How to roleplay my character's ethics according to the DM when I don't understand those ethics? [on hold]How to add a player who joined after the campaign started?How can a GM justify changing a player's alignment?How to help a player to roleplay the character he created?Optimized TWF fighter level 4How to teach players consequencesDid something very uncharacteristic, not sure where to go (Contains Jade Regent spoilers)How can I deal with a DM I feel is over-exerting control over our characters?How do I keep things serious in a session while keeping the fun?How can I politely explain to a DM that removing player agency is usually bad?How should a GM properly handle the Bluff skill when it's used to Deceive or Lie?

GPL code private and stolen

function only contains jump discontinuity but is not piecewise continuous

Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?

Are all UTXOs locked by an address spent in a transaction?

What can I do if someone tampers with my SSH public key?

Create chunks from an array

Did Amazon pay $0 in taxes last year?

Has Wakanda ever accepted refugees?

The need of reserving one's ability in job interviews

Are there other characters in the Star Wars universe who had damaged bodies and needed to wear an outfit like Darth Vader?

Is divide-by-zero a security vulnerability?

PTIJ: Is all laundering forbidden during the 9 days?

A bug in Excel? Conditional formatting for marking duplicates also highlights unique value

It doesn't matter the side you see it

How can I handle a player who pre-plans arguments about my rulings on RAW?

Giving a talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?

Caulking a corner instead of taping with joint compound?

What is a term for a function that when called repeatedly, has the same effect as calling once?

When was drinking water recognized as crucial in marathon running?

Correct physics behind the colors on CD (compact disc)?

Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?

Can a Trickery Domain cleric cast a spell through the Invoke Duplicity clone while inside a Forcecage?

How do we objectively assess if a dialogue sounds unnatural or cringy?

Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus'



How to roleplay my character's ethics according to the DM when I don't understand those ethics? [on hold]


How to add a player who joined after the campaign started?How can a GM justify changing a player's alignment?How to help a player to roleplay the character he created?Optimized TWF fighter level 4How to teach players consequencesDid something very uncharacteristic, not sure where to go (Contains Jade Regent spoilers)How can I deal with a DM I feel is over-exerting control over our characters?How do I keep things serious in a session while keeping the fun?How can I politely explain to a DM that removing player agency is usually bad?How should a GM properly handle the Bluff skill when it's used to Deceive or Lie?













29












$begingroup$


Recently in a Pathfinder campaign I encountered the following in a combat situation, after our group made an ambush on a castle inhabited by a small Gnoll clan. Our group clearly had the upper hand and the Gnolls started to evacuate the castle. On my turn my Thief went behind a house to get stealth again, but when he run around a corner he just ended up in melee range to a Gnoll who was covering a flank while behind him the Gnoll-children were being evacuated by 2~3 other Gnolls. So I said to our GM that I am gonna make a melee attack against that Gnoll. Which our DM responded to with:




GM: So you intend to kill the children?



ME: No.



GM: So why you want to kill that guard then?



ME: Cause he is threatening me and I am in melee range with him.



GM: He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.



ME: But how my character is supposed to know that? He is currently in melee having a weapon pointed on him, by someone belonging to a clan we just wiped out halfway over the last few minutes. Why would my character take the risk turning his back to that guy?



GM: Cause that's common sense that while guarding the evacuation of the children, he had no reason to start fighting you, if you not attack him. Also keep in mind attacking him would contradict your alignment.



ME: Ok, so since I clearly lack that common sense you talk about, tell me please, what would my character then do instead now?....




So I ended my turn after using my action for moving back to where I just started. This felt very unrewarding and despite I still disagree, that no matter what alignment my character has, he wouldn't have just turned his back to someone pointing his weapon at him, after my character just killed half of that enemies family. No matter what was going on behind that enemies back. But for the sake of this question lets focus on the following:



If I end up again in a situation, where everyone at the table agrees, that the actions I want my character to do are contradicting with what my char would be doing by common sense, how can I solve the situation without giving up player agency, despite I as the player lacking the interpersonal knowledge of what my Character is expected to do by 'common sense'?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Oblivious Sage, Ruse, Blake Steel, MivaScott, Miniman 5 hours ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    20 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    7 hours ago















29












$begingroup$


Recently in a Pathfinder campaign I encountered the following in a combat situation, after our group made an ambush on a castle inhabited by a small Gnoll clan. Our group clearly had the upper hand and the Gnolls started to evacuate the castle. On my turn my Thief went behind a house to get stealth again, but when he run around a corner he just ended up in melee range to a Gnoll who was covering a flank while behind him the Gnoll-children were being evacuated by 2~3 other Gnolls. So I said to our GM that I am gonna make a melee attack against that Gnoll. Which our DM responded to with:




GM: So you intend to kill the children?



ME: No.



GM: So why you want to kill that guard then?



ME: Cause he is threatening me and I am in melee range with him.



GM: He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.



ME: But how my character is supposed to know that? He is currently in melee having a weapon pointed on him, by someone belonging to a clan we just wiped out halfway over the last few minutes. Why would my character take the risk turning his back to that guy?



GM: Cause that's common sense that while guarding the evacuation of the children, he had no reason to start fighting you, if you not attack him. Also keep in mind attacking him would contradict your alignment.



ME: Ok, so since I clearly lack that common sense you talk about, tell me please, what would my character then do instead now?....




So I ended my turn after using my action for moving back to where I just started. This felt very unrewarding and despite I still disagree, that no matter what alignment my character has, he wouldn't have just turned his back to someone pointing his weapon at him, after my character just killed half of that enemies family. No matter what was going on behind that enemies back. But for the sake of this question lets focus on the following:



If I end up again in a situation, where everyone at the table agrees, that the actions I want my character to do are contradicting with what my char would be doing by common sense, how can I solve the situation without giving up player agency, despite I as the player lacking the interpersonal knowledge of what my Character is expected to do by 'common sense'?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Oblivious Sage, Ruse, Blake Steel, MivaScott, Miniman 5 hours ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    20 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    7 hours ago













29












29








29


1



$begingroup$


Recently in a Pathfinder campaign I encountered the following in a combat situation, after our group made an ambush on a castle inhabited by a small Gnoll clan. Our group clearly had the upper hand and the Gnolls started to evacuate the castle. On my turn my Thief went behind a house to get stealth again, but when he run around a corner he just ended up in melee range to a Gnoll who was covering a flank while behind him the Gnoll-children were being evacuated by 2~3 other Gnolls. So I said to our GM that I am gonna make a melee attack against that Gnoll. Which our DM responded to with:




GM: So you intend to kill the children?



ME: No.



GM: So why you want to kill that guard then?



ME: Cause he is threatening me and I am in melee range with him.



GM: He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.



ME: But how my character is supposed to know that? He is currently in melee having a weapon pointed on him, by someone belonging to a clan we just wiped out halfway over the last few minutes. Why would my character take the risk turning his back to that guy?



GM: Cause that's common sense that while guarding the evacuation of the children, he had no reason to start fighting you, if you not attack him. Also keep in mind attacking him would contradict your alignment.



ME: Ok, so since I clearly lack that common sense you talk about, tell me please, what would my character then do instead now?....




So I ended my turn after using my action for moving back to where I just started. This felt very unrewarding and despite I still disagree, that no matter what alignment my character has, he wouldn't have just turned his back to someone pointing his weapon at him, after my character just killed half of that enemies family. No matter what was going on behind that enemies back. But for the sake of this question lets focus on the following:



If I end up again in a situation, where everyone at the table agrees, that the actions I want my character to do are contradicting with what my char would be doing by common sense, how can I solve the situation without giving up player agency, despite I as the player lacking the interpersonal knowledge of what my Character is expected to do by 'common sense'?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Recently in a Pathfinder campaign I encountered the following in a combat situation, after our group made an ambush on a castle inhabited by a small Gnoll clan. Our group clearly had the upper hand and the Gnolls started to evacuate the castle. On my turn my Thief went behind a house to get stealth again, but when he run around a corner he just ended up in melee range to a Gnoll who was covering a flank while behind him the Gnoll-children were being evacuated by 2~3 other Gnolls. So I said to our GM that I am gonna make a melee attack against that Gnoll. Which our DM responded to with:




GM: So you intend to kill the children?



ME: No.



GM: So why you want to kill that guard then?



ME: Cause he is threatening me and I am in melee range with him.



GM: He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.



ME: But how my character is supposed to know that? He is currently in melee having a weapon pointed on him, by someone belonging to a clan we just wiped out halfway over the last few minutes. Why would my character take the risk turning his back to that guy?



GM: Cause that's common sense that while guarding the evacuation of the children, he had no reason to start fighting you, if you not attack him. Also keep in mind attacking him would contradict your alignment.



ME: Ok, so since I clearly lack that common sense you talk about, tell me please, what would my character then do instead now?....




So I ended my turn after using my action for moving back to where I just started. This felt very unrewarding and despite I still disagree, that no matter what alignment my character has, he wouldn't have just turned his back to someone pointing his weapon at him, after my character just killed half of that enemies family. No matter what was going on behind that enemies back. But for the sake of this question lets focus on the following:



If I end up again in a situation, where everyone at the table agrees, that the actions I want my character to do are contradicting with what my char would be doing by common sense, how can I solve the situation without giving up player agency, despite I as the player lacking the interpersonal knowledge of what my Character is expected to do by 'common sense'?







pathfinder roleplaying player-agency






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









Novak

19.1k53679




19.1k53679










asked 21 hours ago









ZaibisZaibis

1,40521937




1,40521937




put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Oblivious Sage, Ruse, Blake Steel, MivaScott, Miniman 5 hours ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









put on hold as primarily opinion-based by Oblivious Sage, Ruse, Blake Steel, MivaScott, Miniman 5 hours ago


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    20 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    7 hours ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    20 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
    $endgroup$
    – Zaibis
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
    $endgroup$
    – SevenSidedDie
    7 hours ago







3




3




$begingroup$
I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
$endgroup$
– Mołot
20 hours ago





$begingroup$
I see the different question in title and in the body. In title it is about ethics you do not understand. In body, it is about reacting to information you have, your character does not have, but ethics you do understand. I'm a bit lost.
$endgroup$
– Mołot
20 hours ago













$begingroup$
@Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
$endgroup$
– Zaibis
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Mołot: Well the ethics aspect is about, I don't understand why someone would act according to what the GM said. The GM gave me information on how I would be expected to act. But as I see it, not understandign the ethics behind the meta information I got told, makes it difficult to consider what else my character would do then. Makes this it more clear to you? Or should I reword the title?
$endgroup$
– Zaibis
20 hours ago












$begingroup$
Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
Ah, this has hit the HNQ list.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie
12 hours ago












$begingroup$
@SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
$endgroup$
– Zaibis
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
@SevenSidedDie Huh? So do I have to do something accordingly?
$endgroup$
– Zaibis
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
No, it’s just observing that it did, which explains why there are so many first-time posters in the answers.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie
7 hours ago










12 Answers
12






active

oldest

votes


















56












$begingroup$

Your GM needs to understand that if you can’t see what’s ‘common sense’ it’s because they failed to explain the situation



Sometimes GM’s forget that they are the player’s sole window on the world. In the situation above if the gnoll guard posed no threat then the onus is on them to make that clear to you before they require you to respond. You can’t exercise player agency in a meaningful way if you don’t know what’s going on.



Once you understand what’s going on you can choose to attack the guard (or the children) or not and deal with the consequences. At this point, if your GM or any other player says “you wouldn’t do that” then they are interfering with your agency. Saying “if you do that, the consequences are X, Y & Z” is not interfering.



Of course, you can debate if killing gnoll children is a bad thing or not - given that gnolls are normally the fantasy equivalent of Ridley Scott’s aliens crossed with a swarm of locusts, there is an argument to be made there; they are quite literally the span of Yeenoghu sent to eat the world. But perhaps in your world gnolls are hippie flower children.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Miniman good catch
    $endgroup$
    – Dale M
    5 hours ago


















15












$begingroup$

To me, it seems that the DM went a little too far and should let you perform your action. Because in the speed of the action, there's no way your character will take a long time to analyse the situation. You see a gnoll guard with a weapon, you attack.



But, as a DM, after you killed the guard, I'll give you this description :




Now the guard is dead, and as you look in front of you, you just see 2 others guards evacuating gnoll children. And you feel bad, because this guard just gave his life to protect children.




At this very moment, I'll let choose between:



  • You keep your good aligment but you'll have to deal with remorses

  • You are now neutral aligment

But, let's back to the abstract question.



I feel there's 2 issues here.



The first issue is that sometimes you can't act properly (according to your character aligment and mindset) because you see the picture differently. The DM should inform and remind you when this is the case. In your specific situation, i think it was done poorly, but the DM did his job anyway.



The second issue is that you don't see how to respect your character ethic when you can't understand it. But i feel you already know how to do it. For instance you know your character will never kill a child, so you won't do it. If you play a character that will never eat meat, i'm pretty sure you'll know how to play it.



But let say your character takes time to analyse the situation. You are attacking a gnoll castle, killing every warriors you see. And now you ambush a guard who is protecting evacuated children. The DM should let you perform an empathy roll (or whatever equivalent in your game) and a success would give your character the information that's the guard has no willing to fight you. With that information, a good aligment character will never attack the guard.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – mxyzplk
    8 hours ago


















15












$begingroup$

To me, this sounds like a disconnect in the importance of "alignment". Alignment is a simplified, post-hoc summary of your characters ethics and actions up to right now; they are in no shape or form a straitjacket1, nor does it dictate how to act; it merely raises expectations.



To answer the question of

"How do I role play my ethics according to the DM?"

I'd answer that

"You don't, you role play your ethics according to you".

The consequences of that usually remain in the hands of the DM.



If the entire group agrees that this isn't an insert alignment action, then you have 2 options: you can back out, or you decide that insert alignment might not have been the correct description in hindsight.



It is not uncommon for players to re-evaluate the alignment they put on their characters, when being compared to other PCs and NPCs.

"wait, this LN NPC acts just like I imagined my LG bard; I guess that LN would be a better fit after all"



It is also not uncommon for the character to actively change alignment, especially in situations like this. If your NG wizards' first reaction to seeing gnolls enter an orphanage is to fireball the place, he would shift to CN, right then and there.




1About not being a straitjacket




A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by
its alignment: snip Alignment is a tool for developing your
character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your
character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same
alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition,
few people are completely consistent.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
    $endgroup$
    – lightcat
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
    $endgroup$
    – ThisIsMe
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael W.
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
    $endgroup$
    – ryanyuyu
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
    $endgroup$
    – KorvinStarmast
    8 hours ago


















11












$begingroup$

This, to me, seems like a situation where the DM should step in and ask if you are certain you want to perform that action - rather than telling you not to take that action. doing something he would not want to do was the right call, but doing so in a way that pulls your agency from that character was not.



