You need to be very clear with all your players, to keep the in-game actions "in game," and they are not to get frustrated with them "out of game." Mature players can handle this. Immature players aren't worth playing the game with anyway. In particular, make sure that Andy understands if they catch him they might kill his character off, and make sure he's happy and okay with that.
That can only be done by letting the PLAYERS know that their Characters are being cheated. If you keep it secret it is you being immature and it can very likely kill your friendship. Because some people are very touchy about being deceived by others they call friends.
Offtopic:
In my opinion (note: This means I'm being subjective) playing a rogue so you can get more loot than others is one of the best exampley for bad roleplaying. The rogue has no more right to get more loot for his special ability (mostly rogues are the ones with high sleight of hands) than the healer or the AM barbarian. If the rogue steals from the party it is not much different to the mage casting a mind affecting spell and forcing him to hand ofer his gold. Both are using what they are good at to gain more money that belongs to someone else in the party. And both examples are effectively PVP.
I know the OP is not about a rogue player. Thats why I marked this as offtopic.
Another GMing thing - make sure Andy's PC has a chaotic alignment, likely CN or CE, to be able to do this.
There is "nothing wrong" with this if the group is aware of it and fine with it. If doing this creates a player vs player conflict and ends up with hurt feelings or a sense of personal betrayal, then there is something very, very wrong with this.
All that will work itself out once they catch him. He's a fighter for cripes sake, he's going to get caught. And when the Four catch him, they're highly likely to eliminate his PC from the party in some form or fashion. Then Andy is going to have to roll up a new character, which isn't a bad idea anyway since half his problem is probably that fighters are boring and he doesn't have a strong character concept. Then his new PC has to try to join the group. Given their previous experiences, they'll probably cast Detect Chaos on his new PC, and if he tests positive they won't let him in the group. Then he's got to make another character if he wants to keep playing, one that won't steal by rule. (alignment)
This all shakes out in the in-play dynamic, if you allow the in-play dynamic to take its course and you do so fairly to all parties.
have him buff up his perception and his bluff, maybe he finds the loot first, and then when he finds it he can lie about how much is there, make it so that the other players know it's happening and just have him do it subtly, roleplaying as a thief/jerk. i think the other players might have a chance of finding it to be funny, especially if it becomes a character trope for this character. then he goes and wastes all the money that night.
That can only be done by letting the PLAYERS know that their Characters are being cheated. If you keep it secret it is you being immature and it can very likely kill your friendship. Because some people are very touchy about being deceived by others they call friends.
You need to be very clear with all your players, to keep the in-game actions "in game," and they are not to get frustrated with them "out of game." Mature players can handle this. Immature players aren't worth playing the game with anyway. In particular, make sure that Andy understands if they catch him they might kill his character off, and make sure he's happy and okay with that.
There's no need for the Players to know until the Characters find out. It's important to let the Characters find out via secret message as well, though, so the Characters can put their heads together and plan how to deal with the thieving fighter without Andy the Player knowing that his Character has been caught. It's important to preserve the other PCs ability to get the drop on him, and Andy clearly can't/won't complain, because to do so would be hypocritical.
It is, however, important that all the Players know to be mature and keep game actions in-game, and separate from reality. That talk needs to happen no matter what when you're gaming with a new group, regardless of whether someone's planning on playing a cheater or not.
In the end, Andy is doing something silly for his character to do, since he's going to get caught. And in the end, the other players having the ability to punish Andy's character will be fun for them.
I'm glad I don't have to play with someone like beej67. If he thinks that deceiving/cheating his so called friends and calling that mature is just outright bad/despicable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad I don't have to play with someone like beej67. If he thinks that deceiving/cheating his so called friends and calling that mature is just outright bad/despicable.
I happen to be able to differentiate between characters and players. I'm aware that I'm not a gnome magician. I'm a guy looking in on an evolving story. Sometimes things like this happen in stories.
When you're acting, do you get pissed off if your character dies? No.
When you're war gaming, do you get pissed off if your army is beaten by the other army? No.
When you're watching a TV show, do you get pissed off if your favorite character gets killed? No.
Roleplaying is TV Wargame Acting.
I've played in games where one PC isn't actually a PC at all, he's an NPC plant and his "player" is actually a co-GM. None of the other players knew. What's the difference? There is none.
