Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Help Me Kill An NPC (Disagreement with DM)


Advice

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I must say that all the attacks against my DM are getting a bit annoying; attack me fine, agree with me GREAT, but saying he is a sh*tty DM is just wrong and unfair especially when only based on one situation. Especially when he is not reading this thread. he is probably the best DM I have ever played with. He does not play favourites. He does prepare well. He does think things through. being too in love with an element of your own story is incredibly difficult to get over as a DM and it is something i have done myself in the past.

The people saying they think I am terible player and they would never play with me are welcome to their opinion.

Harry Potter is a bad example.


Sleep-Walker wrote:

I must say that all the attacks against my DM are getting a bit annoying; attack me fine, agree with me GREAT, but saying he is a sh*tty DM is just wrong and unfair especially when only based on one situation. Especially when he is not reading this thread. he is probably the best DM I have ever played with. He does not play favourites. He does prepare well. He does think things through. being too in love with an element of your own story is incredibly difficult to get over as a DM and it is something i have done myself in the past.

The people saying they think I am terible player and they would never play with me are welcome to their opinion.

Harry Potter is a bad example.

Your DM seems like a great guy. He even admits he has become too attached to this NPC. I think he's working on his issues. This is actually a major step forward.

I think he has a fantastic imagination. Nor do i mind that he has developed relationship between his wife and the NPC. This can be a fun way to get some romance in during a game. However, there needs to be limits.

So really, I think you two are working forward to a reasonable compromise. What we have been suggesting is that he "de-villianizes" the NPC, so that you don't feel that your PC needs to kill the NPC.

He does have a bit of a blind spot, but he is working on the problem. So are you. Good!


I do appologize if I inadvertantly insulted your DM.

And you're probably right about Harry, it was just the first thought (not the best) I had about the NPC.

It's not that I think you're a terrible player thats bugging me, it's the trust issue. You've been playing with this group for how long? I think I read that the campaign has been going on 3 years?

Yet, you seem to be going behind their backs, in secret, to do this and asking the DM to alter the group dynamic because you think - what?

Try other options. If lead blocks the transmissions, get her a lead helm, sealed on with magic. Lots of 'cursed' items can't be removed, after all.

How many PCs are there? How do the other PCs feel about the NPC? What do you think will happen if/when they find out, before or after the big final fight?

And, sorry, but that's just my opinion. If I'd been gaming with you for years and had played out the loss of a lover who seemingly betrayed me, only to find out that another PC had conspired with my husband to slay the NPC/lover or trap said lover in a soul gem, I'd feel betrayed. I'd never trust a PC of yours in game afterwards, either.

And why should I?

You are basically saying to the group and the DM that the plot doesn't matter, it's dumb, and you're going to force a change. Your call, you're the PC. But so is the GM's wife and everyone else in the game. IMO, you are backstabbing them, not the NPC.

After all, unless your PC is killed somewhere along the way, 9in which case the NPC is traped forever, thank you) there is eventually going to come the point where you pop her out of the gem/rez her/whatever, and the rest of the group is standing there with their moths hanging open going 'what?'.

And that's what I'm asking. Pretend I'm a PC in the group. Justify your act. Then justify it to me as the player as well.


What you have here is a golden opportunity not a burden, players always forget that there is always a flaw with their plan. Now I have a question how does this summoner know what your weakness is well obviously you showing it. What would happen if you faked having a weakness that you don't have? Well since she is looking for weakness and all you have too do is fool the summoner and for a rogue that sounds too easy.


Like leprosy, or a lice infection... or that you can only sleep if you keep a stuffed dino by your pillow at night... all horrible horrible weaknesses, to fake....... (horrible weaknesses to fake?) :P


So I just got off the phone from about an hour long convo with my DM.

I have known this group of people for about three or four years.

In the campaign before this one the rogue (not me) pretended to be working with the villain for the longest time and then pulled the double cross at the moment to take the title of god of Undeath from the BBEG. This was something that the DM and PC knew about but none of the players did.

I believe that the big reveal is worth everything. I believe that one player plotting against the party. I believe that every player other than pne plotting against one party is mean, so I cannot include all the party bar one in my plot.

When the reveal occurs:
1) It happens when I want it to, at the end of the campaign. My character leaves. He says, Im sorry that my actions hurt you, but I believe I did the right thing. Assuming they stay pissed he simply moves across the world. I always have isues with the end of a campaign anyway, I mean what is stopping the adventures why couldn't they keep playing forever. This gives me an ending which separates me from the party.

2) The players manage to cast a divination spell which reveals her location and confront me before the end of the campaign. The manure hits the windmill. It would not come to blows, I would disapear. That might mean my character leaves before the campaign ends. The DM has said I may then end up playing the very same summoner I worked so hard to un-do.


Stubs McKenzie wrote:
Like leprosy, or a lice infection... or that you can only sleep if you keep a stuffed dino by your pillow at night... all horrible horrible weaknesses, to fake....... (horrible weaknesses to fake?) :P

Well kinda but lets say you tell her I hope we don't fight any zombies because I'm scared of them and most of the time I just run away.


But in the end I hate too say I would be ticked off if I was being handicapped in this way I really see no incentive too keep her alive or around unless she was useful. It already brings up red flags when you are being told that you can't do something by every person in your group for different reason especially your DM. For example why shouldn't you kill the king of the land because then you would be branded outlaws and if the dm had your campaign made around helping the kingdom then he would have too either make a new campaign or make you create new characters. Now why would you not be allowed too kill this npc well I think we can use the same logic as before.


Go for it.

Depends on how well you and the other players get along. As long as you guys are fine with PCs plotting against eachother then there shouldn't be a problem.

