Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Narrated D&D Story: How A Single Punch Ruined An Entire Campaign
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лис 2019
- Literally everything...
Thumbnail Art & Story Source: bit.ly/PunchRui... (Lane Falish, one of our viewers)
Feel free to send us your stories here: team@allthingsdnd.com
Make sure to subscribe to our channel for more amazing Dungeons & Dragons content! Also, you can follow us on internet on other channels here:-
Website: www.allthingsd...
Facebook Page: / ytallthingsdnd
Facebook Group: / allthingsdnd
Discord: / discord
Watch how a 10-year-old Pokémon Trainer captured a ‘Legendary’ & derailed a 5e campaign here:
• Narrated D&D Story: Ho...
Watch how I killed the BBEG and lander an epic one-liner here:
• Animated 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...)
Background Music: 'Night Watch' by Third Age (Licensed with Soundstripe)
Stay tuned for more awesome DnD content!
#DnDStories #DnD #DungeonsAndDragons
Was it the curse of lycanthropy that made the wizard go mad? Was it just the player that went over the line? Has anything like this happened to you? Please let us know and comment below!
You can check out more narrated stories here:
bit.ly/ATDNarratedStories
Like watching animated stories? Check them out here:
bit.ly/ATDAnimatedStories
Have fun watching our videos and stay subscribed for more amazing DnD content!
This was a clear case of a player going over the line. The reason most poeple don't allow evil characters at the table is because the poeple who play them do this. I play an evil character, but I play them in a role of "Doesn't give fuck." Not a "child murdering scumbag" role.
The real sad part here is probably the DM. Cause this was likely the worst game for them. I doubt they play anymore.
I can't help but think back to all those people who said D&D was the devils work. Well my oppinion is the game never made anyone evil, but it sure revealed someones true colors at times.
@@SoralTheSol I don't feel sorry for the DM in the slightest. It's also the part of the DM to step up and stop behavior like this. That's why players should talk about what they're comfortable with before the start of a game.
@@PurpleLightning6was9 Exactly. When the DM didn't IMMEDIATELY stop the game and deal with this, he became partly responsible for what happened next.
@With a K, @PurpleLightning6was9 -- As a LONG time GM(i've been playing this hobby for a little over 30+ years), i can see why you'd blame the DM. But, to be fair, it was Obviously his first (and probably last) time behind the screen...
@@johnnysizemore5797 oh I don't BLAME the DM, so much as think that they were partially responsible. Sorry, poor word choice on my part. Ultimately the wizard ruined it
This story sounds less like the punch ruined it and more like the wizard did
It certainly does
The punch put them on the map to the king and quest.
Bipeda Gamerson they still encountered the werewolf, punch or no. If it was the werewolf instinct, the punch wouldn’t have mattered. Would have just been a different town and different kid...
It was definitely the wizard lol
The wizard definitely ruined it. That was NOT a neutral move, either.
Correct title: "how not-actually neutral characters derail a campaign"
Lycanthropy in 5e makes you chaotic evil if not treated within a hour.
I hate when my players who are "neutral" Do this. It's annoying as hell
I don't think that anyone that would consider themselves neutral would yeet a child at a monster to save a few seconds of time. That's textbook evil. I hate players who say they are neutral so they can cop out and just do whatever is convenient.
The paladin throwing the little girl into the cave kinda annoyed me too
@@ButtHoleBreezyy YEET
Paladin: What do I do lord?
The voices in his head: *DESTROY THE CHILD*
CONSUME THE EVIL
@@funnyvalentine6360 CORRUPT THEM ALL
yup. sounds like god to me
God: pfff, I dunno...like, throw her I guess?
Kill for motherrrr
"Our party is mostly neutral-" fast forward to half the party trying to throw a child to monsters just to get a small amount of time to prebuff.
Steve Zirngible Literally the party is rolling against each other at that moment.
Neutral Evil I guess.
arguably the correct choice was to let her die for self preservation
@@HQwalkingdead arguably doing that was a waste of time and if they're going for that they should've just ran when they noticed there was something there and leave whoever wanted to save her to bring her along
I maintain that if the players commit starkly evil acts, they instantly become NPC's as the rules of my campaign are "Evil characters may not be played by players". I have, more than once, taken a character sheet and slid them a new one after they insisted on committing clearly evil acts (burning down a shop after the shopkeep refused to give them stuff for free, attacking guards for no reason, etc). I usually monologue real quick about "true intentions all along" and betray the party.
"Most of our alignments were neutral"
Are you sure it wasn't chaotic evil?
curse of lycanthropy by 5e rules changes your alignment to CE if not treated. treatment by lore is taking tea made by the belladonna herb within 1 hour of being bitten. By 5e you can simply cast remove curse to deal with it (only works on nontrue born werewolves, for whom you need to cast wish to remove the curse).
Even chaotic evil would know better than to burn supplies. They are too selfish and greedy to let those go to waste.
@@CrooSWanteDtm there is roll play, and then there is being a huge fucking dushbag.
@Dewani90 Eh, those types of 'chaotic neutral' players don't play the alignment right.
sounds like neutral evil
So, a paladin throw a little girl to a monster to save time? And he's not losing his powers? That's sound more as an evil character to me.
Depends on the oath I guess.
@@kylestanley7843 and on how the DM interprets certain gods and morality. I mean Dostoevsky has a priest character who believes that world salvation isn't worth the suffering of a single child. And Gen Urobuchi has a character who would doom two hundred to save three hundred if that is the best he can do. So, very gm dependant.
@@destroyerinazuma96 I guess? I mean most Paladins in my eyes are chaotic good, which IS the ultimate "the end justifies the means" alignment.
@@kylestanley7843 yup you're right
@@kylestanley7843 Ends Justify the means is Lawful evil though? Chaotic good is basically your Robin Hood type, free spirited with a healthy dislike for authority figures but always tries to do the right thing because they are a good person. It's the Rebel with a heart of gold. In fact Chaotic Good is the one Alignment that would almost always see an end's justify the means argument as bullshit, as it is a narrow minded argument often used by despots and other evil men to justify their atrocities. They can be more pragmatic than the other good alighnments at times sure, but this is usually on points of honor and social mores, when it comes to the core Alignment ideal of compassion and selflessness they are typically the last to break those conventions do to seeing no rational argument for doing so. The Chaotic Good character hates to be pigeonholed and is typically the first to seek out a third option in any given situation.
I mean I know you can argue alignment's until your blue in the face, but "the ends justify the means" is THE Lawful Evil Mantra. With "might makes right" trailing somewhere not too far behind. I get that every Despot begins their career as a rebel, but they were never really rebels to begin with, their where just despots looking for an excuse to usurp the current power structure.
Also half of the Paladins with a Chaotic Good alignment are playing Lawful Neutral, or Evil, and the only Oath that supports a Chaotic Good Playstyle is Ancients, well Redemption (As it works for any good alignment), and the New Heroism (Because it works for almost any alignment) one works as well... But Vengeance really doesn't fit the Alignment at all, as it's really more set up for Lawful Neutral, characters, while working fo Lawful Good if you want to go far an edgier flair, or Lawful Evil if you want to play a Bad Guy who still functions in a group.
The punch has nothing to do with the campaign being ruined.
Agreed
Total Clickbait lol jk
Depends on whether said punch required the DM to follow the campaign off the rails and improvise what happened next.
@@Stratelier The Wizard still contracted lycanthropy and would have still (probably and as far as we can tell) been a jerk about it. I don't think the circumstances would have made a difference in the long-run.
Classic click bait and switch...and we ALL fell for it lol
Normally I would give the wizard the benefit of the doubt and say he was succumbing to the werewolfs curse (even then it wouldve been a stark 180 flip considering this was over the span of maybe a day or two) but the fact that THE ENTIRE PARTY minus the fighter and ranger were all down for using a little girl as monster bait makes me think they were just murderhobos.
including the paladin.... i don't know much about the oath but geez
@@connorpurdue8422 If he is anything other than treachery or oathbreaker, he has no fundamental understanding of how oaths or paladins work.
@@ab14967 it would appear so. I barely know paladins but i understand your oath is everything
@@chrisrouillard8871 That is very true
oath of vengeance is the oath that gives you the best combat abilities and you don’t break it as long as you’re seeking your vengeance.
guy was definitively a murdehobo who just wanted an overpowered character.
