3

I have been DM'ing for a few years, and due to my upbringing I prefer to run games that don't really allow for what I consider to be evil acts in game. For me, that means using basic common sense and not doing things a law abiding citizen wouldn't do in real life, so no murder, torture, etc.

While I haven't had to enforce this rule very often, there have been times when I've gotten into arguments over what actually constitutes 'evil', and the argument is generally that D&D is a game, and that I am trying to enforce my own value system on the game/players.

Here is the scenario that caused the problem. I created a town in a kingdowm that had increasingly oppressive and binding laws, until the populace got fed up and deposed the ruler. One of the laws that wasn't repealed, however, was the law against selling alcohol. My intention was for the party to solve this problem through using charisma checks in discussion with townspeople to vote to drop the law, thus enabling them to open a tavern as a business for passive money in the game.

The players essentially ignored this and turned into murder hobos, and ended up burning down a different village to get their alcohol. I asked them several times if they were sure, and then started a different encounter planned for later in the game early. I was trying to get them to correct their actions to reflect the house rule on evil, but that backfired and they ended up quitting on the game completely, and I have not heard anything from the group since then.

This was very disheartening for me, and I'm not really sure if I had done something wrong in how I approach the game. What can I do to help resolve, or preferably prevent, situations like this in the future?

NotArch
  • 125,044
  • 39
  • 506
  • 804
PyroTornado
  • 647
  • 1
  • 6
  • 9
  • 2
    https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5357/are-questions-about-alignment-on-topic - I think this question can be worked into a fit but best to read this and understand this problem isn’t limited to your friends... – mxyzplk Jun 05 '19 at 12:16
  • 7
    I think this is important to understand your motivations: why is "your heart" telling you to ban evil acts? Is it really simply to keep PCs from in-fighting or do you just want a game that displays your own sense of morality? – Rubiksmoose Jun 05 '19 at 12:16
  • 5
    The site's most popular question is likely relevant here. – Hey I Can Chan Jun 05 '19 at 12:18
  • 6
    I was just about to ask similar thing @Rubiksmoose posted: what is your real goal? There is huge gap between " the rule was put in place to discourage messing with the party" and "due to my own sensibilities" and first thing first, you need to figure out which one it really is about. Second priority would be listing acts you consider evil and your players do not. – Mołot Jun 05 '19 at 12:19
  • We have a meta on alignment questions currently this question is off-topic, but you could read the meta and edit your question to make it on-topic. – Akixkisu Jun 05 '19 at 12:21
  • 3
    Do I just need to set my standards lower no, you don't necessarily have to do that, but you do need to identify which of these issues is the "at table" play issue that you want to solve: your standards or your players' standards. This SE format works best with question that identify more clearly "what problem am I trying to solve?" framed in a way that there can be an answer that does not rely on opinions. Also, have you played previous editions? If you are importing D&D 3.5e alignment assumptions into this edition, that may be a source of friction at your table. – KorvinStarmast Jun 05 '19 at 12:39
  • 4
    @akixkisu This doesn't really sound like an alignment question. This is a question about the limits of acceptable behavior within the game (and how to create/enforce those limits). It sounds more akin to "I told my players I don't want a game with torture in it, and then my players tortured someone." – AceCalhoon Jun 06 '19 at 14:42
  • @PyroTornado Suggestion: this question seems to have a significant [tag:social] element. Might be worth tagging it, and perhaps even emphasising it more in the question text. – vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica Jun 06 '19 at 14:57
  • 3
    @NautArch the question seems to provide an example - the players decided to burn down a village for apparently quite spurious reasons. – Carcer Jun 06 '19 at 15:07
  • @PyroTornado If you have a few minutes, please pop into RPG chat so we can talk about your question and getting it reopened. I think there are a lot of questions we can clear up and we want to get you some answers. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '19 at 16:05
  • 4
    See Can we save this question about an evil house rule? for discussion about this question. – Rubiksmoose Jun 06 '19 at 16:05
  • 1
    Also if you want to talk about it, please join us in the chat discussion and help us clarify what you are asking. – JohnP Jun 06 '19 at 17:03
  • 4
    @PyroTornado - I have revamped your original question fairly majorly. If you really feel this does not fit the original question you were trying to solve, you are free to roll it back, however the likelihood that it would then remain closed is high. Please either comment or visit in chat if we are misunderstanding the nature of the question. – JohnP Jun 06 '19 at 18:03
  • After these edits it seems like a duplicate of https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/8002/how-do-i-get-my-pcs-to-not-be-a-bunch-of-murderous-cretins?noredirect=1&lq=1. – mxyzplk Jun 06 '19 at 22:00

