|
My husband runs our group and has this one player who likes to push his limits. The same guy used to play a fighter who had an eye for anything with boobs, and wanted to get into their pants. Well, this game he decided to play a gnome named Dave who thought evil acts were cool. Not murder or anything serious, but thievery was cool to him.
Up until he attempted to steal my LG half-orc paladin's short sword. Arsk had been itching for a chance to smack the little gnome, but held himself back. Not this time. Arsk simply reached around and smacked our little gnome friend with the back of his hand. Dave took a little nap after that (Arsk dealt non-lethal damage). The player was angry that Arsk dared hit his gnome.
The player is saying that I was allowed to get away with it because my husband runs the game. Despite the fact that my husband has never showed any kind of bias to me before. I have tried to understand where I went wrong, but I'm unable to see where it happened.
Now my question is, was I in the wrong to smack the gnome? I was under the impression that Lawful Good consituted not letting any wrong doing go on, especially when it came to their own selves. Or should I have just let it go?
|
|
Thank you. I'll see if my husband would like to talk to Dave's player about his response to the situation. I'd like to talk to him too, but given his opinion that my husband is biased towards me I'd like to see him talk to Dave's player first.
Arsk was given a perception check to see if he noticed Dave and Arsk passed the check. The gnome has been thieving the entire game and Arsk was noticing it. It was all in-character knowledge.
Thank you for your advice. I really hope this helps.
|
|
Like Volaran said, Arsk did no wrong. Personaly, if i was playing the paladin, i would have beaten the gnome to a pulp...(actualy dealing lethal damage with unarmed attack) and then slapped him awake and threatened him with a worse beating if he ever stole from a comrade again. (Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice :D) If he stole again, i would proceed to beet him within an inch of death and then take him to the authorities, party or no party. And if the player got personally offended, i know that my GM would tell him to walk. If you want to play a douche, be prepared for the consequences of douchebaggery.
And, to be honest, it was plain rude for him to impy that your husband was faovring you, when it was clear that he didn't. The kind of person i am, i would have a big problem with that player.
My husband runs our group and has this one player who likes to push his limits. The same guy used to play a fighter who had an eye for anything with boobs, and wanted to get into their pants. Well, this game he decided to play a gnome named Dave who thought evil acts were cool. Not murder or anything serious, but thievery was cool to him.
Up until he attempted to steal my LG half-orc paladin's short sword. Arsk had been itching for a chance to smack the little gnome, but held himself back. Not this time. Arsk simply reached around and smacked our little gnome friend with the back of his hand. Dave took a little nap after that (Arsk dealt non-lethal damage). The player was angry that Arsk dared hit his gnome.
The player is saying that I was allowed to get away with it because my husband runs the game. Despite the fact that my husband has never showed any kind of bias to me before. I have tried to understand where I went wrong, but I'm unable to see where it happened.
Now my question is, was I in the wrong to smack the gnome? I was under the impression that Lawful Good consituted not letting any wrong doing go on, especially when it came to their own selves. Or should I have just let it go?
He tried to steal a weapon, and is upset that you smacked him. Such things are good enough to die for IMHO, but you were playing a paladin so I understand.
I would not care about his pouting. Now he knows actions have consequences.If he continues to whine I would ask him to name specific times favortism was invoked. I would also let him know that simple atonement spell would have fixed everything in game even if you had killed him. Being knocked out was a warning shot. :)
Okay so maybe the death threat was overboard, but tell him the paladin will not tolerate acts of thievery, especially against the party.
Stealing from fellow party members (especially when you get caught) is a major foul. The pally handled it quite mercifully, all things considered.
The party is within their right to kick the character out of the group for good. Who wants to risk their life beside someone they can't trust?
The player is acting like a spoiled child, and if he can't grow up fast, he'd lose his seat at my table. He can go indulge his juvenile fantasies somewhere else. Boobies. Sheesh. How old is this kid? 12?
Here's what I'd have done:
If I were playing that paladin, I'd confronted the rogue. I'd have done that the first time I saw him steal. (by steal I mean take without leave from anyone at least neutral to the party. If you're at war with or otherwise in violent contest against another group, it's something different to sabotage them, but stealing something from a passersby is a definite no). Would have gotten the ultimatum then and there: Change your larcenous ways or leave the group. If the rest of the group had sided with them, I'd have left. Depending on the circumstances, I as a player might have left the group, too.
And when I had caught the rogue stealing from a party member, I'd have handed him over to the authorities. Even if that wasn't feasible (maybe you're in a lawless land where they don't mind stealing or something like that), he would have left the group then and there.
Also, I'd have a serious talk with the player, and made things clear that this will not be repeated or someone leaves the party.
Of course, I have a strict "no infighting" policy, except when it's playful, doesn't put the party as a whole in danger, and is agreed upon by all participating players. I've seen too many tossers ruin games with their crap to accept anything else.
