DnD Player Wont Stop Attacking Priest NPCs | r/rpghorrorstories

[@shadiafifi54]

The bullying story has an update; the DM had an earnest talk about it, and Mike tried to make excuses. The DM has since abandoned the group, taking the non-troublesome players with them to form a new one. They're also breaking off the friendship with Mike. So, relatively happy ending.

[@BlueTressym]

I am so glad to know that. I haven't even finished read/listening yet and think Mike's a douche.

[@Wolvenwargmusic]

Honestly the OP should also have apologized to the GF for letting that go on for 'four months' before doing something about it. My group and I understand ic stuff is ic and can get a bit heated between characters sometimes. That said, if it starts bleeding ooc, you're out.

[@broke_af_games9661]

​@@WolvenwargmusicI agree, to an extent. He did say he tried to mediate and the young women was capable of advocating for herself... There was also several other people sitting through this without saying anything. So I'm thinking that everyone dropped the ball here.

[@Wolvenwargmusic]

@@broke_af_games9661 A fair counter-point. Though the tone I got was she was making her displeasure known at least to the OP, but OP just kept brushing it under the rug.

[@broke_af_games9661]

@@Wolvenwargmusic maybe not a brush under the rug, but 100% ineffectual. Had a long time player of a group I DM, joined game I was playing in. She made an awkward joke about one of us being ugly and not elaborating more than finger gunning to us and saying "it's up to you to figure out which one I mean". I threw myself on that grenade as fast as my wife and I looked at eachother. Then that evening I said "what were you thinking making that kind of joke the first time you meet my wife" etc etc. She apologized to my wife direct, things smoothed over and they became out of game friends. People usually realize they are the problem when being properly confronted.

[@ttiagoox]

- I Jump on the table and throw a dagger. - we are all sitting by the table seeing this, can we stop him? - no, he is being "sneaky".

[@MatrixRefugee]

How the heck does one sneakily jump onto a table anyway???

[@vegeta002]

​@MatrixRefugee By wrapping a scarf around your lower face and making stereotypical ninja sound effects.

[@reform-revolution]

you yell "sneak attack" first so everyone knows they cant see you@@MatrixRefugee

[@akmi1931]

You give that Rogue too much credit. He didn’t have anything in his backstory or personal experience to justify that. He was just a basic vile person who chose to hate and put that into the game. He took other people’s traumas and made it into a meme.

[@Isaygoodday5]

r/atheist is definitely where that dude spends most of his free time

[@LucyBean42]

I had a player who's hatred of religion ruin a campaign. She was running a Druid and got mad at the Cleric for naming their communal town after his god, which was his characters entire goal. Ended up blowing up the whole campaign.

[@Thagomizer]

Druids were a priest caste, historically.

[@wolfschadow6399]

I once kind of was that religion hating character, but it was worse since I was a GM. I created a world where groups of humans on irregular basis got isekai'd into this world and in the time of the game, there were norse vikings, german crusaders, german funny windmill men and french high medieval noblemen in that world. The crusaders created the maryan theocracy, which was an extremely oppressive nation of religious fanatics.

[@dubiousinformation1756]

Tbh, I think people like that are bringing their IRL grudges regarding religion into the game. I don't think very highly of religion in real life either after a lot of stuff they've done to me as well as a lot of other people, but I don't project that onto a game or try to make it everyone else's problem. If they're so vindictive that they can't separate real life from a game, they need to seek a therapist because they're just going to alienate everyone around them.

[@Luircin]

@@dubiousinformation1756 But you could say that about any ideology. If you use the same standards for judging as you do for religion, atheism is responsible for the murder of millions of people. Or, alternately, you could judge religious faiths by what they teach and not what the worst people who belong to them do.

[@jordanhunter3375]

​@@wolfschadow6399"German funny windmill men"?

[@Stealth_Saber]

My big issue with the murderhobo rogue, is as soon as he attempted to kill the priest, the DM should have said "Knock it off. Not every religious figure is some pedo." And as soon as he attempted to kill the orc shaman, the party and DM should have stopped the game and talked about what his problem was. He was actively being disruptive and should have had that shit shut down immediately. Personally, I blame the DM as much as the player because he allowed Rogue to keep pulling this crap, even after a failed roll. Though to be fair, a perception roll would not get much when the Rogue is basically trying to get a vibe check of his environment. Maybe insight or sense motive or something else. The party eventually stepped up after the orc incident and attempted pvp, but it wasn't the right call in all honesty. I can imagine it'd feel good to knock him down a peg or outright kill the character, but this was an issue that needed solved outside of the game because Rogue was actively hostile to Kobold Cleric and every religious NPC and his actions were negatively impacting the game.

[@Spartan135]

The DM was (probably) like:" Bruh,this is nuts,but i kinda find this too funny to stop 😂

[@Isaygoodday5]

Definitely a case of a bad DM enabling a horrible player/person

[@saintsheepy6682]

For story 3, the DM is to blame, he should have stopped Rogue's behavior before it escalated to that, if I were the DM, Rogue would be kicked out and permabanned from the group after it went that far.

[@gorvarhadgarson5227]

His party members could've stopped him as well. Your "ally" is attacking the figurehead of a town who wishes to help you fight the Lich for no reason? Join the paladins in taking the rogue down.

