I said people, not team-mates, but in character, if his allies do something he doesn't feel will aid him in battle, he's likely to control them......
Maybe not do this, yeah?
Just think of another character and spare everyone in your group (including yourself) the fuss and the drama.
so im casually talking about my character, saying "im going to role play this guy as a lawful good cleric type. then have him build up towards world domination with his minions. then wipe out all life as we know it"
Now there's a real team oriented guy. O.o
Why would such a character even begin to adventure with a party at all? The party will eventually find out and tell the guy to take a hike. I mean they would unless the guy back-stabbed them first. And he would, 'cause you know, guys who are bent on world domination roll/role that way.
1. because role-playing a character like that would be fun for me.
Your fun is important, but not at the cost of others.
2. the characterhad no intention of harming the party, and would vene fill the "cleric role" for healing and buffing
Sure he did, because he's Evil (and by the sound of it, NE). He's heal the group right up until he didn't need 'em anymore.
3. because you cannot gain power without powerful allies
Until you can kill them, raise their corpses and keep on trucking.
i looked at my character shet, and yes we was NE not chaotic evil.
Neutral Evil is the worst kind because they don't even subscribe to the theory of party loyalty. That's more of a Lawful concept. A Neutral Evil Necromancer sees his party as pawns - meat pawns.
anyway my origional point, is that metagaming ruins role-play from my experience.
It can, certainly.
you have to be very careful what information YOU give to players.
Right, 'cause when they find out that you're planning on possibly controlling their actions or playing some kind of Evil Necromancer, they may react badly to it.
just make sure you clear you character with the gm before you do anything that may be contravercial to the party, to minimize in party issues.
Or so that he can say "dude, maybe you shouldn't go this particular route."
/ About the original post and thread topic - this thread isn't about metagaming, it's about a controversial character concept and the mayhem it may or may not cause.
actually, neutral evil character can have allies, they can maintain those allies as long as they choose. they are not bound to a code dosent mean they WILL turn on an ally. they may even choose to keep the alliance going for as long as they deem it necessary, which for the purposes of D&D could be for the entire campaign.i looked at my character shet, and yes we was NE not chaotic evil.Neutral Evil is the worst kind because they don't even subscribe to the theory of party loyalty. That's more of a Lawful concept. A Neutral Evil Necromancer sees his party as pawns - meat pawns.
Dude, c'mon. You're talking about Evil Lite. What that means is, you want to be free to do all the Evil stuff you like, but you don't want to be saddled with any sort of code. It's a crappy way to be a jerk at the table and get away with it.
If you're gonna roll out an Evil character other than the LE variety, then at least have a pair and admit what you're really about.
/ LE can work within a group because they have a code and generally respect their companions. Dexter Morgan is LE and that's why he can function as well as he does.
loaba, I think you're going off the path subscribing to NE must be a jerk, it makes as much sense and is just as inflammatory as all the Lawful/Chaotic Stupid assumptions.
Also while controlling your teammates is a dick move, metagaming to screw over another player's goals is just as much a dick move. This is why I only play with people I trust. I can play with a player that keeps secrets, it makes the reveal that much more interesting, but I can't play with a player that I feel is out to get my characters regardless of alignment (mine, theirs, anyone's); that kind of stress is just not fun, especially if they're using metagame tactics / cheating.
loaba, I think you're going off the path subscribing to NE must be a jerk, it makes as much sense and is just as inflammatory as all the Lawful/Chaotic Stupid assumptions.
If you're playing NE, at some point you're gonna ditch your party. That's just how that alignment is wired. NE isn't predisposed to order or codes, is constantly assessing plans and how they need to be changed. NE is not not flighty or random or prone to chaotic outbursts. NE will screw the party when it necessary and convenient to do so.
NE is the epitome of "me first, the rest of you come second (if at all)."
Also while controlling your teammates is a dick move, metagaming to screw over another player's goals is just as much a dick move.