What he should have done was ask "are you certain you want to kill the Gnoll guard? He



In a situation like this, it's clear you didn't have the full picture of the situation, and the DM was unaware of that as well. Stepping in to prevent your character from poses no threat to you, and is simply evacuating the children, it might be out of character for you to do so."



If you answer, however, was still "Yes I kill the guard", that's your decision. The DM should not prevent you from trying to do that.




That being said, even if he did not make his argument well, you do say that everyone at the table and the DM agreed it would be against your character's motivation to make this action, then you may want to consider backing out of a decision you've made. It's alright in DnD to make a mistake in assumptions, and to pull back your character's actions once in awhile if the assumptions you made are wrong. It's difficult to understand every scenario, and if the DM explains it in such a way that it would make sense for your character to hold back, you should consider doing so.




In short - you didn't really do anything wrong here, and the DM's heart is in the right place, but he should reel back how much influence he has on your character's actions just a bit. Likewise, you should consider whether or not it would have been wise for your character to take that action. Sometimes, it's okay to back away from your initial instinct.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    7












    $begingroup$

    I think there's a bit of confusion here about what the GM told you.



    There is no way for a GM to describe every little thing, every little feeling that's going on, so yours took a bit of a short-cut here, maybe too much of a short cut - I think he could have done a better job of describing the situation.




    He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.




    Phrased that way, it sounds like the GM is giving you out-of-character knowledge. You are right to wonder why your character would know this, after all he can't read the gnoll's mind.



    However



    It is possible to intuit these things, based on the gnoll's stance and body language - he could have said things that would make it obvious that the gnoll wasn't trying to attack - like that he is adopting a protective stance, that he's deliberately putting himself between you and the children, that he's shouting at you (even if you don't understand gnollish) rather than attacking you directly, etc. This might have been what your GM was trying to say .



    Rather than using words like "common sense" it might have been better to refer to your reading on his motives.



    In answer to your overall question of how to avoid this problem in future:



    First of all, I think your GM needs to be more mindful of the PCs' motives, and therefore more descriptive of how they know certain things. e.g. instead of saying what he said, he needs to give you the evidence as your character perceives it that he was protecting the children rather than attacking you.



    But also you need to be accepting of what the GM tells you, and accept that it's in-character knowledge. He told you, therefore your character knows it or has figured it out. So by not attacking now, you're not giving up player agency, your character is just acting on knowledge he has.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
      $endgroup$
      – pluckedkiwi
      10 hours ago


















    5












    $begingroup$

    Your DM needs to calm down and remember why you're at the table.



    This kind of misunderstanding of the situation in a tabletop game is pretty common. Dale M explains how the GM is ultimately responsible for laying out the situation, and how you can't really be held responsible for making the wrong choice if they give you incomplete information, even accidentally. But, in your scenario, the DM went on to do just that by addressing your concern by clarifying the situation (in an admittedly judgmental and ham-handed way), and your response of asking questions to further clarify - especially once he told you the act would be serious enough to incur alignment shifts - was exactly what you should have done.



    At worst this was the right response for both of you, done awkwardly, to which the only answer is that you get better with practice. But it's not the real problem here: this was a confrontation when it didn't need to be.



    Your DM started off the discussion of conflicting player vs GM views of the situation with the guard by asking if you wanted to kill the kids. That kind of question out of nowhere as it was is what we call a 'gotcha'; it's what we expect out of political flame wars, not tabletop RPG talk. There are tabletop games where confrontation between DM and player is more appropriate, but they are the exception, not the rule. That phrasing sets the tone for the whole conversation, putting you immediately on the defensive, and taking what would have been regular dispute resolution and turning it into an argument. Even if this was his attempt to enforce a line or a veil, you were dealing with the guard, not the children.



    Even your resistance to his attempts to mitigate the problem by clarifying the solution ("How was I supposed to know he wouldn't attack me?") had this introduction to blame, and his fallback on "it's just common sense" didn't help matters either.



    Finally, it's a side point, but forcing you to stand by actions you declared when you didn't have all the information (moving up to melee range) even after the discrepancy has been discovered and dealt with it was a straight up screwjob.



    So, how to prevent it from happening in the future?



    Our table has a saying: "Are you sure you want to do that?"



    When the DM says this, it's a signal that they think we're about to do something incredibly and needlessly stupid. That is my prompt to size up the situation and discuss what I see and what is leading to the decision, and that gives the DM not just a direct feed of what situation they've presented (and how it opposes what they thought they presented), but also an opening to point to the offending element and clarify. And then, we walk the details back until we're both happy with the situation.



    It's all about collaboration and making sure we're on the same page, which you folks were certainly not.



    An example from play:




    Me: Alright, I'm going to pop my water walking spell here to get to the next island.



    DM: Are you sure you want to do that?



    Me: Well, I don't see any way to get to the next island without crossing the water, and water walking is so I'm not going under; what am I missing?



    DM: There's another bridge from the last island you were on.



    Me: Oh! Well I'll check that out next, then. Never mind on the water walking.







    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I attack the gazebo!
      $endgroup$
      – Corbin Matheson
      9 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
      $endgroup$
      – Captain Man
      9 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
      $endgroup$
      – sevenbrokenbricks
      3 hours ago


















    4












    $begingroup$

    A third solution besides attacking the gnoll and not doing anything would be to ready an action to attack the gnoll if it attacks you. This way you are not "turning your back on an enemy" but you are also allowing the gnoll to escape with the children if it doesn't make a move on you.



    I'm not going to try to mention anything about alignment or player agency since the other questions have it covered, I am just trying to point out there is a middle ground between what you and the DM thought your character should do. I don't necessarily think this is what you should have done nor do I think you should have been forced to.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      2












      $begingroup$

      There's a bunch of stuff that could have fitted for a good character.



      Assuming you were Lawful good, you could have told him to surrender, and if he refused, attacked him. If you are more good than lawful, could have given him another chance to surrender.



      Neutral good might have been more keeping watch on him.



      Chaotic good - beats the gnoll up to neutralize him as a threat, but does not try to kill him. Or otherwise intimidates him to drop his weapons.



      You are in a combat scenario, you do not have to be an idiot.



      Your real problem here though, is your group thinks they have a good grasp of morality when they don't. There's no way for you to resolve that. They've decided what they think, and you are not in a position to correct them.



      You can run into similar issues when people around you have convinced themselves they have a decent grasp of other subjects, but their understanding is somewhat shallow. Poor grasp on what actually constitutes decent tactics is common for rpg groups, which seems relevant here, considering the 'good action' was very 'good stupid'.



      This means all of the above suggestions are unlikely to have been recieved well, because "that's not what you are supposed to do", nevermind the gnoll seem to be acting like a 100% predictable actor, which is not what any npc should do, and is not believable.



      So they are likely to do this again.



      Therefore, stay observant how much they try to micromanage your behavior. Also check if tactical situations have logical consequences of a decent depth.



      If they micromanage to much, or if there aren't any real consequences outside of what they expect, and especially if they refuse or are incapable of seeing things from your perspective, that is a red flag to get out of the group.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
        $endgroup$
        – Peregrine Lennert
        14 hours ago


















      2












      $begingroup$

      The short answer is: You can't.



      However, I think the failure here is not common sense, but common knowledge: What is the moral and ethical standing of gnolls in that game world?



      Common knowledge is a large and largely uncodified set of background knowledge that all members of a community are assumed to share: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Common sense is a largely uncodified set of practical judgments that anyone of sound mind is expected to make in ordinary circumstances: If you want to travel west, head toward the setting sun.



      In this case, the common knowledge in dispute includes things such as:



      1. Are gnolls best understood as humans in hyena-suits? Will they leave you in peace if you back off? Do they harbor selfless emotional attachment for their children? If you adopt gnoll children and raise them as human will they integrate peacefully into society?


      2. Or are gnolls best understood as human-shaped hyenas with actual sparks of demonic evil animating their actions? Will they turn to attack you as soon as their larval, unfinished soldiers (which you sentimentally call "children") are safe? Have all past attempts at socializing other larval gnolls resulted in adoptive parents murdered in their beds?


      3. Or is their status uncertain, at least to the players, and therefore a subject of exploration in the game itself?


      Common sense doesn't mean a lot, if the answers to those questions are not common knowledge. My knowledge of Pathfinder is not strong enough to hazard a default answer (In D&D 5e, a common sense reading of the monster manual favors the second answer) but that's almost beside the point. The point is, what is the answer in the your GM's game world and how much of that answer are his players expected to know.



      Therefore: Ask



      The only way you can know that is by the GM telling you, possibly in response to your asking about it. If this really is a case of common knowledge in your game (and it sounds like the GM thinks it is) then asking that question in almost exactly those words-- "Hey, what exactly is the common knowledge about gnolls, morally speaking?"-- is fair game.



      More than fair game, I would say it rises to the level of a responsibility: Your GM has a responsibility to make these things clear in advance as much as possible. But that's a herculean task, so players have a responsibility to ask if they think they're getting crosswise, and the GM has a responsibility to answer.



      The defining characteristic of common knowledge is that it is common. No fair beating up on players if they haven't been exposed to that common knowledge, yet. But no fair hiding from it as players.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$




















        1












        $begingroup$

        Huge amount of stuff to unpack here.



        What is the world/story genre?



        Some games Morality is very black and white. Gnolls are irredeemably evil. Angels are the paragons of virtue. etc etc. Very often, in those worlds the "good guys" have an inherent 6th sense of if a bad guy is being treacherous or if they are truly surrendering. The good guy just knows if the gnoll is going to passively guard the children, or if the gnoll is going to decide the best defense is to kill this scout before he can alert the others.



        Some worlds are like Marvel's Civil War where you have two "Good" characters coming to blows because they have differing ideas what the best idea was. You can be Team Tony or Team Captain, but what the "other guy" did, even if you don't agree, their choices still makes sense.



        So what kind of world are you in? You might simply ask the GM quite often, what is the best (LG, NG, CG, CE, whatever) action for my character to take? Or you might just want to say, "my character does X, Y, and Z - what's my alignment now?"



        For this, spend some time chatting with your GM about what kind of story this is supposed to be, and how you want to play in that world.



        Next up....



        Why were you attacking the castle??



        Was this a good vs evil fight, a simple political fight, or a complex one? Are you driving out a marauding band that has been slaughtering villages wholesale, or are you just evicting some squatters? Is the goal to wipe out the Monstrous Gnolls? (In which case your best options are to slaughter the small monsters before they become a threat, or possibly capture the small monsters and attempt to rehabilitate them.) Or do you just need the building back, in which case using just enough force to convince the Gnolls to leave would be best.



        The circumstances around the castle assault are going to greatly change what might be considered "good".



        How thick is the fog of war?



        Real life example here. Once upon a time I woke up, padded into the kitchen and gave my wife a hug. She was cutting carrots with a 10" chef's knife and didn't hear me. She freaked, and did a spinning slash and just about gutted me. Thankfully I dodged and she missed by an inch (or less) and I'm still alive today.



        Some stories, again, the protagonists know everything and are never surprised unless the plot says so. Sometimes you react without all the information. If you end up in that kind of event, I usually just ask my GM.

        "Hey, I know X, I think my character would know Y and based off that would do Z. Is all of that correct, or does my character know something I don't?"



        TL;DR / Conclusion



        Player Agency is the Player directing his Character('s Actions and Emotions). What the character knows can be directed by the GM (and dice rolls). If you feel there is information that the Character knows (via GM) that the Player does not - ASK! Some times the Why for the character doesn't make sense. That's ok, it happens. Accept that the character knows somehow and move on. Clarify after the game, with the GM, if the world isn't making sense.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
          $endgroup$
          – Corbin Matheson
          9 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
          $endgroup$
          – Zaibis
          9 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
          $endgroup$
          – Zaibis
          9 hours ago










        • $begingroup$
          Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
          $endgroup$
          – Corbin Matheson
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
          $endgroup$
          – Corbin Matheson
          8 hours ago


















        0












        $begingroup$

        Your questions don't match the information you've provided. According to your quote, the GM said that it was common sense that the guard would threaten someone approaching himself and his charges with a weapon drawn. This does not mean it is common sense that you would not take the actions you were taking, nor is taking them necessarily a violation of your ethics.



        All your GM (and your table) are saying in this case is "We don't understand why you're doing what you're doing." and GM is giving an out by letting you know that you can just walk away and there won't be a fight.



        As for the question of ethics... I imagine what the GM is TRYING to say is that its a violation of your alignment because you'd be attacking someone who doesn't imminent threat. If so you and your table are communicating badly all around, and you should probably work on communicating intent and reason, as well as action.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




















          -4












          $begingroup$

          First the GM made a major error in that Gnolls normally are cannibalistic honorless and believe in every Gnoll for themselves in defeat. So normally there would be no guards on the young - except possibly in peace time against minor threats and as a herding convenience action (treatment similar to prisoners of more civilized Gnolls). So the GM has presented a truly UNEXPECTED and exceptional tribe of lawful Gnolls with some semblance of honor.



          Assuming the GM told you these Gnolls are Honorable...You should argue that from an abstract alignment viewpoint you must kill the gnoll guard for failure to do his duty to the gnoll kids. Obviously purpose of these gnoll guards was to give the kids an honorable death in the event of clan defeat instead of being enslaved or tortured as Gnolls would expect as standard treatment by even other Gnolls.



          Furthermore tell the GM that your character is racist and that racism overrides any alignment tendencies that you might apply to interactions with your own species and race and nationality. Its actually historically accurate to say that alignment would vary widely dependent upon who you faced. So in fact you can then proceed to sell gnoll kids as slaves or torture them based on whatever rationale you give for your racist upbringing (e.g. regional bias, historic blood feud, or personal family tradegy). At this point you and GM should probably establish an alignment matrix for common monster races or categories.



          Moreover point to the GM that he already approved this action as consistent with alignment when he allowed you to start wiping out the Gnoll clan. Its too late for GM to apply restrictions on gnoll kids and their guards when it was already clear that you intended to kill all adults many rounds ago.



          You can also be non-racist and play your alignment and still say - yes that you plan to kill Gnoll kids BUT as mercifully and unexpectedly as possible. In fact its a required mercy blow for good guys to prevent suffering of orphaned gnoll kids or allow starting a cycle of future vengence should they survive.



