|
Huh, from reading the first couple posts, I have to say that I side with Bob.
Why?
The gnome talked the party into not attacking the WNPC at the beginning, on the grounds that maybe it wouldn't try to kill them.
Later, the WNPC betrayed the party and started attacking the pcs. It doesn't matter how effective the creature was, so much as it intended the death of the party and contributed to that end.
Now, here the gnome steps in and tries to protect a creature that just attempted to murder the party. To me, that seems like the gnome is betraying the party by siding with an enemy. It also seems out of character for the gnome, since the party should be the first line for the gnome. I.e., if something actively tries to kill the party, then the party should be getting the gnome's protective instincts, not the murderous creature.
I can understand why bob would want to kill a betrayer more than just the standard evil guy. Also, given the gnome's reaction to killing the WNPC, bob may not have wanted to push the gnome farther by finishing off the bbeg.
Dude in the first post it states that the WNPC was acting erratically flying rapidly back and forth. I wouldn't consider that betrayal even if he was firing shots. Betrayal usually looks less like someone has had a confusion spell cast on them. As he was down I would find it hard on even the most blood thirsty character to not at the very least be curious as to why he was shooting.
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.
For purposes of carrying on the conversation, I have to ask... so what?
If you've got a co-worker who you sense is adamant on a topic (that is not urgent), what does it say about you if you don't let them actually sell you on their viewpoint, but just do whatever you want to do? How about a spouse who you suspect is dead-set obsessed with spending the last $800 in the bank on the monthly mortgage payment. You know that if you bring up the topic, there's no way you're going to convince them to let you buy a new TV. So you just do it.
Sure, paying the mortgage is clearly the "right thing to do", but then... so is due diligence before you take a (sentient) life.
Bob is dismissive of the input of his companions. End of story, right? Bob doesn't value life enough to spare a few minutes at extreme minimal personal risk to ensure he's not making a mistake. Bob's your sociopathic uncle.
If a person suddenly starts acting crazy, real world ahhh I've lost my mind, I think killing them after you've gotten them subdued is a little extreme at least for non evil characters or characters that have to do it for religious or world view reasons. Especially if their actions are in direct contradiction to their previous ones.
|
For the purposes of RPing, it doesn't matter how effective the attacks were. You don't go "oh he's only trying to kill me, but he's so bad at it". WNPC tried to kill someone. The only reason he failed was because the PCs are heroes and not simple commoners. The fact that you know it's a story should not affect your actions.
Disagree.
The fact it's a story should dictate your character's actions. You dictate the choices of your characters not the other way around. Many in game conflicts come from the myth of "but it's what my character would do".
|
|
That's pretty much the text book definition of meta gaming though, right? Taking out of game knowledge and applying it in-game, especially to antagonize fellow players, is something I would not appreciate neither as a GM nor player.Disagree.
The fact it's a story should dictate your character's actions. You dictate the choices of your characters not the other way around. Many in game conflicts come from the myth of "but it's what my character would do".
Another myth is that all metagaming is wrong. There is an element of the game to the story being told. As always its wrong to use it to cheat or to antagonize fellow players. But anytime the Paladin travels with a chaotic good rogue, or lawful evil wizard there is an element of finding a metagame solution.
In the OPs situation he was flagging: "I am interested in this NPC and want to know more."
Bob's basic response was "No."
The NPC was already helpless. Would it have killed Bob to wait ant find out what the deal was? His CHARACTER might not usually act that way but Bob's player should find some excuse to make it so.
"Tie her up, I want to know why this creature betrayed me."
If the NPC turns out to be evil Bob gets his kill, but if not then there's a possible subquest/story to be learned.
It's not wrong to metagame in order to increase everyone's fun.
|
|
The NPC was already helpless and the PCs had already defeated her once before, on top of which they could tie her up. And even if she does escape and try to kill the PCs again that's an interesting story that the players get to play out.
By killing the NPC the OP never learns more about that character, there is no bonus encounter where Bob gets to fight the evil NPC and say: "I told you so!" or soulful redemption arc where Bob learns to trust the NPC. Instead that story just ends. That's blocking, and it's bad improv and problematic role-play at best.
|
|
I don't see the erratic behavior from bob's point of view. The very suspicious npc suddenly started attacking the players? Not a big surprise, and a totally expected betrayal.
So the argument is because the wendigo or whatever it does would have only killed two commoners, it should have been given a pass?
Effectiveness of lethality is NOT a good argument here.
