Narrated D&D Story: How Two Evil Players Broke A Lawful Good Character's Will To Live
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Don't you absolutely hate it when players are constantly at odds with the group in your dnd sessions?
You can now listen to us on podcast at All Things DnD's Story Dungeon on these channels:-
iTunes: bit.ly/iTunesATD
Spotify: bit.ly/SpotifyATD
Thumbnail Art & Story: bit.ly/EvilLawf...
Story Submitted By: Jon Smith
Feel free to send us your stories here: team@allthingsdnd.com or post it directly on our website www.allthingsd....
Make sure to subscribe to our channel for more amazing Dungeons & Dragons content! Also, you can follow us on internet on other channels such as Facebook, Discord, Twitter and Instagram here:
www.allthingsd...
Watch how my party burned down a house to fix a creepy doll problem here:
• Narrated D&D Story: Ho...
Watch how a player outsmarted the DM in the most glorious fashion here:
• Narrated D&D Story: Ho...
Credits-
Video Editor: Murtaza Bohari (msurtaza77@gmail.com)
Editors: Lonny Foran (written4reddit@gmail.com) and Angel Aegis Neon (angelaegisneon999@gmail.com)
Narration: MyLo (Twitter/VoMylo)
Thumbnail Art & Channel Artwork: CJ Downing (cjdowning.mypo...)
Intro Credit: Arc Solutions
Background Music: Licensed with Envato Elements
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
#DnDStories #DnD #DungeonsAndDragons
At least Rafa's player had the self-awareness to ask everyone if they were tired of the evil act. I've seen plenty of stories where this is never the case and the group eventually has a schism
It's always preferable to speak out of character when some ingame behaviors make us or can make others uncomfortable.
Edoardo Prevelato
Definitely the right thing to do.
It isn’t common, but I’ve run into games where an evil PC really crossed the line to the point where I questioned both the PC’s and DM’s sanity. I have never had more than one or two scenarios with each of them. Didn’t get through a single session with most of them and I *barely* finished a session with the rest.
(Warning, disturbing list here) Examples are:
-Cannibalism
-Rape
-Inhumane Torture
-Pedophilia
-Necrophilia
-Very kinky furry crap
-Abusive Relationship within the group itself
-Beyond racist players towards other people in the group.
-Very Sexist Players
-Beyond Narcissistic and potentially Psychotic players
-a satanist girl that constantly talked about her religious views as we played. (I wonder how she would have reacted if I told her I was Christian)
Etc.
There are definitely more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head.
Note: These horrific situations are spread over many years. So roughly once in a blue moon, did I run into these people.
@@couragew6260 my experience is fairly limited, but so far all groups i've played with have steered clear from particularly dark themes and evil alignment altogether. It appears that europeans in general have a tendency to keep roleplaying light be it tabletop or videogame.
Edoardo Prevelato
You’re right about that. The main majority of my game sessions are like that too. But again, there’s always that rare scenario where I picked the wrong group to play with.
@@couragew6260 I only DMed one campaign, my mates are all pretty messed up and I'm a blatant racist, so in fairness I have to accept their bullshit too.
I had a society that was run by competing elder dragons of various colors with human and non human populations which reflected the selection pressures their environment would exert. Green dragon society being low trust, white dragon being tribal and savage, red being overtly violent etc.
My players just fought each other and raped and murdered. I tried to punish them by having the two main offenders arrested and sent to a gladiatorial arena, threw some monsters that I thought would kill them, one dies basically immediately, the Barbarian solos 3 beasts and the arena champion and is now 2 levels above the rest of the party because he did it all solo. Yeah that was an experience.
After that I just came with a set of kill/gather quests and tried to make cool encounters for them, they didn't give a shit about the story, but they were doing stuff like building a base and trying to find new powers so if we hadve continued it could have been cool.
As infuriating as that would be, the fact that the Evil character's player seemed genuinely concerned about holding back the game and willingly stopped makes me extremely happy.
There's being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, and then there's being an asshole for the sake of roleplaying. Glad to see this player knows the difference.
Wasn't it the suiciding character's player who was concerned?
R3GARnator no rafas player, the evil one, asked if his schemes were getting out of hand
Story of Batman vs Joker. Joker just wants batman to kill him. How'd it end?
Chaotic evil means caring only about yourself and trying to make life better for only you. These assholes were killing leads for the quest and royal heirs, how does that improve life for them? They were not chaotic evil, they were chaotic stupid, and took too long to realise it
I agree with Banjo's player that using a spell that strips away player agency is the cheapest way to solve a dispute. I'm not just talking about DnD, in ALL roleplaying systems, I have always hated those spells/abilities that basically forces one player to hand his character sheet over to another player and say "Okay, fuck everything I've been working towards, I failed a single roll so here, do whatever you want with my beloved character, I guess".
Best bet would be to beat fire with fire...
Mind control of any kind and level on other players is banned in any respectful campaign.
I've always resolved it so that vanilla rules only apply to NPCs. PCs and really important or powerful NPCs would get re-rolls, because of agency.
One common mistake peple make with Charm Person is that it doesn't allow the caster to mind control a creature (that's Dominate Person/Monster), Charm Person just makes the target regard you as a friend. That doesn't mean they will do everything you tell them
Well, if it become to big of a problem, you can always, as a DM, introduce an Anti-Charm Ring or Amulet, to mitigate the effect (i don't think it would seem forced to found one in a magic shop).
*DM:* The main mission of this campaign is to help the Caturday race to prosper.
*Player:* _(makes a character that only hurts the Caturday people)_
*DM:* PURRFECT!
This entire campaign honestly sounds miserable. There doesn't seem to be any unity in the party, and the way that the 'evil' characters were played left much to be desired. I've never had any objections about playing alongside morally questionable PCs, but I do take issue if certain PCs are intentionally working at odds against the party. The only exception to this is when a player deliberately intends to betray the party, builds up towards it properly, and knows full well that that their character will probably die as a result (but they plan all this with the DM ahead of time in order to make the scenario an excellent payoff for the story). Also, this campaign seems to suffer from another serious problem that I've seen in many DnD stories: evil has no consequence. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a DM allow a player to just get away with doing nefarious acts and never punish them or deliver any sort of retribution for it. I'm all for letting players have fun in the world, but if you equip them with too much 'plot armor' (like having a demon who can grant wishes to save them whenever they need it), then you end up destroying any tension in your story.
