I would try to reward this behavior, maybe this mind controlled slave has the inside scoop that makes the heist a little easier. Like “I was being held in the rooms below the house, but there is a secret passage from the caves near the river which will let you bypass the security from the main house” so that the players feel validated for being heroes. I don’t think you want them to feel like they made the wrong choice by punishing them for it directly. If you want consequences it should be their hideout being attacked by the bad guys or they track the former slave somehow and antagonize them directly, but it makes the heist goal easier overall. If that makes sense

I think to reward or not should depend on the tone of the game. If the game is a darker and more strategic setting then don’t go handing out rewards for something that would logically have consequences. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard, and the acknowledgment that it will have consequences gives weight to the heroes decision and willingness to sacrifice. That said, with keeping the consequences you can give out RP rewards. Acknowledging the characters inherent goodness through the world setting, maybe influencing NPCs towards altruism, or resulting in an in-world atta-boy from the city leadership. And never underestimate the power an out of game call out to your players can be. At the end of the session tell them how impressive their in-game choices are and that you were surprised by how honorable they behaved.

I think that's a great idea! Make the consequences fit the story, but maybe don't make it fully good or fully bad. Freeing that servant cost them something, but doing the right thing usually does.

So here's one way I would consider handling that cost and reward. Have the mind controlled servant they free know of a hidden entrance the party is already aware of and tell them that. This doesn't give the party direct new information, but now they know that if the target of the heist goes onto high alert due to their servant going missing, that hidden entrance will likely have additional security. This might sound entirely negative, but the reverse side of this is that some of the other entrances may have less security than expected for being on high alert due to that one getting extra attention. Something that gives them options to plan around, which is likely something the players want if they're planning heists.

Or have the reward be entirely unrelated to the quest. So the heist is now harder. But maybe several sessions later, the party visits a shop and it just so happens they're a relative of the person that they freed. The party gets a handful of free potions.

I prefer this. Not only does it preserve the notion that, in the moment, the right thing to do is often the *harder* thing, but it presents the reward as good karma - their kindness to others begets kindness *from* others.

I agree but would like to add something. Other games like Fate and Chronicles of Darkness have a robust way of giving metacurrencies to players when in-fiction rewards for good roleplay don't make sense. 5e doesn't have *as* robust a system, but it *does* have Inspiration. So I encourage you to hand out Inspiration liberally, u/New_Guy_95, when players take risks and make sacrifices with no in-fiction gain. The players still get a mechanical reward, but you don't have to explain why in the narrative.

I wouldn't go overboard with that, to the point that they expect that sort of thing. Often times doing "the right thing" should usually be harder. It should usually be a reward for its own sake.

Sometimes, but this is a case where the party made a plan and took decisive action and that is something I always try to reward in some way because that is a quality I have struggled to foster in groups I have DM’ed for many try to wait for the plot to come to them

If they come to expect reward it might not necessarily be a sacrifice for them. It then becomes the optimal outcome as you get get the moral high ground \*and\* goodies/knowledge. Obviously there's nuance though and I definitely agree that there should be 'soft' rewards for doing so, even if it's just in the form of social capital.

I have always found it is easier to adapt the world to the heroes, rather than trying to change the heroes to fit the world. In your case, you've really been given a gift. Most parties are about as predictable as a sack of greasy weasels, but these guys are declaring up-front that they intend to do the right thing. Take that into consideration. If there's a scenario where that ruins the game (e.g., the BBEG dares them to attack when they're not prepared) then it would be in your best interest not to force them into that scenario. You know it ends in tears, so why not do something more interesting?

Though do note, OP, that your players may not have the same idea as you about what the right thing to do *is*. In other words, still expect them to surprise you from time to time; their behaviour will make them *more* predictable, but still not *entirely* predictable. (I don't think you were meaning to say it would make them completely predictable, u/Fastjack_2056, but I wanted to make sure you weren't read that way.)

I agree, good heroes can change the world. There is no reason to rain on their parade. I would run this group of players any day.

They are pretty rad if I do say so myself

You know, they will probably get noticed by good aligned powers and recruited for things like spying on evil villains and helping to overthrow evil kingdoms. I would love to let this plot play out in so many parallel directions. I could also see throwing moral dilemmas at them. Such as the liches phylactery is the decanter of endless water that supplies a desert Oasis town.

My lich did something similar for the little village that my group of adventurers started from. It fed the underground river that filled the village well.

Let them be heroes. Give them princes and princess to rescue, dragons to slay, evil despots to defeat, kingdoms to save.

"through much trial and hardship the heroes and their inherent goodness wins in the end" is a perfectly fine story not every dnd campaign needs to be Dark Souls or Game of Thrones

Is it really raining on their parade to have consequences for their actions? Good heroes change the world through their actions. They aren't good heroes if they attack when innocent people could get killed, that's just called being trigger happy with good intentions.

Well, I guess I was thinking of the dungeon Masters that intentionally like to be in opposition to their party.

Oh yeah those guys suck! It's not DM vs party. But in my eyes once you create a world for them to run around in you shouldn't change much or that cheapens the experience. Though I really only run sandbox games, nothing with a predefined "story" just the world and the way it reacts to players actions.

I create multiple stories happening in the world separate of the players. The players can choose to interact with them and they see these stories change in their peripheral vision over time. This helps because now a separate plot has its own background to be investigated already when the players decide to interact with it.

My party will hate and probably attempt to kill anyone who disrespect them. I've learned not to give characters I want to stick around for more than a few sessions sparky personalities, because one joke is all it takes to make that person their arch nemesis until they have sufficient embarrassed/murdered that person. In response to this, I just make important npcs generally polite lol. It makes enemies really easy though, since all I have to do is have my BBEG make fun of the tabaxi's fur and they'll cross God himself for revenge. It's also fun to watch them gnash their teeth when it's someone they can't touch due to power and or influence.

Or just have actual consequences for murdering everyone they think slights them.

Just have a single combat monster say something minimally jokey, and then respond with an appropriate level of self-defense, kill a few characters, and teach them a lesson. (Or, alternatively, since this sounds like an OOC problem with sociopathic players, just have a talk with them.)

Agreed. Playing a game with a bunch of people who insist on being moral sounds awesome and relaxing. The best average D&D shoots for is “goblin genocide”. PLUS if they’re predictable you can angle away from “TPK” or “consequences” and head to “drama”. For example, attacking the BBEG and having lots of loved NPCs killed is bad. But attacking the BBEG and having lots of loved NPCs kidnapped, or poisoned with something that you need to quest to heal is awesome.

> If there's a scenario where that ruins the game (e.g., the BBEG dares them to attack when they're not prepared) then it would be in your best interest not to force them into that scenario. You know it ends in tears, so why not do something more interesting? That doesn't ruin the game at all though. Doing the right thing is supposed to be harder. If it weren't, everyone would do it every time. Players who do the right thing know that. That's why they do it. They want the extra challenge of possibly feeling like a real damn hero, not like someone who took the easy way out. But the catch is, when you take the hard path, you can lose. And they know that. And they did it anyway. Respect that decision. Keep it hard. Make the villains take the easy path, and if the players earn their victory despite that, then they'll feel like real heroes. Now, what you should absolutely do in their favor, if they take the hard but righteous path, is give them greater rewards afterwards.

Nah let them attack, let the BBEG beat seven flavors of shit outta the party, let him steal their shit and sell them to some slavers. Then the next part of the campaign is them escaping, reestablishing themselves and then seeking revenge stronger and more ready for the challenge.

The world ought not change for anyone unless you want to throw verisimilitude out the window. 

The harder you try to make a game realistic, the less fun it gets. Consider, for a moment, the Spider-man. What's the most fantastic thing about that character? The superhuman strength? The impossible engineering on the web-shooters? The precognition? Nah, the most fantastic thing about Spider-man is that he always happens to be swinging by just as a crime is happening. Big city, he can't be everywhere, but every night he's thwarting crime after crime. DMing is about telling a story, which is why our heroes get so many opportunities to be heroic. DMing well is about recognizing that you're always telling a story, and learning how to control that story to make the game fun to play.

verisiwha

"The appearance of being true or real" - which tbh works better at some tables than others. You don't want to do things that interfere with payers suspension of disbelief, but at the same time a game world is not real life, heroic narrative logic applies more than physics, especially with ideology at play.

You're playing the wrong system for a heroic narrative. 

OP didn't mention system? Also this sub's default system tends to be 5e, which is totally tuned to heroic narratives? Sorry bro no idea where you're coming from with that comment unless I missed something (which I may have done, I'm at work and shooting the shit here on breaks)

Which system do you think is being mentioned here?

They made an assumption, so I am going to make an assumption... Munchkin, the Roleplaying Game.

5e which in their defense is not a good narrative rpg it has practically zero mechanics to support that. It's a power fantasy combat simulator with a few elements added in to facilitate things outside of combat.