That this guy's gaming group are fairly new players is actually probably better, because they probably don't have all the Nerded up Pretend To Be My Character thing going on. If they're mature, and they understand they're playing out a story, this could just be a memorable part of the story.
I'm glad I don't have to play with someone like beej67. If he thinks that deceiving/cheating his so called friends and calling that mature is just outright bad/despicable.I happen to be able to differentiate between characters and players. I'm aware that I'm not a gnome magician. I'm a guy looking in on an evolving story. Sometimes things like this happen in stories.
When you're acting, do you get pissed off if your character dies? No.
When you're war gaming, do you get pissed off if your army is beaten by the other army? No.
When you're watching a TV show, do you get pissed off if your favorite character gets killed? No.
Roleplaying is TV Wargame Acting.
I've played in games where one PC isn't actually a PC at all, he's an NPC plant and his "player" is actually a co-GM. None of the other players knew. What's the difference? There is none.
That this guy's gaming group are fairly new players is actually probably better, because they probably don't have all the Nerded up Pretend To Be My Character thing going on. If they're mature, and they understand they're playing out a story, this could just be a memorable part of the story.
Yes, but you are not everyone else, so please respect that a lot of people think otherwise than you. The vast majority, I'd say from the sheer volume of experienced players/GMs in this thread alone, who are very clear how this situation can end up.
I'm glad I don't have to play with someone like beej67. If he thinks that deceiving/cheating his so called friends and calling that mature is just outright bad/despicable.I happen to be able to differentiate between characters and players. I'm aware that I'm not a gnome magician. I'm a guy looking in on an evolving story. Sometimes things like this happen in stories.
When you're acting, do you get pissed off if your character dies? No.
When you're war gaming, do you get pissed off if your army is beaten by the other army? No.
When you're watching a TV show, do you get pissed off if your favorite character gets killed? No.
Roleplaying is TV Wargame Acting.
I've played in games where one PC isn't actually a PC at all, he's an NPC plant and his "player" is actually a co-GM. None of the other players knew. What's the difference? There is none.
That this guy's gaming group are fairly new players is actually probably better, because they probably don't have all the Nerded up Pretend To Be My Character thing going on. If they're mature, and they understand they're playing out a story, this could just be a memorable part of the story.
To summarize: "I like it, and think it's cool, so therefore it's OK. I don't really care if the vast majority of people think it's rat bastard behavior and might get offended or upset by it. That's their problem."
OK.
If Andy wants more loot tell him to pick-pocket the locals, not the PC's. If he gets caught, which will happen, he can deal with jail.
Who is going to want to party with someone who wants to steal off them? No one, that's who.
I hate people that want to play thieves when it's directed at the other players. Rogue - not thief!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread someone posted something relevant to this discussion. It went something like this:
"Why are you choosing to be a dick?"
"Au contraire! I'm not being a dick, my CHARACTER is being a dick."
"Choosing to play a character that is a dick is being a dick."
For added chaos: Let the other players in on this when "Andy" isn't around. Tell them that the first perception check they pass over his, they can take their loot back and cut off his hands for stealing :)
Seriously, though, don't do it, bro, its a trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread someone posted something relevant to this discussion. It went something like this:
"Why are you choosing to be a dick?"
"Au contraire! I'm not being a dick, my CHARACTER is being a dick."
"Choosing to play a character that is a dick is being a dick."
Yep, that was me, but I think I used the term "Richard' instead of "dick" .
And here’s the main reason why this can’t be solved IC- yes, they find out and boot or kill his thieving PC out. So he brings in another, who does it again or kills them all in their sleep.
This needs to be said:
Pathfinder is not WoW.
You're right.
That's 4th Edition's job.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you're watching a TV show, do you get pissed off if your favorite character gets killed?
Of course I do. That was my FAVORITE CHARACTER! Damn you, Joss Whedon!
his rogue sounds like he's Neutral evil. but he's a rogue, that's what rogues do. They steal. STEAL. if you yourself as a GM don't like that a rogue is actually acting like a rogue in the party, then why the heck offer it to play. or at least ask him to be a GOOD rogue. steal from the rich give to the poor kinda deal.
his rogue sounds like he's Neutral evil. but he's a rogue, that's what rogues do. They steal. STEAL. if you yourself as a GM don't like that a rogue is actually acting like a rogue in the party, then why the heck offer it to play. or at least ask him to be a GOOD rogue. steal from the rich give to the poor kinda deal.
