Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BigBigSpiritmonger 10-03-05, 11:36 PM	Okay so here's the low-down. My group is fighting these snakemen. The group is getting hurt pretty bad: The Paladin tank is unconscious at -4, the Fighter archer is at -6, and the Sorcerer is at -2. The only people left are the Cleric, who is invisible from Dust of Disappearance, and the Ranger, who is at 2 hp, and is hiding in the corner with a Ring of Invisibility. The Cleric is taking out the last few guys. Then there are two snakemen left. They are standing in side-by-side squares and next to them is the Fighter's body. The cleric throws a little "grenade" of his(3 doses of incendiary dust in a glass container, 3d6 splash). He rolls bad and misses. I roll to see which square it lands in and it lands right next to the Fighter, killing him. The Ranger watched this. The ranger is Neutral and his character was very good friends with the Fighter. His character has never liked the Cleric. So, he says his character is going to kill the Cleric. It makes sense, that's what his character would do. But, it isn't very good for the group(in real life). Should I stop him? Thanks, Ryan
TheChilliGod 10-03-05, 11:58 PM	Rule #1: D&D is a game. Now, using that rule, forgetting in-game for a sec, How much would the ranger sniping the cleric (who is possibly going to die anyway) help the relationship of players around the table? Will they still be having fun? If yes, then by all means, shoot to kill. No feelings hurt. If no, try to convince the player that being in-character has to take back seat to making sure everybody is having fun. Now, this situation is made a bit more interesting by the fact that it's likely to be a TPK anyway, depending on what the ranger does next. If it is looking to be a TPK (or almost one, if the ranger is the only one alive, the party counts as being destroyed as a whole), then it doesn't really matter whether or not the ranger team-kills, so don't bother asking. Also, there's already a dead fighter, so the sting from being team-killed hurts less. The player duo could make their new characters together or something. My two cents, thrown in completely different directions around the room.
Slyde Shadowdart 10-04-05, 01:52 AM	Out of morbid curiosity, what alignment is the ranger? Unless he's chaotic stupid, he's not going to target a fellow party member for an accident when there are still enemies in the area. Especially not when spells like raise dead and the like exist. The cleric belongs to an order right? And if he did, and was anywhere near the line in the sand: Okay, the cleric falls under your blade. Your alignment has shifted to chaotic evil. Your ranger is now an NPC. *YOINK* This assuming that the snakemen don't kill him first, anyway. (Granted the preceding is just my way of looking at things. It may be completely different in your game. I despise inter-party bickering and the like. It's a social game, so IMO if you want to sit around creating characters that "don't like the party members" or "don't work well with other people", you can take the proverbial hike.) Chili has a more socially acceptable solution. Do whichever you think will allow your players to have fun. Honestly, even though I described my inner-DM feelings above, if this were in my game I'd just try to make the best judgement call I could based on knowing the players and the characters and stuff. Either way though, it really doesn't sound like they're going to make it out without pulling together, and even then it sounds pretty tense. Good luck with what you decide. :)
Nom 10-04-05, 02:02 AM	There is something more important than playing "in-character", and that is playing "in-story". Not only must your character be consistent to him or her self, but it must be consistent with the group and genre. One of the ground rules for any campaign must be how the PCs are expected to interact. Some groups have a high tolerance for intra-group rivalry, others expect the PCs to get along. You need to decide what is acceptable in your group.
Faragon 10-04-05, 02:49 AM	In this situation, if I were playing the ranger, I'd have him beat up the cleric royally. Fists for subdual damage. It was an accident, but the cleric is definetely to blame. But should he die for it? No. Have the ranger initially charge for the corpse of his fallen comrade, weeping in sorrow. Then (when combat is over :P) have him become angry and make a jump for the cleric. (Note: hope the cleric isn't dumb enough to kill the ranger outright, there are groups where such people play :)) That's what I'd advise.