Something else must have honestly been at play here... that "wizard" sounds more like a secret necromancer or has an evil alignment. Kinda odd the Paladin decided to chuck a little girl into a cave too.
Like what the fuck is wrong with the paladin, cleric and wizard
It's a classic case of not understanding the difference between the alignments "true neutral" and "chaotic asshole"
Paladin shoulda lost his powers if his god was good. Same with the cleric. As for the wizard, I can't help but feel he was a evil character. None of what he did can be justified for even chaotic neutral.
Agreed, paladin should have faced immediate consequences - did they even suspect the child of anything?
Okay, there’s “what your character would do”, and then there’s this. This is insane!
i would have intervened as the dm and kicked him the fuck out.
Didnt he say that the alignments were mostly neutral, with the ranger being chaotic good?
Did he mean chaotic neutral to lawful neutral or neutral evil and neutral good and true neutral?
Reese Paplham Yeah that’s correct. This should not even be a thought that crosses a neutrals mind ( with the exception of evil ). That’s just messed up 😞
I have had players hang a child because the child had stabbed the rouge with a arrow (1d4 damage in my book) and the child only did this because his mother was killed because of the party. Then I found a monster in one of my books had it hunt down and kill a good bunch of players. I don’t and won’t stand for stuff like this
I would have noticed that the wizard had been bitten.
Title should be “how playing with psychopaths ruined an entire campaign”.
okay so a CLERIC AND PALADIN THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SACRIFICE A CHILD??? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE NICE CLASSES IN D&D!
@@liamdalemon1525 Well Clerics, even in older versions, could be of ANY alignment good, neutral(only allowed if deity is neutral) , evil doesn't matter. So the cleric being supposed to be nice isn't quite right. However the Paladin in older versions(referencing 3.5 specifically) could only be LAWFULL GOOD, with that said this restriction was removed with 5 edition(as far as I've hear), however the Paladin being a "neutral" doesn't fit in the slightest here throwing the girl into the cave to save time was a 100% chaotic(ok chaotic being the debatable part here) evil move. Also while technically all alignments are allowed for paladins I'd argue that Lawfull good is the most fitting given the description of the class(looked it up), neutral could also be allowed but evil is 100% not fitting.
If i got anything wrong here feel free to correct me, while i was looking to get into dnd i never found a good way or opportunity to do so so i know fairly little about the whole thing.
@@timbo3286 well support classes are usually thought of as nice people and paladins... enough said
@@timbo3286 yeah, if the dude was a paladin of an evil god it would be understandable, but that was crazy
this whole thing made me feel sick.
Considering the state of things at the end, it sounds like DM just noped away. Quite frankly? I don't blame him. That went to hell and I don't see the group outside of the Ranger and Fighter getting together again, especially with how the OP felt during the whole thing
I couldn't have come back to that group. Evil is one thing, child torture is another. I don't know why the DM didn't stop the game IMMEDIATELY after it started
@@isabelled.4799 I think the DM was to traumatized in that moment
Talk about Fight, Flight, or Freeze.
Should have at least talked it out. That shit deserves a postmortem. "What the fuck was that!?"
honestly I can't see a way to continue from there. the wizard killed someone who was practically the rangers daughter and the ranger killed the wizard. even if they roll up new characters the grudge will still exist
Oh yeah. After that you just gotta wash your hands of that and repress
Sounds like it was more the Wizard Edgyness than the Dragonborn punch that ruined the campaign to me.
Martin Dupont Yeah. One Dragon Punch sounded awesome.
The wizards sounds like an edgy prick that wanted to be a dark rp
Not to disagree with you, but that Wizard wasn't edgy. He was downright psychotic. I dunno... There's certain things in role-playing games that I feel should be taboo. Child murder is one of them. Even D&D video games makes children invulnerable.
@@Meidoification if your party is cool with it I guess you should do it if you want, as long as you're not being just a murder hobo, depending on the evil character the choice to torture children should be on the table, wizard was playing in a table that clearly was blocking anything too evil, and decided to use lycantropy as an excuse
While I think it's absolute shit to ban evil characters, if you don't like it you should look for other players, and even they might not like some prick that kills what seems like a recurring npc
That was no "Edgyness" that was a full-blown psychosis. Likely out-of-character as much as in-character.
Trashpeople.
Sounds like the wizard had a complete personality shift with no subtle signs. Amazing that he didn't second guess the werewolf instinct, especially if he has high Intelligence. He didn't recover the gold, search for a motive or check if either her or her familiar were more than they seemed. It all seems a bit forced.
Inexperienced dm? Or the wizard was chaotic neutral (it isnt specified really) and went "fuck it"
He does say he "embraced the werewolf". He was aware of the changes but he went with them.
@@melonman6522 Yeah but this was WAY over the line. I get that yeah, the character might have done this but no one should have to sit through child torture. The DM should have stopped that shit as soon as it started and kicked the wizard to another fucking plane of existence
@@melonman6522 But that implies control. If he wasn't in control, he would be too far gone to handle the complexity of spells or be incoherent as he wrestled with the wolf spirit for control. If he was in control, he could hunt smartly, be brutal in combat, but still be rational enough to evaluate the situation, a sagacious hunter. He could be brutally efficient and in character. But there were no signs, no character development as they started to be influenced by the curse, no way for the party to suspect. It was just used as an excuse for randomly becoming a villain.
Sounds like someone who was looking for the first chance to go Chaotic Evil if you ask me.
Me: Aw, it's a sweet little girl with a floofy white foxy! I will protect them, and they will be mine, and--
Them: Maim and kill them!
Me: ...I need to...be alone for a bit.
I fully understand why the DM simply cut all connections, burned all bridges, and deleted the game.
To be fair, only the wizard did that, everyone else was alluded to be pretty pissed about that
This story is crazy. I was expecting a one punch finish, but when it happened in the middle I got worried. That wizard...
My current wizard isn't evil, but VERY pragmatic. Some of our other party members wanted to try and capture a hag. Being a spell castor I know that to stop most spells, breaking the hags hands would be a good idea. We didn't.
@@FelixUmbra we normally just bind a caster with rope and gag them.
@@stateofhibernation We didnt have anything like that at the time. It was break or kill.
@@FelixUmbra true we sometimes used spare clothes like pants or long sleeved shirt to tie them up if we didn't have rope. Rare, since i always had tons of it cause its so useful xD. But yea some people are to dangerous to be left alive.
That made me sick... that poor little girl... like, I know it’s just a game and she’s not real, but that poor little girl...
Yeah I'm really surprised the DM didn't cut this off at the pass. That game should have stopped immediately and the players should have had a serious talk about whether they were okay with this. I mean, evil is one thing, but torturing a child is fucked
@@isabelled.4799 tourtur in general is fucked... Let's be honest here if you had some one in your party tape an NPC to a chair and slowly destroy everything he knows and loves in front of him... Would you probably want him to just not? (I'm being oddly specific because reasons)
@@katybrown8999 Definitely. That's why I never play evil characters, and why I always try to get the party not to do stuff like this. Besides, illusion spells exist for a reason. Instead of torturing them, just make an illusion of their family member, and say you'll let them go after they give you your information. Easy, no torture involved
@@isabelled.4799 I am currently playing my first "evil" character, but even he has morals. The way I play him is that he is fine with using pain and torture (he hasn't done it yet, but it likely wouldn't be anything worse than making them really scared or slightly damaging them. I would never get graphic, and he is illusion/enchantment based anyway so it wouldn't be much more than mental games). The catch is he would only do this to terrible people who are in his way. He is "evil" but figures that it is only worth doing bad things to bad people.
edit: he's almost more true neutral now that I think about it, but I still think it's closer to neutral evil
@@josiahhager6069 That's the thing: it's less about what he did, rather than how he did it. I guess it maybe makes sense for his character? But that was just far too much
The GM through the session:
"Well that's unexpected..."
"...guys?"
"Ugh..."
404: GM not found
404 hehehee
I've played evil characters before but I normally steer clear of hurting kids as a personal line I don't want to cross, unless it's some goofy superhero game and I know i'll be stopped. This guy sounds way too into it.