Had the characters been normal people in the world, one or two of them would be dead now. Only the fact that they're skilled and/or trained saved them.
Basically, if the op chooses to leave the party because of rp reasons, then that is his choice. However, plenty of people think bob was justified in his actions. And I think the op is ignoring how his character would have felt at seeing the creature try to murder his friends because he's "zoned in" on the WLPC or whatever it was.
You find a dog on the road. You want to protect the dog. Later, you see the dog attacking your friend, with your friends blood smearing his muzzle. You don't walk away from your friend when he defends himself and puts the animal down. You might cry for the dog. But you don't blame your friend for the dog's actions.
Where the heck did you get a wendigo from?
". Fast forward to the fight, we have killed the 2nd NPC, but during the fight, there was some confusion and WNPC fired upon a PC (rogue) who popped out of combat and approached WNPC mid fight (the fight was occurring a distance from WNPC). The Winged NPC went back and forth from doing nothing but moving 5-10 ft(very confusing), and firing at this PC who immediately began to attack it (as an aside, the rogue had also said ~OOC~ that he was "going to come back and kill this *****" the round he moved towards WNPC, which was the round before WNPC first fired at him, but it shouldn't... persay... matter because it was OOC, and it is still unclear if he would have actually done anything)"
Dude the rogue threatened the winged npc. It was scared. It attacked. It was flying around erratically frightened. If it was trying to "murder" him there are much better ways than firing the a few shots and wasting its time making repeated move actions.
|
|
I don't think I would enjoy being in a group with Bob very much.
Avoiding spoilers, because this sounds like it's probably the same adventure I'm currently a player in. Things played out a bit different for us.
My half-orc barbarian related to the WNPC as well, for different reasons.
Non-spoiling spoiler:
During the fight, the WNPC went allout against what we could only assume was the BBEG. WNPC just got slammed hard while the rest of us had bad luck with landbound reinforcements. By the time we finally shook those guys off, the WNPC was already dead.
Before the rematch I took some the largest feathers off of the WNPC and tied them to my bracer and the head of my earthbreaker. Managed to make it the last thing the BBEG saw before he died. Felt right.
Dwarf party member and elf NPC's dismissal of the WNPC aside, my character gave it what he figured was a proper "burial".
So we had some conflict over the WNPC, but it never came down to party sabotage.
There's one more bit but it's an actual spoiler-spoiler.
So things played out a bit sad on our end but the group wasn't tearing itself apart.
But I have been in similar situations and it isn't fun. Bob's statement that he's apparently going to force the party to play his way makes for further probable dysfunction down the line. I've been in groups where most people wanted to play Good and someone pushed onward to play anything but. That alone wouldn't be a problem if some discretion was involved. But when that player wants to be blatant and in everyone's face about it, it makes it impossible to both keep him in the party and play your Good characters as actually Good and not wishy-washy do-nothings that let their convictions slide the moment whenever the problem party member starts killing NPCs that really didn't need it.
Like said above, metagaming is fine if it's used to keep everyone happy, and keeps everyone capable of actually playing the characters they wanted.
As described, Bob sounds like "it's my way or nothing". If he can't be bothered to work with other players to find a way to let them play their characters, why should you bother playing with him?
Seems a bit bitter, but I think I've run into a few too many Bobs over time.
Yeah I was wondering. Winged NPC = I'm thinking an avariel, a tengu, or possibly at the very worst a harpy. Wendigo = fantastically evil psychotic outsider. If it was a wendigo I don't think anyone would have stopped to listen in the first place.
I don't think I would enjoy being in a group with Bob very much.
AAs described, Bob sounds like "it's my way or nothing". If he can't be bothered to work with other players to find a way to let them play their characters, why should you bother playing with him?
But it's also the OP's way or nothing. The Op wanted to make a freind out of the NPC, Bob didn't. Why isn't Bob's way right?
Remember, again- in this area, NO creatures were anything but hostile. When the WNPC did turn hostile, then I don;t see the issue.
Why isn't Bob's way right?
Maybe because it involved murder?
Seriously DrDeth?
Lets look at this in a different setting. T.
Oh puleeze. Your analogy is way off, let's not go off into strained allusions. Startled or no, the WNPC attacked the rogue repeatedly and never attacked the other side. The WNPC made the first move, not the rogue.
Yes, Stubs- Bob should have talked it out a bit, I agree. But a lot of folks don't like long moral arguments. Why not invite him here, let us see what he has to say?
