Kobold-murdering PC. How would you handle it if you were DM?

[Telok]

This is kind of how I use alignment as well, except without Gods as middlemen in the struggle.



I'd say someone who summons demons and animates dead are [Evil], or are [Neutral] (But have [Evil] support), but simply because those are powers exclusive to those of [Evil] alignment, and [Neutral] people Evil sometimes supports. And, of course, being a wicked, nasty person that needs killing generally puts someone as [Evil] not as a conscious choice, but because they embody [Evil]'s ideals and advance its cause by being an exemplar of [Evil]. "What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

That's just the moral choices of the DM packaged as alignment. I chose my system of alignment to enforce the fact that in my campaigns the alignments are NOT subjective cultural moral choices with supernatural backing. In this setting alignments are universal forces with the gods enforcing, rewarding, and punishing the actions of mortals.

I don't use the moral choices method for exactly the reason alignment debates happen. It's subjective, affected by cultural bias, and leads to arguments. In a setting where people can literally talk to their god and get concrete answers (gods that give vague answers are jerks) about what is universally right or wrong this shouldn't happen. My setting has concrete lists of dos and don'ts for each god because this is a setting where good and evil are universal forces, not grey area moral choices with punishments if you fail to read the DMs mind.

[BootStrapTommy]

It does not matter that his judgement was wrong; it was reasonable under the circumstances. Koblods are generally evil, they were in this "regenerating dungeon", and kobolds are know to employ subterfuge regularly.

In a world where Evil is objective, not subjective, the fact that he was wrong is all that matters.

You seem to possess a confused understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Objective facts are based on reality, on what actually is the case (whether this is knowable is another thing). Subjective facts are based on perception, what an individual percieved to be the case (they may correspond to objective facts or they may not).

At this point, you are arguing that D&D morality is subjective, not objective. RAW is objective (or at least RAI is), and I've been arguing under that assumption. This is literally the definition of objective truth, that it corresponds to what actually is, not what is perceived. The objective fact of the matter is that they were non-Evil. The Crusader's subjective assumption on the matter, based on his asymmetric knowledge, has no actual bearing on the objective fact.

Ergo, in a world where morality is based on objective fact (black and white with measurable, cosmic Evil) and not subjective perception (morally grey, situational), an individual's belief on morality does not change what the reality actually is.

If this is the case, I'd say we've reached a segway. We've become incommensurable. If D&D morality is objective, my point logically follows. If D&D morality is subjective, your point logically follows. But which is the case, however, is up to the campaign's DM.

I brought up the fact that "murder" implies a legal, as oppose to moral, element because that is a crux of the issue. Objectively, the act was Evil. Subjectively, maybe not. But it is up to the law to determine if they think the Crusader's presumptions legally absolve the Crusader's actions. Which is again, the realm of DM fiat.

[AxeAlex]

If this is the case, I'd say we've reached a segway. We've become incommensurable. If D&D morality is objective, my point logically follows. If D&D morality is subjective, your point logically follows. But which is the case, however, is up to the campaign's DM.

The point is, I am accepting the fact that your(and the OP's) view is valid. Your react like your point of view is the only valid one. Whetever morality is subjective or objective, what's important is that it can be interpreted differently, as the high number of replies arguing those points show.

So communication with the player to make sure morality is seen the same way by everyone is, I think, the best possible course.

[BootStrapTommy]

I don't particularly prescribe to the very American idea that an opinion's validity is not based on it correspondence to fact, but on the fact that it exists at all.

Anyway, if holding a belief informs a premise's validity, my belief in the invalidity of your argument is perfectly valid. I'm entitled to my opinion!

D&D is a social game. You are correct that it requires communication. But communication does little good when opinions are rooted in incommensurable premises. I am not so naïve as to think that every difference in style is merely the result of miscommunication. Nor that every belief is based on reasonable assumptions, or that in the group setting the entire responsible of communication lay upon the DM.