In my experience, if the other players decide to latch on to finding her they will eventually. There are spells that someone will find or you'll flub a roll or the high level caster will have some form of warning or whatever. Then they will kill you, but my groups are much more horrible/PVP than most.

Sczarni

I dunno about soul trapping this NPC.

I assume she must have a group of friends/compatriots she hangs around with on a regular basis other then your group of PCs. That means there might be some unaccounted difficulties in abducting, soul trapping, and whatever else. She may have some kind of prepared defenses against getting screwed over again by kidnapping/abduction to be a clone super brain.

Pay mind to the fact her other friends may come looking for her.

The PC who has a relationship with the NPC will not believe the NPC has gone over to the dark side. I know as a DM I would give a HUGE bonus to the romantic PC's sense motive check to disbelieve that lie, after all, love is a powerful emotional force.

It will cause a delay(in my mind) while everyone stops for a day to grieve, Swear vengeance, get drunk... whatever.

It could have complications in combat if you run across a clone of the NPC and the PC involved with said NPC tries to diplo instead of actually fighting.

I of course do not know all the particular details behind how the lady is linked with the baddies. Have you considered talking to the NPC(the DM roleplaying it out) about your concerns and putting forth the plan and seeing if she will do it willingly in the interest of world preservation, if she says no then you do it against her will and its an evil act. No Biggie.

I mean the NPC could very well be the Proverbial Kryptonite to the ruler of the bug people, without whom you cannot actually kill it. In which case your plan just ends up ruining the campaign for everyone. I wish you goodluck with it!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stupid post monster; let's try this again:
I have been thinking about this and about your comment on what the DM is there for.

Here's my take:
One: the DM is there to tell a story. He/she has gone to a great deal of effort to work out this story. He/she is willing to let the PCs help tell the story, realizing (hopefully) thatthe PCs amy very well alter his story based on theirs.

Two: And that's the rub. In any game, the PCs each have an individual story they want to tell/play out. The DM needs to be able to work those stories into his/her story. Conversely, the PCs need to be able to work their stories into the DM's plot. If I decide to run Carrion Crown and the PCs all make up stories for Skull & Shackles, it isn't going to work. If all but one of the players make up stories for Carrion Crown knowing what I'm doing and that last one makes up a story for Jade Regent, that PC is the odd one out.

Three: In addition, the players also have to make sure their stories blend to a degree. Example: Jade Regent; PC 1 wants to set NPC on the throne because it's the right thing to do, PC 2 wants to set NPC on the throne and marry them, taking over the country by proxie, PC 3 believes they are the true heir and wants to destroy NPC, PC 4 is working for the bad guy and PC 5 is playing to Carrion Crown...this game isn't going to go well.

What story are the other PCs trying to tell? There was a comment made that the DM riffed off of coments like 'what if she is the bbg?'. What sort of stories were being proposed with those comments? Whose story are you trampling on to make your story the most important one? This is why 'It's what my character would do' has destroyed so many games and gaming groups.

I'm sure your DM can work around your plan to continue to tell his part of the story. That gives you your tale and fulfills your enjoyment of the game. But at the cost of the other player's stories.

I repeat; what do the other PCs/players want? Work with them. Because otherwise, your 'big reveal' is likely to go over like a lead balloon. And given the comment, from you, that you've done this sort of thing before, possibly damage the group as well.

It may be 'what your character would do', but it's still a stupid move, IMO.


Is this an evil game? Do the other players know that your character is evil? If they chose to hang out with an evil rogue, they have to expect that he is gonna off their loved ones when it's convinient for him. I've played evil groups - if you value something; money, property, or your NPCs, you protect them. Victory goes to the guy who gets the last "Big Reveal". If this is an evil group, I don't see the problem.

If it's not an evil group, then you are a traitor and they should try to expose you and kill you, of course. You attack my friends (PC or NPC is irrelevant - if I say they're my friends, they're my friends)you are an enemy. If you pretend to be a friend while really being an enemy (see above definition) then you are a traitor. This isn't rocket science. I don't care how you rationalize it. All traitors rationalize their actions. It's part of being a traitor. We hang them anyway. The girl never did anything to hurt you. If she was used by an enemy, that's not her fault. I just need to find a way to help her. The same way I would help you, if it was you. The same way I wouldn't sacrifice you, if it was you. The same way I'd protect you if someone attacked you, or avenge you if they succeed. Especially a traitor.

-Speaking in Character as "The Grumpy Old Bastard"
My RIFTS character (OK. It kinda shifted to in character halfway through)


Spiral Ninja,
Wow. That was really well written. I totally agree with your points, and really admire how you phrased them. I posted a comment in the DM's thread. I'd love to hear your take on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Capt_Phoenix wrote:

Is this an evil game? Do the other players know that your character is evil? If they chose to hang out with an evil rogue, they have to expect that he is gonna off their loved ones when it's convinient for him. I've played evil groups - if you value something; money, property, or your NPCs, you protect them. Victory goes to the guy who gets the last "Big Reveal". If this is an evil group, I don't see the problem.

If it's not an evil group, then you are a traitor and they should try to expose you and kill you, of course. You attack my friends (PC or NPC is irrelevant - if I say they're my friends, they're my friends)you are an enemy. If you pretend to be a friend while really being an enemy (see above definition) then you are a traitor. This isn't rocket science. I don't care how you rationalize it. All traitors rationalize their actions. It's part of being a traitor. We hang them anyway. The girl never did anything to hurt you. If she was used by an enemy, that's not her fault. I just need to find a way to help her. The same way I would help you, if it was you. The same way I wouldn't sacrifice you, if it was you. The same way I'd protect you if someone attacked you, or avenge you if they succeed. Especially a traitor.

