"In Character" attack / humaliating players


Advice


I am a player in a group of close friends in pathfinder, however I seem to be the only "Normal" person when it comes to creating characters and choosing races. Also I feel as though I am the only one that realizes there is such thing as going too far by being "in character." We are playing Shattered STar and are level 5, but constantly my party members make it so I have to avoid pissing them off even with the best intentions. Every time I disagree and try to reason with them the Chaotic Neutral is "in Character" and thinks it is dumb where our half-orc (who claims he is "intelligent" but acts like a 5 year old and the minute he mistrusts me or I take something shiny he wanted (Usually to identify or sell for the party)) in character he'll mistrust and even attack me. As a custom point our party seperated and my character had to make it look like I betrayed them (GM created story) the minute I got back I said "It was a ruse/The leader planned this" I got an axe thrown at me, then the half-orc who is good btw talked to the CN and the CN then publically embarrassed my character with sneezing powder. 24/7 I am treying not to get attack but be a good party member. Now I feel sometimes they are "in character" but I still feel that that is an excuse. How should I feel about this? Am I right in being fustrated? It took me a long time of thinking and I wanted to see what others thought. (I may have added an excuse when I used ghost sound as someone on the other side of the door because the hald-orc CONSTANTLY knocked on every door to see if someone was there even when I reasoned for him ot too and was still being threatened with a bomb to my face by the alchemist who was clearly insane. These guys roll d100 to see how they react too which I feel is dumb)

In summary, were they justified in having reason to attack me by being "in character" though I wasn't evil and has anyone else had any experiences where they tried to be helpful but felt like the party hated them? What would you do? This arguement has been on going and fustrating me to try and not have my character die ot be in constant fear of getting on the bad side of them.

The result of all this was me leaving the table saying "In Character" I would NEVER want to work with them again after there constant misunderstandings at feeling as though I would be stabbed byt them. And the Orc is supposed to be a good guy mind you. He likes helping but easily acts like this.

PS: My friends don't dislike me and I don't hate them for this to have started. We all hang out and were in orchestra together. We still play football outside of pathfinder before I showerd them it etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming that everything is as you say, this is not a healthy table. The other players do not know that they need to roleplay characters that will function in a group setting; Pathfinder is innately a team game, and constantly doing things to disrupt the team aspects does nothing but drag it down.

Confront them out of character about their behavior, and if it doesn't stop you should stop playing with them, especially if you want to continue being friends outside of the game.


And if one of them is really relying on a percentile roll to determine what he does, you may want to check to see just why he's doing that. That in and of itself is dangerous.


Yeah I tried to be accurate and give them the doubt. Sometimes it did make sense in character but knowing that the CN will throw a bomb at me any time he disagrees is just fustrating.....(Ironically the main problem players I have had have always have been Alchemist)

Forgot to mention that the group I GM at my college has no issues and clearly understands this as a team game more than my friends from home. Though they are inexperienced they have a much better time playing together it seems. I feel that this is also part of the GMing. as a GM I don't allow players to be Chatic Neutral without a clear uinderstanding they need to work with and be a party member, and I have banned evil all together in my campaign as they needed to be heroes. However these p[layers disagree with these desitions saying they will make it work, which clearly they mean everypone else has to make it work for them in my mind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been said a million times, on these message boards and on the message boards at other companies of other versions of this game: Chaotic Neutral is the excuse that immature players use to justify letting their characters be douchebag jerks. Period.

Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

It's as if the alignment controls the player rather than the other way around.

Except it doesn't - the player just pretends it does so he can be a jerk and pretend it's not his fault.

Frankly, it sounds like you're playing with a bunch of 8-year-olds. Nothing wrong with 8-year-old players, but the game they play is usually very different than the game grown-ups play. If you're 8 years old, you SHOULD be playing that way. Otherwise, it's time for the people at your table to grow up.

