|
This is a tough one, and a decision my players have faced before.
First things first: Out of Character discussion - tell the other players about how you feel and talk to them about the decision you want to make, talk to your GM as well to help arbitrate.
Second things second: On Blocking. At the heart of Role Playing is Improv. The number 1 rule of Improv is "No Blocking", now you are playing a protector, a healer and a good character. Every time the party doesn't give you a chance to find out if an NPC is good or evil before killifying it they are blocking. Remind them that if something DOES turn out to be evil or treacherous then they STILL get to kill it, but if not then they might gain an advantage later in the game.
Remind them also that you can't "win" Pathfinder, and that if a party is
Third things third: Sometimes even a good character can be a disruptive influence on a group. So if the tenor of the group is one of violence first, ask questions later then you will be better off retiring this character and picking something more in line with the party's style.
In any case, good luck.
Yeah, first, this is definitely a situation where you need to have this conversation with your fellow players -- say everything you said here. Ask their advice.
I can definitely see how your character would think it would be wisest/in line with his morals to leave.
One thing if you don't want the PC to leave is--could the PC have a hope of changing Bob's point of view? Some good people choose to stay with a bad organization in hopes of changing it from within. But that could
I think it was a harsh ruling of the GMs to not allow you to try stop the coup de grace, but it is hard to do in Pathfinder rules, true, and it was probably hard for the GM to make a call on the spot. There are only two ways to do it with rules as written
-- Ready an action: "I throw myself over the body if Bob looks like he's about to kill it" or maybe better for clear rules on how to handle this: "I ready a disarm/trip/bull rush to use on Bob if he starts to swing on the NPC."
-- Take the In Harm's Way feat
Even so, I think if someone wanted to try to block an attack, I'd try to find some way to do it--now, if your Initiative was way behind Bob's, maybe it couldn't be done. If that is a rules issue that you think could be problematic if you decide to stick with your character, and something you thus need to chat with the GM.
One thing that concerns me is "Bob's" statement that he will "always" act that way--suggesting that possibly the player is going to always try to get his way even against the wishes of both players and PCs; there's a note of stubbornness that raises a few flags for me. And it could prove problematic for the whole party -- while I've sometimes had trouble with my PCs showing mercy to something I expected them to kill, it can sometimes be more plot disruptive for them to kill something they weren't meant to. Even if WNPC really was a bad guy, if Bob is clear this is his MO, he could end up trying to kill some key NPC or innocent if things go haywire, and that could screw things up for all of you, IC and OOC, and frustrate the GM. But it could just be the way I read it or I'm missing something because of your intentional (and appreciated) blurring of the details. If it seems as problematic as I see it, maybe the GM needs to have a chat with Bob's player.
If it is just a matter of differing play styles and you are willing to make a more ruthless PC to suit that style--kudos to you for being willing to make the change, and maybe that is the best solution for now if otherwise things seem resolvable.
Depends on how hooked into the AP your gnome is. Bob and by default the rest of the party has shown they do not respect their healer's devotion.
The only reason to stay is if the gnome's tie to the AP is strong enough to justify working with this (from his perspective) band of merciless killers (or if the gnome thinks these feelings of grief and betrayal are great anti-bleach so stays in hopes of more?). Or, do you have another character you'd love to play as much that you can use this as a reason to bring in?
|
If you ask me, DM shouldn't have given even attack if you were very much aware and defending creature. To me, attack on creature at that same moment is attack on you and your beliefs and moral code. Therefore its PvP. And since PvP isn't allowed...
As chaotic good you wouldn't probably give up easily after that even happened, maybe you could talk them into gathering money for raise dead spell?
Do you have a deity? Follow the deity's choice maybe
You were in a area where everything was trying to kill you. The WNPC did try to kill a member of you party and did nothing to help your party.
Altho I am not a big fan of "kill everything"- Bob was right, your gnome was wrong.
Other than the fact that the WNPC was willing to talk to your PC, he did not show any evidence here of being anything but a dedicated foe. Sure, maybe it wasn't doing all that much, but it was attacking your side, not the other side, and even as a distraction, it was helping your foes in their goal to kill you.
Yes, Bob was going against your wishes, but you were going against Bobs wishes, and in this case Bob was acting rationally , your gnome was not.
Talk to the other players about your character's dilemma.
If the character has any relationship with a deity, commune with that deity.
