| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a perfectly fine question to ask here, although the answer may not suit you. What it comes down to is that your fellow players, not the characters, are cheating you. It can only be solved by talking with them. It's frankly not different from playing Monopoly and giving yourself an extra $100 when no one is looking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would frustrate me, too. Equipment is a big part of D&D (though I often wish it wasn't, as I hate the feeling that it's the gear that's special, not my character). If someone is depriving you of cash, and therefore equipment, they're kind of depriving you of a part of the gaming experience. So while on one hand this is a pretty Neutral Evil thing to do in character, out of character it's kinda dickish.
I was in a similar situation once with a party that included a fairly openly evil Tiefling character. We, the players, were going out of our way to make excuses for ourselves about why we would continue to tolerate and even assist this guy because we all want to play D&D and it's no fun if we're constantly fighting amongst ourselves, or if we simply kick a character out of the group. However, the Tiefling's player took advantage of this fact, stealing from the party and putting the team at risk for his own gain, knowing full-well that we were essentially forced to put up with it. And we did put up with it, but I was not sorry when the game ended.
For that reason, I try to dissuade this sort of thing, while also encouraging my players to contact me if they ever feel out of sorts about anything that's going on. They can email me or text me or whatever in private if they're shy about it; I completely understand. I want everyone to feel comfortable and excited, and to have fun at the table.
I suggest talking to the player first, but try to stay away from accusations and instead be constructive and forward-looking. Evil characters don't have to be evil all the time; they can have friends who they treat with respect. Ask if perhaps from here on out he could go easy on the greed so that you can get that [insert magic item here] that you've been saving up for. You can always appeal to the fact that having well-equipped allies doing his dirty work for him is also a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never allow that behavior (stealing from the party) in games I run, and I avoid playing in games where it is allowed.
|
Depends.
If I found out and I was good alligned I would kick up a fuss and demand the Goblin leave. If I was neutral I'd threaten to kill him if I ever saw him again. If I was evil I would kill him and take his stuff.
Either way you are setting yourself up for PvP. If you are prepared to deal with that then go ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's the Goblin, Fall. I think the Drow is the one not sharing.
I never allow that behavior (stealing from the party) in games I run, and I avoid playing in games where it is allowed.
This. Very much this. While I get RP, and even encourage antagonistic RP, you can't screw players over mechanically (which is what the Rogue is doing).
If I were a GM, I would allow the player to play his character, but being a drow, he would always get less on the exchange rate than a human or other race would get. He would turn in more gems, but would get the same gold (and thus equipment) as everyone else.
You don't need that solution. Talk to the other players that got cheated in private, make sure they are on board with you, THEN confront the thieving player. S/he either gets to change his or her tune, or reroll. If they pull the stunt again, they can look for a new gaming group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awright. There is a solution to this.
First, have a chat with your DM. This is something he/she should have prevented.
The way I handle interactions with PC's is like this:
First off, all treasure of any kind, except one use items, are automatically sold for half price. This amount is called the kitty. Each player gets an equal share. If the party finds an item that one of them wants to keep, all that player must do is pay up half the base gp cost, which compensates the other players automatically.
Anyone found to treat other PC's in any fashion other than what a LG would, automatically gets nailed with a lightning bolt out of the blue (death, make a new damned character and LIKE it). I don't tolerate swiping from fellow PC's, etc. That also goes for finding treasure and not reporting it. Alignment therefore becomes a reflection of how you treat NPC's, and must be maintained or you shift back to Neutral. No Evil alignments are allowed, because to play them accurately you must hose over your fellow PC's eventually. That creates Player versus Player, and I will not tolerate that.
Interestingly, I find that this promotes players to give each other solid favors now and then, sharing or generally keeping each other out of a jam. I even give small bennies to people who bring snacks and pop to the group for everyone.
Be honest with you, if this situation was happening for real, most people would immediately boot the thief, or even get Biblical on their butts. The fact that it happens in game gives some insulation to extreme reactions, but doesn't eliminate backlash entirely.
If I were a GM, I would allow the player to play his character, but being a drow, he would always get less on the exchange rate than a human or other race would get. He would turn in more gems, but would get the same gold (and thus equipment) as everyone else.
Nope. This encourages less perceptive players to continue their poor behavior. Bad idea. This is a passive aggressive means to deal with difficulties, and as such is unhealthy. Better to be assertive and deal with it.