@Sinlesssoul -- i hate to speak ill of how a fellow "Upper Noble"(re: G/DM) runs their area, but your 100% right. From what we've heard of the Campaign so far, it sounds like the two(honestly three imho, as the Bard did the party no favors)evil PC's were given Carte Blanc to do whatever they wanted, while poor Banjo was trying to do the honorable thing. The Overtly Evil PC's player asking if anyone wanted him to stop is kinda like Hemmler asking Hitler if he needs to lay off the jews....
I can appreciate a good story, and I know from the stories on this channel and elsewhere just how far stories in tabletop RPG's can go, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to play an evil character, or at least one that would actively work against the party. I prefer to play good characters, or neutral ones that are team players at least. Only way I could ever see myself playing an evil one is if he/she had to do things for what they believed to be a greater goal that didn't involve screwing over the party/story or singling out a character. Course I don't know if it'd even be possible like that, but that's just my thoughts on it.
I have to disagree with one thing. Knowing that your character will 100% DEFINITELY die from betraying the party is total bs. If you know it's gonna be like that then there isn't even merit to try to have fun that way at all.
@@xavierfaust9417 Allow me to clarify: I'm not saying that your character is guaranteed to die. I'm simply saying that if you plan to betray the party (or, in essence, make yourself into a boss battle), then you should definitely be prepared to lose that character. If your intent is to try and go for a 'total party kill', then the DM really needs to have a chat before hand with the player since a TPK can cause a lot of problems in terms of the narrative. However, if you plan it correctly (such as by having a back up character already in place), then the entire ordeal can be very fulfilling, and might even result in your former PC becoming a reoccurring villain if they happen to survive or escape.
That's one of the reasons I loved playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas. That was one of the few times I'd played games where walking around stealing random crap from people could backfire VERY quickly. The only other games where I'd had that happen was the odd zelda game, and they'd only do that for certain npcs.
Run around stealing? You'd end up making enemies of the entire map eventually. Murder indiscriminately? That'd do the same thing, but much faster. Be a dick to people on purpose? Expect those characters to attack you (or arrest you in Skyrim's case) if you push too far.
Having a story where theft, murder, rape, and so on have little to no consequence isn't only unrealistic, it's stupid. Any nation that allows things like that to slide isn't going to going to remain a nation for long. They'll dissolve into pure anarchy before long.
I’m confused. In what world does being a “friendly acquaintance” translate to letting someone kidnap your loved ones?
Exactly
It's a common problem among some players, where persuasion, intimidate, and Charm Person are seen as some kind of mind control. And they're not.
Yep, exactly. The problem here was that Charm Person, 1st level spell was handled like Dominate Person, 5th level spell.
They also used Command to solve everything... which is also just wrong. It lasts for 1 round or 6 seconds, which is barely enough to do anything is significant.
Charm Person really wouldn't stop Banjo from protecting the heirs. It only makes the caster be seen as a friend. It doesn't change anything else they might do.
So, Banjo could still have stood in the way, but instead of immediately going to violence... It would have been "I'm sorry my friend, I cannot let you pass." followed by more force if necessary.
My Evil characters tend to get along with any alignments. I have a few rules I apply to all of my characters. One, I don’t hurt other players because we’re all here to have fun. Two, stay out of the way and don’t interrupt another player’s character arch. Three, if you’re an evil character keep your deeds to NPCs and out of sight of good aligned characters, my character usually rationalizes this by not wanting to hurt his friends; he can’t show if they’re dead. “Sometimes, you’re forced to do good things as an evil character, make sure you’re doing it for a greedy reason or to further your master plan.” Four, If you’re good aligned character, give your good character a reason to have no character knowledge of your evil friend’s deeds; make them do something in town while they’re off running errands they told you about or if you’re somehow wrapped up in one of their quests, believe their lie. “This can make for some great role playing moments, that are sometimes hilarious.” Five, if you’re character realizes the other player is good/evil, they rationalize working with them for the greater good/evil. “Keep your weapons sheathed unless the other player attacks you. I usually have my good character try to change the evil character, and have my evil character lie about it.” Six, when the campaign is finally wrapping up it’s fair game. “Everyone’s character arch’s should be wrapped up. If you have some Evil Master Plan, do it and make the finale of the story better.” It’s honestly not hard to have players of differing alignments be friends with each other so all players can have their fun, the loops your character will go through are usually entertaining to role play. Unfortunately this doesn’t work if other players refuse to cooperate, if they do it’s easier for everyone.
What the hell took Rafa so long to realise he was keeping the story from progressing? The evil players were killing every single lead, killing the heirs to the throne of their dying race, and it took a character's suicide to realise that they were holding up the entire campaign?
The wind blowing across the cliffside was strong and cold, but the stranger merely stood there, unaffected, as his cloak flapped wildly in the wind. With a wave of his hand, the stranger simply spoke the name, "Banjo, son of Jangle."
The familiar sight of glowing bluish-white mist coalesced into the shape of a Caturday with thick fur, a barrel chest, and endless pain in his eyes.
"Whhhyyyyyy?" He asked.
"To ask you the same..." The stranger replied, motioning downwards off the cliffside.
"Eeevviiiilll allllwaaaayyyss wwwiiiinnnnsss." Came the reply of the Caturday ghost, gritting his fangs and holding his head in his hands, the agony in his spirit palpable.
The stranger sighed. "Sometimes evil wins, yes...but it most assuredly does not always win, I can not only guarantee you that...but prove it."
Banjo looked at the stranger quizzically. The stranger walked closer to the ghost, reaching into his robes and pulling out a piece of fabric made with what Banjo knew to be Caturday craftsmanship. The fabric bore a coat of arms thay he did not recognize...
"Rafa failed." Spoke the stranger, "The heirs yet live; this is the new royal coat of arms. The four symbols on the shield represent each of the four children...the start of a new Kingdom. Be at ease, hero...in the end, good triumphed."
Banjo now had an expression of relief. Had he a physical body, he would have wept. "Theeeyyy llliiivvee....!!"
"I bid you, join your ancestors and seek the rest you richly deserve." The stranger said, "But first...I should like to ask something of you, if you are willing. I am building an army...and noble souls such as yours would be welcome."
Banjo was silent for a moment, before asking, "Whhhoooo aaarreee yyyoouuu?"
The stranger pulled back his gray hood with a skeletal hand, spilling out hair of a shocking white. "My name is Astoshan."
Oh shit
I would so read this story.
