By the way, as an update I can tell you that not much about the situation has changed.
We got sent a new party leader from Moon Base Alpha. She is some sort of divine caster and has a cohort that is also some kind of divine caster. They cleared everyone's (including the familiar's) blindness. The familiar was cured very reluctantly and she gave a warning to the Witch that the familiar issues have been known for some time and would be dealt with upon her return to Moon Base Alpha.
That made me feel somewhat relieved... until she said we wouldn't be returning right away. We needed to finish our mission and that meant exploring a fort to the north. On our journey we were attacked by a pair of boulder throwing Hill Giants. Honestly, our archer could have handled them solo and I only got a single full attack in on them. Not much of a challenge to our party. The physical monsters rarely are. Then we met a Stone Giant trying to sell rune stones. The Witch was interested even though she couldn't use them. The Giant offered to take the Familiar in trade and said that he would be happy to help it, guard it and keep it as a pet. He said he could do a fair better job of it than the Witch could too. I tried to convince the Familiar that this was a better fate for it than what awaited it by staying with us. I think I almost convinced it.
Our archer is also our scout and when he tried scouting he failed some Stealth checks. He was spotted and some bugbears attacked him. He ... like any great scout ... yelled and brought them back to his party. (/facepalm) We dealt with them but not without being noticed by their encampment outside the fort. In a rush we all used potions provided mostly by my character and entered the fort invisibly. All except the archer, that is, as there wasn't enough to go around and we figured he would have the best chance of entering without being spotted.
... we were spotted just after entering. That is where we ended.
So basically my party is stuck dealing with the stupid Quasit until we can get back to the Moon Base. It is going to be dealt with in some way then according to what my DM says. I don't know what he has in mind. I offered some of the suggestions from my last post. He didn't tell me what he has in mind, but it is clearly something as he didn't think the solutions I offered would work with what he had in mind. I'll leave it to him, I guess. It is probably the best solution to let him resolve it anyway.
Well, I guess I can just hope that the character gets killed. Hm... maybe that is what he has in mind...
Well, he didn't "attack the party" per se. He charmed them. It was a charm chain. He just wanted them to agree with him, so he forced them to.
I know. Hazy ground on whether that is actually "attacking" them. I get your meaning either way. I'm not going to defend his actions.
I count that as an attack. Charm person, when unwanted, is no different than burning hands.
This player is a tool. And hiding behind 'i'm just rp'ing my character' makes them no less of a tool.
It's a collaborative game. Everyone has fun together. And this players opinion is that their fun is more important than your fun. That's anti social. And if it's 'the character', then that player designed an anti-social character on purpose.
I'd sit them down, out of game, and explain their poor playstyle to them. They can then shape up or leave.
Thank you, Peter. I have done it before. I do not think that I am a better DM. In fact, I'm not comfortable making that kind of judgement at all. However, I will say that the one thing that I learned is that the problem player's agenda can be curbed. I gave a set of rules for character creation before we started playing. I said if you want in the game you have to abide by these rules. He made his character according to those rules and I think it is the smoothest game we have ever played with him.
...unfortunately it still ended in him turning on the party. To my defense he was charmed by a Siren, though. A lot of those things that would normally give your character a save he denied the save for saying that it was within his character to act close to the way she was directing him to. He was right, really. It did upset the party, they had gripes they brought up and basically everyone lost interest in playing that game. I wasn't broken up by it, though. Our current DM and I typically go back and forth as being the ones who DM. I was ready to tag off.
I DMed again and ran everyone through The Red Hand of Doom module as my son's first formal group experience in playing Pathfinder. I gave very similar rules to character creation that time. We made it all the way through that module with everyone being constructive. The only time he was even a little contrary was when he had to hold the paladin (current DM's character) back from attacking the Ghost Lord. If you are familiar with the module, it is a good thing he did too. That entire campaign went off without a hitch.
I get your meaning, though. I guess at this point I am looking for ways to petition the GM. I hate pointing out problems without bringing a solution. For this I believe it has to involve an in character solution as well as an out of character solution. And the DM has to be onboard 100%. So I am looking for ideas for the DM to use, basically.