As for Drow, it's simple. NPC's will always react a step or two worse to players of Evilly aligned races. Run it as that, which means the consequences are more varied and potentially far worse than merely being outed some gold.
For example, recently the goblin Rogue in my party found he wouldn't be served at a Human bar. Being CN, he trundled off to the local tannery, and got some of that horrid gray goo that results as a waste product. He returned to the bar, and proceeded to cause a riot, plastering everyone inside, ESPECIALLY the barkeep, with some of the most foul substances known to Man.
Now, in that bar was the future party elf Wizard, who initially responded with nonlethal force, but switched to lethal. Later on, I reprimanded the player, saying that the goblin was using purely nonlethal (but horribly disgusting) force. In an effort to stop this, the new party Cleric, being of the Forgotten Realms setting's sex deity (Sharess), decided to harass the Wizard by humping her leg. Meanwhile, the Rogue had been captured by the Fighter, and tossed into a backpack. He chewed his way out of it whilst in a bear hug by ye old Fighter, only to burst out into a severe laughing fit at the sight of a fully armored prettyboy cleric humping the leg of the elven wizard. Rolled a 1 on his Will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of character, I have a problem with this sort of behavior. But, if the player tried to make a "that's what character would do" sort of argument, I think I'd accept it. Then, as soon as my character found out about it, I'd kill the other character. If you have the right to steal from the party, I have a right to kill you. Seems fair?
As a DM, I wouldn't "okay" a thief concept like that unless the player swore they wouldn't steal from the party. It's a foolish presumption that all rogues are thieving dicks that pilfer loot from the group. Nonsense, really!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually let it be known that even though I allow other alignments in my games that the players are expected to work together to achieve a final goal and not compete against each other.
Without such a predetermined set of rules in your game, I would try to establish them and let it be known that you find it rude. Because honestly if they want to get THAT into character, you could start experimenting on the rogue when he sleeps, since I could defiantly see a Goblin Alchemist doing that, even if he did it with the purest intentions of providing him with an anti-horse pheromones to keep them pesky beasts away. Or "borrowing" his neat little thieves tools because you needed a replacement acid stirrer. The excuse that its "My Character" can go both ways.
Precisely what Nimon said. It's disruptive behavior because you're putting your fun first (not you, as in the OP; you - generally; as in, the thief). The game is a collaboration, which means everyone's fun is equally important. Now, the best way to avoid these issues, I feel, is to have everyone sit down before the game and work out character concepts / alignments / backgrounds so that nobody's character is at odds with another. It's sort of the responsibility of the DM to make sure this happens. If he allows a necromancer and a paladin into the same party, for example, he's opened all manner of doors and he should be ready for what awaits him (and the party). Any problems that occur are his fault at that point.
Even Evil people realise it's often counter to their long term interest to shaft their friends.
He's being pretty short sighted, and frankly he should either get on board or find that one fine day the party simply throws him under the bus and leaves him for dead/abandons him to save their own skin.
Evil works in parties, but only if they are ORGANISED crime based, not disorganised FFA every-man-for-himself anarchy.
Shifty has a point.
I suspect the group would run a lot smoother if the NE drow rogue/assassin were to become lawful. LE works pretty well in a group of non-evil characters so long as he or she "follows the rules" so to speak.
LE is usually quite easy o get along with, even NE with its rather selfish viewpoint can see the point in long term survivability and profitability, Chaotics are usually the hardest.
That usually applies to CG/CN/CE just as equally :p
True that. I am automatically suspicious of any CN characters I am confronted with, because usually they're just CE in disguise.
90% of the time that bears out to be pretty much spot on :)
Without such a predetermined set of rules in your game, I would try to establish them and let it be known that you find it rude. Because honestly if they want to get THAT into character, you could start experimenting on the rogue when he sleeps, since I could defiantly see a Goblin Alchemist doing that, even if he did it with the purest intentions of providing him with an anti-horse pheromones to keep them pesky beasts away. Or "borrowing" his neat little thieves tools because you needed a replacement acid stirrer. The excuse that its "My Character" can go both ways.
While funny in the short term, in the long run this will create an endless series of revenge acts. If this twit is petty enough to steal from the party, he's petty enough to take revenge. You sure it's still a good idea?
|
|
While funny in the short term, in the long run this will create an endless series of revenge acts. If this twit is petty enough to steal from the party, he's petty enough to take revenge. You sure it's still a good idea?