[@williamharmon4039]

Looking at the actual Reddit post the OP basically defends against pointing that out in comments by saying doing so would deprive the player of agency unfairly and thinks the subreddit pointing that out as not a good excuse is them being self-righteous and getting angry at being disagreed with. Apparently talking about it out of game to resolve the issue isn't a good idea to OP and they insist there are other things they can do to solve the problem that they haven't yet so calling it the only solution is the commenters being pushy and sanctimonious.

[@seto_kaiba_]

Tbf, that sub can be self righteous as fuck. I posted a story there once and got a similar level of hate and I see it with other stories. If you don’t play DnD the way they think you should they go into a Barbarian rage over it.

[@williamharmon4039]

@@seto_kaiba_ True.

[@saintsheepy6682]

@@seto_kaiba_ Agreed.

[@PaladinGear15]

"Phoney Baloney Gods" does this dude not understand D&D? That's like saying you don't believe gravity exists... There is such a thing as Atheism in D&D, but because it's a proven *fact* that gods exist, as in you can literally visit them and talk to them on their own plane of existence, that Atheism in D&D isn't "I don't think gods exist", it's "the gods shouldn't interfere with mortal affairs, and mortals shouldn't praise gods as if they were perfect beings, mortals should look after themselves and gods shouldn't try to impose their will on us".

[@Raskor84]

The Athar from Planescape would have a Word with you. Yea not quiet Atheisten but all god to them are just very powefull people not worty of worship and simply frauds. The Templer of the dead god they have the HQ in is poof enoght to them

[@PaladinGear15]

@@Raskor84 What's your point? Sounds like the Athar are exactly as I wrote in my comment

[@pumpkinicing]

As a CSA survivor, I think I would have punched Rogue directly in the face if I were there. Not to be 'badass' or anything, but because he's being a callous jerk about a serious topic and blaming FICTIONAL CLERICS for real-life atrocities. Blugh.

[@pumpkinicing]

Oh, he's racist, too. Charming. Why didn't the DM kick him, or at least like..... not let him do any of that? Come on, man.

[@TheZMage]

I’m surprised at how few people are mentioning the racism

[@williamharmon4039]

​@@pumpkinicing Looking at the actual Reddit post comments the OP basically defends against pointing that out by saying the Rogue shouldn't do those things would deprive the player of agency unfairly and thinks the subreddit pointing that out as not a good excuse is them being self-righteous and getting angry at being disagreed with. Apparently talking about it out of game to resolve the issue isn't a good idea to OP and they insist there are other things they can do to solve the problem that they haven't yet so calling it the only solution is the commenters being pushy and sanctimonious.

[@ArcCaravan]

​@@williamharmon4039Well that quickly drained my sympathy for that group, at least regarding OP. Denying basic solutions while criticizing the critics. It's not like OP gave a morally grey scenario, just a murder hobo with a DM allowing it regardless of its affect on everyone else.

[@williamharmon4039]

@ArcCaravan Apparently OP thinks telling Rogue not to do that stuff anymore would be a disproportionate and uncalled for response that is effectively railroading and removing his agency as a player. Apparently their intended solution is to enforce more in-game consequences, though what else they could do to make it harsher than party members already getting killed is beyond me, and have their characters kill the Rogue if they ever meet again in-game or something. They see it as a purely in-game issue with no reason or justification to try and enforce limits or rules against player choice, which I think is just asking for trouble if the player is the sort to keep making the same sort of problems and murderhobo characters regardless of in-game consequence.

[@Stardweller1]

It’s unfortunate that abusive religious figures have given the entire group a bad rap. Unfortunately, some people can’t seem to differentiate between the religious figures who do abusive things and the good religious figures who actually practice the virtues they preach. Rogue was clearly one of those who doesn’t differentiate… that or he was using that generalization as an excuse to be a murder hobo.

[@vegeta002]

The bad is always remembered. The good is always forgotten. Basic human nature.

[@Stardweller1]

Sadly.

[@Thagomizer]

"Religious people" aren't a unified group.

[@Stardweller1]

Kind of interesting how some people don’t seem to realize that members of demographics like “religious people” or whatever else don’t exist in a monolith.

[@stoicshield]

3rd story: Talk about it once. If Rogue doesn't stop that sh*t, kick him out... that's too far out of line...

[@fred_derf]

I once had to implement a similar "no meta-game communication" during combat rule, but it was in response to a player with main-character syndrome who was constantly telling the other players what their character should do and brow-beat them into doing it -- making the other players feel like his NPCs. I rescinded the rule when the problem player left a couple of sessions later (he got tired of my nerfing his main-characterism). The funniest part of this is the other players continued to follow the rule and said that it helped with their immersion and gave them more character agency.

[@kylethomas9130]

I use a rule that talking during your turn is a Free Action, talking during someone else's turn is a Reaction.

[@ethankaryadi37]

The anti-theistic Rogue player had a really bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know if he knows that not all religious leaders have a horrible “touching kiddos habit” or are money hungry wolves in sheep’s clothing. While it is true that there are those who use their status as faith leaders to do horrendous things and bring reproach to their religion, this is not the case with everyone. Rogue sadly was too spiteful to realize this and I’m honestly saddened by this.

[@mrosskne]

all religions are abusive no exceptions

[@London_J]

​@@mrosskne😂

[@sulik4035]

​@@mrosskneis that you rogue?

[@zeogold]

​​@@mrosskneIf that's the case then all atheists are Fedora wearing, MTN dew chugging, nowhere as smart as they think they are, haven't showered since the moon landing neckbeards. Since we're dealing in absolutes.

[@travisgarrison8777]

Most religions ARE abusive. But that's because most religions are just cults with extra steps.