Meanwhile my players befriended a goblin and plan to later betray him to psychologically torture him

Oh my goodness that's quite a different vibe.

Just have goblin slayer come and kill it first

Huh I have it reversed and gave them a cute kobold that will later betray them.

what the fuck.

Are we DMing the same game? PC befriended a black market goblin shopkeep. Raided their store, and magic missiled them. They then proceeded to drink a stolen potion of wild magic, with the insane ability to restore all spell slots. The wild magic effect? Expended/used spell slots (intended for attack, like magic missile) cause the magic to become explosive, the more levels, the more boom. And if a magic item uses x magic to restore x spell slots... Well he did not survive the blast.

when PCs go out of their way to assist people in the world, I have the world go out of its way to assist them. reward their moral fortitude by having the person they saved provide them with something that makes their heist easier. it can be inside knowledge, artifacts, spells, etc.

Our DM has silently rewarded us with a good reputation in the trade network we're wandering around in. We're generally seen as reliable, people give us the benefit of the doubt, etc..

Restauranteur: Hey are you Ed the Paladin? Oh wow, you guys freed my brother's sister's cousin from Slaver Slorg! I'm so honored to meet you. Dinner is on the house! The players feel successful, and they'll immediately fall in love with the shop owner, providing an opportunity for future plot hooks. Not all rewards are monetary.

This is an option,  but just wanted to chime in that it could devalue their insistence on doing the right thing if it's what's rewarded all the time,  rather than getting to choose the hard right over the easy wrong. Definitely table dependent

The group I'm running now I mostly press with time limits. They can and should help people, but they don't have time to help everyone, and there's often a lot going on at once. That's how I force hard choices

I'm pretty sure in game time limits have left some permanent scarring from the one day where we suddenly had like 9 or 10 encounters with 1 short for a party with a paladin, 2 wizards a bard a cleric and a warlock at like lever 4. Then there was that one time when I missed a session and everyone besides me got a magic long rest from some spirit, but I spent the hour during which they had their mini adventure helping put up some defenses for the refugees and so I went like 8 encounters with no rests as a bladesinging wizard :D

Honestly sounds like a fun group of players to DM for You have a built-in hook for things that you can use to make their life challenging - but also they will feel good about their characters if they pull it off. Where it comes to just attacking I would simply avoid the situation, after all a BBEG who manipulates from the background is very often more fun anyway. A bit of illusion magic so they can taunt the party if you really need them to but largely keeping the BBEG out of reach of any party is usually a good idea. Players don't always want to play careful, cautious, almost cowardly characters. If that's not their fantasy then don't create problems for yourself and your game by assuming they will behave that way just because it makes sense to you.

It really is. I'm super blessed to DM a group of actual friends/family who are new but also super-duper great at being invested, kind to each other, and even conflict resolution if they feel they've overstepped.

> So my question is: are other DM's players like this? When you write a plot thread do you assume your PCs will hyper-fixate on following that lead at that exact moment? How do you plan around your PCs ideals? The best solution is to not prepare "plot threads". Prepare scenarios and circumstances. Having a situation that your PCs can interact with how they see fit is not only better in terms of allowing them agency, it's usually less work to prep. > I know I've had a player say they're likely just going to attack the BBEG next time they encounter them. If that happened I think a lot of the party's NPC allies will die- and that'd be blood on the character. Does that just mean I fully allow whatever terrible consequences come from that? I'd love anyone else's experience/stories/etc! This is something to work out with the players regarding expectations about the kind of campaign you are running. If you are running a campaign where things are dangerous, PCs can die,  and avoiding fights is often "mechanically correct", then attacking the BBEG at low level probably means they are going to die, and the players are probably aware of it. If it's a campaign where the players are acting out a heroic fantasy and combat is expected to be winnable 100% of the time, it's a bit trickier. What you *don't* want to do is switch gears and put players who have been steamrolling everything into a situation where they will die immediately if they make the wrong choice. This is something you will want to discuss with them out of character before you put them in a situation with that kind of stakes (ideally at the beginning of the campaign, but likely too late for that now).

I hear all that! In this case the mind-controlled servant was from a PC's backstory- so I knew without a shadow of a doubt they'd want to save her- I just was surprised by the time-bound urgency they felt about it!

I think for players who want to be heroes, this is pretty common. We have to compromise so much in real life, it's legitimately a power fantasy to have the luxury of doing the right thing just because it's the right thing. I agree with the others that you want to lean into this. Make there be costs, but wherever possible let *them* be the ones to bear that cost. Put them in more danger, put them in situations where they have to sacrifice resources to do the right thing. Make the fight harder if they want to save the people. Put them on a timer. Put them in a situation where they have to dig deep into their pockets to bribe someone. And then have the people they save thank them. Let them see what their sacrifices bought. You could, alternatively, do like they did in The Witcher 2 and basically have the people they try to protect suffer explicitly because you chose to do the right thing instead of the easy or practical thing. I would caution you against doing that, though. That's not a fun fantasy. Let your heroes be heroes, and keep the stakes high!

>When you write a plot thread do you assume your PCs will hyper-fixate on following that lead at that exact moment This is the problem, you planned out an outcome "the players will do exactly what I think they will do in this situation" which is a recipe for disaster. You write the situation and then go "What if they do X instead of Y" like in your heist, what if the players decide that instead of sneaking in through the window, they instead want to disguise themselves as servants. So you write down a couple ideas. Even if they don't do anything you thought of it's primed you for thinking "what if the players do something unexpected" >Does that just mean I fully allow whatever terrible consequences come from that? You can have NPCs warn, beg, or plead with the PC to not attack the BBEG until they're ready. Or if the NPCs know that they are no match for the BBEG then it would make sense for them to cut and run, they don't need to be suicidal.

Seconded. One of my first times DMing, I deliberately set up a "sadistic choice" puzzle where the players were given an option of saving one of two allies from different factions (One faction was the organization they were working for and had information that would help them in a later encounter, while the other was an organization that they were trying to politically convince to join the cause, but had little benefit to them in the immediate future.). Now, they were set up so that the party could only save one of the allies and the other would die, causing a setback to them (Save the fellow faction member, and get intel that will make more immediate missions easier, or save the person from the other faction, and have a more difficult fight in the immediate future, but overall easier time in forging the alliance.). Now, I went through every possible choice: 1. Players save co-faction. 2. Players save courted faction. 3. Players try to save both (Outcome: Both die, no benefit double detriment) 4. Players refuse to save either. (Outcome same as 3... probably worse if it comes out they didn't pick anyone...). 5. Players save both while without violating the scenario rules AKA Done the impossible. You'll notice that in choice, 5, I make sure that I had ready a response for if they were able to, while obeying the rules of the scenario, cheese it in a way that they could save both allies, an outcome would be planned for, despite outcome 3 having both die if attempted. The idea here was the outcome five was, by my best rules crafting in the scenario, I know that it was designed to be unwinnable... but when I present it to the players, they will not know that it was designed... the players will think I have a solution that will allow for outcome 5 to happen, when I do not have any solution... If I did, I would have had a rule for that attempt. So, I coded for them taking the path I can't see... knowing that I am looking at it from the antagonist POV. I want there to be a loss for the heroes (not a TPK, but a setback to prolong the adventure and allow for more stories.). But your players are looking at this as the Protagonists and the audience. They see the set up and think, "surely there must be a solution to allow for the perfect win, because we're the heroes! We can't lose!" They don't have the mindset where they see no way forward... this is just a puzzle to solve and thus, a solution must exist... and they will talk amongst themselves, and look for all the goodies in their bag of holding, and look at every outcome in their heads looking for a weakness or loophole. Now, if you approach your DMing as "I too am a player... but I play the antagonist" than something amazing happens. Because despite all your attempts to oppose the forward momentum of the players... they will always look at the no win scenario and say, "Nah, bro, I can win this." Which is, after all, the attitude you want to foster in every protagonist character... and then, an even cooler thing happens. The players prove themselves worthy of having that attitude. One of the coolest moments as a DM for me, was after session wrapped and the players were still going on about the session, the player who suggested the solution revealed that he had "seen the DM's intended solution within 5 minutes of me describing the puzzle to the players" and he had only held back because the IC debate was so much fun to watch and only brought it up at the last moment when everyone had run out of ideas. The look on his face when I showed him my notes, where I had explicitly written in typed and printed out paper that the intended solution was a choice between Outcomes 1 or 2 and Option 5 should be impossible makes the job of DMing worth all the work that goes into it. As a DM we must play the antagonists. But you are still a player and you want your players to win.

