to do as killing them.

Yeah. I think even 1e had some subdual damage rules as well. But it was with similar minuses and not often used IIRC. Wasn't aware of the 4e/5e "killing blow" thing (never played 4e, and only played a couple one day dungeon delve 5e games). Though I have to question how, if that rule exists and is universal, there could ever be a disqualification as presented in the OP? If you can just retroactively respond to "opponent killed" with "Ok. That was a non-lethal killing blow instead", then that should never come up.

So yeah. Still a bit confused as to the "rules" the GM actually used for this. Or maybe just Trask was at the time? Dunno.



That said, my personal feeling that the party's reaction is over the top here, but there's a lot we don't know - did the OP's actions result in the fight taking much more real-time than it otherwise would? Did it cause that character to look good at the expense of the others? Did it lead them to think that character expected a Paladin-esque code of conduct for the whole group? Lots of reasons they could potentially be upset.

And for that matter - while I'd personally run like hell from a group so obsessed with tactical excellence that they'd get pissed over un-optimal combat behavior in a low-stakes fight that still resulted in a win, because that sounds miserable - it is a playstyle, and if the rest of the group has that playstyle then either put on your combat hat or look elsewhere.

Yup. If another player is having fun, why should it matter? It was Trask making the less effective attacks, and Trask taking whatever damage he was taking as as result. I mean, unless it was literally a "you're taking up too much time" thing?

I have run into players before who insist on using only the most quick and efficient means to win any combat situation possible. One particular player at my table leans this direction (but is not too bad). He'll do things like get frustrated that the combat is taking too long, and start using "occasional use" spells/items to rush things along, often in encounters that we are going to win anyway, when he really should save them for something where victory is more in doubt. But hey. His character, he can do what he wants. I recall one time I was playing one of my more powerful characters, and had her dual wielding some new swords she got. She was somewhat skilled with one hand use, but got a pair of them (and had only recently regained use of her off hand - long story), so wanted to practice off hand use, since she actually had another skill that would provide additional benefits when dual wielding but had never been able to take advantage of it before (so basically spreading her capabilities out for different combat situations). We were fighting some realtively wimply foes (but a fair number of them), so I figured this was a great time to do this. I remember he kept commenting as to why she wasn't just using her spear (which she was silly level good at) instead. Yeah. Would have made the fight go faster. But my character would have learned nothing from it (skill based game, and we don't hand out skill increases if you are too much more skilled than your opponent). No one was in any danger at all, so why not?

But yeah. Some players just see those encounters as obstacles to be overcome as quickly as possible. Not sure why. I enjoy combat situations in games. I think most players do (and certainly most RPGs spend a lot of time on combat rules, so...). Social interaction and roleplay is great, but you do kinda want to occasionally beat on some bad guys, right? So why not have fun with it?

[Ionathus]

Hah! I must have a lot of just crazy/lax players though. If someone did that, the redhead would not only not take offense, but would make a point of making a redheaded character just to mess with the other person as much as possible. Probably including romantic overtures as well... And heaven help that character if the party ever comes across some hair dye.

Haha, an equally likely outcome! I can absolutely see a redheaded player taking that other player's choice and playing with it. I just meant to say that I would also understand if the redhead player went "...dude, really?" and asked the player to not fixate on that.


Yeah. I think that "know your fellow players" is really important here. It would be really nice if every player were capable of actually leaving "real world hangups/issues/foibles" at the door and outside the fanstasy world. But a lot of players just can't. And you have to be aware of that and deal with it.

Agreed. "Redheaded" is probably a little too innocuous for my example: redheads get comments on their appearance and the occasional Ginger Joke, and I do know some redheads who are annoyed by that, but overall these days it's a pretty minor thing in most communities. On the flip side, women very obviously experience a different1 social dynamic than men do, and I don't begrudge any female D&D player who doesn't want to be reminded of that real-world dynamic in a world where she can pretend to be literally anything. Especially if it's a guy doing the reminding.

And that's not implying any malice or bad behavior on the part of the dude, btw. It sounds like an honest misalignment of what the two players expected from the tone of the game. But one of them's gonna have to change their expectations to keep playing or these problems will keep resurfacing. In this context, I think it would be best for Trask to alter his character concept slightly. With a small tweak, he can improve his fellow player's experience and sense of being welcome at the table for little to no loss of his character concept.

1. I'm being intentionally vague here to avoid starting a whole debate. Regardless of the degree to which you agree with this statement, I consider the baseline statement pretty irrefutable. Women experience a different social world than men do, and many women consider that difference negative in many situations. Including "treating a capable fighter with kid gloves just because she's female and old - in a world where those factors are explicitly irrelevant to fighting ability."

