Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fiery Avenger 06-29-06, 11:14 AM	During an adventure last night - our party (Cleric 3, Fighter 3, Rogue 3, and Sorcerer 3) were following a legendary adventurer (a character with whome my character was obsessed and to whom my character was completely loyal - I had a "Lareth Stonegate Fan-Club Card" and goggles that looked like his trademark goggles) and investigating a businessman who we thought was connected to criminal enteprises. We confronted the businessman while Lareth kep his bodyguards busy, and the party had the following feelings: Me (Cleric 3) - "If Lareth says this guy is a criminal, it must be so!" Garren (Rogue 3) - "He's been extorting me for money, which I thought was going to my sick mother - now it looks like it's not" Roscoe (Halfling Sorcerer 3) - "I'll need to figure out if he is telling the truth or not" Valen (Fighter 3) - "I'm not sure what to think, but I need to keep things non-violent" So, with those things in mind, the following stuff happened - Garren and I attacked the businessman, wanting to subdue him for questioning. The Enemy answered out questions - and managed to convince Valen that he was a good man, and to make Roscoe even more confused - as a player, I wasn't sure if he was lying or not, but my character believed Lareth Stonegate, so I assume he wouldn't believe the Enemy. That being said, Valen then leapt up on the desk and protected the Enemy from Garren (who got knocked unconcious); and then pointed his sword at me to stop me. I said "Valen - don't get in my way - he's poisoned your mind" and he refused to leave - so I cast Inflict Moderate Wounds on him, knowing it wouldn't kill him and that it would reflect my Cleric's seriousness (inflict spells hurt me a little too as per a house rule), and he didn't stand down. Valen leapt upon my cleric and started grappling with him, and I said "Valen, if you don't get off of me and step aside, I will do what I need do" and he kept trying to pin me - so I cast Inflict Moderate Wounds again, and did exactly enough damage to kill him. The game at this point, came screeching to a halt - the DM only had "Dude - that's not cool" to say. They spent the next hour and a half trying to convince me that, even if my character did what he thought was right, and that it is what he would do, that I shouldn't have done that. My character repented for Valen's death, which lead to him losing his faith in both his god and his idol (who, as it turns out, could have stepped in long ago, but didn't do anything to stop Valen dieing) and became an alcoholic. The party still ostracizes me, even when I helped to fund Valen's ressurection (we had done work for the King, who has deep pockets), and personally said I was sorry. They are coming around, but all I want to know is - was I right to do that? Does it make sense to anyone else that I was justified in doing what I did? I hope people took the time to read that :rolleyes:
OravennasBrother 06-29-06, 12:00 PM	Meh, you played the way you wanted to play. Fighting in party is generally bad news as the PLayers tend to remember long after a character is dead. I remember a player who brought an Anti-Paladin into a campaign where I was a LG Fighter (not paladin, fighter mind you) solely because one of my other characters, in a thieves guild campaign, had killed one of his characters AFTER his character put a contract out on mine. Yeesh talk about extreme. Then when my fighter discovered the antipaladins intentions and killed that character, the player stormed our of the campaign. So yeah you really need to think twice about actually FIGHTING other party members.
Euthyphro 06-29-06, 12:03 PM	The only thing I would say is that subdual damage exists for a reason my friend.
ShadowDragon8685 06-29-06, 12:43 PM	The only thing I would say is that subdual damage exists for a reason my friend. That's not always an option. A Cleric Vs. a Fighter in a Subdual fight - who's gonna win that barney, mmmm?
LuckyLeprechaun 06-29-06, 01:18 PM	Well, reading what you wrote, the fighter started the fight, knock out the halfling, and turned on you, almost expecting a fight. HE died, lesson learned? Though you really shouldn't of gone that far, maybe the second time you could of cast Inflict LIGHT Wounds? Likely would of just dropped him below zero, not to -10, and then you can stabilize him and tie him up. That would of stopped the fighting AND gotten your way WITHOUT death, which is good. Dying's bad, lesson learned?
Fiery Avenger 06-29-06, 01:24 PM	Though you really shouldn't of gone that far, maybe the second time you could of cast Inflict LIGHT Wounds? Likely would of just dropped him below zero, not to -10, and then you can stabilize him and tie him up. That would of stopped the fighting AND gotten your way WITHOUT death, which is good. Well, the thing about that is that, had I have left him with any health (thanks to the Diehard Feat) he could have Power Attacked me into an early grave, and (speaking from a meta-gaming perspective) he was rolling Critical Hits like a fiend last night. That being said, Inflict Moderate Wounds at the time was my character's best bet to ensure that he had no further trouble - it was necessary to make absolute that if anyone else got in his way, they knew he would be able to deal with them (that and I was out of the majority of my spells, thereby making it difficult for another fight to take place) Also, the rogue isn't a halfling - and the Sorcerer (who is a halfling) stood back and couldn't manage to move due to fear of what might happen (he has an infernal bloodline which manifests itself with deadly results at points of high stress or anger (a home-rule for story important moments))
LuckyLeprechaun 06-29-06, 01:32 PM	Ah, the Die Hard, makes many a party struggle, well, ummm... a bigger party struggle... Well, that would leave you in a tight spot, but it is possible for him still to go unconcious, he just has to be willing, maybe hit him with a light wounds, and he might save his own skin by going unconcious, if he doesn't, he can't hurt you too badly in one round as he can only take move actions without hurting himself, then you finish him off. In all honesty, he should of noticed how much you loved this guy, and just not have been stupid in the first place, he should of now what you willing to do.
