I recently had this happen. My players (fighter, barbarian, cleric, wizard, and scout) were fighting several orcs. Well the barbarian goes running into melee, the fighter approaches melee and slowly enters, the scout circles outside the fighting with his bow firing, the rogues has his crossbow out firing, the cleric is doing some buffs here and there, and the wizard starts casting. Okay, this is where things start to happen. It is the wizards turn and he starts casting. He tells me he’s casting fireball. I ask where, and he points to where the barbarian is fighting three orcs. I said okay, but you will hit Talis (the barbarian). He looks at me grins and said yes but I’ll hit the orcs too. I was dumbfound and not sure what to do. He was playing a neutral wizard who has been very cold and rational in the few games we’ve played together, and come to think of it he didn’t like the barbarian. I could see his rationalization, but still… Well the barbarian fail his reflex save and dies (he had already taken some damage), and two of the three orcs die. The game end for the night soon after this with the group eyeing the guy playing the wizard, and the pc’s eyeing the wizard like they were going to kill him. How would some one handle this? I’ll not sure where to go from this.
Fizz
|
Hey Fizz,
There was a longish thread going over this very problem. Check it out here (sorry, I don't know how to link):
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/archives/5PCBaneP CsAkaCampaignKillers
Or search the message boards for "PC Bane." PvP has become a major pet peeve of mine thanks to the group I currently play with; it's such an issue that we have to ban it from certain games altogether, in spite of the cost that has on the realism of the game.
I've had this type of scenario come up, and the response varies by context.
One player has a char that he runs as a "mad mage" type. The group quickly learned to get stuff that boosted their fire resistence. The player has OTHER chars that DON'T act like that, so no one took it personal.
Another player, however, had a char that was so counter- productive to the group, I took him aside and said, "Look, there is no logical reason why the other characters in your party would continue to travel with you, or even continue to allow you to live. Can YOU think of any reason?" He couldn't, and he got better.
The OTHER thing you can do, after an event like the one you describe, is have another party member notice that the mage made eye contact with the barbarian and smiled just before casting. Ask the party member what he / she does with the information. Let the group police their own, and ENCOURAGE them to do so. At this point, that's likely what I would do, 'cause I've gone the route of playing peacemaker / babysitter as DM and it gets really old really quick.
We've had this situation a couple of times (admitedly in Cthulu with people (ok me) playing a low san (8) assassin and one of the PC's p***ing him off and then, when he has the gun pointing in his face saying "what are you gonna do, kill me?" plus some other less memorable occasions, and the way we get round it is by people role-playing. I feel in that situation i played my character but so did other people and i was soon no more. That's the get out clause with this type of thing - players playing their character. If one pc kills another for no good/justifiable reason in the other pc's eyes then they should reap the consequesnces and the players should feel free to dish them out.
|
If I was one of the remaining players, I would stop adventuring with that wizard. Too hazardous.
If the players do it right, the wizard player will wind up having to roll up a new character as well as the barbarian (unless they can raise the barbarian, of course).
I'm all for keeping the group together to make the game run smoothly, but when a character is clearly disruptive, RP takes over, and the other players can and should kick the character out of the adventuring group (let the player roll up a more cooperative character).
Well my players are going to get the Barbarian raised. So, I'm just going to let it play out...I have a feeling the Barbarian and a few of the other pc's are going to have a few "words" with the wizard...So if the wizard lives and is not dropped by the group, he'll will probably get what's coming to him in the end. The wizard will need a shield one day, and the barbarian will only be able to move 30ft. for some reason...
Thanks for the help if anyone else has any ideas I'd still like to hear them thanks again
Fizz
He fireballed the barbarian? "How very neutral of you."
Having played and ran several very contentious groups I've seen this a bit. I myself have accidentaly killed off several players, while neither was happy with me, most were accidental. We played through it. Sometimes we'd cross paths again or they'd show up as rivals. It can add some fun.
While mad mages are what they are, I have also played those cold and rational types who will do what they consider best even if it means collateral damages...