[Telonius]

Late to the comment on this one. I'm seeing this as basically a Toph/The Boulder situation. At some point the character will either get over his conflicted feelings, or get tossed out of the ring when he underestimates (and disrespects) his foe.

[animorte]

Late to the comment on this one. I'm seeing this as basically a Toph/The Boulder situation. At some point the character will either get over his conflicted feelings, or get tossed out of the ring when he underestimates (and disrespects) his foe.
Haha, nice. Literally just watched this episode last night on my 87th (or more) run through.

[gbaji]

Agreed. "Redheaded" is probably a little too innocuous for my example: redheads get comments on their appearance and the occasional Ginger Joke, and I do know some redheads who are annoyed by that, but overall these days it's a pretty minor thing in most communities. On the flip side, women very obviously experience a different1 social dynamic than men do, and I don't begrudge any female D&D player who doesn't want to be reminded of that real-world dynamic in a world where she can pretend to be literally anything. Especially if it's a guy doing the reminding.

And that's not implying any malice or bad behavior on the part of the dude, btw. It sounds like an honest misalignment of what the two players expected from the tone of the game. But one of them's gonna have to change their expectations to keep playing or these problems will keep resurfacing. In this context, I think it would be best for Trask to alter his character concept slightly. With a small tweak, he can improve his fellow player's experience and sense of being welcome at the table for little to no loss of his character concept.

1. I'm being intentionally vague here to avoid starting a whole debate. Regardless of the degree to which you agree with this statement, I consider the baseline statement pretty irrefutable. Women experience a different social world than men do, and many women consider that difference negative in many situations. Including "treating a capable fighter with kid gloves just because she's female and old - in a world where those factors are explicitly irrelevant to fighting ability."

Yeah. It's a tricky subject, and I'll also try to be vague as well. Let's imagine two players: A and B. And let's imagine player A is running character A, and player B is running character B.

If character A does or says something while interacting in the game with other characters and objects within the game, which player B feels is offensive or upsetting due to some historical bias or discrimination or whatever in the real world that should not exist at all in the game, player B also needs to realize that character A would also not know of that history, nor would character B. Character B would not be offended by it in the same way player B might. They might think that's "odd behavior" and wonder "why would anyone do or say that", but would not have the historical reasons to be "offended" by it.

A good rule of thumb (if we're speaking of "ideal roleplaying here) is that characters should react to the actions and statements of other characters purely based on the characters own experiences and history and *not* that of the player. And yeah. This can be really hard to do (and was what I was referring too earlier). If player B assumes that player A had their character do something due to player A's own personal biases/whatever from the "real world", player B *also* needs to be aware that they are similarly projecting their own biases/whatever into the game by having their character react negatively to this (again assuming that the historical biases and issues don't actually exist in the game setting). They need to restrict their response to the other character to reactions by their own character, based on that characters own history, and not that of the their own history.

So I'm somewhat cautioning against reacting so strongly to things like this, when it's quite possible that no actual offense was meant. We can question whether player A really holds those biases and is projecting them onto the character, or is merely exploring (roleplaying even) a character "different than me". On the flip side though, if player B is ofended by something character A did in a scenario where said history doesn't exist (in the game), then player B is absolutely "guilty" of projecting their own personality and whatnot into the game world and onto the characters, and interpreting their actions not based on the conditions inside that game world, but conditions inside their own "real world".

So yeah, ideally, players should only interact with other players actions/words to *them* (the other players at the table) using "real world" historical judgements, and not those made by characters purely within the game. Again though, that's sometimes really hard. We've all seen the case where some players just feel like roleplaying is an excuse to engage in a host of socially unacceptable and offensive behaviors as some kind of outlet or something (or even specifically to "get a rise" out of another player), and this can be really disgusting/upsetting to other players. So yeah, I don't blame folks at all for reacting negatively to this. On the flip side, however (just to play devil's advocate here for a moment), we've also seen cases where some players are absurdly oversensitive to various "real world issues" and project them onto their characters in ways that can be equally "unfun" for other players as well (and completely unrealistic for the characters and setting).

Which leads us back to "know your table". Get a feel for how players react to different social settings and interactions and aim them in ways that they will all (hopefully) enjoy. And sometimes, this does mean that the GM needs to step in and take some action. I wasn't at the table when the OP situation occurred, so I can't actually judge how things went down. But it does sound like a fairly minor issue and/or misunderstanding. And the good news is that IME most players who are actually projecting their own biases into their characters tend to not restrict themselves to such "bad behavior" only when playing character to character, but will also engage in such things player to player (ok, maybe that's not stricly "good news" really but bear with me), which means it's often pretty easy to call them out on this when it happens and correct said behavior (or just boot them if it's too extreme).

