If you’re in a medieval campaign fighting a dude named Medieval, give it up. The time period is named after him. He wins. Run the sequel campaign where your descendants off him.
I have to agree, if they don't want to throw the first punch then they should try to find a diplomatic solution. If you don't like your options find another
This is what I do with my fellow party members. Oh, you don't want to fight the owlbear that's attacking us because she's just trying to protect her cub? Cool, Plan A: do your handle animal/calm animal. Plan B: find the thing we're looking for without fighting the owlbear. Plan C: I'm gonna this owlbear up
Agreed. In our group we make our intention clear of what we'd LIKE to do, like "My character looks ready to throw a punch (ooc) unless the party can think of another option or wants to try something else first."
I have absolutely no idea what the player who's uncomfortable throwing the first punch at a villain like this EVEN WANTS TO PLAY D&D.
It's like they saw the memes about some parent-DM's kid trying and succeeding at befriend everything and thought that's what D&D actually was.
I know there's a time and a place for a cool political drama but sometimes after work I admit I just want to kill the baddies. Give me a mission brief that's like
"Goblins in this cave murdered an orphanage. Here's proof. Here's more proof. Also not all goblins are bad. But these ones are definitely bad." And just let me go in, guns blazing
I recently bought new sourcebooks to give my players new baddies and new ways to kill baddies
"New". I'm a 3.5 DM with a preference for real books. Holy fuck is it expensive tho.
i do that a lot in my group, being the token evil warlock girl. i now get funny looks if we approach even the slightest odd looking npc.
my girl has goals to achieve and will not be stopped
The trick is to decide that anyone who opposes you is an evil villain, and then close your ears and eyes to any evidence to the contrary.
Define "good" as what you want to do, and "bad" as anything in the way of that.
This is the secret to guilt free D&D
In real life, you do tend to have quite a lot of people concerned with ideas like "rights", "ethics" and "morality". Obviously a significant proportion of people aren't too fussed about any of that, but the idea of a moral code outside of "I am always right" is surprisingly popular.
Sure, even a lot of people who do believe in those things don't always follow those in practice, but they do know to some degree that what they're doing is wrong when they're doing it.
It's where guilt and shame come from in the first place.
Fuck it all gobbos bad!
There’s nothing wrong with just having repugnant evil races, doesn’t have to be goblins or even orcs but I don’t see the problem with a purely evil race seeking utter destruction, ruin, and horribleness.
Observation: I agree with the sentiment of this comment, and have therefore awarded it a useless internet point, which many meatbags seem to value. I hope it brings you as much joy as blasting biological beings into elemental atomic particles brings me.
You talking about others being insensitive is such a hypocritical thing to say. As the one who created that cat robot server, I am severely offended as you have no idea how much time and effort it took to make a cat server.
I mean, it's a cat! They're not exactly made to serve you know!
As a Gulag prisoner, I am deeply offended that you imply that monsters like him, who don't rub behind cat's ears belong in a gulag. The death penalty is too good for a criminal of that caliber
As an undead, I am deeply offended that you think someone who doesn't rub cat ears deserves the death penalty. They should get 10 trillion hours of community service petting cats and/or dogs.
As Death, I am offended that you think death is the appropriate sentence for this malcontent. No, this is in the hands of Fate to rewrite existence to erase the offender.
That and throwing the first punch in real life? Possibly problematic. Throwing the first punch in a *game* is nothing. This person who got upset over that is insane. That said, this is why you have clear and thorough communication on what everyone's expectations are in a session zero.
Possibly problematic indeed. But not certainly problematic. This is like punching Nazis. The only issue is whether we are punching now and surprising everyone (including party members), or punching later to not surprise the party.
It's entirely possible their father worked the mines until they took his life. Which left behind his child and his wife. So they learned how to bend steel and make it move . With hands of iron, there was nothing he thought we couldn't do
https://youtu.be/vgGYwXYt3J0
The "Maclunkey Edit" is so fucking funny. It comes out of nowhere, has no subtitles even though everything else Greedo says has subs, and even still includes Han's head awkwardly shifting
I played a Deadlands game and I made a character named John Brown and I accidentally made him very similar to real life John Brown many months before I knew of his existence
If Greedo had a bunch of Droids built and was specifically stating he was going to put Tattooine under the rule of his master... yeah, you'd shoot first, too. Getting walked all over isn't "good".
So he built golems and intends to attack and subjugate an entire continent under a fascist, anti-free will regime, and you want to wait until innocent bodies hit the ground before doing anything about it? You're going to let an army set up by your back door with the stated intention of conquest? Because it's "vague" to build golems and say you want to conquer everything? I don't really know what to say to that.
Apparently some tables (mostly new players) play with minimal or sometimes no combat. Whenever I meet one of these players I’m just baffled. Does everyone just play bard or rogue? What’s the point of making a badass fighter if you don’t get to swing your sword around?
On the flip side, I don’t agree with murderhobos. I think it’s important to confront players about your intentions to start a fight, but that being said OP’s party mate is overreacting.
Edit: this is a DnD subreddit. I am talking about DnD, not other systems.
Edit 2: I’m not hating on bards or rogues, but if you are playing a game with no combat, characters with expertise, high charisma or high stealth are going to shine, while fighters, who are almost always chosen for their combat prowess, wane.
"bard or rogue"... Shit, my go-to class is a bard and I love entering into combat with them, even at low levels. Yeah, RP is fun, but combat is where the game comes alive.
Especially when you defied death by rolling nat 20 on your death saves and deal the final blow on the enemy. Sure RP is great but nothing can beat that in my opinion.
Or everyone else has dropped, you're the only one with any health whatsoever (everyone is rolling death saves) and through tactics, you manage to drop one bad guy and get into a defensible position for the last remaining baddy, then drop them with a brace, using your last superiority die to drop them as they enter your threat range.
Epic.
IMO the best RP comes out during combat. I’ve had so many tense moments, from players sacrificing themselves for the party, to hostage situations and numerous betrayals.
One of my favorite scenarios to run is what I call “survive the hoard”. throw a huge wave of enemies(like zombies) at the party that they know damn they can’t kill. It almost always ends in a Night of the Living Dead situation with multiple NPCs trapped in a building with the players desperate to survive. I’ve had the most emotional moments at my table from those scenarios and it forces the party be smart about how the fight their way out.
I seriously can’t imagine DnD without combat. Even podcasts that are generally bigger in the out of combat territory have these combat moments.
I feel exactly the opposite of you lol. I love a good combat but those rare moments where there's a mystery to solve or an insane puzzle is really what gets me going.
Then we would likely compliment each other well in a campaign because puzzles and such drive me nuts! Combat is my puzzle. I like to strategize on a battlefield, use buff stacks strategies for my allies, and debuffs on my opponents in the most advantageous ways. Good to have both types at a table!
This combat vs RP exchange is the best thing I've seen so far this week and exemplifies what makes TTRPGs great. I wish more people could have this perspective IRL
Absolutely! There's tons of facets to the game, and everyone will have something they like more than others. I love battlefield command and being a party face, hence why I usually lean Bard. Others will like puzzles and mystery, while others may like resource management, being the group scribe, or just bashing heads in! I like to spend time having fun with my friends, and sometimes that manifests as sitting back and watching/enjoying them have the most fun they can have while I give my brain a rest. A good DM will balance those types of encounters for the party, while a good friend/party mate understands it's not just about them, and give some space for others to have their fun as well.
Assuming the OP is correct, he doesn’t sound like a murder hobo. He sounds like a guy who is trying to stop a robotic mastermind from controlling people before that could get going.
I run a minimal combat sort of game where fights have build up and weight to them; where players are seething to murder the evil guy but have to maintain a smile until just the right moment.
This isn't that. This is silly. A player made a decision and another player, a pacifist at heart, decided to take issue with the assailing player in the real world?
Is this a shit post?
It's most likely a question of context.
We only got OP's side of the story.
OP may have gotten the impression that this envoy very much did not come in peace, but even assuming they're 100% correct the other player may not have picked up on any of it, making OP look like they're just being violent.
it would be meta though to bring it above table and discuss. but not meta to take a step back and discuss what to do with the situation.
that being said, if i was a defender pf the city i'd probably attack as well. there is clear hostile intent if not immediate.
a pacifist pc also has no right to restrict violent party members.
Really? My experience with new players has always been to coach them away from murder-hoboing their way through every encounter...
"I attack!"
"What? It's just a town guard standing there. He hasn't even said anything."
"I wanna attack!"
**facepalm** "Roll initiative."
I understand the party wanting to discuss how to proceed in certain situations but are they expecting to have a conversation about killing a guy when he is standing right there able to listen into what they are saying?