Planning to control your teammates trumps the metagame response to knowing your companion plans on controlling your character in-game from time to time.
loaba, I think you're going off the path subscribing to NE must be a jerk, it makes as much sense and is just as inflammatory as all the Lawful/Chaotic Stupid assumptions.If you're playing NE, at some point you're gonna ditch your party. That's just how that alignment is wired. NE isn't predisposed to order or codes, is constantly assessing plans and how they need to be changed. NE is not not flighty or random or prone to chaotic outbursts. NE will screw the party when it necessary and convenient to do so.
NE is the epitome of "me first, the rest of you come second (if at all)."
That's a way to play NE. You can have loyalty without being lawful. You can be chaotic and still have loyalty. NE doesn't mean that you can't have things you care about. Lawful alignment does not imply loyalty, chaotic alignment does not mean random (though some people will use such as an excuse). I'd rather not have an alignment argument in this thread, so I'll just leave it at that.
I will say that such narrow view of how alignment can and should be played is what leaves a lot of GMs wondering why making sure PCs are non-evil doesn't stop some players from being dicks (hint: it's the players, not the system)
Also while controlling your teammates is a dick move, metagaming to screw over another player's goals is just as much a dick move.Controlling your teammates trumps the metagame response to knowing your companion plans on controlling your character in-game from time to time.
Being a dick is being a dick, making another player miserable either by setting up traps for them or controlling their character are equally rude and immature, neither method nor reason matter.
|
Everyone I play with are friends in real life, but I just don't think it's fair for them to already be deciding on things that they shouldn't have even known about in the first place, had it been kept secret.
While you may be disappointed that the GM discussed it with the other players, it is (mostly) the GM's game, inasmuch as he'll be putting the most work in, drawing the maps, writing the scenarios, creating statblocks. Even if he runs published adventures, it doesn't remove the need for GM to alter them as events unfold.
He has (quite rightly) predicted that a character concept such as yours will be a big problem, and will result in the campaign imploding, unless you have it accepted by all the players. He wonders why he should bother running a campaign, wasting time, money, energy and some good plot ideas, on a game that's going to crash and burn?
By giving the other players some warning, and asking them what they think of the idea, he's doing what you should have done, but didn't.
|
|
oh man i had this same situation happen in 3.5
i was playing a death master. they are chaotic evil and require ritual sacrafice to get a number of class abiliies to function, it is also a necromancer class to boot.
so im casually talking about my character, saying "im going to role play this guy as a lawful good cleric type.
Leaving aside the practicality of such a ruse, in a world with at-will divinations, the inability to recreate all the powers of such a caster, and the possibility of being seen performing unholy rites...
Can a CE person actually convincingly pull off such a deception?
Would they even want to?
Isn't the very definition of CE, a wilful, impatient, demanding, argumentative, adult baby?
Complete with full diaper that it wants other people to change, a dummy to spit out when it hears the word 'No', and toys to throw out of the pram, when it doesn't get it's own way?
And isn't the idea, that such a character has the common sense, understanding of others needs, empathy for others feelings, and self-discipline, to suppress their core nature every time it would be convenient, the very essence of the meta-gaming we are supposed to condemn?
If you want to play a CE PC, then do so, with all of the downsides, and see how long it takes for others to retire you.
Demons can be manipulative, and they are CE.
CE reminds of the BBEG who kills the underling just for delivering bad news. Things and people that important get preserved. If not then they are fodder. I would want to see how RP went if the CR character got upset.
I could not however see a CE character fooling someone who is around him almost everyday into making them think he is LG. It is too much of a stretch to me. Risking his life to save a party member or a commoner just won't happen without me raising an eyebrow as the GM.
I didn't notice the alignment in the OP at first.
Apart from all other things mentioned in this thread, this character is not Neutral Good, no sirree.
@Truesidekick: alignment discussion aside (don't think it's all that interesting), to me it boils down to this: if the guy who played the monk had asked you to change your character because he or others in the party didn't want to roleplay with your evil concept, would you have done so? Did this happen? Or did he just start metagaming it from the start?
Also, I think you should have talked to him about the metagaming instead of 'putting the twerp in place' with ingame actions. The moment people start seeing their party members/friends in that light a game tends to go nowhere FAST.
