| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He had a massive complex, felt invulnerable, didn't like consequences or critiques of his actions or choice of words in our out of character.
So it's all him Scott, if you read the whole thread you would see that.
I was just reading your responses on this thread. If he can't share his character with you, he shouldn't be playing. If he can't abide by your rulings, he shouldn't be playing. If the party doesn't like him, he shouldn't be playing.
But your group should examine itself: it sounds like your group has heaped some abuse on him. Was it really all him?So he happened to run into a particularly high level Bard who was also a prominent figure in this town in the game, who absolutely annhiliated his reputation in town and made him the laughing stock, even vendors and merchants didn’t want to do business with them. He couldn’t figure out why he was a social pariah for a long time.
He also had a horrible tendency to misuse the Diplomacy skill. He would want to roll Diplomacy off the bat meeting NPCs and then would insult or anger the NPC’s and think he can just roll it again to bump it back up. I explained that’s now how it works, it’s for initial meetings to set attitudes and then for requesting help or aid, you don’t get to readjust the attitude for several hours (or more depending on the situation as the skill explains).
What abuse ?
I am a player in the game. You should read my post it explains a lot.
If you don't want to here it is in point form.
1. He criticized the other two players for not being power gamers.
2. One of the players was very, very, very ill for the better part of a year and didn't show up all the time due to treatment - the player in question took this as a lack of interest and lack of dedication. When in fact the guy was extremely ill and couldn't get out of bed !
3. He is a complete Megalomaniac - 110% Believes he could take Orcus.
4. He ran and hid when we fought the Beblith that was there to claim his butt and scoffed at the group for being upset at him for abandoning us. Claiming he could have done it himself he was just worried about his armour.
5. We didn't want to help him because We have no interest in pissing off a God. And remember he said he could handle Orcus. He was mad over the "principal" of the matter. He didn't care that he left us high and dry with Beblith.
6. Most importantly he said that he didn't want to get a picture done of his character because he was afraid said person would fall in love and he would have to hurt them or worse !
He is even getting a tattoo of said character for Christ sake.
Does that sound reasonable to you ?
He quit multiple times in order to try and get his way and he also played the friend card to play on all's sympathies but there is such a thing as going to far.
It people like him that give people who play pen and dice games a bad name and a bad stigma. So defending him is only hurting the game and the people who play it. He has some real issues.
He has played Pen and Dice for 20 years he knows better he is not some noob. It's been made very clear he is just in it to be destructive and controlling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And honestly that is just scratching the surface of everything that he's said and done. It gets worse.
One thing you could do is have Orcus work in the back ground. Basically blacklist the cleric from all gods. While it might sound odd gods seek fealty above all else... so why would another god take on someone who is obviously disrespectful. So no more divine magic.. unless her goes to sarenrae she might show enough mercy... after she has proven herself of course. If you allow retaining maybe allow a discount to retain as bard. Honestly though might be too much effort.
What the character did could potentially be a cool plot hook - feeling betrayed by his patron diety and thus seeking out a new one could totally trigger an epic storyline. I wouldn't expect an evil deity to just take him in, though, so it could only really end well with an accompanying heel-face turn.
“It’s what a chaotic evil character would do” he argued
Stopped reading there - that's literally the only thing you need to know. "what <alignment> would do" is basically codeword for "I like griefing"; at best, it's an admission that the decision isn't born of the character's, well, character, but of two words on a piece of paper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What put the final nail in the coffin was two things he said and did at this time.1) he was so obsessed with his character he literally got a tattoo of her, not a little one either. He liked to boast about it.
2) he wanted to commission someone to draw his character but decided he can’t, when asked why he said he was “worried they would fall in love with his character” and he would end up violently assaulting them or worse. No rational thinking was able to get through to him when we tried to explain how ridiculous this was. But he was serious. Deadly serious.So yeah, we had enough of it for the final time and this just put the nails in the coffin.
Seriously?
I don't say this lightly but has this person got mental health issues?He sounds like he needs help rather than a gaming group.