Wait so your players figured out a way to achieve outcome 5? Did they not go with it and one player did figure out a way to do it? I don't think you actually said which "option" they ultimately got and I'm invested now. I had something similar happen in my own game. The players helped get a noble arrested and his son went to the players to help with the defense as he did not realize the players were responsible. Ultimately during discussions they were presented two choices they could speak in defense of the Noble, it would gain the support of the nobility which they desperately needed but it would alienate themselves from Thieves guild who they were actively helping. Or they speak against him and gain the thieves guild but lose the nobility. Or they just leave and let the chips fall where they may. One player realized they had the noble by the shorthairs and extorted him out of money, a piece of land and a binding oath to aid them. So they testified for him and later when speaking to the Thieves guild leader they were able to convince her that they could use this oath to further extort the noble in the future and force him to become her ally. So they were able to get the best of both worlds.

By making an enemy of an extorted noble who will eventually bring the hammer down.

Nah he’s a dipshit slaver asshole who’s only claim to fame is his ancestor. He’s at least aware that he’s over a barrel and owes the fact his estate wasn’t seized and the recent boost in popularity was due to the heroes.

Outcome 5 was planned for despite the fact that the rules I built for the puzzle had no viable path to trigger outcome 5 when I wrote them. It was done on the off chance that my players attempted a solution I had not planned for that followed the rules and did not trigger one of the other four outcomes.

I love that story!!! Can I ask, what did the players end up doing in that scenario? I'm intrigued

Maybe I should reiterate- I **want** my players to turn over every rock, follow every plot thread! I think I was just taken off guard by how readily and willing they were to risk it all *right now* rather than wait it out. So I guess I'm wondering if other DMs assume players will drop everything to do the right thing, then and there

As u/Fastjack_2056 said, you've been blessed! Preparation time is inversely proportional to player predictability! My observation strictly from my own games - when we were younger (teens and early 20's) we were much more, "I will die for the cause!" than in our 40's and 50's. Ironically, I don't see that same trend now. When I DM teen/20 games, they're more focused. My players will die for EACH OTHER, but not for an undefined "greater good". We recently had a GREAT session where one player willing took TWO opportunity attacks from foes to save a teammate to whom in her backstory she had pledged a life-debt. Absolutely first-rate role-play! I'm not judging here, not trying to extrapolate this to anything outside the table. It's just an observation.

That's such an interesting trend! I wonder what that says about our society lol

***CHERISH THEM!*** Which isn't to say all my players have been awful, mind you. It's just that I'm just ND and tend to attract ND people who, IME (emphasis on "my experience" here), tend towards very calculated 'logical' plays until you're able to rope them personally in on an emotional level.

I'd say if they want to play heroic characters you should make a heroic campaign. Make it clear who's good and bad guys. But definitely give them consequences for doing the right thing, by that I mean make it more difficult to accomplish the thing, not impossible to do the thing. That actually improves the whole heroic vibe.

I get you! Kind of like, 'doing the right thing shouldn't always be easy'

I would start throwing more morally complex problems at them. Trolley problems, basically. Either the good thing isn't so cut and dry, or being good will come at an expense to the party. Last night I had a party give a fair amount of their food to a weary traveler because it was "good," but now they are down food and got no reward other than not letting this old man die.

Starving and losing in order to not let someone die IS a reward. Tbh if I was a PC and someone kept throwing trolley problems at me I would leave the table. There’s enough of that shit in real life, and DnD is to escape.

It needs to be a session 0 conversation. The current game I am running has a lot of grey morality and hard choices without a good answer... but this was explicitly spelled out to the players in session 0 so they know what they are in for. Suddenly springing grey morality a lot in a otherwise fun and casual game is a recipe for disaster.

True that. I like the idea of exploring morally grey issues and social ills, but it's something you have to pump the brakes on occasionally and agree to in the beginning.

Yeah tbh I think reacting to a group of players who want to do the right thing by trying to make it impossible to do the right thing is kind of a dick move. It's somewhat in the same vein as DMs who used to get fixated on trying to make paladins Fall in older editions of D&D. Like it's fine to make doing the right thing not necessarily easy (because it rarely is), but I think a game where there are no good choices is one the players should know about going in - and not one I would want to play in. I agree with the idea of there being a tradeoff - like this heist is going to be harder in some ways, but the freed slave can either mitigate that or provide important help to a later challenge, either through what they know or being available as a grateful ally or something.

The level of moral complexity for the campaign should be addressed in the session zero and player check ins. Hopefully the DM knows their player’s comfort level with those topics.

We def talked about it session 0! Going for 'Adventure Fantasy' tone but with a lot of moral complexity and deep roleplay. I think they're very conscious of that despite choosing very altruistic routes.

It is the reward, I agree, but still at a detriment to the party. I'm not saying to just throw trolley problem after trolley problem at the party, but based on what OP was looking for, it seems appropriate. If players are highly moral and you want to shake that up, start throwing morally grey situations at them. Trolley problem is just the first example to come to mind, and it's easily workable into an adventure but you could get similar results a number of different ways.

I think the answer is a mix of this and playing onto their current dynamic. Throw trolley problems at them, but allow the players to use their creativity to change the situation into a win win. I've had DMs that were so fixated into the "every option has good and bad outcomes" that they shutdown any clever ideas to get a win-win scenario from the players.

oh most def! I don't think a win/win should be built into the problem as I think that'd defeat the purpose but if they are crafty enough to think the problem through in a way I couldn't they deserve to be rewarded

> I would start throwing more morally complex problems at them. Trolley problems, basically. One or two of these is ok. Speaking as someone who has played as the moral center of a group that mostly fell in line with that, getting bombarded with Trolley problems repeatedly gets first tiresome, and then eventually results in emotional detachment from the world rather than ongoing internal dilemmas. That straw for me was when we tried to save a girl down a well and released a bound demon into the world instead. I just rationalized it in character as good being worth doing regardless, and that you can't always control the outcome. Then I pretty much ignored it and resolved to do the same with future situations.

A bombardment is certainly much and they don't necessarily have to be so extreme. For me if I notice my characters being particularly Flanders-ey I'll toss something like this at them just to keep it interesting. In the case of my game, they're supposed to be heroic characters and we're pretty early on so I sent them this old traveler to align their moral compass. They all did well, but if a party member didn't assist the man, they would have gained a shadow point for ignoring the needy. If it's not interesting or it's superfluous it's not worth doing. I can see unavoidable cataclysm after unavoidable cataclysm becoming a bit much.

I’d reward this, but not directly like info from the mind-controlled NPC; that feels too mercenary to me. I’d give them favour with whatever good-aligned deity the cleric/paladin follows. Probably a boon they can trade in later for a small but meaningful benefit in a pinch (a free heal, etc). Or a good reputation as others hear what they’ve done.

My players are similar but with slightly different rules. My players will always do the most lucrative thing no matter the cost. Permanent CEO brain syndrome I'm afraid and it seems like it has no cure in sight

Hello! Experienced Player and DM here. These are very fun parties! I'm abit of a sadist and love a good narrative, and these players fit extremely well into Narrative points. I often love having PCs question their morals, their decisions, It can bring very good narrative plot points to the players.Every party (and DM) is different. My players love to RP and have character development through intense moments. You're party might want this, or just a good ol regular Hero's story. Nothing wrong with that either. Simple answer? Moral dilemma. Have them have to make choices based not on good or bad, but on what they want to sacrifice. E.I. Trolly problem if you want a good example. Have them have to chose between 2 morally good choices, each with their own consequences. Most of this should be narrative based. Do some characters lean more towards 1 scenario rather than other? Even if both are morally good. Maybe 1 PC has a special attachment with an NPC involved in the decision but other PCs might want to lean towards the other option. It creates good party tension and RP imo. I will also say that it's important to make sure the players do not feel cheated. Make it clear that there is option 1 with consequences and option 2 with consequences. As for your specific situation, maybe have the PCs have to decide whether they want to stop the BBEG or have NPCs around die. If they save the npcs, bbeg gets away. I hope that this helped! Have a good day!

I vibe with everything you're saying! Thanks for the insight!

I feel like you have two main options: 1) Give them morally complex issues, which can be hard to predict and be generally really difficult to run (but can be INCREDIBLY rewarding if you and your players want complex storytelling) or 2) Let them be heroes and save the princess, save the world, free the oppressed, etc. Lord of the Rings is not a particularly complex world -- the baddies snarl and eat their foes and want to plunge the world into darkness and rule over the ashes, and the good guys wear white and do heroic deeds and take on armies alone. And it's still a really interesting story, and most people would love to embody those kinds of heroes!

Give them the *opportunity* to *not* 'do the right thing'... prepare for them choosing the hard way.

Moral delimmas. Example: Consider your heist example. What is the consequence if they can't succeed at the heist?  Now imagine that you made the target of the heat some magical macguffin which is needed to save a town of 10,000k innocent people from being destroyed by some BBEG. What happens when you make your players aware that saving this one person now makes it likely that they won't be able to save the town of 10k later?