Even my most evil character has line's they wouldn't cross but I made my evil characters have complex morals a example being they may betray some people but they don't kill children if they don't need to
You have a strange doppel moral. Only bc it is not the kind of evil you like he is bad and you are good?
He roleplayed is changed evil alignment, why is that wrong?
If you kill other races is dnd/any other rpg are you a monster too bc you are enjoing it too much? Do you need to be put behind bars bc you like to kill people?
What is the difference in hurtin a chil vs hurting a farmer? Why is killing thousands of people ok but hurting one child wrong?
Hurting a child is ALWAYS worse than hurting an adult. Yes, neither necessarily deserves it but the child less so. What he did would make even mass murders hate him. It's just how we are.
I just view it as a game but I haven't even started playing dnd also my characters know that there is a difference between being evil and being a butt and if they need to they can be the necessary evil because of how they are also they only do what they need to for their plan and prioritise the group after
@@boredfangerrude But why? What did the adult do? Why is he not as valuabe as the child?
Wizard: *treats girl like crap*
Girl: *gets revenge*
Wizard: *surprised Lycanroc face*
wizard: thieves get their fingers broken!
ranger: and child murderers get killed!
Sounds like the DM wasn’t truly prepared. Even with the what happened the DM needs to be able to talk it out. Sad the campaign ended for them this way.
Such small potatoes stuff wouldn't stop our DM. We one-shotted 2 of his BIG BOSSES that had been built up over weeks and still, we continued. (Though he was frustrated but still impressed.)
I think it was more the wizard going full murderhobo who doesn't care about party dynamics that ruined it for him.
@@millgiass we stole about 600lbs of gold from the cult (which is *alot*) and wanted to ic full on retire just because of how much richer we got, and my character pretty much accomplished its IC hopes and dreams (impressing his tabaxi dad) but the campaign still went on (with the final boss finding our wagon as we rode home).
@@u.s.s.chucklefucker1657 Going full psycho with "embracing the werewolf", and murdering an innocent, which lead to the Ranger having to decimate the traitorous spellcaster
No; not everyone is worth the time. Sorry; I wouldn't deal with the guy playing the wizard.
>A paladin/cleric chucking an innocent girl into a cave. The goodie goodies
If I were their dm their alignment would have shifted cutting them off from divine channelling. Their quest could have then been one of redemption, those take forever.
I was wondering if the Paladin's patron god was the god of assholes.
@@SmTnRoTn520 Exactly, how could any Neutral god/power allow those actions??
@@Ocker3 You'd be surprised... considering one of the paladin oaths is the oath of treachery... then it may have been par for the course for his character. The MAIN thing is that you need to fit with the party or you are worse than useless. That wizard can truly go fuck himself.
@@ab14967 True, but the paladin in question took the oath of vengeance. While that oath typically puts the destruction of their foes above all else one of the core tenets they must uphold is, "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds." As the girl was clearly a victim of the monster he was there to fight his oath demanded that he help her. His choice to do the opposite and throw her to the monster should have resulted in the immediate loss of his abilities as a vengeance paladin.
An amazing amount of Nat20s rolled in this story.
... I know right ...
Yeah all of these stories on UA-cam involve tons of 20s somehow.
ya know, one time I sat in at a game shop where people thought that anything higher than a 19 was a nat 20... that might be where a lot of these type of things come from.. or you know the dm giving constant advantage rule of cool moments I guess.
@@TheLoyalOfficer its called leave the 20 nat 1s out
Thay way it hides the piles of fails
I was once playing a character (I think a mystic) in a D&D 5e Campaign, our current DM is awesome and we've been playing D&D together for over 2 years. Either way, the session of D&D had been very rp heavy (We had to beat a massive War Robot called the "Gatekeeper" that we had no hope of defeating the robot in combat, so my character challenged it to a game of chess, wining the game and thus beating it). anyway, after this long rp session me and everyone else wanted to at least have some combat in the session, so the DM rolled up a random dungeon we found in an old ruin while exploring. Our party was made up of a Human Monk, a High Elf Paladin, and myself a Dragonborn Mystic. As we entered the dungeon, the first enemy we encountered were a pair of Gelatinous Cube's, no problem I thought as I was the main range combat member of the party. I used the Mystic's Mastery of Force discipline to cause the first Gelatinous Cube to explode by being forced outward from it's center of mass, the cube didn't die, instead following the square cubed law it became 8 small Gelatinous Cube's. At this point it was the second Gelatinous Cube's turn, as it moved it engulfed several (about 4-5) of the smaller cubes within it (however they were still seperate entities at this point), anyways the Cube managed to back the Paladin & I into a narrow passage but didn't have enough movement to engulf us, while the Monk was behind the Cube. My turn came around again, and I used my Mastery of Force again to attempt to squeeze the cube down into a smaller size, instead the press caused all of the smaller cube's to merge into the larger one - creating a Huge Sized Gelatinous Cube. It was at this point that I and my character got an idea. "Why fight this thing if we don't really need to?, hell, I could even make this our ally!". Anyways, the monks turn comes around, and being a Character with a 6 in Intelligence, didn't realize what the consequences of his next action would be - he used Fist of the Unbroken Air on the now Huge Cube, the Cube was of course pushed into both my and the Paladin's spaces, we both had to make DEX saving throws to not be engulfed, the Paladin made it, and was simply pushed out of the way - I however rolled a nat 1 and was completely engulfed in the Cube and restrained.
At this point my character was pissed at the Monk, and their would be reckoning for his mistake (My alignment was CN), my turn was upnext, I could have easily gotten myself out of the cube in several different ways, but my character was petty, and so he locked eyes with the Monk through the transparent goo of the Cube, and looking him in the eyes, used the Mystic's Nomadic Step discipline to swap places with the Monk. I was out of the acid cube, and now the monk was drowning from the surprise of suddenly being enveloped in the cube and restrained. It was then my character decided that the Monk was more of a liability to the party than a benefit (He had done several other extremely idiotic things that could have killed the party in the past), and so he walked up to the cube, reached in (passing the saving throw) and grabbed the drowning monk as if to pull him free - instead as my character grabbed the monks leg, he touched the Cube with his other hand (again passing the saving throw) and used a Mystic discipline (I forget which one) that had a feature called "Awaken Mind", which functioned almost exactly like the spell "Awaken" except it required the sacrifice of an Intelligent creature and was instant. The Monk rolled his Wisdom saving throw, and rolled a nat 1, his character was instantly killed as his mind and soul were used to give the Gelatinous Cube sentience (Retaining nothing of the Character). The Cube gained sentience and was charmed by me - believing me to be it's father, I rolled with it, accepting that my character was now a father, and named my new gooey child "Reginald".
Reginald the Huge Gelatinous Cube went on to become a Bard, making his father very proud of him.
I am now hooked on the life of Reginald.
Please tell me more of Reginald's adventures, I beg you.
Ahhh, keeping the age old tradition of confusing neutral with chaotic evil alive~
You know what this really sounds like...A party that didn’t have a session 0
Okay I am confused by what you mean. Can you please explain?
Matt Sure, A session 0 is a DND Session where the players get together like they normally would when they play but before the campaign is started. This time is used to go over expectation for the game from both player and DM. You make characters at this session, ask questions and find out what everyone is comfortable with. It’s a good way to make sure everybody is on the same page when you start playing
Matt ua-cam.com/video/s88z7Z3nx3I/v-deo.html
they certainly did, that's clearly why most of the players aren't playing evil, even though their first option was to be murderhobos and kill a npc when doing so just wasted their time, only a few players actually seemed like they wanted to play their alignment, the DM probably refused evil characters, and the wizard jumped at the chance he got to play evil.
Should have had the paladin fell (loose its paladin powers) after joining team "throw the girl"
@4000 jumpymonkeys he was already a oath of vengeance which is probably as close to evil as you can make a paladin with actually being evil in my opinion
@@nicholaspaynter3581 Oath of vengeance is far from evil, and is instead focused on assault on larger threats rather than is ultimately a smaller battle. Oath of conquest would be the most stereotypically evil.
Depends on his oath. Certain oaths will allow for it as he essentially didn't break their tenants. Plus it depends on how they justify it, even oath of vengeance can kill a bunch of innocents so long as he can justify it. So yeah, no, I don't think the paladin should lose their powers. Also normally they just need to do some penance or seek absolution, it's annoying but not oath breaking.