This is simply not true. This attitude is a holdover from the early days of RPGs when "rogues" were called "thieves" which was not actually a reference to stealing, it was a reference to Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit" and Bilbo did NOT steal.
Rogues are "sneaky skill monkeys" not "backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmongers who slobber all over themselves at the mention of treasure."
Yes, you can choose to play a rogue that way, or a wizard for that matter. But other than misplaced convention there's no reason a rogue should be considered more likely to be a thief than a witch or magus or any other class (except perhaps paladin, which you would expect NOT to be a thief).
I think the problem here is a lot of people posting are actually meta-gaming in regards to this particular issue.
There was a comment above about playing a Richard character and that player being a Richard in turn. I have to say this depends entirely on the people in the group and a lot of the posters here seem to be pretty jaded.
Things came to a head unexpectedly in-game, where the character was outed by a demonic creature during the final mission. This resulted in the loss of that PC to the creature who wanted the character as payment to pass by. The CN character in the group who had issues with the Richard character rolled the dice to see if he'd offer the Richard to the creature. It ended up with the creature taking the Richard, then the Richard's follower challenged the CN character to a fight, which he got absolutely crushed by the CN character. Everyone loved it, it was an epic situation that no one expected to happen. A great group of mature players can pull things like this off.
I do however, agree that if the player wants to play a character who is a sneaky thief, he needs to roll one up and play it all in-character. Which could result in the PC's dead and the player having to roll up a new character as soon as he's caught skimming off the top. This would be good role playing.
This is simply not true. This attitude is a holdover from the early days of RPGs when "rogues" were called "thieves" which was not actually a reference to stealing, it was a reference to Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit" and Bilbo did NOT steal.Rogues are "sneaky skill monkeys" not "backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmongers who slobber all over themselves at the mention of treasure."
Yes, you can choose to play a rogue that way, or a wizard for that matter. But other than misplaced convention there's no reason a rogue should be considered more likely to be a thief than a witch or magus or any other class (except perhaps paladin, which you would expect NOT to be a thief).
Of course you can play the rogue as if he weren't a thief... however the connotation of rogue is little different from the connotation of thief in 1st edition and Bilbo was hired as a burglar and, in two instances in The Hobbit, it was clear that stealing away with something was part of the job. So I don't think we should pretend that a rogue implies the PC is simply a sneaky skill monkey. The name connotes more and it's OK for people to assume that, if they choose to do so.
The trouble here, fundamentally, is that one player is trying to play a game in which the other players may not wish to participate. We don't really know. The GM would be well-advised to determine if that sort of play is OK with the other players before proceeding with the 5th player's wishes.
I think the problem here is a lot of people posting are actually meta-gaming in regards to this particular issue.
There was a comment above about playing a Richard character and that player being a Richard in turn. I have to say this depends entirely on the people in the group and a lot of the posters here seem to be pretty jaded.
** spoiler omitted **
I do however, agree that if the player wants to play a character who is a sneaky thief, he needs to roll one up and play it all in-character. Which could result in the PC's dead and the player having to roll up a new character as soon as he's caught skimming off the top. This would be good role playing.
I must be one of those "jaded" players you refer to.
I have no desire to deal in character or out with the drama and potential interpersonal consequences of an in-party PvP with my character killing or being killed by another player character.
That's not what I signed up to do when I decided to play the game.
I understand that there are some few people who get off on that sort of thing. My experience, jaded as it might be, is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to play that way. It is stressful, takes time away from the supposed actual goals and plot of the game and has far too much potential for wrecking personal relationships.
|
He is not even a Rogue.
He is a Fighter, and seems to be stuck in that online dickwad mode that works with MMORPGs, but not in Tabletop Gaming.
He is not sitting in tighty-whiteys behind his computer screen, drinking Mountain Dew, laughing at "noobs"(I hope not), but at a social gathering, and there is certain level of social etiquette that is expected from all those involved.
This needs to be explained to the player.
He may not even know better, as his current behavior may be all he knows.