          Bottomline its your character and not the GMs. Tell him to make whatever changes to alignment and consequences that he wants in order to correct how he treats your character in game. But those changes should not be a punishment for his misunderstanding of how your character would act. Any punishments should be restricted to breaking contracts with in game entities. Obviously the GM should simply void any contracts with Gods etc which go not fit his campaign. The GM should retroactively assume Gods are usually smart enough to realize that a character is evil before making a deal -- even if the GM is not. The GM penalties are supposed to be for when you suddenly change the way you handle similar situations.



          Yeah GMs can be left tap dancing a bit after such character epiphanies to reclassify what you are playing and find a best fit class and deity and to alter explanations for past events. (Hey sometimes gods act in mysterious plans where a thief is mistaken for a paladin due to an explainable miracle healing/etc or just a 3rd party monster faking a turn reaction.) Yes players can end up in a situation where NPCs thought their character was a palidin but later discover your character is fighter-thief (which could still be wrong).






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
            $endgroup$
            – Blake Steel
            13 hours ago






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
            $endgroup$
            – doppelgreener
            12 hours ago

















          12 Answers
          12






          active

          oldest

          votes








          12 Answers
          12






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          56












          $begingroup$

          Your GM needs to understand that if you can’t see what’s ‘common sense’ it’s because they failed to explain the situation



          Sometimes GM’s forget that they are the player’s sole window on the world. In the situation above if the gnoll guard posed no threat then the onus is on them to make that clear to you before they require you to respond. You can’t exercise player agency in a meaningful way if you don’t know what’s going on.



          Once you understand what’s going on you can choose to attack the guard (or the children) or not and deal with the consequences. At this point, if your GM or any other player says “you wouldn’t do that” then they are interfering with your agency. Saying “if you do that, the consequences are X, Y & Z” is not interfering.



          Of course, you can debate if killing gnoll children is a bad thing or not - given that gnolls are normally the fantasy equivalent of Ridley Scott’s aliens crossed with a swarm of locusts, there is an argument to be made there; they are quite literally the span of Yeenoghu sent to eat the world. But perhaps in your world gnolls are hippie flower children.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Miniman good catch
            $endgroup$
            – Dale M
            5 hours ago















          56












          $begingroup$

          Your GM needs to understand that if you can’t see what’s ‘common sense’ it’s because they failed to explain the situation



          Sometimes GM’s forget that they are the player’s sole window on the world. In the situation above if the gnoll guard posed no threat then the onus is on them to make that clear to you before they require you to respond. You can’t exercise player agency in a meaningful way if you don’t know what’s going on.



          Once you understand what’s going on you can choose to attack the guard (or the children) or not and deal with the consequences. At this point, if your GM or any other player says “you wouldn’t do that” then they are interfering with your agency. Saying “if you do that, the consequences are X, Y & Z” is not interfering.



          Of course, you can debate if killing gnoll children is a bad thing or not - given that gnolls are normally the fantasy equivalent of Ridley Scott’s aliens crossed with a swarm of locusts, there is an argument to be made there; they are quite literally the span of Yeenoghu sent to eat the world. But perhaps in your world gnolls are hippie flower children.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Miniman good catch
            $endgroup$
            – Dale M
            5 hours ago













          56












          56








          56





          $begingroup$

          Your GM needs to understand that if you can’t see what’s ‘common sense’ it’s because they failed to explain the situation



          Sometimes GM’s forget that they are the player’s sole window on the world. In the situation above if the gnoll guard posed no threat then the onus is on them to make that clear to you before they require you to respond. You can’t exercise player agency in a meaningful way if you don’t know what’s going on.



          Once you understand what’s going on you can choose to attack the guard (or the children) or not and deal with the consequences. At this point, if your GM or any other player says “you wouldn’t do that” then they are interfering with your agency. Saying “if you do that, the consequences are X, Y & Z” is not interfering.



          Of course, you can debate if killing gnoll children is a bad thing or not - given that gnolls are normally the fantasy equivalent of Ridley Scott’s aliens crossed with a swarm of locusts, there is an argument to be made there; they are quite literally the span of Yeenoghu sent to eat the world. But perhaps in your world gnolls are hippie flower children.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Your GM needs to understand that if you can’t see what’s ‘common sense’ it’s because they failed to explain the situation



          Sometimes GM’s forget that they are the player’s sole window on the world. In the situation above if the gnoll guard posed no threat then the onus is on them to make that clear to you before they require you to respond. You can’t exercise player agency in a meaningful way if you don’t know what’s going on.



          Once you understand what’s going on you can choose to attack the guard (or the children) or not and deal with the consequences. At this point, if your GM or any other player says “you wouldn’t do that” then they are interfering with your agency. Saying “if you do that, the consequences are X, Y & Z” is not interfering.



          Of course, you can debate if killing gnoll children is a bad thing or not - given that gnolls are normally the fantasy equivalent of Ridley Scott’s aliens crossed with a swarm of locusts, there is an argument to be made there; they are quite literally the span of Yeenoghu sent to eat the world. But perhaps in your world gnolls are hippie flower children.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 19 hours ago









          Dale MDale M

          108k21280480




          108k21280480











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Miniman good catch
            $endgroup$
            – Dale M
            5 hours ago
















          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Miniman good catch
            $endgroup$
            – Dale M
            5 hours ago















          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          $endgroup$
          – mxyzplk
          8 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          $endgroup$
          – mxyzplk
          8 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @Miniman good catch
          $endgroup$
          – Dale M
          5 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Miniman good catch
          $endgroup$
          – Dale M
          5 hours ago













          15












          $begingroup$

          To me, it seems that the DM went a little too far and should let you perform your action. Because in the speed of the action, there's no way your character will take a long time to analyse the situation. You see a gnoll guard with a weapon, you attack.



          But, as a DM, after you killed the guard, I'll give you this description :




          Now the guard is dead, and as you look in front of you, you just see 2 others guards evacuating gnoll children. And you feel bad, because this guard just gave his life to protect children.




          At this very moment, I'll let choose between:



          • You keep your good aligment but you'll have to deal with remorses

          • You are now neutral aligment

          But, let's back to the abstract question.



          I feel there's 2 issues here.



          The first issue is that sometimes you can't act properly (according to your character aligment and mindset) because you see the picture differently. The DM should inform and remind you when this is the case. In your specific situation, i think it was done poorly, but the DM did his job anyway.



          The second issue is that you don't see how to respect your character ethic when you can't understand it. But i feel you already know how to do it. For instance you know your character will never kill a child, so you won't do it. If you play a character that will never eat meat, i'm pretty sure you'll know how to play it.



          But let say your character takes time to analyse the situation. You are attacking a gnoll castle, killing every warriors you see. And now you ambush a guard who is protecting evacuated children. The DM should let you perform an empathy roll (or whatever equivalent in your game) and a success would give your character the information that's the guard has no willing to fight you. With that information, a good aligment character will never attack the guard.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago















          15












          $begingroup$

          To me, it seems that the DM went a little too far and should let you perform your action. Because in the speed of the action, there's no way your character will take a long time to analyse the situation. You see a gnoll guard with a weapon, you attack.



          But, as a DM, after you killed the guard, I'll give you this description :




          Now the guard is dead, and as you look in front of you, you just see 2 others guards evacuating gnoll children. And you feel bad, because this guard just gave his life to protect children.




          At this very moment, I'll let choose between:



          • You keep your good aligment but you'll have to deal with remorses

          • You are now neutral aligment

          But, let's back to the abstract question.



          I feel there's 2 issues here.



          The first issue is that sometimes you can't act properly (according to your character aligment and mindset) because you see the picture differently. The DM should inform and remind you when this is the case. In your specific situation, i think it was done poorly, but the DM did his job anyway.



          The second issue is that you don't see how to respect your character ethic when you can't understand it. But i feel you already know how to do it. For instance you know your character will never kill a child, so you won't do it. If you play a character that will never eat meat, i'm pretty sure you'll know how to play it.



          But let say your character takes time to analyse the situation. You are attacking a gnoll castle, killing every warriors you see. And now you ambush a guard who is protecting evacuated children. The DM should let you perform an empathy roll (or whatever equivalent in your game) and a success would give your character the information that's the guard has no willing to fight you. With that information, a good aligment character will never attack the guard.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago













          15












          15








          15





          $begingroup$

          To me, it seems that the DM went a little too far and should let you perform your action. Because in the speed of the action, there's no way your character will take a long time to analyse the situation. You see a gnoll guard with a weapon, you attack.



          But, as a DM, after you killed the guard, I'll give you this description :




          Now the guard is dead, and as you look in front of you, you just see 2 others guards evacuating gnoll children. And you feel bad, because this guard just gave his life to protect children.




          At this very moment, I'll let choose between:



          • You keep your good aligment but you'll have to deal with remorses

          • You are now neutral aligment

          But, let's back to the abstract question.



          I feel there's 2 issues here.



          The first issue is that sometimes you can't act properly (according to your character aligment and mindset) because you see the picture differently. The DM should inform and remind you when this is the case. In your specific situation, i think it was done poorly, but the DM did his job anyway.



          The second issue is that you don't see how to respect your character ethic when you can't understand it. But i feel you already know how to do it. For instance you know your character will never kill a child, so you won't do it. If you play a character that will never eat meat, i'm pretty sure you'll know how to play it.



          But let say your character takes time to analyse the situation. You are attacking a gnoll castle, killing every warriors you see. And now you ambush a guard who is protecting evacuated children. The DM should let you perform an empathy roll (or whatever equivalent in your game) and a success would give your character the information that's the guard has no willing to fight you. With that information, a good aligment character will never attack the guard.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          To me, it seems that the DM went a little too far and should let you perform your action. Because in the speed of the action, there's no way your character will take a long time to analyse the situation. You see a gnoll guard with a weapon, you attack.



          But, as a DM, after you killed the guard, I'll give you this description :




          Now the guard is dead, and as you look in front of you, you just see 2 others guards evacuating gnoll children. And you feel bad, because this guard just gave his life to protect children.




          At this very moment, I'll let choose between:



          • You keep your good aligment but you'll have to deal with remorses

          • You are now neutral aligment

          But, let's back to the abstract question.



          I feel there's 2 issues here.



          The first issue is that sometimes you can't act properly (according to your character aligment and mindset) because you see the picture differently. The DM should inform and remind you when this is the case. In your specific situation, i think it was done poorly, but the DM did his job anyway.



          The second issue is that you don't see how to respect your character ethic when you can't understand it. But i feel you already know how to do it. For instance you know your character will never kill a child, so you won't do it. If you play a character that will never eat meat, i'm pretty sure you'll know how to play it.



          But let say your character takes time to analyse the situation. You are attacking a gnoll castle, killing every warriors you see. And now you ambush a guard who is protecting evacuated children. The DM should let you perform an empathy roll (or whatever equivalent in your game) and a success would give your character the information that's the guard has no willing to fight you. With that information, a good aligment character will never attack the guard.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 20 hours ago









          MagusMagus

          917311




          917311











          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago
















          • $begingroup$
            Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
            $endgroup$
            – mxyzplk
            8 hours ago















          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          $endgroup$
          – mxyzplk
          8 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
          $endgroup$
          – mxyzplk
          8 hours ago











          15












          $begingroup$

          To me, this sounds like a disconnect in the importance of "alignment". Alignment is a simplified, post-hoc summary of your characters ethics and actions up to right now; they are in no shape or form a straitjacket1, nor does it dictate how to act; it merely raises expectations.



          To answer the question of

          "How do I role play my ethics according to the DM?"

          I'd answer that

          "You don't, you role play your ethics according to you".

          The consequences of that usually remain in the hands of the DM.



          If the entire group agrees that this isn't an insert alignment action, then you have 2 options: you can back out, or you decide that insert alignment might not have been the correct description in hindsight.



          It is not uncommon for players to re-evaluate the alignment they put on their characters, when being compared to other PCs and NPCs.

          "wait, this LN NPC acts just like I imagined my LG bard; I guess that LN would be a better fit after all"



          It is also not uncommon for the character to actively change alignment, especially in situations like this. If your NG wizards' first reaction to seeing gnolls enter an orphanage is to fireball the place, he would shift to CN, right then and there.




          1About not being a straitjacket




          A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by
          its alignment: snip Alignment is a tool for developing your
          character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your
          character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
          types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same
          alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition,
          few people are completely consistent.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
            $endgroup$
            – lightcat
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
            $endgroup$
            – ThisIsMe
            12 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael W.
            12 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
            $endgroup$
            – ryanyuyu
            9 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
            $endgroup$
            – KorvinStarmast
            8 hours ago















          15












          $begingroup$

          To me, this sounds like a disconnect in the importance of "alignment". Alignment is a simplified, post-hoc summary of your characters ethics and actions up to right now; they are in no shape or form a straitjacket1, nor does it dictate how to act; it merely raises expectations.



          To answer the question of

          "How do I role play my ethics according to the DM?"

          I'd answer that

          "You don't, you role play your ethics according to you".

          The consequences of that usually remain in the hands of the DM.



          If the entire group agrees that this isn't an insert alignment action, then you have 2 options: you can back out, or you decide that insert alignment might not have been the correct description in hindsight.



          It is not uncommon for players to re-evaluate the alignment they put on their characters, when being compared to other PCs and NPCs.

          "wait, this LN NPC acts just like I imagined my LG bard; I guess that LN would be a better fit after all"



          It is also not uncommon for the character to actively change alignment, especially in situations like this. If your NG wizards' first reaction to seeing gnolls enter an orphanage is to fireball the place, he would shift to CN, right then and there.




          1About not being a straitjacket




          A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by
          its alignment: snip Alignment is a tool for developing your
          character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your
          character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
          types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same
          alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition,
          few people are completely consistent.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
            $endgroup$
            – lightcat
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
            $endgroup$
            – ThisIsMe
            12 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael W.
            12 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
            $endgroup$
            – ryanyuyu
            9 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
            $endgroup$
            – KorvinStarmast
            8 hours ago













          15












          15








          15





          $begingroup$

          To me, this sounds like a disconnect in the importance of "alignment". Alignment is a simplified, post-hoc summary of your characters ethics and actions up to right now; they are in no shape or form a straitjacket1, nor does it dictate how to act; it merely raises expectations.



          To answer the question of

          "How do I role play my ethics according to the DM?"

          I'd answer that

          "You don't, you role play your ethics according to you".

          The consequences of that usually remain in the hands of the DM.



          If the entire group agrees that this isn't an insert alignment action, then you have 2 options: you can back out, or you decide that insert alignment might not have been the correct description in hindsight.



          It is not uncommon for players to re-evaluate the alignment they put on their characters, when being compared to other PCs and NPCs.