I swear to Jesus as I read that last part it sent a chill down my left leg
@@RJ-1580 😁
@@TheSilverdog2010 Thank you very much!
Heavy, but if the players are ok with it there is nothing wrong with going so far in character.
Rafa and his mooks would have been puddles of gore on the floor the moment they walked into that nursery if I were playing. I'd even gladly take exp revokement and level reduction for player killing if it ment keeping kids safe.
1) Combat had already broken out, so Banjo should have had advantage on the save against Charm Person.
2) Duration of Charm Person is only 1 minute. Banjo had a gryphon mount. He should have been able to catch Rafa after the spell wore off.
3) WTF is the DM doing, allowing characters whose entire purpose is screwing over the entire race when the goal of the campaign is to save them? Most DMs don't allow evil PCs in the first place, and this is a textbook example of a DM that should have told a player that his character wouldn't be allowed.
Furthermore, it seems reasonable that a charmed creature can still try to restrain the creature that charmed them.
Suppose you charm a guard and try to access the vault they're guarding. "Whoa, friend. Can't let you do that."
Sure, they have advantage to persuasion checks to try to convince them to make an exception, but that's not auto success and PVP persuasion just about shouldn't be a thing.
I think Banjo should have still been free to tackle his friend and keep him restrained. Then if he gets hurt in the struggle, charm effect ends
4) Charm Person just make you friend with the victim, it's not domination. The victim can disagree with you normaly and even go against you.
I think #2 isn't why he killed himself. It probably wore off and he chose to kill himself... So he wouldn't call anything in an attempt to save himself.
The PirateMongoose in regards to 3, it sounds like these players had conversations outside of character and agreed that they wanted to do this, as a DM you have no business impeding on that dynamic if it’s been agreed on in good faith by the players, like if they want to do it that way then you let them. The job of the DM, our primary directive, is to make sure EVERYBODY has fun. The reason many dms outlaw evil characters or ones whose entire purpose is screwing over others is because it can create bad vibes in the group if not handled well and not discussed out of character. This player was obviously self aware enough to play this character and banjos player held no ill feelings so... not your business as a dm.
Also just a little bit for point 2, yea it lasts a minute but do you realize how fucking far you can get in that length of time, like if you are double dashing at full speed for the let’s say 6 rounds left in the minute just to keep it on the average length of an encounter, if you are going through that much movement, it’s gonna take someone a long time to catch up.
And for point 1 just because they didn’t include every aspect of the combat and spell it out verbatim doesn’t mean the save didn’t have advantage. When I write out my adventures I don’t go through the tiring work to say “he had advantage” every time, plus extenuating circumstances could also cancel that advantage out, sounds like this player had a character susceptible to these kinds of spells, stands to reason he could have a permanent disadvantage from something or maybe just a really save in that area. And even if he did have advantage that doesn’t mean he beats the save anyways.
@@captainkiwi77 Tbh, you sound like you're telling these DM's what to do.
Ah, the Johan Liebert. I always like to... _correct_ my party’s notions of Evil.
NO, THE BEST CAT BOY, HE WAS JUST TRYING TO BE A GOOD BOY
there within lies the problem... only a dog can be a good boy
(please don't murder me cat owners it was just a joke and I think cats are great)
I bet you anything Banjo’s player wasn’t really okay with it.
Seething anger.
Andie Rush sounds like he was. It isn’t that uncommon, most of y’all just have no separation between yourself and roleplay.
A hall mask of good storytelling is intergroup conflict, buddy cop movies, superhero team ups, everything has to have the “party” or “heroes” overcome their differences, or not overcome those differences and just have an interesting dynamic. I’ll always be fine with Inter character conflict as long as everyone involved is aware, it just takes a mature role player who doesn’t throw a tantrum when things don’t go their way. If you’re more invested in story and not with doing everything successfully and being the best around, then there’s no problem with your character taking an L from another.
@@captainkiwi77 dude just no.
if the two evil characters had the same goal of trying to save there people but go about in an evil way that would be group conflict but this story it's just two evil characters single out the good character and actively do everything in there power to destroy him. As to your buddy cop analogy I dont remeber watching leathal weapon and seeing Riggs actively trying his hardest to break Murtaughs soul. This is more like training day with an alternative ending than buddy cop.
Was it ever specifically stated that the heirs were going to be assassinated? If not, there could have been a rescue arc where Banjo could have redeemed himself. But, sadly, the lack of one (and the fact that this is UA-cam and a video containing the assassination of newborns could be taken down or what not) suggests that they met an untimely (and admittedly EXTREMELY aggravating) end. If they are still alive I for one am absolutley interested to hear what happened to them, if there can be another video please make one!
I smell slightly more plot Armor on the evil characters than the none evil ones. Even with the tactics involved, the evil characters seem to keep getting maguffin items left and right, and even after all the things they did to prevent that-they still found more. It sounded to me like the player themselves seemed to notice this pattern Too and I wonder if this was another Factor as to why they were “getting tired”. Sadly we r not at this table and don’t know every single in and out of the sessions so ... *shrug*
I think after enough sessions of this I’d get tired too.
It can be fun to play a character that does things you may not do irl. But, it's great that this player was chill with the group and asked for input when they could tell it might be getting out of hand.
That's not how Charm-personne Works.
when you're under this spell you see the caster has a friend. But you always can acte against him because he do something you can't let finished.
for exemple if you cast charm-personne on a Gard, he can let you pass inside the castle, but he never try to kill the king he must protect even if you ask him to do that.
Where's a good old paladin when you need one? SMITE!
This feels so sad that Banjo wasn't able to take him out in that final moment and at least save the children. Even if neither character survived the encounter, at least let Banjo have saved the kits. :/ this game just sounds like it would have felt depressing over all for then players, if I am understanding it right.
Plot twist: Banjo secretly made a deal with a demon to sabotage evil people from the afterlife as a haunting poltergeist.
Don't you absolutely hate it when players are constantly at odds with the group in your dnd sessions?
i think it depends personally, in my campaign my warlock and the party monk (and to an extent the druid/barbarian) are at odds usually about morality; but I make careful not to do anything this crazy or counterproductive to the group. I do believe though that interparty conflict can be a good growth experience and adds flavor to the story, since we all know people just don't magically get along all the time even if they're on a quest together.