Euthyphro 06-29-06, 02:06 PM	That's not always an option. A Cleric Vs. a Fighter in a Subdual fight - who's gonna win that barney, mmmm? Regardless, the act of inflicting potentially fatal damage seems, given his story, to be slightly more than he was intending. Non-lethal damage would have shown he meant business but not killed the guy. Its not a question of who would win, its a question of was his character honestly willing to kill his partymate? If his character was actually that big of a fanatic then yes, what he did is fine and the players should all respect excellent roleplay choices. If he didn't actually feel it was the best choice then thats what subdual damage is for.
Dag 06-29-06, 03:04 PM	Sounds like your character is a complete moron. A case of mindless and obsessive hero worship has led to your character slaying one of his adventuring companions. This is not only moronic but it is pathetic as well. Does your Dm stock his campaigns with legendary NPCs which are probably his own characters from other campaigns, put into his world where they can flourish and be deified in ways they never could be in an honest game? Sounds like you grabbed onto a DM glory boy and screwed your group because of it. You're sad and pathetic, I cant understand why the companions are still with your character, you've already proven that your loyalty to them comes after your hero, which has led to you killing one companion. What assurances do the party have that if your hero suggested that they were evil you would not inflict your wounds on them? Drop that character and bring in a new one, he does not deserve to be in an adventuring group and should stick to following his hero around - wiping his ass or shining his boots. Choose your loyalties a little more wisely next time and be a team player. Where's your common sense? You dont slay a party member because he's asking you to seek a non-violent solution to a dilemma, and you dont throw your party over because you have a hard on for some lame DM NPC. Get it right with your next character or leave the game, I wouldn't want to play with you.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-29-06, 03:13 PM	Why is the party still working with someone who's proven that he's completely fine with murdering them?
FeceMan 06-29-06, 03:15 PM	Well, reading what you wrote, the fighter started the fight, knock out the halfling, and turned on you, almost expecting a fight. HE died, lesson learned? QFE, QFT. The OP didn't intend to kill Valen. **** happens.
Dag 06-29-06, 03:41 PM	A very constructive post Fece. Were you sticking your tongue out at me or giving me the finger when you wrote it? I would like to picture you in full adolescent glory next time I read your valued insights.
FellBlade 06-29-06, 04:04 PM	when party members start to fight the game is f***ed...forever, all you can do as a dm is kill them all qick for pitty sake and start over, unless of course you are playing with mature individuals but i usualy assume that is not the case (in my exp anyhow) if one person out of five cant let an argument in game go your game will end abruptly at some time or another ps. let it go (non specific, just a cry out to all that have pc kills on their hands) not for any other reason than its a waste of time unless the dm is paying me to be at his game, un-bloody-likley i dont want my time wasted by some imature person who is too good at rp for his own good or by some sadistic imature dm who likes to watch people get stressed out and fight i have enough stress in my life thanks, stress that i am compensated for and its called work. no offence to the OP just me venting...ok im done
FeceMan 06-29-06, 05:05 PM	A very constructive post Fece. Were you sticking your tongue out at me or giving me the finger when you wrote it? I would like to picture you in full adolescent glory next time I read your valued insights. Sounds like your character is a complete moron. This is not only moronic but it is pathetic as well. Does your Dm stock his campaigns with legendary NPCs which are probably his own characters from other campaigns, put into his world where they can flourish and be deified in ways they never could be in an honest game? Sounds like you grabbed onto a DM glory boy and screwed your group because of it. You're sad and pathetic, Where's your common sense? and you dont throw your party over because you have a hard on for some lame DM NPC. Get it right with your next character or leave the game, I wouldn't want to play with you. With you as a shining beacon of maturity, my good Dag, I shall surely improve upon my posting habits in the future.
malignor 06-29-06, 05:16 PM	I've seen similar stuff so often I look at the OP and go "so what?" Been playing since before my balls dropped (when I was 9... 21 years ago), so I've had years of immature gaming experience. As a result, infighting is old hat, and me and my group have learned to handle it in context and without taking it personally. Heck we've played 2 evil campaigns where we spent more effort carefully plotting each other's deaths than actually adventuring. Come to think of it, in almost every game I've played or ran, there's been either infighting or preparation against each other (anticipation of infighting). It's not the end of the world. Just play it up, and have your character act like he should. As to "Oh no! Your party still adventures with you even though you murdered one?"... I ask any soldier "Oh no! You still fight in an army that has killed people like you with freindly fire?" ... it's a dangerous world, with dangerous times. Two dangerous individuals used magic and sharpened steel to conflict with each other and one died by accidental use of too much force. That's VERY different from two people sitting on a couch and one turns and stabs the other in the heart.