-Speaking in Character as "The Grumpy Old Bastard"
My RIFTS character (OK. It kinda shifted to in character halfway through)

I don't see his character as evil necesarrily.

You say you hang traitors, then I am suprised you are not agreeing with him. He is trying to hang the traitor in a way she will get better. The NPC is the traitor currnetly (though I am sure the NPC rationalizes that it is not her fault she is mind controlled).


My character is CN. I was wondering how long before alignment would raise its ugly head.

My characters prime objective right now is saving the town the characters live in as we are about to come under siege from aforementioned insectoid monsters. If I fail hundreds of people get consumed by the aforementioned insectoid aliens. If this NPC remains alive then defense is impossible and we should flee leaving her behind. What is the point of a door if someone is guaranteed to open it for them?

Trap The Soul is not an evil spell.
Killing a traitor is not evil it is a sensible thing to do.

Whoever said that she hadn't done anything to attack us isn't reading the thread properly.

In this groups last campaign the rogue had a big reveal at the end. I wasn't playing in that campaign and I wasn't that rogue.

@Coraith: If she is the kryponite without whom we cannot win then I open the trap the soul gem and get her out again. Btw if an NPC is the magic tool to win a campaign then I disprove, Players should win the campaign not a DMPC.


Sleep-Walker wrote:

My character is CN. I was wondering how long before alignment would raise its ugly head...

Trap The Soul is not an evil spell.
Killing a traitor is not evil it is a sensible thing to do...

Dude...You're planning to Kill your friends Wife and trap her soul. How can that be anything but evil? Something can be a sensible idea and still be evil. I'm working on the assumption that she is not willingly providing information to the bad guys, if she's doing it willingly and the PCs know it, then get them all in on the plan.

As to how to actually do it:
Use that fact that you are supposed to be friends with the NPC, lure her to an area that has been anti-magicked. Slip the stone in her pocket, knife her, drop the stone in the lead box and the box in the bag of holding. I think the Anti-Magic area would protect from the scrying and divination, but I'm not sure.

Something else to consider:
If you successfully trap her, and leave no clues, what might that do to the game when the PCs wife disappears with no clues to what happened? Just, poof, gone. and the can't find anything when they try to look. Do you think that it might cause the other players to think the DM just removed her and is railroading them from finding what happened? I'd be a little irritated if a major NPC that was connected to my PC vanished without a trace and I could do nothing to find her, and then couldn't discover why the sudden plot hole appeared until the game ended (which might take months?).

edit: spelling


Sleep-Walker wrote:

In this groups last campaign the rogue had a big reveal at the end. I wasn't playing in that campaign and I wasn't that rogue.

@Coraith: If she is the kryponite without whom we cannot win then I open the trap the soul gem and get her out again. Btw if an NPC is the magic tool to win a campaign then I disprove, Players should win the campaign not a DMPC.

First, I appolgize and withdraw that part of my comments. With everything that's been said in both threads, I was confused over who did what.

Second: I agree about the Kryptonite comment - for a blatant example of such, see Oblivion, which is the other thought I had hearing of this plot.

Third, just an extension on my multiple reasons in Jade Regent; a good DM could even make that work, depending on the group dynamics, as long as said DM doesn't let one PCs story overwealm the others. Or be suppressed because of the others. The DM shoudn't favor his spouse's PC, but he shouldn't discount that character just to avoid seeming to show favoritism either.

What I'm saying is don't do this in secret! As an in game secret it works with potential PC v PC issues later, but out of game, it's just rude.


Yeah, as the player whose character has a relationship with that NPC, I'd have huge problems with such an action. Your deed takes away part of my enjoyment of the game. Extremely rude and self-centered, from what I can see.


You have to realize that a campaign where other players do alot of sneaky things is infact not fun for many players or the GM.

I am sure there are other ways to work with to get rid of the liability, maybe you should look into that or rather discuss it with the other players instead of bypassing them. If you really want to create a sideplot involve your GM and work with him to INVOLVE the other players. A great reveal two months down the line will probably not get the grand response you are hoping for.


Edit: woah! totally made a post in the wrong forum. sorry.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Capt_Phoenix wrote:

Is this an evil game? Do the other players know that your character is evil? If they chose to hang out with an evil rogue, they have to expect that he is gonna off their loved ones when it's convinient for him. I've played evil groups - if you value something; money, property, or your NPCs, you protect them. Victory goes to the guy who gets the last "Big Reveal". If this is an evil group, I don't see the problem.

If it's not an evil group, then you are a traitor and they should try to expose you and kill you, of course. You attack my friends (PC or NPC is irrelevant - if I say they're my friends, they're my friends)you are an enemy. If you pretend to be a friend while really being an enemy (see above definition) then you are a traitor. This isn't rocket science. I don't care how you rationalize it. All traitors rationalize their actions. It's part of being a traitor. We hang them anyway. The girl never did anything to hurt you. If she was used by an enemy, that's not her fault. I just need to find a way to help her. The same way I would help you, if it was you. The same way I wouldn't sacrifice you, if it was you. The same way I'd protect you if someone attacked you, or avenge you if they succeed. Especially a traitor.

-Speaking in Character as "The Grumpy Old Bastard"
My RIFTS character (OK. It kinda shifted to in character halfway through)

Alternatively, you could actually read the thread.

"If you pretend to be a friend while really being an enemy, then you are a traitor."

You mean, like the NPC?

"I don't care how you rationalize it. All traitors rationalize their actions."

You mean, like the NPC?

"It's part of being a traitor. We hang them anyway."