          "wait, this LN NPC acts just like I imagined my LG bard; I guess that LN would be a better fit after all"



          It is also not uncommon for the character to actively change alignment, especially in situations like this. If your NG wizards' first reaction to seeing gnolls enter an orphanage is to fireball the place, he would shift to CN, right then and there.




          1About not being a straitjacket




          A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by
          its alignment: snip Alignment is a tool for developing your
          character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your
          character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
          types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same
          alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition,
          few people are completely consistent.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          To me, this sounds like a disconnect in the importance of "alignment". Alignment is a simplified, post-hoc summary of your characters ethics and actions up to right now; they are in no shape or form a straitjacket1, nor does it dictate how to act; it merely raises expectations.



          To answer the question of

          "How do I role play my ethics according to the DM?"

          I'd answer that

          "You don't, you role play your ethics according to you".

          The consequences of that usually remain in the hands of the DM.



          If the entire group agrees that this isn't an insert alignment action, then you have 2 options: you can back out, or you decide that insert alignment might not have been the correct description in hindsight.



          It is not uncommon for players to re-evaluate the alignment they put on their characters, when being compared to other PCs and NPCs.

          "wait, this LN NPC acts just like I imagined my LG bard; I guess that LN would be a better fit after all"



          It is also not uncommon for the character to actively change alignment, especially in situations like this. If your NG wizards' first reaction to seeing gnolls enter an orphanage is to fireball the place, he would shift to CN, right then and there.




          1About not being a straitjacket




          A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by
          its alignment: snip Alignment is a tool for developing your
          character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your
          character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
          types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same
          alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition,
          few people are completely consistent.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 12 hours ago









          KorvinStarmast

          80.9k19252436




          80.9k19252436










          answered 15 hours ago









          ThisIsMeThisIsMe

          3173




          3173







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
            $endgroup$
            – lightcat
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
            $endgroup$
            – ThisIsMe
            12 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael W.
            12 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
            $endgroup$
            – ryanyuyu
            9 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
            $endgroup$
            – KorvinStarmast
            8 hours ago












          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
            $endgroup$
            – lightcat
            14 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
            $endgroup$
            – ThisIsMe
            12 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
            $endgroup$
            – Michael W.
            12 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
            $endgroup$
            – ryanyuyu
            9 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
            $endgroup$
            – KorvinStarmast
            8 hours ago







          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
          $endgroup$
          – lightcat
          14 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Excellent point that actions can dictate alignment as opposed to alignment dictating actions. +1
          $endgroup$
          – lightcat
          14 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
          $endgroup$
          – ThisIsMe
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          No problem. I was going to, but i was unable to gather the link yet
          $endgroup$
          – ThisIsMe
          12 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael W.
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Alignments are restricting, though, as long as you want to keep the same alignment. But only then.
          $endgroup$
          – Michael W.
          12 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
          $endgroup$
          – ryanyuyu
          9 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Pathfinder alignment is very restrictive in the game design. For example, Paladins are by definition Lawful Good. If a character stops being Lawful Good, they stop being a Paladin (and are a fallen Paladin). While this might work for this specific situation since Thief isn't alignment locked, I'd caution against alignment shifting in Pathfinder.
          $endgroup$
          – ryanyuyu
          9 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
          $endgroup$
          – KorvinStarmast
          8 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @ryanyuyu might that be a specific case that isn't as critical for ... all / most other classes? (And whoa, maybe we are drifting off topic)
          $endgroup$
          – KorvinStarmast
          8 hours ago











          11












          $begingroup$

          This, to me, seems like a situation where the DM should step in and ask if you are certain you want to perform that action - rather than telling you not to take that action. doing something he would not want to do was the right call, but doing so in a way that pulls your agency from that character was not.



          What he should have done was ask "are you certain you want to kill the Gnoll guard? He



          In a situation like this, it's clear you didn't have the full picture of the situation, and the DM was unaware of that as well. Stepping in to prevent your character from poses no threat to you, and is simply evacuating the children, it might be out of character for you to do so."



          If you answer, however, was still "Yes I kill the guard", that's your decision. The DM should not prevent you from trying to do that.




          That being said, even if he did not make his argument well, you do say that everyone at the table and the DM agreed it would be against your character's motivation to make this action, then you may want to consider backing out of a decision you've made. It's alright in DnD to make a mistake in assumptions, and to pull back your character's actions once in awhile if the assumptions you made are wrong. It's difficult to understand every scenario, and if the DM explains it in such a way that it would make sense for your character to hold back, you should consider doing so.




          In short - you didn't really do anything wrong here, and the DM's heart is in the right place, but he should reel back how much influence he has on your character's actions just a bit. Likewise, you should consider whether or not it would have been wise for your character to take that action. Sometimes, it's okay to back away from your initial instinct.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$

















            11












            $begingroup$

            This, to me, seems like a situation where the DM should step in and ask if you are certain you want to perform that action - rather than telling you not to take that action. doing something he would not want to do was the right call, but doing so in a way that pulls your agency from that character was not.



            What he should have done was ask "are you certain you want to kill the Gnoll guard? He



            In a situation like this, it's clear you didn't have the full picture of the situation, and the DM was unaware of that as well. Stepping in to prevent your character from poses no threat to you, and is simply evacuating the children, it might be out of character for you to do so."



            If you answer, however, was still "Yes I kill the guard", that's your decision. The DM should not prevent you from trying to do that.




            That being said, even if he did not make his argument well, you do say that everyone at the table and the DM agreed it would be against your character's motivation to make this action, then you may want to consider backing out of a decision you've made. It's alright in DnD to make a mistake in assumptions, and to pull back your character's actions once in awhile if the assumptions you made are wrong. It's difficult to understand every scenario, and if the DM explains it in such a way that it would make sense for your character to hold back, you should consider doing so.




            In short - you didn't really do anything wrong here, and the DM's heart is in the right place, but he should reel back how much influence he has on your character's actions just a bit. Likewise, you should consider whether or not it would have been wise for your character to take that action. Sometimes, it's okay to back away from your initial instinct.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$















              11












              11








              11





              $begingroup$

              This, to me, seems like a situation where the DM should step in and ask if you are certain you want to perform that action - rather than telling you not to take that action. doing something he would not want to do was the right call, but doing so in a way that pulls your agency from that character was not.



              What he should have done was ask "are you certain you want to kill the Gnoll guard? He



              In a situation like this, it's clear you didn't have the full picture of the situation, and the DM was unaware of that as well. Stepping in to prevent your character from poses no threat to you, and is simply evacuating the children, it might be out of character for you to do so."



              If you answer, however, was still "Yes I kill the guard", that's your decision. The DM should not prevent you from trying to do that.




              That being said, even if he did not make his argument well, you do say that everyone at the table and the DM agreed it would be against your character's motivation to make this action, then you may want to consider backing out of a decision you've made. It's alright in DnD to make a mistake in assumptions, and to pull back your character's actions once in awhile if the assumptions you made are wrong. It's difficult to understand every scenario, and if the DM explains it in such a way that it would make sense for your character to hold back, you should consider doing so.




              In short - you didn't really do anything wrong here, and the DM's heart is in the right place, but he should reel back how much influence he has on your character's actions just a bit. Likewise, you should consider whether or not it would have been wise for your character to take that action. Sometimes, it's okay to back away from your initial instinct.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              This, to me, seems like a situation where the DM should step in and ask if you are certain you want to perform that action - rather than telling you not to take that action. doing something he would not want to do was the right call, but doing so in a way that pulls your agency from that character was not.



              What he should have done was ask "are you certain you want to kill the Gnoll guard? He



              In a situation like this, it's clear you didn't have the full picture of the situation, and the DM was unaware of that as well. Stepping in to prevent your character from poses no threat to you, and is simply evacuating the children, it might be out of character for you to do so."



              If you answer, however, was still "Yes I kill the guard", that's your decision. The DM should not prevent you from trying to do that.




              That being said, even if he did not make his argument well, you do say that everyone at the table and the DM agreed it would be against your character's motivation to make this action, then you may want to consider backing out of a decision you've made. It's alright in DnD to make a mistake in assumptions, and to pull back your character's actions once in awhile if the assumptions you made are wrong. It's difficult to understand every scenario, and if the DM explains it in such a way that it would make sense for your character to hold back, you should consider doing so.




              In short - you didn't really do anything wrong here, and the DM's heart is in the right place, but he should reel back how much influence he has on your character's actions just a bit. Likewise, you should consider whether or not it would have been wise for your character to take that action. Sometimes, it's okay to back away from your initial instinct.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 15 hours ago









              ZibbobzZibbobz

              5,45432163




              5,45432163





















                  7












                  $begingroup$

                  I think there's a bit of confusion here about what the GM told you.



                  There is no way for a GM to describe every little thing, every little feeling that's going on, so yours took a bit of a short-cut here, maybe too much of a short cut - I think he could have done a better job of describing the situation.




                  He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.




                  Phrased that way, it sounds like the GM is giving you out-of-character knowledge. You are right to wonder why your character would know this, after all he can't read the gnoll's mind.



                  However



                  It is possible to intuit these things, based on the gnoll's stance and body language - he could have said things that would make it obvious that the gnoll wasn't trying to attack - like that he is adopting a protective stance, that he's deliberately putting himself between you and the children, that he's shouting at you (even if you don't understand gnollish) rather than attacking you directly, etc. This might have been what your GM was trying to say .



                  Rather than using words like "common sense" it might have been better to refer to your reading on his motives.



                  In answer to your overall question of how to avoid this problem in future:



                  First of all, I think your GM needs to be more mindful of the PCs' motives, and therefore more descriptive of how they know certain things. e.g. instead of saying what he said, he needs to give you the evidence as your character perceives it that he was protecting the children rather than attacking you.



                  But also you need to be accepting of what the GM tells you, and accept that it's in-character knowledge. He told you, therefore your character knows it or has figured it out. So by not attacking now, you're not giving up player agency, your character is just acting on knowledge he has.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$








                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                    $endgroup$
                    – pluckedkiwi
                    10 hours ago















                  7












                  $begingroup$

                  I think there's a bit of confusion here about what the GM told you.



                  There is no way for a GM to describe every little thing, every little feeling that's going on, so yours took a bit of a short-cut here, maybe too much of a short cut - I think he could have done a better job of describing the situation.




                  He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.




                  Phrased that way, it sounds like the GM is giving you out-of-character knowledge. You are right to wonder why your character would know this, after all he can't read the gnoll's mind.



                  However



                  It is possible to intuit these things, based on the gnoll's stance and body language - he could have said things that would make it obvious that the gnoll wasn't trying to attack - like that he is adopting a protective stance, that he's deliberately putting himself between you and the children, that he's shouting at you (even if you don't understand gnollish) rather than attacking you directly, etc. This might have been what your GM was trying to say .



                  Rather than using words like "common sense" it might have been better to refer to your reading on his motives.



                  In answer to your overall question of how to avoid this problem in future:



                  First of all, I think your GM needs to be more mindful of the PCs' motives, and therefore more descriptive of how they know certain things. e.g. instead of saying what he said, he needs to give you the evidence as your character perceives it that he was protecting the children rather than attacking you.



                  But also you need to be accepting of what the GM tells you, and accept that it's in-character knowledge. He told you, therefore your character knows it or has figured it out. So by not attacking now, you're not giving up player agency, your character is just acting on knowledge he has.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$








                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                    $endgroup$
                    – pluckedkiwi
                    10 hours ago













                  7












                  7








                  7





                  $begingroup$

                  I think there's a bit of confusion here about what the GM told you.



                  There is no way for a GM to describe every little thing, every little feeling that's going on, so yours took a bit of a short-cut here, maybe too much of a short cut - I think he could have done a better job of describing the situation.




                  He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.




                  Phrased that way, it sounds like the GM is giving you out-of-character knowledge. You are right to wonder why your character would know this, after all he can't read the gnoll's mind.



                  However



                  It is possible to intuit these things, based on the gnoll's stance and body language - he could have said things that would make it obvious that the gnoll wasn't trying to attack - like that he is adopting a protective stance, that he's deliberately putting himself between you and the children, that he's shouting at you (even if you don't understand gnollish) rather than attacking you directly, etc. This might have been what your GM was trying to say .



                  Rather than using words like "common sense" it might have been better to refer to your reading on his motives.



                  In answer to your overall question of how to avoid this problem in future:



                  First of all, I think your GM needs to be more mindful of the PCs' motives, and therefore more descriptive of how they know certain things. e.g. instead of saying what he said, he needs to give you the evidence as your character perceives it that he was protecting the children rather than attacking you.



                  But also you need to be accepting of what the GM tells you, and accept that it's in-character knowledge. He told you, therefore your character knows it or has figured it out. So by not attacking now, you're not giving up player agency, your character is just acting on knowledge he has.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  I think there's a bit of confusion here about what the GM told you.



                  There is no way for a GM to describe every little thing, every little feeling that's going on, so yours took a bit of a short-cut here, maybe too much of a short cut - I think he could have done a better job of describing the situation.




                  He is threatening you because he is there to protect the children. If you just lower your weapon and walk away he wont even attack you.




                  Phrased that way, it sounds like the GM is giving you out-of-character knowledge. You are right to wonder why your character would know this, after all he can't read the gnoll's mind.



                  However



                  It is possible to intuit these things, based on the gnoll's stance and body language - he could have said things that would make it obvious that the gnoll wasn't trying to attack - like that he is adopting a protective stance, that he's deliberately putting himself between you and the children, that he's shouting at you (even if you don't understand gnollish) rather than attacking you directly, etc. This might have been what your GM was trying to say .



                  Rather than using words like "common sense" it might have been better to refer to your reading on his motives.



                  In answer to your overall question of how to avoid this problem in future:



                  First of all, I think your GM needs to be more mindful of the PCs' motives, and therefore more descriptive of how they know certain things. e.g. instead of saying what he said, he needs to give you the evidence as your character perceives it that he was protecting the children rather than attacking you.



                  But also you need to be accepting of what the GM tells you, and accept that it's in-character knowledge. He told you, therefore your character knows it or has figured it out. So by not attacking now, you're not giving up player agency, your character is just acting on knowledge he has.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 17 hours ago









                  colmdecolmde

                  1,15867




                  1,15867







                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                    $endgroup$
                    – pluckedkiwi
                    10 hours ago












                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                    $endgroup$
                    – pluckedkiwi
                    10 hours ago







                  2




                  2




                  $begingroup$
                  a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                  $endgroup$
                  – pluckedkiwi
                  10 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  a protective stance only means they don't think attacking is the best tactical decision in that moment. From the gnoll's perspective adventurers are slaughtering their people, so why would they trust that this one will just allow them to escape rather than waiting for a drop in guard so they could attack the children or backstab? It is possible for even 2 good characters (much less a gnoll) who don't want to fight to attack each other immediately - they cannot take the chance that someone who in other circumstances would unquestioningly attack would now be safe to pass by while vulnerable.
                  $endgroup$
                  – pluckedkiwi
                  10 hours ago











                  5












                  $begingroup$

                  Your DM needs to calm down and remember why you're at the table.



