• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
I do agree with this. The best way to handle the situation is outside the game saying "look bro, I don't want you burning down the brothel. It's inconvenient for me, and the consequences are likely to not end well for you when you have a whole town upset with your actions. Think before you light..."
The first half of that is spot on. It opens the door for a frank discussion and possible understanding of why the player would find the particular action fun. There's a chance the DM might understand and agree that it's not as inconvenient as believed (especially if the player's creativity is enlisted to overcome the inconvenience), or that the player will understand and take a different course, or that an irreconcilable difference will be uncovered and an adjustment will need to be made.
But as soon as the DM mentions in-game consequences, he or she has lost. Players are notorious for coming with in-game reasons why what they want to do is justified, or required, or shouldn't have the reaction the DM thinks it should, and the DM is no better off than before. No, don't bother trying to threaten with in-game consequences, unless those consequences are interesting to you and the rest of the table.
I don't necessarily think that makes a poor PC, just evil PC. If the PC wants to play an evil psychopathic murderer... well, that concerns me a little about the person in RL but whatever. Having a back-up plan to deal with any PC action, and then getting them back on the track of the adventure I think is important. Telling a PC you can't do that is probably not good option. It's DnD after all.
Whatever the plot or adventure hook;
PC's are assigned to recover a artifact and need to travel to point A. Evil PC instead goes on a killing spree at the town. Why? I donno. He's retarded. Other players are like wtf bro. DM lets pc get his fill a bit, and then- TPK engineered heroic npc group steps in (all designed to own the players if push comes to shove). A quick fight, (other players probably won't jump in, knowing pc is out of line.), either way won't matter. Once evil PC is unconscious, ritual is placed:
MARK OF JUSTICE Some lessons are best learned through suffering. Your magic ensures that the guilty creature continues its offenses only at great peril.
Game continues... evil pc can continue to be murderous evil, but it gonna hurt him. His choice.
Putting that evil pc action into plot. Players can learn that the artifact has something to do with evil pc going all insane and evil, and unless they recover this artifact, their friend gets worse... I'm sure the evil pc is going to get a kick out of that. "See its not my fault! I'm suppose to act this way", as the rest of players on table rolls their eyes.
I think a fluid and creative DM can deal with any pc created situation in a way that even players can say... that was cool bro, and get them back in line. At least that is the idea.. not always easy to do ;p
Do let him do it, and do have consequences, but DO NOT use those consequences to teach the player a lesson. If you need to teach the player about how you like players and characters to act, that is a conversation to have outside of the game. Using the game itself to teach the lesson is passive aggressive, probably won't work, and will probably lead to an argument.
Obviously there should be consequences for actions in a game, but those consequences should only ever be intended to make the game interesting and challenging, for the amusement of the players. Using them to make the game boring for the players is a waste of everyone's time, including the DM's.
+1 to this. Let him do it, and have consequences, but don't go the anvilicious route of "Okay, you burn down the brothel, which coincidentally happens to have everyone you've ever loved as well as the entire world's supply of your favorite snack food inside it as it burns to the ground."
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite. "I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room." It's my sig in a boxShow
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other BarryShow
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic , giving you time to set up your silly combo . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster...
Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil.
And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right?
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players.
And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it.
He/It got me with Light of Sanction , which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad , things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed .
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
Evil PCs have their places. Used to run a Birthright campaign, where one of the PCs rolled one of the highest bloodline strengths possible; it happened to also be Azrai's bloodline. Rather than re-rolling things, we worked together and came up with an interesting storyline where he was becoming one of the awnshegh — he called himself "The Lich" — and was using the group to build his own base of power. Another player was an spy for the Manslayer, pretending to be an "open minded" elf, instead plotting to help bring their demise.
Properly handled, Evil PCs bring interesting twists to a campaign.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Properly handled, Evil PCs bring interesting twists to a campaign.
Poorly handled, Evil PCs are a pain in the arse.
I agree with all of this.
I've been in one campagin where everyone had evil in their alignment save one character. Her character was my characters adopted thieves guild sister. It was the most fun because of the large amount of roleplaying we did as well as change our campaign world forever due to our crazy ideas for making money.