I don't mind evil concepts as such (even though I agree that NE might not be the way to go if you want to have a genuine (non manipulative) team player as a character), but if the group is out, the concept is out.
You can have loyalty without being lawful. You can be chaotic and still have loyalty. NE doesn't mean that you can't have things you care about.
Right - and you care about Number 1 first and foremost, everyone else comes second. Eventually all good things must end, and that's gonna be bad for them, the tools who think you're their loyal companion.
I can only think of one NE guy who works in a group - Jane Cobb. The only reason he is retained on the crew is because everyone knows exactly what he's about and because Reynolds insists on giving him a chance. Even then, the man betrays the group (yet is given a second chance.)
Being a dick is being a dick.
Exactly - so you shouldn't be surprised when people react badly to your plan that may include controlling their actions now and again.
A few points I have to make:
His alignment - He is Neutral Good because he has good intentions, but doesn't let good or evil sway his decisions.
Discussing the concept with the group - My GM has always specifically stated that we aren't allowed to know each others characters until we see them on the adventure path. You're not allowed to talk about your concepts or anything alike.
If someone wants to kill this character, he would Geas them to only have good intentions towards him. In no way would I play it in a way to disrupt the group. As I've previously stressed, I am always playing characters that try to aid others, work as a team where needed and ALWAYS take other players opinions into consideration.
I have however spoken to two of the three other players about my concept and they are all fine with the concept.
This character wasn't built for ruining things for anyone and as I previously stated, using these abilities on other PC's didn't even cross my mind until the GM mentioned it to me. If a character wants to kill me, I'll make them like me, maybe geas them into being my bodyguard or doing something for me, but it's up to the player controlling that character on how they go about performing such actions.
The character's Neutral Good and therefore, will not put his team mates in harms way unless he really has to. He wants to ally with people, only manipulating folk when he really needs to.
I wish people would take the time out to understand the concept instead of assuming I am trying to ruin the game for people. I'm not and haven't ever, nor do I care to. I have far more constructive things to do with my time than turning up to friends houses and ruining their play time "for the sake of it".
People are so quick to jump at others without considering their motives or desires. I'm a very nice person and wouldn't ever ruin things for others. I spend my entire life creating events and activities voluntarily for people to get involved in. The internet isn't a place that allows for you to get to know the members.
It's a shame really, but people have free will to say and feel as they please, so whether I agree with things or not, I respect and acknowledge that. I just know that you are wrong in thinking I have malevolent intentions.
That's all from me.
Happy gaming!
This character wasn't built for ruining things for anyone and as I previously stated, using these abilities on other PC's didn't even cross my mind until the GM mentioned it to me. If a character wants to kill me, I'll make them like me, maybe geas them into being my bodyguard or doing something for me, but it's up to the player controlling that character on how they go about performing such actions. ...It's a shame really, but people have free will to say and feel as they please,...
Except of course the PC's and players in your game, which will have to do as you see fit.
This is not NG.
It's also being a jerk.
Just do another character.
If you say so. It'd be nice if you were more considerate, instead of arguing for the sake of it.
I've explained why in an incredibly civilised manner, so less of the insults please.
I'm not taking anything away from their characters, only offering more role playing options. My character won't be taking their free will away often and only will when he feels he needs to. This a game, not real life.
Diggers will dig.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CE reminds of the BBEG who kills the underling just for delivering bad news. Things and people that important get preserved. If not then they are fodder. I would want to see how RP went if the CR character got upset.
I was going to link to an episode of OotS, featuring Xykon doing exactly that. Then realised, I'm spoilt for choice, which strip to use, because he does it all the time. He can't help himself.
I could not however see a CE character fooling someone who is around him almost everyday into making them think he is LG. It is too much of a stretch to me. Risking his life to save a party member or a commoner just won't happen without me raising an eyebrow as the GM.
People think they can get away with this, because most groups fast-forward past all the downtime. And why not? You've driven to the game to carry out the adventure, so you spend most time on the parts where the adrenaline is flowing, and the PCs are offloading their anger on the NPCs and monsters.