He needs to know that if he wants to have the WoW experience, then he should play WoW, and this is a new, and different experience.
|
I'm glad I don't have to play with someone like beej67. If he thinks that deceiving/cheating his so called friends and calling that mature is just outright bad/despicable.I happen to be able to differentiate between characters and players. I'm aware that I'm not a gnome magician. I'm a guy looking in on an evolving story. Sometimes things like this happen in stories.
When you're acting, do you get pissed off if your character dies? No.
When you're war gaming, do you get pissed off if your army is beaten by the other army? No.
When you're watching a TV show, do you get pissed off if your favorite character gets killed? No.
Roleplaying is TV Wargame Acting.
I've played in games where one PC isn't actually a PC at all, he's an NPC plant and his "player" is actually a co-GM. None of the other players knew. What's the difference? There is none.
That this guy's gaming group are fairly new players is actually probably better, because they probably don't have all the Nerded up Pretend To Be My Character thing going on. If they're mature, and they understand they're playing out a story, this could just be a memorable part of the story.
Most people are rather invested in their characters. Having someone you know and like have their character be a complete dick to your character, such as stealing from or murdering your character, without your permission or even knowledge, is going to generate hard feelings in 99% of cases.
If anything, your whole argument is further proof why the OP shouldn't allow this. "I'm bored, so I demand more of everything than anyone else" is sure as hell not a valid argument anywhere in TTRPGs.
There is plenty of room for fantastic roleplaying interaction because of this, but ONLY IF everyone at the table is aware and willing to go along with it. If my friends walked in and said "Sorry, dude, we wiped the save game on <Insert Video Game from my childhood here>," I'd get understandably upset with them. This is something very much along those lines.
I think the problem here is a lot of people posting are actually meta-gaming in regards to this particular issue.
There was a comment above about playing a Richard character and that player being a Richard in turn. I have to say this depends entirely on the people in the group and a lot of the posters here seem to be pretty jaded.
** spoiler omitted **
I do however, agree that if the player wants to play a character who is a sneaky thief, he needs to roll one up and play it all in-character. Which could result in the PC's dead and the player having to roll up a new character as soon as he's caught skimming off the top. This would be good role playing.
I must be one of those "jaded" players you refer to.
I have no desire to deal in character or out with the drama and potential interpersonal consequences of an in-party PvP with my character killing or being killed by another player character.
That's not what I signed up to do when I decided to play the game.
I understand that there are some few people who get off on that sort of thing. My experience, jaded as it might be, is that the vast majority of gamers don't want to play that way. It is stressful, takes time away from the supposed actual goals and plot of the game and has far too much potential for wrecking personal relationships.
Hey that's well within your right, if you don't want to play in that kind of situation that's up to you, but other people can and do like the intra-party intrigue and can do it w/ little to no PVP or drama.
Like I said, it takes a good group of mature players to pull it off and not all groups are full of mature players as we all know.
It wasn't that "other people think different", it is that the poster he quoted basically outright attacked him for him and his friends enjoying what they do
Yes, but you are not everyone else, so please respect that a lot of people think otherwise than you. The vast majority, I'd say from the sheer volume of experienced players/GMs in this thread alone, who are very clear how this situation can end up.
Sorry, that's not right. This thread is specifically from a GM seeking advice, and the title of the thread makes it clear that the GM in question is already convinced that he's going to hack off someone, regardless. The context isn't about the rare group that enjoys backstabbing player vs player games. The context is about what to advise a GM who has already voiced a concern that his group probably doesn't want to play that way, but a SINGLE PLAYER does. Thus the advice to be wary of those who would say "oh, your group should play that way."
Rogues are..(blah)..not "backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmongers who slobber all over themselves at the mention of treasure."
um what you said is what a rogue is all of it. they are sneaky, backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmonger, skill monkeys that do jizz themselves when there's treasure.
But on the side note, have that douche just have a RP with the other party members to see if he can skim the gold loot for "services" like hey Lock picking this door or scouting the area alone for enemies and trap finding.
Haha he's a fighter! even better! his mind set = I'm the tank listen to me I get more gold blah blah blah. (love wow players cause I am a wow player and a rogue at that haha)
but yeah if he's just being a douche tell him to clean up his act alittle or he'll only play one shots (if lucky).
|
|
Rogues are..(blah)..not "backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmongers who slobber all over themselves at the mention of treasure."
um what you said is what a rogue is all of it. they are sneaky, backstabbing, duplicitous, greedmonger, skill monkeys that do j&!z themselves when there's treasure.