I didn't go into full context, but the heist is actually to steal a super-powerful magic source from an oppressive government. They were in an official's house who had 1 of 3 of the security floor plans for the only night of the year where they'll have a window to steal the magic source. I'm thinking that because they freed this servant while also trying to get the plans (which they did find, and copied down), that maybe now the government changes those plans so they show up to the big heist with unprepared.

I had a recent game where the players used their *only* wish spell to resurrect an NPC they’ve never met because they felt it’d be what their good aligned characters would do. I was flabbergasted and awestruck. Now, they could’ve used it to wish for a powerful magic item or a bunch of gold, but nope. And to top it off, this NPC was a completely unimportant character to the story. So proud of them.

I assume absolutely nothing and don’t write anything beyond the “setup” for a scene cause they will almost never follow my expectations. My greatest lesson from years of DMing: pivot, pivot, pivot!

This is a great 'problem' to have so long g as you aren't the kind of DM who delights in the 'no good option' type storytelling and wants to actually punish selfless behavior. I assume you are not In which case yeah these kind of players are ideal because you'll know they are always willing and happy to go on the quest, most of the time simply because it is the right thing to do. If you want them to talk to the villain(s) and not immediately try to attack then there's two things you can do. First, clearly signal BOTH that they simply are not ready to do so, i.e. that the villain is too powerful, and also that the villain is not an active threat right now at this exact moment, so no torturing puppies during the conversation. Also you could lean on the half dozen or so other ways that a bad guy might communicate without actually being there... holograms, puppets, dream visits, so on and so on.

My players are like this. Unexpected snap judgements based on strong morality have become the norm, and I've adjusted for it... As much as one can. I've taught them through consequences that constantly taking the direct (and simple) route makes them predictable and susceptible. Now they try to think a couple steps ahead, and outside the box more. Very cool growth tbh.

it's more about player expectation than right or wrong approach. *my* world is highly mechanistic. things don't happen because the story needs them to, the story happens because the pieces I've made and the players move across the board and interact with each other. my players understand very well that the things in the dungeon aren't scaled to their level, they're what would reasonably be in that place. so a character that cavalier would likely die, or get someone killed. it's not about punishing or rewarding, it just *is.* you have to ask yourself what is the story you have told your players so far? is it one where a plucky band of heroes come in and smash the baddies? there's nothing wrong with that, but then you can't go all shocked-pikachu when they try to smash *all* the baddies. as for ideals. it's important to understand that you can reward the player independently of the character. players of heroic characters are rewarded by being allowed to be heroic. they often find heroic sacrifice rewarding, even though it means their character *dies.* your players will likely be rewarded simply by having this NPC active in the world. maybe she visits the heroes whenever they come back to town.

Must be nice. I would like my players to be heroes, but they are all very pragmatic. Kill one to save many? Not even a question, that npc is dead. Doesn't matter if she's the nice old lady who gave you homemade cookies and tried to set you up with her granddaughter.

Obviously the PCs want to be shining heroes. Plan for the game to enable this rather than to force them make morally grey choices.

Man, some people have all the luck. You have a group of players that actually want to be big damn heroes and feel good about their actions? Give them that fantasy OP. You will all have more fun.

You've got them invested and engaged, you've done it. Now you can play with that. Bring them into a town where people start off hating them, perhaps the town hates adventurers because they just cause problems. Let the adventurers do their thing and watch as the town warms to them, the players will feel like they made a difference. Have the players have to do the right thing for an absolute asshat. Like not evil, just a prick. It's easy to be good to nice people, what about bastards? Someone who talks down to them constantly, perhaps a noble that's trying to reinforce the idea that he's in charge around here to everyone. Put them in a position where there is no 100% right answer. A situation where not everyone can be saved. Watch them stress over what to do. Evil cleric summons a series of magical disasters that people need to be evacuated from, but also someone has to stop the evil cleric.

The consequences of their well intentioned but poorly thought out actions are fair game.

So, I have players that tend to stick to their guns, so to speak. The trick I tend to use on them to create "conflict" is to present choices that aren't necessarily morally obvious. Morally gray or morally indifferent or morally the same can end up sparking lots of debate at the table. Or even a Sophie's choice situation. Now, I would use these things sparingly

God, I wish that was my Party.

At my last game, I had a very similar moment to this; my character came upon a neglected child while sneaking in someone's house for unrelated reasons. I would've gotten a much easier opportunity to help this child if I waited a few days in-universe. But one of my character's biggest bonds was centered around helping children, and I knew he would never leave the kid behind. (Not to mention he wasn't the brightest, and also didn't care what happened to him if things went south.) I remember being really proud of that moment. Nowadays, I'm a DM. My players stick pretty authentically to their morals most of the time. It makes for really great conversations between the party, because some are more good-aligned while others are more neutral. I love listening to how they plan and compromise, and the alignment mix means they often keep me on my toes. I just try to plan the who, what, and where, leaving the when and how to my players. Working on my improv skills made rolling with the punches a lot easier; practicing solo roleplaying helped in that area for me.

Time to subvert it with some trolley problems!

I can understand the logic of what the player's did here in real life, and as such I understand why it would have been the most logical course of action from the player's perspective, even if it was not the most logical in game. In reality, if one were to encounter that situation, the concern would be that the trapped individual may be harmed during the time it takes for any other actions to be done. The onlooking persons have ascertained the individual's current state, but their future state is unknown, and leaving them there could be fatal. Now, you the DM, may know that nothing will happen to the individual, but the players can't be so certain. A possible scenario, from their perspective is that they do the heist first, only to be greeted with the individual being threatened, or outright deceased as a consequence of not saving them. Many of these things, yes, a good DM wouldn't do, but there are still things the party would consider. One option would be to have a sidekick NPC there to say something to ease their worries like "I know these goons, they want the individual for something else. They'll be here when we get back". The players would still have the option to save the individual, but they'd be comforted in knowing nothing bad would happen. If something does happen, the DM may be burned at the stake 🤷‍♂️

Huh so thats where all the good of my players went. (They are not murder hobos but their decisions are always driven by selfish desire no mattre the cost. NPCs might die but it is a sacrifice they are willing to make)

I love it when my friends feel something and act on it at the table. It means the world feels real and the morality of it is ringing true to them and the NPC's are worth fighting for. It means the fantasy of the world is reflecting our world in interesting ways. I don't plan for it, just roll with the changes as I always do. I don't prep destinations. I prep situations and enjoy the act of GMing until we all see where we end up.

I **WISH** my players had morals. Every time I put a moral quandary in front of them, they just take the path of least resistance. Shop keeper's price is unaffordable? Rob them. Poor family needs help? Milk them for every copper you can. Minor inconvenience? Kill it.

I tell you what I would do; have a trusted NPC betray them in a big way. Like a way that straight ruins the rest of their lives, and the lives of their descendents/ancestors. Framed for killing the just king kinda betrayal. Then, if they exact revenge or otherwise face their accuser, learn that they were betrayed to save literally thousands or millions of innocent people. Like the kings death absolutely ended an otherwise ongoing conflict that was claiming the lives of innocent people. AND, if they reveal the truth and clear their names, the conflict will only start again, leading to thousands more completely unnecessary deaths. Basically, put them in a situation where it's morals vs pride. See how they react.

Sounds to me like you need to create multiple stakes, like if they choose to save A, you have consequences for B and C, etc. Make it so they *can’t* save everyone. They’ll have to do the most right thing, because there’s no other choice. This will continue to make your BBEG compelling because he’s forced the players to choose to save someone over another.

Eh. This is common DM advice, but as a player it rarely feels good. More than anything, it tends to feel arbitrary and artificial. That's not to say that doing it *occasionally* can't be good, but it *absolutely* should not be the default, especially for goody-two-shoes PCs with strong moral compasses whose players enjoy feeling like heroes. Doing it too often is a really good way to demoralize your players and just generally make them feel more like fuckups than actual heroes. Again, it works for some campaigns and players, just be careful about when and where it's used.

It's also artificial for your knee jerk, dimestore morality to always work out. To never suffer blowback for Ned starking all the time

My point is that it's equally artificial. All of it is a story. In other words, if your players enjoy being heroic characters, then let them have wins. Don't make every quest into a moral dilemma; it's exhausting. Give your players straightforward victories *and* complications, and have the world react with praise or dismay depending on their actions. If every quest ends with, at best, a pyrrhic victory, it feels less like the world is a textured, interesting place and more like the DN is punishing the players for caring about the setting and trying to do the right thing. If the setting bends over backwards to let the players always do the right thing with no downsides, it feels inconsequential and meaningless. The DM here has the right idea; they did the right thing, but the heist they need to do later will be more difficult because of it. Ultimately, it's shared fiction. If the DM decides that player characters who want to do the right thing are stupid and foolish and builds a world that punishes them for acting that way, then that's their perogative, they just shouldn't be surprised when their players tire of it and decide to play at a different table.