And honestly that is just scratching the surface of everything that he's said and done. It gets worse.
*Pulls up a chair and pours some coffee.*
Please, do tell. I do so love story time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And honestly that is just scratching the surface of everything that he's said and done. It gets worse.I wasn't there. I don't know. You don't need to answer to me, and honestly, I don't want an answer from you.
That is kind of my point. I'm only hearing 1 side of the dispute. I'm sure that ousted player has feelings that are being hurt and hopes that are being disappointed. Most conflicts have at least 2 sides, and I think it would be wise to examine yours, or rather the GM to examine his--he was the one I was talking to--to see if there isn't anything for him--maybe you, too--to take away as a learning experience that will make you better gamers after your pain has healed.
he was so obsessed with his character he literally got a tattoo of her, not a little one either.... he wanted to commission someone to draw his character but decided he can’t, when asked why he said he was “worried they would fall in love with his character” and he would end up violently assaulting them or worse.From what you 2 are saying, though, it does sound like Dungeons and Dragons is not an inappropriate venue for examining his fantasy character. I feel bad for him. He's in love with an evil woman, apparently an evil woman who doesn't exist outside of the fantasy realm. But not existing is her best feature. Nothing is worse than falling in love with an evil person. I know a lot about this.
We welcomed him back multiple times after he would quit and we offered multiple outs for the mistakes he made in the game. One example being having his character being put under the protection of a rival god.
We even had an entire reboot so he could play the game more "wiser" in his words (Plus the sick player when he recovered felt he wouldn't mind a reboot either )
Again he has been a long time friend so we felt bound to give him a chance and to take his apologies at face value for a time.
I felt sorry for his personal life situation and that also factored in.
Yet we still ended up in the same spot where is actions weren't allowed to have consequences. He would act without thinking and be upset that there was a POTENTIAL unfavourable outcome.
E.g.
• His plan to turn a nymph into a vampire and leave two witnesses behind one being the Nymphs lover and excepting them not to get help. (He never did it he was talking about his plan to the GM and the GM merely pointed out there was the potential of acquiring a heel out of said plan - so he got mad over discussion )
• When the group was on a plane that was practically a museum and told not to touch or interfere with anything on pain of the said plane destroying you (Every time you transgressed there was 5% chance of the plane protecting itself ) - He did exactly just that not once , not twice but three times ! Putting the dice roll up to 15% before the group reemed him out to which his response was " I dont really care my character has an escape plan this only effects you guys." (He assumed magic worked normally there ) To which we all said well you are going To get us killed - He laughed said "Then you will roll new characters I guess and I will pick your bodies clean. More gold for me." (Yet he advocated for part cohesion yet didn't care he was gonna get us potentially killed )
Then he wondered why the group was mad.
Perhaps our fault was letting him come back at all. It fed into his ego and fed his obsession over his character.
When what he really needs is to get help.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be safe and protect yourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I would have just coup de graced his character the next time they went to sleep at that point. What point do the other character have to keep such a nuisance around that just threatened the lives of everyone? No need for that sort of behavior from a player or a character, even in an evil campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel though, the old truism that "don't try to solve out of character problems in the game" holds here. Like this person, for whatever value he has had in the past as a friend, has some serious issues that make them not a good fit for a cooperative storytelling game. Until that player realizes this and decides that the point of the endeavor is to contribute positively to everybody's enjoyment rather than to play the lead in the "me show starring me" nothing you do to his character is really going to matter, not really.
I feel though, the old truism that "don't try to solve out of character problems in the game" holds here. Like this person, for whatever value he has had in the past as a friend, has some serious issues that make them not a good fit for a cooperative storytelling game. Until that player realizes this and decides that the point of the endeavor is to contribute positively to everybody's enjoyment rather than to play the lead in the "me show starring me" nothing you do to his character is really going to matter, not really.
Right on the nose
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A deity should not be intervening in PC actions. That is how it is in most campaign words. I understand that to the worshippers of <insert deity) it can be punishable by death, but if deities aren't intervening in things that can end the world, and decide to leave it to the people of that world, then they certainly aren't going to waste time over a statue, even if it's made in their image.
