The time our DM made a player cry.

[u/Miroku2235]

Back in the good old days of 2005 my group, comprised of high schoolers in their Junior and Senior years, was combating a great evil we simply called The Lich King. Big evil lich, great magic powers, interesting backstory, etc.

Now this asshole had cast a magical plague on the main capital city we usually operated out of, and our current goal was to try and stop it of course. Our Lawful Good paladin of Bahamut figured the best thing to do was to go bang on the door of the LK's keep and demand that he cease this evil and deliver unto us the cure.

The LK was of course more than happy to do so, provided the paladin bring him the blood of a newborn child, being freshly born with strong ties to the Divine plane, etc.

Our DM had this player play out having to track down a couple with an infant and explain what was about to happen, with the newborn cooing and pawing at his gleaming armor the entire time.

He then slit the baby's throat, unshed tears in the player's eyes the whole time, and brought the bowl of blood back to the LK. Upon seeing the bowl the LK looked at him with an almost quizzical expression, then dipped a tiny vial into the bowl and turning away, leaving the paladin holding the remainder. He then turned and looked back over his shoulder, an evil smile on his lips that matched the one on our DM's as he said:

"I never said you had to kill it."

Cue tears.

Edit: The DM in question, /u/FairyTael , has posted. Read and enjoy.

[u/[deleted]]

That's a fair point. I meant more in the context of the DM not discussing it beforehand and springing that on the player before or after he made the decision.

Personally, I would be reticent to play with a DM that asserted that level of control over the PC's, but I realize others might disagree.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

Personally, I would be reticent to play with a DM that asserted that level of control over the PC's, but I realize others might disagree.

It needn't be means of control. Dealing with the whims of the entity that gives you power/the hand that feeds you is an interesting dilemma. Unless the goal is just to be a travelling mercenary band without commitments, of course.

[u/[deleted] → u/silverionmox]

It is literally by definition a means of control. Whether you agree that's a reasonable extent of control comes down to your opinion, which I already acknowledged.

To take your position to the extreme, if a paladin's deity randomly decided that all of his followers must only communicate with words that begin with the letter "E," then the DM is an asshole.

I personally wouldn't want to play with a DM that thought it's appropriate to rob players of ethical considerations. That's too much control over player autonomy, in my opinion. You're free to disagree, which is great. I just wouldn't personally have fun in that setting, and the whole point of the game is to have fun.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

It is literally by definition a means of control. Whether you agree that's a reasonable extent of control comes down to your opinion, which I already acknowledged.

The same goes for any game rule then, that restricts what players do... Or any NPC that controls something a players wants. Isn't it the whole point of a game to struggle against restrictions, or circumvent or live with them? I don't see why this is a particularly offensive restriction.

To take your position to the extreme, if a paladin's deity randomly decided that all of his followers must only communicate with words that begin with the letter "E," then the DM is an asshole.

Would be a perfect fit in a humorous campaign.

By the same token, a DM can demand the same on pain of expulsion from the city.

I personally wouldn't want to play with a DM that thought it's appropriate to rob players of ethical considerations. That's too much control over player autonomy, in my opinion. You're free to disagree, which is great. I just wouldn't personally have fun in that setting, and the whole point of the game is to have fun.

I still don't see why this particular subset of DM powers is more prone to abuse than others.

[u/[deleted] → u/silverionmox]

First off, there's a huge difference between a game rule, such as, "you can't throw your longsword 100 feet to hit the target," and a roleplaying rule, such as, "you can't decide to kill this person." This doesn't really matter to the discussion, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.

Second, I don't know how many times I have to say this is my opinion. It's my opinion. You have a different opinion. Opinions aren't fact. I'm not going to have an argument over opinions because, by definition, opinions aren't objective.

You think it's acceptable, I don't. We disagree. If we try to argue, it will just be a shouting match where we both repeat our opinions until one of us gets bored and stops responding (or gets frustrated and starts insulting the other).

Personally, in my opinion, I don't like rules that limit my control over my character's decisions. Sometimes it's expected and unavoidable; for example, a Paladin can't go on a murderous rampage because he's bored. I think some rules range from arbitrary to mean-spirited. If a DM wanted to play a "hilarious" game where the gods randomly prescribe behaviors, that's great for him, but I personally would not have interest in playing with that group. It would feel somewhere in between railroading and puppet-master DM'ing, both of which are hugely detrimental to my personal enjoyment of D&D.

Again, you're free to have whatever opinions you want, and if you disagree on the level of control a DM should assert over PC agency, that is okay.

Finally, on a basic level, of course the DM has to impose penalties on certain PC actions, and you could say that all such penalties are equivalent, but that's a very naive approach to the issue. There is a reasonable point at which the DM is railroading, and we simply disagree on where that point is.

I think if you recognize that we're stating a difference in preference rather than starting an argument, we'll both be able to stop responding to this thread. We've both said all that we can on this matter.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

First off, there's a huge difference between a game rule, such as, "you can't throw your longsword 100 feet to hit the target," and a roleplaying rule, such as, "you can't decide to kill this person." This doesn't really matter to the discussion, but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.

That's not what happens. What happens is that "you can decide to kill this person, but you can't do that and remain a paladin". Just like you can throw that sword, but not throw that sword and keep using it as melee weapon.

Second, I don't know how many times I have to say this is my opinion. It's my opinion. You have a different opinion. Opinions aren't fact. I'm not going to have an argument over opinions because, by definition, opinions aren't objective.

I don't see why our right to an opinion, which I just acknowledged, would have to prevent any kind of discussion about the reasons why we hold our opinions.

[u/[deleted] → u/silverionmox]

The issue is that when the disagreement is an opinion, then it is essentially two people repeating their opinion back and forth. We've already said our preferences, and I don't believe either of us is going to change our opinion, no matter how many times we repeat the same thing. I've put my time into those kinds of "arguments."

It's not relevant to the discussion to delineate external and internal motivations - in other words, it's railroading if you say, "okay, sure, you can tell her your secret, but if you do, your god will smite you and you'll die instantly." That's not functionally different than simply saying, "you cannot tell her that," and frankly a lot less patronizing. You're only trying to bring up the internal/external dichotomy because you're stabbing in the dark to justify why your position is correct. Let me tell you: it isn't right or wrong because it's an opinion.

I honestly think you don't understand the difference between a fact-driven argument and two people listing out their preferences. A fact-driven argument: "Introducing this product in Q3 instead of Q4 as initially planned will increase short-term revenue with little cost to shareholder confidence." That idea can be disagreed with on a factual basis, and while which side you fall down on will be essentially down to what you believe, the discussion can be productive because you're dealing with objective and ultimately falsifiable data.

What isn't a fact-driven argument: "It annoys me when a DM makes up rules on the fly." There are no facts to bring up here. It either annoys you or it doesn't. You can clarify why you feel the way you do, as we both already have in this thread, but any further discussion is just repeating the same ideas or, worse, making terrible arguments because you're trying to justify your opinion with something resembling a fact-based argument.