                  This kind of misunderstanding of the situation in a tabletop game is pretty common. Dale M explains how the GM is ultimately responsible for laying out the situation, and how you can't really be held responsible for making the wrong choice if they give you incomplete information, even accidentally. But, in your scenario, the DM went on to do just that by addressing your concern by clarifying the situation (in an admittedly judgmental and ham-handed way), and your response of asking questions to further clarify - especially once he told you the act would be serious enough to incur alignment shifts - was exactly what you should have done.



                  At worst this was the right response for both of you, done awkwardly, to which the only answer is that you get better with practice. But it's not the real problem here: this was a confrontation when it didn't need to be.



                  Your DM started off the discussion of conflicting player vs GM views of the situation with the guard by asking if you wanted to kill the kids. That kind of question out of nowhere as it was is what we call a 'gotcha'; it's what we expect out of political flame wars, not tabletop RPG talk. There are tabletop games where confrontation between DM and player is more appropriate, but they are the exception, not the rule. That phrasing sets the tone for the whole conversation, putting you immediately on the defensive, and taking what would have been regular dispute resolution and turning it into an argument. Even if this was his attempt to enforce a line or a veil, you were dealing with the guard, not the children.



                  Even your resistance to his attempts to mitigate the problem by clarifying the solution ("How was I supposed to know he wouldn't attack me?") had this introduction to blame, and his fallback on "it's just common sense" didn't help matters either.



                  Finally, it's a side point, but forcing you to stand by actions you declared when you didn't have all the information (moving up to melee range) even after the discrepancy has been discovered and dealt with it was a straight up screwjob.



                  So, how to prevent it from happening in the future?



                  Our table has a saying: "Are you sure you want to do that?"



                  When the DM says this, it's a signal that they think we're about to do something incredibly and needlessly stupid. That is my prompt to size up the situation and discuss what I see and what is leading to the decision, and that gives the DM not just a direct feed of what situation they've presented (and how it opposes what they thought they presented), but also an opening to point to the offending element and clarify. And then, we walk the details back until we're both happy with the situation.



                  It's all about collaboration and making sure we're on the same page, which you folks were certainly not.



                  An example from play:




                  Me: Alright, I'm going to pop my water walking spell here to get to the next island.



                  DM: Are you sure you want to do that?



                  Me: Well, I don't see any way to get to the next island without crossing the water, and water walking is so I'm not going under; what am I missing?



                  DM: There's another bridge from the last island you were on.



                  Me: Oh! Well I'll check that out next, then. Never mind on the water walking.







                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$








                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    I attack the gazebo!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Corbin Matheson
                    9 hours ago






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Captain Man
                    9 hours ago











                  • $begingroup$
                    @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                    $endgroup$
                    – sevenbrokenbricks
                    3 hours ago















                  5












                  $begingroup$

                  Your DM needs to calm down and remember why you're at the table.



                  This kind of misunderstanding of the situation in a tabletop game is pretty common. Dale M explains how the GM is ultimately responsible for laying out the situation, and how you can't really be held responsible for making the wrong choice if they give you incomplete information, even accidentally. But, in your scenario, the DM went on to do just that by addressing your concern by clarifying the situation (in an admittedly judgmental and ham-handed way), and your response of asking questions to further clarify - especially once he told you the act would be serious enough to incur alignment shifts - was exactly what you should have done.



                  At worst this was the right response for both of you, done awkwardly, to which the only answer is that you get better with practice. But it's not the real problem here: this was a confrontation when it didn't need to be.



                  Your DM started off the discussion of conflicting player vs GM views of the situation with the guard by asking if you wanted to kill the kids. That kind of question out of nowhere as it was is what we call a 'gotcha'; it's what we expect out of political flame wars, not tabletop RPG talk. There are tabletop games where confrontation between DM and player is more appropriate, but they are the exception, not the rule. That phrasing sets the tone for the whole conversation, putting you immediately on the defensive, and taking what would have been regular dispute resolution and turning it into an argument. Even if this was his attempt to enforce a line or a veil, you were dealing with the guard, not the children.



                  Even your resistance to his attempts to mitigate the problem by clarifying the solution ("How was I supposed to know he wouldn't attack me?") had this introduction to blame, and his fallback on "it's just common sense" didn't help matters either.



                  Finally, it's a side point, but forcing you to stand by actions you declared when you didn't have all the information (moving up to melee range) even after the discrepancy has been discovered and dealt with it was a straight up screwjob.



                  So, how to prevent it from happening in the future?



                  Our table has a saying: "Are you sure you want to do that?"



                  When the DM says this, it's a signal that they think we're about to do something incredibly and needlessly stupid. That is my prompt to size up the situation and discuss what I see and what is leading to the decision, and that gives the DM not just a direct feed of what situation they've presented (and how it opposes what they thought they presented), but also an opening to point to the offending element and clarify. And then, we walk the details back until we're both happy with the situation.



                  It's all about collaboration and making sure we're on the same page, which you folks were certainly not.



                  An example from play:




                  Me: Alright, I'm going to pop my water walking spell here to get to the next island.



                  DM: Are you sure you want to do that?



                  Me: Well, I don't see any way to get to the next island without crossing the water, and water walking is so I'm not going under; what am I missing?



                  DM: There's another bridge from the last island you were on.



                  Me: Oh! Well I'll check that out next, then. Never mind on the water walking.







                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$








                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    I attack the gazebo!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Corbin Matheson
                    9 hours ago






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Captain Man
                    9 hours ago











                  • $begingroup$
                    @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                    $endgroup$
                    – sevenbrokenbricks
                    3 hours ago













                  5












                  5








                  5





                  $begingroup$

                  Your DM needs to calm down and remember why you're at the table.



                  This kind of misunderstanding of the situation in a tabletop game is pretty common. Dale M explains how the GM is ultimately responsible for laying out the situation, and how you can't really be held responsible for making the wrong choice if they give you incomplete information, even accidentally. But, in your scenario, the DM went on to do just that by addressing your concern by clarifying the situation (in an admittedly judgmental and ham-handed way), and your response of asking questions to further clarify - especially once he told you the act would be serious enough to incur alignment shifts - was exactly what you should have done.



                  At worst this was the right response for both of you, done awkwardly, to which the only answer is that you get better with practice. But it's not the real problem here: this was a confrontation when it didn't need to be.



                  Your DM started off the discussion of conflicting player vs GM views of the situation with the guard by asking if you wanted to kill the kids. That kind of question out of nowhere as it was is what we call a 'gotcha'; it's what we expect out of political flame wars, not tabletop RPG talk. There are tabletop games where confrontation between DM and player is more appropriate, but they are the exception, not the rule. That phrasing sets the tone for the whole conversation, putting you immediately on the defensive, and taking what would have been regular dispute resolution and turning it into an argument. Even if this was his attempt to enforce a line or a veil, you were dealing with the guard, not the children.



                  Even your resistance to his attempts to mitigate the problem by clarifying the solution ("How was I supposed to know he wouldn't attack me?") had this introduction to blame, and his fallback on "it's just common sense" didn't help matters either.



                  Finally, it's a side point, but forcing you to stand by actions you declared when you didn't have all the information (moving up to melee range) even after the discrepancy has been discovered and dealt with it was a straight up screwjob.



                  So, how to prevent it from happening in the future?



                  Our table has a saying: "Are you sure you want to do that?"



                  When the DM says this, it's a signal that they think we're about to do something incredibly and needlessly stupid. That is my prompt to size up the situation and discuss what I see and what is leading to the decision, and that gives the DM not just a direct feed of what situation they've presented (and how it opposes what they thought they presented), but also an opening to point to the offending element and clarify. And then, we walk the details back until we're both happy with the situation.



                  It's all about collaboration and making sure we're on the same page, which you folks were certainly not.



                  An example from play:




                  Me: Alright, I'm going to pop my water walking spell here to get to the next island.



                  DM: Are you sure you want to do that?



                  Me: Well, I don't see any way to get to the next island without crossing the water, and water walking is so I'm not going under; what am I missing?



                  DM: There's another bridge from the last island you were on.



                  Me: Oh! Well I'll check that out next, then. Never mind on the water walking.







                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Your DM needs to calm down and remember why you're at the table.



                  This kind of misunderstanding of the situation in a tabletop game is pretty common. Dale M explains how the GM is ultimately responsible for laying out the situation, and how you can't really be held responsible for making the wrong choice if they give you incomplete information, even accidentally. But, in your scenario, the DM went on to do just that by addressing your concern by clarifying the situation (in an admittedly judgmental and ham-handed way), and your response of asking questions to further clarify - especially once he told you the act would be serious enough to incur alignment shifts - was exactly what you should have done.



                  At worst this was the right response for both of you, done awkwardly, to which the only answer is that you get better with practice. But it's not the real problem here: this was a confrontation when it didn't need to be.



                  Your DM started off the discussion of conflicting player vs GM views of the situation with the guard by asking if you wanted to kill the kids. That kind of question out of nowhere as it was is what we call a 'gotcha'; it's what we expect out of political flame wars, not tabletop RPG talk. There are tabletop games where confrontation between DM and player is more appropriate, but they are the exception, not the rule. That phrasing sets the tone for the whole conversation, putting you immediately on the defensive, and taking what would have been regular dispute resolution and turning it into an argument. Even if this was his attempt to enforce a line or a veil, you were dealing with the guard, not the children.



                  Even your resistance to his attempts to mitigate the problem by clarifying the solution ("How was I supposed to know he wouldn't attack me?") had this introduction to blame, and his fallback on "it's just common sense" didn't help matters either.



                  Finally, it's a side point, but forcing you to stand by actions you declared when you didn't have all the information (moving up to melee range) even after the discrepancy has been discovered and dealt with it was a straight up screwjob.



                  So, how to prevent it from happening in the future?



                  Our table has a saying: "Are you sure you want to do that?"



                  When the DM says this, it's a signal that they think we're about to do something incredibly and needlessly stupid. That is my prompt to size up the situation and discuss what I see and what is leading to the decision, and that gives the DM not just a direct feed of what situation they've presented (and how it opposes what they thought they presented), but also an opening to point to the offending element and clarify. And then, we walk the details back until we're both happy with the situation.



                  It's all about collaboration and making sure we're on the same page, which you folks were certainly not.



                  An example from play:




                  Me: Alright, I'm going to pop my water walking spell here to get to the next island.



                  DM: Are you sure you want to do that?



                  Me: Well, I don't see any way to get to the next island without crossing the water, and water walking is so I'm not going under; what am I missing?



                  DM: There's another bridge from the last island you were on.



                  Me: Oh! Well I'll check that out next, then. Never mind on the water walking.








                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 5 hours ago

























                  answered 11 hours ago









                  sevenbrokenbrickssevenbrokenbricks

                  2,665826




                  2,665826







                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    I attack the gazebo!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Corbin Matheson
                    9 hours ago






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Captain Man
                    9 hours ago











                  • $begingroup$
                    @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                    $endgroup$
                    – sevenbrokenbricks
                    3 hours ago












                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    I attack the gazebo!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Corbin Matheson
                    9 hours ago






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Captain Man
                    9 hours ago











                  • $begingroup$
                    @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                    $endgroup$
                    – sevenbrokenbricks
                    3 hours ago







                  2




                  2




                  $begingroup$
                  I attack the gazebo!
                  $endgroup$
                  – Corbin Matheson
                  9 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  I attack the gazebo!
                  $endgroup$
                  – Corbin Matheson
                  9 hours ago




                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Captain Man
                  9 hours ago





                  $begingroup$
                  Small nitpick about calling what the DM did a "gotcha" -- There could be a strict rule about not attacking children at the table (this seems somewhat common). It's possible (admittedly unlikely) that the DM was originally making sure the rules were being followed and then was trying to (very poorly) suggest an alternative to attacking their guard.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Captain Man
                  9 hours ago













                  $begingroup$
                  @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                  $endgroup$
                  – sevenbrokenbricks
                  3 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  @CaptainMan I guess you could say that the DM was applying said rule about not attacking children so poorly that they applied it so far in advance to cover the guard as well, but this is a ridiculous level of allowance...
                  $endgroup$
                  – sevenbrokenbricks
                  3 hours ago











                  4












                  $begingroup$

                  A third solution besides attacking the gnoll and not doing anything would be to ready an action to attack the gnoll if it attacks you. This way you are not "turning your back on an enemy" but you are also allowing the gnoll to escape with the children if it doesn't make a move on you.



                  I'm not going to try to mention anything about alignment or player agency since the other questions have it covered, I am just trying to point out there is a middle ground between what you and the DM thought your character should do. I don't necessarily think this is what you should have done nor do I think you should have been forced to.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$

















                    4












                    $begingroup$

                    A third solution besides attacking the gnoll and not doing anything would be to ready an action to attack the gnoll if it attacks you. This way you are not "turning your back on an enemy" but you are also allowing the gnoll to escape with the children if it doesn't make a move on you.



                    I'm not going to try to mention anything about alignment or player agency since the other questions have it covered, I am just trying to point out there is a middle ground between what you and the DM thought your character should do. I don't necessarily think this is what you should have done nor do I think you should have been forced to.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$















                      4












                      4








                      4





                      $begingroup$

                      A third solution besides attacking the gnoll and not doing anything would be to ready an action to attack the gnoll if it attacks you. This way you are not "turning your back on an enemy" but you are also allowing the gnoll to escape with the children if it doesn't make a move on you.



                      I'm not going to try to mention anything about alignment or player agency since the other questions have it covered, I am just trying to point out there is a middle ground between what you and the DM thought your character should do. I don't necessarily think this is what you should have done nor do I think you should have been forced to.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      A third solution besides attacking the gnoll and not doing anything would be to ready an action to attack the gnoll if it attacks you. This way you are not "turning your back on an enemy" but you are also allowing the gnoll to escape with the children if it doesn't make a move on you.



                      I'm not going to try to mention anything about alignment or player agency since the other questions have it covered, I am just trying to point out there is a middle ground between what you and the DM thought your character should do. I don't necessarily think this is what you should have done nor do I think you should have been forced to.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 11 hours ago









                      Captain ManCaptain Man

                      439210




                      439210





















                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          There's a bunch of stuff that could have fitted for a good character.



                          Assuming you were Lawful good, you could have told him to surrender, and if he refused, attacked him. If you are more good than lawful, could have given him another chance to surrender.