In such cases as this, where the OP has indicated that communication has not only occurred but also been received not only by the problem player but by his party members, it seems necessary to address what underlying philosophical difference might be at the root of the disagreement. Addressing the source of the disagreement is one of the easier way to improve upon communication, which seems to have broken down.

But one does little to address philosophical underpinnings by starting with "we all have preferences beyond reproach". One must ask why we have different preferences and what they're rooted in. Because that is the origin of the issue and where communication about the issue starts. Which has more or less been what I've been after.

That being said, it is worth noting I have a disclaimer with regards to this modus operandi in my signature. But to clarify what my actual opinion on the matter is: As a DM, I believe that the Alignment system is a deliberately obfuscating load of nonsense. Action/consequence cause/effect is an easier method. It can be as effective a form of communcation as any. As a player, while a DM is responsible to communicate their intentions to players, players are also responsible with communicating theirs. If it is the case that this has happened, it is still possible that the player may make a decision which was predicated, willingly or not, by a misunderstanding. People make mistakes. But those mistake can be informative. As the character's knowledge of the world does not have to necessarily reflect a perfect understanding of the world (they're not omniscient), a misunderstanding based on a false presumption by the player does not necessarily invalidate the action.

An example: I'm playing a highly skilled rogue and I roll a nat 20 on my Search check. By all accounts the assumption that I have found no traps is as statistically probable as any other metagamed assumption. Yet I can't blame the DM for my false assumption when my brain becomes a thin mist permeating the dungeon. Especially when a simple solution like detect magic existed. Regardless of whether I had access to it.

So I don't feel as if it is that off the mark to use the opportunity presented. It is as valid an opportunity for the DM to develop plot as any. And if in the process it communicates a truth to both player and character, than so be it.

[Shadowsend]

I like this response to the question. I would just apply what they said about the monk to the crusader. If there isn't a code in place, I would put one in and forgive the previous actions.

[Yukitsu]

That being said, it is worth noting I have a disclaimer with regards to this modus operandi in my signature. But to clarify what my actual opinion on the matter is: As a DM, I believe that the Alignment system is a deliberately obfuscating load of nonsense. Action/consequence cause/effect is an easier method. It can be as effective a form of communcation as any. As a player, while a DM is responsible to communicate their intentions to players, players are also responsible with communicating theirs. If it is the case that this has happened, it is still possible that the player may make a decision which was predicated, willingly or not, by a misunderstanding. People make mistakes. But those mistake can be informative. As the character's knowledge of the world does not have to necessarily reflect a perfect understanding of the world (they're not omniscient), a misunderstanding based on a false presumption by the player does not necessarily invalidate the action.

In this case, the player did but is still getting slammed for it. He's in a dungeon that spawns and auto levels monsters, saw a group of kobolds and outright said if he left them they'd simply become stronger over time since that's what happens with monsters in that dungeon. What was not clearly communicated is that players have some mechanism of telling the difference (or if they even do), that the player was mistaken before he acted which doesn't seem to have been communicated, and that kobolds are just normal people instead of some kind of dragon spawn. The player pretty clearly communicated his intention, his rational which is reasonable given the situation and acted on that. I'm not sure how clearly the DM communicated what he had to in that situation and his insistence in keeping this whole thing in character implies to me that he refused to tell his player that information prior to the kobolds getting killed. Ultimately I'd say the communication error sides with the DM, but he has outright told the player no murderhoboing so in that sense it would make sense to say the player did something wrong. It's a lot less wrong simply because the player had strong in character justification for acting as he did.

[AxeAlex]

I don't particularly prescribe to the very American idea that an opinion's validity is not based on it correspondence to fact, but on the fact that it exists at all.

... I'm not American and I don't even agree with what you projected as my opinion, so I think that was, again, a preconceived idea.

I'm offering you to question yourself. The idea to question your own beliefs predate America by... like... alot. Greater minds than I came to think it was one of the best way to learn.