I have, I remember my DM hated our player shenanigens, but in all honesty the plot was so convaluted and we were told so little, that some of us ended up leaving the party. Our DM wanted us to stay in a town that was constantly trying to kill us. From guards, to townsfolk, to preists, even the mayor. It didnt help that the town was a majority of Kobolds, & Orcs. The priests Murdered Our Barbarian and Cleric and then sacraficed them to evil gods only for them to get resseructed and become mega zombies that killed the priests. Then he sent a revenant against Me ( the party warlock ) all because i made a pact with a fiend. The last straw was at a library where 10 Mimics ambushed our party, and none of us were allowed to move or even attack the mimics because all of us had at least 2 or more mimics grappling us. I then made a Tempest cleric just to spite him because I was practically unkillable.
Ummmm.
If it's just role playing then it fine but if the player is just strait trolling the other players then that's pretty bad.
There's acting and then there's.....not telling a person to stop there antics for no real reason at all letting it go to far to the point that it turns into a great dnd nightmare party story on UA-cam.
I still remember my first campaign. I was playing a Paladin as the party lead in a group that my buddy was DMing to give me a chance to test out DnD. I had 2 followers and had enlisted a Neutral Good Rogue and a Neutral Druid (both played by friends). The Druid was literally spending all of his actions being nature's embodiment of death as we cleared out a Goblin Warren. He left the party to slink back into the nursery where we had corralled the prisoners and noncombatants. In keeping with my Lawful Good ideals, I had ordered the party to absolutely not attack the children and infants, nor any that surrendered or could not fight. By the time the rest of the party had dealt with the main threat and gotten back, he had butchered the entire room full of them. Quickly I use my "Detect Evil" (the warren had made that ability nearly useless per my DM), the DM says that I can detect the evil swirling around the Druid. He orders his familiar to attack, which my followers engage, as I use my Smite to one-shot his druid, who had run himself entirely out of spells casting them to torment the goblins in the room. My friend is angry that his druid is instantly killed and looks at the DM, who by this point is laughing and nearly falling out of his chair. The DM points out that he had been expressively told by the Paladin not to do what he had done and that "Evil" doesn't mean stupid. He then rolled a new character for the next session that was a Chaotic Neutral Bard that was probably the most fun character the rest of the campaign.
However, to this day when we all talk or play a game together, someone will always bring up the Neutrally Stupid Druid.
I made my own personal rules for when it comes to playing chaotic evil characters
1- if you ever feel the need to do something wrong make sure it only affects you and not the party
2- if you plan to do something for the sake of role-play purposes that will harm another player in anyway you must talk with them about it in advance and make sure they’re OK with it otherwise you’re only ruining the session for both of yourselves.
3-there’s evil and then there’s being a dick be the first one not the second, if you can’t tell which one you’re being just ask your party.
If they wanted to play as an evil d-bag that's fine, but with a whole guidebook of caveats. The goal of the party and the campaign was to safe guard the future of the race, faced with extinction it would make sense that some would resort to morally dubious means. This way the player isn't an obstructive a-hole they're instead sacrificing their souls to save the ones they love.
I would agree, but at the same time...There are people who would absolutely stab their entire people in the back for some kind of personal gain or because they have no interest in seeing their people survive. The players were fine with it, it told a story even if it went against the campaign. Taking away someone's options *is* in the hands of the DM, but I think this was handled almost perfectly. No one took issue with the players, people kept actions in-character separate and had fun even if it was also frustrating...And now they have a memory that is different than the typical "The heroes succeeded and everyone was happy, the end!" - One insane cleric nearly drove a man to murder and another with some nefarious purpose against his own people took out a plan that met momentary success (the narration here doesn't say what happened to the heirs, but he kidnapped them...Anything that happened after that is left unsaid here) at least until he was finally put to the sword.
Personally more interesting to me because it has some turns to it. The story also said Banjo's player was fine with the outcome, it was just an in-character thing...He failed in a duty and lost all hope, so...Yeah...But hey, at least the tough-as-nails Dragonborn got to go on glorious adventures afterwards!
Evil characters can make a game awesome if done right.
I remember my first character made in Warhammer (I know, it's not that black and white in this universe, but players usually try to stay at least somewhat good). I played a servant sent to Talhoff, an independent city in Border Princes to temporarily serve under local magnate and, as we've learned later, a golden dragon locked in a human body. Servant PC's name was Reineward and he was completely obssessed by his desire of becoming a powerful noble one day. During early sessions he didn't seem that evil. It all started to unravel slowly. First, while seeing a moderately rich merchant being stabbed in a dark corner, he scared the attacker off, but instead of helping the victim, he patiently waited for him to die and then collected his belongings with the keys to now-available-for-taking house (which later became party's HQ, but because Reineward was alone, no one knew how he aquired that house). Introducing BBEG. Wealthy and powerful noble in a higher district of the city. Pretty much as cold and merciless as Reineward, if not better, but with actual power. We crossed our paths while doing a favor for another though less wealthy noble. At the end, when because of our incompetence questgiver's sister died, we promised him to give him a head of BBEG. Then my servant made several minor evil actions, still not killing off npcs without a reason. Why? Questgivers pay. And killing people attract guards and troubles. Some time later Reineward made a dark deal, while in a desperete fight. And oh boi, Tzeench can make things different. Dark deal saved us and made my PC into a witch with actual magic. Sure thing, Battle Cleric PC, when found out what happened, would've killed me if our Elven Outlaw didn't stepped in his way. And then we set off to the haunted forest nearby, because of the gossips of the Witch living there. If someone could teach Reineward how to control magic, without sending him to college, it was her. Skipping a little, on our way through the forest Cleric was severely wounded, so when we reached the witch's hut, he was already unconcious. The witch refused to teach Reineward, but we persuaded her into something like black magic Wish for us. You made a wish, but you also had to sacrifice something. Reineward wished of magic, to aid him in going to the top, but sacrificed his position on dragon-magnate's court. And it turned out into actually breaking the spell the Golden Dragon was under and exposing him in his true form to all those cultists in the city. Yeah, I feel the jaberdragon coming in future sessions. Later on the final session so far. Taking care of the bandits connected to the Elven Outlaw backstory. They captured and killed on our eyes the Shalliya Priestess that our bretonian knight grew close to. And it sent him into frenzy mode. During the fight even a lone with hunter interfered, standing against my PC and to my suprise actually died (Yeah, my 39 WS during 11th session). And here comes the cracks in personality. Reineward, so far psychopathic, cold and indifferent person actually charmed a separated and surrounded bandit into fleeing instead of finishing him off. While the Elven Outlaw, who usually was pretty chaotic neutral/good stabbed him from behind. Of course Reineward gave him thumbs up and called it a teamplay, but he indeed planed to do something good. While elf and even knight went evil (knight was killing off even those that's surrendered). Turning good? Not yet. He still plans to bring Noble NPC to the BBEG to gain his trust and then finish him off to gain his riches and complete his promise to now a dead man. But the cracks of light appear. More and more as the story will be progressing. And at the end I actually plan to sacrifice that character for his team.