[@GizzmoGearhead]

On the story about the murder hobo rouge, it’s definitely something with the player and not the character. You can make a character hate a certain group/religion and not make them as disruptive. In fact, I have a character who is very distrusting of religious figures in a campaign that’s on hold that has never been an issue to the story. Though I think the dm is more at fault, considering he didn’t stop the behavior at all and in fact seems to be encouraging it since he happily is letting the group spit up, let the npc’s be easily killable, and allowed pvp basically. Then again that’s how I see it from what info I got and my experience. Besides, I do know I’m much more strict when it comes to that as a dm.

[@kylethomas9130]

Faerun Dragonborn are for the most part, anti religion, as their homeworld didn't have any Gods. However as they recognize they are quite exotic to Toril denizens, they have no inclination to murder any clerics or paladins on sight.

[@ArcCaravan]

I too felt suspicious of the DM, though wondered if that would lead to validating rogue's "religion equals (unspeakable acts)". Best guess is DM just liked the chaos.

[@GizzmoGearhead]

Either that or he was closer friends with the rouge and found more humor in his friend’s antics vs caring about his other friends’ misery. That’s my guess as an outsider to this story though.

[@williamharmon4039]

Looking at the actual Reddit post comments the OP basically says the DM or other players telling the Rogue not to do those things would unfairly deprive the player of agency and immersion and thinks the subreddit pointing that out as not a good excuse is them being self-righteous and getting angry at being disagreed with. Apparently talking about it out of game to resolve the issue isn't a good idea to OP and they insist there are other things they can do to solve the problem that they haven't yet so calling it the only solution is the commenters being pushy and sanctimonious. Which, to be fair, redditors can often actually be. But still, basically says the solution to the problem player is "give him harsher consequences in-game for his actions and the rest of the party agrees to kill him if we see him again" which really won't resolve the issues on the player's end of the game and I'm not sure what harsher consequences there are to give in-game if party members have already died short of maybe just spontaneous smiting from a god Rogue pissed off.

[@HannahSiemer]

Many times, a character can be a manifestation of someone’s personality, and they generally like to keep under wraps. That’s what it feels like with this guy. I can give you an example of a particularly agnostic/atheistic, character, iPlay, but what I’ve been playing the longest, which is a wolf ranger. It’s not that she doesn’t believe the guys exist, she does, She just doesn’t know which gods. Comes from her what I call trifle background call which reflects my own agnostic beliefs, there are a lot of denominations, and I’ve never really been attached to any given one. However, we have a cleric in the party, OK she’s a cleric druid multi class, but she’s a cleric on the less end, well she doesn’t necessarily feel attached to the gods, she does give them respect. There is a market difference, and if I go on any further, I’m going to start utilizing curse words that KZbin algorithm would find it hateful, because this attitude angers me. I’ve already killed 2/3 of the party, You become a fugitive, dandy is a collaborative game, non-FPS. This guy needs to get that through your thick skull or have a DM do it for him.

[@black69071]

The only time my group done pvp was for comical reasons. For example, the druid wanted to kick my bard for being cheeky.

[@tendigitnumber]

Same here. Usually it's stuff like snowball fights, non lethal and silly

[@realdragon]

In 1 shot 1 of the players used bomb to explode me. I had like 2hp and bomb dealt almost max damage

[@ChucktheSpicyChicken]

Druid: *whispers to wolf* bite him in the balls so the horny fuck stops flriting with everything that somewhat looks like a human.

[@fred_derf]

The spell casters in my last game (sadly dropped and never restarted at the start of the p-word) would often target area of effect spells such that my Barbarian-Rogue was in their area of effect, but I was fine with it (I'd often suggest it) since my character has improved evasion and an insanely high Reflex Save so was in almost no danger. Wizard: "Fireball, save DC Reflex 21", Me: "34 No Damage"; Sorcerer: "Fireball, save DC Reflex 20", Me: "31, no damage"; Spell Thief: "Cone of Cold, save DC Reflex 21", Me: "36, no damage"... not exactly PvP but to someone not familiar with our group hearing things like "I center my fireball on the Barbarian-Rogue" would certainly think there is.

[@SoraPierce]

My first campaign which was shut down a couple weeks ago, we had a minor bout with PvP in our last ingame night in waterdeep(second to last session). My character had spent 3 ingame months killing and sacrificing evil people for the Bhaal cult to power a staff being made from the ranger who died to save my PC from Bhaal and subsequently put me in his graces. The staff took my character to true evil (it was a weapon so evil it made good people tremble by being within a distance of it) and I failed a save that makes me attack anyone in front of me. Was a very fun and emotional session that ended with our Cleric using atonement and divine intervention(?) To turn my character back to normal, destroy the staff and remake it into a good one.

[@vidmanandrew09]

Story 3, Murderhobo Rogue: I’ve heard of Chaotic Stupid Rouges before, but this guy is the exact opposite of that, but in the bad direction. We’ve seen people play Paladins like Clerics, and other stereotypes, but this guy is stereotyping _everything_ associated with religion as the same. The only reason he backed off from the Cleric, who I’m sure he would have killed off in the middle of a long rest, were he not outnumbered. The DM’s at fault here too for not stopping this sooner with the kobold.

[@mathewh5614]

I find it very funny that the character on the thumbnail ironically was raised in a church and his second greatest motivation is marrying a nun

[@Xalerdane]

I think someone should tell Rogue “D&D is a work of fantasy, and thus the priests are not all child molesters by default.”