Without such a predetermined set of rules in your game, I would try to establish them and let it be known that you find it rude. Because honestly if they want to get THAT into character, you could start experimenting on the rogue when he sleeps, since I could defiantly see a Goblin Alchemist doing that, even if he did it with the purest intentions of providing him with an anti-horse pheromones to keep them pesky beasts away. Or "borrowing" his neat little thieves tools because you needed a replacement acid stirrer. The excuse that its "My Character" can go both ways.
Its not a good idea, if you read my entire post you would see that I never said it was. I was giving a comical version of what it would be like if he did the same thing.
The problem is when it comes to loot when he finds something he will only share part of it.
Now I understand its the nature of the character to do such things but is it in the spirit of the game to basically screw over the other characters like this?
That depends on whether everyone is cool with this. Some players are fine with games where you are out for yourselves and if that hurts the rest of the party, their problem. Some players are NOT, and it's a social game. One of the attractions of RPGs to some is that there are no 'winners' or 'losers', so introducing them can offend. Some call this good role-playing, some call it bad gamesmanship.
Ultimately, this should be discussed with everyone if it is going to cause a problem. If ANYONE is not happy with it, it's probably not a good idea to do it. Parties have a tough enough time without worrying about one of their own stabbing them in the back (rhetorically as well as practically - withholding the item that the fighter needs to defeat the BBEG because you want the gold value of it is still stabbing the party in the back).
It's also known as a part of the "Douche Player Problem", which goes something like this:
Player 1: "You are douche for ****ing us all over like that."
Player 2: "No, I'm only doing what my character would do!"
Player 1: "Then you are a douche for choosing to play a douche."
Player 2: "You're spoiling my fun!"
Player 1, 3 & 4: "You spoiled OUR fun!"
Just remember the only wrongbadfun is that which stops others having fun.
My advice is rather simple talk to the player out of game about. Make it clear it is ruining your in game fun. Don't get angry...don't get all riled up bu the other posters here. Maybe he was a game where this was the norm..or it could be this the norm for this game.
See if you can work it out.
If not discuss it with the GM and or the other players see what they think. If the group agrees with you..or the other way around just accept that your play styles may differ.
My personal rule if I was going to do this I clear it out of game with the other players. A example of this is in Forggoten Realms Campaign my character had a feat that allowed her to sell the stuff at 75% instead of half...so I naturally sold the stuff the party found. My character would take a cut. I told everybody what I was doing and no body objected to it(funnily enough I that character was probably the least geared up character in the group I she spent alot of money building a mercantile company and funding a revolt vs the forces that took over her country).
I would probably handle your 'finder's fee' the same way. IE ask out of game first.
Rogue steals from the party.
Rogue is Neutral Evil.
This checks out.
Yeah, that's pretty much why you don't want evil PCs in the party. Your good character SHOULD have problems working with him.
+1.
Is he required to make Bluff checks every time he says he only found X and keeps Y and Z to himself? He's lying, and everyone else in the group should get a Sense Motive to be able to tell.
This balances out attempts to hoard in-character. If he wants to hoard things, he runs the risk of being found out and ostracized, just like if he were really doing it. The same things goes for evil characters who violently rob NPCs in shops and such things. It only becomes a problem if the player is never given consequences by the GM.
Then again, people at my table are pretty roleplaying-intensive, so things done in character are simply that, and no ones takes it away from the table. Each group is different. If your group approaches it more as game than roleplaying, stealing from the party could be seen differently.
Nope. This encourages less perceptive players to continue their poor behavior. Bad idea. This is a passive aggressive means to deal with difficulties, and as such is unhealthy. Better to be assertive and deal with it.
If I were a GM, I would allow the player to play his character, but being a drow, he would always get less on the exchange rate than a human or other race would get. He would turn in more gems, but would get the same gold (and thus equipment) as everyone else.
You misunderstand, there is no need to be perceptive, everyone will know what's going on. Not to mention if a behavior has no impact, how can it be considered poor? Your way forces a player to role-play the way you think it should be done. My way, everyone gets to play their characters their way, without screwing anyone mechanically.
You misunderstand, there is no need to be perceptive, everyone will know what's going on. Not to mention if a behavior has no impact, how can it be considered poor? Your way forces a player to role-play the way you think it should be done. My way, everyone gets to play their characters their way, without screwing anyone mechanically.Nope. This encourages less perceptive players to continue their poor behavior. Bad idea. This is a passive aggressive means to deal with difficulties, and as such is unhealthy. Better to be assertive and deal with it.