But on the side note, have that douche just have a RP with the other party members to see if he can skim the gold loot for "services" like hey Lock picking this door or scouting the area alone for enemies and trap finding.
Uh, no. Rogues CAN be that, but are not required to be in any way, shape or form.
Bilbo was the perfect example.
@beej67
IF the players agree to that kind of play, because most would be able to handle it sure but most would not like it, and i for one play this game because i like it.
There are only a few game design decisions made by Gary Gygax that were as poorly conceived and have had as much negative game play impact as his decision to call the sneaky skill monkey class "Thief" in the first releases of D&D. It has caused an entire gaming community to adopt assumptions that do nothing but create in-game problems while the player snarks "but they used to be called 'thieves' buddy!"
And again, from a role playing perspective, playing a rogue as a duplicitous back-stabbing party-stealing dickhead is kindergarten level role playing anyway. I can't help but roll my eyes and sigh every time I encounter it. Especially when the player involved thinks it's the coolest concept ever.
... who are pretty mature guys who love plot twists in their pathfinder
Sigh... How many times are we going to hear that it's "mature" to have a player run a character that acts like a total richardhead?
I have a slightly different definition of "maturity" I suppose. That definition includes things like "I think I'll avoid deliberately doing things that I know are likely to hack off my friends."
But I suppose it's all relative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's just a game bro.
... who are pretty mature guys who love plot twists in their pathfinderSigh... How many times are we going to hear that it's "mature" to have a player run a character that acts like a total richardhead?
I have a slightly different definition of "maturity" I suppose. That definition includes things like "I think I'll avoid deliberately doing things that I know are likely to hack off my friends."
But I suppose it's all relative.
Note that I play with professionals in the age range 40-60 and we don’t do that, and our definition of mature is about the same are yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's just a game bro.
It's a social event where people gather to get together and have fun. People who pursue their own selfish desires at the expense of other people in any social gathering are engaging in impolite behavior. Whether it's a dinner party or "just a game bro".
|
|
... who are pretty mature guys who love plot twists in their pathfinderSigh... How many times are we going to hear that it's "mature" to have a player run a character that acts like a total richardhead?
I have a slightly different definition of "maturity" I suppose. That definition includes things like "I think I'll avoid deliberately doing things that I know are likely to hack off my friends."
But I suppose it's all relative.
I imagine it's much the same as the people who argue that the chinese cartoons they watch are deep and meaningful because of psuedo-psychological tripe, tits and people dying in horrific manners. I mean, I watch those, too, but Madoka is no Mona Lisa, for example.
Being mature, in this case, would actually be saying, "Hey guys, my character wants to try and skim some gold/loot off the top, you cool if I roll sleight of hand every time we split loot, and you guys roll perception to try and catch me?" and letting every decide if they're okay with that or not. That's actual maturity. It's certainly not claiming that if one of your buddies has been openly having his character act subversively towards yours and the rest of your party's characters, you go "haha ya got me, Jim!" because that doesn't happen in the vast majority of cases.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's just a game bro.
And the award for least convincing argument ever goes to you.
This is honestly the absolute worst excuse for "hey guys, I'm going to act like a dick" in the whole world. If someone had ever tried to justify anything like this with such an trite statement, I would gladly escort them to the door.
It's not an argument. It's a game. If your friends know you just wanted to try a character like that once then let em, give em some reactionary events, use your head. if he gets mad that he was singled out well then that's his fault for not coming to a party agreement or what not. God you people judge to quickly.
Yes, but you are not everyone else, so please respect that a lot of people think otherwise than you. The vast majority, I'd say from the sheer volume of experienced players/GMs in this thread alone, who are very clear how this situation can end up.
I do realize this, and I respect Umbranus's position. Further, I wouldn't cause trouble at his gaming table if I was invited to participate. But I do take umbrage with his characterization that I'm "despicable" because I can tell between Characters and Players in a Game.