[@KubkaKawyprzyGrze]

Had a game where we didn't really talk during combat - out or in character. After combat some were like "Oh at that moment wish you did this". DM asked us why we didn't simply talk and we were like "because our characters didn't know each other [some of characters literarly met during that combat] so it felt right to not be coordinated". And basically this is how I see out of character talking during combat - as characters being coordinated, as sign of their experience in fighting alongside each other

[@JustSomeDude42]

Is no one gonna adress story 3 racism with the shamans belong to savages bit? He gonna do an antisemitism schtick if a rabbi were ever added?

[@ArcCaravan]

Probably. Definitely points to the problem player being just a murder hobo using "bad priests" as an excuse.

[@davesaylor7829]

If a party member picks a fight with an NPC out of stupidity, the rest of the party should be allowed to opt out.

[@superiorrule34]

20 bucks the guy Accusing others of Being a pedo is one himself.

[@mrosskne]

whatever makes you feel better, kid fucker.

[@superiorrule34]

I have a reply but I can’t see it.

[@thegasmaskguy613]

@@mrosskneyou are really mentally challanged arent you?

[@PotentialCabbage]

I feel that strategizing out of game is what connects the players to the game. It’s the 4th wall aspect that makes it for me

[@gazblackheart4596]

All those "dynamic combat" maneuvers are IN dnd though....and other ttrpgs.

[@iank472]

It takes a truly terrifying amount of guts (and stupidity) to refer to the Gods of a setting that take a direct hand in the mortal realm "Phoney Baloney". You are just asking for a beatdown from some deeply pissed off clerics and paladins or to have the healing of said phoney baloney Gods just not work on you at the worst possible time.

[@l0stndamned]

1st story: Monk seems like a bit of a jerk, but new DM + pvp often ends badly anyway. 2nd story: Just tell the problem player he's a massive problem and that he's kicked if he doesn't sort out. If he acts like this he's going to continue targeting someone in the group unless the group is blindly obedient to him so he's going to be a liability. 3rd story: As I've said in a another video mentioning this story, it looks like the rogue has based their character on the paedophile-finder general from Monkey Dust. Sad player is also scum. Also the DM is failing massively too. 4th story: Sounds like a DM vs player mentality combined with a complete lack of imagination from the DM. 5th story: DM sucks and is trapped in DM vs player mentality like the last one. The strategizing between players thing doesn't sound too meta because the PCs would know each other and be trained/experienced enough to improvise based on situation even if the players have to talk about it.

[@StSubZero]

For the last story, the only reason the DM had made that house rule I imagine is because he was tired of players "Cheesing fights" or "metagaming" so he refused to let them do so anymore, but did not apply that rule to himself. Why? Because he wanted to WIN against his players. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made such a fuss about them using the same tactics as his NPCs and monsters could to justify them own antics. Protip to my fellow DMs: There is a difference between being annoyed with metagaming, to wanting to "beat" your players and refusing to let them work together so you can dunk on them more easily.

[@FanFookinTastic]

I’m honestly getting a kick out of the irony of the priest hating edgelord being the most “holier-than-thou” asshole in the room 🤦

[@harrymorris2361]

The only time we ever did PvP was when my Barbarian punched our Warlock in the balls because he kept mouthing off to the police… twice in the space of 2 minutes Long story short, I did about 20 unarmed damage to a warlock that was only on 4 HP and killed him… Party, Warlock and DM found it was hilarious and went along with it We literally wrote it that I punched him in and he balls so hard; his soul left his body and then he possessed our artificers robot… good times

[@calanon534]

The second the Rogue started going out-of-pocket like that, the DM should have stopped play. Bad on the DM, right there. You have a player that's going off like that, you STOP EVERYTHING and address it. You tell them their behavior is wrong, and THEY need to chill out, or leave. The Rogue's player was clearly being disruptive to the game on purpose, and he needed to be reigned in OOC instead of allowing him to do those things. Even if the Rogue's Player got as far as saying "I sneak attack" the DM should have stopped everything right there, told him "NO, you do not," and immediately addressed the situation. I was going to say this was as much on the DM for being inexperienced and not knowing what they're doing, but the end of the story makes it clear, the DM is _enabling_ the situation intentionally. The rest of the people need to leave the group. Those two are toxic and enjoying it.

[@AryTehCapricat]

Priest-hater is more likely to be one of those obnoxious kinds of atheists that look down on any kind of faith, and I’m saying this as an atheist myself.

[@informitas0117]

Looking down on is one thing, you aren't obnoxious until you spew your views at random intervals.

[@TheMightyBattleSquid]

Okay, Murderhobo rogue is a problem but so is the rest of the table for getting pulled along with this... At first I thought it was just the DM for permitting the murderhoboing to punish the whole party while the party was unable to stop it but it just keeps going like "oh my PC got killed because of this? Guess I'll roll up again and keep playing with this dude and DM!" "Oh, SEVERAL of our PCs died now? Time to roll up ANOTHER!" Like... come on, you know what you're signing up for by that point. You had plenty of time to re-evaluate the group and game by that point.