@@Squall598 actually what he did breaks tenet 4: Restitution. " If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."
this is a girl whose entire town was killed by a chimera, someone definitely harmed by his foes misdeeds. despite that, he not only didn't help her but actively attempted to kill her. that is *heavily* breaking the oath's tenets, especially as a non-evil character.
this could be justified if the benefit provided outweighed how amoral such a thing is, but it fails in this regard as well: the child would only distract the monster for a turn at maximum, as the amount of damage a chimera does is enough to kill a first level fighter, let alone an unarmored untrained child.
@@nicholaspaynter3581 The tenets for an oath of vengeance paladin are, "
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."
His choice to throw the girl to the monster has some pretty glaring issues with that last one depending on how you interpret it.
player crossing the line way to far and my group don't trust children (our GM usually make kids demons) and we don't do that kind of thing
All in all I think the DM is mostly to blame, outside of the wizard obviously. They should have stopped the game as soon as this started. Even if it were an evil game, child torture is WAY over the line, and the wizard was CLEARLY making a player uncomfortable.
Shit i was playing an evil character in a horror setting and even then i only suggested leaving the little girl behind.
I can understand where the wizard is comeing from
@@isabelled.4799 you are half right. The DM IS mostly to blame, but not for allowing the evil to occur. He is to blame for not continuing the campaign for the characters not alignment hopping. Basically the Wizard assumed that lycanthropy would change his alignment to evil, which is incorrect. Two, evil pc's are often either not allowed, or if they are allowed, they normally only get one life.
So while technically you could have the wizard re-roll a new character, due to him 1) doing torture, 2) being killed in-game, 3) illegal alignment shifting ... I would call that three strikes and he is out ... or basically, if a player does shit like that AND their character dies???
That is when you don't re-invite them to the game. Or if you do, you make them as the primary villain, and everyone knows that they are the villain.
I can understand the DM not wanting that shit in his story though, so, even though he probably hated himself for allowing that session to exist, the better move would have been a redemption arc to save the little girl, while the wizard is not allowed back in.
Honestly, if the other players didn't agree, as the DM I would just continue the story for the Dwarf and the Ranger, and maybe they meet new PCs along the way that agree with their cause.
@@isabelled.4799 Putting a line seems rather ridiculous. Like i get that he crossed a line as a neutral character, but setting lines for like chaotic evils characters would be dumb.
I've never heard of a sapphire dragon.
Edit: They appear to be some sort of psionic dragons from the Forgotten Realms. Neat.
They are on the book: strongholds and followers by matt coleville
yeah they are gem dragons. the ones that don't get nearly as much attention as chromatics and metalics. (sorry if I misspelled anything)
Gem dragon.they were a bigger thing in 3.5 (as was many many other types). in 5e there is no official reference to them, but as pointed before there are some gem dragons in strongholds and followers by matt coleville.
Gem dragons also appeared in 1e, and they are more then just "psionic dragons". I could call metallics "divine dragons" or chromatics "arcane dragons".
I'm stuck wondering how the punch ruined the campaign, and not the wizard!
Hmmm...Maybe because if it wasn't for the punch; the quest would never have been given
@@fk4998 I did not put that together. Huh...
Xendor Dawnburst its entirely possible the DM would of had them do the quest anyway and the Punch o Doom was just flavor
wizard was WAAAY too into torturing that little girl... forget the campaign that's IRL creepy...
Chaotic EVIL, is that too hard to understand, he's not IRL creepy, you're being a jackass
okay why are all of the wizards evil in this world?
@@-hello6177 Chaotic Evil doesn't automatically mean "gets off on torturing little girls", especially in the case of lycanthropy where the chaotic evil is mostly due to feral instincts. The Wizard was supposed to be chaotic neutral before turning
@@theblasblas and he's a creep because chaotic evil doesn't automatically means the character will torture someone
how to be boring
Honestly as a DM I have no idea how they didn't IMMEDIATELY stop the game and deal with this. "But that is what my character would do" is bullshit. The player was in the wrong, absolutely, if only because they visibly made another player uncomfortable and continued to do so without at least asking the group if it was okay.
Yeah. I honestly don't understand how people put up with groups like this. No DND is better than bad DND.
"Narrated D&D Story: How 2 murder hobos ruined an entire campaign" there i fixed it.
That would have been definitely an interesting campaign, I'm currently running a dragonborn bardI've certainly butted heads with my companions a couple of occasions especially with a paladin but never that bad. It's a slight shame that the campaign didn't continue but I think it was wise to end it right there. But I would have to agree that the wizard went a little overboard and considering his alignment and lycanthropy. I can see how that roleplay worked
I've played a campaign before where I got enchanted by an enemy and had to actively work against the group. It was really well run though, and there was at least a reason for my actions. Seems like the wizard low-key decided to switch alignments without telling anyone.
The curse does effect alignment tho, especially when the afflicted embraces the curse. Plus, there's actually a lot of other stuff that could have been going on with the DM's input.
Info I found, cause I needed to review the details of the curse myself; rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/127525/what-is-the-downside-of-contracting-lycanthropy
Until the end, I half-expected the little girl to be that armored king who wanted to see what the players were like, and would have transformed after discovering that only the Ranger and the Dwarf were good people, and wouldn't have given any prizes to the others.
well technically he did what a chaotic evil player would do. so yes, he was in character (that's what his char SHOULD do at the moment). Curse of Lycanthropy changes your alignment to CE. I, as a dm would ask (heck even MAKE) the player to act accordingly. it was a great rp moment. after this incident and session, I would explain to everyone that this was MY doing. he was just playing a role I GAVE him (by having him bitten by a werewolf). after this session I would simply remove control of the pc from the player and make the ww a recurring villain, having the player roll a new char. You all need to understand that playing an evil char is not a crime and the player who does it is not a monster or sick in the mind as I see most believe, especially if the char development requires it (if that was the case then what kind of monsters do you think dms are?) . ok, you might be uncomfortable with the evil act, but that's your problem as a person who can't see past the RP and see the player as evil. I recently had a player vs player drama of that kind. had to split the party to make everyone happy. It turns out, the one that got offended was actually the problem player as her attitude out of the game was at best rude to everyone else after we split. FIY don't justify evil and gory acts just for the heck of it. If it is something your character would do and you can deal with the consequences as a pc then I don't give a fuck if someone gets offended. As long as you respect your fellow players out of the game, do whatever you want on my table. if you play a dick pc though, expect to be treated as one and make sure you got a backup character with you, since my players/npcs will most likely not appreciate that.
Last note, you play dnd not palaces and fairies. grow up and realize its not a fairytale. bad things happen, why do you think you are the heroes? just because you say you try to make the world a better place? is that true rp? where is your inner conflict where is the struggle where are the moral dilemmas? Best rp moments come when you have to choose between saving your friend that's under the control of a curse (lycanthropy) or the little girl you just met and looks cute by killing him.
I've played evil characters without torturing and murdering children.
The part where you say [paraphasing] the player roleplaying an evil act doesn't mean the player is evil or needs help is an understatement.
My last evil character lacked empathy, something he lost in his warlock pact. He was NE; cold and calculating and thirsting for knowledge. As such, he had little care for any NPC's safety or well being if their immediate use was apparently exhausted. This extended to party members too. He would act in such a way that any decision he made was to his benefit above all else. It made for fun RP with the party Paladin, Wizard and second Warlock. They kept trying to explain to him how to act more.... "good" and oddly enough, he was the only character at the end of the campaign against fighting the BBEG in a civilian town.
As someone who is currently playing a "goody-two-shoes" lawful good fighter, but has already drawn up an "evil little shit" murderhobo goblin for the next campaign, I couldn't agree more.
In-game conflict makes for better RP opportunities, and playing an evil character means having your character do evil things, just as playing a good one means you have to do good things, and react negatively towards evil acts.
Why do so many of you edgy asshats keep forgetting the wizard was actively making another player uncomfortable? That's never okay.
Its an interesting story to be sure... i think the story wasn't ruined by the punch really, that was just an epic moment, it was ruined by the wizard's behavior really.