But those parts are the minor part of the adventuring day; the rest is spent travelling, making camp, preparing for the next day. Conversations will be started, hot button topics will be discussed, moral and ethical dilemmas will be debated. And plenty of simple 'getting along with others' will be expected.
And I say, a genuine CE person can't keep that up, 24/7.
I'm not taking anything away from their characters, only offering more role playing options. My character won't be taking their free will away often and only will when he feels he needs to. This a game, not real life.
Planning to take away people's free will is not Neutral Good, no matter how you choose to rationalize it. That's a premeditated act, contingent upon your needs and not theirs. Stop kidding yourself and have the courage to call a spade a spade.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess at the base of it, you are right. You are giving me an option I didn't have before: to kill you.
The first time I, or someone else, saw you cast a control spell on a party member you would go from friend to foe and yours would be the next corpse we looted.
Thats definately a new RP opportunity for me. I've never had to kill a party member before. (Well there was that one DMPC but'd been taken over by evil. poor halfling)
So you are right- it'd be something new, however brief. The combat wouldn't take long, with the entire group deciding to murder you at the same time.
People in this thread aren't tryin to be jerks. We aren't nay-saying your idea because we just like crapping in people's pudding cups.
We're nay saying it because it is a *monumentally bad idea*.
You came in saying "The group found out about this and I'm mad and wanna do it anyway". Folks reply is: Your group WAS RIGHT to be mad, and the fact that they are mad is telling you something important: play something else!
Seriously though, we aren't the D&D Gestapo. The internet of D&D geeks isn't going to come crashing through the door to stop you if you insist on this.
But the DM, and the players, have already done you a favor. They have advised you against this course of action. If you do it anyway, they will *murder your character*. And loot the body. And keep going without ever looking back.
I'm not talking about you as a person i'm talking about all your hard character building work going up in smoke as 3-5 (or however many) people decide to lay into you at once. "dude he charmed Hizzard the Warrior" "WHAT?" *HULK SMASH*.
And when that happens you are going to be 100% super bad @$$ pissed off about it. And you need to realize- it doesn't have to be that way. You can start off *now* by making a concept that doesn't piss off 90% of the D&D player base- your buddies at home included.
You came here for advice. You got advice you didn't like. The rest is really in your hands.
Alot of people don't agree with your stance- including the most important folks. The ones you game with. Even if you deep down in your heart of hearts believe they are all full of crap- they are still your friends, and they've told you want -they- think of your idea. You game with them, not us. Don't like what we have to say? I advise listening to them. At the very least, roll up an alternate character. The first time you use spells to influence the group, you're gonna need it.
-S
|
|
A few points I have to make:
His alignment - He is Neutral Good because he has good intentions, but doesn't let good or evil sway his decisions.
You know that's utter nonsense, right?
"I'm a philanthropist, but I don't see why anyone else is entitled to my time or money."
Edit: I don't mean controlling them in a bad way. I mean for example if the Ninja is avoiding sneak missions at all costs, I might try and Geas him into doing scouting missions....not purposely telling him to fall on the floor so the enemies get AoO's. That's what I'll be doing to the enemies.
I mean control on the aid side of things. If a party member isn't working to his full advantage, I'd try to manipulate the character into thinking that he should do certain actions. I wouldn't be putting their characters lives at risk.
You claim you wouldn't ever be putting their PC's lives at risk. How do you know? Did you write the adventure?
If someone creates a Ninja PC, I'd say it's more than likely they want to perform sneaky scouting missions. If that player is choosing not to do so, then maybe they have their reasons. You should ask them what those reasons are, offer to expend your magic as protective and utility buffs to negate those reasons, and if they still believe it's out of their league, you respect their decision. The creator of the PC will have a far clearer, more objective view of the the PC's limits, than someone who sits across the table.
This isn't real life, but then I know some of you take the game incredibly seriously
Actions in-game are real to my characters, and my characters take their lives incredibly seriously.
You're trying to play the 'I'm the only true roleplayer here' card, against players who declare their PCs will react appropriately to any hostile act?