In situations like this whether my character remains or leaves frequently depends on the attitudes of the characters in the party. If they show remorse and are willing to do something to try to rectify the situation, then I'd have my character stay, but there would be baggage.
A very, very similary thing happened with one of my characters and the resolution was that the party buried the NPC and returned his personal effects to his next of kin as a sort of minor side-quest. That was enough to satisfy my character, although she did elicit promises in the future that the party would not act in such a manner again. And they didn't.
|
Dudemeister makes an excellent point. Blocking is a huge problem when it comes to group play. I cringe every time a player makes an absolute statement like, "im going to do this every single time!" It is even worse when they join some faction like the Phrasma "must kill all undead" one. Dont forget the "I have to fight it. Its my favored enemy!" Ranger types.
I dont think I even have mention Suicidal Paladins do I? I am not saying these types of characters shouldn't be played. However, please be flexible and dont screw you fellow group and block them of role playing opportunities. Ill leave this for now the "evil guy in a good party" thread is interesting discussion on this topic.
I am a little confused about why the NPC was attacking your party. I am not a fan of saying things like, "it was hurting us....but only a little." So I can see why your party mates were not willing to let it go. Was it confused or charmed? If so did the party not know this?
"WNPC" does that mean winged non player character? I am not familiar with that term.
One last thing before choosing another character. You may want to discuss blocking further with the group to prevent it. A new character doesn't guarantee that the blocking wont happen again. You could choose to make a character that is right in line with the others but I would hope you do so by choice and not to simply go with the flow.
Don't leave. This is the kind of thing that happens in combat. In confusion some one dies. Sometimes it is friendly fire. There are enough questions in WNPC's motives and the way things went down to see this as a tragic but justifiable actions. The rogue defended himself. The barbarian struck down a foe that he felt betrayed them and would do so again. Even with your goal of protection and connection to WNPC your allies felt threatened even if they were wrong. Further the Barbarian's comment that he would always do the same thing is not near as bad if his motivation is I will always kill those who have attacked us versus I will always kill whoever I want.
Ask the GM if he can let you do retro active sense motive checks. If you saw any of the situation durring combat.
1-Did your rogue friend look like he/she was threatening WNPC. The Rogue can honestly tell the GM his intentions. You roll and you have more info than you do now.
2-Did the WNPC appear to be the agressor. Again perhaps this will give you more info. If you learned that the WNPC was indeed acting in a more threatening manner upon reflection.
This may have already occurred but if not it might soften the hard edges on this tense situation.
It seems to me the ooc comments by the rogue reflect that he did not trust the creature. This mistrust was also present in character. Add that to the potential misunderstanding and bang there is a very justifiable explination for the actions by your allies. If prior to this there was a degree of friendship or deep trust I think that puts this issue in the realm of unforturnate but understood at worst or one more evil doer down at best.
Also you could stick by the Ranger as an ally and still disapprove of the Barbarian. Tell him flat out if he keeps it up you will not heal him or attempt to see him brought to justice.
When someone says they're going to do something "every single time" that is in opposition to something my character does then in my book its time to have a sit down and ask why. Sometimes characters have good and logical reasons for their actions even if they seem extreme.
Has he taken an oath of vengeance against all that attack him?
Is he just being a confrontational asinine bastard?
Does his religion or world view necessitate this action?
Generally just about anything can be worked around if they players want to do so. The only real exemptions come in if its central to the character's roleplay either in mechanics or concept. It seems like the "not unnecessarily massacring koed opponents" is pretty core to yours. Before doing anything else I'd find out why his has to act that way even if its detrimental to the group.
One thing to consider is that if you still want to continue on in the group one thing your pc might think to do is to exclude Bob from your pc's protection. On more than one occasion I've had a member of a party be a real dick to my character consistently and had my character tell them that they no longer consider them to be a member of the family. That puts them at the very bottom of the line up for healing and protection. This wasn't done to punish, so much as that it makes sense. When five people are down and four are your best friends and one keeps killing your pet cat you heal the four first and if you get around to the fifth one well good for him if not oh well.
Edit: Mind you I consider this to be the second to last resort i.e. attacking him or leaving the party.
Next time the Barbarian is unconscious coup de gras him. Not only is he outside of your protection but justic for those who were under your protection has been done . . . after you and the ranger then kill the rogue who will attack you. Tell the other players to roll more cooperative PC's.
As fun as this sounds you may not to try this.