Sorry, just wanted to write it guys. But yeah, I feel like evil characters can make intersctions between PCs incredible. They know you can't be trusted when it comes to characters outside the party, and yet you've proven yourself loyal enough to fight beside them. And that constant feel of being a black sheep and a wild card. Oof, worth giving a try.
It isn’t common, but I’ve run into games where an evil PC really crossed the line to the point where I questioned both the PC’s and DM’s sanity. I have never had more than one or two scenarios with each of them. Didn’t get through a single session with most of them and I *barely* finished a session with the rest.
(Warning, disturbing list here) Examples are:
-Cannibalism
-Rape
-Inhumane Torture
-Pedophilia
-Necrophilia
-Very kinky furry crap
-Abusive Relationship within the group itself
-Beyond racist players towards other people in the group.
-Very Sexist Players
-Beyond Narcissistic and potentially Psychotic players
-a satanist girl that constantly talked about her religious views as we played. (I wonder how she would have reacted if I told her I was Christian)
Etc.
There are definitely more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head.
Note: These horrific situations are spread over many years. So roughly once in a blue moon, did I run into these people.
At first I was like that’s one of those annoying players, but at the end I was like wait, they had this as everyone’s plan? Interesting.
Thumbnail alone looks like a gi wearing Beerus about to wreck the life of the fluffiest of paladins.
Notes from a NG Human Idiot;
Greetings from lovely Restenford(that evil druid CorvisXIV is still at her evil scheme, but hopefully she'll be stopped soon....)!
While i personally dislike iner-group conflict(i think it stems from my first intro into ttrpgs), i can understand how some groups are ok with it. I hope all three Villians, and yes i count Yashta in that group as she did nothing to help, got what they deserved for driving Good Banjo to that ledge....
May Your Pantheon Ever Favor You,
Baron Trevelyan of Restenford
Is Corvis XIV the one messing with the weather as of late? How long is she going to do that before the planet has enough and strikes her down?
@Andre Marrero -- no, those were the two arguing Druidic Circles that couldn't agree on the weather. CorvisXIV is the evil druidess what's spreading that Plague around the Kingdoms lately....
@@johnnysizemore5797 of all the things to fight over. I have heard of cushions and I have heard of tasty treats but the weather is a new level of silly. I should count myself blessed that her plague hasn't reached my neck of the woods. Perhaps it is because of that purification sect a little over yonder. It wouldn't be the first time we had something to thank them for.
@Andre Marrero-- true, it IS a rather silly thing to fight over. And you should definitely count your blessings the evil druidess hasn't gone into your area yet, as we've had a kingdom wide warning declared about her ...
@@johnnysizemore5797 I will certainly notify the purification sect. They would most certainly not like a druid going around spreading plagues.
I wish I could have been there as the guy I will be playing in an upcoming Pathfinder campaign. He is lawful neutral, but he will be joining an order of knights that, while small, were known and respected for rescuing the victims of kidnappings. Course in this case it would be trying to prevent it before it happened, but even if he doesn't fully see eye to eye with fighter there, duty, honor, and protection are paramount to being a team player and seeing justice upheld.
I love your vids you always manage to get your videos this good in just 2 days, you lift my spirits when no one knew how to, I thank you for helping me not to feel like banjo after he had cracked
I am sorry I cant. just hearing this give me stress and anxiety I cant imagine me playing in such a game for long.
I think this was well done. It's all about the story, for me at least. If everyone feels the same way about each other, be it love or hate, the story goes flat, unless you have an exceptional D.M. whose villains are not just challenging, but also compelling. The only thing I'd have done differently is to make the evil characters more sympathetic, so as to cause players to question what exactly "good" and "evil" really mean, or if they have any meaning at all.
The entire point of the campaign is to protect and restore their race and half the party was evil? Seems like a kind of pointless campaign then if the players are the ones working against the party.
Also I feel like people forget what those spells actually do. Command can't make you do anything and if your guarding someone it has to sound reasonable and not be completely out of character. So if a prisoner is trying to flee and as a guard you get commanded to sit down and let them do it I would rule it simply doesn't work. The spell has more nuance than just making someone do something if it doesn't directly harm them. I'm also more surprised that the paladin could fail a wisdom save with advantage regularly by the sounds of it which gives me the feeling that they skipped over the part of fighting a character gives them advantage on the save.
That's literally what Command does. You *command* someone, and force them to comply with the command, for a single round. That's the entire point of the spell. If you tell someone to grovel/sit, they fall prone and end their turn. I wouldn't want to play at your table if you nerfed the spell by literally removing the one thing it's supposed to do, because then it's completely useless.
Charm Person, on the other hand, is not mind control and would not have caused Banjo to stand aside and allow for the kidnapping and murder of babies.
@@jackiechan715 Oh never mind I was thinking of suggestion not command. So yes command does work like that but I didn't think he was a cleric/pally wasn't the person doing it the warloc/rogue? Command is a pally/cleric spell which is why I didn't think about it. Unless warlock has a feature to get it or he took magic initiate I'm shocked he has it to even begin with.
@@FatedGamer Those are the only two that has it as an "across the board" spell, yeah. But the Fiend subclass for Warlock has access to it, alongside the Divine Soul Sorcerer.
The spell used there was Charm Person anyway... which shouldn't have worked. Because it only makes someone be seen as a friendly acquaintance. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't let even my best friend kidnap any kids, let alone ones I was sworn to protect.
@@sarahreynolds1958 Yep, that's the exact point I was making.
I cant say that playing their character like that is wrong. It's the main hook of how, Role playing is. The drama, the story and how it will all go down. But at times I ain't to sure how to make with these type of situations. But as it is, it's good story telling.
See, having the party be at odds is VERY dangerous, like, in the real world, for the party's moral and enjoyment, but when you get a group together that just "clicks" and can do that without anyone not having fun, my god are the results awe inspiring.
