Did I go over the top, or did the player?

[ewancummins]

Double post, please delete

[ewancummins]

Using poison on a blade, is like using a rusty bayonet. It's highly illegal, appointed by the Geneva Convention, because if they survive their wound, they could easily die from something like tetnus; which makes the death more painful and inhumane.

From the RAW as presented in the 3.5 Ravenloft Dungeon Master's Guide, poison use is not in and of itself an evil act. It's underhanded and dishonorable, and the means to which said poison is used can certainly call for a powers check, but otherwise it's not worth a powers check if used in combat (which is what the rules are assuming). Using poison outside combat, however, is a case where a powers check would be justified if there is genuine malice involved. It sounds like you made an understandable rookie DM mistake, but this player was completely out of line if they threw a fit like that.

Also remember this is not real life. Yes, by the standards of your example poison use can be construed as evil. So can killing monsters (murder and/or animal cruelty), entering haunted houses (breaking and entering and/or theft), looting the bodies of fallen foes (grave robbing), hunting down monsters who harm the populace (vigilantism), opposing a darklord who's also the ruler (treason), the list goes on. Real life morals and ethics don't work in a D&D game. That's a lesson I, too, had to learn when I was a new DM.

Also there's no UN, no Gevena Convention, sometimes no non-corrupt authority, in Ravenloft. The ideals of the modern world are very much at odds with the "realities" of fictional settings. Especially ones based on medieval Earth (Falkovnia, with its institutionalized misogyny and racism, is actually pretty close to the ugly truths of medieval European culture).

Medieval 'Europe' was not any more 'mysogynistic' or 'racist' than Europe in the Early Modern or much of the Modern periods. It was probably less so.


Of course, it's problematic to make blanket statements about a whole geographic realm, and several hundred years of history.


We already have a guide to what the Dark Powers consider worthy of attention. It's right there in the rules. The DM is free to interpret (or ignore) all this as seems best to him.

YMMV

[High Priest Mikhal]

^Yeah this is something you need to learn along with your players.... for not always will "good and evil" match everyone else's table thoughts of what it good and evil. Everyone has their own oppinions, the DM is law for the game world however.

As others have pointed out, however, "the DM is law" can be a very bad thing when they're inept or dictatorial. This is one of those situations where neither side was right. But certainly the player was "in the wrong" more just because of their behavior. If the group isn't using the rules as written (RAW) but still having fun, it's all good.

I'm sure we all have stories of immature, "rules lawyer/rules Nazi," and otherwise just plain bad DMs and players. It's an unfortunate reality of RPGs. The best thing is to see what went wrong and why, learn from it, and move on. My advice is to use the first few sessions to feel out what the group is like before using any of the more advanced stuff like powers checks or introducing content some may find objectionable.

Another useful tool is for the first session to not even be one where the game is played. Players should give their characters life, give the DM input on what is and isn't acceptable to them (which should continue as the campaign goes on), and otherwise help outline a compromise on what will and will not be acceptable behavior and content. All this can even be done in the middle of a campaign to smooth ruffled feathers and sometimes stop problems before they start.

Medieval 'Europe' was not any more 'mysogynistic' or 'racist' than Europe in later eras--- it was probably less so.
Of course, it's problematic to make blanket statement about a whole geographic realm, and several hundred years of history.

I'm aware it's not entirely accurate. But the truth is there was a lot of institutionalized versions of both. Too many to go into here, really. And those later eras didn't just come up with their views out of thin air; they were remaking extant views in the face of new knowledge. History's forgotten truths make for so much more interesting reading than the sanitized, balderdized texts we read in high school and college. But we're getting off-topic. Back to the OP.

[Zilfer]

^Yeah this is something you need to learn along with your players.... for not always will "good and evil" match everyone else's table thoughts of what it good and evil. Everyone has their own oppinions, the DM is law for the game world however.

As others have pointed out, however, "the DM is law" can be a very bad thing when they're inept or dictatorial. This is one of those situations where neither side was right. But certainly the player was "in the wrong" more just because of their behavior. If the group isn't using the rules as written (RAW) but still having fun, it's all good.

I'm sure we all have stories of immature, "rules lawyer/rules Nazi," and otherwise just plain bad DMs and players. It's an unfortunate reality of RPGs. The best thing is to see what went wrong and why, learn from it, and move on. My advice is to use the first few sessions to feel out what the group is like before using any of the more advanced stuff like powers checks or introducing content some may find objectionable.

Another useful tool is for the first session to not even be one where the game is played. Players should give their characters life, give the DM input on what is and isn't acceptable to them (which should continue as the campaign goes on), and otherwise help outline a compromise on what will and will not be acceptable behavior and content. All this can even be done in the middle of a campaign to smooth ruffled feathers and sometimes stop problems before they start.

*SNIP*

Snipped for space....

I totally agree, in fact i have experienced rule lawyers to some extend and I generally think i have breeded between me, my two best friends to have a solid grasp of 3.5 rules, and keep track of people doing thing's right. We try not to be obnoxious about it if they are wrong.

While it can be very bad if a DM is a dictator, in some cases the players need to accept things the DM does or views. After the game compromising on views is a good thing to do. Or realizing for this campaign this is how it is in this setting. When I said "DM is Law" I didn't mean you should just roll over and kill your arguments, just rather accept the judgement for the time being until there's a more appropriate time to discuss. Unlike what this guy seemed to have done.... blow up and stop the game. Doesn't sound like they went much further than that the night they played that game.

[Epically]

Thanks for all the comments and constructive critism. Definitely a lot of things I never thought of. Appreciate the help.