Anyway, if holding a belief informs a premise's validity, my belief in the invalidity of your argument is perfectly valid. I'm entitled to my opinion!

I think you are arguing with yourself, because no one said anything in this thread that resembles "holding a belief informs of his validity" or "wishing it makes it true".

If you refuse to acknowledge the validity of other's claims only based on the fact that they are different from your opinion, just tell me so I will stop bothering you with my blatantly inferior intellect.

Debates on the interpretation and the understanding of alignments is one of the most persistent topic about D&D. I think I am allowed to doubt anyone who claims having the "one true way" on those matters.

D&D is a social game. You are correct that it requires communication. But communication does little good when opinions are rooted in incommensurable premises. I am not so naïve as to think that every difference in style is merely the result of miscommunication. Nor that every belief is based on reasonable assumptions, or that in the group setting the entire responsible of communication lay upon the DM.

Again, you decided that the player, who's never even spoke for himself here, used an incomensurable premise.

In such cases as this, where the OP has indicated that communication has not only occurred but also been received not only by the problem player but by his party members, it seems necessary to address what underlying philosophical difference might be at the root of the disagreement. Addressing the source of the disagreement is one of the easier way to improve upon communication, which seems to have broken down.

Addressing the source of the disagreement IS communication. You could also use confrontation, but those guys are friend, so I don't think it's wanted nor needed.

But one does little to address philosophical underpinnings by starting with "we all have preferences beyond reproach". One must ask why we have different preferences and what they're rooted in. Because that is the origin of the issue and where communication about the issue starts. Which has more or less been what I've been after.

Nope, you've never given me any reason to think you've been after finding the root of their conflicting views.

By the way, preferences on "how to play D&D" is a topic that is damn near "beyond reproach". Barring intentionally abusing or boring your fellow players or the like, any way to wish to play D&D is acceptable and "Beyond reproach".

If you simply say to someone "your way is wrong and mine is right" on something as undefined as "how to play D&D", you WON'T make him accept your views. No way.

That being said, it is worth noting I have a disclaimer with regards to this modus operandi in my signature. But to clarify what my actual opinion on the matter is: As a DM, I believe that the Alignment system is a deliberately obfuscating load of nonsense.

Then act like it. You just gave yourself the perfect reason why different views on alignment SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID.

Action/consequence cause/effect is an easier method. It can be as effective a form of communcation as any. As a player, while a DM is responsible to communicate their intentions to players, players are also responsible with communicating theirs. If it is the case that this has happened, it is still possible that the player may make a decision which was predicated, willingly or not, by a misunderstanding. People make mistakes. But those mistake can be informative. As the character's knowledge of the world does not have to necessarily reflect a perfect understanding of the world (they're not omniscient), a misunderstanding based on a false presumption by the player does not necessarily invalidate the action.

Yes, I never claimed your view was wrong, and I agree with all that.

An example: I'm playing a highly skilled rogue and I roll a nat 20 on my Search check. By all accounts the assumption that I have found no traps is as statistically probable as any other metagamed assumption. Yet I can't blame the DM for my false assumption when my brain becomes a thin mist permeating the dungeon. Especially when a simple solution like detect magic existed. Regardless of whether I had access to it.

It's not a question of blaming the GM or detecting the alignment or whatever. It's a question of all having fun. That's the reason they are all at the table.

So I don't feel as if it is that off the mark to use the opportunity presented. It is as valid an opportunity for the DM to develop plot as any. And if in the process it communicates a truth to both player and character, than so be it.

And again, I can agree with that opinion. But if it doesn't communicates a truth to both player and character, the conflicting viewpoints clash again, harder than before, so nothing is solved.

[Lurkmoar]

I think you are arguing with yourself, because no one said anything in this thread that resembles "holding a belief informs of his validity" or "wishing it makes it true".