When your reaction is 'Pfft, shrug, whatever, see if I care what happens, it's just a game, anyway'.
I know which side of the debate is the roleplayers, and which side treats their PCs like disposable pawns.
A few points I have to make:
His alignment - He is Neutral Good because he has good intentions, but doesn't let good or evil sway his decisions.
Discussing the concept with the group - My GM has always specifically stated that we aren't allowed to know each others characters until we see them on the adventure path. You're not allowed to talk about your concepts or anything alike.
If someone wants to kill this character, he would Geas them to only have good intentions towards him. In no way would I play it in a way to disrupt the group. As I've previously stressed, I am always playing characters that try to aid others, work as a team where needed and ALWAYS take other players opinions into consideration.
I have however spoken to two of the three other players about my concept and they are all fine with the concept.
This character wasn't built for ruining things for anyone and as I previously stated, using these abilities on other PC's didn't even cross my mind until the GM mentioned it to me. If a character wants to kill me, I'll make them like me, maybe geas them into being my bodyguard or doing something for me, but it's up to the player controlling that character on how they go about performing such actions.
The character's Neutral Good and therefore, will not put his team mates in harms way unless he really has to. He wants to ally with people, only manipulating folk when he really needs to.
I wish people would take the time out to understand the concept instead of assuming I am trying to ruin the game for people. I'm not and haven't ever, nor do I care to. I have far more constructive things to do with my time than turning up to friends houses and ruining their play time "for the sake of it".
People are so quick to jump at others without considering their motives or desires. I'm a very nice person and wouldn't ever ruin things for others. I spend my entire life creating events and activities voluntarily for people to get involved in. The internet isn't a place that allows for you to...
For my part it's nothing to do with whether you're a nice person or not, it's the behaviour itself - influencing another player's actions in a way which reduces their freedom of choice (even a little bit) seems to me to be a breach of the implied contract of RPGing. Even if your motivation is ".. offering more role playing options" and you have no malevolent intentions, I'd be wary that it wouldnt be taken well by those players who were affected by behaviour-altering spells.
.You mentioned you spoke to two or three of the players - personally, I think you need to speak to all of them (or at least be sure that nobody is going to mind). I know the DM said you can't talk about your character concepts, but given you already have with some of them (and it appears he has too, given the motivation of this thread), I think you should give everyone the opportunity to express any concern.
If everyone is happy with it, I dont see any issue. There's lots of different ways to play. I think it's important enough to work out BEFORE any potential issue arises in game though. Purely because the "My guy would kill* your guy. I'm just roleplaying!" schtick is rarely a happy experience for anyone.
* I realise you're not aiming for this kind of confrontation, but it might happen anyhow.
What you do is wait til their characters are asleep and you're on guard duty then kill their characters. When they get angry tell them your character was acting out of self defense as they threatened to kill your character. Do this two or three times and they'll either stop being metagaming dicks or leave the game. Either way you win.
@Steve Geddes - Yea, that's what I plan on doing. I figured it's no secret anymore (thanks to the GM), so I'll speak to the last guy when I can. He's the one that I think was meta gaming and saying that he'd kill my character if my guy tried anything like that.
I've not got a problem with people acting in game, but meta gaming is the issue here.
A lot of people on here are unreasonable, expecting me to literally control playable characters, when I really won't be. My guy might make them like him through spells to get himself out of certain situations that may threaten his life, but he's not going to cast spells on them to make them stand in the way as cannon fodder. It's ridiculous to throw such assumptions about, but people on here don't care what your intentions are. Even if it doesn't effect them personally, they take it personally.
The actual threads purpose was to discuss combating meta gaming, not my characters intentions and I don't care how people see it, I am going to be playing my guy as a neutral good person. Making someone like you isn't a bad act. It serves as a way to stop party conflict.
While RP'ing, I haven't ever in my entire life gotten my character to kill or even attack another player's character. One guy pushed a halfling I had, to the very limit by literally shooting arrows at him and constantly making slavery jokes and wouldn't stop, yet I still chose not to attack him and my guy gave his life for the entire party, even though he didn't feel hugely liked.