Sounds like Bob had a moment of poor judgement. Either he was being a dick or just not thinking that he should probably coup de grace the BBEG first and discuss the winged one with the guy who saved his tush this fight. Sounds like you can negotiate this one without having to picking up your ball and take it home. The tricky question is what happens if he does it again.
We both worship Desna.
PRAISE BE TO DESNA!
*Clears his throat.*
Now then...
This reminds me of a few of our groups games..
I don't believe what has happened is reason enough to change- ... but.. if you believe more conflicts will arise in the future (based off character interactions in the past).. I would change.
On a side note:.. I know what it feels like to play the good character, when everyone else is evil (or neutral as they may call themselves :P).
|
You could take advantage of the feat selective channel until he apologizes and offers to consider your opinion in the future. If not, well you have to balance whether protecting and caring for the rest of the party is worth putting up with Bob the barbarian.
If your character decides to stay with the party, perhaps it would be because of a combination of protecting the other characters who you are still loyal to and minimizing how much damage Bob can do if left to his own devices.
I think it really comes down to how big a betrayal the death of the wnpc was. From an outsider perspective, it seemed to be neutral, not really helping and certainly not an ally since it kept attacking. If it wasn't sure whether to attack something, why didnt it retreat? Was it only semi-intelligent? I think you have to weigh how important its life was vs staying with your up-until-this-point-loyal traveling companions.
I do think your character should initiate a discussion about future interacitons and party decisions. It seems likely your character is the "face" of the party? If so, perhaps you could get the party to agree that you are the negotiator and get the final say in who dies or lives. If someone doesn't like it, they have to make a solo adventure to correct your "mistake" but not in front of your character.
If the rogue was not the aggressor as far as you know. Then it seems to me you are the one out of step with the team. Whether through fear, confusion or treachery WNPC seems the agressor. Given that you have no reason to doubt the rogue with the result of your sense motive check. Now that does not mean that the coup de gra was necessary but I think that this is one that could be moved past.
If the rogue was not the aggressor as far as you know. Then it seems to me you are the one out of step with the team. Whether through fear, confusion or treachery WNPC seems the agressor. Given that you have no reason to doubt the rogue with the result of your sense motive check. Now that does not mean that the coup de gra was necessary but I think that this is one that could be moved past.
Right, the WNPC was attacking the party, and it seems like it wasn't just a once "then a oops, my bad" thing.
Yeah, I know this NPC was willing to talk to you. Doesn't make him a ally.
Talk it out with the GM, Bob and the party - if its ALWAYS gonna be this way, fine. Time to boogie the character in favour of another.
Play a Cleric of the god of War who thinks 'pain is just weakness leaving the body... and then there's the marching'.
Heal as ABSOLUTELY necessary but save the majority of your spells for attack and buff.
Show them what a HARD ARSE can be (have fun with it).
Do talk to them about absolutes. As people have said these "I always... " statements will block play opportunities. If they want a blood and death campaign then you are well suited for it.
This might feel good, but it will only reinforce the style of play they have. Much better to refuse to heal the merciless killer until you have had a long, serious talk to him about it IN CHARACTER. If he then does not at all listen, leave. Make another character that is the very definition of flexible, a real opportunist with tons of Bluff. Especially if he is not a rogue. This will result in a character they can't trust, but there will not be any rigid lines they have to worry about crossing.
I don't have a problem with defending yourselves when attacked. You tried to ask for a surrender, it didn't happen. WNPC went unconsious. For various reasons some things may not surrender. It is entirely possible that due to the rogue's and bob's attitude it thought (possible correctly) that it would be killed anyway.
The problem is after the fight. There is no current threat/danger. There is at least some uncertainty on whether it was a legitimate foe. Half of the part is actively trying to save the creatures life and bob kicks them aside to kill the helpless intelligent creature they are trying to save. He didn't try to convince you it was necessary. I have a very hard time calling this anything but an evil act. We have heard no legit reason he couldn't have waited while the group discussed things or questioned the WNPC after it was stabilized. This sounds like he is behaving like the worst of the Nazi's or Japaneze in WWII. Most people will call that evil fanatacism.
At that point and with his 'always' statement Bob is clearly stating he doesn't care about your's or the ranger's opinions, concerns, or characters. He is definitely not cooperating with the group.
I would probably stay with the group but not help or heal Bob until I see some in-character evidence of behavior change. At the very least I would give him a lecture before, during, and after any such help.