So I guess the upshot here is that if these sorts of things stay restricted to character to character stuff, but never player to player, it's probably not something to worry about. Again though, tailoring the game to match what the players want is always a good idea, so if the players don't actually want to play "pirates who plunder and kill innocent people" because they personally don't like that sort of thing (or are triggered by pirates or whatever), maybe steer the game away from that and discourage that sort of behavior by characters in the game.

[Pex]

For the scenario in question you were wrong not to attack. You didn't have to kill. You should have participated. You are a party. You work together. Just say to the DM you're attacking to subdue not injure. No game mechanics change. It just means when she drops it's not lethal.

For the campaign in general there will be problems because you want to play Mr. Nice Guy and everyone else wants to play Murder Hobo. As you are the odd man out if you still want to play make a new character and be comfortable as a Murder Hobo. Otherwise, and I sympathize, if you are stickler for wanting to play Hero Who Saves The Day and not Kill Creatures And Take Their Stuff as the other players want, then this game is not for you.

[Dr.Samurai]

1. I'm being intentionally vague here to avoid starting a whole debate. Regardless of the degree to which you agree with this statement, I consider the baseline statement pretty irrefutable. Women experience a different social world than men do, and many women consider that difference negative in many situations. Including "treating a capable fighter with kid gloves just because she's female and old - in a world where those factors are explicitly irrelevant to fighting ability."
Men also experience a different social world than women do. This is also irrefutable. And no, it's not just all peaches and cream.

It is not an exaggeration at all when I say that I do not know a single woman that is a colleague, friend, or loved one, that is as strong or stronger than me. And I'm not a weightlifter or martial artist. This is just reality. And this is the case for most men and women. And that comes with social expectations and experiences. And rightfully so.

If I'm walking down the street in our increasingly dangerous neighborhood, and my girlfriend and I get attacked, if I leave her to fight off our attackers while I run to get help, not only will she question everything about our relationship, all of our friends and family will as well. And they should. Because I'm twice her size and much more able to fend off other men than she is. It would be utterly ridiculous and counter to her safety and my own to leave her to fight off other men while I run away. And this goes with carrying the groceries up our six story walk-up, or carrying down our luggage when we go away on vacation. Why would I leave her to do something that she will struggle with, that I can do with less effort?

And this goes for my grandparents, and my nephews, and anyone else that is obviously not as strong as I am. Elderly people sometimes lack so much physicality that we send children to help them with their lawn, crossing the street, getting their groceries, etc.

And this difference in physicality translates into work as well. I've torn one shoulder and my bicep tendons in both arms (not all the way through thankfully) at work. And workplace injuries are much more common for men in part because a lot of the work they do is physical.

And none of this is to refute anything that women experience, only to highlight that issues or problems are not exclusive to anyone and we shouldn't be so sensitive about any of this as much as we are.

And this scenario in the OP also carries over into the real world. Trained male fighters will be reluctant to fight trained women fighters, despite their training and competence, because there is still a clear advantage over them. There are advantages between men as well. That's what weight classes are. But if a male fighter goes around beating women fighters in competition, no one is going to congratulate him on these victories, because it will be seen as unfair, even if no one wants to speak it aloud.

It's fine to say to Trask that "hey man, in D&D these differences don't exist, so while chivalry is a common medieval fantasy trope, this aspect of it might be a little misplaced in D&D". But to take it any further than that is unreasonable to me.

[gbaji]

Men also experience a different social world than women do. This is also irrefutable. And no, it's not just all peaches and cream.

...

It's fine to say to Trask that "hey man, in D&D these differences don't exist, so while chivalry is a common medieval fantasy trope, this aspect of it might be a little misplaced in D&D". But to take it any further than that is unreasonable to me.

Yeah. It's sometimes a bit of an odd disconnect. On the one hand, if we were really speaking of a "real world tourney", we do actually separate men and women in virtually every sports competition, and for very real reasons. There should be no reason to be offended by this. On the other hand, in said fantasy world, there is no statistical physical difference between male and female competitors, so the idea of separating them or treating them differently would be utterly alien.

Which should leave us with (at worse) a reaction of confusion as to why anyone in this fantasy world would actually act like that, but not actual offense (by the characters anyway). I can see a player being offended, but not because it's saying anything about their own "real world" selves, but that someone is making assumptions (potentially about their characters) based on a criteria that isn't valid in said fantasy world.