You mean, you would act against the NPC? Make up your mind.

"The girl never did anything to hurt you."

Except for the hundred times she did exactly that.

Taldor

Lets look at this another way. Say you kill/polymorph the NPC, then what? Do you win the game? Does the infestation solve itself? The bugs are the main problem.

I'm guessing there is a lot more going on than you know about and instead of forcing some action that would clearly disrupt the game and/or other players, you roll with it or find another way to stop the NPC from inadvertently feeding them info. What about something as simple as a ring of mind shielding?

In the end, you want to be friends with these people AFTER the game is done.


Spiral_Ninja wrote:

Stupid post monster; let's try this again:

I have been thinking about this and about your comment on what the DM is there for.

Here's my take:
One: the DM is there to tell a story. He/she has gone to a great deal of effort to work out this story. He/she is willing to let the PCs help tell the story, realizing (hopefully) thatthe PCs amy very well alter his story based on theirs.

Two: And that's the rub. In any game, the PCs each have an individual story they want to tell/play out. The DM needs to be able to work those stories into his/her story. Conversely, the PCs need to be able to work their stories into the DM's plot. If I decide to run Carrion Crown and the PCs all make up stories for Skull & Shackles, it isn't going to work. If all but one of the players make up stories for Carrion Crown knowing what I'm doing and that last one makes up a story for Jade Regent, that PC is the odd one out.

Three: In addition, the players also have to make sure their stories blend to a degree. Example: Jade Regent; PC 1 wants to set NPC on the throne because it's the right thing to do, PC 2 wants to set NPC on the throne and marry them, taking over the country by proxie, PC 3 believes they are the true heir and wants to destroy NPC, PC 4 is working for the bad guy and PC 5 is playing to Carrion Crown...this game isn't going to go well.

What story are the other PCs trying to tell? There was a comment made that the DM riffed off of coments like 'what if she is the bbg?'. What sort of stories were being proposed with those comments? Whose story are you trampling on to make your story the most important one? This is why 'It's what my character would do' has destroyed so many games and gaming groups.

I'm sure your DM can work around your plan to continue to tell his part of the story. That gives you your tale and fulfills your enjoyment of the game. But at the cost of the other player's stories.

I repeat; what do the other PCs/players want? Work with them. Because otherwise, your 'big reveal' is...

And, I guess, I have to respectfully disagree with your position on this.

First, if the DM is there to TELL the story not to FACILITATE the story then the party actions are pre-ordained...you can't kill the characters because they have to be at the end of the story to see it through...unless you determined that the characters WILL die in which case you have the reverse.

A DM Simply cannot write a story past a certain point. In my current Campaign I have a DMPC and that DMPC IS the central character in the story. That said, I'm not nieve enough to have that DMPC be immortal to the story line. He CAN and MAY die through events or faults not his own...the story goes on. Does my ending work if he's not there? YES, YES it does! Because I don't have the final battle scene all constructed blow by blow in my mind...it's a fleshed out concept that flows regardless of who happens to be there. The "final reveal" plot point works regardless of who happens to be in the room at the time.

Again, all DM's have to be VERY careful about writing a book for a story. Look through any pre-printed module from TSR, WotC, Pathfinder, etc...you can't find an "ending" in any of them. You get a general concept about what happens, you may even have a "what happens if it goes wrong" section in the module, but you'll never read "At this point the players should be able to corner the BBEG and..."

It's NOT the DM's story. It's their concept, it's their world, it's their characters, but it's not entirely their story.

I'm all for a DM that has a campaign planned out, and I’ve got to admit I'm REALLY curious about this particular campaign: 5 minutes of reading and I'm hooked on how this thing turns out. I appreciate a good COHESIVE story start to finish, which requires a DM to have a plan all the way through the game. It becomes a HUGE problem, however, when that plan becomes less a plan and more a set of "on the rails" events that players simply have to live through. I've made that mistake, my players have corrected me SEVERAL TIMES on it.

Regarding "Two" above, again, I disagree. You seem to be under the impression that the Rogue in this scenario had decided that his story should converge from the DM's story. This is entirely not the case. The Rogue is reacting TO the DM's story, in what I personally consider to be an ENTIRELY LOGICAL way to the limited information that I have. While there MAY BE other ways of handling it (and there are many good ways pointed out on this thread) there is a difference between suggesting ALTERNATE actions and saying that the OP's posted action is INVALID.

That's something we have to be careful with here, the OP has a perfectly valid action based upon the information he's posted here. There may be other ways to handle it, but it doesn't make the action he's doing wrong.

As to "evil" the action he's talking about performing is NOT evil. An action designed to save a larger portion of the populace at the cost of a smaller group is NOT evil, it's actually more Good/Neutral. There've been a multitude of stories and movies dealing with exactly this situation: what IS the morality of sacrificing a small group for a larger cause?

All this said I am starting to get disturbed by the attitude of the OP.

While I don't object to the action, the motivation is starting to bother me. When I originally read this, I was looking at it as a PC choice to uphold what he felt was the best for the party...protecting the party against it's own inability to see reality for reality.

The further I read the OP's posts about "the big reveal" the more selfish this action seems to become. While I still believe the action to be justified based upon how the DM has setup the NPC to the party, I can't help but start feeling a bit uneasy at the OP's focus on this glorious "surprise" moment at the end of the campaign where a single player gets to identify himself as a mastermind at the cost of everyone else.

That motivation does, indeed, bother me...it's quite anti-social in nature. While I have a problem with the DM who puts his campaign on rails and pushes the PC's only through the events as the DM wants them, I also have a problem with a PC who decides he's the hero and everyone else should revel in his own fortunes.