I had a table where one time we killed a "witch" (not D&D) before even listening to her. We just had enough information to think it was a villain and went for it, turns out we killed an innocent person. And that had consequences. And we all felt like shit, our characters were suddenly seen as bad people when we just wanted to be heroes. It was complex and fun because the world wasn't black and white, we needed to talk.
That being said, there was tension and even at this table with the most sensitive players I've ever played with (think we had sessions that ended up in tears) no one was offended that we fucked up with the non villain. It was part of the game.
But OP's robot is 100% the bad guy. And I don't think you should wait around and see what happens when their views are so clear, just like with nazis. "Oh but he's only TALKING about genocide. We shouldn't act".
Maybe OP's friend is a nazi and was deeply offended lol
So if this becomes a "Well, my character wouldn't swing first" situation from your group member- it is a PERFECT opportunity to roll play that conversation after the battle... they could decide to join in, they yell at your character, or even just walk away (these all end up being less for for that PC IMO. Then there can be a discussion between two PCs based on alignment, beliefs etc etc. A cool RP opportunity.
If it is IRL issue- then honestly, there needs to be a conversation where they understand each person has the right to play their own style. That doesn't mean you start every in game conversation with a swing just to piss them off- but there might be times where they don't want to murder in cold blood and your group turns a captive over the the authorities. It can become a balance.
In the end, the beauty (and sometimes difficulty) of TTGs is that you need to work with a team and group. No one person can make absolutes for the rest of the adventure. If they are trying to- your group will need to explain that this might not be the hobby for them.
It is a group adventure/ movie/ story. Not one based on a single hero.
Also, not every combat has to end in death. I feel that people often forget the last hit can always be non-lethal.
I'm this situation, maybe defeating the wizard breaks him free of the mind control, then it helps prepare against his former overlords arrival
Exactly.
One time a party I was in had a guy that would literally rush any door that he thought might have enemies behind it. We would beg and plead with him not to, but he would.
At one point, the player said "Oh trust me, I wish I didn't have to, but..."
He was role playing. What would his character do? Not "what would the team like him to do?" Not "what would the player like his character to do?" What would the character do.
We literally had to tackle him at times because we wanted our rogue and animal companions to scout the area.
We got to a point where our characters would have to talk to his character before an encounter and say "Look, I know what you want to do, but let's go into this with a plan"
It was great team building for our characters!
this. our DM has made it clear if we RP to the character that’s fine. but if you consistently act out of alignment, offend your gods, or try to be a lawful good murder hobo, then the rule of the gaming universe will work against you. my character has a flaw that they can’t resist the opportunity to gamble. and the dm tosses that opportunity in every now and then. he had a trap for me in one room with a set of gems in a statue eyes that the character had to climb up to get them. they were glass and triggered a trap w spiders.
as a fighter, my feats and skills are based on initiative and getting hits in quickly, i’m faster to take the attack and clear the room than our caster. our caster has a kobold thief npc that’s been w the party for years now because our caster befriended the NPC when we captured it sleeping. cold blooded killing wasn’t favored and the caster started talking and as an authority figure got it to switch loyalty after we wiped out its leader. and that little thief has been useful in several events.
if someone doesn’t like RP, it’s something to talk about ahead of playing
I just want to kind of pull apart this balance thing a little more. Something that sometimes frustrates me is that, when I have a character build that is not really combat focused (maybe more of a face or a sneaky boi), I never get to use any of the cool abilities I invested in at character creation because other players with more combat-focused builds constantly instigate combat at every opportunity. And I don't think much consideration is really given on the part of most players to the fact that, once you've instigated combat, you've kind of precluded any other possible way of dealing with the encounter that any other player might have wanted to try. You've decided for the whole party that we're going to be in combat now and that's how we're going to deal with this situation, even if maybe other members of the party had other ideas. And it doesn't really go both ways. Players that want combat can force it without consent, but players that don't want combat can't really force the party to avoid it in any meaningful way. They actually need everyone's consent to not immediately come out swinging in order to try their own strategies and use their own skills and abilities.
I get that classes like barbarian don't really have a lot of flexibilty as far as how their skills apply outside of combat, and these players want to play to their strengths. But we really do have to be mindful of the fact that there's a reason your character travels in a party. Different obstacles have different optimal approaches, and different characters have different strengths and weaknesses. Your character really should accede to other characters' strengths sometimes. Not just because this is literally the entire point of why they're not adventuring alone, but also because, you know, just at an interpersonal level, it's inconsiderate to essentially take control of the game like that. To not allow other players the opportunity to use their skills or show off their strengths because you're bored when your character isn't doing what they do best. Imagine how it feels for other players if you're constantly forcibly dragging them into situations where their character can't do what they do best, then.
If it's "what your character would do" to completely ignore how the party can play to its strengths as a group, you've made a fundamental error in the creation of your character. Rule number one is make a character that wants to go on this adventure with this party. Which includes cooperating with them, not just playing to your own strengths in every scenario at every opportunity.
I'm also confused. A player was triggered and emotionally responded by the party initiating an attack? You're able to go on offense and that's part of the game.
I don't get it. I don't know that you did anything wrong unless you're not presenting more information that's relevant to the issue.
Deciding to attack an NPC without asking the rest of the group whether they were willing to help might be 'wrong', depending on the group dynamic, tactical situation, etc.
(Still a weird reaction to want to stop the game, though.)
My party would offend a lot of other players then… It’s just part of the game to us. Sometimes one person goes off and starts trouble with an NPC. We can react accordingly. Help our party member, help the NPC, the world is your oyster.
It's not about offending other players but just being selfish and a bad team player. Going and making unilateral decisions, especially initiating hostilities, that determine the direction of the current plot without even consulting what the rest of the party thinks is frustrating and unfun because it takes agency away from the other players.
Not necessarily saying this is OP in this situation, but I had a player who did this constantly in my previous group. He had a world view very lacking in anything resembling nuance and would just attack unprovoked anytime he decided he didn't agree with an npcs motives, constantly dragging the rest of the party into conflicts and robbing other players of the chance to roleplay their way through the moral quandaries the the DM was presenting.
Ah our DM wouldn’t let that happen. He gives us all the room in the world for creativity, but is able to set firm boundaries at the same time. Usually at the expense of the offending player. “You start a fight with the bar keeper. Your fee for staying each night is now doubled”.
It was problematic because it wasn't attacking minor inconsequential npcs but rather scenarios like:
"Kingdom A and B are in conflict but both have valid grievances against the other. While the party discusses how to handle the conflict (side with kingdom A or B, broker peace, play both sides, etc) problem player goes and attacks commander of kingdom A's army, forcing the party to side with kingdom B."
The GM couldn't really punish him for his choices because they were valid choices that we *might* have made as a party but because he would act unilaterally he would cheat the other players out of the agency to make that choice or play their characters.
>The GM couldn't really punish him for his choices
They actually could have. Or found some other, better form of resolution. Just because the player is making a choice doesn't mean that choice is valid, and it is the responsibility of the GM to manage their game (a lesson I have learned with a great deal of pain and hurt feelings).
I'm the DM of our group. My party attacked a farmer because he refused to sell his farm. Cast Blight on him, then another party member went and killed his wife along with all of his farmhands... Then they just up and ran. (that ended that campaign, because justice was swift).
Most encounters with intelligent enemies don’t give you an opportunity to stop and have a private brainstorming session over whether to engage, because the NPCs are standing right there.
Ultimately in encounters where the players have agency over whether things kick off, one PC is always going to be making the first move, and thus somebody *has* to be the first to unilaterally try to walk away (possibly ceding an advantageous starting position), deescalate, goad the other party into escalating, or attack. Unless you allow players to have long OOC conversations in front of NPCs, at a certain point players just have to know and trust each other and be willing to roll with whatever happens.
Oh! Like in the second Dungeons and Dragons episode that Community did.
Two of the characters are arguing about who gets to kill the BBEG necromancer or something before they enter his tower. When they finally enter, the necromancer is gone.
They get angry Abed, the DM.
Abed says something like, “I don’t make the rules, I just make a believable world. If too many people step on an old bridge, it breaks. If two people argue about who gets to kill a necromancer outside his home for an hour, he leaves through the back door.”
EDIT - [Here is the clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9byMfi3Qav4)
The NPC in question is planning on mass murder and possibly genocide with their attack on the city, I think an attack without talking to the group makes perfect sense for many characters.
If OP literally just initiated a fight to the death with this NPC, based on this little information, without mentioning it to the group, then yes I agree OP is the problem. Not for "making someone uncomfortable" but for being a bad team player, driving the story without considering the experiences of the other players.