If you refuse to acknowledge the validity of other's claims only based on the fact that they are different from your opinion, just tell me so I will stop bothering you with my blatantly inferior intellect.

Psst, Blue text means sarcasm. Just want to make sure that's out there.

OP, will you let us know what happens and what course you're gonna take?

[AxeAlex]

Psst, Blue text means sarcasm. Just want to make sure that's out there.

He made the same conclusion, only less plainly revealed, few lines higher, not in blue.

I don't particularly prescribe to the very American idea that an opinion's validity is not based on it correspondence to fact, but on the fact that it exists at all.

So I took the blue text as: "I don't believe what i'm writing right now but if we all applied your line of thought I could use that as an argument".

Since I don't even have that line of thought, he is arguing with himself.

[neonagash]

This whole thread is one giant argument for following other games example and not using alignment at all for anything that isn't supernatural.

[Shadowsend]

It does seem to have taken a life and scope of it's own, to the extent that some of the answers to the question are becoming obscured.

[gadren]

OP, will you let us know what happens and what course you're gonna take?

Sure, though it might be kind of confusing since it involves some aspects of the campaign I didn't write about on here.

OOC: Talk to PC about it.

IC: Mansurus is one of the influential factions in town, a group of spellcasters that prefer to sell their services to adventurers rather going adventuring themselves. The kobold sorcerer/adept Mama Quo-Quo is a valued member of this group. Mama Quo-Quo has been around for quite a while, and in her life has laid quite a few eggs; she has 18 sons and daughters of various adult ages. Her obvious favorites are Kik-Kik, Nik-Nik, and Tik-Tik, who were born with sorcerous talent, and so the rest all compete with each other to impress Mama. The four youngest, Vik-Vik, Wik-Wik, Yik-Yik, and Zik-Zik, came up with a "great" plan to impress mama: they'd get a pass to go into the nearby dungeon, and secretly follow an adventuring party in. They'd overheard many adventurers in the taverns talking about how they have to just leave piles of coins behind every time they go delving, so the three brothers figured they'd scavenge what's left over after adventurers had done all the fighting for them.

We know how that worked out for them.

When Vik-Vik, Wik-Wik, Yik-Yik, and Zik-Zik fail to show up for their spell-component gathering duties, Mama Quo-Quo uses her magic to track them down. She finds their corpses, does some more divining to see the last few minutes of their lives, then goes back to town with their corpses. She demands the Church of Moradin resurrect them or pay for their resurrection, since it was one of theirs that killed her sons. She uses a silent image spell to show the high priest what she divined. He does not want to threaten the good terms that the Church and Mansurus are on, and diamonds have been easier to get a hold of because of the strange dungeon, so he decides to raise her sons (this causes much grumbling in the ranks and further pushes the church toward a schism).

When the Crusader comes back to the church (which he will immediately after getting back to town, if he follows his pattern), he will find out about the whole dang thing first from grumbling clergy, and then from the high priest. The high priest isn't the hot-headed type, he won't scold the crusader. He'll just explain what happened, the difficulty it caused, and inform the crusader that as far as he knows, humanoids created by the dungeons are usually armed and don't beg for mercy.

After this, the High Priest paying for four kobolds' resurrection out of the church coffers will be the main point of those who feel that he is no longer fit to be in charge of the church. In a few sessions, things will start to get ugly.

[Yukitsu]

The way you've phrased that isn't terribly clear, but at the very least I'd not say that the humanoids in there are "usually" armed and I'd make it very clear that they never beg for their lives. I feel that by saying "usually" you're somewhat trying to cover yourself in case in future you want to run the same encounter but have the monsters be duplicitous. Either you need to make it clear both in and out of character that you will never run that same encounter but with a lying monster, or you give an in character check that can definitively tell one way or the other.