My comment to the situation: The guy was clearly out of line - annoying fellow players and then making accusations when one doesn't get his jester's licence is being a big jerk. You should talk to him, and the GM should do the same. I don't know your circumstances (Is the guy friends with you guys? And so on), so I'll give you the provisional advice to let him go if things won't work out (again, depending on how else you and the rest of the group have contact with him. Sometimes, it's not as easy as that, of course.)
|
|
Here's what I'd have done:
If I were playing that paladin, I'd confronted the rogue. I'd have done that the first time I saw him steal. (by steal I mean take without leave from anyone at least neutral to the party. If you're at war with or otherwise in violent contest against another group, it's something different to sabotage them, but stealing something from a passersby is a definite no). Would have gotten the ultimatum then and there: Change your larcenous ways or leave the group. If the rest of the group had sided with them, I'd have left. Depending on the circumstances, I as a player might have left the group, too.
And when I had caught the rogue stealing from a party member, I'd have handed him over to the authorities. Even if that wasn't feasible (maybe you're in a lawless land where they don't mind stealing or something like that), he would have left the group then and there.
Also, I'd have a serious talk with the player, and made things clear that this will not be repeated or someone leaves the party.
Of course, I have a strict "no infighting" policy, except when it's playful, doesn't put the party as a whole in danger, and is agreed upon by all participating players. I've seen too many tossers ruin games with their crap to accept anything else.
My comment to the situation: The guy was clearly out of line - annoying fellow players and then making accusations when one doesn't get his jester's licence is being a big jerk. You should talk to him, and the GM should do the same. I don't know your circumstances (Is the guy friends with you guys? And so on), so I'll give you the provisional advice to let him go if things won't work out (again, depending on how else you and the rest of the group have contact with him. Sometimes, it's not as easy as that, of course.)
Yes he is a friend to my husband's and this is the first time we've EVER seen him act like this. The whole getting his panties in a twist because he got called out in game. We are all adults at our game, and we really don't allow anyone younger than 18 to play. Mainly because most of us are in our mid-to-late twenties.
We were in Riddleport which is a definite lawless land. The way the game was set up was there were no authorities and we were attempting to retrieve a valuable artifact that had been stolen from the guy who hired us.
Arsk only tolerated Dave's stealing because most of the time the poor guy bricked his Perception rolls. The few times Arsk saw him he was warned away from his evil deeds.
My husband has agreed to talk to the guy first. Then I will talk to him and hopefully we can figure out what's going on. My husband hopes it isn't anything in his personal life that may be affecting him.
Lawless land... I say he is lucky he didn't lose that hand. :)
Ditto to what KaeYoss said. The first time you saw it happen you should have stood up to him. Letting him knowingly get away with it is something akin to acceptance of it, which should not have been tolerated by a paladin (imho). Repeatedly letting him get away with it is tacit approval. While stealing from a party member makes it more personal, it doesn't make it any less wrong than stealing from someone not in the party.
Ask yourself this, am I metagaming to keep this douche in the party because he's a friend of my husband, or is there some valid reason for keeping a klepto rogue around? Be true to the rp aspect if you can do so without ruining real life friendships.
|
The player is saying that I was allowed to get away with it because my husband runs the game.
He may be working with the assumption that intra-party violence is not allowed.
One time one of our party members got shot in the back and killed by another party member that was played by the wife of the DM. My initial reaction was 1. Wow and 2. He's going to let that stand? Was her being his wife a factor? It crossed my mind.
My assumption that intra-party violence was off-limits was false. We had never discussed it up front.
The player is saying that I was allowed to get away with it because my husband runs the game.He may be working with the assumption that intra-party violence is not allowed.
One time one of our party members got shot in the back and killed by another party member that was played by the wife of the DM. My initial reaction was 1. Wow and 2. He's going to let that stand? Was her being his wife a factor? It crossed my mind.
My assumption that intra-party violence was off-limits was false. We had never discussed it up front.
But with that assumption, he wouldn't have been allowed to steal from the paladin in the first place.
You did nothing wrong in my opinion. It seemed like a rather nice in game reaction to a in game event. Though I sorta agree you might have wanted to say something before if you noticed him stealing(or heck even just hit before...)
I will say the above is the reason why allow PvP in my games as I see this kinda of action more disruptive to the game. I am more tired of seeing players play douchbags and then hide behind the PC T-Shirt...or the rule of no PvP than actualy bad PvP play(which is rarely see).
There's a difference between theft and violence.
Not really. Once you decide that you will work against the rest of the party, everything else becomes just details.
Plus, maybe he was only going to steal it in jest or steal it just to see if he could and then return it. You can't take back a pimp slap.
Then he deserved to have some sense slapped into him. He was stupid enough not to know what can happen if you do something like this, and he overestimated his abilities.
I think the usual thieves' guild treatment for such a stunt is being given an "easy" assignment (and by "easy", I mean "this will totally kill you, and we'll be laughing about it for weeks to come!" You know, like assassinating Sam Vimes)