[@zombiehunter501]

My honestly harsh take on these stories. 1st Story: Monk seems to just want to win in pvp and didn't care about the outcome after their "Win". Most likely they are using the game to vent for real life stresses, but using your friends as punching bags is just bad and, if true, show they have little value for them. I hope this group fixes this issue with no hard feelings. 2nd story: Mike IS a bully and most likely feels he can get away with it. A grown man picking on the dm's wife even in dnd screams red flags and op should leave with his wife, making it a point to never interact with mike again. Which, by the sounds of the update, they did. Good, as Mike seems to be the type who just wants underlings and not friends. 3rd story: Sadly, I don't think the rogue's player has anything like trauma. He comes off as a militant atheist who thinks he's "Better than the religious" and uses stereotypes to justify acts of cruelty or murder in fictional games. If I was the dm, I wouldn't have done the "Split party" and just kicked rogue's player, and use the rogue as the new villain of the story, making him a mad serial killer who the players had to take down to clear their name. Also, I wouldn't of had the other players characters die during the escape. Just downed and captured, so once the rogue was taken in dead or alive, they'd be free to get their old pcs back if they wanted. 4ft Story: Simple, the DM is an ass. He's basically a "know nothing hipster", complaining at the current thing for attention but when the group goes for his "New and better" thing, he's shows how clueless he is on that thing he championed and in reality preferred the original thing. Also, vindictive DM are among the worst, so dump his butt from the group as soon as possible, fun is not what he wants, being "Right" is. 5ft: DM vs Player mindset, he's out to beat his players and show "His intellectual" by basically cheating. Dump his ass and find a new dm, as that one is out to cheat you out of a good time and make you feel worse about yourself so they can stroke their own ego. As said, i maybe abit harsh or brutal with my comment. I just wanted to leave my 2 cents on these batch of horror stories.

[@sunzi42]

The DM in the last story was a great example of a BAD DM, since he kept making up his own rules.

[@7thsealord888]

Story #1 - I accept that some players like PVP, and I know that there are even a few systems that actively encourage this. But as a DM, I flat-out hate it, considering it to be absolute poison for most games or groups. I fully get why the Rogue player here was upset, and he had every right to say so afterwards. If the Monk player chose to silently bail instead of, say, gee, I dunno, APOLOGIZING, that is entirely on him. Story #2 - Mike is WAY out of line and needs to be told so. A quiet aside by the DM is probably best. If he will not listen or if there is no improvement, then bring in the rest of the group. If worst comes to worst, BOOT HIM! Story #3 - I put most of this mess on the DM, because he's allowing that moron to do this anti-priest nonsense over and over again. Frankly, I think the rest of the Players are better off looking for another game. Story #4 - They needed to push the DM hard about this. if he didn't want them to actually use the system, then why was it there? Get a real answer from him. Story #5 - MAYBE the DM was trying to cut out side-chatter and going off-topic, which is understandable But this decision was just plain stupid.

[@АлександрСудаков-с2и]

On story 1: why should monk apologize for participating in pvp that the dm set up specifically to pvp?

[@7thsealord888]

@@АлександрСудаков-с2и Very simply, it went too far. Read the story.

[@АлександрСудаков-с2и]

@@7thsealord888 how did it go too far? Rogue hates pvp, dm gives pvp encounter, monk participates, rogue blames monk for that, monk doesn't feel welcome at the table anymore and leaves. He literally did everything right

[@andrewroberts8150]

I agree with user their characters weren't in a party together yet and it was an all out fight. I feel like it would be more weird if they avoided each other to win

[@sarsapong]

"you better watch yourself" is the moment where the whose party giving the guy (character) a beat down or just kick this problem player out

[@talkingwithadam812]

Last story: those 'homebrew' rules are just battle master maneuvers from 5e

[@vault18starplayerandenclav8]

I am honestly always confused why the rest of the party goes along with a player when they murderhobo in character because logically if there is anyone in that party who isnt just outright evil they would be heavily against it.

[@SageTigerStar]

I wouldn't care if my players thought it unfair. If I were DM'ing the Anti-Religious Rogue's party, I would have Thanos-snapped him as the Cleric's God the moment he tried to PVP. After seeing what he was up to and how he was treating my campaign and the party, I'd tell him to roll a new character and if I see any of that again, he'll be dusted forever.

[@CheetahFoxx]

I read the title and actually thought that. If I were at that table I would've taken that player aside and unironically asked him away from everyone else if there was some unresolved trauma going on.

[@TheRealHedgehogSonic]

Story 1: I never thought I'd encounter the elusive No A-holes Here rating, but here we are.

[@lordbrowning]

Third story: when r/atheism plays dnd.

[@iank472]

There are numerous reasons why "No PvP" is a very common house rule in most RPG games. Folks very often put a lot of care and effort into their characters and having them attacked by another player can be upsetting or even lead to a bit of character bleed.

[@theenderdestruction2362]

My group doesn't usually do pvp besides the usual kicking, punching and stuff like that you would do with your friends besides the one time where we started off as gladiators but that story ended really quickly when I accidentally killed another player character and had to keep up the show whilst trying not to get my character executed for killing a nobles son

[@KatarnandKanos]

For the bullying story, I think OP and especially their girlfriend feel that the situation has gone past the point where there's anything left to salvage. The girlfriend no longer feels comfortable around Mike; you can't fix that level of relationship damage by having a talk with him about his behavior. It's something that should have been addressed sooner, but now that it's where it is, leaving the group is probably for the best.

[@alanbear6505]

The third story makes me think abrogue had something happen IRL. If so I hope he gets the therapy to move past it.

[@aidanthornton173]

Ah yes, *"He's a Priest so he's a kiddy fiddler!"* Right up there with. *"He's a beloved and respected king? Nah, he must be a facist tyrant!"*

[@ArcCaravan]

Funny how the player saying this is using a Rogue, therefore a heinous irredeemable criminal.