Never quite like you described but for example one time he refused to go to a dangerous mission to rescue another PC (who, it should be pointed, had got to trouble because of his own mistakes and frankly did annoy my character) and talked rest of the group out of it too, since there was "more important" mission to pursue.
Basically it is up to other characters (and players) to decide if they want to continue adventuring with that character and the player better cope with it if they don't.
Nitpicky pet peeve point re: the thread title: If your players are killing players, call the cops. Player CHARACTERS killing player CHARACTERS, however, is an entirely different matter.
Dropping a fireball on a PC because there's no other way to survive the fight is okay in certain circumstances. If the PC has lots of hit points, good saves, Evasion, or fire resistance, and the PC's have discussed it ahead of time, it's usually fine.
However, without having discussed it, early in the fight, before the wizard has exhausted his other options, to drop a big, lethal attack on another PC >with the intent of doing harm to the PC< is, in my book, an Evil act. Not worthy of big punishment, but definitely something to keep track of. A continuing history of such behavior might cause a shift in alignment.
I've had a PC kill one of my characters before, and I've had PCs TRY to kill my character before, generally while the group seems to police its own- as noted in the campaign I'm running and will get into in a second- I was forced to drop out of the group in which my PC was killed.
Now, in my Campaign a PC killed a friendly NPC that was traveling and protecting one of the other PCs, this was a result of the NPCs action and was spoiling for a fight with the killer's friend, and had engaged the offending party, but certainly didn't expect an intervention from the killer. BUT the thing that has pissed off the players and pcs in the party was the actions of one of the PCs/Players to attempt to INSTIGATE the incident, though it would have happened anyway, blame was pointed in his direction, especially by the PC who's friend was killed by another member of the party.
During or After the next session, this PC will probably be forced to leave the party if he doesn't choose to leave for his own reasons, now there is a chance he'll get to redeem himself, but that isn't TOO likely considering the player pisses off the other players too, which is a distinction I almost want to point out to the group, but what I will point out is that with the exception of maybe the PC who's friend was killed and one or two other characters, the incident in which the offending PC was attempting to influence the NPC wasn't generally observed by the other PCs, so I might have to draw a line of distinction between what the Players see and what the PCs saw, in addition to pointing out that despite whatever intentions or motivations the PC had in doing what he did, the NPC had ignored him.
But, basically, he'll either be forced out of the party or whisked away by an evil NPC if he doesn't clean up his act in the next session...so yeah, if you have to as a DM punish a character or player for their actions, do so, but really you should leave such things as major offenses and PvP problems up to other characters, and I DO NOT think that PvP should be outlawed by a DM, measures might should be taken to help prevent it, but basically one shouldn't directly intervene or ban it.
For one thing, my PC survived almost entirely due to the intervention of another player, hell the guy who tried to kill him only survived later due to my PC's intervention- more so demand that the NPC cleric who had tossed the spell that put him down heal the other PC...
But yeah.
Player CHARACTERS killing Player Characters is bad, but sometimes not unavoidable, or really that bad for the party, for one thing the party in my game might not have anything in common across the line between the formerly different groups other than distrust of the offending PC, but again, as a DM one has the power to further punish or intercede after such trespasses as killing a player, but basically, I have faith that THE GAME, playercharacters included in this, has a balance property for foolish player action be it from excessive theft being karmically dealt with by a foolish action on the part of the theif or the PC coming into obvious conflict with the law- or other players.
SIMPLE ANSWER: "KILL 'IM!!!"
|
|
Ok heres another scenario. Do you allow a player to bring in a new character cause he killed his original character off, just to play something different. My player had his PC go from CN to CE cause he knew I wouldnt allow him to play an evil character, and he wanted to bring in a new character. He accomplished this alignment shift by killing an NPC prisoner in cold blood, then deciding to see how well the village they were in would burn. During his little Roleplaying hissy fit, he killed a member of his party who was trying to stop him. Now how would you deal with this? Please dont look at this as a thread jacking cause I find all that was on here releveant to this situation.
|
|
Ok heres another scenario. Do you allow a player to bring in a new character cause he killed his original character off, just to play something different. My player had his PC go from CN to CE cause he knew I wouldnt allow him to play an evil character, and he wanted to bring in a new character. He accomplished this alignment shift by killing an NPC prisoner in cold blood, then deciding to see how well the village they were in would burn. During his little Roleplaying hissy fit, he killed a member of his party who was trying to stop him. Now how would you deal with this? Please dont look at this as a thread jacking cause I find all that was on here releveant to this situation.