KJW 10-04-05, 03:09 AM	I agree with Slyde that interparty fighting is bad, but I am also usually of the school to let the players sort things out themselves. The problem is whether this is purely about the characters in the game, or are there any real life difficulties between the cleric and ranger PCs? That can always complicate things. If not step back and let them sort things out, though if the ranger kills the cleric, I would agree that an alignment shift would be appropriate.
Bort333 10-04-05, 03:09 AM	Have your players chant and repeat before the start of every game. "I am not my charchter. I am not my charchter. The charchter is not me." Also demand the players play charchters that are NOT like them in RL.
FriendoftheDork 10-04-05, 03:21 AM	bort they should also chant "We're playing this game for fun, not to screw eachother ower. Cooperation is key." I mean it sounds to me the ranger is overreacting... In any case first off he doesen't know his friend is dead before he checks him out, unless the fighter is all over the place. Even then he should deal with the snakemen before confronting the cleric. Now if the cleric shrugs and says "good riddance" or something an attack is a good response, otherwise the PC may blame the cleric for the death but should not try to murder him. BTW you told us about the PCs, but not the players... did the cleric's player laugh out at the accidental death or otherwise act in a callous manner toward the fighter's player? And is the ranger's player ****** off or is he just playing that his character is? You may have a player problem and not a PC problem, and that should be avoiding in the game as much as possible. Take the players aside and talk to them. Letting them discuss it may blow off some steam and you can make them agree to not metagame issues affect their character's actions.
Chobemaster 10-04-05, 11:59 AM	If the ranger is evil or insane, that's likely good roleplaying, you know the character better than we do. If its reasonable for the character to kill an associate for accidental blue-on-blue, then you shouldn't stop him from doing so. IMO, that's unlikely to be reasonable, and in that case, you should discuss the concept of roleplaying with the player.
q'afuu 10-04-05, 12:24 PM	It makes sense, that's what his character would do. Is it really? The ranger in all probability couldn't have known the fighter wasn't dead yet. Unless he got to do a quick physical examination, the difference between unconscious and dying and actually dead isn't something so easily picked up on. Even taking the possibility that he might not be dead yet into account, given the circumstances it'd have been acutely stupid for the cleric to risk the whole party getting killed outright by holding back to minimize the risks to a likely already dead friend. It'd make more sense to me if he would try to get his friend brought back to life, and that's going to be a lot easier with the help of the cleric (aside from the usefulness of clerical spells to preserve and transport the body, churches tend to frown on the killing of the clergy unless they're from another faith they really, really don't get along with). I suggest you point out that his character's choice of action isn't going to help his friend and that the player should realize that "-6 hp = dying but not dead yet" is metagame knowledge.
bob_the_great 10-04-05, 02:05 PM	the ranger PLAYER was a jerk w/o reguard towards party harmony. most of us will metagame our characters slightly if the need arises to guarantee a fun game for all. as shocking as it sounds, some of us avoid making characters that could ever fall into a situation like this. He chose to make/roleplay a potentially problem character and he chose to follow through with killing a party member. imo 'in character' is never an excuse, but that might just be how I play. that said, players being stupid should normally settle itself in-game. if any of the other characters know that this ranger is one accident away from killing them, why would they adventure with him? the ranger finds himself booted from the party, and player has to roll up a new character at level-1 or however you do it. if the other players know he's trouble, but still don't boot him, he's their problem to deal with. You can still have a private conversation where you tell him that you don't like friend-killing in your game, you can even threaten him that another instance and he's evil, no if, ands, or buts. if the other characters don't know the ranger killed the cleric because they were all knocked out, then the dm-player convo is pretty much your only recourse. btw, the 3d6 granade-like weapon seems like an obvious player in this little game. if a character duct tapes two greatswords together do they do 4d6?