[Keltest]

The way you've phrased that isn't terribly clear, but at the very least I'd not say that the humanoids in there are "usually" armed and I'd make it very clear that they never beg for their lives. I feel that by saying "usually" you're somewhat trying to cover yourself in case in future you want to run the same encounter but have the monsters be duplicitous. Either you need to make it clear both in and out of character that you will never run that same encounter but with a lying monster, or you give an in character check that can definitively tell one way or the other.

There are plenty of monsters that possess natural weapons which would be superior to any tool they could pick up, assuming they can even use them.

[Yukitsu]

There are plenty of monsters that possess natural weapons which would be superior to any tool they could pick up, assuming they can even use them.

Humanoids though. Both he and I mention in our posts that humanoids will be visibly armed rather than just monsters. The type is pretty narrow and I can't think of many that have natural attacks. I guess there are things that have natural weapons that look humanoid though, but identifying that they aren't is possible with knowledge skill checks.

[BootStrapTommy]

I'm offering you to question yourself. The idea to question your own beliefs predate America by... like... alot. Greater minds than I came to think it was one of the best way to learn.

Then act like it. You just gave yourself the perfect reason why different views on alignment SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID.

For someone so apt to offer me the chance to "think for myself", you sure did miss the incongruence of the points I've been making the whole thread and the view I actually hold on the matter.

Did it occur to you this was by design?

One must ask why we have different preferences and what they're rooted in. Because that is the origin of the issue and where communication about the issue starts. Which has more or less been what I've been after.

The intent of my signature's disclaimer is to point out that what I believe and what I argue on the matter are often different things. It is intentional.

I think you are arguing with yourself, because no one said anything in this thread that resembles "holding a belief informs of his validity" or "wishing it makes it true".

If you refuse to acknowledge the validity of other's claims only based on the fact that they are different from your opinion, just tell me so I will stop bothering you with my blatantly inferior intellect.

By the way, preferences on "how to play D&D" is a topic that is damn near "beyond reproach". Barring intentionally abusing or boring your fellow players or the like, any way to wish to play D&D is acceptable and "Beyond reproach".

For the record I don't for a minute doubt your intellect, if I did I wouldn't have bothered to spar with you.

As for the "valid" arguments, so far I've not been particularly persuaded of that. While you've personally made quit a few, when I pressed for more details, you seem to come back to that because people have made an assumption often, it was a fair assumption to make. Or that because they enjoy it that way, it is valid.

To me, your above disagreement with my sarcasm seem inconsistent with the below statement, that people's personal preference are untouchable. Yes, people can have differing opinions with regards to what kind of game they enjoy. But my intended point, apologies that I did not make it clearer, is what you touch on in the last part. If what you find fun is detrimental to others, it is not beyond reproach.

In a group setting, I feel there is a lot lending to the argument that going against the group is not necessarily "valid" when it may be destructive to everyone enjoying themselves.

This lead me to the broader point that opinions are beholden to what is true, as much as facts are. If you opinions of fun are not beholden to the truth of what what your fellow players find entertaining, they might not be that "valid", per se. The fact that I failed to make this point clearer is my own fault.

Again, you decided that the player, who's never even spoke for himself here, used an incomensurable premise.

Obviously, the player thought kobolds are excusably killable. Obviously, the DM disagreed. If you would like to argue those are commensurable ideas, please feel free to elaborate on how one would go about commensurating those two principles.

It's not a question of blaming the GM or detecting the alignment or whatever. It's a question of all having fun. That's the reason they are all at the table.

The point of the example is to illustrate that it couls be perfectly reasonable for a player to make a bad decision. And it also could be perfectly reasonable for the player to be beholden to that mistake. It doesn't have to be about punishment. It can be a means to make a more entertaining game.

And again, I can agree with that opinion. But if it doesn't communicates a truth to both player and character, the conflicting viewpoints clash again, harder than before, so nothing is solved.

If done right, and the the player fails to grasp it, that is an indication that OOC action is absolutely necessary.

If the character fails to grasp it? That's actually not that bad. It communicates the players intent to take the character in a specific direction. Which is yet more material for a DM to work with.