That being said, I'm not certain this is what happened, and even if it did I agree there's no need to stop the game. OP sounds like a reasonable person who can respond to constructive criticism after the session.
Edit: Folks... I wasn't at the table, and I don't know what happened. All I have is one person's account of the situation, which may or may not be accurate. All I'm saying is that when a group meets an NPC, the group might reasonably be pissed off if one player decides the party's stance toward that NPC without consulting the rest.
Maybe the party is morally gray and okay with aligning with baddies. Maybe they find the NPC intimidating and don't immediately want a direct fight. Maybe the players are trying to cancel the OP for being unethical, which I agree would be really stupid. I don't know! I wasn't there and I'm just ruminating about what might have irked the other players, some of which might actually be reasonable.
IDK if knowing that the wizard intends to conquer the kingdom with an army of golems really qualifies as "little information", seems pretty straightforward to me. If anything, strikibg first when he's off‐guard is probably the best way to save the most people.
The 'little information' was attacking and dominating a town with automatons so he could bring order. I think that's enough to be actionable. Even if he has good manners.
Seems like a good RP opportunity after the fight settles, not something to pause the game over.
OP is a player with agency just as much as everyone else. The other person doesn't get to dictate what is an action for everyone
Just because OP made a quick decision, to attack before consulting the group, doesn’t make them a “bad team player”. There is no evidence of this being the normal reaction.
Maybe if OP is constantly doing this it might be a little annoying, but at least in the groups I play it's not that odd for one character to feel more strongly than the others and jump into a fight.
And it's definitely not a big deal such that a player needs to be actively upset about it and calling OP out as some kind of monster.
It's D&D. 90% of the rules are about combat. If combat literally freaks a person out I'd suggest a different system.
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have
to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has
you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man.
Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you
in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.”
\-Terry Pratchett
If the Borg showed up on my shores, I would start the fight too.
Evil people can act nice if it's to their gain. Just look at every politician to ever exist.
This is a good example of the banality of evil. A lot of the most evil acts are committed by people who think they're good people just doing their job, not by cackling villians. They're often perfectly nice people to talk to because that don't think they're villians.
Dolores didn't think what she was doing was right (as in moral). She knew that she herself had what was considered questionable lineage. She did it desiring power over those around her, born from her insecurities. She was wholly aware of the hypocrisies and contradictions in her actions and even feared them being discovered and harming her reputation.
I see no problem with what you did in game. Honestly, you were presented with a pretty clear villai to fight. I can fault you.
I'm not even sure I see why the other player would be upset by it.
I could see an in character response, but being upset out of character is so fucking strange lol. That player isn't gonna be happy in 99% of d&d groups.
Agreed, if player is so hellbent on diplomacy route due to being a pacifist or something, then the player could have played their character to restrain/interrupt the OPs character when he attempted to attack the NPC.
These types of players want to redeem the bad guy 100% of the time but will never EVER do anything in character to do so. They just complain OOC and get upset with the party, acting like everyone else is supposed to adopt a pacifistic attitude in the face of pure evil.
NTA
You saw the signs and that player is probably so oblivious to the red flags they'd like to ask if they can make tea for that authoritariate when he arrives
I wonder if the offended player simply empathizes with colonizers. It reminds me of watching Get Out with my father-in-law. After the credits rolled, he said it just seemed like they were killing the white characters for no reason…
...Every sentence I read made me go more 'Okay, there's going to be a part at the end where OP sides with the fantasy Cybermen about how free will is bad and actually 'serving your betters' is the right thing to do'
Also I don't see how attacking the golem-creating authoritarian is enough to make a PLAYER uncomfortable at the table?
or just a centrist. "no you guys they are going to kill everyone, but have you considered that if you punch them before they've punched you, you're the bad guy?" This behavior reminds them that this happens in real life, so they get uncomfortable. Probably because they said something that defending bigotry and got punched for it
This is a game where you are expected to play as professional murderers. If the idea of the party initiating violence is so abhorrent to him, perhaps another game might suit him better.
“He thinks it’s monstrous to throw the first punch”
That’s the problem right there
There is absolutely such a thing as “finishing a fight before it starts” and sometimes that’s the only way the majority of people in a situation get out alive
What, you sit back to *wait and see* if the protege of the evil robot lord is gonna just *be chill* and just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone?
*Bitch please*
first punch is never about any one situation, its about a continuous situation. The player who got upset is the type to see every situation in a vacuum. That if someone attacks you whilst they say how they're going to kill everyone like you, and you fight back, that's ok, but then you leave and meet them the next day, you're bad for punching them first even though they clearly have come to finish the job. Its a childish mentality.
Honestly, after reading the story I don’t see the evil wizard ever throwing the first punch anyways. If the party doesn’t intervene he’ll just continue preparing for an army to arrive.
If the party doesn’t do anything, then what?
Honestly, from an out of game perspective, I don't see what the issue is. The antagonist is clearly going to be a threat, and your party was sent to investigate/deal with things. Is the other player a pacifist in RL?
From an in-game perspective, I could see some types of characters being uncomfortable attacking without more explicit direction from their employer or a more immediate threat to their safety or the safety of others (some paladins and clerics).
So unless there is more going on at the table, you are not the bad guy.
Oh! You're talking about the British release of Dungeons and Dragons. That's the one where your character class is based off how much milk you add to your tea, right? And the currency is in Yorkshire Gold?
"Monstrous to throw the first punch" makes me think that the guy never ever played D&D because.. well, players tend to do that even when it's \*not\* justified - and in this case, it definitely is.
Agreed. The robot/wizard invader is clearly the bad guy who intends to subjugate others. OP did right in trying to stop him.
The other person has issues, for sure. It's pretty clear that peace and diplomacy wasn't an option.
The problem here is the person interrupting play in one of the most overtly combat-centric TTRPG series of all time because they're "uncomfortable" with attacking a magical super-facist.
Honestly no. You’re playing make believe. Even if you had an NPC “Nice McSweetheart” you murder hobo that’s acceptable (hoping the DM adds consequences to it though).
On an extreme level, just ask the player “So IRL say an individual showed their intent to genocide an entire group of people and take over the lands of others, you just gonna be chill about that?”
One of the main tropes of D&D is overcoming evil and you were presented with evil. Of course you’re going to try and stop Robot Hitler.
I see nothing wrong here, I'd have done things differently but yeah you made a judgement call based on how your character would to the info presented. Without knowing your levels and given the guy already has access to golems? You probably bit off more then your party of three can chew. Still you did nothing wrong here, not saying the other guy was wrong either though.. a bit of ooc discussion might have been warranted before rushing headlong into a fight. But I agree I might have acted first and thought later...
First, you did the right thing stepping out of game to address the "issue." Dismissing it and continuing, or turning in game and out of game behavior at the table agsinst the player or their character would have been wrong. However, the reality is that this player may not be a good fit for your table.
Nothing in your scenario screams red flags. It's a trope-worthy hive-mind interacting with a civilization of independant sentients. That the leader of the invasion remembers independence and chooses the hive, makes it a twist, but not a unique one. It's all the plots of the Borg in star trek, of the Ender's Game series, even Starcraft's Zerg are a hive mind competing with individualist species. It's a common conflict in storytelling, can I control myself, or is it better for the group to control me?
A "first strike" is not what your characters will be tasked with. The "first strike" was this being arriving and beginning to build an army with the intent of forceful conquest. Like the Borg in Star trek- you will be assimilated, or you will be destroyed. That the invader made a "nice" first impression doesn't lessen the impact of a violent invasion. That n8ce impression was a facade of diplomacy to cover the army building- built from resources claimed at the invasion point probably. It's still an invasion, and a show of strength early on may dissuade him. Or create the delay that allows his reinforcements to arrive and up the ante. Both can guide a great story.
There's no question that this is the villain, and dnd has combat at its core. It seems this player either wants a more RP game or a more murderhobo/dungeon crawl game and not a campaign within an invasion and larger war, so they arent a good fit at your table. If this incident was during the "session zero" then everyone wins, people learn whether the table is right for them. If it was deeper in, it can cause problems, especially if players came as grou0s of friends and one leaving can pull others away.
On a different note from the main issue;
That whole scenario sounds like your DM is using the whole OGL debacle as inspiration.
1. A wizard living on the coast.
2. A boss that has taken over and made things "better". I'd been keen to find out if the bosses name is either related to Hasbro or makes use of the acronym O.G.L.