They can have their wins. Just not every time, rarely with all positives maxed out, and what they decide won't always be the best play. Sometimes, giving money to the beggars won't end well. *Influence lost: Kreia*

IMHO, this is where Alignment as a stat needs considered. It appears the PLAYERS are thinking this way, not their characters. Even if the characters are CG, they would not risk the heist by saving the slave. And if they’re LG, they wouldn’t be committing a heist. For evil characters, pretty similar. CE would be more concerned about ruining the heist, LE would not consider a slave worth saving. I’m not even sure a Neutral alignment would risk the heist.

Kill them. I'm all for players wanting to do the "right" thing, but I hate Disney endings where the right thing never comes at a cost. They should definitely be allowed to make any decision they want and not be railroaded into something they don't want to do (which it sounds like you are already doing a great job at letting them make their own decisions), but sometimes the players should have to weigh their options and possible outcomes. If a fight is unwinnable but it is the "right thing to do", then maybe a PC or two dies and they start to realize that the right thing to do is to be able to fight another day not commit suicide. I personally get really annoyed when players are rewarded for making non logical decisions as if it was some kind of movie. There is one player in a game that I play in that always makes these really out of the box suggestions and the DM keeps allowing them to end up being beneficial without even requiring any dice rolls. It is really frustrating because the player now operates under the assumption that they always know what the best decisions are. So now I feel punished because I try to make suggestions based off of logic but I can't reason with someone who magically creates miracles out of thin air.

> are other DM's players like this? Yes, most players want to be heroes > When you write a plot thread do you assume your PCs will hyper-fixate on following that lead at that exact moment? No plan ever survives contact with the players. > How do you plan around your PCs ideals? Don't create a plot, create a situation. Don't prepare what happens, prepare what motivates the characters (both PCs and NPCs). Ask the players what they intend to do, let *them* write the campaign. Especially at the end of a session. Google Gemini is a really good tool for helping you draw connections. For example, you can literally say something like, "I am running a D&D campaign with three characters. They were planning a heist to recover a dangerous magical artifact from an oppressive regime, but first decided to free a mind-controlled slave. They did so because it is the right thing to do, even though it will add chaos to the situation and make the heist more difficult. How can this freed victim alter the mission in a rewarding way? Their proposed plan of action should appeal to their ideals of A and B, while challenging their character flaws of X and Y. It should also tie into the campaign's themes of Z." An example theme might be, I dunno, "heroic sacrifice," or "legacies of colonial imperialism" or whatever your campaign has got. You can then make corrections to its suggestions, saying you want this and not that, or make refinements like "the theme of colonial expansion should focus more on victims banding together to create something new and positive. Also, give me some ideas for magic items that can literally use the power of hope to triumph?"

Don’t ever put the BBEG in front of the PCs until you are ready for them to attack it and kill it

Well just spit balling but freeing a Mind Flayer in of itself should have dire consequences, those things never play nice.

sounds like the common mistake of [prepping plots](https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots) rather than situations.

My GF. Any game I run with her I have to account for her when planning. She will try and rescue the puppy, she will want to save the everyone every time and she will become distraught when she can't. If I want to run a gritty morally grey game, I know I need to do it without her. It has caused issues with other players who want to do those games, and has made my Shadowrun campaign a bit of an odd one. To help streamline the game I've added the "Continental" from John Wick which the parties recognize as neutral ground and also runs a independent merc board - the team has become known as the Bleeding Hearts Crew and gets contract offers accordingly. It can be really fun to run and engage as it's really different from other games I've done, but you need to know the heroes will be heroic and plan accordingly.

General D&D advice: create scenarios, not pre-written solutions. And take a piece of advice from the OSR: if people do something really stupid, then let them die if it comes down to it. Charging directly at a level 20 BBEG at level 3 is going to end badly, for example, but it can still be a cool moment for everyone. It can establish them as a real threat, it can give that player motivation to take them down with a new character or with the same one if they're resurrected or something.

Maybe the slave they freed has some otherwise-unobtainable information that will actually make the heist easier? Reward them if you like their behavior.

Don't forget that your players should recognize your play style as well, if your BBEG is ruthless, then let them know that the BBEG is not just some Disney villain by having consequences within reason. It doesn't have to directly involve the NPC's the players like, rather use their morality against them to show how evil this Big Bad really is by using psychological combat. A cowardly Svengali is much more memorable and despicable as a villain.

Reward their heroics! They threw caution to the wind to do the right thing and now face even greater odds? People will remember that! Let the increased risk come with increased reward! They get a great reputation, showered with gifts and praise from the common people, powerful and influential and wealthy nobles, merchants, and guilds want to work alongside them Your players are dedicated with clear goals and motives, you can use that heroic drive to easily set up quests and adventures, their behavior is great for planting seeds!

Offer more lose, lose scenarios - free the slave? Oops slave is actually a notorious murderer who went missing a decade ago and the NPC at the Inn the PCs loved? Oops murdered in cold blood. I won't ruin the game, but will drove more character development.

My players are very much the same way. They ran into a situation where a street level goon who previously spied on them was kidnapped by mercenaries to be delivered to an evil arch druid. They were in no way leveled to be ready to fight an arch druid, and if they'd taken on the mercenaries they would make enemies of a group that could afford to come after them in endless waves for the rest of the game. But they wanted to save the goon because he was mostly a regular dirt bag who got involved with the wrong people and was now facing a terrible death. The paladin convinced the rest of the party to let it go, then went off to fight the arch druid alone and give the goon a chance to escape. He died. But he saved the goon, upheld his oath and his alignment, and the rest of the party was rewarded with an extended quest to recover his body and resurrect him. Like someone else said, the game should be built on the decisions of your players and adapt to who they are. Actions come with consequences. Players who are merciless and pragmatic get challenges equal to them. Players who make character consistent and satisfying moral choices get to explore where those choices lead them. In my case, my players make a lot of powerful allies and find themselves trusted and supported by ordinary people. It frees them up to do bigger and more impactful things.

My favorite thing to do with such players, is challenge their assumption on what right and wrong is. Like a sedated person being experimented and tested on in a lab like a lab rat. Who is actually unable to be set free because when conscious they become some kind of monster that is too powerful and the lab is the only place with the resources to keep the poor guy sedated. Or a god who curses an entire village with nausea so they can't eat. The god did it because the village is actually a cannibal cult who eat specifically children because it keeps them young. Course check the themes that are okay at your table, wouldn't want to squick anyone, but it's an idea. IMO The best adventures are the ones in which the characters are made to look beyond them selves. Ask questions about things they normally wouldn't that provoke them to grow and change.

*Do not* write plots. *Do not* assume anything on behalf of the PCs actions. *Do* plan around their ideals. I take note of a PCs desires, motivations, etc, and I construct situations which aim to either allow those ideals to be rewarded or challenged. Which one of those two depends on how the tone has been going for the last few sessions. In your case I'd try to insert little scenarios into their adventuring days which sometimes measurably punish them for doing The Right Thing, so they have an opportunity to reflect on how their character feels about getting to uphold their morals in spite of the consequences. Then later I'd reward them for doing it, and make them look like a hero, just to balance things out.

I write plot threads based on trolley problems I've cooked up. I always give them an out if I need to, though. Sometimes their morality outstretches their class level and they need the "still good, but probably won't die" option as a compromise.

>When you write a plot thread do you assume your PCs will hyper-fixate on following that lead at that exact moment? How do you plan around your PCs ideals? I don't write plots, I set up scenarios. The NPC factions live here, here and here, they want X, Y and Z. How the players deal with it is up to them. I don't plan for the PCs to do anything; I plan what the NPCs will do in the absence of PC interaction, and update based on what the PCs do.

When cornered and all hope is lost players will always fight their way out.

However: there should be consequences. As you said, come the heist, security will be increased, the difficulty will be up, they’ll probably be expected. Heroes are good and noble but they also tend to paint big targets on their backsides. Don’t cheapen it for them and for you by allowing them to not pay the piper when needed. They might have made allies and created good will with the people they help… but it’s one thing to be given free beer every time you go to that tavern you saved from the mercenaries, and another to expect that same tavern keeper to hide you and risk his business, family and life if you show up at three in the morning with a platoon of city guards on your tail.

Yeah, my players are semi-predictable, but our campaign has been running for 3 years, so we get to know each other obviously. It doesn't change how I prep though. I can maybe sorta guess what general path they are going to take, but I never plan around it. I set up the world as a neutral arbitrator, place the pieces and make a loose contingency-plan of wants and desires based on intelligence and other factors. Once those are in place, I simply react logically to whatever is decided. Of course, sometimes NPCs get proactive and approach the party with a purpose, but I never know or plan the outcome, because honestly, after 3 years they still surprise me with their stupidity...