[Telok]

The kobold sorcerer/adept Mama Quo-Quo is a valued member of this group. Mama Quo-Quo... favorites are Kik-Kik, Nik-Nik, and Tik-Tik, who were born with sorcerous talent... The four youngest, Vik-Vik, Wik-Wik, Yik-Yik, and Zik-Zik...

Your plan is fair and rational.

However the fact that kobolds favor sorcerer class levels and a single failed save can kill a character I can also see the dwarf's actions as a reasonable assumption that monsterous races in the dungeon are always dangerous. Also, personally, I would have to genocide the race of kobolds for those names, alignment issues be danged. But that's just me.

[GungHo]

Simply put, if they're evil monsters, then they're evil monsters. One of the frequent assumptions of the game, especially earlier editions, is that many monsters as simply that... monsters. They're bad guys, who can be killed with impunity, because they are evil. Killing them reduces the amount of evil in the world, so killing them is good.

This underlines the real issue here. You gotta communicate with your players and explain to them how the world works and what is and is not expected behavior from the view of someone in that world who isn't a sociopath. You may do this through IC or OOC means. I usually do both. But, generally, if orcs and kobolds have souls and can go to heaven, I say that outright, especially when dealing with visitors who have no reason to intuit my norms.

As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

On the other hand, if I decide that kolbolds are really soulless receptacles inhabited by corrupted spirits, that's also something I need to explain. Assuming my folks would know this is as obtuse as assuming things are the other way around. The beauty of the game is that I can decide how my worlds actually function and whether or not things like Races of the Dragon or any other idea applies or not, and so can you or any other DM. What we can't do is assume that our players know the cosmology up front unless they've been playing with us for a long time... and even then, every world's a new slate.

I think almost everyone in this thread is missing the point. The OP was not asking "is this action evil," he was asking "what should I do about this player committing this evil act?"

Folks are getting stuck on the root cause analysis because answering "how evil was it" is part of answering what you should do, along with addressing recidivism, since clearly this misunderstanding is disruptive to the game.

Personally, I like the Mama Kolbold approach... or a prophetic dream or some other contact from beyond that tells the character "this is was wrong". Another thought I had was having the kolbold souls trapped in the dungeon by whatever magic is creating monstrosities and the Crusader being asked by an obviously angelic being to help shepherd them out so that they could reach kolbold heaven. You don't necessarily need to take someone's powers away, though it seems like this guy's been playing his LG guy as an agent of chaos for awhile, and in the balance of things, for this specific instance, this might be the final straw.

[goto124]

Am I the only one who thinks the Mama Kobold Sorceror Exacts Her Revenge approach is too heavy-handed?

I dug up quotes from the OP:

The posters that want to make me into the bad guy are making some pretty big assumptions about things I've done and making "points" based on those assumptions as if they are facts. The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

The player in question is actually a very good friend. He was my best man at my wedding. We aren't mad at each other or anything. I don't get mad at my friends over a game.
However, I will admit to some irritation because it does reflect an ongoing trend that I HAVE talked to him about before. He almost always likes to play his PCs as immoral murderhobos. At least it is usually in character, since he tends to play rogues, bounty hunters, etc. If everyone in my group liked this playstyle, it'd be fine. However, most of the group is obviously highly annoyed by it, and it clearly subtracts from their fun. I've talked to him about it, he says he'll work on it, but the pattern continues...

OP, if I may ask, would you say that you have, repeatedly, tried to teach That One Player to stop murderhoboing? How did you go about it, and how successful did your attempts appear to be before the whole kobold incident?

I usually point out to him -when it's just the two of us- that "hey, the other players kind of enjoy playing a heroic game, and you know the stuff you do with your character tends to make that really difficult. I don't like to tell people how to play their characters, but if you could find a way to do stuff without causing all the intraparty conflict, I think we'd all have more fun." This typically results in a marginal change in behavior for a little while.