OP: If your motivation behind this action is that you feel the party has grown too attached to what you are VASTLY considering to be a liability to the party, I'm all for your actions. The one visionary sacrificing his honor for the group of sheep being led to the slaughter is a heroic act. PKing or NPKing for the sake of "Look at me, I'm awesome! Bow before me party members I played you all for FOOLS!" is group destroying...I certainly wouldn't be interested in playing with that person again.

D&D (and it's variants) is a cooperative game, not a competitive game. The stories flow best when players work together and with the DM to create a challenging campaign that everyone enjoys. There are times where players HAVE to go against other players for the story to be successful, and this is one case where the DM seems to have inadvertently created this situation. So long as the *player's* motivation is larger than his own glory, I'm all for the action and I'm against a DM who arbitrarily denies those actions because it doesn't fit some pre-built scenario for his or her campaign.

This one, however, is starting to stink a bit more than it did when I first read it. There's just a bit too much "player ego" creeping into the motivation for this action.

OP Here's a point to consider: What you're talking about is YOUR "big reveal" not the STORY'S "big reveal"...that's where the problem comes in. Look at the ending of the campaign and ask yourself:

* Is this action facilitating the end of the story so that the campaign comes to a close on a high note?

* Or is this action facilitating the end of the story so that YOUR CHARACTER comes to a close on a high note?

If this "big reveal" overshadows the real end of the story I caution you against it.


I and my character believe that removing the NPC is best for the good of all. This is not petty and I don't want to kill her.

I believe that revealing something to players that their characters don't know is bad storytelling.
Meta-gaming happens in many ways, for one we only play once a month or so, so keeping knowledge separate can get confusing.
When you know the answer to a riddle it is really easy to figure out the method which breaks the riddle.
If we tell the other players, but not the PCs then some level of meta-gaming is bound to occur.

I for one LOVE books and movies with unexpected twists and when someone tells me the twist in advance I get frustrated because I want to experience that twist with the main character Telling the PCs is a SPOILER to the reveal. I don't see a difference between a spoiler for a DND campaign and a spoiler for a movie. I believe that characters affect the campaign world and their secrets should be revealed by players and their characters at the same time. You should also think that this is a long term project not a one session bluff.

The last time this NPC was kidnapped the party did X, Y, and Z. My plan covers those eventualities, however, my plan also has holes. If the players know what I did they will see what those holes are. Add that to the fact that there are clones of this NPC out there so if the players go off hunting the NPC they will find clones. The clones are what makes this whole thing so ingenius.


Would the clones know what happened to the original?


It's not about whether or not you want to kill this NPC, it's about the foreseen disagreement between you and the rest of the players of this game.

As identified by several people in this thread, you are stepping on toes IRL. If you're the only person in the party who believes as you do, that either means you have better information than anyone else, or have jumped to difference conclusions than anyone else.

There's something to be said for being more tactically and mysteriously minded than the rest of your gaming group. There's something to be said for "I believe I'm one step ahead of everyone else in the group based upon how I've put the information I have together." Unlike many here, I fully believe you when you say you feel you're doing the right thing within the confines of the information you have.

There's a wider perspective you're being cautioned in this thread to take and it harkens back to a concept of life: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

You have my 100% support that you should be allowed to kill this NPC if you so choose to do so. Your DM has absolutely 0 support from me if he decides to metagame anything you've told him as the DM to do anything to hinder your character from performing the action you've talked about here.

The caution you're being given I will echo: An action of this calibre has the distinct possibility of royally pissing off your gaming group. While plot twists may be something you like and are very cool with, your gaming group may not be so approving...especially not with plot twists enacted by a CHARACTER and not by the DM. A character being removed from a story by a DM is part of the plot, a character being removed from a story by another player is not part of the plot, it's the caprecious whim of the other player...and that doesn't always sit well with the rest of those who join you week to week.

Has this kind of character against character thing happened within your group before? How did it go over then?

I'm pretty sure every shred of advice you could be looking for has already been provided in this thread by many of the excellent posts. Other than further ideas of "Cast this spell or perform this action", all of which would be metagaming by your standards if you used them in game, I'm not sure what further the community here could give you.

Can you perform the action you suggested? Probably, it's a matter of rolling the dice and finding out.

Should you be allowed to perform the action you suggested? Absolutely.

SHOULD you perform the action you suggested? There's some pretty strong cautions against it coming from this thread...instead of discussing the GM's role in this scenario, perhaps you'd be better off turning the conversation to how the GM feels about what the fallout of this action will be, not within the campaign, but with the group in general.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To the OP, you have said you are very much against Metagaming wielding that as a sword for why not to talk to the party.

Do you have enough Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcanum to know about trap the soul and understand the magical link that the creature is using to get information from her? Most rouges do not so you yourself may me metagaming a little.


I absolutely do have enough spellcraft to know that.

I though it was a good balance for my UMD.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Snorter - I did read the thread. Give the OP himself a little credit; he doesn't say she is evil. He says the DM has used the baddies link to her to screw over the party and he's tired of it. He doesn't say she ever did anything to him - that's why he wants to trap her soul rather than destroyed it Elric style. She's not bad; she's just inconvienient.

Illydth - I think you summed it up well. He should be allowed. Most of the cautions here involve RL fallout. We've all lost groups (and sometimes friends) because of something that happened in game. We don't want it to happen here. In spite of all the heated exchanges, the people here really do care. I like that. It is, however, his call; and it sounds like he made it.