[@windyface9383]

Murderhobo rogue was 100% being enabled by the dm in story 3. I'd look out for him dropping in a couple weeks later, vastly over-leveled and equipped with magic mcguffins to "make the fight fair"

[@hunterkessell6070]

The biggest problem with dropping a whole group in a module, especially Strahd, is that now the entire story is ruined. There's no ending for the players and they really can't ever get a healthy, fresh crack at such an awesome story as the twists are no longer a surprise. In such a case, talking to that player and maybe having to remove him, is the best for everyone.

[@brianvance1178]

3rd story: the rogue is definitely a militant extremist atheist, it’s pretty obvious from his irrational hatred of clergymen and his assumption that all priests/shamans are like those in the Catholic Church

[@fred_derf]

+brianvance1178, writes _"[...] are like those in the Catholic Church"_ Don't kid yourself, it's not just the Catholic Church. Any organization that gives unchecked authority to people will attract people wanting to capitalize on it.

[@brianvance1178]

@@fred_derf I know that, the stories about the Catholic priests are just more well known

[@ArcCaravan]

​@@fred_derfYet every story about atheists (fictional or real) just defaults to catholic church over any other religion.

[@theyaden]

In my opinion. Story 1: I think the monk was just a bully that wanted to feel powerful by exerting himself over someone with a physically weaker character. Story 2: If you girlfriend/wife is to the point she is no longer willing to be with that group for harassment you're almost forced to switch groups so that she can be included in your D&D group again. Story 3: Some people have such a phobia of religion that they become irrational at the mere mention of it. Final Story: Rules for thee but not for me. I've seen other instances where players are hobbled while the GM has his NPC's doing the same and it always chafes players.

[@kurisu7885]

That rogue in the third story is definitely a fedora atheist.

[@thephantomspectator407]

Yay! More DnD Doge!🤩😊😄 (been one of my favorite channels since I rolled a nat20 and discovered it a little over a month ago!) Gotta go along with several other commenters curious about the classes and stats of Alice, and the rest of the tiny tabaxi party, though!🥰😸

[@mikeyfisher4256]

Story 1 is just a sad story, story 2 I would have dropped out, even if I wasn't op or the gf, bullying has no place at the table and story 3, DM should have kicked the player at the start, no need to discuss the behaviour. he's ruining the game for the others. Tho the fact the DM wanted to run a split party tells me he was ok with the shitty behaviour, I would have just dropped the group, no dnd better than bad dnd.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

No Talking Story. I can kinda see where the GM is coming from on having players be in character throughout the fight because fighting is loud and distracting. What I don't get is having you roll every time, that just creates a slog and really slows down an already roll heavy event. What I can't stand is not allowing the players to not learn the cheat codes the others have. That's just the GM stacking the odds in their favor just to "WIN". I think a better way to do this would be: 1) Speaking does not require an Action or Bonus Action, but is limited to One Quick Statement. Say 10 words or less. Per Melee Round. 2) Speaking has a Range based off your character's Constitution Stat. Characters with high CON are usually thought of to be on the bigger more stout side of things so those characters would normally have a bigger lung power and shout better. I could also see characters with Intimidation Skill being better at it from my time in Boot Camp. Drill Instructors are taught to be a little intimidating and how to use their voice. So say for every 5 points of CON (or fraction thereof) you can project your voice 10 feet in battle. Twice that with the Intimidation Skill. Anyone outside of that range would not be able to hear it clearly and understand. Just a thought.

[@BlueTressym]

Many Performance skills specifically require voice projection, so that should definitely give a bonus, more consistently than Intimidation if anything, as there is no need for anyone to be large or loud to be intimidating (although, obviously, for the example you give, it's fair enough).

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

@@BlueTressym I can see that you have a point. And by that I would say the Bard Class in particular should be adept at it as well due to their basic need to project their voice in a clear manner over a large crowd.

[@UnholyCameraman]

PvP: Something tells me that the poster is dancing a bit. A Hole Player: Sounds like Mike is a micro-managing main character; alignment likely neutral evil because he preferred his idea and will combat other players if they had any idea, which is sabotaging the party dynamics. Murderhobo Rogue: I have a feeling that the DM meant it sarcastically or has planned something to happen to the rogue; either way, bad feeling all around. New System: Sounds a lot like him not liking D&D and taking extra steps to play D&D. No Talking: Sounds like a load of "RULES FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME!" kind of DungeonArsery to me.

[@fleacythesheepgirl]

Me internally: So how are cats supposed to improve how we fee- 😺😸😼… 🥺 I feel so much better!

[@Blueoriontiger]

The DM was also the problem for story #2, not just Rogue. I would've booted the player right then and there for the comments + murderhobo tendencies. It's one of the reasons I insist characters are good-aligned or at least lean to white if they're morally grey.

[@jcly96]

If I was the DM in story 3, the moment I hear "phoney baloney gods" I would've told him to knock it off and if he says anything like that again that he was done and kicked him out.

[@Kravockian]

In my experience when people have that much of a nonsensical hatred they are overcompensating for something. Rogue probably is one himself.