I also don't think it's fair to characterize Alex in the way that so many have in this thread. He's not stealing from the party to become more powerful than the other characters. He's playing a character who wants to piss money away on booze and whores. That's very definitively *role* playing, guys. That's obviously something the *character* has an interest in, since the *player* isn't getting drunk and bringing hookers over to the game.
This wouldn't be the first time the thief took stuff from the loot. I mean it's almost clique.
But it sounds like this guy is a fighter?
with sleight of hand? And an armor check penalty?
the *player* isn't getting drunk and bringing hookers over to the game.
Interesting idea.........
And here’s the main reason why this can’t be solved IC- yes, they find out and boot or kill his thieving PC out. So he brings in another, who does it again or kills them all in their sleep.
Bullhockey. There's this spell, called "Detect Chaos."
Most people are rather invested in their characters. Having someone you know and like have their character be a complete dick to your character, such as stealing from or murdering your character, without your permission or even knowledge, is going to generate hard feelings in 99% of cases.
(...)
There is plenty of room for fantastic roleplaying interaction because of this, but ONLY IF everyone at the table is aware and willing to go along with it. If my friends walked in and said "Sorry, dude, we wiped the save game on <Insert Video Game from my childhood here>," I'd get understandably upset with...
1) They're new players with low level characters who've played 3 sessions.
2) The guy is playing a fighter asking to do slight of hand checks. He'll only get away with it for half a gaming session, and then it's Alex who's going to have to make another character, not the rest of the group.
I also don't think it's fair to characterize Alex in the way that so many have in this thread. He's not stealing from the party to become more powerful than the other characters. He's playing a character who wants to piss money away on booze and whores. That's very definitively *role* playing, guys. That's obviously something the *character* has an interest in, since the *player* isn't getting drunk and bringing hookers over to the game.
and the winner for pointing out the center on this issue is this guy.
Sorry, that's not right. This thread is specifically from a GM seeking advice, and the title of the thread makes it clear that the GM in question is already convinced that he's going to hack off someone, regardless. The context isn't about the rare group that enjoys backstabbing player vs player games. The context is about what to advise a GM who has already voiced a concern that his group probably doesn't want to play that way, but a SINGLE PLAYER does. Thus the advice to be wary of those who would say "oh, your group should play that way."
And I disagree vehemently with your assessment that someone must be hacked off in this situation. I explain why above. If the GM lets things progress naturally, Alex's PC will get caught. If the GM does it right, he will let the other players know what they saw without cluing Alex's PC in, at which time the other PCs can decide to do whatever they'd like to do, which will end poorly for Alex's PC, not them. And Alex has already expressed an interest in inter-party conflict, so he can't rightfully complain when it happens.
As long as the situation is handled properly in-game by the GM, it plays itself out nicely without any sort of "GM Intervention" necessary. After Alex's PC gets caught, and either dumped from the group, killed, or jailed, he either decides he doesn't want to continue playing, or he makes a cooperative PC. And Pathfinder has an Alignment System where cooperation is a function of game mechanics that can be tested with spells. So when the meet Alex's next PC walking down the road, they know in advance if he's prone to stealing, or murder, and can choose whether to let the next PC in or not.
It's a fairly benign situation, overall, which will play out in a pretty obvious way, and as long as the GM is fair nobody should get their panties in a twist.
|
|
It's not an argument. It's a game. If your friends know you just wanted to try a character like that once then let em, give em some reactionary events, use your head. if he gets mad that he was singled out well then that's his fault for not coming to a party agreement or what not. God you people judge to quickly.
You walk into a discussion about how this is a bad thing and then try to cover your argument that it's not okay to play rogues as anything but dickass thieves as "it's just a game bro." You're being judged for not only completely missing the point, but trying to argue that you somehow haven't missed the point.
In this game, if you're going to have your character act like a douchebag, you better okay it with your buddies first. I'm playing in another PbP game where everyone has arisen as undead, and I made everyone aware that my once-happy-go-lucky mercenary has become dickass warmonger who intends to becomea graveknight, and was going to be like that for the whole game. I then proceeded to make sure that they were okay with that before I decided to go through with that, and so far it's going beautifully. Tons of great RP is happening, and not a single hard feeling to go around.
But if I had sat down and said "this is the jerkass murderhobo character I am going to play, and I don't give a damn what any of you think about it," I would be doing it wrong. And that is pretty much what you suggested.