This guy isn't built for taking the fun away from other players. This guy is built for becoming king, controlling npc's as he sees fit and depending on what the pc's do to him, will depend on what he does back. He wants to build allies, possible friends and work alongside them to accomplish his goal, but those he sees as insignificant will be his pawns.
The people I play with always have a habit of attacking each other to some degree and I stay out of it, but the guy who's meta-gaming is the guy who in the last campaign, created a cavalier just to kill the fighter of the group. So yea, I want to combat his attitude as I am a team player and will play as a team. Still, it's not up to anyone else how I play my character.
I've got a cool concept and I'm sticking with it, using it as I see fit.
Anyway, you're right but I'm prepared for this. :)
@Xabulba - I haven't ever murdered someone in their sleep on this game and I don't intend to. The only person who I would have meta-gamed against was the guy who purposely caused problems for us (in game) and he no longer plays with us.
I have 4 backup characters ready, so as much as I want to play this guy and keep him throughout the adventure, I don't really care if he dies. It's a game. I can make more characters. :)
@Everyone else - It's not a case of not liking your answers. It's a case of me only wanting to listen to those of you who can talk to me in a civilised manner. Everyone elses opinion is irrelevant as I only have time for decent people who try to understand where I'm coming from. Manners don't cost much.
Removed some posts. Less of the condescending posts, more of good feedback and not taking it personally. One person's play style may not jive with yours, please keep that in mind.
I've not got a problem with people acting in game, but meta gaming is the issue here.
No, meta-gaming is not the issue. Rather the issue is that you're upset that the cat is out of the bag. Your DM did the right thing, as evidenced by the clearly negative response of at least one player.
A lot of people on here are unreasonable, expecting me to literally control playable characters, when I really won't be.
We're gonna come back to this...
The actual threads purpose was to discuss combating meta gaming, not my characters intentions and I don't care how people see it,
I call shenanigans!
Remember where you say "[I] literally [won't] control playable characters? Okay, because then you say...
This guy isn't built for taking the fun away from other players. This guy is built for becoming king, controlling npc's as he sees fit and depending on what the pc's do to him, will depend on what he does back.
Do you really not understand how evil this kind of thing is? Really? You're saying that as long as the other PC's tow the line of you're choosing, then they can have free will. However, should they stray from your line of thinking, you'll manipulate them for your own benefit.
That's evil, man, in its purest form no less.
Do you really not understand how evil this kind of thing is? Really? You're saying that as long as the other PC's tow the line of you're choosing, then they can have free will. However, should they stray from your line of thinking, you'll manipulate them for your own benefit.
That's evil, man.
No that's very lawful good.
No that's very lawful good.Do you really not understand how evil this kind of thing is? Really? You're saying that as long as the other PC's tow the line of you're choosing, then they can have free will. However, should they stray from your line of thinking, you'll manipulate them for your own benefit.
That's evil, man.
O.o
Not sure if troll.
O.oNo that's very lawful good.Do you really not understand how evil this kind of thing is? Really? You're saying that as long as the other PC's tow the line of you're choosing, then they can have free will. However, should they stray from your line of thinking, you'll manipulate them for your own benefit.
That's evil, man.
Channeling Rich Burlew, sorry. In OOTS controlling someone to prevent them from doing evil is still considered good.
controlling someone to prevent them from doing evil is still considered good.
Has the OP stated that? If I missed it, well okay, but my impression has been that he'll control his cohorts whenever it is deemed necessary by him (irrespective of Good or Evil etc).
OP - is your party Evil?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how we now have two skulls having an alignment debate.
"You see that dent in my left eyesocket? That was done by some guy who 'just wanted to express himself in-character', by screwing with the party!"
"Yeah? Well I ended up minus a body, because some do-gooder didn't like how the rest of us did business!"
Do you really not understand how evil this kind of thing is? Really? You're saying that as long as the other PC's tow the line of you're choosing, then they can have free will. However, should they stray from your line of thinking, you'll manipulate them for your own benefit.
