In 486, Earl Roderick told the player knights they couldn't go raiding and would have to serve garrison duty (how disappointing!). One player insisted that his knight would try to convince Earl Roderick to let them go raiding and wanted to roll Orate to convince him. He criticalled the Orate roll.

I let him go raiding while everyone else served garrison duty (and all that goes along with that). Was that Evil of me?

No. It wasn't evil. The Earl can assign his knights as he sees fit, and he can change his mind (or be persuaded to change it) if he wishes.

I wouldn't advise making a habit of it, though. Players want to play, and it's no fun to sit around while one guy gets to adventure. In general you should try to give everybody something to do each game session.

I'm guessing that, when he went raiding, he missed out on finding Excalibur! So everyone did get something to do - he just had his awesome roll deprive him of taking part of one of the coolest parts of the game.

Which sounds fair to me. He wanted to go against his lord's orders. He should have just done what he was told in the first place. :)

I'm sure your other players were spellbound as they sat there waiting to do something themselves.

Calarion has the right of it. The other two of you are missing the true evil.

He missed out on the majority of the night's adventure, missed out on helping Merlin get Excalibur, and missed out on all the Glory and having Merlin tell the Earl how important the player knights are that goes along with it.

He did get to make a few rolls to get some stuff from raiding.

I still don't see that as evil. It's not your fault if your players take themselves out of story. He asked for something and got it.

I've come to conclusion long ago that if a GM really wants to let the PCs suffer, he should just give them what they ask for.

Calarion has the right of it. The other two of you are missing the true evil.

nerts

Calarion has the right of it. The other two of you are missing the true evil.

nerts


??? ???What does "nerts" mean? ??? ???

it a modern derivation of the 20th-century English word "nuts," which in turn was derived from the Anglo-Saxon "hnutu" and Latin "nux;" in this context it does not refer to a hard shelled fruit but likely to a comically nut-like part of the male anatomy, it is an ejaculation/interjection indicating disappointment, sometimes surprise as well, such as when a poster on the internet realizes he has missed the point so hard that he has lost the ability to properly use capitalization and punctuation, also not make huge run-on sentences

get with the times, pops

... a comically nut-like part of the male anatomy, it is an ejaculation...

This is perhaps an unfortunate juxtaposition of terms...

I really, really wanted to say "interjection" instead, but alas, I opted for accuracy rather than politeness. Yet another perfectly good word rendered hors de combat by this corrupt world.