Second was a campain in which we all were evil except for one Chaotic Neutral. We were trying to take control of a city.
The last everybody was of evil alignment. It went fine, just got bored with the lack of motivation of the characters. I did get to eventually use my chubby lich figurine in that game though.
As others have said, I would first have an open discussion with the player about his motiviations and expectations. Why does he want to do it? Is it really something he feels is appropiate for his PC? Does he agree with you on the fact that the fire could result in destroying half the city? Or does he expect magical fire fighters ready to end the flames before it becomes a big problem? How big a chance does he think his character has to be caught (and despite what others are saying, why would this chance be automatic)? Does he even expact it leads to a huge bonfire (and remember we read it all too often in the papers about how torch attempts fail to do more then scorch a hallway)? In short, what does he hope to achieve?
Even with the IC questions discussed, is he aware of how potentially disruptive this can be for the game - not just for your story (that comes with the territory), but more importantly for the rest of the group who might really not want to deal with the aftermath of it? Personally as a DM I am always willing to change the story if that is the wish of the players, but when one player does something that influences the whole group, I always verify how the others feel about it. Mind you, I have never had players do something this extreme. They certainly proposed it on occassion, always in jest to remind the rest of the group (including me as the DM) that they are getting bored with the debate and need a change of pace or that they are stuck. Mind you, I do discuss with my players beforehand that I don't want evil PCs, let alone over the top evil behavior. It is simply not the type of adventures I want to run (regardless of whether or not it can be fun to some, it is not for me).
In the end, if talking does not provide a satisfactory answer, and the rest of the group does not feel like dealing with the aftermat of a big fire, I would probably let the PC go ahead with his intent. Allow him to succeed or fail on a couple of fairly straight forward checks, and then let the impact be minimal and give as less attention to the whole thing as possible. I probably would also create a situation for the instigator to direct his energies in a less destructive way (eg the local church asks his help with one fight or another or asks him to arrest a witch outside the city). Any attention just rewards the player, and it tends to be at the expense of the others. If the player keeps wanting to do this, I would eventually kick him out of the group, but I have that never happen.
I know this isn't popular with many, but my general advice on this is as follows.
The DM needs to dish out realistic consequences for the players actions and enforce them, and they need to do this right at the start of the game, the very first time the players step out of line (I don't mean regular shinanigans that can be expected from adventurers)
Now that you've had it progress to this extreme, you should let the player know what his character would realistically know. The chances of the fire spreading, the likelihood of people being killed inside the brothel, how legal the brothel is, what sort of clients are in it. What sort of laws/guards etc he can expect in the city, and then let him do what he wants.
And then have him face the consequences, and be brutal and blunt.
When he burns the Legally Licensed Brothel down, and kills many brothel workers and clients alike in the fire, including a local nobleman, as well as a nobel's son, as well as several army officers and a few highly respected citizens, a priest of his temple who visits the brothel to tend to the pregnant brothel workers and as a missionary and as the fire spreads it kills a few other innocent citizens who live nearby as well as heroic people and city guards who fight the flame to stop the fire.
Them have the full power power of the city and populace come down on him. Not just local guards, The King should send out his best Knights to deal with this. The Temple should send out it's clerics, Paladins etc, the local townsfolk will form a mob to hunt them down, even the Rogue's Guild is going to deal with it because chances are the brothel was paying them protection money.
You have a local government that wants revenge for the death of their nobles, and army that wants revenge for the deaths of their officers, a temple that wants revenge for the death of their priest, a town that wants revenge for the death of their townsfolk and justice for the crimes and general outrage, a rogue guild that wants revenge for loss of revenue.
The question isn't "if" he gets caught, the question is who catches him first and how he is going to be executed, I am not suggesting meta-gaming, I am saying have the city act realistically to a mass murdering arsonist. And given his crime, I would suggest being burnt alive on a stake in the city center.
Also as this is a magic world with magic healing, there is no reason they can't prolong the burning alive with some light healing, so Burnt alive for a full day before he dies.
Set the precendent now, as brutally as possible, because I assure you this is just the beginning of your issues if you don't demonstrate the the world they are in will react to their actions and they can and likely will face the consequences of those actions.
you loads