Petition the DM to what exactly? I've been following this with honest interest from the beginning and have to say that I am confused as all get out--not only by the description of your game-play but also how this is an in-character problem that can be solved in-game.
As near as I can glean, the solution here is for the DM to put on his big boy pants and tell the player to stop being a distraction and to follow the guidelines he agreed to when he joined the game or to get the hell out. That, or stop riding the guy about his choice of familiar. What more is there to say? Perhaps if you explained the options you have in mind for a solution we could get a better idea of what it is you are looking for other than some therapy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, when I DM, not only do I prohibit the players from willfully attacking one another, I proscribe evilly-aligned characters altogether.
The only intraparty fighting I permit is in those rare cases where some monster mind-controlled a PC; in which case I would take over playing the character in any event.
There is no American-style Constitutionalism in D&D. Hence, there are no God-given rights to liberty. Indeed, practically by definition, the DM plays the gods. Therefore, the player does not always get to decide when he fails a save, or do much of anything else that begets party disunity for that matter.
Any player that disagrees suddenly sees his character suffer a heart-attack; or falls victim to some similar "bad luck."
Playing a character must always be about team-building; & otherwise being the goodguys. Only the DM gets to be the badguys. Period.
Clausyre... I mean, Peter Green, I agree. That is the style of game that I think all of the players besides the problem player want to play in. And that is the style of game the DM wants to run. But he is... as I say, contrary.
I Think you are at a place where the GM and the "problem" player seem to be doing somthing that could turn out ok cool. And if the semi evilness of the witch is a problem? Then you fire the GM. And pehaps thake a sitdown with both him and the witchs player for before the next game. But if you trust the GM then let him toy with the witch. I Think, based on what you are telling us, that most of the drama is the GMs and some is yours.
But basically you need to ddecide if it is a in or out of game matter. Because treading it like both and neither is no Way to go.
And thanks for the updates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, when I DM, not only do I prohibit the players from willfully attacking one another, I proscribe evilly-aligned characters altogether.
The only intraparty fighting I permit is in those rare cases where some monster mind-controlled a PC; in which case I would take over playing the character in any event.
There is no American-style Constitutionalism in D&D. Hence, there are no God-given rights to liberty. Indeed, practically by definition, the DM plays the gods. Therefore, the player does not always get to decide when he fails a save, or do much of anything else that begets party disunity for that matter.
Any player that disagrees suddenly sees his character suffer a heart-attack; or falls victim to some similar "bad luck."
Playing a character must always be about team-building; & otherwise being the goodguys. Only the DM gets to be the badguys. Period.
Agreed, in our group we have the house rule "no PvP" and that includes ANY dicerolls, including f ex. bluff, diplomacy.
All character interactions between players are simply roleplayed, if there is a conflict we metagame it.ex:
P1:"ok so I am going to keep this hidden from the group"
P2:"WTH dude, that's annoying"
P1:"don't worry, I'll probably let something slip later and you can confront me about it, we can finally get that barbarian-and-cleric-argument we've been building up to"
P2:"ok, that sounds cool, I'm in."
it removes any bad vibes from the group and avoid dumb things like losing a character because the fighter critted when he b~+~+-slapped the sorcerer or similiar sillyness.
Quasit
"Rarely, a quasit elects to ignore its master's death and instead remains on the Material Plane to seek other ways to entertain itself—usually settling in an urban area where there are plenty of folk to torment."
Knowing the party is on to it, the quasit will no longer want to torment the party because they know who exactly is the cause. In any case, it is not out to kill, as that "fun" is short lived.
It might torment the witch, as it has power (the spellbook) over the witch. But that might be limited, as the witch can dismiss the familiar at will, and replace it for 500 gp/level. Once dismissed, it becomes fair game.
If the witch dismisses it, then she can get a familiar more suited to the party. A Homunculus would remove all questions of motivations. There are other improved familiars that can be selected.
/cevah