And we can start with you. YOUR turn to grow up is when you tell those guys to grow up. But you do it in a pleasant and constructive way, not a disruptive (8-year-old) way. You help them to learn and grow and play better. If you can do that, you will have taken another step on your path to enlightenment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you and your friends play football together, you should try to explain Pathfinder to them in that context. PF is a team game just like football, and disruptive team dynamics like this will likely result in the game ending or the party being wiped out.


DM_Blake wrote:
Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

Sorry, but you're wrong on the second part. At least two people here (me and my boyfriend) played CN characters without intending or even being jerks. A few other people I know played CN and weren't jerks (don't know if intentionally).


We call CN "Chaotic A***ole" at our table.

It is frequently used by people wanting to be jerks, I haven't seen it played any other way.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:


Frankly, it sounds like you're playing with a bunch of 8-year-olds. Nothing wrong with 8-year-old players, but the game they play is usually very different than the game grown-ups play. If you're 8 years old, you SHOULD be playing that way. Otherwise, it's time for the people at your table to grow up.

And we can start with you. YOUR turn to grow up is when you tell those guys to grow up. But you do it in a pleasant and constructive way, not a disruptive (8-year-old) way. You help them to learn and grow and play better. If you can do that, you will have taken another step on your path to enlightenment.

I object to this because I do regularly play with my 9 year old (8 when we started), and his play is nothing like this. He thinks of and works for the team the entire time. My five year old isn't even like what is described here.

What the OP describes isn't a matter of immaturity. It's either selfishness, or not understanding that Pathfinder is a team game.

Also, why is the GM allowing a character to throw bombs at another? In my games, the first try at this would be "No, you don't do that. That is not acceptable." If they tried that a second time, they would be asked to leave, at least for the rest of that session.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

It's been said a million times, on these message boards and on the message boards at other companies of other versions of this game: Chaotic Neutral is the excuse that immature players use to justify letting their characters be douchebag jerks. Period.

Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

i use it all the time for a character who either dislikes government or dislikes tradition and tried to do things in opposition to that. Like someone really excited about innovative research would probably be chaotic neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

It's been said a million times, on these message boards and on the message boards at other companies of other versions of this game: Chaotic Neutral is the excuse that immature players use to justify letting their characters be douchebag jerks. Period.

Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

i use it all the time for a character who either dislikes government or dislikes tradition and tried to do things in opposition to that. Like someone really excited about innovative research would probably be chaotic neutral.

To me, that would depend. Was the character a pure researcher who was only interested in the knowledge, and didn't care whether the application of the new development were used for good or evil? Then sure, that's arguably CN. If he would object to evil uses of the knowledge, then it's hard to argue he's CN, however.

OT: In my experience of playing since 1978, the percentage of players who choose CN as an alignment for their character who are interested in being a team player is pretty darn small. There are definite times when CN is an appropriate choice for a character, of course, but typically only an experienced and high quality player can pull it off. In my experience, most players who choose this alignment are either new players who want to have the freedom to do anything they want, experienced players who want to play evil but aren't allowed by the GM, or people who are still convinced that Kender were the greatest race ever created (shudder).

To the OP, assuming everything you wrote was accurate, it seems to me that you are being bullied by extension through your character. Personally, I'm the kind of guy who can't be bothered with this kind of stuff. I'd walk away; you have another play group that you apparently like better that'll start back up when school starts in a month. Instead of wasting your time with this group, spend the time preparing new adventures for you college game group. Start lifting the veil a little bit with them to groom them to be GMs in the future, so you'll have someone to run games where you play. You've got a chance to shape a play group into something where both you and all the players have a positive experience where everyone has fun. Where's the advantage to sticking with a group who's apparent idea of fun is so different from your own? That way lies madness....


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

It's been said a million times, on these message boards and on the message boards at other companies of other versions of this game: Chaotic Neutral is the excuse that immature players use to justify letting their characters be douchebag jerks. Period.

Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

i use it all the time for a character who either dislikes government or dislikes tradition and tried to do things in opposition to that. Like someone really excited about innovative research would probably be chaotic neutral.
To me, that would depend. Was the character a pure researcher who was only interested in the knowledge, and didn't care whether the application of the new development were used for good or evil? Then sure, that's arguably CN. If he would object to evil uses of the knowledge, then it's hard to argue he's CN, however.
neutral wrote:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Chaos wrote:
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

most people just play chaos wrong. and unfortunately i think it stains the alignment.