Edwind 06-29-06, 06:50 PM	I had a good laugh when I saw the name. Something like that always catches my attention, when I came in and read the post I expected zany antics and shinanigens, but...You've disapointed me. All I have to say is you did what your character WOULD have done, a bit extreme on the roleplaying perspective and the in character view point. I congradulate on your devotion to his ideals but...You made a booboo. The fighter WAS doing the right thing. He was not "starting a fight" he was protecting the guy you thought was bad. HE did the right thing, while you did a pretty big no no. Once again Congrads to your devotion to in character thinking... You just sprung it out at the wrong time. Could have solved it differently, but to make them come around even more, I'd say play favorite with the fighter for a session or two. Maybe even go as far as to give him some of your treasure. Edit: I'm going to have to agree with Fece, Dag that post was completely useless. He asked if he honestly did the right thing and played his character how he should have been played Not Throw insults at me and critisize my game playing abilities. You were just hitting below the belt on that.
Fiery Avenger 06-29-06, 07:40 PM	Sounds like your character is a complete moron. A case of mindless and obsessive hero worship has led to your character slaying one of his adventuring companions. This is not only moronic but it is pathetic as well. Does your Dm stock his campaigns with legendary NPCs which are probably his own characters from other campaigns, put into his world where they can flourish and be deified in ways they never could be in an honest game? Sounds like you grabbed onto a DM glory boy and screwed your group because of it. You're sad and pathetic, I cant understand why the companions are still with your character, you've already proven that your loyalty to them comes after your hero, which has led to you killing one companion. What assurances do the party have that if your hero suggested that they were evil you would not inflict your wounds on them? Drop that character and bring in a new one, he does not deserve to be in an adventuring group and should stick to following his hero around - wiping his ass or shining his boots. Choose your loyalties a little more wisely next time and be a team player. Where's your common sense? You dont slay a party member because he's asking you to seek a non-violent solution to a dilemma, and you dont throw your party over because you have a hard on for some lame DM NPC. Get it right with your next character or leave the game, I wouldn't want to play with you. Actually - my DM isn't a glory-boy, nor was the NPC anything other than an NPC. My character was his fan, and had little to no thought other than to believe him - think about it - let's take a real world example with Micheal Jackson - despite mountains of evidence against him, a group of people were still utterly convinced he didn't do it. That being said, my character was utterly convinced that Lareth was telling the truth, so much so that if the fighter was on Lareth's enemy's side, he was my enemy. Now, as for the question of why is the group still with me now that I've slain one of them - the only reason they had was that almost immediately afterwards I showed remorse, was capable of letting them know three to four seconds later that I wasn't intending to kill him - and then I repented for it and made a mends - they are capable of understanding the "momentary loss of judgement" that comes with high stress and high emotion situations, and still don't trust me completely - but to them, I did what I thought was right (I was even capable of convincing the Fighter that I did what I thought was right, and that's all he could have wanted me to do - since that's all he ever asks me to do) Now, I know - from an objective standpoint - it's stupid, it's wrong, and my character realised it was wrong - but infighting in the group didn't kill us all or make us stupid - it galvanized the party by forcing us to realise we're human, both in that we're fallible and that we are mortal. It showed us that even those in positions of power are vulnerable and fallible, and it taught my cleric the fault of trusting heroes (or Gods, for that matter - he isn't much of a cleric anymore). For the most-part, I understand both sides of the street on this discussion - and obviously when I started it I wasn't looking for any kind of bad-blood here, but try to keep it civil - I'm neither a moron, nor pathetic, and my DM is not a "glory-boy", nor is he either of the first two - my group is a fantastic one (at least for me), and I wouldn't change anything - I don't want to know what to do, nor do I want you to tell me where to go - I'm looking for an exchange of opinions, not slinging of mud.
Exquisite_Flopilidopilies 06-29-06, 08:04 PM	Lethal damage is exactly that--you're trying to kill someone. When you're trying to get someone out of the way (especially a partner of some kind), you push them, argue with them, yell at them, throw s**t, slap them, grab them, try to go around them, etc. If you stick a knife in them "when you didn't intend to kill them," that's just bad roleplaying. There's no difference between shooting a gun at someone and casting a spell inflicting lethal damage. It's not something you do to someone you don't intend to kill.