I'm wondering why the player felt like this was the only way to change his character. I generally support players being able to talk with their DM about a way to "write their character out of the story" so to speak, if they feel they really need a change. Is this sort of thing not supported in the group as it stands, so the player felt he had to force the issue with dramatic means?
Of course, switching characters can be detrimental to the campaign if it's done often, or right when the current character is central to a plotline, or something similar. But barring those circumstances, if a player is bored or tired of his character, I don't see a problem with him switching out to one he will have more fun with. It is a game, after all.
P.S. I don't think it's a bad threadjack. Especially since this thread was dwindling down anyway. And it IS related to the OP.
|
|
Ok heres another scenario. Do you allow a player to bring in a new character cause he killed his original character off, just to play something different. My player had his PC go from CN to CE cause he knew I wouldnt allow him to play an evil character, and he wanted to bring in a new character. He accomplished this alignment shift by killing an NPC prisoner in cold blood, then deciding to see how well the village they were in would burn. During his little Roleplaying hissy fit, he killed a member of his party who was trying to stop him. Now how would you deal with this? Please dont look at this as a thread jacking cause I find all that was on here releveant to this situation.
I'd let the player bring in a new character, but with the understanding that he doesn't have to have a psychotic meltdown in-game to accomplish the same thing next time. If I have a player that wants to kill his character off to play something else, we try to work something out so that it might even serve the story. Otherwise, we simply retire the character and bring in the new one.
One other question, though - if your player just wanted to be killed off and was willing to go over the top to do it, why not just let himself be killed by the character trying to stop him, instead of taking that guy down too?
|
|
One other question, though - if your player just wanted to be killed off and was willing to go over the top to do it, why not just let himself be killed by the character trying to stop him, instead of taking that guy down too?
Cause he is what we like to call, here in Canada, a royal pain in the @$$. He thinks its fun to screw up any game he can, then he throws it in my face telling me that a " good DM " would be able to handle the unexpected. This is so traumatizing it might just push me to the drink....awww who am I kidding like I need an excuse.
Maybe this is a good time to resurrect the rant thread? Anyway, the player Zealot mentioned likes to "change" characters roughly every five levels, which is why he (Zealot) is close to having an aneurism.
|
|
One other question, though - if your player just wanted to be killed off and was willing to go over the top to do it, why not just let himself be killed by the character trying to stop him, instead of taking that guy down too? Cause he is what we like to call, here in Canada, a royal pain in the @$$. He thinks its fun to screw up any game he can, then he throws it in my face telling me that a " good DM " would be able to handle the unexpected. This is so traumatizing it might just push me to the drink....awww who am I kidding like I need an excuse.
Feh. If I were you, I'd be prepared...with lightning. ZAP! Actually, the funniest uppity-player story I've heard was the DM just saying: "You spontaneously combust. You die."
In all seriousness, though, if a player is chronically disruptive like that, I'd recommend having a chat with him about what everyone is trying to get out of the game. A good DM should be able to handle the unexpected, but a good player should cut him some slack and not do things just to mess things up.
One other question, though - if your player just wanted to be killed off and was willing to go over the top to do it, why not just let himself be killed by the character trying to stop him, instead of taking that guy down too? Cause he is what we like to call, here in Canada, a royal pain in the @$$. He thinks its fun to screw up any game he can, then he throws it in my face telling me that a " good DM " would be able to handle the unexpected. This is so traumatizing it might just push me to the drink....awww who am I kidding like I need an excuse.
Hahahah! Tell him, "you're right! A good DM would kick you out and be done with it. Lucky for you I'm not a good DM!"
One reason PC vs PC occurs is because of familiarity. Players know the weaknesses of the other players, and know very little about the BBEG. This leaves other PCs as easier targets.