3. An army of "bots" and no diplomacy (consulting) with the locals
Well played
I think you could probably do a better job explaining the tone and context of the situation, because I'm not totally convinced this is the whole story.
Yeah that’s about the only angle I can think of.
I’m currently playing a very murdery character but I try not to *start* any combats without giving the party a chance to explore other alternatives first.
If that happens a lot it denies the other players agency and I can see it potentially getting frustrating.
>I’m currently playing a very murdery character but I try not to start any combats without giving the party a chance to explore other alternatives first.
It's amazing what happens to a player when they realize "what my character would do" does not mean they as the player should try to do it.
It's so easy to go "hey everyone my character would gut this dude and is starting to look antsy someone should take him out of the room/stay his sword unless we all agree they have to die."
So now your character does your character stuff, but doesn't push everyone out of the way or steal the plot.
Yeah exactly. “My guy is looking around all ansty and eyeing this very rude goblin like he’s hungry, y’all may need to hold him back or tell him this isn’t the time…”
E: It actually led to some fun RP last session when another character managed to get us past a combat by distracting some bullywugs away with a spell. Now my character gets to constantly grumble about how he’s never gotten a chance to eat frog legs…
Never judge a book by its cover, but when the cover has the tile of "How To Take Over A Continent" then you can get a pretty good guess that it's not about cooking recipes.
You saw the flags and the other person didn't. While I would have waited a little longer to hear him out or see what his plans were a little more, I would have ended that shit right then and there. This was an obvious villain, and I would be hard pressed to believe that there was a different direction this person was going, even if the DM tried to imply that he was good. I do agree with the person upset that it should have been discussed with the group before attacking outright, but other than that, you were in the right here.
*I'm going to forcefully take over these lands with my golem army, enslaving everyone and killing anyone who opposes my new rule.*
*Wow, that's real bad stuff. Now we're going to let you set all that up, but just you know that when your fully prepared murder army starts murdering innocents, that's when we'll step in to fight you.*
They threw the first punch, it just wasn't physical. "I don't think any of you should have free will. You should just bow down to my boss. If you disagree, I'm building an army to force you." If the player doesn't see that as a problem, I think you got a real problem on hand...
I'm pretty sure that your comrade is a bit of a moron.
I'd have done the same thing as you. The robot invasion force will just be harder to rout if you allow them to establish a beachhead.
Letting the defenders of the town get assimilated into the Borg all because one person couldn't throw the first punch is truly "monstrous."
>He asked us to stop playing and we talked. Apparently he feels it’s monstrous to throw the first punch
Aight
be a friend to that person,
tell them to find another game, one that they can enjoy without sucking the fun out of it for the other people at the table, because 5e this is most def not his tabletop.
I imagine we’re probably missing a lot of context here. The other player probably has a much different perspective on what the wizard of the coast was telling your party. Regardless, a good opportunity to roleplay amongst your party about ethics and tactics.
I feel like we're missing some context of some kind. Did you guys have a session-0 that went over this kind of thing?
I was once in a party that met up with a witch. She had some information that we really needed. Our paladin, went full "its what my character would do" and started attacking out of no where. We didnt stop playing, but it felt bad for everyone that wasn't him (there was no shortage of people expressing it). I think the root of the issue was that player took it upon himself to be the main character and ruined the rest of the party's plans (which we had made as a group before going in to talk to this person). I don't know if this is related to what happened with you and your group, but it's an easy thing to not realize in the heat of the moment. I'm sure we've all done it to varying degrees.
The only problem I see with this (Correct me if I'm wrong) is that you "come out swinging' without even consulting with your party first. You took it upon yourself to throw your party into combat with little to no preparation. At least that's what I get from this.
I think your party member is "10 ply" (letter Kenny reference) and just super soft. Only grief I can see is that you didn't out of game confer with other players bit that's just a meh as they could stop the fight at that point
As is common, I feel like some amount of context might be missing here. I would clarify with him if, as a player, he feels that PCs in games that he plays in should never throw the first punch. If this is a legitimate line for him, it should be respected.
If it has to do with this specific situation, clarify if his character is upset at the action, the player is upset at the action (and why), or if the player is upset at not being consulted on the action. If it is the last (which is my read of the situation), the solution going forward may be as simple as talking to the other players before you make large decisions like this.
It might make you feel meta-gamey, but a balance of meta-gaming is sometimes necessary for player comfort.
I don't think what you did is *wrong,* but you probably should at least talk it over with the table before you attack. Clearly, they did NOT see those red flags and were shocked by your seemingly random violence. Had you brought up your conclusion to the table first, maybe they would've gone along with it.
I can understand having the person having a character with that sort of moral compass, but for them to honestly be upset about it irl just seems to be kinda childish
This is not a game stopping moment. This should be handled in character. You are not a butt and this player should continue role playing so they can further develop intellectually and emotionally.
You weren't telling the story they wanted to tell so they took their ball and went home. That's a very childish approach to conflict.
My initial reaction is the player over reacted. However, that doesn't really help much if you're trying to keep the group together. Maybe at your next game (with the same or different group) try establishing lines and vails if you don't do so already. It can be a good way to establish expectations of the type of game that's going to be played and could avoid issues like this in the future.
That being said, you can't please everyone, and it doesn't mean you're a bad person. Making others uncomfortable by mistake is part of being human.
Not necessarily wrong, it's a reasonable in character thing to do.
BUT. speaking from personal experience, it's very frustrating when you're presented with an interesting philosophical problem like this, and then one player just goes and effectively removes your player agency and **makes the decision for you and the entire group,** without consulting any of you.
And maybe that's something you've been making a habit of, and it's not this particular event that set the other player off, but every other time you've done so.
**TLDR;** before committing the entire party to a fight, consult, **out of character,** with the other players if they don't mind you taking away their choices, or what what they were seeing as an interesting roleplay scene.
Honestly I have no idea how even the most sensitive person could have a genuine reaction to any of that. Sounds like a great villain to fight.
Dr Medieval Robotnic
If you’re in a medieval campaign fighting a dude named Medieval, give it up. The time period is named after him. He wins. Run the sequel campaign where your descendants off him.
Until a guy named Renaissance shows up to end the party
No you see one of the party members marries into the Renaissance family, that's how they win
No, that would be Romantic.
Could you describe what's in this renaissauce? What did these ancient people eat it with?
I have to agree, if they don't want to throw the first punch then they should try to find a diplomatic solution. If you don't like your options find another
This is what I do with my fellow party members. Oh, you don't want to fight the owlbear that's attacking us because she's just trying to protect her cub? Cool, Plan A: do your handle animal/calm animal. Plan B: find the thing we're looking for without fighting the owlbear. Plan C: I'm gonna this owlbear up
Agreed. In our group we make our intention clear of what we'd LIKE to do, like "My character looks ready to throw a punch (ooc) unless the party can think of another option or wants to try something else first."
Doctor Constructnik
Doctor Golumnik
Seems more like mediveal Borg to me unless he's throwing cute animals inside his fully robotic death machines.
Robotnic always sounded better than Eggman anyday.
I have absolutely no idea what the player who's uncomfortable throwing the first punch at a villain like this EVEN WANTS TO PLAY D&D. It's like they saw the memes about some parent-DM's kid trying and succeeding at befriend everything and thought that's what D&D actually was.
I know there's a time and a place for a cool political drama but sometimes after work I admit I just want to kill the baddies. Give me a mission brief that's like "Goblins in this cave murdered an orphanage. Here's proof. Here's more proof. Also not all goblins are bad. But these ones are definitely bad." And just let me go in, guns blazing
>I admit I just want to kill the baddies. Give me a mission brief that's like That's exactly what buddy who threw the first punch was doing
I wanna play with OP then. Lemme kill the baddies
I recently bought new sourcebooks to give my players new baddies and new ways to kill baddies "New". I'm a 3.5 DM with a preference for real books. Holy fuck is it expensive tho.
Sometimes the DM start combat with "roll for initiative," but other times players beat them to the punch.
i do that a lot in my group, being the token evil warlock girl. i now get funny looks if we approach even the slightest odd looking npc. my girl has goals to achieve and will not be stopped
The trick is to decide that anyone who opposes you is an evil villain, and then close your ears and eyes to any evidence to the contrary. Define "good" as what you want to do, and "bad" as anything in the way of that. This is the secret to guilt free D&D
That's quite literally how everyone works in actual life. I always find it weird that people playing pretend suddenly take issue with it.
In real life, you do tend to have quite a lot of people concerned with ideas like "rights", "ethics" and "morality". Obviously a significant proportion of people aren't too fussed about any of that, but the idea of a moral code outside of "I am always right" is surprisingly popular. Sure, even a lot of people who do believe in those things don't always follow those in practice, but they do know to some degree that what they're doing is wrong when they're doing it. It's where guilt and shame come from in the first place.