If deity intervention is more common in your setting then the players should know about it. I've had paladins destroy alters in more than one adventure, and as a GM I could have said they called a pit fiend or balor to handle the transgression, but it would not have gone over well.
With that being said the player sounds like a problem player and you may be better off without him. At the very least he could be a bad fit for your group.
edit: Since he did this to his own deity he is now an ex-cleric. If he wants to worship a new deity he should have to do something to prove to that deity that he can be trusted. They have no reason to grant him powers if he is not going to follow their tenants.
edit2 : I read info that should have been in the opening post. I don't know how good your warning was worded, but if you let him know that the deity would not care about his PC level and come after him with something that is beyond his ability to handle then he made his choice, and should have to deal with it. If you were vague, then you should have been more specific, without telling him exactly what might happen.
After reading more post I just say completely ban him from the group as a player. It's not worth the trouble of dealing with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer some of the questions posed in the responses.
- His powers were instantly revoked, he had designs to go to one of Orcus’ rivals and pledge themselves to them and get his Cleric powers reinstated since Orcus inevitably would have many enemies.
- He desecrated the statue because in the latest adventure the group went up against a Beblith that bore a mark of Orcus. The Bard/Cleric, along with the party actively fought against forces that Orcus allied with and had sent this guardian to protect. The party attacked the Beblith and won, the Cleric/Bard felt slighted that his God would “oppose” him with a demon that when the fighting began actively tried to kill him.
- He wasn’t stripped of his powers, as demons fighting their own kind or even his own followers isn’t outside the realm of reason for a demon like Orcus. But he was so bothered by the incident he actively started plotting to desecrate the statue.
- I forewarned him about the results of his planned actions before he carried it out, but he went ahead with it anyway. “It’s what a chaotic evil character would do” he argued, while I explained its suicidal he went ahead with it anyway.
So this to me actually doesn't sounds like him doing something lolrandum cause chaotic It does sound like something thematic and a response to actual events in the campaign.
What I think you should do is have all chaotic deities snub him. like "you think you're worth our time of day? we're deities we've got bigger s#%@ going on" and have even lesser demons just pretend he's not there for a while (but make it clear that they're doing this like "the imp looks at you through the corner of his eye but seems to be trying to pretend you're not there") because the lords of abyss or whatever dont make war on eachother just cause, and taking on the player would be an affront by someone that orcus couldnt ignore.
Then have like envoys of a neutral evil or neutral chaotic deity come to the character like "hey we heard about what you did, you've got guts and we currently have something in the works against orcus"
But the snub is the important bit. The punishment for pissing off an evil deity is you're out of evil club. Classic evil dieties like lucifer are all moody goth kids. No one's coming after you because we are better than you and we dont care what you think
Edit: read a little more of the thread and my assumption giving the player the benefit of the doubt was incorrect it seems
A deity should not be intervening in PC actions.Never played the old M series of adventures for BECMI, have you?
You could have quoted everything I said so its not taken out of context, and no I didnt play that. I started with 2nd edition about a year before 3.0 came out. I also wasn't talking about prior editions where the player had to describe how he was searching for traps, and Gary Gygax had "gotcha" moments in order to kill players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly dont understand why people think the deity would instantly kill him or even take a special time to dispose of him with an army of outsiders.
The destruction of gods shrines happens all the damm time, often not by their followers ofc, but still happen all the time. Yet you dont see a GM comming around and proposing the paladin that destroyed the evil shrine should be worried about instantly being killed by the CR20 demon the deity had to just toss his away.
One can assume gods have a lot of stuff to deal with, like any high end enemy and they cant just turn around and deal with every single lunatic in a random planet in the entire material plane that annoyed them a little.
Now im not saying there shouldnt be repercussions for the act, but it makes no sense to me that one should consider he instantly dies to a army the god had laying around.
I honestly dont understand why people think the deity would instantly kill him or even take a special time to dispose of him with an army of outsiders.
