How should I punish the group for a Grey Area to Nigh Evil Area Act

[GPS]

3. If you COMPlETELY change how a creature in the MM works, including greatly increasing its intellect, giving it an alignment that they do not have, giving them a society even though it says directly in the book they live and hunt alone, do not be surprised when the group kills it.

So you're saying that PC's metagaming with MM info should be a base assumption, and that DM's aren't allowed to change or make their own settings?

[Dr.Samurai]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ GPS gets it.

Some people seem to think that the DM must march in lockstep with the manuals, or else the players get to act all erratic and murderous.

[Rhedyn]

Fraud is theft.

Regardless, the party offered the item for identification. The mimic thought it was being offered food to eat.

The orcs offered the food to be cooked. The humans thought they were being offered food to eat.

The mimic ate the item.

The humans ate the food.

The party surrounded and killed the mimic for the theft, after graphically discussing how to do so in front of it while it pled for mercy.

The orcs surrounded and killed the humans for the theft, after graphically discussing how to do so in front of them while they pled for mercy.

To you, the party and the orcs both acted 100% correctly, right? In fact, the orcs would have been committing a terrible evil if they HADN'T tormented and killed the helpless humans in that situation?

Fruad is lying

If the mimic thought identification meant it was food, then it clearly can't talk and has animal level intelligence.

Or the DM was just being an @ss

Idk how the Humans thought they could get the mimic to identify an item if the mimic was so incapable of intelligible speech that it mistook that request for eating it forever.

Any reasonable PC would assume the mimic lied about the misunderstanding and purposefully destroyed the item because it is evil, or the PCs were stupid morons that thought a barely audible box could even explain what a magic could do when it can't even comprehend the idea of identification.

So someone in the situation (the DM or the players) are just being dumb or the monster was not LG.

[Honest Tiefling]

Fruad is lying

If the mimic thought identification meant it was food, then it clearly can't talk and has animal level intelligence.

Or the DM was just being an @ss

Or it's an aberration? I agree with GPS, you can't metagame the MM, but it's a talking, walking, chest. Probably not a humanoid.

Any reasonable PC would assume the mimic lied about the misunderstanding and purposefully destroyed the item because it is evil, or the PCs were stupid morons that thought a barely audible box could even explain what a magic could do when it can't even comprehend the idea of identification.

Oh, so talking to a giant reptile and hoping it'll identify the item is fine, talking to a lion-cat thing is acceptable, talking to statues is also legitimate, but the chest is where we're drawing the line.

Nevermind the number of crazy wizards running around doing weirder things. I am 150% convinced that if people from these forums got powers, a LG mimic would be the LEAST weird thing you'd see on a average day.

How does something with animal-like intelligence hold a conversation with humanoids?

[Vogonjeltz]

Of sorts I suppose. This was suppose to be a pretty important NPC after all.

Then you should punish the group by reintroducing the exact same character regardless of how many times they kill it. Don't even bother to change the name, they'll get the idea that you want to force this character into the game no matter what they do...eventually.

[sightlessrealit]

Then you should punish the group by reintroducing the exact same character regardless of how many times they kill it. Don't even bother to change the name, they'll get the idea that you want to force this character into the game no matter what they do...eventually.

Err, that seems a bit extreme. I could maybe get away with that once but doing it over and over would just irk the players. I'd rather not cause unnecessary tension.

[Rhedyn]

Or it's an aberration? I agree with GPS, you can't metagame the MM, but it's a talking, walking, chest. Probably not a humanoid.



Oh, so talking to a giant reptile and hoping it'll identify the item is fine, talking to a lion-cat thing is acceptable, talking to statues is also legitimate, but the chest is where we're drawing the line.

Nevermind the number of crazy wizards running around doing weirder things. I am 150% convinced that if people from these forums got powers, a LG mimic would be the LEAST weird thing you'd see on a average day.

How does something with animal-like intelligence hold a conversation with humanoids?

You misunderstand. The shape of the creature is irrelevant.

I'm am suppose to believe that the PCs thought the creature could identify an item but creature somehow misunderstood what that meant.