Even if the wizard were struck with lycantropy...it doesn't really make people evil instantly, just bestial and many times frenzied...can't really blame the DM for nope'ing out of that...but i think s/he was a little inconsiderate with his/her other players.
it is role playing...but there is so much as stepping to far and i think the wizard player did just that, i mean...its common courtesy in table top RPG etiquette to NOT make the rest of the table unconfortable with your actions, you can't just bring something like 'child torture' into the game untill you're sure everyone is in fine with it...and spoiler alert...majority of people are not confortable with that sort of thing.
It is a shame the game was ruined for everybody over what one player did, the ranger and the dwarf player are probably the ones i feel most for.
well they were the ones who wanted to play neutral, the rest clearly wanted to play evil characters, probably the DM refused to
also can we blame the DM too, if he had stopped things in their track at the beginning, the party could still be alive
the only time child torture is allowed is when the party is required to take Wallace along for some reason
@@liamdalemon1525 weak
@@-hello6177 yea your right.
I like how the two Holy Characters of the Paladin and Cleric voted to throw the girl to death for no reason. Really though, the Wizard player went too far. Curse of Lycanthropy or not
Chaotic Evil, he did go too far in the account they probably set rules that it wasn't allowed to do that sort of thing, by the reaction of the DM from calling of the games permanently, but torturing a child is not going too far
@@-hello6177 you have constantly advocated that this guy was perfectly fine torturing a child when its not how you act with a curse of lycanthropy. It doesn't make you torture children it would just make you more animalistic so if anything he would have just beat the child and bit out her jugular not slowly and painfully torture her. You're sick and are willing to cross a line that is just too far
“The cleric voted to throw her to the chimera” Was he serving a god of human sacrifice?
and I thought my friend cutting off our only escape route during combat was bad (that ended up getting half the team killed). this is a father figure trying his best to protect a defenceless child and being forcefully stopped from saving their life. this is the darkest thing I have ever heard of in D&D
Only because the story ends there. Killing the Wizard, taking their gold to bring the girl back and this being the point in their lives that causes the 'neutral' folks to decide to work for Good? Then it's the lowest point in the story.
@@Sorain1 I would like to see that heartfelt ending but in all honesty I think the party would have prioritized bringing back the wizard considering he was their party member and all that
My guess? DM told the wizard the curse was driving him insane, play it up, Wizard took it WAY too far, DM didn't know how to handle it, and just dropped the game, likely with lots of complaints about Wizard.
I actually just finished a campaign this morning.
I was a dragonborn fighter behaved like paladin.
We had been chasing down a lich and had a fight at night with it when it ambushed the party.
I had grappled the lich and the party had almost killed it, when the lich made a portal to escape, and I rolled bad on grapple, so he got free.
I asked the DM if I could follow, and he said, only if you can succeed a DC-20 dex save, certain I would fail since I failed a DC-14 earlier. Nat 20 +3, I leap in to the portal, tackling the lich and deliver the final blow.
But...its owner was a dragon with scales that swirled with colors of purple, black, and blue. It offers me a choice, become its champion or die. After the fight with the lich, I don't have a choice. I agree.
Now I'm the BBEG, and the party doesn't know yet.
One reason to be Very wary of anyone who goes through a random portal alone!
Sounds like a tragic plot brewing.
Cleric: I agree we should through the girl into the cave with a possibiliy deadly creature in it.
Me: Now I didn't expect a cleric to say that.
Clerics and paladins are supposed to be the goody two shoe's of D&D. WHY WOULD THEY SACRIFICE AN INNOCENT CHILD???
As a DM myself, I usually give my players complete freedom with what they want to do... if it makes sense to their alignment. I would’ve immediately called out those players for doing something inherently evil with the little girl, and let them know that their alignments would change if they went through with it. The Paladin player would’ve lost all of his power, and might’ve even just been struck down depending on what deity he worshiped. I make it very clear to my players at the start what kind of campaign I’m running. Whether it be a campaign about a band of heroes, or an evil campaign where the players can be as fucked up as they want. If they decide to be evil in a campaign where I explicitly told them it was a “good guy” campaign, there will be in game consequences.
So that was dark.
Man why do people play neutral as evil?
I was in a campaign (3.5) with 2 other players who were not experienced. Now we were doing the Sunless Citadel, low level dungeon crawl, pretty well known.
The other two players were a bard, and a rogue. The bard was trying to pull double duty as our caster and healer, so I knew it wasn't going to be great. So I had never played a cleric, and there's only so much you can do at level 1, so I went Half-Orc Barbarian.
I embraced the tropes, he was dumb, unsubtle, and carried a great axe. Every door he came to he kicked open. But he was generally friendly and responsive to orders.
Behold the perfect tank, he takes damage so you don't have to.
So we're going through the dungeon killing goblins and kobolds and eventually we find ourselves on one side of a door.
The rogue checks it for traps.
It's not even locked. The rogue rolls perception, natural 20. Using her hearing she hears a large figure, a bit larger than the Barbarian pacing back and forth down a very long room. The sound of the pacing gets closer, and then receeds very far away. She consults a map she looted from some goblins and sees there is a doorway not to far on the other side of the narrow long hall way.
She devises a plan. She tells the party that we're going to wait until the creature is down the hall aways, open the door, sneak across the hallway and go through the other door.
The Barbarian will be first because if things go wrong they'll need him to tank, then the rogue to unlock the other door, and then the bard because he has very little to contribute to this.
So she goes over Krusk's part of the plan again with him.
Open the door, sneak through the hallway quietly, then wait for the rogue to check the other door.
"Got it?" asked the halfling.
"Uh huh!" said the Barbarian enthusiastically.
"Okay,"
She listened at the door for the footsteps to recede and as they do tells the Barbarian, his axe at the ready, to do it.
Krusk nods, puts his finger to his lips and blows to indicate for people to be quiet.
He immediately kicks the ancient door off its hinges and out of the frame into the hallway.
Everyone is aghast. Even the bugbear, now at the other end of the hallway can't believe what he's seeing, as the half-orc tip toes across the hallway, quiet as a mouse.
probably the DM didn't allow for it, you can see a lot of them in the comments, who outright ban any sort of evil doing and even being creepy, gray morality characters in the worst cases
Ive played an evil character, the key is to tell everyone you're an evil dude who's with the party for his own reason, which you also tell them. I had done some crazy shit and i murdered quite a huge amount of innocents to make sure my goals were met. You know, its really about everyone being comfortable with you doing it. I had even tortured somebody for information and threw a young man into a pyre to send a message. BUT! I told everyone what i was gonna do and had a quick chat with the players about his motivations and reasoning. It realy spiced up our party dynamic in a great way.
Wow, no that's when a player goes from neutral to evil with the curse of lycanthropy. And he clearly was steering the game to an evil game. I've been on both sides of it. So it's a character and player attitude problem usually. In my humble opinion
Yeah, I hope he never plays again.
@@nickbrennan8979
You don't even know the dude lol
@@rgh1132 sometimes you can just tell.
@@rgh1132 clearly he was on a table that didn't allow that, and instead of going to a table that has a playstyle closer to his, he decided to force his way through ruining the game for everyone, of course the DM is very much at fault, since when he noticed the player was going to do that he should've intervened.
@@-hello6177 to play devil's advocate here (possibly literally) I have the feeling the DM didn't lay down the law before the session began. The reasoning I believe this is the DM let it happen at the time it was happening and then ghosted the party after that.
I have been playing D&D with the same people for years now and my DM made damn sure we knew that he is not gonna allow us to do any really fucked up shit. He also would take the bull by the horns if he felt we were treading bad waters with our actions. (Not story spoilers but in RP.)
Remember players: Neutral alignment is not an excuse to play Evil characters. Nor is being Chaotic. To stay neutral, your actions should never be extreme in either direction without very strong reasons. Deliberate and mediate rather than exacerbate or accelerate. If you do decide to take extreme measures, justify yourself to the group with more than just "that's what they'd do"; explain (or demonstrate, for those who remember Atashan) your reasoning and why it's beneficial or necessary.
Biggest issue with the ending is that the dm allowed the wizard to cast hold person and create bonfire simultaneously when both of those are concentration spells
That wizard was not acting in character when he started torturing her, he physically enjoyed that sick twisted shit.
I would quit that campaign on the spot if I had a party member like that. I'd tell the dm not to invite me to a campaign if that wizard's player was there.