                          Neutral good might have been more keeping watch on him.



                          Chaotic good - beats the gnoll up to neutralize him as a threat, but does not try to kill him. Or otherwise intimidates him to drop his weapons.



                          You are in a combat scenario, you do not have to be an idiot.



                          Your real problem here though, is your group thinks they have a good grasp of morality when they don't. There's no way for you to resolve that. They've decided what they think, and you are not in a position to correct them.



                          You can run into similar issues when people around you have convinced themselves they have a decent grasp of other subjects, but their understanding is somewhat shallow. Poor grasp on what actually constitutes decent tactics is common for rpg groups, which seems relevant here, considering the 'good action' was very 'good stupid'.



                          This means all of the above suggestions are unlikely to have been recieved well, because "that's not what you are supposed to do", nevermind the gnoll seem to be acting like a 100% predictable actor, which is not what any npc should do, and is not believable.



                          So they are likely to do this again.



                          Therefore, stay observant how much they try to micromanage your behavior. Also check if tactical situations have logical consequences of a decent depth.



                          If they micromanage to much, or if there aren't any real consequences outside of what they expect, and especially if they refuse or are incapable of seeing things from your perspective, that is a red flag to get out of the group.






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          $endgroup$








                          • 1




                            $begingroup$
                            Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Peregrine Lennert
                            14 hours ago















                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          There's a bunch of stuff that could have fitted for a good character.



                          Assuming you were Lawful good, you could have told him to surrender, and if he refused, attacked him. If you are more good than lawful, could have given him another chance to surrender.



                          Neutral good might have been more keeping watch on him.



                          Chaotic good - beats the gnoll up to neutralize him as a threat, but does not try to kill him. Or otherwise intimidates him to drop his weapons.



                          You are in a combat scenario, you do not have to be an idiot.



                          Your real problem here though, is your group thinks they have a good grasp of morality when they don't. There's no way for you to resolve that. They've decided what they think, and you are not in a position to correct them.



                          You can run into similar issues when people around you have convinced themselves they have a decent grasp of other subjects, but their understanding is somewhat shallow. Poor grasp on what actually constitutes decent tactics is common for rpg groups, which seems relevant here, considering the 'good action' was very 'good stupid'.



                          This means all of the above suggestions are unlikely to have been recieved well, because "that's not what you are supposed to do", nevermind the gnoll seem to be acting like a 100% predictable actor, which is not what any npc should do, and is not believable.



                          So they are likely to do this again.



                          Therefore, stay observant how much they try to micromanage your behavior. Also check if tactical situations have logical consequences of a decent depth.



                          If they micromanage to much, or if there aren't any real consequences outside of what they expect, and especially if they refuse or are incapable of seeing things from your perspective, that is a red flag to get out of the group.






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          $endgroup$








                          • 1




                            $begingroup$
                            Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Peregrine Lennert
                            14 hours ago













                          2












                          2








                          2





                          $begingroup$

                          There's a bunch of stuff that could have fitted for a good character.



                          Assuming you were Lawful good, you could have told him to surrender, and if he refused, attacked him. If you are more good than lawful, could have given him another chance to surrender.



                          Neutral good might have been more keeping watch on him.



                          Chaotic good - beats the gnoll up to neutralize him as a threat, but does not try to kill him. Or otherwise intimidates him to drop his weapons.



                          You are in a combat scenario, you do not have to be an idiot.



                          Your real problem here though, is your group thinks they have a good grasp of morality when they don't. There's no way for you to resolve that. They've decided what they think, and you are not in a position to correct them.



                          You can run into similar issues when people around you have convinced themselves they have a decent grasp of other subjects, but their understanding is somewhat shallow. Poor grasp on what actually constitutes decent tactics is common for rpg groups, which seems relevant here, considering the 'good action' was very 'good stupid'.



                          This means all of the above suggestions are unlikely to have been recieved well, because "that's not what you are supposed to do", nevermind the gnoll seem to be acting like a 100% predictable actor, which is not what any npc should do, and is not believable.



                          So they are likely to do this again.



                          Therefore, stay observant how much they try to micromanage your behavior. Also check if tactical situations have logical consequences of a decent depth.



                          If they micromanage to much, or if there aren't any real consequences outside of what they expect, and especially if they refuse or are incapable of seeing things from your perspective, that is a red flag to get out of the group.






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          $endgroup$



                          There's a bunch of stuff that could have fitted for a good character.



                          Assuming you were Lawful good, you could have told him to surrender, and if he refused, attacked him. If you are more good than lawful, could have given him another chance to surrender.



                          Neutral good might have been more keeping watch on him.



                          Chaotic good - beats the gnoll up to neutralize him as a threat, but does not try to kill him. Or otherwise intimidates him to drop his weapons.



                          You are in a combat scenario, you do not have to be an idiot.



                          Your real problem here though, is your group thinks they have a good grasp of morality when they don't. There's no way for you to resolve that. They've decided what they think, and you are not in a position to correct them.



                          You can run into similar issues when people around you have convinced themselves they have a decent grasp of other subjects, but their understanding is somewhat shallow. Poor grasp on what actually constitutes decent tactics is common for rpg groups, which seems relevant here, considering the 'good action' was very 'good stupid'.



                          This means all of the above suggestions are unlikely to have been recieved well, because "that's not what you are supposed to do", nevermind the gnoll seem to be acting like a 100% predictable actor, which is not what any npc should do, and is not believable.



                          So they are likely to do this again.



                          Therefore, stay observant how much they try to micromanage your behavior. Also check if tactical situations have logical consequences of a decent depth.



                          If they micromanage to much, or if there aren't any real consequences outside of what they expect, and especially if they refuse or are incapable of seeing things from your perspective, that is a red flag to get out of the group.







                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer






                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered 14 hours ago









                          Sam84MoSam84Mo

                          291




                          291




                          New contributor




                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          Sam84Mo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.







                          • 1




                            $begingroup$
                            Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Peregrine Lennert
                            14 hours ago












                          • 1




                            $begingroup$
                            Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Peregrine Lennert
                            14 hours ago







                          1




                          1




                          $begingroup$
                          Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Peregrine Lennert
                          14 hours ago




                          $begingroup$
                          Welcome to RPG.SE! Be sure to check out the tour and the help center if you have any questions.
                          $endgroup$
                          – Peregrine Lennert
                          14 hours ago











                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          The short answer is: You can't.



                          However, I think the failure here is not common sense, but common knowledge: What is the moral and ethical standing of gnolls in that game world?



                          Common knowledge is a large and largely uncodified set of background knowledge that all members of a community are assumed to share: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Common sense is a largely uncodified set of practical judgments that anyone of sound mind is expected to make in ordinary circumstances: If you want to travel west, head toward the setting sun.



                          In this case, the common knowledge in dispute includes things such as:



                          1. Are gnolls best understood as humans in hyena-suits? Will they leave you in peace if you back off? Do they harbor selfless emotional attachment for their children? If you adopt gnoll children and raise them as human will they integrate peacefully into society?


                          2. Or are gnolls best understood as human-shaped hyenas with actual sparks of demonic evil animating their actions? Will they turn to attack you as soon as their larval, unfinished soldiers (which you sentimentally call "children") are safe? Have all past attempts at socializing other larval gnolls resulted in adoptive parents murdered in their beds?


                          3. Or is their status uncertain, at least to the players, and therefore a subject of exploration in the game itself?


                          Common sense doesn't mean a lot, if the answers to those questions are not common knowledge. My knowledge of Pathfinder is not strong enough to hazard a default answer (In D&D 5e, a common sense reading of the monster manual favors the second answer) but that's almost beside the point. The point is, what is the answer in the your GM's game world and how much of that answer are his players expected to know.



                          Therefore: Ask



                          The only way you can know that is by the GM telling you, possibly in response to your asking about it. If this really is a case of common knowledge in your game (and it sounds like the GM thinks it is) then asking that question in almost exactly those words-- "Hey, what exactly is the common knowledge about gnolls, morally speaking?"-- is fair game.



                          More than fair game, I would say it rises to the level of a responsibility: Your GM has a responsibility to make these things clear in advance as much as possible. But that's a herculean task, so players have a responsibility to ask if they think they're getting crosswise, and the GM has a responsibility to answer.



                          The defining characteristic of common knowledge is that it is common. No fair beating up on players if they haven't been exposed to that common knowledge, yet. But no fair hiding from it as players.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            2












                            $begingroup$

                            The short answer is: You can't.



                            However, I think the failure here is not common sense, but common knowledge: What is the moral and ethical standing of gnolls in that game world?



                            Common knowledge is a large and largely uncodified set of background knowledge that all members of a community are assumed to share: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Common sense is a largely uncodified set of practical judgments that anyone of sound mind is expected to make in ordinary circumstances: If you want to travel west, head toward the setting sun.



                            In this case, the common knowledge in dispute includes things such as:



                            1. Are gnolls best understood as humans in hyena-suits? Will they leave you in peace if you back off? Do they harbor selfless emotional attachment for their children? If you adopt gnoll children and raise them as human will they integrate peacefully into society?


                            2. Or are gnolls best understood as human-shaped hyenas with actual sparks of demonic evil animating their actions? Will they turn to attack you as soon as their larval, unfinished soldiers (which you sentimentally call "children") are safe? Have all past attempts at socializing other larval gnolls resulted in adoptive parents murdered in their beds?


                            3. Or is their status uncertain, at least to the players, and therefore a subject of exploration in the game itself?


                            Common sense doesn't mean a lot, if the answers to those questions are not common knowledge. My knowledge of Pathfinder is not strong enough to hazard a default answer (In D&D 5e, a common sense reading of the monster manual favors the second answer) but that's almost beside the point. The point is, what is the answer in the your GM's game world and how much of that answer are his players expected to know.



                            Therefore: Ask



                            The only way you can know that is by the GM telling you, possibly in response to your asking about it. If this really is a case of common knowledge in your game (and it sounds like the GM thinks it is) then asking that question in almost exactly those words-- "Hey, what exactly is the common knowledge about gnolls, morally speaking?"-- is fair game.



                            More than fair game, I would say it rises to the level of a responsibility: Your GM has a responsibility to make these things clear in advance as much as possible. But that's a herculean task, so players have a responsibility to ask if they think they're getting crosswise, and the GM has a responsibility to answer.



                            The defining characteristic of common knowledge is that it is common. No fair beating up on players if they haven't been exposed to that common knowledge, yet. But no fair hiding from it as players.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$















                              2












                              2








                              2





                              $begingroup$

                              The short answer is: You can't.



                              However, I think the failure here is not common sense, but common knowledge: What is the moral and ethical standing of gnolls in that game world?



                              Common knowledge is a large and largely uncodified set of background knowledge that all members of a community are assumed to share: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Common sense is a largely uncodified set of practical judgments that anyone of sound mind is expected to make in ordinary circumstances: If you want to travel west, head toward the setting sun.



                              In this case, the common knowledge in dispute includes things such as:



                              1. Are gnolls best understood as humans in hyena-suits? Will they leave you in peace if you back off? Do they harbor selfless emotional attachment for their children? If you adopt gnoll children and raise them as human will they integrate peacefully into society?


                              2. Or are gnolls best understood as human-shaped hyenas with actual sparks of demonic evil animating their actions? Will they turn to attack you as soon as their larval, unfinished soldiers (which you sentimentally call "children") are safe? Have all past attempts at socializing other larval gnolls resulted in adoptive parents murdered in their beds?


                              3. Or is their status uncertain, at least to the players, and therefore a subject of exploration in the game itself?


                              Common sense doesn't mean a lot, if the answers to those questions are not common knowledge. My knowledge of Pathfinder is not strong enough to hazard a default answer (In D&D 5e, a common sense reading of the monster manual favors the second answer) but that's almost beside the point. The point is, what is the answer in the your GM's game world and how much of that answer are his players expected to know.



                              Therefore: Ask



                              The only way you can know that is by the GM telling you, possibly in response to your asking about it. If this really is a case of common knowledge in your game (and it sounds like the GM thinks it is) then asking that question in almost exactly those words-- "Hey, what exactly is the common knowledge about gnolls, morally speaking?"-- is fair game.



                              More than fair game, I would say it rises to the level of a responsibility: Your GM has a responsibility to make these things clear in advance as much as possible. But that's a herculean task, so players have a responsibility to ask if they think they're getting crosswise, and the GM has a responsibility to answer.



                              The defining characteristic of common knowledge is that it is common. No fair beating up on players if they haven't been exposed to that common knowledge, yet. But no fair hiding from it as players.






                              share|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              The short answer is: You can't.



                              However, I think the failure here is not common sense, but common knowledge: What is the moral and ethical standing of gnolls in that game world?



                              Common knowledge is a large and largely uncodified set of background knowledge that all members of a community are assumed to share: The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Common sense is a largely uncodified set of practical judgments that anyone of sound mind is expected to make in ordinary circumstances: If you want to travel west, head toward the setting sun.



                              In this case, the common knowledge in dispute includes things such as:



                              1. Are gnolls best understood as humans in hyena-suits? Will they leave you in peace if you back off? Do they harbor selfless emotional attachment for their children? If you adopt gnoll children and raise them as human will they integrate peacefully into society?


                              2. Or are gnolls best understood as human-shaped hyenas with actual sparks of demonic evil animating their actions? Will they turn to attack you as soon as their larval, unfinished soldiers (which you sentimentally call "children") are safe? Have all past attempts at socializing other larval gnolls resulted in adoptive parents murdered in their beds?


                              3. Or is their status uncertain, at least to the players, and therefore a subject of exploration in the game itself?


                              Common sense doesn't mean a lot, if the answers to those questions are not common knowledge. My knowledge of Pathfinder is not strong enough to hazard a default answer (In D&D 5e, a common sense reading of the monster manual favors the second answer) but that's almost beside the point. The point is, what is the answer in the your GM's game world and how much of that answer are his players expected to know.



                              Therefore: Ask



                              The only way you can know that is by the GM telling you, possibly in response to your asking about it. If this really is a case of common knowledge in your game (and it sounds like the GM thinks it is) then asking that question in almost exactly those words-- "Hey, what exactly is the common knowledge about gnolls, morally speaking?"-- is fair game.



                              More than fair game, I would say it rises to the level of a responsibility: Your GM has a responsibility to make these things clear in advance as much as possible. But that's a herculean task, so players have a responsibility to ask if they think they're getting crosswise, and the GM has a responsibility to answer.



                              The defining characteristic of common knowledge is that it is common. No fair beating up on players if they haven't been exposed to that common knowledge, yet. But no fair hiding from it as players.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 8 hours ago









                              NovakNovak

                              19.1k53679




                              19.1k53679





















                                  1












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Huge amount of stuff to unpack here.