Slider33 10-04-05, 02:14 PM	This is a tricky situation, however "sniping" the cleric without confrontation is a foolish move to make, or rather a very rash decision at the least. It would make more sense for the ranger to confront him after the battle is over, or force the cleric to heal him or try to get him raised immediately. he doesn't have to kill the cleric, but he could hold a grudge against him for a long long time, and should bring up some very good RP material to use. It wouldn't be out of character to shoot him right then and there, it's a perfectly valid thing to do if he suddently went into a fit of rage after watching his friend die, albeit accidentally, from a risky move by the cleric. But since there are out of game issues at hand here, I say the ranger should hold off from killing the cleric at that point in time and seek another method of confrontation. That wins in the best of both worlds, he gets to still be in-character, and the group (and possibly TPK) is avoided.
Jancarius 10-04-05, 02:52 PM	If he kills the cleric, he is even more screwed. He needs the cleric's help to beat the lizardmen (presumably, or he wouldn't be hiding in a corner). It should be equally obvious that the cleric just misjudged this throw (this is what a miss on a gernade-like represents to me) and accidently hit the fighter. I'm very for finish the fight, demand the cleric make with the healing, adn then beat the subdual crap out of him with his fists.
clarkvalentine 10-04-05, 03:26 PM	Don't let "But I'm playing in-character!" become an excuse for being a jerk.
20goingon1232 10-04-05, 03:36 PM	Okay so here's the low-down. My group is fighting these snakemen. The group is getting hurt pretty bad: The Paladin tank is unconscious at -4, the Fighter archer is at -6, and the Sorcerer is at -2. The only people left are the Cleric, who is invisible from Dust of Disappearance, and the Ranger, who is at 2 hp, and is hiding in the corner with a Ring of Invisibility. The Cleric is taking out the last few guys. Then there are two snakemen left. They are standing in side-by-side squares and next to them is the Fighter's body. The cleric throws a little "grenade" of his(3 doses of incendiary dust in a glass container, 3d6 splash). He rolls bad and misses. I roll to see which square it lands in and it lands right next to the Fighter, killing him. The Ranger watched this. The ranger is Neutral and his character was very good friends with the Fighter. His character has never liked the Cleric. So, he says his character is going to kill the Cleric. It makes sense, that's what his character would do. But, it isn't very good for the group(in real life). Should I stop him? Thanks, Ryan Questions: What hp is the cleric at? Are the lizardmen dead? How likely is the ranger to hit and kill the cleric in 1 round? Does the cleric have an attack spell left? Reasons for asking: If the cleric is at high hp, let them fight it out. At 2 hps, the ranger shouldn't be that hard to take out, particularly with his light armour. I am assuming that you are fairly mid level, given that you have Rings of Invis running around, which means the cleric shouldn't have a problem hitting and KO-ing the ranger in one shot if he survives the ranger's hit. As a sidenote, I would encourage the cleric's player to kill the ranger off and then force the ranger's player to roll up a new character at level 1. Laugh at him when he complains and tell him them's the breaks for PKillers. Remember to laugh in a derisive manner. It is important.
imperialjunkie 10-04-05, 04:13 PM	Remember to laugh in a derisive manner. It is important. :rofl: Yes indeed. It is. The fun of watching such a display would be very amusing, but the potential of player animosity is too high for me. This is why I don't allow PKing in my game. Anyone who starts a fight with another PC using lethal force will be rolling up a new character.
Khastalphos 10-04-05, 04:23 PM	I would quickly take the Ranger aside in this situation and ask him if he really believes that his character would kill for an act that was clearly a mistake. If he chose to kill, he would take a big step toward both chaotic and evil, and if he chose to merely dole out a sound thrashing (via subdual damage) then I would allow him to maintain his alignment, with maybe a step toward chaotic.