[Keltest]

I think the OP said that everytime he tried to communciate the murderhobo problem to that one player, said player relented for just a moment, then returned to his old behavior. Give me a moment ot dig up the quote.

Am I the only one who thinks the Mama Kobold Sorceror Exacts Her Revenge approach is too heavy-handed?

The only problem I see with it is that the player in question might feel that it is the result of a "gotcha" scenario, however that possibility exists no matter what the OP ends up doing. The version where the church pays the costs for the resurrections while the crusader just gets the evil eye in particular seems good at making the point that not everything in the dungeon is spawned by it, and there may be repercussions for just slaughtering everything.

[Yukitsu]

The only problem I see with it is that the player in question might feel that it is the result of a "gotcha" scenario, however that possibility exists no matter what the OP ends up doing. The version where the church pays the costs for the resurrections while the crusader just gets the evil eye in particular seems good at making the point that not everything in the dungeon is spawned by it, and there may be repercussions for just slaughtering everything.

It is a gotcha scenario as far as I can tell. If he ran the exact same encounter but made it a kobold trap or if they didn't kill the kobolds only for them to come and raid the village when they became much stronger weeks later, it would have played out in exactly the same way except punishing the player for not acting. The player can't tell which you're doing. And it's that "there is no good choice" that makes a situation a gotcha situation.

The consequences are mild enough that at least he's not doing the "do one thing you fall, do the other and you die" sort of 50/50 guesswork that you sometimes see but the player not having good options to tell what's going on is something I've been hammering on and not gotten some kind of answer as to how that is to be addressed. Lord knows my evil characters haven't been above appealing to the ideals of supposed lawful good characters who later regretted not just killing me it's basically the oldest trick in the book.

[Keltest]

It is a gotcha scenario as far as I can tell. If he ran the exact same encounter but made it a kobold trap or if they didn't kill the kobolds only for them to come and raid the village when they became much stronger weeks later, it would have played out in exactly the same way except punishing the player for not acting. The player can't tell which you're doing. And it's that "there is no good choice" that makes a situation a gotcha situation.

The consequences are mild enough that at least he's not doing the "do one thing you fall, do the other and you die" sort of 50/50 guesswork that you sometimes see but the player not having good options to tell what's going on is something I've been hammering on and not gotten some kind of answer as to how that is to be addressed. Lord knows my evil characters haven't been above appealing to the ideals of supposed lawful good characters who later regretted not just killing me it's basically the oldest trick in the book.

Well, it isn't really a "gotcha" scenario if both choices are more or less equally viable. The crusader could have backed off when his party members started trying to restrain him, if nothing else. There isn't anything wrong with making a situation where there isn't an obvious right answer. In this case, killing the Kobolds was a viable option, it just wasn't the expected one, and so the DM didn't have consequences prepared off hand. Hence the thread.

[Yukitsu]

Well, it isn't really a "gotcha" scenario if both choices are more or less equally viable. The crusader could have backed off when his party members started trying to restrain him, if nothing else. There isn't anything wrong with making a situation where there isn't an obvious right answer. In this case, killing the Kobolds was a viable option, it just wasn't the expected one, and so the DM didn't have consequences prepared off hand. Hence the thread.

It's fine running those sorts of scenarios but when it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, that's the crux of what a "gotcha" scenario is. It's only a problem if the DM is trigger happy on making the character fall, but really just add a skill check like sense motive or something and prompt the players to make it.

[Keltest]

It's fine running those sorts of scenarios but when it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, that's the crux of what a "gotcha" scenario is. It's only a problem if the DM is trigger happy on making the character fall, but really just add a skill check like sense motive or something and prompt the players to make it.

Except it isn't sounding like the player is damned in either situation. I mean sure, its a situation the DM could use to make you suffer no matter what happened by changing reality based on your choice so that youre wrong no matter what, but that isn't whats going on here.