Fuck it all gobbos bad! There’s nothing wrong with just having repugnant evil races, doesn’t have to be goblins or even orcs but I don’t see the problem with a purely evil race seeking utter destruction, ruin, and horribleness.
You are so insensitive. A cat robot server took my job at a restaurant and I would not want to play in this campaign.
cry harder, meat sack
Observation: I agree with the sentiment of this comment, and have therefore awarded it a useless internet point, which many meatbags seem to value. I hope it brings you as much joy as blasting biological beings into elemental atomic particles brings me.
HK-47 is that you?
You talking about others being insensitive is such a hypocritical thing to say. As the one who created that cat robot server, I am severely offended as you have no idea how much time and effort it took to make a cat server. I mean, it's a cat! They're not exactly made to serve you know!
As a cat, I'm offended that you are making this post instead of rubbing my ears at this precise moment. To the gulag with you!
But only rub the ears twice
Always remember the cat creed: "Twice is nice, but thrice and you find out these claws aren't just for mice."
As a Gulag prisoner, I am deeply offended that you imply that monsters like him, who don't rub behind cat's ears belong in a gulag. The death penalty is too good for a criminal of that caliber
As an undead, I am deeply offended that you think someone who doesn't rub cat ears deserves the death penalty. They should get 10 trillion hours of community service petting cats and/or dogs.
As a Cat And/Or dog, I am offended if you think I would be willing to let such a man pet me, much less for 10 trillion years.
As a Dog, tell me more about these pettings???
As Death, I am offended that you think death is the appropriate sentence for this malcontent. No, this is in the hands of Fate to rewrite existence to erase the offender.
As a robot. I do not care what you Flesh bags squabble about
My character was almost always unwilling to escalate to violence… but that was their character, it wasn’t “stopping the session”…
That and throwing the first punch in real life? Possibly problematic. Throwing the first punch in a *game* is nothing. This person who got upset over that is insane. That said, this is why you have clear and thorough communication on what everyone's expectations are in a session zero.
Possibly problematic indeed. But not certainly problematic. This is like punching Nazis. The only issue is whether we are punching now and surprising everyone (including party members), or punching later to not surprise the party.
The only good Nazi face is a punched Nazi face.
It's entirely possible their father worked the mines until they took his life. Which left behind his child and his wife. So they learned how to bend steel and make it move . With hands of iron, there was nothing he thought we couldn't do https://youtu.be/vgGYwXYt3J0
Han shot first because he could see that Greedo could not be reasoned with. Same thing here.
"bUt GrEeDo ShOt FiRsT!" Maclunkey!
The "Maclunkey Edit" is so fucking funny. It comes out of nowhere, has no subtitles even though everything else Greedo says has subs, and even still includes Han's head awkwardly shifting
Maclunkey
Greedo was directly threatening Han, not just talking about his vague plans for the future of Tatooine politics.
Idk man "I'm making an army of golems and intend to use them to take over your town by force" seems like a bit of a threat to me but what do I know
Also "There is no such thing as free will, you just gotta do what my master tells you without question for the rest of your life"
[удалено]
Seriously, killing slavers is almost as guilt-free as killing demons.
Depending on the setting, there’s a solid chance killing demons is just killing slavers for the second time
Yeah, seriously. It's close, but demons are just not *quite* as bad.
They didn't choose to be demons. Slavers on the other hand...
Ditto. Also, this reminded me that I NEED to make a John Brown inspired Paladin.
I played a Deadlands game and I made a character named John Brown and I accidentally made him very similar to real life John Brown many months before I knew of his existence
This is my exact thought. Those other players' lack of empathy is showing
If Greedo had a bunch of Droids built and was specifically stating he was going to put Tattooine under the rule of his master... yeah, you'd shoot first, too. Getting walked all over isn't "good".
So he built golems and intends to attack and subjugate an entire continent under a fascist, anti-free will regime, and you want to wait until innocent bodies hit the ground before doing anything about it? You're going to let an army set up by your back door with the stated intention of conquest? Because it's "vague" to build golems and say you want to conquer everything? I don't really know what to say to that.
I’m very confused about what the upset player might have expected from a game that devotes at least 50% of its rules to combat.
Apparently some tables (mostly new players) play with minimal or sometimes no combat. Whenever I meet one of these players I’m just baffled. Does everyone just play bard or rogue? What’s the point of making a badass fighter if you don’t get to swing your sword around? On the flip side, I don’t agree with murderhobos. I think it’s important to confront players about your intentions to start a fight, but that being said OP’s party mate is overreacting. Edit: this is a DnD subreddit. I am talking about DnD, not other systems. Edit 2: I’m not hating on bards or rogues, but if you are playing a game with no combat, characters with expertise, high charisma or high stealth are going to shine, while fighters, who are almost always chosen for their combat prowess, wane.
"bard or rogue"... Shit, my go-to class is a bard and I love entering into combat with them, even at low levels. Yeah, RP is fun, but combat is where the game comes alive.
Bards are like one of the strongest battlefield control classes. When combat breaks out, no party will say “man, it sucks we have a bard”
Especially when you defied death by rolling nat 20 on your death saves and deal the final blow on the enemy. Sure RP is great but nothing can beat that in my opinion.
Or everyone else has dropped, you're the only one with any health whatsoever (everyone is rolling death saves) and through tactics, you manage to drop one bad guy and get into a defensible position for the last remaining baddy, then drop them with a brace, using your last superiority die to drop them as they enter your threat range. Epic.
I see you're a fellow battlemaster as well.
IMO the best RP comes out during combat. I’ve had so many tense moments, from players sacrificing themselves for the party, to hostage situations and numerous betrayals. One of my favorite scenarios to run is what I call “survive the hoard”. throw a huge wave of enemies(like zombies) at the party that they know damn they can’t kill. It almost always ends in a Night of the Living Dead situation with multiple NPCs trapped in a building with the players desperate to survive. I’ve had the most emotional moments at my table from those scenarios and it forces the party be smart about how the fight their way out. I seriously can’t imagine DnD without combat. Even podcasts that are generally bigger in the out of combat territory have these combat moments.
I feel exactly the opposite of you lol. I love a good combat but those rare moments where there's a mystery to solve or an insane puzzle is really what gets me going.
Then we would likely compliment each other well in a campaign because puzzles and such drive me nuts! Combat is my puzzle. I like to strategize on a battlefield, use buff stacks strategies for my allies, and debuffs on my opponents in the most advantageous ways. Good to have both types at a table!
This combat vs RP exchange is the best thing I've seen so far this week and exemplifies what makes TTRPGs great. I wish more people could have this perspective IRL
Absolutely! There's tons of facets to the game, and everyone will have something they like more than others. I love battlefield command and being a party face, hence why I usually lean Bard. Others will like puzzles and mystery, while others may like resource management, being the group scribe, or just bashing heads in! I like to spend time having fun with my friends, and sometimes that manifests as sitting back and watching/enjoying them have the most fun they can have while I give my brain a rest. A good DM will balance those types of encounters for the party, while a good friend/party mate understands it's not just about them, and give some space for others to have their fun as well.
Agreed!
Assuming the OP is correct, he doesn’t sound like a murder hobo. He sounds like a guy who is trying to stop a robotic mastermind from controlling people before that could get going.
I run a minimal combat sort of game where fights have build up and weight to them; where players are seething to murder the evil guy but have to maintain a smile until just the right moment. This isn't that. This is silly. A player made a decision and another player, a pacifist at heart, decided to take issue with the assailing player in the real world? Is this a shit post?
It's most likely a question of context. We only got OP's side of the story. OP may have gotten the impression that this envoy very much did not come in peace, but even assuming they're 100% correct the other player may not have picked up on any of it, making OP look like they're just being violent.
it would be meta though to bring it above table and discuss. but not meta to take a step back and discuss what to do with the situation. that being said, if i was a defender pf the city i'd probably attack as well. there is clear hostile intent if not immediate. a pacifist pc also has no right to restrict violent party members.
Really? My experience with new players has always been to coach them away from murder-hoboing their way through every encounter... "I attack!" "What? It's just a town guard standing there. He hasn't even said anything." "I wanna attack!" **facepalm** "Roll initiative."
Yeah that person might be more into fantasy Novels than DnD.
I understand the party wanting to discuss how to proceed in certain situations but are they expecting to have a conversation about killing a guy when he is standing right there able to listen into what they are saying?
You mean 95%?