I had an issue with this in my campaign I'm just getting started with. In a party of 3 with a 4th coming soon, I had a paladin and a chaotic "Neutral" constantly be at odds from the start. As DM, I used guards, which worked for the first session. The paladin was absent for a lousy second session but session 3 was where I made my move. I introduced a 22 card Deck of Many Things. The CN player, who loved random chance, and not necessarily his own character drew 4 cards from the deck. I had given in game information on how the deck worked and warned against some cards, specifically the void. He drew the idiot, the void, flames, and key. His soul is now trapped in the 5th level of hell (also determined randomly) where the devil is likely making it his personal business to torment him. The party did take the quiver of creativity though. I fully expect them to use the quiver to absolutely break the game with their now mostly Good party.
I enjoy a good evil character i just prefer when there schemes and betrayals are under the table or even in the background they can affect the story an environment and cause conflicts and choices down the line that the rest of the party are unaware of the cause I find the best way is for it to be set up between notes an separate talks with the DM
Thank you, these videos always keep my spirits upp
I try to avoid these situations by doing a check with my aasimar pal's divine sense, so i know if he has to sleep with one eye open
This is why DMs generally discourage and ban evil aligned characters, because evil is not heroic. Take Morganthe, Old Cob, Sarumon, any evil character and you will see they are selfish and only want power. There are very few evil characters who are evil for any reason that does not involve WORLD DOMINATION!!! As such, unless you are playing a campaign where the entire party is evil and good is your enemy, you should not have evil PCs. You're playing heroes, not ripping each other's throats out. That ruins the fun of any game. X(
Christian Groff dr von doom though to me is one of the best for evil like really if I had a chance I would study him before making an evil character
@@oracleloki12 There is a good way of making an evil character and a bad way. Making an evil character just to be a dickwad is not the way to do it. Dr. Doom is a perfect evil character: He has a huge support group because he rules a country who was risen from oppression with his skills, so he is more or less immune to most foreign law. He never does evil blatently, but when he does it, it is bad. Like in the LEGO Avengers, he was creating his doom ray to protect the world from Galactus, only to get backstabbed by Loki who wanted to use it o control Galactus to eat Earth and Asgard.
These characters are better villains that this guy who just drove people insane. That's not to say Raff was a bad evil character, he was good at what he did, but when players get involved it gets bad.
Just you wait until they uncover the awesome might of the level 20 ranger, Mr. Snuggles.
I strive to post one of my stories in my current campaign... but like it's so taboo xD
SirIzaiah HumbleCat Just go ahead and share, whats the worst that could happen? 😪
@@allthingsdnd the world could implode?
SirIzaiah HumbleCat same at level 3 we took down a castle full of 150 solders by starting a revulsion then accidentally killing a demon prince
Taboo? Never read the old, non-disneyfied versions of old fairy tales, have you mate? Those were unsettling for real. As in, for example, Cinderella's step-family suffers GRUESOME punishments, and nobody batted an eye. And don't get me started with little red riding hood...
You can submit it on allthingsdnd.com with anonymity.
I don't really get this. It just all sounds like a pile of ... nothing.
Like, how are there 2 (3?) evil characters in a group of 6 in what's not supposed to be an evil run? What's the point of that? And their brand of "evil" seems to be legit working against the main goal of the group out in the open, right in front of their faces.
Why would these people travel or even work together in that case? IMO there's a difference between doing morally fucked up things in the dark and out right opposing your party's main goal in front of them. One makes you an evil character with their own motives who can manage the relationships with the party in a realistic manner cause to some level you have the same goal and the other .... just makes you a villain that's allowed to sit in on all the hero's convos. How could he be allowed to undo something Banjo did right after he did it? Why wouldn't those players be told to leave the room unless the party is doing something with them? (I'd imagine the Characters would want to put distance between them and the evil characters when making plans of progressing on their goal given how loud an proud they seem to be about fucking them over)
Also, why does everyone treat Charm Person as flat mind control? I can be friends with someone and still say no to them doing something terrible in front of me. I can tell a friend "Nahh, can't let you through this way bro. They got cams on us, they would fire me in a hot sec if I let you in through this airport exit ... this is my job".
I know Banjo is the goodiest of goods and the player had patience or was able to separate player from character....but I was playing Banjo, I would've just killed Rafa, to PREVENT it from escalating to *that*
Nip it in the BUD, and end that worthless wretched cat's life once and for all. Goody two-shoes doesn't always mean letting the bad guy live. (It really doesn't; especially when the bad guy *won't* change.)
This was such a great story with such a sad ending!! I was rooting for banjo to pull through hoping he would somehow stop Rafa but sadly...evil always wins...
In my game most of the party was NG or CN, but our Wizard was LE and tended to act on such that death was misunderstood life. Most of the party that was closer to the good side of things kept the Wizard at arms length but since she was basically "in charge" (she was tasked with finding a party to do the NPC's quest) they just had to tolerate some of her antics and hope they could change her ways down the road to be less... killy
Honestly, I would metagame if neccisary, to try to stop a stupid-evil or murderhobo player-character. Even at the risk of being kicked out of the group, because pvp and metagaming are both baned!
...
(Unless I was knowingly and willfull joining an evil campaign, from the start... Then I'ld just play allong.)
if it works, great. but the "hero" of the party must have been hard to play. Yes, i know it is roleplay, but we are talking about a game where the death of an NPC can bring the real life players to tears, and for a character to fall into suicide, i fear for the mental well being of the player. It is the type of story that would end most player's experience with the group, or at least the evil character player, but by the sounds of it, there was thankfully enough separation between reality and fantasy.
I don't get why everyone is so problematic about drama. Player conflict is one of the greatest things in role-playing. Infighting can create awesome stories when handled well!
Bad Kitty! Bad!
Thank you for putting the dragon roar back in! =^_^= Looks and sounds great!
That is just tragic and those last words. They couldn't be any more wrong. Evil never wins. Sure they will puff themselves up, make them seem greater and grander than what they are, but all that only surmounts to a tiny black dot in the white sea of good.
Did-...Did Banjo s-icide off the cliff...? 🥺
I think, as long as everyone at the table playing the game is having fun, the details of how they play the role play game doesn’t matter if it’s different. That being said, they certainly play different. At least they communicate and keep it very clear what is game and separate from real life.
I don’t think I’d last past session three, if that.