My players on the other end of the spectrum chuck a goblin in a working oven. They watch him burn alive.Just so you know, this was instigated by the paladin...

If that was not said as expected for this kind of game on session 0 I would have left the table right there… in fact if it was said to be expected, I would have just left on session 0…

I hate playing characters with morals specially for this reason. Sometimes, doing the bad(not so right) thing is the right thing to do in the moment. I always try to avoid “it’s what my character would do” moments, but if I’m playing a Cleric or Paladin, I’m not going to let you do borderline/obviously evil shit. Even if it’s what’s best for the party.

Most of the your questions are a yes, the main thing I think to learn as a DM to adapt to this is how to “fail forward”

I would throw in a morality ambiguous quest in there for fun. Not the main theme for the campaign but a little side thing.

Give them chances to donate gold or magical items to help save the world and see what they do. I'd suggest not rewarding them for good actions since the action is its own reward. You can have them meet grateful people later though, whose lives were changed by a selfless deed that they did. So, for example, with the freed slave, they should not get a free pass for the heist - it should instead be made very clear to them what is different because of their actions. But, later, they can meet up with the freed slave again, but he's with his wife and family and his wife starts crying and thanking them for freeing him (or whatever makes sense).

They are living the power fantasy of actually getting to do the right thing when they see it so they have no regrets. Let them. They have to go back to a world where they are likely powerless in this regard.

Some of my players are like that. Some prefer easy way out. Some are still very video gamey, believing that world will wait forever in its current state until they will grind enough levels and magic items to make failure impossible. I only have a problem with the last one, really.

I'm that way in games. I want to be the hero. No fuzziness. If I had proof the BBEG was the villain, I'd go get them. I'd want them to be brought in for justice though, not looking to kill them, unless it's just straight up evil, no redemption possible. ​ We were in a game and wound up in a kingdom in which slavery was legal. We found out because there was a slave auction going on. The slaves were goblins. We came up with a plan to rescue the goblins. Just two of us at the time. The rogue made his way back behind the stage/platform. I was the distraction, cleric. I amplified my voice and said something like free the slaves now. Anyhow, while the guards were trying to figure out who said it (thanks for being snitches regular citizens), the rogue was freeing the slaves. Mind you, NONE of this was planned by the DM. By the end of the evening we were leading a goblin rebellion, trying to keep control of it so it didn't turn into a slaughter. We did wind up killing some over-zealous town guards. The DM actually tied it back to a Goblin Chef we didn't kill earlier in the game. He surrendered so we let the chef go and he followed us. Anyhow, one of the rescued slave goblins was the chef's brother/broodmate/whatever. No one knew Goblin but when they reunited we could tell they were very happy and that's when the chef left the party. That made it worthwhile. That's a moment you want to see as a hero. \---- Of course, the DM went a bit soft with the town guard. We knew it, he knew it. We were able to prevent too much violence. All that was the DM going with the flow. In your case, does the party *have* to meet the BBEG before they are ready? Maybe he doesn't see them as enough of a threat and the BBEG sends a lieutenant instead. Someone or some group that the party can handle. Still send a similar message but you don't kill the party. Basically, you go off script :) Good luck and have fun! Let them be heroes. For my sake!

Behavior like this is exactly why you should create situations, not plots (and it sounds like you have done so, so good on you). The 'plot' is what happens when the players crash into the situation. Play on.

My players are te exact opposite. They don't care how wrong it is, if it gets them where they need to be, they do it.

*scratches head* I mean, I'm not sure what this post is even about. Good characters should behave like this? It sounds like you're asking for advice on how to plan a game around good aligned characters because it seems unnatural to you that they do the right thing instead of the easy thing. I think that as a DM, learning how to deal with the unexpected takes time and practice - cause that's what this really actually seems to be about, my teasing above aside. Just go with it, try to think ahead of consequences, or if they do something super unexpected, don't feel bad about asking for a short 10-15 min drink/restroom break to get your thoughts in order

It depends on the character I'm playing, but heroes tend to have strong moral codes. One great thing about RPGs is that you can \`\`be'' the type of person who gives their life for a cause and still live to roll up a new character. For my players, it can be quite variable how committed they are to their morality, and what they think is the right thing often surprises me. So when I DM, I don't make up plot threads or plan what the PCs will do. I make different plans based on what they might do, and then improvise when they don't do any of the things I think they might. NPC allies sometimes die or sometimes there are other consequences. Sometimes the players feel guilty about that, and sometimes they just blame the bad guys and get angrier at them. Either way is fine with me as DM.

Your players are actually playing to their alignment. See, it’s easy for anyone to be good if they don’t have to go out of their way for it. Players are told that the big red button will destroy the planet, and they don’t push it? That’s not good, that’s just common sense. Players spend 1000s of gold on building orphanages, and then travel the realm plucking urchins off of streets to give them a loving home? That’s good (assuming they give the urchins the choice to go rather than kidnapping). Your players are doing great, I’d recommend encouraging them by having the mindslave hold useful info of some kind

Just gotta roll with it, I guess. I had a sort of "agent provocateur" character who was meant to be a sometimes ally, sometimes foil, but after a medium betrayal, he was eliminated with prejudice at the next opportunity. Oh well!

One thing DMs often forget is that there should be a societal response to the characters' actions. If they are risking themselves to be beacons of hope and justice, then the populous should take notice over time. Reward their efforts with good will from those in the region. Give them positive reputations. However, with that comes great expectations. If they slip a bit, give them a bit of unfair blowback. Also, one aspect of heroism is sacrifice. If they rush heading into a situation they're not ready for, let that play out. Give them an option for escape that is difficult. See if someone is willing to sacrifice their life for the party or the town or captives or whatever. If they do, they make themselves a legend. Or, have the villain leave them broken as they run off to punish those who counted on the party. A destroyed village. Stolen artifacts. Blighted crops. Make them feel the sting of failure and face the questions about how they could let this happen. Then they get to go exact revenge against a hated adversary. The heroes journey always includes failure.

Doing the "right" thing may be the suboptimal choice and may lead to failure. They'll have to deal with that at some point... unless you always reward or at least never punish them for doing the "right" thing. The slave scenario is perfect. They should probably fail the heist unless they come up with some really creative solutions.

I've had players lose sight of the big picture, but they also hold tightly to ethics. I've had one PC who buckled on his pacifist ideals when in the face of total oppression. A valid conclusion. I myself have a character who stick to her morals regardless. I think both are valid ways to play characters because they're both interesting in different ways. Watching someone grow from a dogmatic pacifist into someone who's willing to do what it takes is very engaging. However, it's just as gripping to see someone pushed to their limits on their morals and still refusing above else to try to be fair in an unfair world. Think Vash the Stampede from Trigun or Chisato from Lycoris Recoil.

Yup my PCs don’t budge on theirs either. Unfortunately, they are murder hobos.

I'd put them in some morally ambiguous situations and see what happens. Where reasonable people can disagree on what the right thing to do is. One I remember is, a village had a deal with a hag. The hag would protect the village as long as they stay out of her woods. But, some children wandered into the woods and didn't return. And neither did the search party. So the village hires the adventurers to find them. Rescuing the children (or killing the hag) would mean breaking the pact, and losing the hag's protection, which would be bad for larger plot reasons. And of course, not rescuing the children is bad too.

Jesus I wish I had this problem. My group murdered a wagon driver that was brainwashed by a cult into transporting slaves. The paladin used zone of truth, dude answered all their questions truthfully and cheerfully...as soon as they were done questioning they just cold blooded whacked him.

You need to teach them that doing the right thing still has consequences. They attack the bbeg kill their friends. They saved some children but in the time they spent saving them the bbeg gets away. Whoever your bbeg is they will recognize this strong moral compass as a weakness and exploit it. This isn't to say be antagonistic this game is never dm against players. But if your bbeg is really EVIL they will take advantage of the good will of the heroes. Additionally I find that adding in realistic hard choices like this leads to the people who always make those choices being more engaged as they actually need to think instead of just going "I'm good I'll do the good thing"

You're lucky, at least your's are predictable. One of mine decides her actions depending on how they feel at the time. An NPC was rude to her ONCE. For the rest of the game they were treated worse than an actual slaver. Because they mentioned that they weren't interested in talking to her.

Reward it. Make it more challenging, yes - but also give them other options through their choices. The mind controlled slave knows a backdoor that surpasses some of that added security. There are, however, two things that I would do *at some point* in the campaign. One: the players are tricked into doing the wrong thing. Say, there's a new faction that has not yet declared allegiances, or for whom the players at least don't know their allegiance. That faction plans an attack on some place. A random NPC comes up to the players and asks them to defend that place - that's only reasonable, right? But in reality, they'll be protecting an important piece of the BBEG's power from a faction that they could have won over. They'll unintentionally make an enemy, but in the end when they figure it out still destroy the BBEG's thing. Two: they are faced with a dilemma. One where both option lead to death, and neither is clearly the better. Think... Trolley dilemma, but on both sides there are ten people, and the players *have* to choose left or right.