Oh gosh, and we forget the gnome is deaf! Thus during the rounds the harpy or whatever wasn’t firing it’s bow, it was likely using captivating song or some other sonic attack, which of course Stub’s deaf gnome would not know about! Good one Stubs, you fooled us!
|
|
Oh gosh, and we forget the gnome is deaf! Thus during the rounds the harpy or whatever wasn’t firing it’s bow, it was likely using captivating song or some other sonic attack, which of course Stub’s deaf gnome would not know about! Good one Stubs, you fooled us!
Dude, stretching. Also, making this more personal than it needs to be. And conspiratorial.
|
|
Dude the rogue threatened the winged npc. It was scared. It attacked. It was flying around erratically frightened. If it was trying to "murder" him there are much better ways than firing the a few shots and wasting its time making repeated move actions.
Last I checked, approaching an ally isn't a threatening action. Nor did the rogue attack the winged npc (really no idea where wendigo came from). However, the winged npc saw the rogue approaching him and started attacking.
"Hey John, could you may- OH MY GOD! YOU SHOT ME! WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT ME?!"
And firing a few shots, then moving, does NOT get it off the hook for the shots it fired. For all the players know, it was trying to use some combination that required activation or reactivation in between shots. Maybe it was a scout and was trying to get the extra damage for moving. If it was really frightened, it would be flying away from everyone, not sitting there and taking potshots. If it were confused (as per the spell) then it would make reference to the effect and/or throw its weapon down when the option occurred. If it were dominated, it would just be attacking every turn.
Both in game and out of game, there were excellent reasons to kill this creature. The reasons not to kill it? It might not have tried to kill everyone as hard as it could have. It was already defeated. (Planning on taking it to jail? You can't just let an attempted murderer free, right? Especially one who very well might come back and try to kill the party again.) The reasons to allow this creature to live are far weaker than those to kill it and end its threat.
...And firing a few shots, then moving, does NOT get it off the hook for the shots it fired...
Never said it should get off the hook. Said there was time to discuss and investigate.
...For all the players know, it was trying to use some combination that required activation or reactivation in between shots. Maybe it was a scout and was trying to get the extra damage for moving...
Absolutley correct. It could also be something else. Don't know. Now can't know.
...If it was really frightened, it would be flying away from everyone, not sitting there and taking potshots...
From the description, I'm not sure it had the option of flying away.
...If it were confused (as per the spell) then it would make reference to the effect and/or throw its weapon down when the option occurred...
I have never played with a GM that allowed you to tell people IC that you were under a confusion spell.
...If it were dominated, it would just be attacking every turn...
Again, likely but not necessarily. You could make exactly the same statement starting with "If it was really hostile, ..."
...Both in game and out of game, there were excellent reasons to kill this creature. The reasons not to kill it? It might not have tried to kill everyone as hard as it could have. It was already defeated. (Planning on taking it to jail? You can't just let an attempted murderer free, right? Especially one who very well might come back and try to kill the party again.) The reasons to allow this creature to live are far weaker than those to kill it and end its threat.
I happen to agree with you. However, both IC and OoC the reasons to refuse discussion, kick aside your 2 allys who are trying to stabilize it (never said heal and free), and murder it are even weaker than that.
The OP even said his PC could have gone along with it if there had been an IC discussion and the group reasoned it out, investigated, or questioned the subject to determined it was necessary
I see a repeated thread that the rogue was the aggressor and I do not see where that was confirmed in character. So all this talk that the poor helpless WNPC only attacked because the rogue was trying to kill it is not fair. Even if that was the rogues intent. The sense motives do not confirm that. Granted they can be subjective when you fail but it does not mean you can go forwarding without any other IC evidence that the Rogue was the party at fault. Even if the rogue startled the WNPC it was the WNPC who started the fracase by attacking.
The second issue I find intrigueing is modern morality vs. ancient morality. I have always played my characters with an ancient set of expectations. There are quite a few figures in mythology and history that we might think of as good whose behavior would land them on death row in modern society. Lastly many places in game where combat takes place and PC's find themselves in under the jurisdiction of no one. There is no justice and as such I think it is fair to say that characters for a variety of reason have some lattitue in that they might feel obliged to side on the spirit of the law given that there is not law to bring bear on a situation in the wild, involving monsters.
...Even if the rogue startled the WNPC it was the WNPC who started the fracase by attacking...
Agreed. Most of us are not saying there was anything wrong with fighting back when attacked. The issue is what happened after the fight was over.