If I were a GM, I would allow the player to play his character, but being a drow, he would always get less on the exchange rate than a human or other race would get. He would turn in more gems, but would get the same gold (and thus equipment) as everyone else.
But what if the character just decides he needs MORE treasure in order to get more money than everyone else. He steals as much or more form the party and tries to find ways to swindle more out of any NPCs they come across. If he trades in more gems relative to the amount the rest of the party has and still gets the same amount as last time, he's going to confront you about it anyway.
But what if the character just decides he needs MORE treasure in order to get more money than everyone else. He steals as much or more form the party and tries to find ways to swindle more out of any NPCs they come across. If he trades in more gems relative to the amount the rest of the party has and still gets the same amount as last time, he's going to confront you about it anyway.
And what if the Mongols invade Nevada and outlaw role playing games, will this make the Paladin fall? Or to put it another way, I can't solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Let me make this perfectly clear: As a GM I am not keeping anything a secret. The players are perfectly aware of what I am doing and why. Role-playing the way they want without changing mechanics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would raise the issue with the group as a whole something like this:
"Hi everyone, can I discuss something with the group please? Cool, I can see that Dave is playing up the personality of his Drow Rogue by keeping some of the loot he finds to himself and lying to the party about it. In game I can see that may be exactly what his character would do, but out of game I as a player have a bit of an issue with it.
"Now if everyone else is cool with it, and the GM takes the lower level of wealth we are effectively receiving into account, I guess I will go along with it.
"But if its an issue with some of you other players maybe we could ask you Dave to alter the way your character acts a little - lets say your character realises he may be best not risking alienating the party to which he has to entrust his life every fight. Maybe then he chooses not to steal from his party, just others?
"However if everyone is cool with Dave's character effectively stealing from the party because that is what his character would do, is everyone cool with in game consequences when my and the other players' characters find out and also act in character?
"Dave are you okay with the possible outcome that the rest of the party may decide to not want to adventure with your character and so the GM may ask you to make another character? Or depending on how it all comes out is everyone okay with PC versus PC combat and potential death?
"GM, if it comes out in game, and the rest of the party are happy to allow Dave's character to remain with the party, would it screw anything up if I had my character leave and make a new one better suited to the group?"
I had a similar situation with one player threatening to kill a bound prisoner, I made it clear that I would be willing to give up my current character if he was in the minority of having an in game issue with this, and create a new character better suited for such a ruthless party. In the end the other player toned down his blood thirsty nature.
Right, DigitalMage this is an excellent way of handling it.
OP, he’s stealing from the party. He’s not being a “little bit of a dick “ he’s a full out John Holmes. By stealing from you, he reduces your survivability.
It’s absolutely the opposite of the “spirit of the game. Talk to your DM and the other players. This needs to be settled OOC, not IC.
It’s not the PC who is stealing, it’s the player. Yeah, there’s the old and bogus ‘that’s what the character would do argument”- but who made the character that way? He choose to play a “Richard”.
This is one reason why mixed alignment parties are not a good idea.
I've got to confess that I don't get the whole, "No evil characters, ever!!!" thing. Maybe its just that my group is comprised of people who are all nearly 30 or older, but we've got various alignments all working together. Some prefer to play heroes and others prefer antiheroes and scoundrels, but we make our characters with an eye for some modicum of group cohesion and go from there.
The way I see it, it's the disruptive "John Holmes" who comes to the game that's the problem. Whether he's playing lawful good, chaotic neutral or some variant of evil, he's still going to be playing some version of a king-sized tool and doing his level best to muck up the kind of game that the other players want to play.
I really think it depends on the group. I really like the suggestion that DigitalMage suggested with the dialogue between the players and GM.
A player who wants to play an evil rogue just to be a Richard isn't someone I like playing with, but depending on the group and maturity of the players you can have people playing all different kinds of alignments. This can create great role playing scenarios between the characters as long as they don't just go to the pvp scenario or threaten to kill each other the first chance they get. PC's evolve just like people and personalities can change to reflect this.
Personally, I don't like to play evil characters who do things like the rogue in the OP campaign is doing and I don't like it when people do it to me so this has situation needs to have a resolution where everyone is happy. Someone else suggested that the rogue go around and steal from everyone else and feel that sense of companionship with his party where he will share equally with them and them alone while they adventure together, but if he's out on his own he will steal anything not nailed down.