The destruction of gods shrines happens all the damm time, often not by their followers ofc, but still happen all the time. Yet you dont see a GM comming around and proposing the paladin that destroyed the evil shrine should be worried about instantly being killed by the CR20 demon the deity had to just toss his away.
One can assume gods have a lot of stuff to deal with, like any high end enemy and they cant just turn around and deal with every single lunatic in a random planet in the entire material plane that annoyed them a little.
Now im not saying there shouldnt be repercussions for the act, but it makes no sense to me that one should consider he instantly dies to a army the god had laying around.
Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.
The incident also occurred in Sigil where there are a lot of power NPC's.
Which sent the player into a long winded speech about how Orcus himself couldn't touch his character - thus the GM giving his response.
Said player is not a noob and seems to have it in his head the campaign is all about him and his character starring the rest of us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really not sure how I would handle the situation. From what I've read, most tellingly being the tattoo, it seems as though there might be a mental illness involved. As the individual is a long term friend then I would want to help them, but I have no idea how I would suggest they seek professional help. I genuinely feel sorry for everyone involved.
Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.
I sort-of agree with the player on that. My PCs antagonise demon lords and evil gods all the time. I tend to assume that gods don't just smite people who annoy them, because that would upset the balance between the gods. If a boss villain of the campaign burns down a good god's church, the god doesn't send a squad of CR20 angels to kill him; he sends the PCs.
If I was GM and had a player like that I wanted to keep, I could easily say, "In order to protect yourself from the vengeance of Orcus, you must quickly find yourself a new patron deity. That way, he won't be able to strike at you directly without violating various infernal treaties."
(However, I wouldn't want to keep a player like that, because every other thing I've heard about him is a huge red flag.)
even still you are still in your rights to send a small army of antipaladins and clerics of orcus. Which then summoned demons by the followers as well. Even if Orcus doesn't take direct interest (He is chaotic enough to be like hmm this time i'm gonna rip this person stomach out) their is still a lot of angry people that can come after you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The destruction of gods shrines happens all the damm time, often not by their followers ofc, but still happen all the time. Yet you dont see a GM comming around and proposing the paladin that destroyed the evil shrine should be worried about instantly being killed by the CR20 demon the deity had to just toss his away.
Treachery is a special kind of evil. Think of it as a mob - police trying to bust your drug labs are an occupational hazard, but a traitor in your midst is a transgression that not only demands the traitor's death but that of his entire family.
Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.I sort-of agree with the player on that. My PCs antagonise demon lords and evil gods all the time. I tend to assume that gods don't just smite people who annoy them, because that would upset the balance between the gods. If a boss villain of the campaign burns down a good god's church, the god doesn't send a squad of CR20 angels to kill him; he sends the PCs.
If I was GM and had a player like that I wanted to keep, I could easily say, "In order to protect yourself from the vengeance of Orcus, you must quickly find yourself a new patron deity. That way, he won't be able to strike at you directly without violating various infernal treaties."
(However, I wouldn't want to keep a player like that, because every other thing I've heard about him is a huge red flag.)
He was given another patron an enemy evil god of Orcus (Not even going to go into how he almost f~&&ed up that new alliance) - Like it was said before he was given many outs but still made choices that carried consequences and felt he should have none.
Like it was said before he was given many outs but still made choices that carried consequences and felt he should have none.
Right, but there are two basic types of consequences: CR-appropriate consequences, and certain doom.
In most cases, CR-appropriate consequences are more fun than certain doom. Campaigns usually have the party fighting an encounter or two whenever they travel anywhere. It's probably more interesting to be attacked by demons/antipaladins as a result of a character's actions than it is to be attacked by a random wandering monster.
To me the problem isn't the idea that he shouldn't face certain doom - it's the player thinking he gets to dictate what gods and demon lords can and can't do, even when the GM disagrees.
What I think you should do is have all chaotic deities snub him. like "you think you're worth our time of day? we're deities we've got bigger s%~@ going on" and have even lesser demons just pretend he's not there for a while (but make it clear that they're doing this like "the imp looks at you through the corner of his eye but seems to be trying to pretend you're not there") because the lords of abyss or whatever dont make war on eachother just cause, and taking on the player would be an affront by someone that orcus couldnt ignore.