If the PCs thought it could identify an item and explain what that item did, then they must have assumed it could speak fluent common. Yet the mimic was able to appear to speak fluent common but somehow conviently misunderstood what item identification was, which sounds to me like the DM just being a facetious a-hole trying to antagonize the party to kill this monster or somehow the DM thought that was a reasonable misunderstanding.

Or the other situation

The PCs run across a talking box that they think is intelligent but they can barely communicate with it so they give the box an item to identify even though they know the creature wouldn't be able to explain what the item did because they cannot even intelligibly communicate about the item identification process let alone what items actually do, which sounds to me like moral quandaries are the least of player's problems and they need mittens and full-time adult care staff to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

SO SOMEONE IS BEING A DUMBASS IF THAT IS THE SITUATION OCCURRING

[Keltest]

You misunderstand. The shape of the creature is irrelevant.

I'm am suppose to believe that the PCs thought the creature could identify an item but creature somehow misunderstood what that meant.

If the PCs thought it could identify an item and explain what that item did, then they must have assumed it could speak fluent common. Yet the mimic was able to appear to speak fluent common but somehow conviently misunderstood what item identification was, which sounds to me like the DM just being a facetious a-hole trying to antagonize the party to kill this monster or somehow the DM thought that was a reasonable misunderstanding.

Or the other situation

The PCs run across a talking box that they think is intelligent but they can barely communicate with it so they give the box an item to identify even though they know the creature wouldn't be able to explain what the item did because they cannot even intelligibly communicate about the item identification process let alone what items actually do, which sounds to me like moral quandaries are the least of player's problems and they need mittens and full-time adult care staff to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

SO SOMEONE IS BEING A DUMBASS IF THAT IS THE SITUATION OCCURRING

The PCs are the ones who presented the item to the mimic, in a manner consistent with how other gifts had been given to it, whether they knew that or not. Any error in communication is entirely at the feet of the PCs for not, you know, talking to the silly thing before giving it random stuff.

[Rhedyn]

The PCs are the ones who presented the item to the mimic, in a manner consistent with how other gifts had been given to it, whether they knew that or not. Any error in communication is entirely at the feet of the PCs for not, you know, talking to the silly thing before giving it random stuff.

PCs say "Hey could you tell us what this item does?"

Mimic thoughts "I know what they are asking but they handed it to me like all other items that i eat. So I am going to eat it."

That sounds like a not LG mimic.

[Keltest]

PCs say "Hey could you tell us what this item does?"

Mimic thoughts "I know what they are asking but they handed it to me like all other items that i eat. So I am going to eat it."

That sounds like a not LG mimic.

The OP explicitly said they are not sure why the party presented the item to the mimic, and that the identification motive is only speculation. Whatever it was they were trying to do, they most decidedly neglected to inform the Mimic (or the DM).

[Beelzebubba]

PCs say "Hey could you tell us what this item does?"

When was that ever said in the thread?

You've been making up other stuff to win the argument here, which is what I expect from a Beholder.

Just like you evil schemers to try to sneak something like that in to mislead someone!

[killem2]

For the record, by punish I don't mean to smite them one after another. I do agree one act of evil isn't enough to go all all old testament but some punishment needs to happen.

No, it doesn't. shift alignment, story as a result, and plot and start world building new adventures to accent their evil ways if they keep doing it.

But it sounds like you have your own ideas in mind, so go ahead and punish those players.

[Honest Tiefling]

I always assumed that the PCs were not 100% clear on their statement, else why would the mimc be confused?

So, something like this:

[Segev]

Fruad is lying

Fraud is a specific kind of lie designed to trick people into giving you something to which you are not entitled and which they would not fork over if they knew the truth.

Fraud is theft via lies, as opposed to burglary (theft via sneaking into a place and taking something; shoplifting is a subset of this one), robbery (theft via forceful taking of others' property), or pickpocketing (theft via stealthfully removing something from another's person without their knowledge nor consent).

