NP, my char has the psychopath trait.

If your group didn’t sign up for a gritty realistic setting do not hit them by a surprise like that. Guilt and depression are not emotions you should bring to a typical high fantasy table. Not every game needs to be edgy.

Our first use of the speak with dead spell revealed that the bandit had a cousin in Neverwinter. I made it my personal quest to find her and give her news of her cousin’s passing.

“thank fuck that asshole is dead”

You’re not too far off. But she said it nicer.

I’m sorry, if the bandits didn’t want to get killed, they shouldn’t have jumped adventurers. I’m sorry if they had a home life, but it’s not my fault my group defended itself.

“Oh wow, those scumbags really stole all that worthless, sentimental stuff before they ran into us? Serves 'em right then.”

Is anyone else tired of murderhobo being ascribed to anytime a party kills anything? “How dare you murderhobo that mindflayer!” “How dare you murderhobo that zombie!”

Now, while I get the point of the post is that the bandits are still people, my comment doesn’t refute that point. The point of my comment is that a DND is expected to kill in the campaign sometimes, and calling the party murderhoboes for doing so every time it happens is kinda condescending. In addition, the bandits deliberately attempted to murder the party for their money. The adventurers fought back and weren’t able to pay attention to how lethal their strikes were. It adds more realism to do as the post describes, but it doesn’t make the bandits better people than the party

there’s a 0 on the die

to roll 1:
1st, 0 x 10 = 0
2nd, 0+0 = 0
add 1, 0 + 1 = 1

to roll 100:
1st, 9 x 10 = 90
2nd, 90 + 9 = 99
add 1, 99 + 1 = 100

that is a different way of doing it I didn’t think about but my method still works

to roll 1:
1st, 0 x 10 = 0
2nd, 0+0 = 0
add 1, 0 + 1 = 1

to roll 100:
1st, 9 x 10 = 90
2nd, 90 + 9 = 99
add 1, 99 + 1 = 100

that’s the exact same except you count 0 AS 100 instead of adding 1

My group would start collecting the shit like Pokémon cards and then want to know the value of the “art objects”.

You get 100 when you roll 10 twice

(1d10 - 1) * 10 + 1d10 -> (10 - 1) * 10 + 10 = 9 * 10 + 10 = 90 + 10 = 100

Okay, this one actually slaps

80 - a charcoal drawing on a rag of a child and adult with a heart around it

81 - a letter from a mother saying there is no crops, but they know Pelor will provide

82 - a pressed flower crown

83 - a tax notice, warning of foreclosure

84 - a letter warning a local prince wants to abduct this person, and to flee rather than give in

85 - a threat from a cult of Bahl, demanding gold or the death of their family.

A letter saying you’re looking for your cousin to tell them of a family endowment that was bequeathed to them, and how happy you were to meet said family member.

Describe a player in the letter, preferably one that did the murder hoboing.

Aha! This locket is the first clue that will lead us to great treasure! Now we must hunt down this ‘Fiancee’. What a weird name- must be Italian.

A small, bloodstained journal.

"Duke says he heard a rumor there’s a group in town with enough gold to see us all the way to the Sword Coast and then some. Party of adventurers sitting pretty on loot from a goblin camp. Spent all night drinkin’ and celebrating, says they’ll be easy pickings.

Duke sent word to Artur, but he’s worried it’s too big for us. He said he needed a cleric, told us not to make a move until he got here, but Dutch says this is our only chance. They’ll be in the city by tomorrow, safe behind the walls and guards."

“He says this is the last job. I’ve heard that before… but we’re struggling out here. I don’t know how much longer we can last like this. Something’s got to give. One more winter, one more orc raid, and we’re finished.”

“If you’re reading this, I’m sorry Artur. I don’t know where Jarn and his family went, but you find them. Keep them safe. If you ever manage to reach the loot we stashed in Waterdeep, you make sure to use it on living softly, instead of dying rough.”

The idea of this mediveal fantasy world with dragons and sorcery casually having Italians is geniuenly funny.

Back in the D&D 3.5e days, I was on a kick where I thought alignment systems were very silly so when playing D&D I’d pick an alignment and play it to a logical extreme. In one case I was playing a LN character who was a city watchman (later watch captain) who was so lawful that it became a hurdle for the party to deal with because if they committed crimes I would investigate and then arrest them. My character was also very specialized in subduing enemies without killing them, though killing in self-defense was permissible I made every effort to avoid that, not out of compassion, but because the villains should be captured and brought to justice.

One time we were beset by bandits and some were killed in the skirmish, this wasn’t a problem but the party went to loot the bodies and I stopped them. Just because you kill someone doesn’t mean you get their belongings, the gold on their person would have to be catalogued and determined if it had been stolen, personal effects would go to their next of kin, etc. The party had no claim to any of it. The DM had to step in and have the King award treasure to us because I was preventing the group from getting stuff off our defeated enemies.

Ultimately, my insistence on jurisprudence and constant arresting PCs who stepped over the line resulted in the party being forced to adopt tactics to play around me. The Sorcerer picked up subual substitution (which turned out to be broken anyway since it bypassed energy immunity) the rest of the party picked up disarming, entangling or enchanting abilities to avoid me bringing the law down on them when we got back to the city.

All-in-all 10/10 would fuck with my party again. While sometimes frustrated by my antics the group agreed that I made the entire adventure a lot more memorable and interesting and we still talk about it years later.

I get you wanted to do it for fun, but you sound like a horrible player to have at the table. There is a social contract involved in playing DnD and while disagreements between party members are all fine, your character was basically hindering the other characters at every step (at least from what you described).

While it has nothing to do with the first point: I also reject your interpretation of alignment. It’s (at least from how I see it) not that you choose an alignment and then build a character around it, but that you build a character and then classify them with the alignment that fits their actions best. I know that some classes require certain alignments but even then there are a multitude of different ways to go about that alignment.