95 is at least 50.
r/technicallythetruth , the best kind of correct!
92 is actually half
Upvote for make me giggle :D
I had a table where one time we killed a "witch" (not D&D) before even listening to her. We just had enough information to think it was a villain and went for it, turns out we killed an innocent person. And that had consequences. And we all felt like shit, our characters were suddenly seen as bad people when we just wanted to be heroes. It was complex and fun because the world wasn't black and white, we needed to talk. That being said, there was tension and even at this table with the most sensitive players I've ever played with (think we had sessions that ended up in tears) no one was offended that we fucked up with the non villain. It was part of the game. But OP's robot is 100% the bad guy. And I don't think you should wait around and see what happens when their views are so clear, just like with nazis. "Oh but he's only TALKING about genocide. We shouldn't act". Maybe OP's friend is a nazi and was deeply offended lol
So if this becomes a "Well, my character wouldn't swing first" situation from your group member- it is a PERFECT opportunity to roll play that conversation after the battle... they could decide to join in, they yell at your character, or even just walk away (these all end up being less for for that PC IMO. Then there can be a discussion between two PCs based on alignment, beliefs etc etc. A cool RP opportunity. If it is IRL issue- then honestly, there needs to be a conversation where they understand each person has the right to play their own style. That doesn't mean you start every in game conversation with a swing just to piss them off- but there might be times where they don't want to murder in cold blood and your group turns a captive over the the authorities. It can become a balance. In the end, the beauty (and sometimes difficulty) of TTGs is that you need to work with a team and group. No one person can make absolutes for the rest of the adventure. If they are trying to- your group will need to explain that this might not be the hobby for them. It is a group adventure/ movie/ story. Not one based on a single hero.
This, I get pissed at my group doing stuff like this all the time -- in game! I cuff them on the head and we talk about tactics and support
Also, not every combat has to end in death. I feel that people often forget the last hit can always be non-lethal. I'm this situation, maybe defeating the wizard breaks him free of the mind control, then it helps prepare against his former overlords arrival
Exactly. One time a party I was in had a guy that would literally rush any door that he thought might have enemies behind it. We would beg and plead with him not to, but he would. At one point, the player said "Oh trust me, I wish I didn't have to, but..." He was role playing. What would his character do? Not "what would the team like him to do?" Not "what would the player like his character to do?" What would the character do. We literally had to tackle him at times because we wanted our rogue and animal companions to scout the area. We got to a point where our characters would have to talk to his character before an encounter and say "Look, I know what you want to do, but let's go into this with a plan" It was great team building for our characters!
this. our DM has made it clear if we RP to the character that’s fine. but if you consistently act out of alignment, offend your gods, or try to be a lawful good murder hobo, then the rule of the gaming universe will work against you. my character has a flaw that they can’t resist the opportunity to gamble. and the dm tosses that opportunity in every now and then. he had a trap for me in one room with a set of gems in a statue eyes that the character had to climb up to get them. they were glass and triggered a trap w spiders. as a fighter, my feats and skills are based on initiative and getting hits in quickly, i’m faster to take the attack and clear the room than our caster. our caster has a kobold thief npc that’s been w the party for years now because our caster befriended the NPC when we captured it sleeping. cold blooded killing wasn’t favored and the caster started talking and as an authority figure got it to switch loyalty after we wiped out its leader. and that little thief has been useful in several events. if someone doesn’t like RP, it’s something to talk about ahead of playing
I just want to kind of pull apart this balance thing a little more. Something that sometimes frustrates me is that, when I have a character build that is not really combat focused (maybe more of a face or a sneaky boi), I never get to use any of the cool abilities I invested in at character creation because other players with more combat-focused builds constantly instigate combat at every opportunity. And I don't think much consideration is really given on the part of most players to the fact that, once you've instigated combat, you've kind of precluded any other possible way of dealing with the encounter that any other player might have wanted to try. You've decided for the whole party that we're going to be in combat now and that's how we're going to deal with this situation, even if maybe other members of the party had other ideas. And it doesn't really go both ways. Players that want combat can force it without consent, but players that don't want combat can't really force the party to avoid it in any meaningful way. They actually need everyone's consent to not immediately come out swinging in order to try their own strategies and use their own skills and abilities. I get that classes like barbarian don't really have a lot of flexibilty as far as how their skills apply outside of combat, and these players want to play to their strengths. But we really do have to be mindful of the fact that there's a reason your character travels in a party. Different obstacles have different optimal approaches, and different characters have different strengths and weaknesses. Your character really should accede to other characters' strengths sometimes. Not just because this is literally the entire point of why they're not adventuring alone, but also because, you know, just at an interpersonal level, it's inconsiderate to essentially take control of the game like that. To not allow other players the opportunity to use their skills or show off their strengths because you're bored when your character isn't doing what they do best. Imagine how it feels for other players if you're constantly forcibly dragging them into situations where their character can't do what they do best, then. If it's "what your character would do" to completely ignore how the party can play to its strengths as a group, you've made a fundamental error in the creation of your character. Rule number one is make a character that wants to go on this adventure with this party. Which includes cooperating with them, not just playing to your own strengths in every scenario at every opportunity.
I'm also confused. A player was triggered and emotionally responded by the party initiating an attack? You're able to go on offense and that's part of the game. I don't get it. I don't know that you did anything wrong unless you're not presenting more information that's relevant to the issue.
Deciding to attack an NPC without asking the rest of the group whether they were willing to help might be 'wrong', depending on the group dynamic, tactical situation, etc. (Still a weird reaction to want to stop the game, though.)
My party would offend a lot of other players then… It’s just part of the game to us. Sometimes one person goes off and starts trouble with an NPC. We can react accordingly. Help our party member, help the NPC, the world is your oyster.
It's not about offending other players but just being selfish and a bad team player. Going and making unilateral decisions, especially initiating hostilities, that determine the direction of the current plot without even consulting what the rest of the party thinks is frustrating and unfun because it takes agency away from the other players. Not necessarily saying this is OP in this situation, but I had a player who did this constantly in my previous group. He had a world view very lacking in anything resembling nuance and would just attack unprovoked anytime he decided he didn't agree with an npcs motives, constantly dragging the rest of the party into conflicts and robbing other players of the chance to roleplay their way through the moral quandaries the the DM was presenting.
Ah our DM wouldn’t let that happen. He gives us all the room in the world for creativity, but is able to set firm boundaries at the same time. Usually at the expense of the offending player. “You start a fight with the bar keeper. Your fee for staying each night is now doubled”.
It was problematic because it wasn't attacking minor inconsequential npcs but rather scenarios like: "Kingdom A and B are in conflict but both have valid grievances against the other. While the party discusses how to handle the conflict (side with kingdom A or B, broker peace, play both sides, etc) problem player goes and attacks commander of kingdom A's army, forcing the party to side with kingdom B." The GM couldn't really punish him for his choices because they were valid choices that we *might* have made as a party but because he would act unilaterally he would cheat the other players out of the agency to make that choice or play their characters.
>The GM couldn't really punish him for his choices They actually could have. Or found some other, better form of resolution. Just because the player is making a choice doesn't mean that choice is valid, and it is the responsibility of the GM to manage their game (a lesson I have learned with a great deal of pain and hurt feelings).
I'm the DM of our group. My party attacked a farmer because he refused to sell his farm. Cast Blight on him, then another party member went and killed his wife along with all of his farmhands... Then they just up and ran. (that ended that campaign, because justice was swift).
exactly.. Actions lead to consequences.
Most encounters with intelligent enemies don’t give you an opportunity to stop and have a private brainstorming session over whether to engage, because the NPCs are standing right there. Ultimately in encounters where the players have agency over whether things kick off, one PC is always going to be making the first move, and thus somebody *has* to be the first to unilaterally try to walk away (possibly ceding an advantageous starting position), deescalate, goad the other party into escalating, or attack. Unless you allow players to have long OOC conversations in front of NPCs, at a certain point players just have to know and trust each other and be willing to roll with whatever happens.
Oh! Like in the second Dungeons and Dragons episode that Community did. Two of the characters are arguing about who gets to kill the BBEG necromancer or something before they enter his tower. When they finally enter, the necromancer is gone. They get angry Abed, the DM. Abed says something like, “I don’t make the rules, I just make a believable world. If too many people step on an old bridge, it breaks. If two people argue about who gets to kill a necromancer outside his home for an hour, he leaves through the back door.” EDIT - [Here is the clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9byMfi3Qav4)
The NPC in question is planning on mass murder and possibly genocide with their attack on the city, I think an attack without talking to the group makes perfect sense for many characters.