DM_Blake wrote:
Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") ever plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together.

I do. I've had a Chaotic Neutral Oracle of Yog-Sothoth... who leaned good, was friends with everyone else, and actually helped out the rest of the party without hesitating. XD Very scary to her enemies, but not at all to allies. It's definitely POSSIBLE to play the alignment in a positive manner. Though, admittedly, it seems to be rare. XD

When it comes to people who seem to be threatening the party, though, sometimes the best reaction is to respond 'realistically' - by which I mean work with the DM to coup de grace them in their sleep. When they complain about this, cite that this is an appropriate in-character response to a supposed teammate waving a bomb in your face and threatening you with it... then explain that such behaviors make it very difficult to play the game and defeat the purpose of everyone gathering together.

If they want to be wild and crazy, they should say that upfront and be honest with you because you're friends - maybe you could work together to create a game where that works. Otherwise, though, it's important to remember that you all put a lot of time into making characters and coming to play together - and you'll have to stop playing together if they refuse to accept that.


Qaianna wrote:
And if one of them is really relying on a percentile roll to determine what he does, you may want to check to see just why he's doing that. That in and of itself is dangerous.

That is not even role-playing! Determining what your character does and why (motivations) is an important aspect.

A table of random behaviors can just be turned over to the DM or turned into a deck of cards, that person doesn't even need to show up!


@Soulboundx: Like some have suggested, try to talk to the GM and players out of the game and tell them that "in-character" should never be an excuse among friends. Sometimes, people just need to have a game and character once in awhile that is different than normal, which is fine.

If it is just this set of characters, see if your group would be okay with alternating campaigns (this works many times). That way, they can have weekends where they have their jerk characters (not going to call them d-bags, because I am King D****bag and even I don't tolerate or condone that behavior), and you can enjoy weekends where the atmosphere is much different.

If this is just something that will always be the case and reason doesn't help, leave. I have left two different groups before for similar reasons. I gamed with one group for 4 years because I thought they were the only group I could get. I was wrong and should have left earlier. The second group had my two best friends in it. I tried to tolerate an "always CN rogue min/maxed for hide/move silently and screwing with anyone that dared be good" for two years. Things escalated to out of game and into other games we played as well. Most of the rest of the group was okay with him, so I left. I focused on other things for awhile and would only occasionally join up with them.

If things can't be resolved by out of game conversations, leave (or take a break from them). Sometimes, that is what you have to do, and yes, it sucks, but is the frustration worth it? The game should be fun for everyone. Yes, sometimes there will be sessions or events less fun for you or someone else, but overall you should have a good experience. It is the responsibility of GMs AND players alike to ensure that everyone in the game is having fun. It is a game. When the sessions become something you dread and cause you grief, you need to fix it.

You mentioned that you have another group that plays well together. You should take that as a blessing and focus on that group. Use the time you would have spent with the bully group to research and design stuff solely for your college group. Or focus on your college work. That is what I did after the second group I left (and I needed it, was starting the harder classes for my biochemistry degree).

Hope things get resolved. Stay strong, talk, and remember that you have a right to enjoy your gaming sessions as much as the rest of the players!

EDIT: And btw, I used to call CN "Chaotic Pancake". Those players (not the characters) tend to be as helpful a teammate as a pancake and as dangerous as entrusting a pancake to stand guard while you sleep in a demon-infested lair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chaotic Pancake, I like that...


OP, this is one of funniest posts I've seen in along time, not trying to be insensitive but this sounds hilarious!

Why not embrace your fellow players' anarchy? Try upping the ante a bit, cranking the antics up to 11 or so. Fight fire with fire OP!

