One of my players is a fighter. During character creation, he shared a backstory about saving an old woman from a bear attack in a forest. In return, she taught him the Shadow Touched feat. (I encourage my players to come up with narrative reasons for their feats.)
I asked him if his character knew how the woman had learned these spells. He said no, his character didn’t know. I responded, “Okay, I’ll fill in the blanks however I want. Are you okay with that?” He agreed.
I made her undead necromancer. In my games, alignment isn’t a rigid framework. For example, lawful good goblins are possible, and the players are aware of this flexibility. The woman was a lich but wasn’t a typical lich; she didn’t have the usual trappings of evil. Instead, her phylactery was a painting that aged instead of her. She does not trap souls
Fast forward a few sessions: the party encountered the woman again. This time, the paladin discovered she was an undead. When the party questioned her, she revealed she was a lich. The fighter was visibly afraid by this revelation and ran away from her.
After the session, the player confronted me, saying, “Why did you do that? I didn’t write her as a lich.” He explained that he had envisioned her as a nature spirit.
Am ı unfair?
submitted by /u/TheDiceWhisperer
[link] [comments]
r/DnD One of my players is a fighter. During character creation, he shared a backstory about saving an old woman from a bear attack in a forest. In return, she taught him the Shadow Touched feat. (I encourage my players to come up with narrative reasons for their feats.) I asked him if his character knew how the woman had learned these spells. He said no, his character didn’t know. I responded, “Okay, I’ll fill in the blanks however I want. Are you okay with that?” He agreed. I made her undead necromancer. In my games, alignment isn’t a rigid framework. For example, lawful good goblins are possible, and the players are aware of this flexibility. The woman was a lich but wasn’t a typical lich; she didn’t have the usual trappings of evil. Instead, her phylactery was a painting that aged instead of her. She does not trap souls Fast forward a few sessions: the party encountered the woman again. This time, the paladin discovered she was an undead. When the party questioned her, she revealed she was a lich. The fighter was visibly afraid by this revelation and ran away from her. After the session, the player confronted me, saying, “Why did you do that? I didn’t write her as a lich.” He explained that he had envisioned her as a nature spirit. Am ı unfair? submitted by /u/TheDiceWhisperer [link] [comments]
One of my players is a fighter. During character creation, he shared a backstory about saving an old woman from a bear attack in a forest. In return, she taught him the Shadow Touched feat. (I encourage my players to come up with narrative reasons for their feats.)
I asked him if his character knew how the woman had learned these spells. He said no, his character didn’t know. I responded, “Okay, I’ll fill in the blanks however I want. Are you okay with that?” He agreed.
I made her undead necromancer. In my games, alignment isn’t a rigid framework. For example, lawful good goblins are possible, and the players are aware of this flexibility. The woman was a lich but wasn’t a typical lich; she didn’t have the usual trappings of evil. Instead, her phylactery was a painting that aged instead of her. She does not trap souls
Fast forward a few sessions: the party encountered the woman again. This time, the paladin discovered she was an undead. When the party questioned her, she revealed she was a lich. The fighter was visibly afraid by this revelation and ran away from her.
After the session, the player confronted me, saying, “Why did you do that? I didn’t write her as a lich.” He explained that he had envisioned her as a nature spirit.
Am ı unfair?
submitted by /u/TheDiceWhisperer
[link] [comments]