The dude was just embracing the evil that had taken him over. He was RP'ing to the best of his abilities.
@Lok Mickson True.
@@naturalone6529 Not to mention that RP is one thing, but this was child torture, and it was CLEARLY making another player uncomfortable. Yeah, turning evil could be fun but this was extremely inappropriate
@@isabelled.4799 I would agree with you there. That was straight-up Chaotic Evil stuff right there.
@@naturalone6529 no, that was someone taking it way too far. like, way, way, way too far.
“I’m currently in a party and my LN Goliath (who tends to tip more toward good deeds) doesn’t trust the tabaxi in our group specifically because the tabaxi does shit like this and gets the party into HUGE messes. Goliath is 9 ft 700lbs. I’ve already threatened to throw the tabaxi as far as possible if he jeopardizes the group again 🤣🤣
He'll just land on his feet XD
Hunter Thompson and that’s why Goliaths intelligence is an 8. He’s just a brute lol
How can you goliath be 9 ft. Tall? I maxed out the height on mine at 7'10" and 360lbs. You start at 6'2" and add 2d10 in height then multiply the result from that roll by the number rolled on 2d6 for his weight +200 lbs. Max weight would be 440 lbs.
Steve O'Carroll my dm allowed it. He just said in certain situations it will be a problem like if we end up in cramped halls my movement speed is cut in half cause I have to crouch my way through. It works well in other situations. One was a spider was 10 ft above everyone on a cave ceiling and I was the only one who could melee it
@@blackreign92. 10' above the party? On average, each member would be 5'6" to 6'0"... a longsword is typically 3 feet in blade length... the arm reach of an average person adds an additional foot and a half to two feet. Unless the spider was a 2 dimensional drawing, your PCs should have been able to reach it, albeit at disadvantage due to superior height.
The player might have acted in-character but the Ranger now has PTSD. I think it's one of the instance where one HAS to state OOC what the context is, immersion be damned.
The paladin should have lost all abilities for committing an evil act against an innocent
Interesting conundrum, tad far on the wizards end. I had a similar situation where a cleric wanted to kill hundreds of enslaved imps, I had just befriended one of them who told me about how the evil warlock bred them only to experiment on them with evil twisted magics. Him and his literal *6* intelligence (on purpose btw), immediately assumed all of them were evil (they were neutral, as they grew up enslaved to a vile warlock as test subjects for spells instead of living in Hell and actually doing bad things). We had previous altercations where he would run ahead and screw up my scouting, he would ruin my battle plans by just charging in, any time I made a decision he would opt to do the exact opposite, and he hated me because I was a tiefling... No other reason, he "kept me alive" because he needed to... Yeah because if it looks evil, it is evil I guess... It lead to the party watching me and 30ish freed and pissed off imps murdering the insufferable and self righteous cleric. Group was pissed, but I literally said "Why are you even upset, we all hated him!" and they got off my case real fast. Lo and behold, he made a copy of the character to act as his "twin brother", he was slightly more tolerable but not really... Givin this was my only outlet to play dnd at the time, I either suffered or just didn't play dnd. And if I didn't play, then I am out of dnd for a literal year. And eventually my role was negated by the guy as he would just soak up trap damage and just run into dungeons haphazardly and get every enemies attention, the group basically treated my character like I was useless (basically because I was due to the cleric) and it really got me down. Luckily the DM's NPC's actually gave me a lot of attention (because he felt bad for me), and they made the game actually worth playing for me. The final boss was one of these npc's. I frankly didn't have the heart to turn on him after he gave me a form of immortality and helped me raise my baby red dragon. And so the day arrived when we finally got the boss battle underway I simply walked up to the DM, rolled stealth, and handed him my sheets saying "He has treated me way better than the party, I chose his side. Here is my character sheet, and a list of ways he can counter the party. Have fun.". The DM gave me a look of glee practically after looking at the list that metaphorically screamed "I will!".
Supposedly how this fight went down as described by one of my friends is that I was more dangerous than the boss! XD My 1st turn I 1hk'ed the necromancer with a sneak attack (my 1st recommendation was to take out the necromancer ASAP, he is easily the most dangerous person there). One of the guys had a custom thing where he had a pistol and made grenades and the DM took one of my list's advice and had my character pickpocket him to pull the pins on the grenades in his pockets and flee and that bloodied 3 of the 4 remaining party members my 3rd turn. I on my 6th turn apparently took out the cleric by double teaming him with the boss. (Recommendation saying "take out the healer if the opportunity presents") 10th turn the remaining 3 killed the boss who was a mutated mess by having the fighter drag him off the tower and dropping 90 feet to both their deaths. The ranger was bloodied and so was the westerner, so they dropped one of the bosses alchemy shelves on me. The westerner got killed by the chemicals that hit him (luck roll, under 20), while I somehow got turned 3 feet tall, lost half my strength and constitution, and grew small wings that could slow falls but not fly. My character fled after this, making his way to the imp's who had made a peaceful society for themselves. The imp I befriended became their king and I was his royal adviser. The final party member left alive simply uttered before he bled to death "Everyone's dead, the kingdom is saved, and I will soon die too. At least I will go out with a raging boner..." giving a few chuckles before dying peacefully in the ruins of the alchemy station. And so the campaign had its conclusion.
Surprisingly I wasn't met with hate but actually some praise from the group as me joining the boss made the climax epic for them and made what would have been an easy boss actually incredibly difficult. And our next one-off campaign story (every campaign we made new characters at lvl 1) we all were sure to keep respect amongst the group and it was one of the best campaigns we all had in a while, everyone got along and we had awesome teamwork moments where enemies leagues beyond us couldn't even down one of us! It was a rocky start, but in the end we all came out of it better as players and had a great time.
Sounds like an amazing story
@@lolloblue9646 Thanks. Kinda was, kinda wasn't. Was surprised though that the npc was the final boss though, givin he actually went out of his way to help me so much. Especially the immortality.
It was that when I died my soul was bound to a bottle (with runes that make it as durable as an artifact), anything that sniffs or inhales my soul (which is in form of a blue vapor) must make a CON save. On failure, I posses the creatures body. I keep my INT, WIS, and CHA scores but gain that creatures STR, DEX, and CON. Kinda think a lich's philactry, which made sense given he came from a kingdom that practices necromancy commonly. Bonus, drinking the stuff that bound my soul to the bottle didn't kill me like these sorts of potions usually do.
i would love to hear more about ur game
I got confused when you said the paladin THREW THE GIRL. What paladin does that!?
But wait create bonfire and hold person are both Concentration spells
may not have been 5e
I think it was stated that it was a 5e homebrew.
gem dragons are from 3.5 if not mistaken, so probably a 3.5 camp? not sure though i think it said was 5e hombrew. too lazy to watch again like you my friend...
A lot of people ignore concentration in homebrews. Hell its in pathfinder and i never knew it because the group that taught me ignored it
@@CrooSWanteDtm gem dragons are from 1e FYI...
This really shows that the group should discuss boundaries before doing anything controversial or before the first session. Everyone has different comfort levels and its important to make sure everyone is enjoying the game.
I don't think really dark actions are inherently bad, but everyone needs to be ok with it.
No point in playing a game if people arn't having fun
Thats why i hava a secret Karma stat for every pc in my games
Tell us more!
I've heard 5E doesn't really do alignments for paladins any more but in any other edition I'm familiar with he should have immediately lost his powers upon throwing the girl.
Even with most oaths in 5E, chucking a child head first into a monster should result in immediate depowering.
Oath of Devotion? One of the core tenets is Compassion, as in towards the weak.
Oath of the Ancients? It's all about protecting the light and life.
Oath of Vengeance? All about punishing those who prey on weak, not chuck the weak into danger themselves.
Oath of Redemption? Yeah, you need redemption if you're gonna throw a child.
Oath of the Crown? Most kingdoms don't really have laws decreeing children be bait.
On the official books? Only Conquest from Xanathar's Guide and the Oathbreaker from the DMGuide could get away with it. In Unearthed Arcana, only Treachery would be feasible. If this were a game I was running, I'd have the Paladin lose his power (including his One Punch Smite) the instant that child was tossed.