Sleep-Walker - It sounds like you've made up your mind. I will respect you enough to accept your decision even though I disagree with it. At this point there isn't more to say about your disagreement with the DM. I offered him ideas on his thread that he could use to offer you alternatives to your plan that might be a lot more in harmony with the party. It's up to you guys, if you want to be open to changes like that. But, if he's fixed on his plot, and you are on yours, there is little to do but roll the dice and deal with the consequences.

So let's look at the consequences:
1) You may fail spectacularly. She has been kidnapped and tortured once (at least) and she's a 16 level sorceress, I think you said? With some witch levels? She's likely to be paranoid as all get out and have lots of defenses that you know nothing of. She may even have developed paranoid habits - like scanning her treasure for traps from the baddie. The DM isn't being bad to set this kind of thing up. In fact, he'd be remiss if he didn't modify her behavior based on what happened to her. Example: I had an adventure in Greyhawk where the characters were going to help the mayor find out why a group of assassins were trying to take him out (clumsily). One character decided (on his own) to kidnap the mayor and use him as bait for the assassins. Unfortunately, I had planned to have the players help the mayor fight off an attempt on his life, so I already had the mayor's office defenses planned out. The character was dead in three rounds. The player stormed off yelling that I was being unfair and I'd made that stuff up just to "protect my precious gay mayor". I know you're not that immature, but remember the mythbusters motto: "Failure is always an option." The Dm is under no obligation to make it easy for you - or even fair. My player had no more chance than a bug on a windshield. I didn't even try to give him one.You're on your own here. You may succeed spectacularly and get the big reveal, or you may end up trapped in your own soul gem.

2) You may find a success worse than a failure. You know nothing about her soul-link. You don't even know if your soul gem will work - the baddie may have a prior claim on her soul. You could just be damning her to torment at the hands of the baddie - who will promptly tell all your friends about it (because he's bad). Of course, if he consumes her soul and all of her power, you could end up making her the BBG after all. Perhaps it works perfectly and really pisses the BBG off. Up to now, he was complacent about you; tormenting you, stealing your stuff, etc. He thought he had an edge, so he underestimated you - which you could have used for your advantage. Advantage gone. He didn't think he needed to send a big army since he had an "inside man" to open the gates. You could have stopped that army. The three times bigger one he sends to bash down the gates, you can't stop. You escape with your lives and the town gets eaten. GJ. Or you find you need her link to find the BBG. He's tormented you with it, but now you use it against him. You pull out her soul gem and ressurect her according to plan. "I'm sorry I killed you and trapped your soul, but we need your help now". At this point the sorceress (who doesn't agree that killing her and trapping her soul was a "not evil" act - women, who can figure em?)promptly blasts you with every spell she has - concentrating on ones that hurt. Remember how mad your wife got when you forgot to do something she asked? Try knifing her and locking her soul in a gem for three months. Make your bluff check. Now make a saving throw. Roleplaying gold.

3) You may be OK with lying to the other players for months, but the DM might not be. I don't like lying to my friends (and wife), and I really don't see why I should do it for you. This isn't in game or metagaming. He may just say, "No. I don't want to play that game." You make your choice, he has a right to make his. I've left games because I didn't like them. Players have left mine because they didn't like it (only that one time yelling, though). We play the game to have fun. If he wouldn't have fun because of your act; you need to accept that, or one of you needs to leave the game. Bottom line.

4) Even if everything works perfectly and you get your "Big Reveal", it might not be all you hope for. One player is likely to be hurt. The others will be shocked, but I hope they politely compliment you on your "plot twist". Then when the next game starts they show their "big reveal" - they don't invite you. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. No offense meant. I am just happier in games where PCs don't kill my love intrests. Completely a personal choice. I don't sacrifice the girl to save the world; I save them both. Even if it's harder. Thet's why they call me a hero. I like the extra challenge of winning while not abandoning the waif. Or even losing valiantly. It's my thing, baby. I accept that you disagree. It really does sound like your friends want to win with the girl too, though. You are denying them that arbitrarily and without consulting them. You don't have to play with me and I don't have to play with you. No hard feelings. Just make sure that your friends won't end up feeling like me. That's too high a price for pride. Really.

P.S. If anybody is curious. The party did a lot of fast talking and kept their freedom. They just had to find out who the baddies were quick if they wanted to keep it. It worked out as a great "hero needs to clear his name" trope without any railroading or setting up on my part. It changed the adventure into one that was even better. The player who stormed out, never came back, but he did get over his pique. He became a fine roleplayer and a great DM. He admitted to using that very scenario and set up later. Happy endings.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sleep-Walker wrote:
I for one LOVE books and movies with unexpected twists and when someone tells me the twist in advance I get frustrated because I want to experience that twist with the main character Telling the PCs is a SPOILER to the reveal. I don't see a difference between a spoiler for a DND campaign and a spoiler for a movie. I believe that characters affect the campaign world and their secrets should be revealed by players and their characters at the same time. You should also think that this is a long term project not a one session bluff.

The problem is that the other players might not appreciate the surprise. Playing in a D&D/PF campaign is not like reading a book or watching a movie. It is an active process and a collaborative one; you are not putting on a solo performance. As Spiral_Ninja said, all the other players have stories they are trying to tell with their characters, and if you are trying to tell a different kind of story, no matter how justified your actions, there is a high risk of hurt feelings.

I just finished a campaign in which for some time two characters had drastically different goals from the rest of the group and one of them performed actions that aided a villain, believing it was for the greater good. Through some clever manoeuvring by the DM it turned out all right in the end. The villain that the errant player aided turned out to be redeemable, and enough hints were dropped to that end that the other players got on board with the redeeming effort. The redeemed villain encouraged the errant PC to abandon fruitless attempts to make friends with the remaining villains, who the united party then happily smote. However, this whole thing caused a lot of drama among the players. Some of this was exacerbated by the fact that the errant PC performed two particularly antisocial actions without first informing the other players. Some was broken trust. Some was a result of the fact that a cooperative game was slipping into PvP. This drama affected OOC relationships.