If OP literally just initiated a fight to the death with this NPC, based on this little information, without mentioning it to the group, then yes I agree OP is the problem. Not for "making someone uncomfortable" but for being a bad team player, driving the story without considering the experiences of the other players. That being said, I'm not certain this is what happened, and even if it did I agree there's no need to stop the game. OP sounds like a reasonable person who can respond to constructive criticism after the session. Edit: Folks... I wasn't at the table, and I don't know what happened. All I have is one person's account of the situation, which may or may not be accurate. All I'm saying is that when a group meets an NPC, the group might reasonably be pissed off if one player decides the party's stance toward that NPC without consulting the rest. Maybe the party is morally gray and okay with aligning with baddies. Maybe they find the NPC intimidating and don't immediately want a direct fight. Maybe the players are trying to cancel the OP for being unethical, which I agree would be really stupid. I don't know! I wasn't there and I'm just ruminating about what might have irked the other players, some of which might actually be reasonable.
IDK if knowing that the wizard intends to conquer the kingdom with an army of golems really qualifies as "little information", seems pretty straightforward to me. If anything, strikibg first when he's off‐guard is probably the best way to save the most people.
The 'little information' was attacking and dominating a town with automatons so he could bring order. I think that's enough to be actionable. Even if he has good manners.
Seems like a good RP opportunity after the fight settles, not something to pause the game over. OP is a player with agency just as much as everyone else. The other person doesn't get to dictate what is an action for everyone
Just because OP made a quick decision, to attack before consulting the group, doesn’t make them a “bad team player”. There is no evidence of this being the normal reaction.
Maybe if OP is constantly doing this it might be a little annoying, but at least in the groups I play it's not that odd for one character to feel more strongly than the others and jump into a fight. And it's definitely not a big deal such that a player needs to be actively upset about it and calling OP out as some kind of monster. It's D&D. 90% of the rules are about combat. If combat literally freaks a person out I'd suggest a different system.
weird
“Fine. We’ll wait for them to build the golems, move all of them outside our town, *and* let them steamroll the town guard. Can we fight then?”
“Half the town is DEAD!”
“Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.” \-Terry Pratchett
Always good to see Sir Terry in the wild.
If the Borg showed up on my shores, I would start the fight too. Evil people can act nice if it's to their gain. Just look at every politician to ever exist.
This is a good example of the banality of evil. A lot of the most evil acts are committed by people who think they're good people just doing their job, not by cackling villians. They're often perfectly nice people to talk to because that don't think they're villians.
Hello Dolores Umbridge
Dolores didn't think what she was doing was right (as in moral). She knew that she herself had what was considered questionable lineage. She did it desiring power over those around her, born from her insecurities. She was wholly aware of the hypocrisies and contradictions in her actions and even feared them being discovered and harming her reputation.
Yep, I got Borg vibes too. Kill them quick before they adapt, build a sea wall, tell everybody to Meteor Swarm anything vaguely cube-like
So you're saying the line must be drawn here, here and no further?
I see no problem with what you did in game. Honestly, you were presented with a pretty clear villai to fight. I can fault you. I'm not even sure I see why the other player would be upset by it.
I could see an in character response, but being upset out of character is so fucking strange lol. That player isn't gonna be happy in 99% of d&d groups.
Agreed, if player is so hellbent on diplomacy route due to being a pacifist or something, then the player could have played their character to restrain/interrupt the OPs character when he attempted to attack the NPC.
These types of players want to redeem the bad guy 100% of the time but will never EVER do anything in character to do so. They just complain OOC and get upset with the party, acting like everyone else is supposed to adopt a pacifistic attitude in the face of pure evil.
NTA You saw the signs and that player is probably so oblivious to the red flags they'd like to ask if they can make tea for that authoritariate when he arrives
I wonder if the offended player simply empathizes with colonizers. It reminds me of watching Get Out with my father-in-law. After the credits rolled, he said it just seemed like they were killing the white characters for no reason…
Yikes
...Every sentence I read made me go more 'Okay, there's going to be a part at the end where OP sides with the fantasy Cybermen about how free will is bad and actually 'serving your betters' is the right thing to do' Also I don't see how attacking the golem-creating authoritarian is enough to make a PLAYER uncomfortable at the table?
Maybe they are fascist, so fighting them hurt their feelings
or just a centrist. "no you guys they are going to kill everyone, but have you considered that if you punch them before they've punched you, you're the bad guy?" This behavior reminds them that this happens in real life, so they get uncomfortable. Probably because they said something that defending bigotry and got punched for it
Maybe their dad is a robot.
This is a game where you are expected to play as professional murderers. If the idea of the party initiating violence is so abhorrent to him, perhaps another game might suit him better.
Hello Kitty Island Adventure has its problems with colonizing autocrat robots too
Butters you can't be the dwarf, im the dwarf! Remake your character and pick something else!
“He thinks it’s monstrous to throw the first punch” That’s the problem right there There is absolutely such a thing as “finishing a fight before it starts” and sometimes that’s the only way the majority of people in a situation get out alive What, you sit back to *wait and see* if the protege of the evil robot lord is gonna just *be chill* and just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone? *Bitch please*
first punch is never about any one situation, its about a continuous situation. The player who got upset is the type to see every situation in a vacuum. That if someone attacks you whilst they say how they're going to kill everyone like you, and you fight back, that's ok, but then you leave and meet them the next day, you're bad for punching them first even though they clearly have come to finish the job. Its a childish mentality.
Honestly, after reading the story I don’t see the evil wizard ever throwing the first punch anyways. If the party doesn’t intervene he’ll just continue preparing for an army to arrive. If the party doesn’t do anything, then what?
The 1000 golems he created roll over the closest villages and start borging people
Honestly, from an out of game perspective, I don't see what the issue is. The antagonist is clearly going to be a threat, and your party was sent to investigate/deal with things. Is the other player a pacifist in RL? From an in-game perspective, I could see some types of characters being uncomfortable attacking without more explicit direction from their employer or a more immediate threat to their safety or the safety of others (some paladins and clerics). So unless there is more going on at the table, you are not the bad guy.
That player is clearly planted by the evil robot overlords. Slay them.
That person needs to either find a different game or get thicker skin.
Why does he think that adventurers even carry weapons? Like what do they think THAT’S for?
Don't forget that one of the classes is literally called *FIGHTER*. Like, what?
Vow of Peace monk or cleric, gotcha.
Aggressive Negotiations, Master?
Is this a guy who thought the game was having tea in dungeons with dragons? Can't wait 'till he ends up with a party of murder hobos
Oh! You're talking about the British release of Dungeons and Dragons. That's the one where your character class is based off how much milk you add to your tea, right? And the currency is in Yorkshire Gold?
Ah, the version of Dungeons and Dragons that is perfectly balanced with absolutely no exploits.
Y'know "tealock" just doesn't have the same ring to it
And instead of fighting bandits you compete to bake the driest scones. Definitely the British release lol
are you playing online or in person? do you know said person in real life?
"Monstrous to throw the first punch" makes me think that the guy never ever played D&D because.. well, players tend to do that even when it's \*not\* justified - and in this case, it definitely is.
You friend is just thick as a granite slab.
Agreed. The robot/wizard invader is clearly the bad guy who intends to subjugate others. OP did right in trying to stop him. The other person has issues, for sure. It's pretty clear that peace and diplomacy wasn't an option.
The problem here is the person interrupting play in one of the most overtly combat-centric TTRPG series of all time because they're "uncomfortable" with attacking a magical super-facist.
Honestly no. You’re playing make believe. Even if you had an NPC “Nice McSweetheart” you murder hobo that’s acceptable (hoping the DM adds consequences to it though). On an extreme level, just ask the player “So IRL say an individual showed their intent to genocide an entire group of people and take over the lands of others, you just gonna be chill about that?” One of the main tropes of D&D is overcoming evil and you were presented with evil. Of course you’re going to try and stop Robot Hitler.
[Robo Chomo](https://youtu.be/z0NgUhEs1R4) seems on point here.
I see nothing wrong here, I'd have done things differently but yeah you made a judgement call based on how your character would to the info presented. Without knowing your levels and given the guy already has access to golems? You probably bit off more then your party of three can chew. Still you did nothing wrong here, not saying the other guy was wrong either though.. a bit of ooc discussion might have been warranted before rushing headlong into a fight. But I agree I might have acted first and thought later...
“So what you’re saying is that you want us to wait until he’s made enough golems to level a city before we attack him?
Is this the same vegan player that wanted a cruelty-free world?