Bruunwald 06-29-06, 08:11 PM	I think you guys were really into playing your characters, and I think in many ways you did a stellar job with the RP. Being enamored of an NPC was a really nice touch, and all the confusion was well-played, too. But I have to wonder of the wisdom of inflicting wounds on your ally. Really, the matter does not seem so dire as to have to cast a spell on your companion. Especially one that could result in his death. Grappling him, a good wrestling match, is all this required. If the bad guy got away, so be it, it wasn't that important, and you could have gathered more evidence against him, to confront him with later. Now, as to what your DM was saying, some DMs (including myself) have a rule about intentionally going so far against your fellow party members that you risk killing them (outside of being dominated by some other party, where it is understandable). This is one of the only metagaming aspects that I actually embrace, because let's face it: it is definitely NOT COOL to kill your friends' characters. Some people get off on it. If the whole group has agreed to it beforehand, so be it, but if not, then, yes, there ought to be a moratorium on it. You never said what your character's alignment is, so we can't make a judgment on whether it was something your character would do. If you're casting inflict spells, though, maybe it makes sense. I have to admit, though, I'm with them. You did seem to jump the gun and overreact. I would be wary of you as well. If they have not played for very long with you, then it's going to be even worse, since this is an early impression they have of your playing style.
questionc 06-29-06, 08:19 PM	The game at this point, came screeching to a halt - the DM only had "Dude - that's not cool" to say. They spent the next hour and a half trying to convince me that, even if my character did what he thought was right, and that it is what he would do, that I shouldn't have done that. Look, you are the one deciding your character's actions. The characterisn't telling you what decisions to make. Was this the only way your character could have reacted to the situation? No. It was just the path of least resistance... the predictable response. And frankly, it wasn't a realistic response. I mean, come on... what kind of persion thinks "Well, friend won't get out of my way. Time to turn him inside-out." To be fair... the fighter is probably as much to blame. It's hard to imagine a situation where good roleplay makes you stand on a table threatening the cleric. Still, either of you could have played your characters in a less one-dimensional manner to resolve this. My character repented for Valen's death, which lead to him losing his faith in both his god and his idol (who, as it turns out, could have stepped in long ago, but didn't do anything to stop Valen dieing) and became an alcoholic. The party still ostracizes me, even when I helped to fund Valen's ressurection (we had done work for the King, who has deep pockets), and personally said I was sorry. It's understandably tense. How do you roleplay wanting to work together with the guy that killed a party member? It's a situation beyond suspension of disbelief. I suggest to roll a new character. Your current character could run off and become Lareth's cohort or something. Lets your party get rid of the "How am I supposed to work with that murderer" dilemma Shows that you as a player are willing to do something to ease the party tension. Becoming Lareth's cohort sounds like the fulfillment of a character goal. Lets you roll up a character without a one-dimensional motivation. Sorry if I came off as harsh, but "Making the game less fun through roleplay" has haunted me in so many games, so I have a bit of a personal vendetta against it. The problem you described isn't a singular event. It happens all the time in games everywhere. The conflict overshadows all the other characters, and the DM is thrown into creative paralysis because you can't throw out plot hooks for parties like this. Somewhat related, here's a softer article about how to roleplay your character and not deal with this crap. http://www.giantitp.com/frm0007.html
Gleddon 06-29-06, 08:36 PM	I would say that you role played the situation quite well. It sounds like you were in character, and from you said in your follow-up it sounds like the party at least respects that much. The problem that I see is that you've been penalized severely for it, and that's not right. What's your diety and alignment? If you stayed true to your character and his beliefs, then I wouldn't have taken away your connection to your diety. It sounds like you're getting the short end of the stick big time.
Fiery Avenger 06-29-06, 08:44 PM	I would say that you role played the situation quite well. It sounds like you were in character, and from you said in your follow-up it sounds like the party at least respects that much. The problem that I see is that you've been penalized severely for it, and that's not right. What's your diety and alignment? If you stayed true to your character and his beliefs, then I wouldn't have taken away your connection to your diety. It sounds like you're getting the short end of the stick big time. First off, thanks for all the response - I've always wondered why no one responds to my posts - I guess the want to boss people around makes people post :rolleyes: (just kidding - thanks for the responses, good and bad) Secondly, since we're in a homebrew world, my Cleric was a Cleric of the Silver House (not a god, but a man-made church that believes in Sheltering those in need, and strength in companionship - but loyalty) that being said, my character violating the second major precept of his religion, as well as realising that "if he can't be compassionate and loyal to his friends - then he can't be to anyone else if he needs to" led him down the lengthy road to deciding to leave his clergy. For future reference to anything anyone asks in terms of what happens to my character, how my character acts or feels are all decided by me - my DM hasn't (at least yet) forced anything on me but the story (I've even had a hand in that's creation)
Herr_Grinch88 06-29-06, 08:55 PM	I think you played the player realistically, but compromised the DnD game's fun. Next time, give in. Would you really kill a real friend cuz he thinks a person is good when he is bad?
DarkNick 06-29-06, 11:03 PM	Well, it was a messy situation with a messy result. These things happen. The killed character had already taken out another party member. If he was willing to beat up party members then he should probably expect some hurt back. Still, it seemed silly to fight over a presumed evil businessman in the first place. I think you roleplayed quite well, it just sounds like one of those situations that just desintergrate in front of your eyes despite your best intentions. The real problem is it sounds like the incharacter fighting has spilled over to the players. Might be best for group harmony to make a clean break.