Actually, with most D&D cosmologies... yes. Yes, lords of the Abyss and whatever do make war against each other just 'cause, and that's why the universe can still exist.
In most D&D settings, FR included, evil is explicitly and in no uncertain terms more powerful than good. If all the devils of Hell and all the demons of the Abyss were to unite under a single ruler and campaign against all of creation, the rest of the universe would just get crushed.
The forces of Hell can direct their energies toward specific goals in an organized fashion to achieve disastrous ends... except that so much of their energies are directed to the blood war against the Abyss.
Meanwhile, the Abyss and its demons are literally infinite. The only reason they haven't destroyed everything is that they're an uncontrollable force of madness and destruction. They can be harnessed and guided for a little while, but ultimately they always collapse to infighting, preventing them from marshaling their power.
The reason Team Good Guy generally wins in a standard D&D cosmology is that they can generally coexist and work together to present a united front, while the vastly more powerful Team Bad Guy is constantly faced with cripplingly severe infighting that destroys their ability to fight back to anywhere near their full capacity.
Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.
The incident also occurred in Sigil where there are a lot of power NPC's.
Which sent the player into a long winded speech about how Orcus himself couldn't touch his character - thus the GM giving his response.
Said player is not a noob and seems to have it in his head the campaign is all about him and his character starring the rest of us.
Well, technically Orcus can't touch anybody in Sigil... but he certainly has plenty of overwhelmingly powerful agents that could touch the offending party in his stead.
Damn, your story look like what I'm enduring at one of my tables.
We have a player that spend his time to argue about rules point to justify the faisability of its megalomaniac attitude.
For exemple, when we are sent to defeat a city of good-doer for the glory of Asmodeus with the help of some bug bears allies, and he keeps saying he wants to slay all our allies to turn them into undead because undeads are better even if it is not the orders the prince of darkness gave us and argue that he can get away with it anytime...You know what? We all wish that the DM would have the courage to kick him once for good, but he's too gentle and keep trying to discuss with him, even if we cannot play 2h without him starting to megalomnize everything.
At some point, when a player disrupt the story and fun of other players, I think it's the DM's duty to put an end to it.
The DM is responsible for the fun of the players. If he does not stop someone like that, no one else will be able.Naturaly, no one want to be the bad guy who kick a player from the table, but you know, those kind of people just will spend their time trying to culpabilize you saying "If you were a good DM..." to impose their view of the roleplay.
The only question a DM should ask himself is what is in the best interest of the majority of the players. Nothing else counts.
And sometimes the best interest is sadly to cut the rotten branch.
Man if someone started a line to me with "If you were a good DM" he would be getting kicked.. and not just from my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP
Reading the descriptions given here of the "offender" I would like to echo what two other people here have suggested.
I truly believe that there may be a significant mental imbalance at play. You say that you are all his friends. I would suggest that, away from the game, that you talk to him about it and suggest that he seeks diagnosis.
If he has no imbalances then no harm done, but he may be suffering from severe mental instabilities that are impacting on his quality of life and ability to interact on a personal level.
|
@ID-TheDemonOfElru
so instead of deciding on consequences, you or the GM in question, decided to talk with player about what kind of consequences the character should receive? That's just bad approach because the game is turning into out-of-game philosophical debate and potential fight.
My personal opinion of deities? They wouldn't care that much for a single desecration. It might warrant a small curse with somewhat harder Will Save to resist, but nothing major as CR 10+ foes. If the person is however massively ruining it's plans, heavily desecrating shrines and rampaging on it's faith, the deity might intervene then. Even then, if deity intervenes, it does so in subtle ways.
If you want true consequences for player, just say to him that even low CR foes can be deadly. A CR 1/3 goblin, has for example naturally high stealth score. He simply has to sneak upon person while asleep and coup-de-grace him. The NPCs always play dirty.