The only bad thing in the whole drama kid story is that the DM can come with an agreement with the group. At the end of the day 5to 7 people play these games to have a good time.
I think in this case when another player is just going to keeps spamming the charm person spell, there is one effective response. As soon as the PC makes his first attempt, attack! As long as he keeps attempting to cast the spell he cant defend. Just keep giving him blow after blow. He may be much less likely to try this trick again if it puts his life at risk.
Nahar should have been tossed from the table for stupid trolling, or at least given a sit-down and told to tone it down because it's not making the game fun for anyone else but him- I mean, you're not supposed to be a dick to the other players, and it just seems he had it bad for trolling Banjo. If your entire concept is "I wanna be a dick to everyone and everything because it's funny", maybe you're playing the wrong kind of game...? I mean, apart from Rafa, there were many others at the table he could screw around with- but he still just kept trying to push Banjo's buttons. That kind of thing needed to be stepped on early. The shopkeep incident should have got him the boot- when you pull something like that that throws everything into chaos, yeah, sorry, that's not your character being himself, that's you being an asshole and trying to pass it off as playing your character.
Also, WTF, GM? Putting mind-control spells in the hands of people and then saying "oh, you can cast them on each other" is ALWAYS going to go south immediately, especially when you give them to someone with a known love of tormenting others- and if you're going to allow them, make sure you read them inside and out as to how they do and don't function. I think you might want to go re-read them...
Also, have to give props Rafa's way. If you are doing evil things like that, it's a good idea to keep asking OOC about personal limits and stuff, to make sure nobody is really uncomfortable- and to make sure everyone can sound off to the GM about it, publicly or privately.
I personally do not allow Chaotic Evil characters in my games. Players who want to play them tend to be dick players who only want to screw over the rest of the group for their own amusement. That is not everyone who plays Chaotic Evil, but enough of them.
I love how youtube sticks your polls in my home section but never your vids.
Player confilct can be good as long as the players make it more like a story element! If it's just players being dumb jerks I don't have time for that!
I once played an elf that hated any other character that wasn’t an elf, yes he was a fraught up racist. But I played him intelligently and talked to my fellow players ahead of time and we were all on board. I told one player that since he was a half elf I wanted to bully him in character, we agreed it happened and it was awesome. This character would later end up going the opposite direction and growing, which made the end of the campaign when him the dwarf and the half elf were the only ones left much more poignant, it hits much harder narratively when three characters that hated each other all sit together as friends for a drink at the bar.
I think with the backstories I've thought up for characters I want to one day play, I might not be able to be lawful good if there's a party member that's evil or causing a lot of trouble for the party. Then again two of the characters i want to play are rogues who grew up orphans on the streets.
Ok im not really convinced Banjo's player was ok with all that, and even if he made no big deal about it i can BET he felt unconfortable for most of the campaign.
Unfortunatelly most people dont know how to play evil characters, most act and think evil and asshole are synonyms, and thats NOT the case. You can be an evil character and work with the party, even be FRIENDS with good characters but having your own motivatons for doing so at the end. I once played a lawful evil Arakockra Spore Druid, he was manipulative and power hungry, but most people didnt see it on him at first glance, he was usually helpful and went along with the group.. his evil was on his motivations, and what he did when nobody was looking. The most evil people on this planet usually dont look evil unless you dig up on them, so being an asshole isnt evil, its just being an asshole. Not even my evil Arakockra would like Rafa's character, he would find him obnoxious and infantile.
So yeah you can be an evil character and not completely disrupt a campaign or make a fellow player and friend feel miserable, quite the contrary, but as a rule, when i DM i tend to not trust people that want to play evil characters unless i know that player way in advance.
Banjo should've had the heirs moved and only illusions in the room. If only he wasn't depressed he might've thought of it.
This is heartbreaking
For me playing a good character, among my evil and neutral party. I can say this sounds very familiar, but it is miserable for me as a player... I want to work together, it's not fun when everything is getting ruined, my immersion being broken by me constantly compromising my character's motivations for tolerating the character to make it work, so I don't "split the party".
Their PC murdered 3 tied up witnesses before the DM considered changing the PC alignment... I ended up throwing the evil character overboard for this action, and it felt like the first real in character good thing I had done. It felt honest. Like I had suppressed my character's issues with the PC for so long, it just burst out. The player is a cool guy, and I can't fault him as many people are only in it for the combat/killing/XP/getting in fights, etc. He did start playing his character more mellow after that. Maybe he realised I wan't having fun, I don't know... But he never got given set boundries in the first place.
Evil vs good characters should NOT be allowed by DMs, and players should have the decency not to cause conflict/PvP, unless everyone expressly agrees to it, and everyone is prepared for the inevitable player/character conflict. :/
This is where my Cat Grant speech would have come in. I would have taken the players aside and said.
I take great pride in the fact I have never dropped rocks on a character don't make me break that streak.
I refuse to let players play evil characters as it always ALWAYS leads to IRL conflict
They should have had a talk with Rafa's player before this all went down
Evil only wins because he refused to kill.
Honestly I think that was delightfully executed, as long as everyone is happy with how things are going (which is what it sounds like) then I’d say it’s fine. I wish I could find a party that would happily do Inter player conflict. That was awesome.
Think of the best stories we tell, the heroes always have times when they are at odds, it’s a staple of buddy cop movies, there has to be a moment where the avengers are at odds for the story to work. So if you want a truly fulfilling story the heroes in the party have to conflict. As long as everyone is onboard with it then that’s how good campaigns unfold. Communication is always key, if someone over steps the line, tell them and they have to be receptive, it’s the only way we do well as a group of friends playing dnd. Communication. My last group didn’t communicate well and that’s precisely why I saw at least 6 people come in and out of that group. But the core members who did communicate and would actually try to talk to everyone, we stayed on the whole time
Wait, I'm confused. If Rafa went down (died), how did he then join the party?
The player who played Rafa, they made a new character.
I'll never understand why certain players tolerate this kind of activities in their group. Don't get me wrong, not all PC's are heroes, but most PC's will kill evil monsters without any real remorse or hesitation, yet they'll tolerate evil PC's (and their actions), for extended periods of time.
Thanks for the story.
I dont have a long story of a custom campaign, but I do have a few little stories that were either just ridiculous or a complete misunderstanding between me another player
Always happens, almost every group you come across, there's one or two people in it that just do the first thing that comes to their mind, whether evil, chaotic, or just plain stupid. Your team has goals, usually ones that stretch the entirety of the campaign arc, you gotta rank how your actions will effect them and their goals before yourself, otherwise you're a massive jerk.