Ashok_Lal 06-29-06, 11:03 PM	QUOTE: Valen leapt upon my cleric and started grappling with him, and I said "Valen, if you don't get off of me and step aside, I will do what I need do" and he kept trying to pin me - so I cast Inflict Moderate Wounds again, and did exactly enough damage to kill him. The game at this point, came screeching to a halt - the DM only had "Dude - that's not cool" to say. Acording to this you were grappled so casting any spell would have been near impossible. So the fighter need not have died.This ofcourse could have started another thread. Dag & FeceMan you should probably leave your lovers quarrels at home
Dag 06-30-06, 12:25 AM	You're right Ashok, I should have refrained from responding to the Feceman, my bad. - I don't want to know what to do, nor do I want you to tell me where to go - I'm looking for an exchange of opinions, not slinging of mud. Fiery Avenger, I wasn't slinging mud, I was speaking out against your actions. What your character did was stupid and moronic in my book and I told you so without mincing words, apologies if my unedited honesty offends some people. Your Michael Jackson example rings true, and I would label people who obsess over and deify Michael Jackson as morons as well - though I doubt that very many of those people would kill a companion over a descision by Michael, and those who would are clearly deranged. So maybe I should have said that your character is deranged rather than a moron, or maybe he's both. It's great that he's sympathetic about his causing a friend to die, but is he over his hero worship? If not why on earth would the party accept him back knowing that at one word from this hero he would sacrafice the others of his party as well? I wasn't telling you what to do about your situation, I was giving an opinion on it as you solicited. Next time ask only for sweet and flowery opinions and I'll keep my mouth shut.
LuckyLeprechaun 06-30-06, 01:16 AM	Dag, there is an opinion, and then there is a personal attack, you crossed the line. The ethics of this situation are blurry at best, and you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion. But was everything you said really necessary? I count numerous times where you took to attacking the OP, this is a forum, people post to ask for CONSTRUCTIVE critism; you don't have to agree with them, you don't have to give "sweet and flowery opinions," and you are allowed to have your own opinion. You should NOT however, attack the person and the people involved because you think he is a "moron," I agree, FeceMan may have been a little harsh in calling you retarded, and I'm not saying he was right in doing this. I am saying your post was hardly constructive and a waste of bandwith at best. These boards are for people to come for opinions without having to face insulting posts from someone who feels their opinion is better than everyone else's. Now may we PLEASE stop the fighting and resume CONSTRUCTIVELY offering or opinions to the OP. Thank you for you hopeful co-operation. Lucky
Gleddon 06-30-06, 01:51 AM	Maybe this has been asked and answered already and I simply missed it (it's getting late), but did the person that you killed use lethal or non-lethal force? My guess is that he used lethal force seeing as you mention that he had his sword pointed at you after knocking out the other party member (although yes, he could have taken the penalty to deal non-lethal damage). That would tell me that he was the one that crossed that line first. The fact that you did likewise and were punished for it appears to fall into the realm of good role playing if, like you said, it meant you violated your faith. I would still say that you played it well given the situation, and hopefully your character receives some means of atonement within the church.
Fiery Avenger 06-30-06, 10:29 AM	Well, the basics of the whole Dag "attacking" me thing is: Dag, I don't need your anger towards my decision - and explain to me rationally how you feel - if you feel the need to attack me personally, then I've no need of it: I wouldn't tolerate it in person, and the internet doesn't offer you free reign to be a little bit of a jerk, or a lot of a jerk - I understand it is your opinion, but the thing I'd like to hear is maybe it could have been said without the "you're a pathetic moron" attitude. I'm not looking for a "sweet flowery response" but I'm not looking for that either - so I guess if you'd regard constructive criticism as a "sweet flowery response" then don't post in response to my threads or my replies, because you and I are clearly not going to see eye to eye and get into a stupid, pointless flame-war, which just kills the Original Thread (be it mine or someone else's) As for "is my character over his hero worship?" Yes - I said that numerous times - he lost faith in both his hero and his God because of it. Maybe this has been asked and answered already and I simply missed it (it's getting late), but did the person that you killed use lethal or non-lethal force? He used non-lethal force against Garren, but when he pointed his sword at me , he said he'd use it if he needed to. My character took this as a threat, naturally, and knew that if Valen did use the sword: not only would the businessman not come to justice, but I would be dead. Fear motivated his ultimate decision as much as the want to make his hero proud, and the idea that his hero is infallible.
Zillah 06-30-06, 12:51 PM	get off the hero. that is the whole problem. all of it stems from your character being infatuated with someone. If you really wanted to be obsessed over him then you should have thought "how would my hero handle this situation?" and played that out instead. just get off being so girly over a NPC
Gleddon 06-30-06, 02:07 PM	He used non-lethal force against Garren, but when he pointed his sword at me , he said he'd use it if he needed to. My character took this as a threat, naturally, and knew that if Valen did use the sword: not only would the businessman not come to justice, but I would be dead. Fear motivated his ultimate decision as much as the want to make his hero proud, and the idea that his hero is infallible. So it sounds to me like your character acted on basic "fight or flight" principle and chose to fight. I still hold that you played it well and that, given how you explained the party's reaction, they may have taken it too personally. Hopefully your character will find some form of atonement and the party will move on.