If I brought in a new character, it would definitely not be a healer or protector type. Probably a neutral type interested the perfection of self. THe group can then learn to deal with not dissing the healer.
First off, it's nice to see a player considering and caring about their character so profoundly. From what you've described, I think the most truest course of action would be for the gnome to leave the party.
If you roll up a new healing character, you should go for an over-prudent and self-interested character who prefers to save his healing magic until the 11th hour.
When bleeding Bob comes looking for some help, tell him to get back into the fight and come back when he's a bit closer to death!
I have a hard time in this painting Bob as a sociopath or evil in this situation. I could see CG or LN taking WNPC out based on the actions.
CG- This creature tricked and attacked us it attempted to kill my allies. It does not deserve the chance to do it again. These fools want to nurse it back to health because of some rule that says its okay to kill if it is awake but not if it unconscious.
LN- If this happened in civilization it would end in the execution of the creature. Its attempt to kill us forfeits its life.
This was not a friendly NPC who fell and was then coup de graed. This was from Bob's view an enemy. If he means he will always eliminate their enemies. I would roll my eyes or say a few harsh words for him and then move on. If he is indeed a sociopath it will come out at other times.
Let me get this straight.
- WNPC helped your party find BBEG and then sat out the fight.
- Rogue startled WNPC, who when struck out with ultimately not very dangerous attacks.
- Party fininished nuking BBEG.
- Much of party then turned on WNPC and nuked it.
- Gnome objected over the body of the helpless WNPC and was overruled, despite being willing to take the death-blow himself.
That it in a nutshell?
Bob's not the kind of person the gnome can cope with, as you describe him. This sort of thing is going to come up again, realistically. Bob's got to know that you can always kill an unconscious or bound & gagged prisoner later. It's a lot harder to un-kill a dead creature. From a practical sense, if there's ever a question about "kill or do not kill", you wait... unless it's still a threat.
Also, Bob's missing a sense of loyalty. If my friends tell me not kill something, I absolutely would pause. I trust my friends. They may interpret things differently than I do, but I absolutely would give them the time to explain themselves and investigate.
That Bob could not tolerate the idea of taking the time to investigate this NPC's motives, reason, and purpose is incompatible with a protector. Bob's role-play is fine, but it's just not good news for a caretaker.
Slightly off-topic, I suspect Bob's player is metagaming somewhat. He's worried about treasure, XP, and DM design. If the WNPC lives, you might not get to loot it. You might not get XP for killing it. And the DM has had everything in the area hostile, so it's clearly hostile, right? Bob's got an agenda, and mercy isn't on the table.
Anguish and I really have the opposite view on this situation but it reflects the flexibility you have in this situation. And it really is all spin and interpretation.
You can spin it to see that given the behavior exhibited by the WNPC ir reasonablly understood as an attack and the later response by the rest of the party is unfortunate and probably should be a great IC disagreement. That I think could be moved past.
You can spin it that the WNPC was mistaken, went out of its way to simply warn the attacker and do no significant harm. Which obviously was not threatening and as such was murdered by those in the party who attacked it. That would not make me leave the party it would make me pull the ranger aside and see if he viewed things in a similar manner. If so confront Bob and if he continues to maintain his side of the story he is the evil threat that is closer than any else they are after.
Anguish and I really have the opposite view on this situation but it reflects the flexibility you have in this situation. And it really is all spin and interpretation.
Agreed, and that's part of what makes role-playing games so dynamic and fun.
Just to be clear, my strongest reaction here is the summary that "Bob" doesn't want to resolve the conundrum. He doesn't care what interpretation is right. He doesn't want to know if the WNPC deserves to die or not. He's not comfortable with exploring the situation. That's what would disturb me as the gnome.
How do you just accept that, with the gnome's role-play personality? What happens the day they inevitably bump into someone who's been dominated or simply Bluffed into doing attacking Bob? It's absolutely fine to play the game casually, with a "must smash" attitude. It just clashes with a contemplative character.
|
|
Were the PCs who attacked the WNPC capable of flight?
Because it seems strange to me, that the WNPC, if spooked, didn't just take to the sky. (If the PCs could follow it, then maybe it's understandable that it shoot?)
That's not a dig at the GM; rather, it's something that indicates that something was 'not quite right'. Something more was goin gon, behind the scenes.