[@BlackRainRising]

Murdering religious figures? I hear Paladin orders of the god of justice *LOVE* these sort of things... and no a level 2 or level 3 paladin would not be sent... he'd have the wrath of the heavens descend upon him as other temples got word and mounted their own manhunt for this guy. All in all, the rogue would not last long anyway and shame on the DM for allowing it to go that far anyway. Flip the script, the rogue gets caught by one of these high level paladins, with all the accusations of other figures being pedo's, the paladin holds him down stating "you condemn others to these claims, perhaps it is you who is guilty of conscience" accusing the rogue of being pedo and getting him to repent or die... divine smite from a heavy hitter and a holy avenger would end the murderous acts pretty quickly Also... the rogue jumped up on the table to dagger the Orc Shaman... that is no longer a sneak attack as his intentions were made clear, jumping on a table alerts everyone to your presence and action, so no... it was not a sneak attack. The minute the rogue started calling religious figures pedos the cleric could have jumped in and either humbled him or put him down outright for the blatant murder of two figures of importance... tisk tisk Cleric.

[@Evoker23-lx8mb]

Provided the murderhobo rogue leaves or is kicked out of the party, that character could be really interesting NPC antagonist with the rest of the party forced to run support for the cleric.

[@TheMightyBattleSquid]

9:00 Uh... doge, you just read how they said that they've mediated between the two many times before but this hit the breaking point...

[@Douglas-zl6yh]

For that murderhobo rogue, there's a third possibility. He could just be an asshole.

[@sentientbottlecap]

Who let the r/atheism user in the party?

[@Elyseon]

Some DMs need to be thrown out and banned from ever being part of a game again.

[@brianjohnson1509]

The last one - my group is very big on strategizing the best way through combat but I really wish they'd shut up and let me play my turn myself.

[@Derginator]

If my dm runs a split party for someone who is derailing the campaign I’m immediately dropping out

[@talkingwithadam812]

That final story: just let them talk. Oh no, my players are taking in info and discussing it, how dare they engage with what i put in front of them! I just have anime style full conversations in combat, i dont care. Have a huge heartfelt rp moment on ur turn, by all means, i encourage it

[@marybdrake1472]

I'm guessing that rogue player was just making a lame excuse so they could just be a standard muderhobo.

[@ArcCaravan]

Agreed. The edgy lines and making stretched to treat a shaman as a bad priest while writing off the orcs as savages (conveniently ignoring rogues would be no better) definitely looks like excuses to attack anything in sight.

[@marybdrake1472]

@@ArcCaravan Yeah, this wasn't at all complex in any way. It was pretty straight forward case of a problem player using any convenient excuse they could come up with. Also, the DM could have handled it worse, but still handled it poorly.

[@JacobL228]

The priest-killer probably watched "Spotlight" or something and assumed all religious figures are like that. I'm not sure where the "all orcs are savages" thing came from, though. He just sounds like an ignorant douche that thinks everyone who doesn't agree with him is an ignorant douche. The DM also seems toxic for allowing all of this and even encouraging it at the end.

[@ArcCaravan]

I'm guessing rogue just wants an excuse to attack anything, from "religion = bad" to "savage non-hunan" and probably anything that can be argued as "I'm not evil for being a murder hobo".

[@Spartan135]

if i would've been the DM,i would've let this continuing on,just to have a funny story at the end to laugh about...

[@JacobL228]

@@Spartan135 And that's why you're not the DM.

[@lambtoken2708]

​@@JacobL228like the actual DM is any better

[@UnseelieFaelass]

Highly disagree with your point on the last story Doge. Players should be allowed to strategize if needed. I'm a player that constantly forgets mechanics and feels like shit for it. So having time to look things up on my own online to be less of a burden on the DM or other players is instrumental. The other players in my group get the same treatment as well. Hell I'm pretty sure either all or over half of us are on the spectrum anyway. So yeah that's gonna make things a little difficult for those players too. Frankly I find the DM in the last story to be way too power drunk for his own good. Reminds me of Arcadum actually. Arcadum was known for not giving his players time to strategize out of character and even timed them by slowly moving enemy tokens closer with each second they tried to plan. Usually only leading to panic. So no I'm not too fond of that playstyle. If it works for your group then by all means use it. But this guy outright punished the players with it with that ridiculous rule. Strategies are not meta-gaming, they're a tool just like any other.

[@symbiotesoda1148]

The DM in the priest assassin story seems just as bad as the rogue. For one, he literally said he wanted to run a split party, however, I couldn't help but notice that he clearly just doesn't care. Instead of confronting the rogue about his obviously problematic behavior, he keeps allowing him to do whatever the heck he wants, even going so far as to punish THE ENTIRE PARTY every time the rogue does something bad. If this DM actually cared at all, they would've confronted rogue about this to tell him to stop, or would've punished the rogue appropriately by having the entire guard attack him and him alone (since the party members literally did nothing wrong and were even actively trying to stop him.) Its just going to be a vicious cycle, and I'd personally leave that campaign.

[@gavinbock8531]

The last home brew rule of losing your turn if you talk out of character during combat or being forced to use an action to talk is crazy stupid. I understand using an action for an empassion speech /persuasion check kind of thing but a quick sentence to your party is a very reasonable thing to do during combat

[@twilightnight6283]

If I had a DM like the one in the last story, who made BS every corner. I would try to use their rules against them by not saying anything on my turn, making them very annoyed. When they get to the point where they tell me to speak up, I would say, "You told us not to talk during combat," wearing the most smug expression I can. Or do anything that uses their rules against them.