Adam
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I forewarned him about the results of his planned actions before he carried it out, but he went ahead with it anyway. “It’s what a chaotic evil character would do” he argued, while I explained its suicidal he went ahead with it anyway.
You warned him, complete with "this is a suicidal choice" and he did it anyway?
He deserves no mercy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ID-TheDemonOfElru
so instead of deciding on consequences, you or the GM in question, decided to talk with player about what kind of consequences the character should receive? That's just bad approach because the game is turning into out-of-game philosophical debate and potential fight.
My personal opinion of deities? They wouldn't care that much for a single desecration. It might warrant a small curse with somewhat harder Will Save to resist, but nothing major as CR 10+ foes. If the person is however massively ruining it's plans, heavily desecrating shrines and rampaging on it's faith, the deity might intervene then. Even then, if deity intervenes, it does so in subtle ways.
If you want true consequences for player, just say to him that even low CR foes can be deadly. A CR 1/3 goblin, has for example naturally high stealth score. He simply has to sneak upon person while asleep and coup-de-grace him. The NPCs always play dirty.
Adam
In Sigil as others have pointed out, this player specifically chose Sigil because Orcus couldn’t react directly to what he did. He planned the desecration at the Temple there where ALL the evil deities are enshrined in the Temple District (which is coincidentally across the plaza from a similar temple dedicated to Good dieties, both are kept in check by the diety like Lady of Pain).
The reason for his choice was that he felt Orcus couldn’t act directly and that he knew he would be cut off for it, but he wanted all the other Evil dieties enshrined there to witness what he did, especially those who are enemies to Orcus (such as Demogorgon whose long standing feud with Orcus over the title “Prince Of Demons” is legendary) who he had already made inroads to petition to be taken onboard.
The way the Temple is designed there are shrines to every evil god almost imaginable there, and an act such as this was done to make it public due to the unique opportunity to have Orcus’ enemies witness the event.
He knew he was going to be chased by the congregation and priests and planned accordingly to escape. He was successful in that regard.
Before all of this happened trust me I thoroughly debated the possible consequences of this action, but his megalomania knew no bounds. “Orcus is armed only with a +6 Mace!” he would say, reckoning in a bunch of more levels he would have a genuine chance to defeat him. He also basically demanded that Orcus was too busy to send more than “a few grunts” his way to deal with him. I explained that may very well be how this starts out, but he showed Orcus up to the entire evil pantheon for this reason.
Naturally with so many other divine beings and demon lords and arch devils watching Orcus cannot let this transgression slide lightly, an example needs to be made of the offender so that others don’t get the same idea.
Problem is he believed the party should be “on the hook” with them, when they were already being chased by the Villain in my campaign and their forces as it is. They didn’t appreciate nor want an extra enemy.
I also pointed out that his act to desecrate Orcus’ statue wasn’t done to honour his new chosen patron, it was petty revenge for the Beblith encounter many levels before. His new patron would be suspect of his loyalty and his motives, and rightly so. I told him he would be watched closely for possible treachery by his new patron, but the player was hardly so valuable that his new God would directly devote significant resources to his aid. More or less they would “cushion” the blow to some extent but he would have to find a way to fix this mess he made or find a way out of it.
He didn’t like that idea. Not one bit. I never planned to send a demon death squadron of high CR opponents but they wouldn’t be jokes either. As a Lv 14 threat himself the player merited a significant response, he was hardly a grunt beneath notice. At that level you are basically a hero or well known villain.
What compounded this was a discussion the players had deciding he brought this on himself and they vowed to stay out of it if Orcus sent demons (bearing his mark or symbol basically) or assassins came, they might even consider tieing the character up and handing them over to Orcus themselves.
Keep in mind he’s the ONLY evil player in a party of Good, he demanded from Lv 1 to be Chaotic Evil from the start and as good friends we decided to let him do it provided he remember that fact and play accordingly.
What’s worse about this all is that he literally believed he was untouchable - or should be - he didn’t agree that at any point of the campaign, NOT just this instance he should never have the possibility or threat of a high level CR encounter out of his range because a “good DM wouldn’t do that”.