                                  What is the world/story genre?



                                  Some games Morality is very black and white. Gnolls are irredeemably evil. Angels are the paragons of virtue. etc etc. Very often, in those worlds the "good guys" have an inherent 6th sense of if a bad guy is being treacherous or if they are truly surrendering. The good guy just knows if the gnoll is going to passively guard the children, or if the gnoll is going to decide the best defense is to kill this scout before he can alert the others.



                                  Some worlds are like Marvel's Civil War where you have two "Good" characters coming to blows because they have differing ideas what the best idea was. You can be Team Tony or Team Captain, but what the "other guy" did, even if you don't agree, their choices still makes sense.



                                  So what kind of world are you in? You might simply ask the GM quite often, what is the best (LG, NG, CG, CE, whatever) action for my character to take? Or you might just want to say, "my character does X, Y, and Z - what's my alignment now?"



                                  For this, spend some time chatting with your GM about what kind of story this is supposed to be, and how you want to play in that world.



                                  Next up....



                                  Why were you attacking the castle??



                                  Was this a good vs evil fight, a simple political fight, or a complex one? Are you driving out a marauding band that has been slaughtering villages wholesale, or are you just evicting some squatters? Is the goal to wipe out the Monstrous Gnolls? (In which case your best options are to slaughter the small monsters before they become a threat, or possibly capture the small monsters and attempt to rehabilitate them.) Or do you just need the building back, in which case using just enough force to convince the Gnolls to leave would be best.



                                  The circumstances around the castle assault are going to greatly change what might be considered "good".



                                  How thick is the fog of war?



                                  Real life example here. Once upon a time I woke up, padded into the kitchen and gave my wife a hug. She was cutting carrots with a 10" chef's knife and didn't hear me. She freaked, and did a spinning slash and just about gutted me. Thankfully I dodged and she missed by an inch (or less) and I'm still alive today.



                                  Some stories, again, the protagonists know everything and are never surprised unless the plot says so. Sometimes you react without all the information. If you end up in that kind of event, I usually just ask my GM.

                                  "Hey, I know X, I think my character would know Y and based off that would do Z. Is all of that correct, or does my character know something I don't?"



                                  TL;DR / Conclusion



                                  Player Agency is the Player directing his Character('s Actions and Emotions). What the character knows can be directed by the GM (and dice rolls). If you feel there is information that the Character knows (via GM) that the Player does not - ASK! Some times the Why for the character doesn't make sense. That's ok, it happens. Accept that the character knows somehow and move on. Clarify after the game, with the GM, if the world isn't making sense.






                                  share|improve this answer











                                  $endgroup$












                                  • $begingroup$
                                    @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago






                                  • 1




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago















                                  1












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Huge amount of stuff to unpack here.



                                  What is the world/story genre?



                                  Some games Morality is very black and white. Gnolls are irredeemably evil. Angels are the paragons of virtue. etc etc. Very often, in those worlds the "good guys" have an inherent 6th sense of if a bad guy is being treacherous or if they are truly surrendering. The good guy just knows if the gnoll is going to passively guard the children, or if the gnoll is going to decide the best defense is to kill this scout before he can alert the others.



                                  Some worlds are like Marvel's Civil War where you have two "Good" characters coming to blows because they have differing ideas what the best idea was. You can be Team Tony or Team Captain, but what the "other guy" did, even if you don't agree, their choices still makes sense.



                                  So what kind of world are you in? You might simply ask the GM quite often, what is the best (LG, NG, CG, CE, whatever) action for my character to take? Or you might just want to say, "my character does X, Y, and Z - what's my alignment now?"



                                  For this, spend some time chatting with your GM about what kind of story this is supposed to be, and how you want to play in that world.



                                  Next up....



                                  Why were you attacking the castle??



                                  Was this a good vs evil fight, a simple political fight, or a complex one? Are you driving out a marauding band that has been slaughtering villages wholesale, or are you just evicting some squatters? Is the goal to wipe out the Monstrous Gnolls? (In which case your best options are to slaughter the small monsters before they become a threat, or possibly capture the small monsters and attempt to rehabilitate them.) Or do you just need the building back, in which case using just enough force to convince the Gnolls to leave would be best.



                                  The circumstances around the castle assault are going to greatly change what might be considered "good".



                                  How thick is the fog of war?



                                  Real life example here. Once upon a time I woke up, padded into the kitchen and gave my wife a hug. She was cutting carrots with a 10" chef's knife and didn't hear me. She freaked, and did a spinning slash and just about gutted me. Thankfully I dodged and she missed by an inch (or less) and I'm still alive today.



                                  Some stories, again, the protagonists know everything and are never surprised unless the plot says so. Sometimes you react without all the information. If you end up in that kind of event, I usually just ask my GM.

                                  "Hey, I know X, I think my character would know Y and based off that would do Z. Is all of that correct, or does my character know something I don't?"



                                  TL;DR / Conclusion



                                  Player Agency is the Player directing his Character('s Actions and Emotions). What the character knows can be directed by the GM (and dice rolls). If you feel there is information that the Character knows (via GM) that the Player does not - ASK! Some times the Why for the character doesn't make sense. That's ok, it happens. Accept that the character knows somehow and move on. Clarify after the game, with the GM, if the world isn't making sense.






                                  share|improve this answer











                                  $endgroup$












                                  • $begingroup$
                                    @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago






                                  • 1




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago













                                  1












                                  1








                                  1





                                  $begingroup$

                                  Huge amount of stuff to unpack here.



                                  What is the world/story genre?



                                  Some games Morality is very black and white. Gnolls are irredeemably evil. Angels are the paragons of virtue. etc etc. Very often, in those worlds the "good guys" have an inherent 6th sense of if a bad guy is being treacherous or if they are truly surrendering. The good guy just knows if the gnoll is going to passively guard the children, or if the gnoll is going to decide the best defense is to kill this scout before he can alert the others.



                                  Some worlds are like Marvel's Civil War where you have two "Good" characters coming to blows because they have differing ideas what the best idea was. You can be Team Tony or Team Captain, but what the "other guy" did, even if you don't agree, their choices still makes sense.



                                  So what kind of world are you in? You might simply ask the GM quite often, what is the best (LG, NG, CG, CE, whatever) action for my character to take? Or you might just want to say, "my character does X, Y, and Z - what's my alignment now?"



                                  For this, spend some time chatting with your GM about what kind of story this is supposed to be, and how you want to play in that world.



                                  Next up....



                                  Why were you attacking the castle??



                                  Was this a good vs evil fight, a simple political fight, or a complex one? Are you driving out a marauding band that has been slaughtering villages wholesale, or are you just evicting some squatters? Is the goal to wipe out the Monstrous Gnolls? (In which case your best options are to slaughter the small monsters before they become a threat, or possibly capture the small monsters and attempt to rehabilitate them.) Or do you just need the building back, in which case using just enough force to convince the Gnolls to leave would be best.



                                  The circumstances around the castle assault are going to greatly change what might be considered "good".



                                  How thick is the fog of war?



                                  Real life example here. Once upon a time I woke up, padded into the kitchen and gave my wife a hug. She was cutting carrots with a 10" chef's knife and didn't hear me. She freaked, and did a spinning slash and just about gutted me. Thankfully I dodged and she missed by an inch (or less) and I'm still alive today.



                                  Some stories, again, the protagonists know everything and are never surprised unless the plot says so. Sometimes you react without all the information. If you end up in that kind of event, I usually just ask my GM.

                                  "Hey, I know X, I think my character would know Y and based off that would do Z. Is all of that correct, or does my character know something I don't?"



                                  TL;DR / Conclusion



                                  Player Agency is the Player directing his Character('s Actions and Emotions). What the character knows can be directed by the GM (and dice rolls). If you feel there is information that the Character knows (via GM) that the Player does not - ASK! Some times the Why for the character doesn't make sense. That's ok, it happens. Accept that the character knows somehow and move on. Clarify after the game, with the GM, if the world isn't making sense.






                                  share|improve this answer











                                  $endgroup$



                                  Huge amount of stuff to unpack here.



                                  What is the world/story genre?



                                  Some games Morality is very black and white. Gnolls are irredeemably evil. Angels are the paragons of virtue. etc etc. Very often, in those worlds the "good guys" have an inherent 6th sense of if a bad guy is being treacherous or if they are truly surrendering. The good guy just knows if the gnoll is going to passively guard the children, or if the gnoll is going to decide the best defense is to kill this scout before he can alert the others.



                                  Some worlds are like Marvel's Civil War where you have two "Good" characters coming to blows because they have differing ideas what the best idea was. You can be Team Tony or Team Captain, but what the "other guy" did, even if you don't agree, their choices still makes sense.



                                  So what kind of world are you in? You might simply ask the GM quite often, what is the best (LG, NG, CG, CE, whatever) action for my character to take? Or you might just want to say, "my character does X, Y, and Z - what's my alignment now?"



                                  For this, spend some time chatting with your GM about what kind of story this is supposed to be, and how you want to play in that world.



                                  Next up....



                                  Why were you attacking the castle??



                                  Was this a good vs evil fight, a simple political fight, or a complex one? Are you driving out a marauding band that has been slaughtering villages wholesale, or are you just evicting some squatters? Is the goal to wipe out the Monstrous Gnolls? (In which case your best options are to slaughter the small monsters before they become a threat, or possibly capture the small monsters and attempt to rehabilitate them.) Or do you just need the building back, in which case using just enough force to convince the Gnolls to leave would be best.



                                  The circumstances around the castle assault are going to greatly change what might be considered "good".



                                  How thick is the fog of war?



                                  Real life example here. Once upon a time I woke up, padded into the kitchen and gave my wife a hug. She was cutting carrots with a 10" chef's knife and didn't hear me. She freaked, and did a spinning slash and just about gutted me. Thankfully I dodged and she missed by an inch (or less) and I'm still alive today.



                                  Some stories, again, the protagonists know everything and are never surprised unless the plot says so. Sometimes you react without all the information. If you end up in that kind of event, I usually just ask my GM.

                                  "Hey, I know X, I think my character would know Y and based off that would do Z. Is all of that correct, or does my character know something I don't?"



                                  TL;DR / Conclusion



                                  Player Agency is the Player directing his Character('s Actions and Emotions). What the character knows can be directed by the GM (and dice rolls). If you feel there is information that the Character knows (via GM) that the Player does not - ASK! Some times the Why for the character doesn't make sense. That's ok, it happens. Accept that the character knows somehow and move on. Clarify after the game, with the GM, if the world isn't making sense.







                                  share|improve this answer














                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer








                                  edited 9 hours ago

























                                  answered 12 hours ago









                                  Corbin MathesonCorbin Matheson

                                  32914




                                  32914











                                  • $begingroup$
                                    @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago






                                  • 1




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago
















                                  • $begingroup$
                                    @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Zaibis
                                    9 hours ago










                                  • $begingroup$
                                    Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago






                                  • 1




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – Corbin Matheson
                                    8 hours ago















                                  $begingroup$
                                  @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  9 hours ago




                                  $begingroup$
                                  @KorvinStarmast thanks for the edits!
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  9 hours ago












                                  $begingroup$
                                  Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Zaibis
                                  9 hours ago




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Ironically.... We where kinda railroaded to the castle. So actually the reason for assaulting it was.... loot. 😅
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Zaibis
                                  9 hours ago












                                  $begingroup$
                                  And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Zaibis
                                  9 hours ago




                                  $begingroup$
                                  And the problem for the alignment change was, for the campaign chaotic/evil characters are not allowed.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Zaibis
                                  9 hours ago












                                  $begingroup$
                                  Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  8 hours ago




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Probably the surest sign I've gotten old, cynical and jaded. I don't much care for stark good vs evil games anymore because they require me to have the exact same moral values as the GM for every little detail. When you start pulling in monster children it gets murky FAST. Its totally Lawful Good for me to attack their home and kill residents to loot their corpses and ransack their bedrooms.... But killing a guard because he had children with him..... Nope, thats Evil.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  8 hours ago




                                  1




                                  1




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  8 hours ago




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Highly recommend you spend an hour or three with your GM quizzing him on D&D flavored permutations of the trolley problem until you have a firm grasp on what is and isn't "Evil".
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – Corbin Matheson
                                  8 hours ago











                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Your questions don't match the information you've provided. According to your quote, the GM said that it was common sense that the guard would threaten someone approaching himself and his charges with a weapon drawn. This does not mean it is common sense that you would not take the actions you were taking, nor is taking them necessarily a violation of your ethics.



                                  All your GM (and your table) are saying in this case is "We don't understand why you're doing what you're doing." and GM is giving an out by letting you know that you can just walk away and there won't be a fight.



                                  As for the question of ethics... I imagine what the GM is TRYING to say is that its a violation of your alignment because you'd be attacking someone who doesn't imminent threat. If so you and your table are communicating badly all around, and you should probably work on communicating intent and reason, as well as action.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$

















                                    0












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Your questions don't match the information you've provided. According to your quote, the GM said that it was common sense that the guard would threaten someone approaching himself and his charges with a weapon drawn. This does not mean it is common sense that you would not take the actions you were taking, nor is taking them necessarily a violation of your ethics.



                                    All your GM (and your table) are saying in this case is "We don't understand why you're doing what you're doing." and GM is giving an out by letting you know that you can just walk away and there won't be a fight.



                                    As for the question of ethics... I imagine what the GM is TRYING to say is that its a violation of your alignment because you'd be attacking someone who doesn't imminent threat. If so you and your table are communicating badly all around, and you should probably work on communicating intent and reason, as well as action.






                                    share|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$















                                      0












                                      0








                                      0





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Your questions don't match the information you've provided. According to your quote, the GM said that it was common sense that the guard would threaten someone approaching himself and his charges with a weapon drawn. This does not mean it is common sense that you would not take the actions you were taking, nor is taking them necessarily a violation of your ethics.



                                      All your GM (and your table) are saying in this case is "We don't understand why you're doing what you're doing." and GM is giving an out by letting you know that you can just walk away and there won't be a fight.



                                      As for the question of ethics... I imagine what the GM is TRYING to say is that its a violation of your alignment because you'd be attacking someone who doesn't imminent threat. If so you and your table are communicating badly all around, and you should probably work on communicating intent and reason, as well as action.






                                      share|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      Your questions don't match the information you've provided. According to your quote, the GM said that it was common sense that the guard would threaten someone approaching himself and his charges with a weapon drawn. This does not mean it is common sense that you would not take the actions you were taking, nor is taking them necessarily a violation of your ethics.