[Yukitsu]

Except it isn't sounding like the player is damned in either situation. I mean sure, its a situation the DM could use to make you suffer no matter what happened by changing reality based on your choice so that youre wrong no matter what, but that isn't whats going on here.

The DMs objective and what they have planned isn't what makes a situation a "gotcha" situation, though one where the DM does change the answer part way through is definitely way worse. It's when you give a player two equally valid solutions to a problem, no reason to pick one or the other and then heavily punish them for making a valid choice. Doubly when you leave open the possibility that later on they could choose otherwise and still be heavily punished which the DM has left open as an option for himself. So if these players encounter another group of kobolds in the future, the DM has left himself the flexibility to go ahead and make them monsters spawned from the dungeon that act exactly like the ones they met previously, and he could then punish the group if they left them alone.

[cobaltstarfire]

Am I the only one who thinks the Mama Kobold Sorceror Exacts Her Revenge approach is too heavy-handed?

I dug up quotes from the OP:

Where in the most recent scenario that the OP has concocted is Mama Kobold exacting revenge?

She goes to the church demands her children be raised, and is done with it. The whole things causes a small schism at the church, which I think is pretty interesting because it mirrors the giant schism that it's caused in this thread.

[BootStrapTommy]

It's fine running those sorts of scenarios but when it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, that's the crux of what a "gotcha" scenario is. It's only a problem if the DM is trigger happy on making the character fall, but really just add a skill check like sense motive or something and prompt the players to make it.

It's not really a "gotcha" situation.

If the Crusader had not killed them, according to the OP, they would not have gotten stronger and raided a village. Because from the getgo they were not intended to be summons of the dungeon. The Crusader killing them did not make it the case (which is one form of "gotcha"). It was already intentionally the case.

[Yukitsu]

It's not really a "gotcha" situation.

If the Crusader had not killed them, according to the OP, they would not have gotten stronger and raided a village. Because from the getgo they were not intended to be summons of the dungeon. The Crusader killing them did not make it the case (which is one form of "gotcha"). It was already intentionally the case.

I'm considering that it is in that category because he's not taking the possibility of that off the table in terms of player knowledge and am just assuming that he's not willing to take it off the table because he intends to use it. If they encounter another group of humanoids that act that way but are lying about it, at that point he's just running alignment traps. I don't mind dilemmas or alignment traps and I don't even mind them when you're going back and forth between morals, it's when you do one and cause a fall that I get really, really pissed off at a DM.

[Keltest]

The DMs objective and what they have planned isn't what makes a situation a "gotcha" situation, though one where the DM does change the answer part way through is definitely way worse. It's when you give a player two equally valid solutions to a problem, no reason to pick one or the other and then heavily punish them for making a valid choice. Doubly when you leave open the possibility that later on they could choose otherwise and still be heavily punished which the DM has left open as an option for himself. So if these players encounter another group of kobolds in the future, the DM has left himself the flexibility to go ahead and make them monsters spawned from the dungeon that act exactly like the ones they met previously, and he could then punish the group if they left them alone.

If one choice is more punishing than the other, they aren't equally valid.

To be clear, I agree with you if the consequences would not logically follow from the choice. But in this case, the repercussions of "people being mad at you for causing problems" flow fairly naturally from the situation.

[Yukitsu]

If one choice is more punishing than the other, they aren't equally valid.

Yes, though given one is you at worst have to atone while the other is a bunch of up CRed kobolds wander into town and eat a bunch of people's babies. If we're going on that, killing the kobolds is the better choice. I'd still argue that they're pretty equally valid choices though at the face of it.

To be clear, I agree with you if the consequences would not logically follow from the choice. But in this case, the repercussions of "people being mad at you for causing problems" flow fairly naturally from the situation.

I did say that while I still find the scenario alignment trappy, I don't particularly mind it unless it starts talking about causing a fall or anything else which makes a character suddenly a fighter without class feats.