Every time you try to dodge the analogy by pretending it doesn't say what it does, I become more convinced you don't really believe what you're saying. Why you argue it is confusing to me.

If the mimic thought identification meant it was food, then it clearly can't talk and has animal level intelligence.

Or the DM was just being an @ss

As others have pointed out, it clearly did talk; the party had conversation with it.

Then they presented a corpse to it as food. It ate it.

Then they presented treasure to it. Since the DM says he doesn't know why they did that, but speculates they might have hoped the mimic could identify it, it's clear they didn't actually state IC nor OOC why they were presenting it to the mimic. Since they were not forthcoming, the DM came to a conclusion about what the mimic would assume their intent was: given they'd presented a corpse as food, clearly they're offering more food.

Of course, if you wish to pretend this is not the scenario as presented in order to continue to argue whatever point you're arguing, I can't stop you.

Any reasonable PC would assume the mimic lied about the misunderstanding and purposefully destroyed the item because it is evil, or the PCs were stupid morons that thought a barely audible box could even explain what a magic could do when it can't even comprehend the idea of identification.

So someone in the situation (the DM or the players) are just being dumb or the monster was not LG.

No, "any reasonable PC" wouldn't make that assumption. Only a psychopath would make that assumption with all the other evidence present.

[Rhedyn]

Fraud is a specific kind of lie designed to trick people into giving you something to which you are not entitled and which they would not fork over if they knew the truth.

Fraud is theft via lies, as opposed to burglary (theft via sneaking into a place and taking something; shoplifting is a subset of this one), robbery (theft via forceful taking of others' property), or pickpocketing (theft via stealthfully removing something from another's person without their knowledge nor consent).

Every time you try to dodge the analogy by pretending it doesn't say what it does, I become more convinced you don't really believe what you're saying. Why you argue it is confusing to me.

As others have pointed out, it clearly did talk; the party had conversation with it.

Then they presented a corpse to it as food. It ate it.

Then they presented treasure to it. Since the DM says he doesn't know why they did that, but speculates they might have hoped the mimic could identify it, it's clear they didn't actually state IC nor OOC why they were presenting it to the mimic. Since they were not forthcoming, the DM came to a conclusion about what the mimic would assume their intent was: given they'd presented a corpse as food, clearly they're offering more food.

Of course, if you wish to pretend this is not the scenario as presented in order to continue to argue whatever point you're arguing, I can't stop you.


No, "any reasonable PC" wouldn't make that assumption. Only a psychopath would make that assumption with all the other evidence present.

You are coming down on the side of the PCs were being dumb.

Either way you look at it, someone at the DM/Player level was being a moron.

[Segev]

You are coming down on the side of the PCs were being dumb.

Either way you look at it, someone at the DM/Player level was being a moron.

Possibly. Being a moron doesn't excuse premeditated bullying and murder.

[Keltest]

You are coming down on the side of the PCs were being dumb.

Either way you look at it, someone at the DM/Player level was being a moron.

Of course they were being dumb. The entire premise here is that the PCs murdered an innocent creature because they made a highly transparently dumb mistake.

[Rhedyn]

Possibly. Being a moron doesn't excuse premeditated bullying and murder.

I would argue that the players are not of sound enough mind to be held accountable for their actions. If the events proceeded as you assume.

[Keltest]

I would argue that the players are not of sound enough mind to be held accountable for their actions. If the events proceeded as you assume.

And you would lose that argument. Theyre obviously functional beings, capable of, among other things, playing D&D. They just had a moment of stupidity and reacted badly to it. Theyre not insane to the point of not being accountable for their actions.

[Vogonjeltz]

Err, that seems a bit extreme. I could maybe get away with that once but doing it over and over would just irk the players. I'd rather not cause unnecessary tension.

Oh well...if you wanted to avoid unnecessary tension, don't punish them at all.

Just note that the characters willingly murdered an innocent creature and move on. If that fact becomes important at any point in the future (let's say...by a deity judging the weight of their souls in the afterlife or something), feel free to reference it. Otherwise, forget it and shift any functions that the mimic was going to fulfill to another NPC.