The second issue I find intrigueing is modern morality vs. ancient morality... There is no justice and as such I think it is fair to say that characters for a variety of reason have some lattitue in that they might feel obliged to side on the spirit of the law given that there is not law to bring bear on a situation in the wild, involving monsters.
Agreed. Many of us including the OP agree with that. The examples refer to modern life because that is what we know. Also most campaigns have a stance somewhere between history and current.
However. Again. The problem most of us have is that Bob shoved aside 2 of his 'friends' who were trying to stabilize an unconsious person. Refused to discuss it. Killed the person they were trying to save. Declared I'm going to kill everyone at the end of every fight no matter what. He showed absolutely no concern for feelings, morals, or goals of his 'friends.' There is no evidence that we have been given that there was any pressing need to do this immediately. There has been no evidence that there was any reason to not discuss it except that he didn't want to. This does not appear to be the actions or reasoning of a friend, ally, or good person.
I removed a post. Don't post angry, please.
|
|
From the description, I'm not sure it had the option of flying away...
I have never played with a GM that allowed you to tell people IC that you were under a confusion spell...
Again, likely but not necessarily. You could make exactly the same statement starting with "If it was really hostile, ..."
Well, from the description, nothing is preventing the creature from flying away, assuming it's not under the effects of a spell.
Check out the confusion spell. Either you act normally, babble incoherently, deal damage to yourself, or attack the nearest creature. If you're acting normally, nothing prevents you from telling your party you're under the effects of a spell. And none of these options include moving 5 or 10 feet a round.
You could start it with "If it was really hostile..." but I already gave a reasonable example where a creature would move and then attack. And again, it's kind of moot since creatures don't get a pass for attempted murder.
I've got no issue with a person who takes care of business when his party members are waffling about it. The argument that bob cut off options for the gnome isn't a valid one. Why? Because it's a double-edged sword. By pushing to keep the creature alive, the gnome was trying to cut off options for bob. Namely, that bob didn't want to mess around with a creature who had already tried to kill him once.
The topic at hand is whether bob's actions represent such a breach of trust that the gnome should leave the party. Bob has acted reasonably within the confines of the game, and the situation at hand. At least, in my opinion :p I don't think this is a "remove character from game" level offense. However, if the player believes that it is, then it's probably a good idea to roll a new character who has the ability to play with the other characters without threatening to jump ship every time another player does something he/she doesn't like.
...Well, from the description, nothing is preventing the creature from flying away, assuming it's not under the effects of a spell...
In one of the later posts the OP said it was inside an enclosed room or something like that. Don't remember the exact wording.
...Check out the confusion spell. Either you act normally, babble incoherently, deal damage to yourself, or attack the nearest creature. If you're acting normally, nothing prevents you from telling your party you're under the effects of a spell. And none of these options include moving 5 or 10 feet a round...
I have never seen any GM in any edition play it that way. In the rounds you are 'acting normally' you don't know you were not acting normally before, so you can't tell others what is going on. Someone not effected by the spell has to observe your behavior and figure it out.
...You could start it with "If it was really hostile..." but I already gave a reasonable example where a creature would move and then attack. And again, it's kind of moot since creatures don't get a pass for attempted murder...
Again others gave counter examples indicating it is possible it is not attempted murder. And again, I never said they get a pass for attempted murder. I said there was time to discuss.
...I've got no issue with a person who takes care of business when his party members are waffling about it. The argument that bob cut off options for the gnome isn't a valid one. Why? Because it's a double-edged sword. By pushing to keep the creature alive, the gnome was trying to cut off options for bob. Namely, that bob didn't want to mess around with a creature who had already tried to kill him once...
I don't see that his party was waffling. They were very clearly trying to do something. Specifiacally stabalize the dying WNPC, that is not waffling. Waffling would have been standing around discussing it while the WNPC bled out. The gnome and ranger were not cutting off an option for Bob. They were leaving several options open. The OP has stated if it had been discussed IC by the group and they decided it was the right thing to do then he would have been ok with it. Bob is the one that decided it didn't matter what anyone else wanted he was going to kill the WNPC and he is going to do it everytime. That is not an ally, a team mate, or a good aligned character. That is very self centered and basically saying only what he wants is important, everyone just has to play along with him.
...The topic at hand is whether bob's actions represent such a breach of trust that the gnome should leave the party. Bob has acted reasonably within the confines of the game, and the situation at hand. At least, in my opinion :p I don't think this is a "remove character from game" level offense...