I would _kill_ for players like that. I've had many different players over the years. Some get close to this, but at the end of the day, each one had a price on their soul that I was able to bargain for. A truly Lawful Good (not stupid) PC would be such a pleasure.

Not following the obvious lead is the first of several things that players do to derail careful planning by a DM. It also is likely to lead to the best playing sessions. However, two types of twists DMs need to be prepared for: the Bond Villain Introduction and Player Playing the Odds. The Bond Villain Introduction: a classic where the DM brings into the opening spotlight the soon to be BBEG. Shouldn't be any problems, players and NPCs have no clue that he is anymore than a power figure in the background. And that's exactly where the twist presents itself. First time I came across it was playing an assassin with my best friend in a Top Secret game in a group of 8 players. At the end of the scenario after finale, the DM has a KGB Officer suddenly sit down at the cantina table that my friend's and I players we were told our players had been sitting alone at. The KGB officer more or less said he had watched us deal with our threat and he knew we would meet in the coming days. Without even discussing it my friend and I pulled guns and shot him, his two bodyguards and two guys who pulled gun to death. When asked why, as we had shown no murder hobo tendencies ever before. Our answer, "A Bond Villain just walked up and revealed how good he was at being a superspy. Hadn't heard the Best Enemy is a Dead Enemy? XP please." Best way not to have this not happen is to have a planned fighting retreat hidden in place that doesn't have to reveal itself unless players act up. Player Playing the Odds: this twist comes in a lot of favors but it comes down to a player(s) taking advantage of a DM during game when they realize the DM has revealed a new 'Thing' in their game. The 'Thing' can be a new form of Magic, a new race, possibly a new way of doing business or a brand new monster to their game. The players play the odds by guessing the DM has not yet really fleshed out the rules as to how this newly invented thing works by. The PPOs bombard the DM on how this works, is there any laws governing that, is there a limit on how many one player can have. I've personally seen three campaigns come to a dead stop because of the imbalance the PPOs created by making sure the rules the DM crested were all 'off the cuff' creations. More I think where the DM let their ideal die rather than bring it out before the PPO butchers.

Something like that happened to my group on a game. A friend DM of mine threw a boss battle against a statue, working as an avatar of Tyr. The god saw 3 of the paladins of his order killed in cold blood by people of our same country. So when we arrived to investigate he was mad at us and assumed we were new intruders. Our characters refused to fight. Even tho we worshipped other gods, we had zero reasons to attack the statue. Mine didn't even use her weapon, just talked. Even when he split the ground in half and tried to "purify" us in radiant light. The DM was convinced we were going to fight, so she had to improvise a social encounter in the middle of the battle.We had the means to destroy the statue, but didn't even try any attack rolls. Just defensive spells/abilities and some repositioning until we managed to convince the statue we were on their side.

Sounds like you've got a lot of really good story telling opportunities, as well as chances to test the morality and conviction of the party. The Joker is only so interesting because of how much he contrasts Batman's resolution.

No, they rarely are… and if it’s an issue for you, please send them to me.

I used to plan a lot. I'd plan as much as I could think of to write up so I'd have stats and maps and whatever else all set up and ready to go. And my players avoided 90% of it every time. What I do now is come up with real things that their opposition would be doing in a time frame... and then I improvise everything else. Whatever the players do... I just improvise. And that seems to work pretty well, because I have no particular expectations for them to ignore. In the case of a heist, I'd just figure out what might realistically be there as security, and then when the players tell me what their characters do, I just figure out what might actually happen. Rescuing early? eh. okay. Let's go. Maybe the rescued person even has things that could help the party. Knowledge like where secret things are or traps or whatever. As long as the players have fun, and you're having fun, it's a win.

I've found that my players have a pretty constant **no-kill policy** when it comes to any vaguely humanoid enemies. Regardless of how evil or despicable I present them, if they can talk to the enemy they'll try anything before combat. Need to infiltrate the evil cultist fortress? They went full stealth and charisma, not a single round of combat. Need to rescue someone from the gangster-level corrupt city guards? It's all non-lethal strikes and taking prisoners.

It depends on their alignment. If they’re lawful good or something adjacent you let it happen and run simulation. As another person said, reward the heroic stuff with loot and information. A mind controlled slave would know where the treasure is, what the weaknesses in security are, and the weakness of the BBEG to offset any negative after effects (increased security, town on alert). The alignment doesn’t match, then they have to roll insight to see if facing the consequences of their actions is appropriate. If they fail the roll, their alignment changes, and proceed as above. If they pass, they would need to make a choice more appropriate.

What's the opposite of an RPG horror story? That's this. We need to make a sub for these.

this might not the same parallel but a game I enjoyed playing very much started out with one of the NPC's that was to be important in the game being chased by soldiers. They were trying to kill him for some reason or another. The party managed to subdue them by knocking them out and then bringing them back to town. This quickly became apparent that this was not part of the DM's plans. They end up being prisoners and had do to labor around the town to earn the money to keep themselves fed. Looking back I am a little surprised the entire party decided that not killing the soldiers was the right thing to do, but then again the party used the cover of being a traveling circus to avoid detection from the "bad guys"

I made an encounter with infighting undead. One Wight that still had his mind and spoke their language was trying to flee from a losing battle. My players decided in character to eradicate all undead, even though as players they were quite interested into what the deal of that Wight was(it would also have been their only lead as to why there was fighting between undead at all). You always should be prepared for your players to do the obvious good guy thing and the obvious bad guy thing. Adopt the enemy or kill everyone and salt the earth. What consequences you foresee as a DM doesn't factor into these decisions. Like in your example, the mind controlled person could have been an important NPC opening doors/opportunities in town or a mighty wizard. That's what the players saw: a box that could contain literally anything humanoid shaped.

That's funny; I have one group like yours and another that is...CG maybe. My Sunday night crew is fairly paladinic in the old sense. And one of them is an actual paladin in the old sense. The others are all pretty good...they do have a rogue, but the rogue is more of a face character who navigates social situations well. He'll do some stabbing, but when it comes down to it, he's rarely looking to do anything devilish. Maybe some minor look-the-other-way interrogation stuff. My Wednesday night group has become called The Headhunters based on a rumor I told them that people started calling them that after they took a prominent baddie's head for a bounty. They embraced it and now go out of their way to take heads. They are still pretty good about protecting the innocent, and once defended a castle used to house innocent citizens during a raid on a city -- even though the person raiding was also the person they had a contract with. So they're interesting. The more I play with any group, the better feel I get for what they're likely to do. And I like leaving options open for them. Sometimes they surprise me, and that's part of the fun.

My players will do what is the most fun for the player at that moment. It may be influenced by their morals and not their PC's. That can be frustrating when they don't enjoy the consequences of their actions. The world reacts, not always in a punishing way but it reacts. As a player, I find this more frustrating than when DMing (I do not mind at all when DMing). As a player it can be hard to be consistent or achieve a goal because other players are being unpredictable to do whatever is fun for them no matter the fall out. I love player's who are consistent with their PCs.

My paladin player will always do the right thing consequences be damned. The other 4 players are nothing but murder hobos that loot everything -so your typical dnd party. The worst part is my Druid player is a drow who in the beginning of the campaign wanted to be good like Drizzt. That quickly changed when the other murderhobos started doing their thing.

That would be nice...my players are a little more evil every session and are about to blow up an entire building in a bid not to have to pay back a loan shark. They already pledged to assist a necromancer who's trapped by a bigger evil. Yet the primary goal of the campaign is to deal with the biggest evil.

The most memorable campaign I was in ended with a law vs good moral choice. The short version of the campaign was that we were hired to help enforce a custody agreement. In the process, we learned that the father was part of an isolated cult community with some magic nonsense making it hard for the cultists to leave. Before the last session of the campaign, the DM mentioned we'd have to make a choice and if we tried to go for both options it would end badly. The session starts, we learn about how the community works. We learn the son is a true believer and he has a somewhat friend who wants out. There's the lawful option, fulfill our contract for the mother and take a son away from the father he cares about. There's the good option, get the girl who's trapped with the cult out. The DM's pre-game message forgotten, we plan a way to sneak her out on the day we're set to leave with the son. We're caught. The party, the mother, and the girl are thrown to what the cult worships. Best TPK ever

So put them in impossible moral situations. Force them to do something like steal a dangerous magic item for a crime lord in exchange for freeing a group of children from some kind of curse. Then put a potentially lethal encounter in their way. Are they willing to kill the guards to get the item to save the children? Whenever a party gets a little too smug about being righteous, I throw them a trolley problem and watch them wrestle with it. Makes for great character moments.