20goingon1232 10-04-05, 05:08 PM	:rofl: Yes indeed. It is. The fun of watching such a display would be very amusing, but the potential of player animosity is too high for me. This is why I don't allow PKing in my game. Anyone who starts a fight with another PC using lethal force will be rolling up a new character. I am lucky in that none of my current group even think of doing PKs. Ok, so I said that if they every turn Evil through deeds or attacking another player (or stealing from another player), their character is now mine, but that's besides the point :D That said, I have no problems laughing at immature players that like to use the "I can be a total donkey's rear end because I'm RP-ing" excuse. If they are that immature, I would lose no sleep over losing them as "friends". I had a guy that loved to embarass me by calling me thief and worse loudly, in public, in front of total strangers. He only got to do it twice. Then, he got cut off totally. He was also warned never to call me or contact me in any form or he will be hit with a harassment suit as well as a restraining order. The most hilarious part of it was that he was actually calling me up to ask how to do a 80% paper when I hit him with the warning. I mean, after mouthing off like that, you'd think the guy would be either too embarassed himself at his outburst or be too ****** to do that, but no, he calls me and demand answers like I was his pet porter :rolleyes: Needless to say, he is not coming back to my games. His character is officially now designated as the party's Polish minesweeper.
Bruunwald 10-04-05, 07:48 PM	The thing you have to remember is that from here, the ranger has no real idea that the cleric's actions have killed the fighter. I mean, maybe his buddy is on fire, and yeah, that's alarming. But the DM must resist the desire to inform everybody that a PC is dead. And if everybody already knows, the DM must advise the player of the ranger that his character might not yet be certain of that. Might be more realistic for the ranger to run to the fighter, then find out he's dead, then turn on the cleric in anger. My money's on the cleric. Your ranger is hiding with 2 hit points left, but your cleric is still toe-to-toe with the bad guys? Anyway, the tricky thing here is, if the PCs don't like the cleric much, is it because the players don't care for that player much? And so, is the decision to act against the cleric really an in-game one? It would be quite opportunistic of that player to attack the other now. There seems to be a hint of that in the original post. If that's the case, I would try to moderate as given above, reminding the ranger that automatically killing the cleric involves metagame information (his "certainty" of the fighter's death), which his character needs to actually determine, first. To me, it's more realistic to run to the immolated buddy, screaming and hollering and yelling out "what did you do? You bastard!" Now you see that putting him out is impossible, and then you turn and attack the cleric. Getting him now while invisible and behind him a split second after what has happened, and he is busy protecting you, is very convenient and could only come from a premeditated, clinical decision. That can only happen in this situation, if the player knows and is acting on something his character can't.
Talonz 10-04-05, 08:01 PM	First of all, neither character should KNOW the pc is dead! Negative hit points are always secret in my campaign if the pc is ko'ed. So the ranger shouldn't even know what killed him or if he is dead at all. Second of all, although it was a pretty poor choice to throw an area effect item where it could damage a pc in the negatives, it was still an accident that it killed him. Killing the pc for that, especially in the middle of a fight, is just stoopid. Focus on those 2 points and talk this out with those involved, if you still can.
A Bigmouth Bard 10-04-05, 08:56 PM	No offense to anyone, but I'd let him go for it. It my not have been the cleric's inital fault (it wasn't his fault he missed), but he did throw it in the first place. This is an RPG people, if you stop a person from doing that just to keep the game going then that's not much of an RPG. If you really want to keep him from killing the cleric: fudge something, make him roll a Will save against his anger, or put a true reserection scroll (or something similar) nearby and let him find it before he gets to the cleric. Remember, this is my opinion, don't yell at me for what I put above. :D
Talonz 10-04-05, 09:29 PM	No offense to anyone, but I'd let him go for it. This is an RPG people, if you stop a person from doing that just to keep the game going then that's not much of an RPG. If you're trying to say that the ranger has legitimate reasons for killing the cleric in the heat of battle, well....I don't buy that. At. All. I'm also curious as to how much the character/character friendship/enmity extends into real life in this group...