You’re expecting something from the cave yet the chimera gains automatic surprise and breathes fire before initiative. Yeahhhh.... Great DM. 👍🏽
Because he was caught off guard because he full on sprinted into the cave to catch the girl. He was hardly in a stance ready for battle. That part is the least of the GMs issues.
ArCSelkie37 To catch the girl who was thrown by the Paladin. How far do Paladins throw girls? 50 feet? 100 feet? How aerodynamic can a little girl possibly be? They stood at the entrance for five minutes discussing whether or not to throw her in, all the while expecting something to come out. 6:57 That’s what you call DMBS.
TLDR when you expect something to come out of a cave, you’re not surprised or caught off guard in any way, shape, or form.
You can set scenes with action. Lots of times spellcasters get to start a combat with a spell before initiative is rolled.
Richard Gesegnet “Lots of times” being when mechanics allow them to do so. Automatic surprise is just piss poor DMing. Roll the dice and give players a chance to get the same advantage.
We had a quite similar and yet quite different campaign once. But it was an experiment and all players were in on it. We had 6 players , two of an good alignment, two of an neutral and two of an evil one. The experiment would go like this:
All of the characters were forced to work together with a celestial contract by, what could be described as, an godly interest group.
We all would play out our Alignments as good as possible, so conflict had to happen, and in the end it was more pvp than following the actual goal.
Whenever a Character was killed by another character, the Player of the dead character would create a new one with the same alignment as his killer. So over the course of several sessions the group dynamic shifted again and again. For a time it really seemed like we would go for the "good ENding" of the campaign. But then, in one move, the last remaining evil character, killed of all four by now good characters and in the end all players ended as evil overlords, all doing pretty fucked up shit.
I started as an lawfull good Cleric who fought to protect the week and in the end I was a chaotic evil Paladin who preferred slaugthering them.
We all had quite fun in this campaign, there were no hard feelings
Player went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY over the line.
Yeah, I ruined a DMs plans for a reoccurring villain by dumping all my style points (that I had saved throughout the entire session) into one hit (after we had been beating on him a while) and killing him before he could get away.
@Lord Inquisitor Shadowlord This was a game of Hollow Earth Expedition. In that game whenever you act in a way in tune with your motivations or flaws (determined at character creation; love, revenge, survival, greed, addiction, etc.) you earn a Style Point. You also tend to get a set amount every session and the DM can award them for anything they see fit (you made them laugh, found a neat way to solve a problem, etc). Style Points can be used for many things but in this case I used them to add damage dice to my attack.
@@captianmorgan7627 And the DM didn't see this coming? (facepalm)
Here's what I, as a DM, would have done to the paladin:
The moment the girl leaves your arms, a shock goes through your system, as if you've been struck by lightning. You scream in agony, and drop to your hands and knees. (Turns to group) You all hear a booming voice from the heavens: YOU. HAVE. FAILED. ME. (Turns to paladin) The shock in your body quickly becomes a burning sensation, as your skin grows red from the heat. It begins to bubble as black smoke rises off of it-you get a smell and sound in your nose and ears of cooking meat. The bubbles on your skin begin to pop, one by one, and white, holy fire bursts out from each pustule. You collapse, unconscious from the pain. (Turns to group) As you watch the bonfire that was once your companion, the rest of you hear the same voice: OH, NO. YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DIE. The flames go out, all at once, and you see that, where his armor was once white, gleaming with purity, it is now stained black, tainted by corruption. (Turns to paladin) Congratulations. You're an Oathbreaker.
A great response, but from the sounds of it, that would just give him a power boner
If it did, I would just talk with the group out-of-game and explain my situation. If they agreed to be good again, I'd give the paladin a redemption arc. If they really wanted to be evil I could 1. Deal with it, continuing with the story, 2. Roll with it, start an evil campaign, allowing them to fulfill their dark desires, or 3. If I truly can't accept this, find a new group (and find my old group a new DM if I'm feeling nice)
That’s really cool. Except the last part - don’t make him an Oathbreaker, just make him fall. Scarred and deformed from such callous disregard for the oath he took, his body now reflects the corruption he so easily indulged in. He should be all the weaker for it.
As an added side effect from being cooked like that, I like to imagine his armor is permanently grafted onto his skin. Food turns to ash in his mouth, every sip of every drink tastes of brackish water, and every breath stings like a hot desert wind. He acquires vulnerability to fire and radiant damage, but resistance to cold damage. These all last until he atones - even then, he’ll still be covered in scars, never completely getting rid of the numbness of 3rd degree burns (at least until he gets some serious magical healing)
@@c.g.278
Ooh yeah that's even better!
(I mean, Star Wars did it first, but it's still good!)
My first time DM-ing was in a world I created... it was just for fun nothing too sirius and my players were all newbies as well.
For one session one of our friends couldn't make it so we made a filler session with the friend who introduced me to dnd.
He was an experienced dm and his character was a chaotic neutral (he played a rogue lizard person with a very low wisdom).
The flavour was that of a western and in the game they were supposed to help a bar fighter (barbarian monk) to kill his dad, a known bandit.
When they met him he was in a middle of a fight and he just kicked another drunk out of the bar they started talking when the drunk came back with 5 of his friend.
They rolled initiative and the brawl began.
The roles I laid out for bar fights were simple.
All goes except firearms! No damage is considered lithal in these fight and the characters know this!
The fight was a lot of fun. I had them rolling pure luck checks to see if the get hit by projectiles flying across the bar since it turned in to complete chaos with bottles and chairs flying across the bar.
They managed to knock out 5 out of the 6 fighters (including the leader) when for no apparent reason the ex-dm pulled out his gun and held it against that last drunks head.
He was knocked prone with about 3 hp left.
With a disc scratch the intaier bar (about 60 people) stopped and looked right at him pulling guns at the same time (shotguns, rifles, hand guns and hunting rifles).
Since the roles were known I felt that vetoing this would be wrong but I tried to convince him in game not to do it.
His party members as well knew it was a bad idea but it seemed like he was just out for trouble.
He said "put you guns down or Ill kill this man!"
The bartender replayed: "we don't care about him but you can be damn sure if you shot a person in my bar you'll pay with a lot more then gold" as he cocked his double barrel shotgun.
And with no further provocation he shot the guy!
At that point I decided because it was a filler and a one time thing not to get them an all party kill at that moment but they woke up the next morning with no money and 1 hp each all beaten and bloodied and they had to take 3 days rest as penalty in witch time the intaier party beat him up every day for being so stupid.
When we talked about it later the ex-dm claimed that "it was meta-gaming" and that his choise was a valid one...
He didn't in any other fillers of ours.
I am always thankful I have never encountered players like this.
I sadly did. In one campaign we came across a race created by the DM that could regrow limbs near instantly. Most of the players thought that was neat (including myself), but when some of the players thought it would be a great idea to not only rig explosives to some of these NPCs, but chuck them at a world ending dragon, that's where I started to get uneasy. The worst part was the players that wanted to do this were planning on using children from this race. My rogue assassin stepped in and said "If you do that, I will not hesitate to end your life. I know you want to kill this dragon, but forcing innocents to participate in this is something I cannot allow, especially children." My assassin had one fucked up childhood, and he would not allow another child, regardless of race, get treated like shit.
This sounds more like "How a wizard ruined an entire campaign."
That being said I'm not against conflicting morals in a party. It can make for great story sharing and party tension. But this campaign is a bad example of how to run one.
just hearing this made me want to cry for the little girl and the ranger
Did the punch ruin the campaign? or was it the wizard that went too far with a neutral alignment? I've heard about people who've had their alignments changed mid campaign, but that's just sick. Like, it's a really cool story, and it would probably be like, the coolest book ever, but that just crawls under my skin with that level of detail.
I believe the logic behind the story's title is that the punch led to the party receiving the quest that took them to the girl in the first place. So while the punch itself didn't ruin the campaign, it was the action that started the chain of events.
Ah yes Chaotic(presumed) neutral, the "I'll use a child as live bait because I don't want to risk my own backside" alignment
A lots of mistakes seems to have been made. A session zero for people to tell what they aren't confortable with would have been useful.
The ranger seemed to stay in-character for a long while before actually saying she was uncomfortable (by that point the child's feet were in the flames) and then she reverted to in-character and playing the game (taking actions) instead of saying she's not confortable with it.