                                      All your GM (and your table) are saying in this case is "We don't understand why you're doing what you're doing." and GM is giving an out by letting you know that you can just walk away and there won't be a fight.



                                      As for the question of ethics... I imagine what the GM is TRYING to say is that its a violation of your alignment because you'd be attacking someone who doesn't imminent threat. If so you and your table are communicating badly all around, and you should probably work on communicating intent and reason, as well as action.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 11 hours ago









                                      Wesley ObenshainWesley Obenshain

                                      8,3392355




                                      8,3392355





















                                          -4












                                          $begingroup$

                                          First the GM made a major error in that Gnolls normally are cannibalistic honorless and believe in every Gnoll for themselves in defeat. So normally there would be no guards on the young - except possibly in peace time against minor threats and as a herding convenience action (treatment similar to prisoners of more civilized Gnolls). So the GM has presented a truly UNEXPECTED and exceptional tribe of lawful Gnolls with some semblance of honor.



                                          Assuming the GM told you these Gnolls are Honorable...You should argue that from an abstract alignment viewpoint you must kill the gnoll guard for failure to do his duty to the gnoll kids. Obviously purpose of these gnoll guards was to give the kids an honorable death in the event of clan defeat instead of being enslaved or tortured as Gnolls would expect as standard treatment by even other Gnolls.



                                          Furthermore tell the GM that your character is racist and that racism overrides any alignment tendencies that you might apply to interactions with your own species and race and nationality. Its actually historically accurate to say that alignment would vary widely dependent upon who you faced. So in fact you can then proceed to sell gnoll kids as slaves or torture them based on whatever rationale you give for your racist upbringing (e.g. regional bias, historic blood feud, or personal family tradegy). At this point you and GM should probably establish an alignment matrix for common monster races or categories.



                                          Moreover point to the GM that he already approved this action as consistent with alignment when he allowed you to start wiping out the Gnoll clan. Its too late for GM to apply restrictions on gnoll kids and their guards when it was already clear that you intended to kill all adults many rounds ago.



                                          You can also be non-racist and play your alignment and still say - yes that you plan to kill Gnoll kids BUT as mercifully and unexpectedly as possible. In fact its a required mercy blow for good guys to prevent suffering of orphaned gnoll kids or allow starting a cycle of future vengence should they survive.



                                          Bottomline its your character and not the GMs. Tell him to make whatever changes to alignment and consequences that he wants in order to correct how he treats your character in game. But those changes should not be a punishment for his misunderstanding of how your character would act. Any punishments should be restricted to breaking contracts with in game entities. Obviously the GM should simply void any contracts with Gods etc which go not fit his campaign. The GM should retroactively assume Gods are usually smart enough to realize that a character is evil before making a deal -- even if the GM is not. The GM penalties are supposed to be for when you suddenly change the way you handle similar situations.



                                          Yeah GMs can be left tap dancing a bit after such character epiphanies to reclassify what you are playing and find a best fit class and deity and to alter explanations for past events. (Hey sometimes gods act in mysterious plans where a thief is mistaken for a paladin due to an explainable miracle healing/etc or just a 3rd party monster faking a turn reaction.) Yes players can end up in a situation where NPCs thought their character was a palidin but later discover your character is fighter-thief (which could still be wrong).






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                          $endgroup$



                                          We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.









                                          • 2




                                            $begingroup$
                                            This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Blake Steel
                                            13 hours ago






                                          • 3




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – doppelgreener
                                            12 hours ago















                                          -4












                                          $begingroup$

                                          First the GM made a major error in that Gnolls normally are cannibalistic honorless and believe in every Gnoll for themselves in defeat. So normally there would be no guards on the young - except possibly in peace time against minor threats and as a herding convenience action (treatment similar to prisoners of more civilized Gnolls). So the GM has presented a truly UNEXPECTED and exceptional tribe of lawful Gnolls with some semblance of honor.



                                          Assuming the GM told you these Gnolls are Honorable...You should argue that from an abstract alignment viewpoint you must kill the gnoll guard for failure to do his duty to the gnoll kids. Obviously purpose of these gnoll guards was to give the kids an honorable death in the event of clan defeat instead of being enslaved or tortured as Gnolls would expect as standard treatment by even other Gnolls.



                                          Furthermore tell the GM that your character is racist and that racism overrides any alignment tendencies that you might apply to interactions with your own species and race and nationality. Its actually historically accurate to say that alignment would vary widely dependent upon who you faced. So in fact you can then proceed to sell gnoll kids as slaves or torture them based on whatever rationale you give for your racist upbringing (e.g. regional bias, historic blood feud, or personal family tradegy). At this point you and GM should probably establish an alignment matrix for common monster races or categories.



                                          Moreover point to the GM that he already approved this action as consistent with alignment when he allowed you to start wiping out the Gnoll clan. Its too late for GM to apply restrictions on gnoll kids and their guards when it was already clear that you intended to kill all adults many rounds ago.



                                          You can also be non-racist and play your alignment and still say - yes that you plan to kill Gnoll kids BUT as mercifully and unexpectedly as possible. In fact its a required mercy blow for good guys to prevent suffering of orphaned gnoll kids or allow starting a cycle of future vengence should they survive.



                                          Bottomline its your character and not the GMs. Tell him to make whatever changes to alignment and consequences that he wants in order to correct how he treats your character in game. But those changes should not be a punishment for his misunderstanding of how your character would act. Any punishments should be restricted to breaking contracts with in game entities. Obviously the GM should simply void any contracts with Gods etc which go not fit his campaign. The GM should retroactively assume Gods are usually smart enough to realize that a character is evil before making a deal -- even if the GM is not. The GM penalties are supposed to be for when you suddenly change the way you handle similar situations.



                                          Yeah GMs can be left tap dancing a bit after such character epiphanies to reclassify what you are playing and find a best fit class and deity and to alter explanations for past events. (Hey sometimes gods act in mysterious plans where a thief is mistaken for a paladin due to an explainable miracle healing/etc or just a 3rd party monster faking a turn reaction.) Yes players can end up in a situation where NPCs thought their character was a palidin but later discover your character is fighter-thief (which could still be wrong).






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                          $endgroup$



                                          We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.









                                          • 2




                                            $begingroup$
                                            This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Blake Steel
                                            13 hours ago






                                          • 3




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – doppelgreener
                                            12 hours ago













                                          -4












                                          -4








                                          -4





                                          $begingroup$

                                          First the GM made a major error in that Gnolls normally are cannibalistic honorless and believe in every Gnoll for themselves in defeat. So normally there would be no guards on the young - except possibly in peace time against minor threats and as a herding convenience action (treatment similar to prisoners of more civilized Gnolls). So the GM has presented a truly UNEXPECTED and exceptional tribe of lawful Gnolls with some semblance of honor.



                                          Assuming the GM told you these Gnolls are Honorable...You should argue that from an abstract alignment viewpoint you must kill the gnoll guard for failure to do his duty to the gnoll kids. Obviously purpose of these gnoll guards was to give the kids an honorable death in the event of clan defeat instead of being enslaved or tortured as Gnolls would expect as standard treatment by even other Gnolls.



                                          Furthermore tell the GM that your character is racist and that racism overrides any alignment tendencies that you might apply to interactions with your own species and race and nationality. Its actually historically accurate to say that alignment would vary widely dependent upon who you faced. So in fact you can then proceed to sell gnoll kids as slaves or torture them based on whatever rationale you give for your racist upbringing (e.g. regional bias, historic blood feud, or personal family tradegy). At this point you and GM should probably establish an alignment matrix for common monster races or categories.



                                          Moreover point to the GM that he already approved this action as consistent with alignment when he allowed you to start wiping out the Gnoll clan. Its too late for GM to apply restrictions on gnoll kids and their guards when it was already clear that you intended to kill all adults many rounds ago.



                                          You can also be non-racist and play your alignment and still say - yes that you plan to kill Gnoll kids BUT as mercifully and unexpectedly as possible. In fact its a required mercy blow for good guys to prevent suffering of orphaned gnoll kids or allow starting a cycle of future vengence should they survive.



                                          Bottomline its your character and not the GMs. Tell him to make whatever changes to alignment and consequences that he wants in order to correct how he treats your character in game. But those changes should not be a punishment for his misunderstanding of how your character would act. Any punishments should be restricted to breaking contracts with in game entities. Obviously the GM should simply void any contracts with Gods etc which go not fit his campaign. The GM should retroactively assume Gods are usually smart enough to realize that a character is evil before making a deal -- even if the GM is not. The GM penalties are supposed to be for when you suddenly change the way you handle similar situations.



                                          Yeah GMs can be left tap dancing a bit after such character epiphanies to reclassify what you are playing and find a best fit class and deity and to alter explanations for past events. (Hey sometimes gods act in mysterious plans where a thief is mistaken for a paladin due to an explainable miracle healing/etc or just a 3rd party monster faking a turn reaction.) Yes players can end up in a situation where NPCs thought their character was a palidin but later discover your character is fighter-thief (which could still be wrong).






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                          $endgroup$



                                          First the GM made a major error in that Gnolls normally are cannibalistic honorless and believe in every Gnoll for themselves in defeat. So normally there would be no guards on the young - except possibly in peace time against minor threats and as a herding convenience action (treatment similar to prisoners of more civilized Gnolls). So the GM has presented a truly UNEXPECTED and exceptional tribe of lawful Gnolls with some semblance of honor.



                                          Assuming the GM told you these Gnolls are Honorable...You should argue that from an abstract alignment viewpoint you must kill the gnoll guard for failure to do his duty to the gnoll kids. Obviously purpose of these gnoll guards was to give the kids an honorable death in the event of clan defeat instead of being enslaved or tortured as Gnolls would expect as standard treatment by even other Gnolls.



                                          Furthermore tell the GM that your character is racist and that racism overrides any alignment tendencies that you might apply to interactions with your own species and race and nationality. Its actually historically accurate to say that alignment would vary widely dependent upon who you faced. So in fact you can then proceed to sell gnoll kids as slaves or torture them based on whatever rationale you give for your racist upbringing (e.g. regional bias, historic blood feud, or personal family tradegy). At this point you and GM should probably establish an alignment matrix for common monster races or categories.



                                          Moreover point to the GM that he already approved this action as consistent with alignment when he allowed you to start wiping out the Gnoll clan. Its too late for GM to apply restrictions on gnoll kids and their guards when it was already clear that you intended to kill all adults many rounds ago.



                                          You can also be non-racist and play your alignment and still say - yes that you plan to kill Gnoll kids BUT as mercifully and unexpectedly as possible. In fact its a required mercy blow for good guys to prevent suffering of orphaned gnoll kids or allow starting a cycle of future vengence should they survive.



                                          Bottomline its your character and not the GMs. Tell him to make whatever changes to alignment and consequences that he wants in order to correct how he treats your character in game. But those changes should not be a punishment for his misunderstanding of how your character would act. Any punishments should be restricted to breaking contracts with in game entities. Obviously the GM should simply void any contracts with Gods etc which go not fit his campaign. The GM should retroactively assume Gods are usually smart enough to realize that a character is evil before making a deal -- even if the GM is not. The GM penalties are supposed to be for when you suddenly change the way you handle similar situations.



                                          Yeah GMs can be left tap dancing a bit after such character epiphanies to reclassify what you are playing and find a best fit class and deity and to alter explanations for past events. (Hey sometimes gods act in mysterious plans where a thief is mistaken for a paladin due to an explainable miracle healing/etc or just a 3rd party monster faking a turn reaction.) Yes players can end up in a situation where NPCs thought their character was a palidin but later discover your character is fighter-thief (which could still be wrong).







                                          share|improve this answer










                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited 13 hours ago





















                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                          answered 13 hours ago









                                          RPG ObservationRPG Observation

                                          12




                                          12




                                          New contributor




                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                          New contributor





                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                          RPG Observation is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                          Check out our Code of Conduct.



                                          We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.




                                          We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.








                                          • 2




                                            $begingroup$
                                            This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Blake Steel
                                            13 hours ago






                                          • 3




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – doppelgreener
                                            12 hours ago












                                          • 2




                                            $begingroup$
                                            This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Blake Steel
                                            13 hours ago






                                          • 3




                                            $begingroup$
                                            Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – doppelgreener
                                            12 hours ago







                                          2




                                          2




                                          $begingroup$
                                          This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Blake Steel
                                          13 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          This doesn't really answer the question, as far as I can tell. Try to keep your answers concise, as well. Be sure to take the tour for more info!
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Blake Steel
                                          13 hours ago




                                          3




                                          3




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – doppelgreener
                                          12 hours ago




                                          $begingroup$
                                          Please see our citation expectations for subjective answers. Note we expect answers to be backed up by some experience. We aren't interested in “try this, I'm sure it might work” without any citation at all: anyone can come up with random ideas. This is making some pretty outrageous advice, like “say your character is racist” with no backup, and that's a big problem. Please read that post I linked and meet our guidelines, or this post may be removed.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – doppelgreener
                                          12 hours ago



                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Identity Server 4 is not redirecting to Angular app after login2019 Community Moderator ElectionIdentity Server 4 and dockerIdentityserver implicit flow unauthorized_clientIdentityServer Hybrid Flow - Access Token is null after user successful loginIdentity Server to MVC client : Page Redirect After loginLogin with Steam OpenId(oidc-client-js)Identity Server 4+.NET Core 2.0 + IdentityIdentityServer4 post-login redirect not working in Edge browserCall to IdentityServer4 generates System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an objectIdentityServer4 without HTTPS not workingHow to get Authorization code from identity server without login form

                                          2005 Ahvaz unrest Contents Background Causes Casualties Aftermath See also References Navigation menue"At Least 10 Are Killed by Bombs in Iran""Iran"Archived"Arab-Iranians in Iran to make April 15 'Day of Fury'"State of Mind, State of Order: Reactions to Ethnic Unrest in the Islamic Republic of Iran.10.1111/j.1754-9469.2008.00028.x"Iran hangs Arab separatists"Iran Overview from ArchivedConstitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran"Tehran puzzled by forged 'riots' letter""Iran and its minorities: Down in the second class""Iran: Handling Of Ahvaz Unrest Could End With Televised Confessions""Bombings Rock Iran Ahead of Election""Five die in Iran ethnic clashes""Iran: Need for restraint as anniversary of unrest in Khuzestan approaches"Archived"Iranian Sunni protesters killed in clashes with security forces"Archived

                                          Can't initialize raids on a new ASUS Prime B360M-A motherboard2019 Community Moderator ElectionSimilar to RAID config yet more like mirroring solution?Can't get motherboard serial numberWhy does the BIOS entry point start with a WBINVD instruction?UEFI performance Asus Maximus V Extreme