[@BlueTressym]

While technically, strategising OOC might be metagaming it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It bridges the gap between the players' knowledge and experience, and the PCs'. Basically, it accounts for the fact that the PCs are right there in the situation and were taught or otherwise learned how to deal with different enemies. Not to mention that it's reasonable to assume the characters do, in fact, talk to each other at least sometimes, without every word being RPed at the table, and that NOT making plans to handle different situations and enemy types would be egregiously stupid. Therefore, the players are just doing in the moment what their PCs almost certainly do anyway but without RPing every moment of it. I mean, there's a reason the level-up currency in games like D&D is called 'experience' and the IRL planning reflects that.

[@vermas4654]

With the murder hobo, as a party they should have just left the rogue to the orks and the DM should have let that happen

[@Jermbot15]

I let players strategize for however long they want at the top of the round. And only at the top of the round. It keeps table talk to a minumum, stops the louder or more strategically invested players from back seat running other characters but still lets players coordinate.

[@AlextheSurlyHealer]

Another Asta thumbnail 🤣🤣🤣 This is either going to be hilarious or very dark and twisted

[@aidenhughes2472]

When a twitter user plays dnd

[@akmi1931]

DM’s arguing about something being unrealistic in TTRPGs has always been the most asinine thing to complain about. Like, NOTHING in ANY system is realistic. They are all extrapolations and are designed to be metagamed.

[@toriistorii6939]

I've only PVP'd once, and that was after asking the character's player that it was okay like three times. Plus, I only hit him once cause I wasn't trying to get into a full fight, just pay him back for something

[@johnmorey720]

I want an update to the rogue! I want to know what a disaster it turned out to be.

[@thefanofeverything5039]

I am usually against PvP but in the rouge’s case it’s not PvP. He’s not being a player, he’s being an antagonist so the rest of the party have every right to stop following him, helping him in fights. Heck if it were me I’d just go “nah I’m not with him” and help the orcs kill him as a sign of loyalty. Go against everyone else in the party once, that’s what your character would do. Call another player’s character a pedo, now you’re the ass. Start a second combat against the party’s only ally? You are not even a party member anymore.

[@DunantheDefender]

I actually like the idea of making players communicate in game, and limiting the amount of strategizing that can go into a few seconds of combat. I think a system like that can work, so long as it's not punitive.

[@whitenekos]

3rd story for some reason i shall state was on purpose with the DMs blessing. Likely for story purposes.

[@carbonscythe]

In the last story, the GM just has a player vs. GM mentality. And to be frank, strategizing mid battle OoC is fair game, just like most other skills, your character is smarter than you and to expect each player to fully understand how to do battle efficiently is a lot of expectation. If it's something as simple as, "move over here so you don't have the wall behind you" should be something anyone can say. More complex things like "If you move over here then we can do this amazing thing!" is something maybe only be allowed to say during the fighters turn as they are even more supposed to be battle hardened.

[@TigerKirby215]

The first time the Rogue attacked the head priest when everyone else objected I would've sat down with him as a DM for a serious discussion on working with the party. The second time when he attacked the shaman I would've kicked him from the party. At best he can't leave his political views outside of the game; at worst he's just a shitty troll actively ruining the game. But with the DM saying that he WANTED this to happen I'd just dip from the campaign.

[@rhysproudmourne1646]

For sure the rogue had some of experience, because his in game character was doing things actively even when failing to perceive them. It really is the only explanation.

[@Jason-u5r]

All of those maneuvers in the elder scrolls tarps can be done in pathfinder lol

[@ByrdieFae]

Dude, wtf was the DM doing dueing the murderhobo Rogue story?? Can't they ever just say "No"??

[@Isaygoodday5]

The Reddit atheist should've been kicked so early on

[@TigerKirby215]

ima be real my opinion on the first story is that the Monk is a bit of a jackass. The Rogue had the right to be upset (Rogues are not good in PvP scenarios, and Monks are very strong at 1v1s) and the Monk had no reason to target the Rogue. When the Rogue complained the Monk decided to be a brat about it even though he was the one that ruined the Rogue's fun. I don't think the Monk was necessarily _wrong_ to target the Rogue but I do think he's acting childish when the Rogue made his complaints known.

[@KertaDrake]

Nothing like militant atheists in a setting where gods explicitly exist, are active, and likely to appear in person to smack a non-believing fool across the face.

[@majinnbuu9363]

the player offing religious "people" should of lost his character, since made him evil and a serial killer, so then the party has a new evil to stop, or got smited by the god of one of the guys he attacked. not even ashes left his "soul" destroyed no chance to even come back

[@kainslegacy78618]

I miss Alice casting blessings.

[@wolfschadow6399]

With the cleric hating rogue I would have just attacked him instead of the priest and knights in that encounter. This character should be incarcerated so he isn't a threat to others anymore.

[@tenshyklonik]

the story about the problem player with all the table, including op girlfriend, use the three steps, Talk to him, Explain the Problem and Kick the reason of the problems (TEK), if the lpayer don´t explain or kick his own problem to be with the table, then kick him, I mean, is not like they need to make a new group, ther is only one problem player, kick him and stay in the same table

[@Zucca101]

The atheist rogue player deserves to never game again.

[@OfficialShiggySimp]

Lmfao love the thumbnail of Asta

[@Mordaedil]

Story 3 here doesn't sound like an actual D&D game, but someones idea of what a D&D game is like when they've never played before. Making characters in this rapid succession seems suspicious, I've never played a game where a character death wasn't a good excuse to call the session, a PC taking this much of an issue with clerical NPC's would get a stern talking to from every player around the table and notice how no player has any agency in the story besides the rogue who somehow gets to act "because it's a sneak attack" even though that isn't how that works.