When I explained he’s basically asking me to say that theoretically, if he was before some Ruler and a squad of highly trained guards and whatever other backup they had, that the fight should be “CR appropriate”, meaning that if he was Lv 1 the Ruler and all his guards would be no higher than Level 1 to 3 basically.
That as I pointed out is NOT how the game works. He got the idea in his head if you are doing a “module for level 12-14 players” then the maximum CR threat you could ever hope to encounter, regardless of what you did, is set by that. That it doesn’t matter if some massively powerful NPC (lets take Baba Yaga from Reign Of Winter for instance here) existed there who he might cross, they should get a massive nerf to give him a chance to fight them.
That as others have pointed out, isn’t how the world works. Sure if you angered Nualia (in Rise or The Runelords) her options to sent out a revenge hit on the player is limited by her goblins nd resources on hand. Orcus doesn’t fit that bill, he has literally countless armies of demons and undead, he could send as much or as little as he chooses, he doesn’t have to use “CR appropriate” demons or undead to attack some little town in the middle of nowhere if that’s what he wanted to do.
Again, the player disagreed. He genuinely has no concept How this CR system really works.
He’s out of our group anyway and boy, everyone played their first session without him and it was a smashing success. Party cohesion, fun had by all, no anxiety or stress over what might set him off this time, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you already kicked the problem player.
Don't let him rejoin, as it sounds like the group (including both you and the other players) are much better off for it.
I'm very surprised the Lady of Pain didn't just shunt the offending party off Sigil into GTFOMP and it being conveniently the plane of the Abyss that Orcus chills out at.
Not for anything necessarily torture related to happen to the character, that's just tacky, but for the player to try and figure out for the next few years what really happened there.
From an out of the box perspective though, probably better that didn't happen, because someone who is wrapped around their character can act in unpredictable and worrisome fashions.
|
|
@ID-TheDemonOfElru
Thanks for the entire explanation of the situation. I didn't know what what exactly happened, but most of my advice still stands.
Do not go into large debates with this type of player. If what you said is true, he has no concept of story or reality. It seems that he merely wishes to "do what he wants" without any consequences at all which is against the spirit of the game.
As others noticed, he is a problem player. A fact that he is playing CE character in party of good-aligned characters is already Red Light on it's own. You probably did well to remove him, but the player needs to talk with someone in order to realize his mistakes if possible. He might be horrible player now, but is still a human being. And everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps, he can realize them at least.
Adam
Having heard more about the situation, I have to also agree with others that this person may need some professional help.
Orcus is associated with the sin of wrath, and is the god of necromancy. So things should happen in this order:
1) He loses his cleric powers
2) He is eviscerated by powerful demons sent by Orcus
3) Orcus turns him into an undead minion
4) He becomes a new recurring villain
This:
You start by stripping him of his cleric powers and follow up with a visit from a lich and couple of balor with an invitation for a personal chat with his deity.
Said stripping of powers and visit may occur at an inopportune moment.
I thought you said in the other thread the player was quitting?He did, he quits often however and attempts to return at a later date. He likes to argue about such things as these for days.
Dump him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the chaotic version of a paladin playing lawful stupid. Replace him with a small script.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, this player just excluded himself from your gaming group due to extreme dickery. You'd have thought he'd grow out of that by the age of 30-something, but some folks never do.
Still, this whole situation should be seen as a cautionary tale. Anytime you let players choose to have their characters espouse evil alignments, especially chaotic evil alignments, then you're setting up your campaign for an epic fail and for deep-seated hard feelings between players.
Even official Paizo campigns like Hell's Vengeance which put players in the skin of evil-aligned characters bend over backward to give them strong reasons to work together and avoid betraying each other. Take off that leash, and all hell breaks loose.
I always inform my players up front that I intend to run "heroic" themed games, and won't tolerate evil alignments or behavior. If they don't like it, they need to go play with another DM. I know some people here like playing with evil-aligned PCs, but there have to be limits and safeguards in place to make that an enjoyable playing experience. IMHO, it's just an invitation to disaster.