Some things to do:
-any time a PC is near a cliff, atop a building, etc, push them off "to train them in falling techniques".
-taint their rations with sleeping poison during rests and then move them to random dangerous locations.
-steal from PCs and place your gains in other PCs backpacks to frame them
-dump out / replace healing potions / wands / scrolls etc with useless fakes.
-come up with annoying and innappropriate catch phrases and overuse them constantly "m o o n that spells Orc!" "Where da elf wimmin at!?" "Let's get jiggy with Zeus!" "At's a spicee meat-a-ball!"
-have wanted posters with your fellow PCs faces hung up everywhere
-cry. A lot.

And so on. Have fun OP!

Dark Archive

I've run into odd chaos being rewarded in game. I started randomly rolling my direction and distance traveled. d8,d12

After half an hour the dm comes back with why are you pulling this crap.

Hey man, you reward chaotic stupid behavior. I can play that game too. Where's my reward?


DM_Blake wrote:

Frankly, it sounds like you're playing with a bunch of 8-year-olds. Nothing wrong with 8-year-old players, but the game they play is usually very different than the game grown-ups play. If you're 8 years old, you SHOULD be playing that way. Otherwise, it's time for the people at your table to grow up.

And we can start with you. YOUR turn to grow up is when you tell those guys to grow up. But you do it in a pleasant and constructive way, not a disruptive (8-year-old) way. You help them to learn and grow and play better. If you can do that, you will have taken another step on your path to enlightenment.

Having GM'ed a bunch of 8-year-olds, I'm afraid associating them with the behavior described is a disservice to 8-year-olds.

Try 14-year-olds. THEY have all the, "I'm going to use my alignment as an excuse to be a jerk" hormones going strong...


Rednal wrote:
When it comes to people who seem to be threatening the party, though, sometimes the best reaction is to respond 'realistically' - by which I mean work with the DM to coup de grace them in their sleep. When they complain about this, cite that this is an appropriate in-character response to a supposed teammate waving a bomb in your face and threatening you with it... then explain that such behaviors make it very difficult to play the game and defeat the purpose of everyone gathering together.

Seconded.

"You will reap what you sow." - If they dont care about teamplay, and give the flimsy excuse of "in character" for dangerous psycho-behavior, show them how sane adventurers react to direct deaththreats. And when they complain that you killed off their psychochar tell them it was all just "in character".

And then talk to them that their current way of playing their characters is not playing like a team in a teamgame.


Guru-Meditation wrote:
Rednal wrote:
When it comes to people who seem to be threatening the party, though, sometimes the best reaction is to respond 'realistically' - by which I mean work with the DM to coup de grace them in their sleep. When they complain about this, cite that this is an appropriate in-character response to a supposed teammate waving a bomb in your face and threatening you with it... then explain that such behaviors make it very difficult to play the game and defeat the purpose of everyone gathering together.

Seconded.

"You will reap what you sow." - If they dont care about teamplay, and give the flimsy excuse of "in character" for dangerous psycho-behavior, show them how sane adventurers react to direct deaththreats. And when they complain that you killed off their psychochar tell them it was all just "in character".

And then talk to them that their current way of playing their characters is not playing like a team in a teamgame.

Coming from experience in trying this out, all you breed is a cycle of hatred that doesn't end. Their new character will be just as bad, if not worse, and the other parties members will side with this character as if it was the old character. If you fight fire with fire, all you get is a bunch of flames. Someone will get burned, and it sucks when that someone is you.

Scarab Sages

While this crap was going on, why did the DM decide to have a side-quest where you pretend to betray the others? Is that part of the AP (if so he shouldn't have picked you) or him just being dumb?

It really doesn't matter if you are friends and do other things together, this is just a bunch of ridiculous and immature brats.

For instance: I had a gaming friend play like this too. I don't play with him anymore, but my other gaming friend I still play with, and high school was over 25 years ago for us and our group is still together.

So when you think it's not them it's just character choices, think again.

Time for you to tell them out of character that it is frustrating and not fun, and if they can't be trusted to be team players in character, let the DM have them find some object that changes their alignments to lawful. Maybe then they'll decide their characters are team players.