2 Answers2

7

Set the stage and provide accountability

I've seen this potential problem at tables I've been a player at and I've tried to address it as a DM. From my experience, there are two things you can do to help manage this. One sets the stage and the other manages the experience.

Setting the Stage

The first thing I do when starting a new campaign is to have a Session Zero - or at least cover a lot of the aspects of a Session Zero with the players.

This helps lay the framework for the type of game experience that we're trying to have and it's where things like player character actions can be discussed.

Some of the things I cover are that I try to avoid player vs player activity (stealing, attacking, etc.) as I think in most cases it creates discomfort and distrust at the table. And for my games, that's not the feel I'm going for.

I also discuss that their actions will have consequences in the game world. The world is still a living place and the things done in it, if observed, will be reacted to by the world.

This is the part that leads into the providing accountability.

Actions have Consequences

Once established that their actions will have in-world consequences, they may think twice about killing the random friendly NPC. Or stealing from the shop.

In a recent game, one of my players tried to peak into a cart that was currently being held by the gate guards. They did not try and do it stealthily, but I did have them roll an ability check and compared it against my guard's passive perception. The players rolled terribly and they were noticed. The player characters were under contract from the guard captain and it was reported up and they ended up having some of their pay reduced.

It's not that I want to limit the players, but I want them to understand that this isn't a free for all. That the world will react to them. That not only makes it more of a 'real' environment, but it also makes the players think (hopefully) more about how they're going to interact with NPCs.

Will they enjoy it and will they learn?

The question here is whether or not the players also want this type of game. If they do, great! If not, then you have to come to a mutual agreement as to the game everyone will have fun in and what that means to run it. Or you can also decide that the mix of player desires and your desires don't mesh - and that's okay! The goal here is for everyone to have fun. If someone isn't, then you either have to adjust or move on.

Community
  • 1
NotArch
  • 125,044
  • 39
  • 506
  • 804
  • 3
    So much this. If your players burn down a village to get alcohol, have any NPCs who hear about this react like they burned down a village to get alcohol. They have made themselves a high-end public enemy of the state...adventuring parties should be getting hired to take them out the same way you'd hire them to take out a rampaging camp of orcs. Guards should do everything in their power to repel these characters so their town isn't next. And, of course, 'defenseless' NPCs should be terrified of them. – guildsbounty Jun 06 '19 at 20:14
  • Yeah. You don't have a "house rule on _______" if you don't lay it out before you start the campaign. – Rykara Jun 06 '19 at 21:26
-3

What behavior is ethical and what behavior is not?

This question fuels philosophical debates since the beginning of human history.

  • Is it ethical to sacrifice a few for the benefit of many?
  • What amount of self-defense is ethical under what circustances?
  • What kind of punishment is justified for what kind of crime and who has the authority to administer it?

So far, there is no consensus about these questions. So you can not assume that your players will find the same answers to these questions as you do.

So if you want a house rule "no evil acts", you need to define precisely what acts you consider "evil". Can the players kill a person who threatens their life? Can the players kill a person who threatens the life of someone else? What if the person only intend to cause injury but not death? What about people who cause only material damage (thieves, vandals)? What about people who cause moral damage (slanderers, blasphemers)? And how does all of this translate to creatures who aren't human but have human-like intelligence, creatures with animal-like intelligence or creatures specifically described as non-intelligent?

These are all questions you need to find a consensus to together with your players.

Philipp
  • 12,056
  • 1
  • 32
  • 66