(Psi)SeveredHead 06-30-06, 02:49 PM	Now that's a confusing situation! I think you did the right thing. I think both you and the fighter should have been clearer about your intentions. Did the fighter intend to club you with his sword? Maybe you should have stated your intentions to cast a lethal spell (although you already did that once, which should have been kind of obvious to him). Basically, stress interfered with communication and judgement, and you both acted like real people (TM). I guess you can't raise him from the dead, huh? If the rest of the players (note, not PCs, players) say they have a problem with this situation, I suggest bringing in a new character. Now, from a metagaming point of view, no one could expect the cleric to win a grapple. It's not like he was uber-buffed. He knew he would lose. The Concentration check to cast that spell while grappled is DC 22, doable but not easy, and I'm not sure what kind of components Inflict Moderate Wounds has, so maybe casting the spell wasn't even legal.
malignor 06-30-06, 02:59 PM	I'd like to toss in the notion that if the Cleric was indeed of Good alignment, he wouldn't be the type to be bloodthirsty... and by bloodthirsty, I mean willing to kill when lethal force isn't part of the current situation. If someone is sitting there, cowering, a good priest shouldn't be screaming for his corpse (and willing to slay his allies) unless that someone is some personification of evil, like a demon.
kire024 06-30-06, 04:31 PM	I would like to say that you RP'ed your character very well, the choice he/you made were not the right one as it did result in death but that does happen. Both characters had stated that they were willing to do what ever they thought they had to to end the conflict and it was just that you ended it first. I would feel it may have been time to start a new campain in a new world for a while as the trust in the current campain would have been minimal if not lost. My question is why didn't the DM step in as things were clearly getting out of hand.
Endarrion 06-30-06, 06:47 PM	I think the situation was resolved in the only way it could have been and as both a DM and a player I would pray for that kind of strength in roleplaying in a campaign I was in. I don't think the DM should have done anything. It is what it is and it's time to move on, like REAL people, which is what our characters are supposed to be, right? If the party can get over it then that's awesome. If not, then that's too bad. Either the characters should get together and tell the cleric to hit the road or move on and try to keep the friendships. I mean, if the fighter who got killed can come back and not immediately kill the cleric, then I don't see any problems. I say good job roleplaying. As long as the people playing the game realize that you didn't kill the fighter just to make the player angry or whatever, then there's nothing to fight about.
Psychoticpsymon 06-30-06, 08:37 PM	Alright Avenger, listen up. You role-played well. You played like a jerk. Yes, your character was devoted. No, you shouldn't have killed the guy. Your options: Do nothing and hope the tension goes away (BAD) Apologize to everyone (again, if you have) and admit you made a huge mistake. Apologize specifically to the player of the character and to the players in general. Run. Run away, and never look back. I can understand what happened here. You made a judgement call and rolled high. You should have known though. I had a player reduce an animal companion of a high level character to -9, and she was damn lucky he didn't die. (Enormously bad consequences to the players) She had a weapon that could deal less damage too.
Dead_Body 07-01-06, 03:03 AM	You played your character fine. He did what he would do; after all, not all characters think before they act. My friend's fighter insulted Heironious without realizing he was in one of his temples, right next to a paladin to the same diety (my character). He apologized instantly, and we let him live :). Your party is being lame. Your character made it perfectly clear that he was not joking. The fighter was being aggressive, you were being diplomatic. You told him to move, he didn't. You showed him you mean business, but he didn't move yet. A struggle erupted, he died, and they're mad at you? The fighter's PC is, well... an idiot. If he is suprised that your character killed him, he is, quite frankly, not very smart. He already did damage to him, why wouldn't he do it again? Your wrap up was also well roleplayed, but for the wrong reasons. Your party has no reason to be mad at you, but your cleric did the right things - he repented and lost his faith. Tell your party that punishment for good roleplaying is not cool. If they argue, start rollplaying and see if they prefer it. Seriously. To wrap it up, I think that you weren't even in the wrong by killing the character. The fighter got what was coming to him, despite numerous warnings. :cookie: for good RPing :).
kelvinaw273 07-01-06, 03:21 AM	In situations like this it is the job of the uninvolved characters to act as peacemakers - fast! In this case, they didn't and they now blame you. What was wrong with another character stepping between you and saying: "Hey look, we have a disagreement here on this guy's innocence or guilt, why don't we take him into custody and go find someone who can detirmine this absolutely in a fair trial?" Would either of your characters have disagreed?