I have seen PvP work very well in D&D/PF, but it's always been when all players involved were aware of the potential for PvP and agreed that this was something they were comfortable with. For example, I told a fellow player that I was going to figure out his character's most embarrassing secret. He said go for it. I enacted the plan in secret, thus allowing for a surprise when he saw the results, but the player was aware that some plot would be afoot and was therefore able to enjoy it. If you are going to plot, you should at least mention to the other players that some plot would be afoot, especially since the DM does not appear comfortable with keeping your plotting secret.

If the players are not aware that you are planning PvP action, such action is likely to hurt them - OOC. I highly recommend that your first course of action be to find an alternate plan of eliminating the threat, one that the other players will accept. Scanning both threads, I saw mention of a quest to de-villainize the NPC by cutting her connection with the Big Bad or by turning that connection against the Big Bad. It's a very good idea to work with the DM on pursuing this course of action. This will satisfy your/your character's desire to eliminate the threat as well as the other players' desire to protect the NPC. If that doesn't work, would sending her away from the main action be effective?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Time to check the social contract with the rest of the group, GM included.

Player character vs player character antagonism is not something to be entered into lightly, and certainly not without touching base with the player you are, directly or indirectly, targetting.

Player vs player antagonism should go die on a saltflat anthill.


Sleep-Walker wrote:
WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

I wouldn't hide info from the other players. That's a really bad idea. I wouldn't use 'metagaming' as a shield to defend my bad behaviour, either.


What was the end resolution here?


Hello,

This game is a once a month kind of game. We have played one game since and I have not acted yet. I have however, had an interesting roleplay by email discussion with another player in which I included him in my plans. It was a good discussion and he ended up agreeing with me.

I think I am going to do it, but I am going to delay until the last moment to do it.


Update, damn your black hide!


While the meta politics are a serious concern, I also want to imagine recourse the GM might have. Since they were able to use the NPC to spy on you, the GM has all the right to tailor his plans specifically to the skills, resources, and tactics of your party without metagaming. I also assume that while your plans might prevent the enemy from knowing the specifics, since you said you did something like this before, and they might have seen enough clues before their link got cut off to connect this to you, it would not be unreasonable for the bugs to make an educated guess.

So since the bugs can tailor their troops in just about any fashion they wish, and you will make this NPC into a MacGuffin for all intents and purposes, well, do not be surprised if one evening there is a tiny sized bug with a lot of ranks in stealth and sleight of hand. This might actually help propel the story forward though, advancing her inevitable capture, and giving a chance to do the reveal before the end of the story.

"Hey....you guys, remember how she disappeared last week? Well....she was stolen. Yeah, not kidnapped, but stolen. Long....and 'funny' story."

This might seem like railroading, but hey, you are dealing with a major resource of an invasion by intelligent, ruthless aliens. Things happen, and there is enough justification for them to happen.


Update....

That game is progressing.

One other player engaged me in a discussion about whether or not we could trust another PC. I steered that conversation to this topic and we discussed my plan. He ended up agreeing with me.


Sleep-Walker wrote:

My DM IS NOT INVITED TO READ THIS. NOR ARE OTHER PLAYERS IN CAMPAIGN

The title is provocative, I am not looking for advice on killing a specific NPC more for a discussion about the role of the DM. My DM has started another thread called Help Me Save An NPC, which I have not read at his request, but I can see that there are a lot of posts.

In the homebrew campaign we are playing, an alien semi insectoid menace is taking over the world. The enemies are a mix between 40K Tyranids, Aliens from the movie franchise, and aliens from Starship troopers. They adapt to become the worst threat they can be and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

There is a NPC in the campaign, she is somehow linked to these creatures. She is a special variant summoner and is as linked to these creatures as a summoner is linked to their Eidolon. She can sense when they are near and her special brand of magic is tied to them. The creatures are using her mind to spawn new specific monsters based on our weaknesses, they are also using her to gather information about the party.

She recently disappeared and it was revealed that the monsters could use her soul to create special vat grown clones of her. We have specifically been told that if we control the soul of the individual they cannot make new clones. The clone with the soul is referred to as the Prime. By Using Trap The Soul we could prevent them from making new clones and close their method of gathering information about us. Another PC has currently taken possession of the soul of another NPC in a similar situation.

We are in the final run of the campaign when an infected Tarrasque is going to attack. We are also in the process of fortifying a town to ward off a full attack from hordes of these monsters. The campaign is about to end and then we can resurrect the NPC, she just needs to be out of the loop for a few months.

My character (Level 17 Rogue) has decided that this NPC is a liability. She is consciously or unconsciously feeding information to our...

As someone who dms a bit, I have to say I'm disappointed when I heat about anyone trying to railroad...why would your character leave clues...he's a rogue...if anything he'd go back with them to investigate/cover up any evidence. Personally I've always wanted to have a campaign where the dm takes one of the PCs to the side and asks them to be the bbeg. O know that's not what you're doing but unless your character is being played grossly out of character for no reason, I can't see went he would tell you how to play it, or make you gimp your niche of the sneak...


While I agree, It is a very interesting debate. I mean, using the same logic, a DM could go to an inn, sleep for the night, wake one of the members up and lure them out, kill them by some horrible means, and invent this convoluted means with which to elude the idea that the PC had been killed (OC it's obvious, because the guy would probably be making a new character).