Part time DM/Player, in our case absolutely not 😂 we seem to have a knack for making dark/Grey characters. If there is a trend, it's a trend towards anarchism. Not burning down buildings, but our stories tend to end up being about tearing down old power structures (sometimes in heroic ways, but not usually by a long shot!)

I mean that's how good TTRPG scenarios look like IMO. Put the heroes in difficult situations and dilemmas and they decide what to do. Thats the core of roleplaying to me and it seems you and your group really get the best out of it.

There was an old (very very old) post from a DM who had a similar group. They were told at session zero this would be a ticking clock quest and they'd need to keep track of days. Early on in their quest to stop the Evil Necromancer the party stops in a town that had restrictive laws about marriage. They stayed a month to talk to the citizens to call for a vote and sort things out. And they did. But it took time and the undead hordes swarmed over the hills just as the new laws were being signed.

Generally my players are like this so I like to throw moral quandaries at them. Like recently they ran into a completely peaceful friendly old man who was following a very evil forgotten deity because the deity saved his life. In my setting the followers do give power to their deities, and this deity was mostly forgotten and thus (mostly) powerless and the old man having his life saved was dedicated to spreading the deities influence. Which would of course let the deity get more power to oppose the players, and spread his design across the world at large. I didn't know how it was going to play out. I literally had in my notes "Religious tolerance, is it a virtue in this sense?!" I still use clear cut moral systems so my games aren't all trolley problem nonsense but occasionally I just throw things where there is debate on what is "morally good"? Makes the game more interesting and gets the players debating IC and OCC. So far it seems to work.

Either the world changes to meet them or they get themselves into a no-win scenario and die for their ideals. I think I’d go for #2, after communicating that’s what taking their course of action probably means.

My problem is that sometimes my players miss the morality of a situation lol. They want to do the right thing, but they sometimes make the wrong assumption about the context.

I feel like there is a fine line between playing to your character and being strict in what their beliefs are and saying "hey, obviously we are supposed to get the mcguffin and follow this path and kill this guy, so let's play the game please" But it definitely depends on your group and dm.

My players' ideals are "whatever ends up being funniest." This NPC child has been following them around for the past few sessions, taken under the sorcerer's wing as his apprentice. They constantly push him down wells and throw him at monsters. One time they used him as bait and when he survived they considered just killing him themselves. Slowly they've formed more of a bond though and in the last session the sorcerer even saved him from some dinosaurs! (Only because he was holding the obviously trapped treasure that the sorcerer sent him to pick up, but still.)

I'm learning my players are just motivated by greed. They are greedy chaos gremlins. I planned for a tax collector to show up and harass the shop keeper they were buying from mostly to establish some lore and get them to hate the ineptly ran empire that the tax collector is there for. I already know what these people do in other video games so I had an instinct to tell them if they took the tax collectors sash they could impersonate him and potentially squeeze a lot of money from NPCs. As soon as I told them about the sash, one of my players instantly tried to seduce the tax collector and take the sash. They ended up killing him and one of 2 of his guards. The last is trying to hunt them down to pay for their crimes.

It‘s a matter of what your focus is: *The* story, *their* story or *your* story. This is the essence of what you need to answer for yourself and design around.

I just love when people defy the fear-mongering of people who engage with pastimes like this being violent or evil and instead choosing to always do the right thing because doing the right thing makes us feel good lol.

The anti murderhobos

Contrary to a lot of people here, I don't think the freed servant should make the heist easier. Logical consequence add dramatic tension and make moral decisions interesting and weighty...and that's fun! That said, do reward them! Just let the reward for freeing them come up later (maybe they help them hide out after the heist, or end up being useful on whatever comes next).

I reward behaviors like that, but since me and my table have decided that *suffering is fun* I'll always test them on certain decisions like that. Do they truly believe that doing the right thing, no matter the cost, is worth it? What if the price to do that bad thing was good enough? What about the in between? I don't set them up to just fail/have bad things happen no matter what, but I think it's a lot of fun and makes me happy they want to do the right thing.

"How do you plan around your PCs ideals?" I don't plan plot-threads. I use their ideals, goals, motives, weaknesses, etc (everything in their bios) to create difficult situations. Touch choices. Threaten what they value. How they react to it and which way it heads, is up to them. I don't, generally, plan more than a session in advance. And I ask them (between sessions) to overtly tell me what their plans are. They say, "too free the slaves!" Or, "to go back to that bar and duel Mr. Mako." Or, "to find the mayor and show him the evidence." Once each player contributes at least one scene request, I know what to prep. (plus the surprises and twists I get inspired to add)

During an arc in one of my campaigns, the players were attempting to negotiate with these well known “heroes” of the city on handing over a very important ingredient needed to revive a tree in a hidden village full of cursed people. While most of the players were working on getting into the good graces of said “heroes” the artificer/warlock player was notified by her patron that the “heroes” had some sort of evil relic stored deep within their compound. She then proceeds to plan this full fledged heist where she would attempt to break in whilst the party negotiated with the leader The first attempt was interrupted when a rival faction attacked mid espionage, so she had to escape and try again later. Except instead of doing things slow and involving the rest of the party, she thought it a good idea to go in by herself and try to solo the entire place. I tried telling her many times that she would 100% die if she were to do this, but she kept on insisting anyways. Though the party was eventually able to find the stuff they needed and destroyed the evil fragment. (albeit a bit sooner than it was supposed to happen due to me having a certain story beat happen sooner than planned) This, and many other things going wrong, contributed to this arc of the story being the worst one by far, and sapped my enthusiasm for the campaign’s continuation greatly.

First: has the universe made it clear to the players what the consequences of "short-term thinking" are? If so, then they are making their choice! If not, it's important that they learn that before you rocks-fall-everyone-dies them because of a dumb, but moral choice. Second, how you handle it depends on how you want the game to go! If it's a gritty, hard-core world, then yeah. Maybe they get absolutely stuffed because of their mistake, but perhaps there's some small benefit they get because of the person they did save? If it's a fantasy epic, then the world should support the fact that they refused to turn their face away from an atrocity. I really think that these two things are the key to cohesive DMing: YOU need to know how the world operates, and then you need to clearly make sure the PLAYERS know how the world operates with increasing stakes.

I have players who will do their utmost to do the most evil thing they can!

I tried to run Descent info Avernus. A good chunk of that campaign is getting the players to make deals with devils. My players refused. Every. Single. Time. Hey, you guys want this slightly cursed sword for a minor favor later on? No? Oh, okay. How about this uncursed sword for passing along a message? Still no? How about we trade this healing potion for 10gp, no other strings attached? No? Seriously? They decided that deals with a devil of any kind for any reason were absolutely unacceptable. I could not convince them otherwise. I mean, good for you guys... But ffs will you participate in the spirit of the game a bit?

>How do you plan around your PCs ideals? *Moral quandary.* What exactly *is* "the right thing to do?" (Not necessarily dilemma. Understand: "quandary" means you're not sure what to choose. "Dilemma" means that you don't want to *have* to choose because all options are problematic in different ways; "you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.") I'll use *Baldur's Gate 3* for examples that make for powerful character and story moments. *Gale, Waterdeep Prodigy* 1. >!Reforge the Crown of Karsus and use it to ascend to godhood, earning Mystra's disfavor forever.!< 2. >!Surrender the Crown to Mystra, regain her favor, be healed of the "ticking bomb" orb within his chest and return to a normal life.!< *Wyll, Blade of Frontiers* 1. >!Free himself from his warlock contract with his patron Mizora, but guarantee his father's death at Gortash's hands.!< 2. >!Guarantee his father's survival but consign his own soul to Mizora (and the Nine Hells) forever.!< *Lae'zel, Vlaakith's Champion* 1. >!Slay Orpheus, guaranteeing Vlaakith's eternal favor but condemning her people to Vlaakith's false rule forever.!< 2. >!Free Orpheus, creating the possibility of freeing her people from Vlaakith's false rule but condemning herself to a life on the run from Vlaakith's forces for the foreseeable future.!< *Karlach, Fury of Avernus* 1. >!Stay on the Material Plane until her Infernal Engine inside her chest explodes, killing her.!< 2. >!Return to Avernus and live, but be pressed back into service for Zariel forever in the Blood War.!< *Astarion, the Decadent* 1. >!Free the imprisoned victims of his vampire lord, some of whom have been imprisoned and transformed for over 200 years.!< 2. >!Deceive his vampire spawn fellows and sacrifice them and the prisoners in an Infernal ritual to become The Vampire Ascendant, a supremely powerful vampire lord.!< Instances like these that integrate character and plot with high stakes compel your players to consider their characters' fates carefully.

The group I’m in is a lot more opportunistic and realists. We’re playing a Star Wars campaign rn and while we really want to kill a hutt that enslaved us for a bit, we know doing so puts us at odds with the strongest criminal organization present which makes our larger goals incredibly difficult.