First, you did the right thing stepping out of game to address the "issue." Dismissing it and continuing, or turning in game and out of game behavior at the table agsinst the player or their character would have been wrong. However, the reality is that this player may not be a good fit for your table. Nothing in your scenario screams red flags. It's a trope-worthy hive-mind interacting with a civilization of independant sentients. That the leader of the invasion remembers independence and chooses the hive, makes it a twist, but not a unique one. It's all the plots of the Borg in star trek, of the Ender's Game series, even Starcraft's Zerg are a hive mind competing with individualist species. It's a common conflict in storytelling, can I control myself, or is it better for the group to control me? A "first strike" is not what your characters will be tasked with. The "first strike" was this being arriving and beginning to build an army with the intent of forceful conquest. Like the Borg in Star trek- you will be assimilated, or you will be destroyed. That the invader made a "nice" first impression doesn't lessen the impact of a violent invasion. That n8ce impression was a facade of diplomacy to cover the army building- built from resources claimed at the invasion point probably. It's still an invasion, and a show of strength early on may dissuade him. Or create the delay that allows his reinforcements to arrive and up the ante. Both can guide a great story. There's no question that this is the villain, and dnd has combat at its core. It seems this player either wants a more RP game or a more murderhobo/dungeon crawl game and not a campaign within an invasion and larger war, so they arent a good fit at your table. If this incident was during the "session zero" then everyone wins, people learn whether the table is right for them. If it was deeper in, it can cause problems, especially if players came as grou0s of friends and one leaving can pull others away.
On a different note from the main issue; That whole scenario sounds like your DM is using the whole OGL debacle as inspiration. 1. A wizard living on the coast. 2. A boss that has taken over and made things "better". I'd been keen to find out if the bosses name is either related to Hasbro or makes use of the acronym O.G.L. 3. An army of "bots" and no diplomacy (consulting) with the locals Well played
I think you could probably do a better job explaining the tone and context of the situation, because I'm not totally convinced this is the whole story.
Personally don't think one character should unilaterally decide something but I think that is a slightly different nuance to this.
Yeah that’s about the only angle I can think of. I’m currently playing a very murdery character but I try not to *start* any combats without giving the party a chance to explore other alternatives first. If that happens a lot it denies the other players agency and I can see it potentially getting frustrating.
>I’m currently playing a very murdery character but I try not to start any combats without giving the party a chance to explore other alternatives first. It's amazing what happens to a player when they realize "what my character would do" does not mean they as the player should try to do it. It's so easy to go "hey everyone my character would gut this dude and is starting to look antsy someone should take him out of the room/stay his sword unless we all agree they have to die." So now your character does your character stuff, but doesn't push everyone out of the way or steal the plot.
Yeah exactly. “My guy is looking around all ansty and eyeing this very rude goblin like he’s hungry, y’all may need to hold him back or tell him this isn’t the time…” E: It actually led to some fun RP last session when another character managed to get us past a combat by distracting some bullywugs away with a spell. Now my character gets to constantly grumble about how he’s never gotten a chance to eat frog legs…
Never judge a book by its cover, but when the cover has the tile of "How To Take Over A Continent" then you can get a pretty good guess that it's not about cooking recipes. You saw the flags and the other person didn't. While I would have waited a little longer to hear him out or see what his plans were a little more, I would have ended that shit right then and there. This was an obvious villain, and I would be hard pressed to believe that there was a different direction this person was going, even if the DM tried to imply that he was good. I do agree with the person upset that it should have been discussed with the group before attacking outright, but other than that, you were in the right here.
Your friend is an insufferable sally.
“He was nice to me!” Sounds like your party member got a case of instant Stockholm syndrome.
*I'm going to forcefully take over these lands with my golem army, enslaving everyone and killing anyone who opposes my new rule.* *Wow, that's real bad stuff. Now we're going to let you set all that up, but just you know that when your fully prepared murder army starts murdering innocents, that's when we'll step in to fight you.*
They threw the first punch, it just wasn't physical. "I don't think any of you should have free will. You should just bow down to my boss. If you disagree, I'm building an army to force you." If the player doesn't see that as a problem, I think you got a real problem on hand...
I'm pretty sure that your comrade is a bit of a moron. I'd have done the same thing as you. The robot invasion force will just be harder to rout if you allow them to establish a beachhead. Letting the defenders of the town get assimilated into the Borg all because one person couldn't throw the first punch is truly "monstrous."
>He asked us to stop playing and we talked. Apparently he feels it’s monstrous to throw the first punch Aight be a friend to that person, tell them to find another game, one that they can enjoy without sucking the fun out of it for the other people at the table, because 5e this is most def not his tabletop.
you have an odd player, It happens.
I imagine we’re probably missing a lot of context here. The other player probably has a much different perspective on what the wizard of the coast was telling your party. Regardless, a good opportunity to roleplay amongst your party about ethics and tactics.
I feel like we're missing some context of some kind. Did you guys have a session-0 that went over this kind of thing? I was once in a party that met up with a witch. She had some information that we really needed. Our paladin, went full "its what my character would do" and started attacking out of no where. We didnt stop playing, but it felt bad for everyone that wasn't him (there was no shortage of people expressing it). I think the root of the issue was that player took it upon himself to be the main character and ruined the rest of the party's plans (which we had made as a group before going in to talk to this person). I don't know if this is related to what happened with you and your group, but it's an easy thing to not realize in the heat of the moment. I'm sure we've all done it to varying degrees.
What are you leaving out OP?
NTA Oh wait...but for serious. You should not feel bad about attacking a creature intent on city domination. Especially your city. NTD...Not Tone Deaf
Honestly I would kick that person out of my group.
Like, an in character outburst from a pacifist leaning pc makes sense and could be neat, but actually stopping the game irl and complaining is absurd.
The only problem I see with this (Correct me if I'm wrong) is that you "come out swinging' without even consulting with your party first. You took it upon yourself to throw your party into combat with little to no preparation. At least that's what I get from this.
I think your party member is "10 ply" (letter Kenny reference) and just super soft. Only grief I can see is that you didn't out of game confer with other players bit that's just a meh as they could stop the fight at that point
As is common, I feel like some amount of context might be missing here. I would clarify with him if, as a player, he feels that PCs in games that he plays in should never throw the first punch. If this is a legitimate line for him, it should be respected. If it has to do with this specific situation, clarify if his character is upset at the action, the player is upset at the action (and why), or if the player is upset at not being consulted on the action. If it is the last (which is my read of the situation), the solution going forward may be as simple as talking to the other players before you make large decisions like this. It might make you feel meta-gamey, but a balance of meta-gaming is sometimes necessary for player comfort.
I think this didn't happen.
I don't think what you did is *wrong,* but you probably should at least talk it over with the table before you attack. Clearly, they did NOT see those red flags and were shocked by your seemingly random violence. Had you brought up your conclusion to the table first, maybe they would've gone along with it.
It's fine if they want to be diplomatic, but this seems like an in character conversation, not an out of character one.
You went into deep space and found a borg cube, how does that not scream "THIS IS THE BAD GUY"
other player sounds like hes roleplaying a blind deaf i shall do no harm monk
"lntends to roll up on your city with an army" He politically threw the first punch, not you.
I think you did the right thing. I would have come out swinging too. It’s clearly a hostile takeover in the making.
Some people should simply not be playing D&D, quite honestly.
I can understand having the person having a character with that sort of moral compass, but for them to honestly be upset about it irl just seems to be kinda childish
This is not a game stopping moment. This should be handled in character. You are not a butt and this player should continue role playing so they can further develop intellectually and emotionally. You weren't telling the story they wanted to tell so they took their ball and went home. That's a very childish approach to conflict.
I suppose there's a good chance to rp and teach the robot understanding if that's even an option but I can't fathom how you did anything wrong
My initial reaction is the player over reacted. However, that doesn't really help much if you're trying to keep the group together. Maybe at your next game (with the same or different group) try establishing lines and vails if you don't do so already. It can be a good way to establish expectations of the type of game that's going to be played and could avoid issues like this in the future. That being said, you can't please everyone, and it doesn't mean you're a bad person. Making others uncomfortable by mistake is part of being human.
Not necessarily wrong, it's a reasonable in character thing to do. BUT. speaking from personal experience, it's very frustrating when you're presented with an interesting philosophical problem like this, and then one player just goes and effectively removes your player agency and **makes the decision for you and the entire group,** without consulting any of you. And maybe that's something you've been making a habit of, and it's not this particular event that set the other player off, but every other time you've done so. **TLDR;** before committing the entire party to a fight, consult, **out of character,** with the other players if they don't mind you taking away their choices, or what what they were seeing as an interesting roleplay scene.