It's often hard to voice your boundaries in the context of a game that's supposed to be fun for all, but it's really important or stuff keeps happenning.
Roleplay wise, the paladin seems to be the worst offender, even with being a vengeance paladin. Power hungry wizard who embrace lycanthropy to become impossible to kill seems right, especially if there was secret communication with the GM.
Noted the mic comment so was on a board. DM may have had RL intrude, or was utterly squicked. I can appreciate not having lawful stupid for paladins. But tossing any civilian out as bait for unknown monster is a violation of code to me. A small child? About 5x more offensive and he would have lost status the moment she touched the ground. You want to do things like that. Play an ANTI-paladin.
The wizard was definitely going the dark route for chaotic evil. And as brutish as it was. It is appropriate for the alignment. That no one checked for bites was a mistake.
Well if the cleric and paladin both have either lawful , or good ... their deity should have depowered them right away . This means no powers , I'm guessing this was an evil campaign.
Well, it also depends on what god they served ex: chaotic evil god, neutral evil god, etc.
They aren't bound to lawful or good in 5e, which is more interesting and realistic than the old series.
@@zionthedragon8866 No it isn't. Paladins are special because what *makes* a Paladin is *rare.*
Forget D&D for a second, go look up the word "Paladin" and you'll find that the version from previous editions of D&D are far closer to the definition you find.
And I'll be honest, I'm getting a little tired of all these stories I keep hearing about 5e "paladins" who are played as - and *by* - psychopaths. The only reason to think being an @$$hole is more realistic is if you're *already* an @$$hole yourself.
@@TheLastGarou actually, yes it is. Paladins are no longer rare, if something was rare, everyone would want to play it, and if you look up real life OG paladins, they were knights of a Christian church, and had people like crusaders go around KILLING people who didn't worship their religion, which if anything, is lawful evil.
And this is from me forgetting the D&D term of paladin.
And then I looked at the very first edition, and paladins didn't worship a god, had BIG draw backs and weren't as strong as they were now. Plus they can't do all the stuff they are supposed. But I don't recall additions AFTER 1e requiring paladon to give all his gold away, and having to kill anyone slightly evil, and look down on chaotic people, essentially neutral and chaotic people are frowned upon, and evil and half of neutral are killed. Look now, and more paladins can be relaxed with various alignments depending on the god they worship.
And really? I have heard of mostly GOOD paladins, and some neutral paladins, and a FEW evil ones from 5e, but the evils usually being oath breakers. And I am not saying you have to be a @$$hole to be paladin, you don't have to be @$$hole to be any class really, but @$$hole characters being paladins of evil god is more realistic, because paladin is just a cleric and a fighter mixed together, which a cleric is a: PRIEST, DRUID, SHAWMEN, BUDDHA, etc., that worships a god or something, nothing about it being good.
You wanna know what else sucks about older additions and 5e? The removal of gem dragons from the main monster manual and people thinking they are literally made out of gems, when the fact is that is like calling metallics made out of the metals. Both are wrong, but you can't stop people from believing it. I mean, when people still here gem dragons, all they thing is "neutral psionic dragons, which are boring" which is far from the truth.
@@TheLastGarou "and by - psychopaths", yes because murdering in a game is so close to murdering in real life, I bet all people who played games where they've killed npc's are just terrible people who would kill if given the chance right
So I only know how Paladins are from Icewind Dale, so they had to be lawful good, so the paladin tossing the child I to the cave seems VERY wrong to me.
Umm Ya, i the players seriously lost their ever-loving minds. Even if the curse of the werewolf caused the player to go straight out evil, the fact a paladin is meant to be good, was willing to literally toss a child into a monsters den would have causes to question it.
I wouldn't have played with that player again for that shit.
You're telling a ten year old girl carried off 200 lbs of gold. Damn.
She had muscles on her muscles ok.
@@Wumbology378 makes sense.
if we start applying weight to gold coins a lot of parties are going to be in trouble.
feels like the Wizard just wanted to destroy plot and derail the campaign...
Oh, letting the Wizard do that?
My Paladin and Cleric would have spontaneously combusted.
Please someone explain me what's neutral about throwing a scared little girl into a cave with a chimera in it.
It was the wizard who ruined the campain not the punch thow
Daniele Spertino they wouldn’t have gotten the quest if the one-punch didn’t happen
@@KneedTime The Punch is unrelated to the Wizard becoming a bastard.
Cleric: ''Throw her!''
REALLY? XD
I'd definitely refuse to DM for a table-evil wizard, too.
Granted, I'd pull the player aside and warn them before I killed their character.
why does it feel like im being called out with the closed flammable space + burning hands
I kept waiting for the little girl to reveal herself as a fey lord in disguise and then 9th level disintegrate the wizard and paladin. Those were shitty players except the ranger and dwarf.
It’s unfortunate the ranger was caught up in that ending but. His animal companion could have saved the day. Also, create bonfire and hold person are concentration spells. So hold person should have ended. So either the dm wasn’t paying attention, or wanted to see where this lead.
When the pally dosnt charge in instead he tosses a child
Worst
Pally
Ever
This story is by far my favourite. Such a depth. The feelings. Wow, it could really be turned into an anime. I also enjoyed the narration very much - just the right tempo overall, a quicker pace where needed, well placed pauses... an excellent delivery in my book.
It was probably player went to far to be honest
Been wanting to get into dnd but never played before sadly I dont know where to go to get into it
Man I was NOT ready for this. I'd be mad outside of the game. I'm mad now xD.
Damn crazy wizards. I also can't believe that most of the party was totally alright with sacrificing a child like that. Yeesh. Some evil-ass neutral people there.
Does really want to make a Ranger monster hunter character in Pathfinder though. =x
This story almost made me cry wtf.
No matter what happens with the wizard KILLING A CHILD LIKE THIS IN ANY CAMPAIGN IS WRONG AND AGAINST THE LINE
We had one campaign whereas half was chaotic neutral-boarding-evil and the rest of us were lawful neutral or lawful good. It was funny but helped shoe horn our game play. I was the lawful good Strongheart Halfling Pally and was the tank of our party of tall humans, elves, asimars and one kobold.
The quest overall was just figuring out ways to stick together and not kill each other. The actual first story arc was attacking a well organized criminal syndicate that's connected to various business dealings. While we were heading towards what we think is their main base of operations, we came in contact with one of their heavily armed caravans. Wagons of hard wood and sealed together with thick metal plates to keep everything inside without the sun reaching it's contents. We were looking at roughly five or seven wagons (this was 2016 and can't recall this detail), knowing that this caravan had a mix of children and stolen dwarven goods. So the kobold warlock believed that we should target the front and rear of the caravan to help stop everything in its tracks. Those should be the ones with the guards as they had the most men riding outside of it as watch.
Kolbold shoots the most crit fireball to date in the campaign. The front wagon blew up and majority of the thing was flung on all directions. Freaking out that we possibly lost some good loot, until we noticed the smell of burning flesh and a few stifling screams. The as the debris started to land, we watched wood chunks, metal bits, and a few limbs (arms and legs) that were the approximate age of what was once a child or five. The ones who weren't neutral-boarding-evil were panicking and I was in tears. We took the caravan and rescued half of the recorded children, but it shook the faith of my pally to her core while we tried to keep the living children from seeing the fate of their dead friends.
TL/DR
This story reminded me of the game when my group and I tried to stop a caravan of criminals, when our warlock blew up and burned a handful of child slaves by accident.
I kept waiting for the punchline, either the girl turning on them, or doing a motive check on the fox, or finding the gold, or something...instead, half the party was just...horrid! Worse than that werewolf!
No wonder the DM just up and left I feel sick after just hearing what that wizard did
This reminds me of a story from one of my own games.
The party rescued a little orphan girl from a slave ring. At one point, they party had to withdraw from the dungeon in a hurry, abandoning her. She was taken by the BBEG and warped into a servant of his. She was one of the last bosses they had to kill
This sounds amazing! Everyone got so deep into their role and the final encounter with the wizard was just the final nail in the roleplay coffin! I would’ve loved to see this as a DM! What a chump. To have your players so deep in their roles is a dream!
That was some cool RP. I love when there's drama in the party. The wizard is ballsy in his RP and if the group defined how dark a story they want to go with before i see nothing wrong with it.
But judging from the end it seems not.