As a PC involved in the encounter, I would be asking myself what would make the WNPC act in a potentially suicidal way. And using that to persuade the others that there could still be enemies in the area, capable of mind-control.
As a caster, it's your speciality to consider such options, whereas a more straightforward martial character may not suspect such things are present. If Bob or the others are really interested in keeping the party together, they can always say "I never considered that posssibility.".
That may or may not have made a difference at the time, but it could be worth bringing up, when the party regroups. And a compromise agreed on how to deal with such situations in future. Because, as Anguish rightly points out, if a player takes an absolute stance that they will kill and coup-de-gras anyone who acts against them, it will end badly. All it takes is a confusion tossed into a crowded marketplace, and you'll be waist-deep in corpses, as the PC kills every shopper, every relative who sees them chopping down Grandpa, and every town guard who comes to see the commotion.
|
|
In America, what Bob the Bruiser did is called Murder. There's no question of self-defense or reasonable neccessity once the person is down and bleeding out.
In America, maybe.
But in a world with regeneration, fast healing, targetted ranged healing, and still, silent, no-materials instant escape methods?If you are serious about taking prisoners alive, you may have to discuss with your GM about relaxing the 'always evil' stance most GMs take on poisons, to allow anaeshthetics and knock-out injections.
Before i get into this, i want to say that the group of players are all cool with one another, there are no hurt feelings and no one is upset or "wrong" for their actions in or out of character, we are all adults and are all happy to be playing pathfinder together. This is 99% in game, in character strife that is being discussed, and don't want anyone to be put down or told they are jerks etc for any in character decisions they made. At least one other person whom i play with visits these boards, and if he reads this, i think it would be pretty cool to have him tell his characters side of the story too.
Also, this takes place in an AP i won't mention, so I will be attempting to give away as little info as possible, some things may not come across quite right, but it is because i am making everything into vanilla yogurt so it won't spoil anything. On to it.
Background:
My character is a lvl 4 gnome life oracle with the deaf curse. He has been a blast to play, and i am very pleased with him. I built him from the ground up as a protector of friends and innocents, and made him CG. The whole time i have been playing him i feel as if i have harped about his protective side, and how he will often go out of his way to put himself in danger if he feels it will help others... he takes extra time to bury bodies when he feels it is right to do, and does everything he can (make the dm come up with non-lethal coup de gras rules on the spot!) to not kill unless he feels threatened, or feels others are being threatened. He definitely ~does~ kill, he has actually been pretty darn good at it, so don't get the wrong idea, he is not some pansy who always whines when something dies... anyways... this leads us to ~~Situation:
We have been fighting through an area where everything is hostile... not a single creature has been even slightly willing to negotiate. Suddenly, a winged creature (WNPC) appears and gives the "don't kill me i just want to talk" sign. Others don't want to talk, but my character approaches, and...
Also for the record, I can think of at least 2 published modules encounters this might have happened in (based upon the limited description).
In one you just eliminated a minor-to-troublesome opponent.
In the other you just killed a great ally and information source that is being affected by magic.
{shrug} And now you have no way of telling which it was because bob wasn't a team player.
Let me get this straight.
- WNPC helped your party find BBEG and then sat out the fight.
- Rogue startled WNPC, who when struck out with ultimately not very dangerous attacks.
- Party fininished nuking BBEG.
- Much of party then turned on WNPC and nuked it.
- Gnome objected over the body of the helpless WNPC and was overruled, despite being willing to take the death-blow himself.
That it in a nutshell?
From what the OP posted, the WNPC kept attacking, for several rounds. Once I can see as a "ooops" but over and over? Without attacking the other side at all?
Bob had every reason to kill a monster who was attacking him.
Sure, there's another debate about when is it OK to kill a downed opponent.
Were the PCs who attacked the WNPC capable of flight?
Because it seems strange to me, that the WNPC, if spooked, didn't just take to the sky. (If the PCs could follow it, then maybe it's understandable that it shoot?)
That's not a dig at the GM; rather, it's something that indicates that something was 'not quite right'. Something more was goin gon, behind the scenes.
As a PC involved in the encounter, I would be asking myself what would make the WNPC act in a potentially suicidal way. And using that to persuade the others that there could still be enemies in the area, capable of mind-control.
Right. Note also that this DM had never had any NPCs in this area be anything but ultimately hostile "Situation:
We have been fighting through an area where everything is hostile... not a single creature has been even slightly willing to negotiate."