As far as changing characters, there could be a multitude of reason. To list a few; poor rolls for ability scores, and a few levels of poor hp rolls.
It is often easy to qualify for a prestige class when creating a character at a higher level. A very good example is the mystic theurge who is very challenged from levels 3-7th but then becomes quite a potent class.
There are many house rules to avoid these situations, the important part is identifying the problem early.
aneurism.
So that's how it's spelled! I've been typing it wrong for so long!
Er, carry on....
|
aneurism.So that's how it's spelled! I've been typing it wrong for so long!
Er, carry on....
"Aneurysm" is correct.
From work, I know more about them than I want to.I'm not certain if aneurism is an equally acceptable spelling, but I've got a Taber's Medical Dictionary right here, and it's spelled "aneurysm."
aneurism.So that's how it's spelled! I've been typing it wrong for so long!
Er, carry on....
"Aneurysm" is correct.
From work, I know more about them than I want to.
I'm not certain if aneurism is an equally acceptable spelling, but I've got a Taber's Medical Dictionary right here, and it's spelled "aneurysm."
Congrats Heath! You just passed the test and are now qualified for the position of Spelling Police - Level 1... Report to... which thread was it again?... Well, if you can find it, the position's yours...if you want it
F ;D
One reason PC vs PC occurs is because of familiarity. Players know the weaknesses of the other players, and know very little about the BBEG. This leaves other PCs as easier targets.
As far as changing characters, there could be a multitude of reason. To list a few; poor rolls for ability scores, and a few levels of poor hp rolls.
It is often easy to qualify for a prestige class when creating a character at a higher level. A very good example is the mystic theurge who is very challenged from levels 3-7th but then becomes quite a potent class.
There are many house rules to avoid these situations, the important part is identifying the problem early.
There are still much better ways of switching characters. Maybe talk to the DM and the other players? I had a DM that would force you to play a characer even if he was aweful (for any number of reasons). I had a wizard, and the DM decided that we rolled what spells we started with (2nd ed and dumb DM). Total randomness left me with one offensive spell... a cantrip. Sew and unsew. He was mad when I named the character Tim the magic tailor, but would not let me do anything else. Everyone else loved their characters, so I had him rush into battle until he was killed. I got a new character.
Not the best solution, but I didn't kill anyone else in the party.Fear of the BBEG drives them to kill each other? So... if they're afraid of the bad guy... why kill the people they rely on to keep them alive?
aneurism.So that's how it's spelled! I've been typing it wrong for so long!
Er, carry on....
"Aneurysm" is correct.
From work, I know more about them than I want to.
I'm not certain if aneurism is an equally acceptable spelling, but I've got a Taber's Medical Dictionary right here, and it's spelled "aneurysm."
"Aneurism" is equally correct in the eyes of Microsoft Office Word 2003, which is what I originally checked it against before posting. Just FYI. The More You Know....
Er, carry on... again....
|
|
Congrats Heath! You just passed the test and are now qualified for the position of Spelling Police - Level 1... Report to... which thread was it again?... Well, if you can find it, the position's yours...if you want it
F ;D
Sorry, I didn't mean to be a asshat or anything. I just turn scans into M.D.'s at work and if you spell "hysterectomy" as "hystorectomy" or something they correct you and you feel like a dweebus. So I guess it's kinda a kneejerk thing.
Back to the usual topic, the party usually schools their own. I had a guy try to kill my character in ninth grade. So I had an elven fighter/magic user. He kept trying to kill me, and I'd sleep his character and do him in. So finally he got smart and made a magic user up, and tried to sleep me....I think I killed 8 or 9 characters before he gave up.
So you get the whole group involved, there's a period of storm and stress, and it's over. Somebody learns, or somebody goes away with a persecution complex. Meh...
Sorry, I didn't mean to be a asshat or anything. I just turn scans into M.D.'s at work and if you spell "hysterectomy" as "hystorectomy" or something they correct you and you feel like a dweebus. So I guess it's kinda a kneejerk thing.