Dag 07-01-06, 03:28 AM	Dead Body: For the life of me I can't see why the fighter should be blamed for this. Even the OP seems to have accepted the blame, which is why his character has abandoned his hero and his faith after these incidents - one might think he would seek solace in his religion, but a dramatic and life-changing sense of guilt seems to be taking the character so it's in the player's hand how that is played out. I dont think he played fine, nor do I think he was diplomatic, not with a friend and adventuring companion. Saying "Step aside or I will kill you" Is acceptable if you don't know a person and are fighting passionately for something you believe in with all your heart, or it's a proper way to treat a companion if you happen to be dominated or controlled by some mind effecting magic, but it is certainly not diplomatic, nor is it "just fine" as you suggest. I said it before, apparantly, too harshly, but the character's actions were moronic, spurred on by an immensely over-blown case of hero-worship that any degree of common sense should have over-ridden. I think my main problem with all of this is that as a player, you (The OP)seized too strongly on this hero worship, if your character has some sort of immense mental problem maybe abandoning common sense and morality at the nod from your hero is ok, but a character with any common sense would see beyond this and do the right thing, particularly a cleric who should put the teachings of his deity above some deified mortal. I understand that he swore off his religion because of this mistake in judgement, but I'm wondering how a player justifies an obviously wise character (I'm assuming he had a high wisdon score anyways) acting in such a foolish manner. Apologies for any insult taken from previous post. Sometimes I ramble on and neglect to differentiate properly between character and player - suggesting a character acted like a moron is acceptable I think, but saying so about a player is a blatant insult, it's not what I had intended. My apologies Avenger.
Zillah 07-01-06, 03:29 AM	In situations like this it is the job of the uninvolved characters to act as peacemakers - fast! In this case, they didn't and they now blame you. What was wrong with another character stepping between you and saying: "Hey look, we have a disagreement here on this guy's innocence or guilt, why don't we take him into custody and go find someone who can detirmine this absolutely in a fair trial?" Would either of your characters have disagreed? i think yes he would have disagreed with the other character "in character" why? cause of his blind faith towards the legendary character. if he wasnt blinded by that in character it would have been different.
EpicLevelMobra 07-01-06, 07:11 AM	I just say the people your playing with are jerks if they can't see the story telling aspect of what's happening. I know people get attached to their characters ( better than most) but sometimes **** doesn't go their way, I mean I don't have a grudge against my DM if my character gets killed. I have been killed by a fellow PC, and I harbor no ill feelings, in fact it was one of the most legendary moments of any of our sessions, and made his paladin a blackguard. I appreciate what purpose my character took in the story, it made perfect sense in game so nothing negative ever came about it, just laughs about badass the scenario was. I was a lower-level sorcerer who had hung around him since the beginning of the campaign, by the way.
Mr_Hackman 07-02-06, 04:19 AM	If, as it sounds, you intended to kill the fighter the second time you cast inflict wounds, then that's not cool. I'd have done that last resort, using another spell to restrict/block/incapicate/etc the fighter. worst case use subdual dmg (or can you even do that with spells?). Personally tho, in DnD the whole death thing is toned down a bit, i mean anyone with enough GP could get rezzed. Killing the fighter is not good though At least the DM (hopefully) gave you major roleplaying XP (I know i would have)
LuckyLeprechaun 07-02-06, 04:46 AM	In situations like this it is the job of the uninvolved characters to act as peacemakers - fast! In this case, they didn't and they now blame you. What was wrong with another character stepping between you and saying: "Hey look, we have a disagreement here on this guy's innocence or guilt, why don't we take him into custody and go find someone who can detirmine this absolutely in a fair trial?" Would either of your characters have disagreed? kelvinaw273 brings up a very good and overlooked point: Where the heck was the SORCEROR! The rogue was unconcious, the WOUNDED fighter was in a GRAPPLE with the party CLERIC, and the CLERIC was the one who had wounded the fighter... His party members were KILLING each other, so obviously the first thing the sorceror does is grab a bowl of popcorn, watch the show, and think about the loot he'll get when all three of his party members are DEAD. Hmmmm.... team player for sure. We can debate for a long time (as we have been) about whether it was the OP's fault or not, we know we can do this, but where o' where has the little sorceror gone? The sorceror should of been in there by the time the fighter engaged the sorceror, calling for peace, or even holding one of the members of the fight back. Also, it's hardly sufficient for the DM to do nothing while their's a fight going on, and just say "that's not cool" at the end when someone's dead. What it comes down to is: we can debate for ages the morals of the OP's actions, but we really should consider the possibility of two fully capable people to step in at any point and prevent character fatality. Just a thought Lucky P.S. Dag, I'm not Avenger, but it was a good apology, I'm forgiving you! :D
draco1119 07-02-06, 05:28 AM	kelvinaw273 brings up a very good and overlooked point: Where the heck was the ROGUE! Actually, the rogue was unconscious, and the sorcerer was still standing. Which makes me wonder: why didn't the sorc cast Hold Person/Web/anything to make his party members stop fighting. Seems to me it would be easier for the spell-caster to calm things down.