I sort of agree. It kinda depends if this is a one time event or a pattern of behavior. That is why (if it is a one time event) I suggested if he wants to keep the PC, he might give an IC lecture about teamwork and allies anytime Bob needs healing or buffs. To be honest if the player (not the PC) always plays that only what he wants is important then I would have a hard time playing with him at all. If that is just the way this particular PC acts, then I could make a PC that stands up to him and gives back what he gets.
|
First, the decision to stay or go is yours, as a player. Anyway, if you decide to get a new player, I guess that the AP you're in puts you pretty much a few hundred miles of cities. Stay with the caravan and roleplay the issue until you can get a new PC with
We both worship Desna.
Hhhmm. So Bob, a Desna-ian, killed a winged creature. Not cool. Then again, WNPC is most likely not a Desna-ian itself. And revenge isn't in Desna's book. Hm.
I think your gnome should commune with Desna and pray for guidance. I suggest you tell so to your GM, and also
Then, secretly keep one casting of Oracle's Burden ready at all times, tell your GM that you'll cast it upon Bob whenever he kills/harms in a similar context.
Did I say "you'll cast"? Sorry, I meant "Desna's curse will be inflicted upon him too". In my head, that's how Oracle spells should work in this scenario - no explicit casting if your GM knows that, and no spellcraft checks from other PCs. And becoming blind after wronging the teachings of an oracle of your deity? I'd take that as a godess's way of telling me to change my ways.
Ultimately, if Desna (your GM) feels you're right, Bob'll be cursed, and he'll probably despair and repent (I guess). If Desna (GM) thinks the WNPC death was right and just, your curse spell will fail; your PC should realise that as "Bob wasn't that bad after all to the eyes of Desna".
I see this as an opportunity to actually roleplay the PCs instead of rolling dice. And I, as a GM myself, love the opportunities that intra-party confrontations like this one offers.
Also this puts the burden of the decision off you, and onto the shoulders of the GM's interpretation of in-game faith. He's the one that should worry and work towards party balance and everyone having a good time.
It would have been the NPC's sense motive to know that the rogue was coming to kill her and not the parties. Maybe the NPC made it and fired a shot knowing the menacing look in the rogue's eyes. Along with some conversation along the way where some of the PC's stated their distrust.
The game has an alignment system based on Judeo-Christian morals. Not on some ancient set of morals. This is why modern morality is taken into account while playing as it's directly relative to what we all know now.
Interesting again I was thinking that Judeo-Christian morals would have more incommon with ancient morals than modern ones. My point is the type of actions taken by adventurers would be enathema in the modern mindset. If some friends and I decieded that the current government were not protecting our communities interests well enough and we decided to arm ourselves patrol the wilds for evil doers, or enage military units from a neighboring country. Chances are we would not be looked on as "good." Yet this is precisely the kind of thing that marks a "good" character in game. When I pointed to "ancient" morality I actually was thinking of King David in the Bible, in the days before he was king. On the run from the current king he and other warriors rallied in the regions that were not getting propper protection from the king and kept the contryside safe. So my point was ironically both ancient and judeo-christian.
That said WNPC entered combat and got combat back. Was there room for mercy yes. Was killing WNPC necessarily with no other explination possible an evil scociopathic, no.
We did play through the next session, and I decided to continue playing the character after an in character discussion with Bob, and the GM (allegedly) greasing the stick-with-this-character wheel... [suddenly, other NPCs are extremely opinionated, whereas usually they are like scared lambs when it comes to speaking up (they make a lot of noise, but none of it is helpful)].
As i had suspected, part of his strong opinion in the moment was a reaction to the new (for this group) rule that makes creatures die at -con instead of 0. He will not be CDGing everything we take down, and had even forgotten he had said it. As part of our aside i stressed my character's need for erring on the side of protection, life, and such, and in return he stressed his character's want for caution in getting others into dangerous situations in pursuit of those, or any other, goals. I believe the characters see much more eye to eye now, though what will come of it is anyone's guess :)
I really appreciate all of the contributions, it was honestly a joy to read everyone's opinions on both sides of the discussion. Heck, if compared to most message board posts across the internet, ya'll were downright kind to one another (and myself) :P
Again, thanks everyone!
Yes, I thought that the houserule change might be part of the problem. Good to see it worked out!
As a student of philosophy that was cool. I think that previously you thought I was pointing to the Nietche/ancient greece verses judeo-christian/modern and rather I was thinking modern law sensibility in which behavior is hedged by the fact that most individuals do not have jusisdiction to act with leathal force even for good reason.