Congrats Heath! You just passed the test and are now qualified for the position of Spelling Police - Level 1... Report to... which thread was it again?... Well, if you can find it, the position's yours...if you want it
F ;D
I laughed when I read that... I'm kind of anal at spelling myself (my own at least, if not for others) and I don't mind if people correct me (as long as I AM wrong, lol). It just made me think of someone mentioning the "Spelling Police" after the "Grammar Police" showed up in another thread. No offence taken, and I hope none given...
Do you allow a player to bring in a new character cause he killed his original character off, just to play something different.
Why don't you just allow him to retire the one character and bring in another? Seems the simplest solution all around.
My take on this scenario is that the player should be free to play a character he's going to enjoy, and if he's become bored with the one he's got, surely it's better to allow him to move on and do something different.
However, what I don't tolerate is game-destroying behaviour. So, if a player insists on turning his PC CE, for no in-character reason, but rather because he thinks it would be funny or is bored, I'll boot the offender.
I said okay, but you will hit Talis (the barbarian). He looks at me grins and said yes but I’ll hit the orcs too. … Well the barbarian fail his reflex save and dies (he had already taken some damage), and two of the three orcs die. The game end for the night soon after this with the group eyeing the guy playing the wizard, and the pc’s eyeing the wizard like they were going to kill him. How would some one handle this? I’ll not sure where to go from this.
I came to this thread late. Here's my take:
Ideally, you should have discussed this sort of thing before the game began, with the group as a whole outlining their policy on PvP. Perhaps they think it's all good, in which case this is fine. Perhaps they don't, in which case actions like those described for the wizard (and, similarly, the rogue who steals from his 'friends') are not acceptable.
Assuming the group finds PvP generally acceptable (or you haven't discussed it), you still have to look carefully at this. Was the wizard's action appropriate for the character? Or was it motivated by some issue between the players that you don't know about? If the latter, you need to sit down with both players (and perhaps any others involved), and tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't care what issues they have, but if they want to play at your table then they have to leave them at the door. If they can't do that, well, the door's over there.
Now, in-game, you have to let the repercussions of this play out in-character. The rest of the group may choose to evict the mad wizard. They may choose to kill him in his sleep. Or whatever. That's their business. The precedent has been set: PvP is okay.
However, what is not acceptable is for the player of the dead barbarian to bring in a new character with a mysterious grudge against the 'mad mage', or a character who has a pathological hatred of wizards, or even a character who just happens to be optimised against the wizard PC. All of these indicate a continuing fued that is going on, and that will destroy your game if left unchecked. If the player of the dead barbarian cannot just let this go and move on, he either needs to drop out of the game, or you need to wrap up the campaign, have a cooling off period, and then restart a new campaign with new PCs (and, probably, with a ban on PvP actions, and possibly absent one of the two offending players).
I also have difficulty to fathom why does he do things like that...I have had characters who have literally retired because adventuring is not their burning passion and they have managed to get some nifty money already to secure good living (or in some cases because they want to be as far as possible from rest of the group and anything they represent).
I have also had characters rushing madly in battle, sometimes as some grand self-sacrificing gesture and sometimes just because. The problem is that occasionally this backfires and the character miraculously survives, without an arm or a leg and with massive damages to the equipment (I'm talking about you, Miss Dee, who went John Woo in Arasaka cargo ship).
I would, however, never screw up a campaign just because I want to change characters, at least not without solid in-game reasons :) (when Catrin did it, it was a planned part of the campaign and something DM was well aware of...and Ezekiel never planned on getting killed after what he did, even if getting killed did make sense).
If you have a player who has made a habit of this, I would recommend considering seriously if you want to play with him in future. I wouldn't.
|
In the situation described by zealot, one possibility that springs to mind is to allow the player his new character and take control of the old character to make him a new evil NPC in the campaign. It's always great to have a powerful NPC lurking out there, potentially harboring a grudge against the party. Maybe they'll get a chance to kill him in a later session. Or (and perhaps even better), maybe the evil NPC will return to kill off the player's new character later. If you do it in 5 levels, that will give your annoying player an opportunity to roll up another new character. :-)