Your other two choices are find a new group, or realize everyone else has different expectations from the game sessions than you do, and adjust yours. Since they are not there to solve the modules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It may be a disservice to 14 year olds as well. They hardly corner the market on a~*@#&~ players, unfortunately.


It sounds like the playing style you have adopted is a bad match for your table. Only hearing your side of the story, it sounds like they are a bunch of jerks, and you should move on. Understanding that I am only hearing your side of the story, I urge you to be introspective before shaking loose the dust of their gaming table and take a long, hard look at what, if any, contribution you have been making to the table disharmony.

It might, for example, be that every single complaint you have against these fellows is spot-on, but you are still in the wrong. It may be that the party wants to make one bad decision after another, and they want to fail. It might be that they want the narrative of their game to be a tragic catalog of one failure after another leading to some pathetic end.

In any case, it seems that you are in a campaign where PC on PC violence is part of game play, and so are threats of violence. You are describing a situation where you are at liberty to mess with them right back. Since you are in a game where you are being attacked and threatened with attack, you have no reason not to steal important treasure for yourself, rat your party out to the authorities, sabotage the alchemist fire flasks, join the monsters fighting against the party, or just not be there for them when they need you.

And when everybody at the table starts looking at you like they want to stuff their now-dead character sheets down your throat, stare them down, shout them down, point out all the crap they have put you through, and tell the GM to tell the players to make new level 1 characters and make them not suck next time. If you get kicked out of that gaming group, it'll be no big loss for you. If they didn't want you to play that way, they shouldn't have played that way.

But seriously, before you bring it to your gaming group like that, take a long, hard look at your own gaming style vis a vis theirs, and take careful stock as to who's being the jerk(s) there.


In reading this, it sounds like a GM problem. If your GM is allowing player vs player interaction, then you need to embrace it. If they're trying to kill you, then that is an evil act and you are within your rights to defend yourself.

If the GM is not allowing PvP, then you need to talk to him out of game about the bullying going on at the table so he/she can get it under control. If you're not having fun and can't salvage it, then retire the character and find another group.

Talk to your GM about all of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I seem to be the only "Normal" person"

If they are having fun with the way they are playing the game, then you pretty much either have to go along with that style or leave.

From what it sounds like, I wouldn't enjoy playing at that table at all, but that doesn't mean they are 'wrong.' If they are having it fun, then they are mostly doing it right. The only thing I would say they are doing wrong is perhaps not being inclusive enough, or explaining well enough, their style of play to you, but bottom line is that the majority pretty much gets to win on the choice of playstyle.

I suggest you leave their game, but keep up your friendships outside of it. One thing about this play style is that for most it is just a passing phase and in the future they are likely to be ready for a more team focused game style.


Bandw2 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

It's been said a million times, on these message boards and on the message boards at other companies of other versions of this game: Chaotic Neutral is the excuse that immature players use to justify letting their characters be douchebag jerks. Period.

Just about nobody (by "just about nobody" I mean "nobody") every plays CN because they want to be a good team member, go on good adventures, work with an adventuring party, and have fun together. Everybody who plays CN has chosen that alignment so they can screw with other players, the GM, and the game world and then shift the blame to their alignment.

i use it all the time for a character who either dislikes government or dislikes tradition and tried to do things in opposition to that. Like someone really excited about innovative research would probably be chaotic neutral.

I'm doing much the same with my CN barbarian. She's more with the group after not wanting to stick around for family traditions (you try being a barbarian when you're part of a minor noble house), and had a dramatic showdown with our LG cleric of Irori regarding looting (while, to the full knowledge of our players and none to the two, the bard and rogue were grabbing anything magical they could find) ... but still likes the cleric as a person even if she thinks his god's a stick up the end (except for his occasionally charging the enemy before she can get there; it usually comes down to position and initiative ... ).

That said, I can imagine how appealing it is to use it as an excuse, and why more often than not you see GMs outright banning evil alignments (and sometimes CN too).


LE might be sufficiently subtle. But chaos often gets in the way of expectations.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / "In Character" attack / humaliating players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.