Yeah....i wouldn't be okay with this at all.
if i was the dm i would've gotten tired of him casting the "command" spell, would've made it so that banjo's enraged state of mind made him immune
I'm curious... the whole group were members of a dieing race, yes? How does someone justify (if the goal is to keep this race from dieing out, ultimately) the evil being disturbing the groups goals etc? That's kind of massively not really well played evil IMO. It's hilariously stupid and makes not really any sense to me, unless the character despises their own race for whatever reason.
Trinston was here
Charm has limits and should not have work.
Now what happened to the heirs?
I'm normally not a big fan of interplayer friction and battle due to both sides wanting to win at all costs or doing backstabbing things while using the pretense of 'it is what my character does' motto till it goes beyond stale and moldy. I was expecting this story to have a jerk wad player trying to enforce his will for being an evil character; so I was genuinely surprise the player was self-aware of his character's clearly foul nature. Sucks that Banjo died, but it is as he said... evil always wins... especially when everyone plays by the rules.
Fuck, man. I play this game to get away from suicidal depression. There's people who like to roleplay it?
This is one thing i WILL NOT stand, and it pisses me off that this Player continued to play this character. As colorful a story as it may create, any character of that ilk is, was, and always shall be banned from my table. along with any player who insists on playing this type of character.
Andor Fedra sounds like you aren’t open minded. It sounds like these players agreed on this, they discussed it out of character and agreed in good faith, stay in your own place, it’s not our place as a dm to crackdown on that. Most people ban evil and disruptive characters because when not properly handled it creates bad vibes, if your players are aware of the consequences and want to go ahead with it and it is agreed upon in good faith (which is how it sounds) then don’t impose. It’s your job to make sure everyone has fun not police their choices on how, as long as it’s agreed upon collectively and everyone enjoys themselves then it isn’t your place to ban that character.
@@captainkiwi77 It's all too easy to have evil players go out of control for many many reasons. Sometimes, it's better to be safe rather than have stories like the one in the video to come to fruition. I doubt Banjo's player was having a good time. Rafa's wasn't either at the end. The endgoal of DnD is enjoyment, is it not?
Whatever the group decides should be the ruling every game can always be a matter of discussion to amend within reason. A DM/GM saying that they do not want evil characters in their game should not be judged for it or be thought of as close-minded, unless their only reason is to be an asshole. I myself will never allow CE characters in my games for the stress and headache this would mean for the players and myself. I believe only players who are known to be more discerning and careful with their characters should play CE.
Kindly refrain from calling Andor and people who think similarly "not open minded." You might know people who can play CE within reason or roll with the punches well yourself, but that's not the case for everyone. To each their own.
Another evil character played poorly. Hate to see it happen
I'm currently starting as a player in a game that's that allows this sort of interparty dynamic with open arms, the description was that in this particular game the referee/dungeon master/storyteller would be your only real friend and the only person who really wanted to help you do what you wanted to do
YIRBEL LIVES!
So you have two blatantly evil characters actively working against the survival of their own endangered species. Why the fuck did they live so long?
Me and some friends were playing a one shot several days ago and one of them decided to play a chaotic evil Ork that quickly had a grudge against my lawful good dwarven cleric. Let's just say I'm never playing with an evil party member again. It just isn't fun:(
Just another ordinary DnD campaign
MAKE HASTE! THE ONION NINJAS BESIEGE OUR TOWN! FLEE OR LOCK YOUR DOORS!
The first thing I ask wean starting a new campaign “what’s your EndGame?” Meaning; hero’s or villains. I have Vary few rules about character creation,
1: no duplicated classes/role types (unless otherwise specified) you don’t need 3 different kinds of stealth CH in a 4 person game, seriously, come on. Party balance is a thing for a reason.
2: no Evil CH in a ‘Hero’ game. no Good CH in a ‘Villain’ game.
3: Trolls (not the race) Will be immediately and unforgivingly REMOVED. No discussion.
Personally I feel like my rules are fair. It’s not like I limit how people can play or what type of character can be made,
I am tired of seeing spells like charm person being abused within the game. The spell only makes you regard the caster as a "friendly acquaintance", not a mindless slave. While the one PC is charmed, they are still charged with protecting the newborns and would not just blithely let their "friendly acquaintance" abscond with their charge. Likewise, the spell does not cause creatures to switch sides in combat as they do not forget who their friends and allies were just a second ago and do not recognize the spellcasters allies as being their friends as they are still their enemy. The spell is actually very limited in what it can actually do as it only affects the relationship between the caster and the target only and nothing else. Also, the target will not allow the caster to try and harm their original allies and friends and likewise will not allow their original allies to harm their new "friendly acquaintance" (while the casters allies are still fair game). They also will not shirk their responsibilities any more than they would if an actual friend asked them to. You might let your "friend" take a look at something that is yours or that you are protecting, but you wouldn't let them steal or kidnap it. This has been the case with the spell even in the earlier versions of this game with an equally long history of abuse from DMs and players alike.
Second, these "evil" characters seem to be acting more like a comic book villains than an actual plausible version of that alignment. Just because you are evil doesn't mean you are going to act openly or in an outrageous manner. Also, evil characters are not always aware that their actions are necessarily evil so much as their actions tend be harmful or selfish on a whole. I am surprised that the group tolerated theses actions for so long as it is more important for the species as a whole to remove these individuals from causing harm to those that remain of that race. Whether that means they are imprisoned, confined, or something more permanent, it would seem necessary if one was actually trying to save ones race by means of changing the perceptions of others. But at least the group was discussing this as a whole rather than letting one or two players dictate the campaign.
I hope that Rafa had actual motives to doing what he did. Like let's be real, if the entire party was trying to make peace with other nations and let their race thrive in the future, there shouldn't be a character trying to do the exact opposite, and the party allowing it, unless of course they had a valid reason. Like Nahar seems alright to me because he was just annoying. And he got Banjo's character going through that arc, even though it had a tragic end. But having the reasoning that he'd be a stronger ally is perfectly valid. But just killing people and doing THE OPPOSITE of what you're supposed to be doing is ridiculous.
Where can we submit stories?
Post it on our subreddit r/AllThingsDND or allthingsdnd.com or email it to us at team@allthingsdnd.com
This group sounds incredibly unhealthy.