That's evil, man, in its purest form no less.
"Man, why do them heroes gotta go and be evil. Making people confirm to their will and jail us or kill us when we don't. Look so maybe I raided a couple of villages, took what I want, and ruined some people I didn't like. At least I'll admit I'm a bit evil, but them heroes telling us what to do, using them pointy sticks and mojo powers to force us to do what they want, 'cept when they just straight out kill us 'cause we aint of the same thought."
@Steve Geddes - Yea, that's what I plan on doing. I figured it's no secret anymore (thanks to the GM), so I'll speak to the last guy when I can. He's the one that I think was meta gaming and saying that he'd kill my character if my guy tried anything like that.
I've not got a problem with people acting in game, but meta gaming is the issue here.
A lot of people on here are unreasonable, expecting me to literally control playable characters, when I really won't be. My guy might make them like him through spells to get himself out of certain situations that may threaten his life, but he's not going to cast spells on them to make them stand in the way as cannon fodder. It's ridiculous to throw such assumptions about, but people on here don't care what your intentions are. Even if it doesn't effect them personally, they take it personally.
The actual threads purpose was to discuss combating meta gaming, not my characters intentions and I don't care how people see it, I am going to be playing my guy as a neutral good person. Making someone like you isn't a bad act. It serves as a way to stop party conflict.
While RP'ing, I haven't ever in my entire life gotten my character to kill or even attack another player's character. One guy pushed a halfling I had, to the very limit by literally shooting arrows at him and constantly making slavery jokes and wouldn't stop, yet I still chose not to attack him and my guy gave his life for the entire party, even though he didn't feel hugely liked.
This guy isn't built for taking the fun away from other players. This guy is built for becoming king, controlling npc's as he sees fit and depending on what the pc's do to him, will depend on what he does back. He wants to build allies, possible friends and work alongside them to accomplish his goal, but those he sees as insignificant will be his pawns.
The people I play with always have a habit of attacking each other to some degree and I stay out of it, but the guy who's meta-gaming is the guy who in the last campaign,...
Well my "how to combat meta gaming" advice is pretty short:
There's absolutely nothing you can do about it other than talking and agreeing with your group that it's a bad idea (fwiw, it's not a problem if someone meta games at our table). If someone decides they're going to act on out of game information, other players can't do anything about it without joining in the metagaming, in my view.
The actual threads purpose was to discuss combating meta gaming, not my characters intentions and I don't care how people see it, I am going to be playing my guy as a neutral good person. Making someone like you isn't a bad act. It serves as a way to stop party conflict.
As for this topic, I think something should really be clarified, because I find the term "meta-gaming" to be used to mean one thing, when it actually encompasses much more.
If you look at the term, it means the layer of the game that happens above the game. It includes things like your relationship with the other players and/or GM. If I know [blank] isn't much of a team player, it's technically meta-gaming to not bother asking him if he'd like to pair up with me on a teamwork feat. It includes the emotional state that I show up to the game table with, if I had a bad day at work, it will probably impact how I play that evening.
But people use the term "meta-gaming" to mean "bad roleplaying". If I were to use out of character knowledge to make the game more fun and exciting for the group, people probably wouldn't call it "meta-gaming", they would call it "spontaneity" or "creativity". If I know the thief stole something from me out of character, but I purposely don't roll to find it, because I am interested in seeing what happens, that is "meta-gaming" but I doubt anyone would call me a "bad roleplayer" because of it.
What you really want to talk about is "bad roleplaying".
The "meta-game" is part of roleplaying. It influences why or how we make the decisions we are making. It is impossible to remove it, so a better exercise is to develop better roleplaying skills and encourage their use instead of bad roleplaying skills.
To me, bad roleplaying includes trying to beat other players or the game itself. That isn't the point, the point (for me) is to tell a cool story, have some fun fight scenes and hopefully create a few war stories that we retell in the future. So, someone who uses out of game knowledge to make a better story is doing a good thing, but someone who uses out of game knowledge to defeat other players is doing a bad thing.