Players would, for the sake of story(?), like to know how their friend died, or seek revenge for it. So the DM would be instinctively forced to create means to determine who did it, or even to find the body.

But a PC doing so... wouldn't. It's all skill based and question based. I guess if the players were curious enough they could try to investigate but given enough skills a PC can hide the fact just as well as the DM, but not have the obligation to find the clues.

Where is the fair balance as to what's allowed versus what's not?

IMO - the DM actually does reserve the right to kill off anyone without any other players knowing, and have enough clues or means to make it simply not possible to find.


Vicon wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Seriously, do not do this. Although the leadership feat may not be involved the NPC is a cohort in all but name. Do not PVP. Especially do not PVP the GM's wife.

If the GM is plotting against you it's because you're being a jerk to his wife. If you try to push this you will either get kicked out of or cause the complete break up of the gaming group because the GM is rightly going to put his real world marriage first.

If you can't handle this leave the group.

If a GM sets up a campaign so that months of collective story-telling amounts to a mental-masturbation exercise for his spoiled wife, he's a s+*#ty GM... no matter how good the stories are. NO PLAYER... SHOULD EVER... have to sit on their hands and sacrifice all agency because the GM has rigged the story to hinge on a pet NPC... that belongs to his wife is even worse.

Yeah, summed up all that I wanted to say quite nicely.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I will only say this.

The player here seems to discuss (on more than one occasion) his "big reveal" as if that is an important consideration. In my opinion, (and I may be wrong) that's the worst kind of dillholery. "The DM is a great story-teller, but I can make his story even better by doing X, and then the game will always be remembered for my big moment."

If that's the case: stop it.

If that's not the case, then keep selling your idea to the other characters/players, and when you (as a group) decide on the right course of action, do it. It's not up to any one PC to serve as the group's conscience, or determine what the "right thing" for all of them to do might be.

Out of curiosity: if her finger is the crux of their power over her, why not just infiltrate their ubercamp and steal it back? And, in the process, stick a necklace of fireballs under an empty cloning vat and wait for someone to fill it, crushing the necklace and blowing $#!* up?

Blowing $#!* up is always the best option.


KHShadowrunner wrote:

While I agree, It is a very interesting debate. I mean, using the same logic, a DM could go to an inn, sleep for the night, wake one of the members up and lure them out, kill them by some horrible means, and invent this convoluted means with which to elude the idea that the PC had been killed (OC it's obvious, because the guy would probably be making a new character).

Players would, for the sake of story(?), like to know how their friend died, or seek revenge for it. So the DM would be instinctively forced to create means to determine who did it, or even to find the body.

But a PC doing so... wouldn't. It's all skill based and question based. I guess if the players were curious enough they could try to investigate but given enough skills a PC can hide the fact just as well as the DM, but not have the obligation to find the clues.

Where is the fair balance as to what's allowed versus what's not?

IMO - the DM actually does reserve the right to kill off anyone without any other players knowing, and have enough clues or means to make it simply not possible to find.

The fair balance is the dm can make anything happen, whenever, the characters have very limited power/resources. most importantly the characters are the main characters of the story. The whole concept of this game is for them to overcome challenges and be some of the most powerful if not the most powerful people of the world. Who are we catering to the npcs? Who really don't even exist, no then the whole game just becomes an ego exercise.


In the end, I assume that this has to be handled OOC, amongst all party members.

The action has the potential of ruining the story for someone, or completely derailing the story. If my character had beyond invested interest in something and it "disappeared" (which I plan on actually doing for my PC as it leaves that extra little bit of madness in an otherwise ordnary person), I would lose my mind and focus my sole efforts into finding what was lost. I could easily see it being a member-disbandment situation, from a character perspective (the missing NPC means the 'world' to them, so what is saving the world when the 'world' is already gone?). That's just how some characters roll.

So now you are in deadlock. The rogue (rightfully) wants to OKO the NPC in some way in order to save the world. This is in the character's interest. Another player wants the NPC to be their world. This is in the character's interest. OOC we're keeping everything a surprise.

Steps I would take:
As the rogue, I would ask the PC with the affection to the NPC (OOC) what kind of reaction they both OOC and IC they would have to that NPC disappearing for whatever reason. If the rogue wants to keep it a surprise, he'll go to the DM who will go to the other PC. If there is a conflict of interest, the DM becomes the mediator and resolves the matter.

Both people seem very respectful. The only issue I'm seeing is how the OOC issues play as a mystery when it could, in fact, cause some severe conflict in the IC party. When these kinds of things turn up, it pretty much needs to be discussed. If the Rogue sticks to his word, and really wants it to be a surprise, it'll depressingly be a matter of consequences.

As for the DM and the means to find the body, that's his own decision. the PC is right in that if he does a good enough job it should not be discoverable. But if the other PC's true enjoyment is to solve the mystery of the missing NPC, the story would need to turn somehow so that that person is satisfied.

Either way, I simply do not see how this could continue without discussion between the three.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

Time to check the social contract with the rest of the group, GM included.

Player character vs player character antagonism is not something to be entered into lightly, and certainly not without touching base with the player you are, directly or indirectly, targetting.

Player vs player antagonism should go die on a saltflat anthill.

If another player, regardless of who it is, GM's wife or not, has a special relationship with an NPC and would be upset with my action against the NPC, then I will find another way around the problem.

This situation has nothing to do with roleplaying, the story, or the game. It has everything to do with being a friend.

The point is FRIENDS get together and have a GOOD time.

Use this as an opportunity to be a friend, and find a more creative and mutually enjoyable way to deal with the situation.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Help Me Kill An NPC (Disagreement with DM) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.