Wellby 07-02-06, 05:56 AM	Hmm, I dunno. I take the OoC aspect of D&D into consideration when I'm playing. So I don't think I'd have caused the fighter life-threatening damage. Mind you, party in-fighting is like a sin in our group. If things were getting really bad the DM, as he is the moderator of the game, should step in, or otherwise make kobolds fight the party so the party has a common enemy! :D
geekling 07-02-06, 08:17 AM	Mind you, party in-fighting is like a sin in our group. Induldge me please, I keep hearing sentiments like these. But I can't but wonder how far is that goes? I mean, party in-fighting, it's a rather wide spectrum... Are we talking things like doing lethal damage trying to kill other party members, or is no in-fighting at all allowed - not even grand old arguments and raised voices? Your longterm party members that have been traveling together for long enough to be near enough family aren't even allowed to quarrel like an old married couple?
The Livewire 07-02-06, 10:32 AM	Really, I think it was correctly handled. I'm cursed with an edictic knowlege of game mechanics. In Battletech it makes me a walking BAP, and in D&D it means I need to remember not to know everything. The point of that is that yes, as a player, you often hit the conflict of 'as a player I should X but my character will Y.' There's no win. Someone points a sword at me, forget it. I'll fireball first, scortching ray second, and magic missile later. If it's a PC, I'll go for stunning, but a cleric is difficult to suddenly set for stun. fighter took Diehard, he got it. Did the cleric have any non-lethal type spells that day? The Halfling sounds like he had a similar problem, 'Do I try to stop them? It could work or it could make it worse with hellfire.'
STAT 07-02-06, 12:42 PM	I find it a bit confusing how the fighter was going to, "Keep things non-violent," while he's busy whacking people with his sword. It doesn't sound like the fighter was very commited to his position so I think he does have a share in the blame here. The only real mistake you made was casting that second inflict moderate wounds spell. A small lapse in judgment I'd class it as, even though it did have major consequences. I think it would have been wise to not cross the killing party member line but, I think the lesson has been learned. Also, make sure you talk with the fighter and inform him that when you start thwacking your allies that this is what can happen.
LuckyLeprechaun 07-02-06, 02:34 PM	Actually, the rogue was unconscious, and the sorcerer was still standing. :banghead: D'oh! read that wrong!
pres_man 07-02-06, 02:50 PM	I'm not sure if this has been brought (just scanned through the other posts), but Inflict has somantic components. If you were grappled, then you could not have cast it. Grappling spellcasters is one of the smartest things for fighter types to do, if your DM is letting cast spells with somantic components then he is seriously nerfing the fighter types.
Fiery Avenger 07-02-06, 03:27 PM	My apologies Avenger. Thank You, Dag - I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk - too much coffee and not enough sleep do that to me sometimes. Right, the two major questions that need adressing are: Where was the Sorcerer, and Why Didn't the DM Step In? One - The Sorcerer had previously killed a loved one with his infernal bloodline, which the DM (at the time it was a friend, but now the Sorcerer's player and I co-DM) has, in high-stress or high-tension situations, manifest as increased caster-levels and high-damage fire spells: he was unsure as to whether or not I would kill the Fighter, and as such didn't want to kill us both by freaking out and activating his infernal blood-line. Two - The DM didn't (and, IMHO shouldn't) step in because that's what his job is - he coaches and referees, but if the PCs aren't capable of roleplaying then what's the point - if he stops the confrontation from beginning, then he nerfs our capabilities to play our characters correctly. If he stops the conflict during it's course, it will boil over and end up coming back later - there is no stopping it once it's there - he had to let it happen because Rule 0 doesn't apply to emotional or moral conundrums. Oh, and as for Somatic or Material Components - we run a fairly rules-light game for ease of use with the new players, who were the Fighter (previously played a Sorcerer in the last campaign) and the Rogue (previously a cleric) both of whom are not rules minded people and as such work better without having to worry about having Bat Guano or how much weight they are carrying - we operate on a "DM Veto" policy, where if you think I or the DM (we switch duties every once and a while - he plays the Sorcerer, another reason why the Sorcerer doesn't just fix things - All Mighty DMPC is a dangerous thing) would let you have it, then ask and we might. The Fighter was trying to keep things Non-Lethal, I suppose - sometimes I mince words a bit - but I have asked all their motivations, and the Fighter was more interested in keeping the businessman, and his companions alive (at least at first) than keeping things non-violent. Sorry for the duration of time between posts, and thanks for all the response - I appreciate a good discussion when it comes :D
draco1119 07-03-06, 04:58 AM	One - The Sorcerer had previously killed a loved one with his infernal bloodline, which the DM (at the time it was a friend, but now the Sorcerer's player and I co-DM) has, in high-stress or high-tension situations, manifest as increased caster-levels and high-damage fire spells: he was unsure as to whether or not I would kill the Fighter, and as such didn't want to kill us both by freaking out and activating his infernal blood-line. That would have been sweet! Sorc: Uh, hey guys, what are doing? Fighter: Thou shalt not kill this businessman, Holy Roller! Cleric: I kick ass for the Lord! Fighter: *commences beating on Cleric* Cleric: *starts hurting fighter* Sorcerer: Uh-oh. I gotta stop this! *casts Web, which bursts into flame* Fighter: *screams in agony* Cleric: *screams in agony* Sorcerer: Oops.