Also for the record, I can think of at least 2 published modules encounters this might have happened in (based upon the limited description).
In one you just eliminated a minor-to-troublesome opponent.
In the other you just killed a great ally and information source that is being affected by magic.
{shrug} And now you have no way of telling which it was because bob wasn't a team player.
Umm, no, it's the OP who wasn't a team player. The rest of the team wanted the WNPC dead too.
Oh? So if a drunk peasant takes a swing at a PC for pinching the serving girls, it's ok to stick a dagger in his eye after the monk grapples him and ties him up? This isn't a troll, and the PCs had no expectation that a cleric would target it with a heal. Killing an unconscious person because they MIGHT wake up is still evil. I can't believe this is under debate.In America, what Bob the Bruiser did is called Murder. There's no question of self-defense or reasonable neccessity once the person is down and bleeding out.In America, maybe.
But in a world with regeneration, fast healing, targetted ranged healing, and still, silent, no-materials instant escape methods?If you are serious about taking prisoners alive, you may have to discuss with your GM about relaxing the 'always evil' stance most GMs take on poisons, to allow anaeshthetics and knock-out injections.
Not a drunk peasant. A flying monster in a area where EVERYTHING is hostile, one who repeatlly attacked a member of the party with her bow.
From what the OP posted, the WNPC kept attacking, for several rounds. Once I can see as a "ooops" but over and over? Without attacking the other side at all?
According to the OP, the rogue retaliated. The WNPC only intermittently fought back. That sound you're hearing... it's alarm bells ringing, letting people know something unusual is happening.
Bob had every reason to kill a monster who was attacking him.
Since Bob wasn't the rogue, I'll grant that once his fight is over with the BBEG, it makes sense for him to notice the rogue's problems and go help. What isn't cool is that once the WNPC was laying on the ground helpless, Bob was unwilling to entertain discussion.
... Umm, no, it's the OP who wasn't a team player. The rest of the team wanted the WNPC dead too...
No the ranger also wanted to keep it alive. Bob insisted on killing it while 2 others are trying to save it. This without discussion and over the objection of 2 other players when there appeared to be no pressing reason to do it immediately. The OP doesn't say if rogue took a side so it sounds like Bob made the decision and took the action on his own.
... From what the OP posted, the WNPC kept attacking, for several rounds. Once I can see as a "ooops" but over and over? Without attacking the other side at all?
Bob had every reason to kill a monster who was attacking him.
Sure, there's another debate about when is it OK to kill a downed opponent...
From what the OP posted, the rogue was also attacking it. It was also sometimes doing nothing as if it was confused.
|
|
In America, what Bob the Bruiser did is called Murder. There's no question of self-defense or reasonable neccessity once the person is down and bleeding out.
In America, maybe.
But in a world with regeneration, fast healing, targetted ranged healing, and still, silent, no-materials instant escape methods?If you are serious about taking prisoners alive, you may have to discuss with your GM about relaxing the 'always evil' stance most GMs take on poisons, to allow anaeshthetics and knock-out injections.
Oh? So if a drunk peasant takes a swing at a PC for pinching the serving girls, it's ok to stick a dagger in his eye after the monk grapples him and ties him up? This isn't a troll, and the PCs had no expectation that a cleric would target it with a heal. Killing an unconscious person because they MIGHT wake up is still evil. I can't believe this is under debate.
Yeah, cause this was totally a peasant in the local tavern <rolls eyes>
We don't know what this creature is, other than it is a 'winged NPC', we also don't know where this encounter is taking place, since he is trying to avoid spoilers.
But you go ahead and assume the absolute worst possible light to view the case.
Meanwhile....
Succubus; dominate person, profane gift, teleport self at will.
Good luck keeping her tied up.
Cleric ally in permanent telepathic contact, approaches invisibly, channel energy, succubus teleports.
See ya later.
I'm going to mention something that I haven't read yet (unless I failed my skill roll). Perhaps Bob thought that the gnome was never going to be willing to allow them to kill the WNPC. I think the gnomes willingness to take the hit lends weight to that theory. So Bob just cut the discussion short with action because Bob thought he was never going to convince the gnome. I am not saying what he did was right, but we are only hearing 1 side of the story. I would be interested in getting Bob's side of the story.
Re Gururamalamaswami's spoiler
Of course, so did Buttersnips.