BigBigSpiritmonger 10-05-05, 11:00 PM	oops. None of the replies really applied. I guess I left out some kind of important factors: :: The Cleric was at 40ish hp. :: The Ranger, has had a history of well... doing whatever he wants. When we first started, it was him, a different Cleric, and the Sorcerer. He used to tell the other characters he would kill them if they didn't give him most of the gold. He has reformed since (mostly b/c the other two realized that there are two of them, and one of him), but still likes to have some sort of power over the group. :: All this conflict is happening after the battle was finished. I forgot to mention that. The Cleric picked off the last few guys. After that they healed the other members, then went to sleep. This was even after the session was over, when the Ranger player was telling me how he was going to assassinate the Cleric. Everyone is at full health again. (Note that the Cleric refused to heal the Ranger, the Ranger used his own potions). :: They all knew the Fighter was dead: His head exploded. :: OOG, (and in-game too), the players really don't like the Cleric player. This is mostly b/c of his rules-lawyering, excessive and obvious metagaming, and the fact that he spaces off the whole time until his turn, then takes forever to look up spells, and that he doesn't work with the party at all. He pays no attention to what they are talking about doing, then goes and does his own thing (usually ruining their plans). I hope this will give you all a better idea of the situation. Any help(again)? Thanks, Ryan
Talonz 10-05-05, 11:08 PM	Oh my lord.....'nuke it form orbit man!'. Get out of there. Not worth the effort to save anything when you have CE rangers masquerading as neutral and taking offense at other munchkins. Flush, restart with new players.
20goingon1232 10-05-05, 11:11 PM	oops. None of the replies really applied. I guess I left out some kind of important factors: :: The Cleric was at 40ish hp. :: The Ranger, has had a history of well... doing whatever he wants. When we first started, it was him, a different Cleric, and the Sorcerer. He used to tell the other characters he would kill them if they didn't give him most of the gold. He has reformed since (mostly b/c the other two realized that there are two of them, and one of him), but still likes to have some sort of power over the group. :: All this conflict is happening after the battle was finished. I forgot to mention that. The Cleric picked off the last few guys. After that they healed the other members, then went to sleep. This was even after the session was over, when the Ranger player was telling me how he was going to assassinate the Cleric. Everyone is at full health again. (Note that the Cleric refused to heal the Ranger, the Ranger used his own potions). :: They all knew the Fighter was dead: His head exploded. :: OOG, (and in-game too), the players really don't like the Cleric player. This is mostly b/c of his rules-lawyering, excessive and obvious metagaming, and the fact that he spaces off the whole time until his turn, then takes forever to look up spells, and that he doesn't work with the party at all. He pays no attention to what they are talking about doing, then goes and does his own thing (usually ruining their plans). I hope this will give you all a better idea of the situation. Any help(again)? Thanks, Ryan The above still apply. If they don't like the cleric, dump him, not kill him. Remember, the cleric still have potent spells to back him up, and clerics are not considered part of the CoDzilla for nothing. PK of any form, under any provokation is still grounds for Level 1 character rolling in my games. Mind you, both the ranger and the cleric would have gotten stern warnings from me before this. The cleric less than ranger, ironically, since i am extremely tolerant of metagaming. Of course, the last time someone declared that the potion that gave the warm tingles must be a healing potion "because that is always the case", it turned out to be alchemist fire. But that is besides the point... :D Have an OOG talk with the group and let them lay down their problems with each other. And then have a discrete vote if they should turf someone out, and if so, who?
A Bigmouth Bard 10-06-05, 09:02 PM	Ok, if he had a pointless grudge against the entire party then that changes everything. He's just completely crazy I'm guessing.....Is he part of a random group or is he one of your friends?
Dragonsblood 10-06-05, 09:27 PM	How does the ranger know his fighter buddy is at -6? In character, the fighter should look dead already. Any knowledge that he is stabilized or not completely dead is METAGAMING. So, unless the ranger is mad that the cleric missed the things trying to eat them both and hit a DEAD BODY, he should be fine.
celtredleg 10-06-05, 09:36 PM	Oh my lord.....'nuke it form orbit man!'. Get out of there. Not worth the effort to save anything when you have CE rangers masquerading as neutral and taking offense at other munchkins. Flush, restart with new players. Not worth saveing. My vote, go find some mature players and let these bozos play by them selves.