But yeah. My response to this is to have my female character just beat the stuffing out of any male character who foolishly thinks this sort of thing to show them just how wrong they are. Deal with it in game IMO. As it happens, in the game I play regularly, my three most powerful regularly played characters all happen to be female. Not sure how that happened, just worked out that way. And pretty much all three would very much have no issues teaching a silly male just how wrong he may be if he thought that meant they were weak or something.

In the grand scheme of "annoying behavior I've seen at gaming tables" this ranks really really low. As long as this is purely manifested in character behavior in game, I'd recommend only using character reactions in game to deal with it.

[gloryblaze]

Yeah. I think even 1e had some subdual damage rules as well. But it was with similar minuses and not often used IIRC. Wasn't aware of the 4e/5e "killing blow" thing (never played 4e, and only played a couple one day dungeon delve 5e games). Though I have to question how, if that rule exists and is universal, there could ever be a disqualification as presented in the OP? If you can just retroactively respond to "opponent killed" with "Ok. That was a non-lethal killing blow instead", then that should never come up.

So yeah. Still a bit confused as to the "rules" the GM actually used for this. Or maybe just Trask was at the time? Dunno.


I think this is just an edition/context misunderstanding. Based on OP mentioning a "rune knight fighter, an oath of glory paladin, an abjuration wizard, and a pact of the genie warlock," I would wager with near absolute certainty that we're discussing 5e here, since Rune Knight, Oath of Glory, School of Abjuration, and Genie Patron are all official 5e subclasses for the mentioned classes.

In 5e, you can only declare a nonlethal blow with a melee attack. So you can nonlethally hit someone with a greataxe or an inflict wounds spell, but not a longbow or a guiding bolt spell. If damage is dealt by something other than an attack, such as a fireball spell, magic missile spell, or the breath weapon of a dragonborn (saving throw, automatic damage, saving throw, respectively), that damage is lethal unless the feature specifies otherwise.

As a 5e player, the concept of a tournament fight with a DQ condition for killing the opponent would be perfectly reasonable and understandable. The win condition is reducing all opponents to 0 HP with melee attacks. The lose conditions are either a) being reduced to 0 HP or b) reducing an opponent to 0 HP with a ranged attack or non-attack source of damage. So to be utterly safe you might choose to make only melee attacks, but if you were optimized for ranged combat or non-attack damage, you might engage in that combat for a while before switching to melee if you were confident that your opponent was healthy enough to not go down.

[gbaji]

I think this is just an edition/context misunderstanding. Based on OP mentioning a "rune knight fighter, an oath of glory paladin, an abjuration wizard, and a pact of the genie warlock," I would wager with near absolute certainty that we're discussing 5e here, since Rune Knight, Oath of Glory, School of Abjuration, and Genie Patron are all official 5e subclasses for the mentioned classes.

In 5e, you can only declare a nonlethal blow with a melee attack. So you can nonlethally hit someone with a greataxe or an inflict wounds spell, but not a longbow or a guiding bolt spell. If damage is dealt by something other than an attack, such as a fireball spell, magic missile spell, or the breath weapon of a dragonborn (saving throw, automatic damage, saving throw, respectively), that damage is lethal unless the feature specifies otherwise.

As a 5e player, the concept of a tournament fight with a DQ condition for killing the opponent would be perfectly reasonable and understandable. The win condition is reducing all opponents to 0 HP with melee attacks. The lose conditions are either a) being reduced to 0 HP or b) reducing an opponent to 0 HP with a ranged attack or non-attack source of damage. So to be utterly safe you might choose to make only melee attacks, but if you were optimized for ranged combat or non-attack damage, you might engage in that combat for a while before switching to melee if you were confident that your opponent was healthy enough to not go down.

Ah. Ok. That makes 100% sense then. And does actually kinda funnel the competitors into more melee on melee combat so as to avoid the DQ. I understand the others players annoyance/frustration a bit better under those circumstances. I'd still play off whatever odd foible was driving this character to do that "in game" though.

[gatorized]

My fellow players got very annoyed at me during this whole fight which surprised me a lot, because I was having a good time roleplaying what I perceived as a pretty classic kind of character trait. The female paladin player got especially upset at me, even saying that my character was acting sexist for not respecting this old lady as a warrior. Although she was kind of right, I didn't really see it that way.
Thoughts and opinions?

I don't really get this. She got angry at you, in real life, because your character had a flaw? Should fictional characters not have flaws?


I'd also like to point out that the expectations of the scenario were clearly that it was supposed to be a colosseum battle, and that the PC really just refused to engage with that.

The kind of meta assumption is that you go along with whatever the basic expectations of the game are. And, whenever possible, you find a way to do so.

If there's only one way to engage with a scenario, then it's a ****ty scenario and you should do something else.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy