Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tyron 05-22-04, 09:48 AM	Suppose one of your fellow adventures steals the spellbook of the wizard? In our party the rogue has a tendency to steal the wizards spellbooks/magical gear when he's a sleep. The rogue argues that this is his way of controlling the mage when he does something that is not inline with the rogue's expectations. This has happened a few times resulting in an angry wizard charming the rogue to give the spellbook back. The wizard warned the rogue after he stole the spellbooks/magical gear twice, that he is not going to be so polite if he does it again! After the third time that the rogue stole the spellbook's/magical gear the wizard reacted by disintegrating the rogue to dust. The wizard has a chaotic neutral alignment and the rogue a chaotic good alignment. May I have your opinion about this, was the wizard acting according to her alignment, would the stealing of party members gear be considered evil,....?
Hazrat 05-22-04, 09:59 AM	Stealing the spellbook for laughs is not necessarily an evil act, but it does more or less threaten the very life of the wizard. The wizard was certainly playing within his alignment, since he warned the rogue first and then acted on behalf of himself. Was stealing the gear of a party member evil in this particular case? I'd say no; it was not an evil act. Was it a good thing to do? Most certainly not. The rogue should have used other measures to point out his expectations to the wizard that would have been more in line with his alignment, and having to reroll a character may be a good lesson in this regard.
Nom 05-22-04, 10:19 AM	Stealing items from other party members is usually considered anti-social, although sometimes it's deemed a declaration of open hostility. If the goods are reliably returned, it might possibly be laughed off as a prank. In the case described, the rogue had seemingly decided that he was moral arbiter of the wizard, and was going to enforce this through theft of spellbooks. Not surprisingly, the wiz didn't seem to like this idea. As far as I can tell, both characters acted according to their moral principles.
MageofMyth 05-22-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by Tyron Suppose one of your fellow adventures steals the spellbook of the wizard? The rogue argues that this is his way of controlling the mage when he does something that is not inline with the rogue's expectations. The wizard has a chaotic neutral alignment and the rogue a chaotic good alignment. May I have your opinion about this, was the wizard acting according to her alignment, would the stealing of party members gear be considered evil,....? Chaotic people believe that the individual is more important than the law. I think that the Rogue is acting out of alignment for trying to controll another person. The wizard was well within his/her rights to kill the rogue. The rogue stole his livelyhood. Without a spellbook the wizard is just another person in their bathrobes. As the DM I would have not allowed the wizard to memorize spells for that day, since he had to find his spellbook, instead of memorizing. I would have rulled that looking made the wizard no longer in the right frame of mind. But then again, the first time, I would have also had lots of things happen to the rogue that day, which only a wizard with spells could help with. The second time I would have asked the player of the rogue to leave my game, stealing from other party members is the biggest crime.
Wizard 05-22-04, 01:35 PM	Err...the wizard wouldn't HAVE to prepare spells---he could simply use the ones left over from the day before.
Lina_Inverse 05-22-04, 01:53 PM	first off,i wont debate wether what he did is evil or not.but i will note this,it was certinly not CG.controlling or attempting to controll another is a lawfull act NOT a chaotic one.so this rogue certinly wasnt very chaotic good. and a CN wizard has every right in the world to disentagrate him,most definitly.
LordArkan 05-22-04, 02:38 PM	I think 9/9 alignments would agree with the wizard in this case. :ayyyy!: He warned the rogue that something bad would happen, and followed through with it. If anything, I'd say a more CN wizard would have blasted the rogue after the second time (Maybe even the first). The rogue, however, deserved everything he got and more. Attempting to control another person is LE, not CG. He was playing out of his alignment, and broke the huge rule of YOU DON'T STEAL FROM OTHER PARTY MEMBERS. What was the rest of the party doing while this was going on? I can imagine the fighter of the group giving the rogue a "good talking to" after the first time, and by the third time would be racing with the wizard to kill the bugger first.
Tyron 05-22-04, 03:25 PM	The party: The wizards were its about: CN, Wizard 7/ Incantatrix 9 Female sun elf. good aligned: Rogue (Rogue 9, sorcerer 6, Arcane trickster 1), Paladin (LG, Pal 16), Ranger (CG, Ranger 16) and an Elven fighter (NG, Ftr 6/Cleric 1/dragon slayer 1/Weapon master 8) neutral: wizard illusionist (CN, Wiz 13), he more or less favours my cause as far as he cares we have agreed to share spells. Let me explain the last incident and judge yourself: It all started in front of a huge chasm 10 miles wide and 1500 ft across. The wizard took the lead to get the party across. But it was a trap set up 2 ogre mages, a red wizard and an adult blue dragon. As soon as the wizard crossed the chasm she was engulfed in an illusion, which she disbelieved, but the rest of the party did not. She was not surprised, and casted a quickened ethereal jaunt to get herself into safety. Meanwhile the party unaware of the illusion was attacked by the blue dragon, ogre mages and red wizard. The party reacted quickly, many of them disbelieved the illusion and attacked. The wizard seeing that the red wizard was casting a spell jumped back from the ethereal plane and casted a power word stun. Thus plunging the red wizard into the depths of the chasm. The wizard followed in pursuit disintegrating the red wizard. But the battle between the dragon and the ogre mages did not go well and soon the rest of the party was in dire need (They made a series of mistakes). Realizing this (successful listen check) the wizard abandoned her plan of retrieving the items from the red wizard before he would crash into the bottom of the chasm, problably destroying some of it. Casted a quickened dimension door up to help her fellow adventures. Battle raged on things for the rest of the party did not look good and the next round the wizard continued by casting a quickened lower spell resistance followed up by a twin spell enervation (6 HD drain). In the same round the paladin not willing to negotiate with the weakened dragon charged again the ranger and the illusionist killed one of the ogre mages and the rogue wounded the other. The charging paladin was easily dispatched/killed by the dragon by concentrating all of his attacks. The ogre mage failing his concentration check was killed in the next round by the illusionist and the rogue. And in the next round the ranger and the wizard concentrated their attacks on the dragon who retaliated by blasting the wizard she flew above the dragon with his breath weapon. In the following round realizing that he was overwhelmed, the dragon dived into the chasm and the ranger and wizard followed in hot pursuit, slaying the dragon with fireballs (from staff) and arrows. Here the problems started the ranger flying down with his winged boots and the wizard spiralling down with his overland flight into the chasm in search of the red wizard. But at the bottom they found quicksand and no red wizard. The duration of the winged boot charge was depleted. And the ranger shouted to the wizard to get him to the edge of the chasm. The wizard responded by if you ask polite I will teleport the two of us up. The ranger refused and the wizard said then you have to climb and she flew up. After this exhausting battle the wizard proposed to take some rest to rememorize her spells. After a few hours of climbing the ranger reached the edge of the chasm. The rogue upset waked up the wizard and asked why have you abandoned the ranger and said next time I will backstab you for this. The wizard responded by ''ask the ranger'' and continued with her trance warning the rogue not to steal something from her and further ignoring the rogue (the wizard is a female sun elf). And this was the moment that the rogue took his change to steal her staff of enchantment and staff of fire. After her trance the wizard in fury of her stolen equipment disintegrated the rogue.
Ramius_Mordale 05-22-04, 03:49 PM	Hmm....sounds like the rogue diserved it. The wizard gave the warning and she did say all the ranger had to do is ask politely, and this senerio proves why you should be nice to a high level wizard. ****** off wizard = death.:teach: Needless to say, wizard was playing with the alignment it has, rogue was not. If the rogue was truly CG he would have taken the staffs and tossed them down the shaft. Then said, "Hey, you leave someone behind you can get your own crap back off the chasm floor." Dusted off hands, didn't 'steal' anything, so the Wizard can't complain or just out right kill off of that scenerio, cause she would have known exactly where the items were, the rogue merely misplaced them off the cliff into the chasm. :smirk: Then again I usually play my rogues smart enough not to **** off wizards in my group by stealing their spell books and magic items. Besides the rogue should have been more clever then just keep stealing the wizards magic items/spellbook. And to stay CG probably should have used my scenerio above. But thats just me:angel: .
Thorak 05-22-04, 05:25 PM	The Rogue certainly wasn't acting Good. "You let our highly-skilled outdoorsman at the bottom of a chasm he will have to put some effort, but not much risk, into climbing out of? Next time I'm gonna KILL you!" Seems pretty darn evil to me. And the wizard's RP was beautiful; "Oh, you're not gonna be nice. Well, that's a high cliff. Better get climbin', moron." Perfect example of why you don't tick off an implusive mage with questionable morals. And the moment anyone in the party starts stealing from the others, they've abandoned party cohesiveness in favor of their own selves. And should be punished harshly by the party. Unless it was just a prank, and even then it shouldn't be looked on favorably.
fish_heads 05-22-04, 05:49 PM	I have to say I agree with the wizard on this. As a player and DM, I think that it's great that the player reacted and "resolved" the situation in game. There's nothing worse than having people mad at each other after you're done playing and then asking the DM to rule on the issue.
Albert Dante 05-22-04, 06:45 PM	A "few hours of climbing" might seem like little to players OOC, but it's a royal pain you know where for the characters.... IMO, the ranger was in danger as well... The wizards did not do right in abandonning him, and did worst in killing a fellow party member. There are other ways (Dominate, and keeping him dominated, comes to mind, shooting him till he's under 0 hp another, but disintegrate is IMO exageration) to make the rogue stop... At the very least he should contribute greatly to his reanimation, or be kicked out of the group. It's a living, unique person! I'm not saying the rogue is right here. You shoudn't mess with the wizard's spellbook, like you shoudn't remove the fighter's weapons. But the wizard is far from clean here... Congratulations to both the wizard and the rogue in contributing to deteriorating the relations between the people of your group. Those OOC things are some of the few OOC things that count, but they count indeed.
Orcish Fury 05-22-04, 07:03 PM	I love that wizard! It's so rare to see CN played correctly, but he's done it from what I've read. Ranger - "Wizard, save me!" Wizard - "Say please :angel: " Ranger - "^%*& you!" Wizard - "Suit yourself. I'll be waiting at the top." The ranger needs to humble himself a bit unless he enjoys solving his own problems. The rogue, on the other hand, got what he had coming to him. I'm suprised the wizard gave him not one, but two warnings before disentigrating him.
Vanigo 05-22-04, 10:40 PM	Yeah, the wizard sounds pretty unambiguously in the right here. Might have been a little out of line if he'd been good-aligned, but it's not at all out of character for a CN wizard to follow through on his threats. As for party unity? Heck, if the rogue is the type to steal from his party members, killing him probably made the party more solid.
Dauntless 05-23-04, 02:12 AM	Originally posted by Vanigo Yeah, the wizard sounds pretty unambiguously in the right here. Might have been a little out of line if he'd been good-aligned, but it's not at all out of character for a CN wizard to follow through on his threats. As for party unity? Heck, if the rogue is the type to steal from his party members, killing him probably made the party more solid. At least the party knows that when the Wizlady says something, she means it. :smirk:
Hazrat 05-23-04, 06:27 AM	Originally posted by Albert Dante A "few hours of climbing" might seem like little to players OOC, but it's a royal pain you know where for the characters.... IMO, the ranger was in danger as well... The wizards did not do right in abandonning him, He did not abandon the Ranger, the ranger chose to be stubborn and climb himself. If you have to choose between saying please or climbing for several hours and you choose the second, that would be nobody's responsability but your own. and did worst in killing a fellow party member. There are other ways (Dominate, and keeping him dominated, comes to mind, shooting him till he's under 0 hp another, but disintegrate is IMO exageration) to make the rogue stop... At the very least he should contribute greatly to his reanimation, or be kicked out of the group. It's a living, unique person! I'm not saying the rogue is right here. You shoudn't mess with the wizard's spellbook, like you shoudn't remove the fighter's weapons. But the wizard is far from clean here... Congratulations to both the wizard and the rogue in contributing to deteriorating the relations between the people of your group. Those OOC things are some of the few OOC things that count, but they count indeed. I disagree with your stance. The wizard had his spellbook stolen twice already and had made it very very clear that he would respond in kind the next time it would be stolen. It is perfectly alright to follow trough on your threats as a chaotic neutral character. The method used in this case was rather lethal, yet proverbial slap on the wrist would certainly not be enough after someone had repeatedly stolen his spellbook. Just because it's a unique person does not mean that the rogue's life comes above the wizards own survival. That is the bottom line for the chaotic neutral wizard. I'd also like to remark that there has been no evidence of deteriorated groupfeelings. For all we know the rogue rolled up a new character and learned a good lesson, with the rest of the party having a laugh. Given the story Tyron has conveyed to us, this party has some very original and witty members; to make the assumption that they cannot make the destinction between ingame and out of game is not very founded at this point.
zerpentor 05-23-04, 08:28 AM	hohohohhohoooo if a rogue stole a wizards spellbook to control the wizard, i'd be ******.. he would only be doing it once too.. if it happened again he would either be killed on sight or excluded from the party (which means the char becomes an NPC as the DM will not play 2 seperate adventures at once) depending on my chars alignment.
Salla 05-23-04, 09:00 AM	Frankly, the FIRST time the rogue showed he wasn't concerned about the party, he should have been given the boot ICly. The world is dangerous enough without having someone you can't rely on in the group.
zerpentor 05-23-04, 09:21 AM	ME: waits for the rogue to fall asleep DM: ok you wait for a few minutes till you hear the Rogue snoring while firmly holding the Wizard's spellbook in his arms. ME: I quietly pick up my Greatsword and bring it down with all my strength on the Rogue's head. DM: The skull splits in half spattering blood and braintissue all over the campsite.the Rogue is dead. ME: here's your spellbook back friend. you might want to wipe the blood off of it though.
Tyron 05-23-04, 11:40 AM	I have send the thread to my party members and they argue that you members of the board can’t judge the situation, because you don’t know the history. So here is a short summary of some events prior to the event described above: And there is a lot of history before this encounter, lots of this has to do with the way I try to play the character as a chaotic neutral character that is an high level Incantatrix (master of metamagic and someone who dislikes incursions of outsiders). I will give a quick summary of some events: The keep of one of the players was attacked by demons, directly after this battle without negotiation the wizard tried to capture one of the attacking demons. In order to retrieve information about why they were attacking us and what they were doing on the material plane. Resulting in some sort of teleportation of both the wizard and a demonic sorcerer into the keep to overwhelm him. The rest of the party had already retreated back into the keep. So this sounded as a good idea. After this the rogue disagreed with the wizard and stole her spell book, after her trance the wizard seeing her spell book in possession of the rogue, with her permanent arcane sight, asked to give it back. The rogue refused, arguing that she put the party into danger by teleporting the demon into the keep and to be certain that this won’t happen again I took your spell book. The wizard couldn’t convince the rogue to give it back. So the wizard reacted by casting a suggestion, the rogue responded by shooting a crossbow bolt at the wizard, but the wizards succeeded her concentration check and suggested the rogue. Here they met three NPC from a distant land asking the players to help them (wizard, cleric, fighter). An incident, shortly after the incident in the keep, where the wizard wanted to prepare herself with potions and scrolls before they went on adventure to a distant land in the east to help the NPC. The party disagreed and after some argument the wizard accepted this, because the three npc’s said they were in a hurry. The reason that the wizard accepted this was because she always could teleport back or buy the necessary magic in another city. During the journey the wizard made it clear that she did not trust the NPC some things did not make sense to her. An incident where the wizard teleported away from the party to buy some scrolls in Silverymoon, while they were in a dungeon. The wizard judge that this wouldn't put the party in too much danger because her spells were almost depleted (She couldn't do much anyway, and they disagreed to come with her to Silverymoon). And the NPC accompanying the party still had most/all of their spells. An incident were the party wanted to negotiate with an evil outsider by giving the outsider a number of very powerful items. The wizard as Incantatrix did not want to negotiate with the outsider and teleported away from the party with one of the items, which she got by suggesting the rogue. She thought better to think of a better plan than to do business with an outsider. The three npc were still with the party so if things got really bad the rest of the party could still teleport away.
Thorak 05-23-04, 12:06 PM	So, first theft was because the rogue didn't agree with the wizard's choice of actions. And when the mage tried to 'encourage' the thief to give it back, the thief resorted to deadly force. If I'd been a CN wizard, there'd have been chunky bits of thief all over the nearby terrain right then and there. The next two incidents display self-concern on the part of the wizard, but not to the point of harming others. Perfectly Neutral, and good RP. And the final incident, when confronted with a situation that the character is based around dreading/hating, the wizard did all they could do to prevent it. Kind of like a Paladin would do if he saw the party agreeing to do something horribly evil to further their cause. Again, good RP. IMHO, still, the thief was lucky he wasn't sent to his final reward a whole heck of a lot sooner. The wizard's playing her (I assume 'she' because it's an incantrix, not an incanter) character quite well, her own opinions and thoughts being given a greater weight than anyone else's, and acting impulsively based on the situation. The thief, of the two, has done more to shatter party unity and cohesiveness than the wizard has.
paolung 05-23-04, 03:36 PM	i'm going to break with popular opinion here and say that it DOESN'T MATTER what alignment either character was "acting in" or "not acting in". i'll say it again - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOUR ALIGNMENT IS in this case. the only time your alignment matters is if it's a requirement for using an item, class ability, spell, etc. in other words, your alignment has nothing to do with how you can choose to act. it has everything to do with how you've acted in the past. remember, ALIGNMENT FOLLOWS ACTIONS, not the other way around.
Joe Gold 05-23-04, 04:07 PM	I think killing the rogue was a little harsh, but not inconceivable. Was the rogue actually expecting the wizard to listen to his commands while not getting dominated/frogged/toastified?
Tyron 05-23-04, 04:10 PM	ALIGNMENT FOLLOWS ACTIONS, not the other way around. Good point paolung. But if you would give the wizard and rogue an alignment what would it be? Was the rogue actually expecting the wizard to listen to his commands I think so: first he tried to control the actions of the wizard and with the last attemp he tried to open a discussion, but the wizard was to ****** off and transformed warning into action. The discussion that the rogue tried to open was why have you abandoned the ranger and abandoned us in a broader perspective (see incidents), although the player revealed this after his character was disintigrated.
Vanigo 05-23-04, 04:11 PM	Originally posted by paolung i'm going to break with popular opinion here and say that it DOESN'T MATTER what alignment either character was "acting in" or "not acting in". i'll say it again - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOUR ALIGNMENT IS in this case. the only time your alignment matters is if it's a requirement for using an item, class ability, spell, etc. in other words, your alignment has nothing to do with how you can choose to act. it has everything to do with how you've acted in the past. remember, ALIGNMENT FOLLOWS ACTIONS, not the other way around. Well, look at it this way: the incantatrix has a CN alignment. This indicates that, in the past, she has acted in a chaotic neutral manner. In the incidents mentioned, she has been acting in accordance with her (implied) previous actions. Where I come from, this is known as acting in character, and it's considered to be a good thing. In other words, actions follow previous actions, alignment indicates previous actions, therefore actions tend to follow alignment. It's kind of a feedback loop.
Edymnion 05-23-04, 04:34 PM	I'd say the Wizard was not only well within her right to do what she did, she was overly generous with the rogue. To the rogue player, if (s)he is reading this: You stole the frickin spellbook. The wizard tried to settle things in a civil manner, and you SHOT at them?!? You were exceedingly lucky that she didn't decide you had betrayed THEM and blasted you into a million little pieces right then and there. YOU screwed up, not the wizard's player. Chaotic Neutral means "I care for myself, and those I care for. Everybody else be damned." She was totally in her right to consider you an enemy the instant you tried to use deadly force on her. Usually, I don't lay down a blanket "He's right, he's wrong" sort of statement. Here though, I don't think I can go wrong. The Rogue's player was being disruptive, he was warned to stop, he was THREATENED to stop, and he still didn't stop. He could not be trusted, he couldn't take a hint, and he was actively putting the safety of the entire party in risk. Sorry that you got blasted man, but you were asking for it, and you got what you deserved.
Alderic 05-23-04, 04:58 PM	A chaotic neutra wizard ? Well, I'm actually surprised he trusted the rogue for so long, and I find strage that he let his guard down and let the rogue steal his book. Other than that, he was really too nice, I don't think many wizards would have considered the theft of their spellbook a joke, not even good ones. And yeah, when someone puts his hands on your spellbook, you just blast them with the best you've got....unless they got blasted when they picked up the book in the first place, I don't know many lvl 11+ wizards that just leave their book unprotected ;)
Maruku 05-24-04, 12:08 PM	Well, you might as well hear the rogue's side of the story. And maybe some of the ooc stuff. Altho it is metagaming, both the rogue and the wizard keep in consideration the way the DM is going to play. Well, first of all a little background. The wizard wasn't in the original party. She joined later on. The rogue is real important for the current quest the party is on. An NPC party joined referring to the rogue as 'the key'. These NPC live to only serve the rogue. They push her to go to the east, where she is needed to do 'something'. This voyage towards the east involves danger, so trust is essential. And this is where the stress between the rogue and wizard shows up. The wizard shows absolutely no trust throughout the voyage. She takes to much time to prepare, when time is short. Although it of course is a wizard's way to combat well-prepared, she takes loads of time. Above that, she commits actions for which she doens't take responsibility. An example: teleporting an evil mage into the castle of a party member, after having dashed off to try and identify the assaillants, without informing the party. Of course, it seems smart at first, but then again, the mage is able to cast after being teleported. The wizard who casted the teleport spell isn't, so this leaves the enemy mage able to cast a prismatic spray. After this action she didn't even want to take the critique the party had about this. So, in a way of forcing her to talk, the rogue steals the spellbook. Not planning on keeping or destroying it, casting suggestion on this rogue seems a little drastic. The last incident tyron talkes about didn't even involve a spellbook. While the wizard was asleep, the rogue stole two staffs. One staff of enchantment and one of fireballs. She didn't even hide them and once again just wanted to discuss the actions of the wizard. Casting disintegrate without even asking why the rogue steals seems a little odd to me. Ah well, of course the rogue is a rogue, and there will always be a way to steal. But hopefully it won't be needed and the rogue and wizard will be able to cooperate in the future. Might I stress that the incident leading to being disintegrated didn't involve a spellbook? The objects stolen were two wands... And talking about alignment, I think this is quite difficult. D&D technically, I think that both the rogue and wizard should be good. The wizard might have a tendency to neutral, since he doesn't listen to what the rest of the party says. The rogue on the other hand doesn't really think twice when given the opportunity to steal something. I myself think it's in the nature of a rogue, but one could argue that it's neutral to behave in such a way.
Maruku 05-24-04, 12:10 PM	Originally posted by Tyron The discussion that the rogue tried to open was why have you abandoned the ranger and abandoned us in a broader perspective (see incidents), although the player revealed this after his character was disintigrated. It still is a bit hard to reveal anything when you're being disintegrated.
Salla 05-24-04, 12:19 PM	You can discuss someone's actions without stealing from them. If the rogue had issues with the wizard, then he should have gathered the whole party, wizard included, for a talk and addressed them to the group ICly. You don't solve a problem by being a problem.
Maruku 05-24-04, 12:27 PM	True, but the wizard wasn't in for a discussion. She just wanted to sleep. Besided, how much trouble is it to say 'Sorry, I won't do it again' and get the wands back? Of course, 'it' refers to breaking a vow she made to the party. This vow was about abandoning the party. Being a rogue, watching a wizard fly effortlessly out of a chasm, knowing there is a ranger down there climbing up, who you like better than the wizard, I think asking for an explanation is quite mild. Maybe she'd better use her spellstoring rapier in a nice backstab...
Tyron 05-24-04, 01:12 PM	Now the discussion is really getting interesting. Once a thief always a thief thats what my opinion is. And next time there will be no next time. Rogue. :)
lantzer 05-24-04, 01:16 PM	Originally posted by Maruku Maybe she'd better use her spellstoring rapier in a nice backstab... Only if you are playing the sort of character who murders his companions and allies for petty reasons. The ranger didn't have to fly down there, if he couldn't fly back up... To kill the wizard because the ranger was thoughtless seems to be a bit... odd. Face it - the rogue was bullying the wizard. (That's what taking his stuff in order to force cooperation is). The wizard got tired of it, gave plenty of warning, and finally pushed back - wizard style. Given the discussion thus far, it would have been silly for the wizard to push back just a little - that's just begging for an escalation. And a rogue you can't trust isn't someone you can ever turn your back on, as evidenced by the statement quoted above. The wizard is, from the discussion, somebody who perhaps is thoughtless and impulsive and self-centered, but not deliberately counter-productive. The wizard might be a fool, but the rogue was a scoundrel. And not a nice one.
Maruku 05-24-04, 01:24 PM	lol, idd, the ranger wasn't that nice. But having to hear that from the ranger himself tells a thing or two about the wizard. Warning is hardly what the wizard was doing. Not one time did the wizard inquire about the rogue's reasons. And then again, the wizard had it coming this time. She did apologize, but she will be zero-toleranced next time (I like the verb), probably by kicking her out of the party. Mind you, the wizard owes the party bigtime, since the party, together with the rogue saved her life. Although this still doesn't justify any harmful actions, it should mean something for the way the rogue and wizard interact. And for the last word this post. Try looking upon actions in a Kant perspective. The intention in stealing the wands can hardly be called evil. Disintegrating a human being is!
Thegreatmonkey 05-24-04, 02:17 PM	"And for the last word this post. Try looking upon actions in a Kant perspective. The intention in stealing the wands can hardly be called evil. Disintegrating a human being is!" ummm stealing from a party member especially when it's his livelyhood can't really be called a good act now can it? And this is the FOUTH time the rogue stole from his fellow party member. AND the wizard was waaayy more patient then he even should have been, he gave not just one but three warnings to the bullying rogue for stealing his stuff. The wiz should have blasted him the second time not the fouth. The rogue should feel lucky the wizard allowed him to live as long as he did. And for the whole rogue being the important to the future thing, he should have thought about that before he got himself killed. The wizard bears no blame for what happens. On a side note I'd like to hear what he party does after all of this. Could one of you fill us in after your next game.
Maruku 05-24-04, 02:35 PM	Originally posted by Thegreatmonkey ummm stealing from a party member especially when it's his livelyhood can't really be called a good act now can it? And this is the FOUTH time the rogue stole from his fellow party member. AND the wizard was waaayy more patient then he even should have been, he gave not just one but three warnings to the bullying rogue for stealing his stuff. The wiz should have blasted him the second time not the fouth. The rogue should feel lucky the wizard allowed him to live as long as he did. livelyhood? a wand? it's are both lame wands, especially if you are a 16th-level wizard imo. Giving three warnings can be understood as ignoring the rogue three times or not listening to party members. And for the whole rogue being the important to the future thing, he should have thought about that before he got himself killed. The wizard bears no blame for what happens. On a side note I'd like to hear what he party does after all of this. Could one of you fill us in after your next game. [/B] As for now the party looks as sticking together, but we'll see...
Tyron 05-24-04, 03:13 PM	Mind you, the wizard owes the party bigtime, since the party, together with the rogue saved her life. Must the wizard be forever in your debt rogue. Just count how often the wizard saved your life. Did you think you would have survived the blue dragon if it was not for the wizard to dimension door up and help. Was it not the wizard who killed Kelotrik (half dragon/half salamander who slew almost the entire party). Off course the wizard is in deep gratitude for you and the party saving the wizard. But the wizards gratitude has a limit rogue.... If you're really so noble hearted rogue and respected the wizard for the person she is. You would never have stolen the wizards livelyhood (spellbook). Don't you agree?
Sereno 05-24-04, 03:52 PM	Leaving alignment out of this, to start with, some people choose an alignment and try to play it "correctly" and some people play their character "correctly" and try to figure out what alignment they are -- neither is right or wrong, and neither is better or worse. It seems to me that while the wizard certainly overreacted with a save-or-die spell, the rogue should have seen it coming. When a wizard says, "Don't do that again, or else...." The "or else" can mean many, many things, none of them pleasant. Perhaps, the wizard (without her book) had nothing else to "or else" with and would have looked weak and foolish if she did nothing; simply encouraging the rogue to try to control her through theft and manipuation (something no CN would EVER allow). A lot of people are trying to justify one side or the other by saying how the rogue and the wizard "should" feel ... but that's not valid. The players (through their characters) feel how they feel and that's it. Feelings are valid in and of themselves, the actions taken because of feelings are all that should be questioned. This sounds like a very well played situation (on all sides, even though the ultimate outcome is bad for the rogue). Personally, I wouldn't want to adventure with this rogue -- where he'd steal my gear if I act in a way he doesn't like. But, because I'm a NG character I wouldn't have disintegrated him. If he really irritated me, I might take a swing at him, though, and leave it up to the healers to repair the hurt.... PS this is also a good example of why an adventure or campaign shouldn't be predicated upon the actions of just one PC (or NPC) ... now the DM will have to scramble to make "it" happen or make a True Res. available....
Cunning Linguist 05-24-04, 04:11 PM	And for the last word this post. Try looking upon actions in a Kant perspective. The intention in stealing the wands can hardly be called evil. Disintegrating a human being is! Yes, lets try to take a Kantian perspectiv to this: Do you want everyone in the world to press there opinion on everyone else, by stealing something of value, then not giving it back unless they perform there wishes? No, noone would want this. Do you want the punishment for a crime to be dealt by the one suffering for the crime? Some people would say yes to this. So in a Kantian perspectiv, the stealing is far more evil then the killing.
eRaz0r 05-24-04, 09:43 PM	Philosophy aside, the rogues methods of "negotiation" were ineffective, to say the least. Anyone with the least insight into human behaviour would be able to guess the outcome of this interaction. 1/ The Rogue feels that the Wizard showed no consideration for the rest of the party because her actions have appeared somewhat reckless (e.g. teleporting the evil mage back to the party's tower without warning or planning). 2/ The Rogue believed that the Wizard was too haughty or arrogant to negotiate without some demonstration of threat. 3/ The Rogue proceeded to threaten the Wizard with the only thing in his power (other than deadly force) - the loss of items necessary for the Wizard to be an effective Wizard. 4/ The Wizard didn't take kindly to that. Sure, I think the "moral" thing for the Wizard to do would have been to negotiate with the Rogue, but we already know that the Wizard isn't terrible moral (CN). The rogue should have dealt with this situation differently. Not because what the Wizard did was justified, but simply because it was totally foreseeable. If deadly force isn't conscionable (and it isn't), then there is no other credible threat to give to a powerful Wizard. Befriend them, avoid them, or slay them. Threatening them just annoys them and that's not a place you want to be, as you discovered. As an aside - never rely on the fact your character seems vital to the DM's plot to save you from other PCs. They really might not give a damn.
bitnine 05-24-04, 09:52 PM	Eh, mebbe the rogue shoulda just executed the wizard in his sleep for that LE-teleportation-put-the-party-at-horrible-risk-loose-cannon scenario. Woulda worked out better for senior rogue. In any event, another option should have been clear: leave the wizard. Get the rest of the party together, and tell the wizard to shape up or be left behind. I suppose the wizard could have still gone ballistic and disintegrated the rogue over that, but it's a much clearer stance.
Frodo Lives 05-24-04, 09:52 PM	I find it hard to belive that the rogue (in character) would continue to steal the wizards spellbook, and not expect to be roasted. I mean the wizard doesn't sound like the friendliest person in the world, she made the ranger climb for hours just because he wouldn't say "please". I think that is funny and great RP by the way, every character doesn't have to be best friends with everyone else. What the heck did the rogue expect? I'd just tell the party, for the record, that your spellbooks are now cursed and if anyone touchs them without permission they will be hit with a feeblemind spell. I doubt that the rest of the "good" aligned group thinks that blackmailing the wizard is an act that is acceptable either. Did they verbally slap the rogue for doing this before? They should. I like the idea of putting a geas on the rogue if he tries to steal anything from the party again. It will cause less OOC and IC problems, but it will stop the negative action. The wizard was right, the group is not looking at the whole picture, and the rogue got what he deserved.
Hot Rod 05-25-04, 12:28 AM	You have a PALADIN in the party and he didn't object to the thief's actions? Did anyone back the wizard up vs. the LE (acting) thief? At the first exchange, taking the spellbook, refusing to return it (note: a chance to end it peacefully was refused by the rogue who started it), suggestion (note: non lethal, no lasting effects), to shooting the Wizard (lethal attack, lasting consequences well beyond disrupting of a spell, which also shouldn't have been possible w/o a readied action to attack [i.e. you had already decided to attack before refusing to return the book]) with a crossbow tells me a great deal about the player of the thief. Yes, I read the whole thread, and your arguments Marek... The rogue is full of himself (or at least the player is of the importance of his character), he places his importance well above that of the wizard in particular. If a LG wizard I was playing had his book stolen by a rogue and the above sequence occured, you'd have gotten the Disintigrate right then (post Xbow bolt). Using lethal force against me means you are NOT ON MY TEAM. After recovering the book, I'd have left the group if they had not supported me against the rogue as well. What would your fighter(s) have done if you stole all his armor and weapons? Doing it to CONTROL the wizard is utterly against your professed alignment, you should have been cheering the wizard on for making the ranger walk for being rude. Granted a lecture anout bringing the BBEG home to the castle would be in order, but involving threats (real or implied) is out of order. Way out of order when the object being threatened turns a powerful mage into a low HP peasant if destroyed or lost, think about it... How would your party feel about being threatened with disjunction if they didn't listen hmmm? Just Wands? You do realize that taking something from someone is bad right? You had many warnings that your method of negotiation wasn't working then you do it again? (Int 6 character perhaps?) IMO taking the wizards spellbook is like inflicting the PC with a lethal poison, then holding the antidote and saying "Now listen here..." Thus LE IMO, and the paladin should have been detecting you from great distances at your level. As for the suggestion of dominating a fellow party member, that too would be a LE act (or at least LN if the mage wasn't selfish about demands). It would also have been much worse for the player's around the table with the wizard now playing 2 PCs and the rogue's player who might as well go home. (or leave the table if it is his home :( ) I would always prefer that if a party conflict of that magnitude occurs that it be over quickly so the rest can get on with the game.
was_fired 05-25-04, 02:30 AM	You are aware that a fully charged staff of enchantment is worth 65,000gp right? Now lets say this thing was one-half charged with a value of 32,500gp and we know we are dealing with 16th level characters here with an average worth of 260,000gp. This makes that staff roughly equal to a +4 weapon or a melee fighters backup ranged weapon at this level. If we are dealing with a wand of fireballs the price is tiny. However if we are dealing with a staff of evocation we get an item of the same worth as above. So how would any character act when their spell-book (armor and weapon) have been stolen in the past by a condecending and controling character and now over 10% of their worth has been stolen by the same character? Now lets add to this the guy attacked him using lethal force. What reason did he have NOT to kill the guy? Clearly there was no sense of companionship between the two the rogue wanted control and the wizard didn't want to become one of those brain washed NPCs who this guy has clearly conned into believing that he is the choosen one (at least this is how the wizard would likely see it).
jokotoko 05-25-04, 03:04 AM	To me it is all very clear: - The rogue is important in the campaign - The rogue acted completely out of line - The rogue got killed - The rogue cannot be left behind since the DM already decided (s)he would be important - The party is looking for lame excuses to justify the actions of the rogue and blame the wizard - Face it, the rogue had it comming....dump his character! If he's raised the wizard should kill him immediately! To the rest of the party: say please next time!
ourden 05-25-04, 04:40 AM	hmm disintigration seems a bit harsh. I would have settled with Polymorphing him into a Ferret or maybe a Parrot. that if anything is a classic wizard response to such a trangresion :) "Don't meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -'mithrandir'
Ramius_Mordale 05-25-04, 06:11 AM	See now Ourden gots the right idea about wizards. Why kill them when you can make the person your pet? :smirk: Heh...well maybe I just perfer more clever ways then killing. In any matter, the rogue should have known of the risks before he made his actions. He played it stupid and he died for it. Now if you have a paladin in the group, he should probably just kill the wizard right off the bat. Killing a person for theft is merely petty in its own right but more sever then stealing a few silver here and there. Items can be replaced human life cannot (well not easily in anycase). What the wizard should have done is asked Mr. Paladin to arrest the rogue for stealing from her. He slaps on some manacles spends a few nights in the jail house then gets released. Or whatever the party deems as punishment. Be it take away his theives tools, bind his hands at night, etc.... But hey, I usually don't run into these problems. I just take care of them smart. You don't directly do anything to them. You just choose the right time and right place for when you have the advantage. If your in public and some wizard just got up and fried you, she'd be as dead as you either then or not too long from then. But no need to steal them from her. Just say, well, guess your not getting any treasure or nice fancy magic junk until you tell us whats going on. There are always better ways then either one of these characters did to supposedly 'talk' to one another then they did. But hey seems like both wanted to bring it too this conclusion. As you all have said, your actions speak for you, not your words. Well thats all I have to really say. Later and good journeys. :angel:
Tyron 05-25-04, 07:54 AM	Clearly there was no sense of companionship between the two the rogue wanted control and the wizard didn't want to become one of those brain washed NPCs who this guy has clearly conned into believing that he is the choosen one (at least this is how the wizard would likely see it). Maybe its the other way around that the NPC let the rogue believe that he is the chosen one. They came up with a story that their people were destroyed by a demon and that the rogue is the only one to help them (somesort of profecy). They told that the cause of this was that their god had made a pact with a demon lord. They also told that at the moment of making the pact the god could not see if the demon lord was evil or good, right :looloo:. Of course the wizard does not believe this, who would except my party (not the illusionist though)! The wizard found herself in a dilemma what is worse leaving your party for real or have them tricked by NPC and not be able to do anything. Thats why she decided to travel with them. You have a PALADIN in the party and he didn't object to the thief's actions? Did anyone back the wizard up vs. the LE (acting) thief? No, except the illusionist would although the player was not present at the last time. And during the first time the illusionist wisely kept himself outside of the incident. The illusionist was new to the party second time playing and has a CN alignment. What the wizard should have done is asked Mr. Paladin to arrest the rogue for stealing from her. Next time if the rogue steals again (or backstabs) the wizard will ask the paly to put the rogue in handcuffs. If the paly refuses then the wizard will polymorp the rogue in dust. And spread it over a few planes or something like that, making it very difficult to somehow restore her. So if you read this rogue let this be the wizards last warning. The rogue is full of himself (or at least the player is of the importance of his character), he places his importance well above that of the wizard in particular. He has a feeling of moral superiority over the party, because he is the chosen. Most of the times the rogue does nothing in combat. So the wizard decided onetime to do the same thing and do nothing. Knowing that if things really got bad she could always step into the frenzy. She just wanted to see reactions. AND THEY WERE NEGATIVE (except illussionist). And concluded that there is a strange way of justice in this party. :( The wizard does not stop you from doing your actions. So do not stop the wizard from doing her actions.
Tyron 05-25-04, 09:51 AM	livelyhood? a wand? it's are both lame wands, especially if you are a 16th-level wizard imo. So rogue, you think you have the right to judge what you think is important. And then conclude from that, that it is all right to steal it. These staffs can save the wizards life when she can't make her concentration check. So don't talk and judge about things you don't have knowledge about. How would you like it if the wizard stole you're brain and argued you're not using it a lot. So don't mind if I steal it?
Eccerion 05-25-04, 09:55 AM	Something I just noticed in this story conserning the wizard leaving the ill-mannered ranger (which the ranger totally deserved btw;)). The rouge got all bent out of shape about it and decided to go at the wizard, all the while not doing a thing about the rangers predicament. Rouges are usally the best climbers in a party, and any halfway competent party has a grapplinghook and several hundred feet of rope, so why didnt the rouge toss the ranger a rope? or go down after him to be certain he was allright is he was so worried about him? Nah instead he desices to get all partychief and of course later actually stole from the wizard, and not just some little bouble either, but the wizards spellbook of all things, if thats not asking for a world of hurt I really dont know what is:rolleyes: , if anything im impressed teh wizard tolerated the theft the first qouple of times and actually asked nicely to have her property returned, I would have flesh-to-stoned the shmuck and broken off a few chooise bodyparts, after he got his parts regrown by making the local highpreist a rich man yuo can bet he wouldnt try anything like that again:D. If there is one creddo all DnD players should know its this : you do NOT steal from your own party unless your prepared to face what happenes next, cross that line at your own risk. Apperantly alot of on this thread agrees that the wizard was justified, closest thing agains is that he shouldnt have disintigrated teh rouge, though he certanly should show him why it is that people actually fear D4 HD characters:mage: I know that if my 14th lvl cleric woke up one day and found the party rouge playing around with his holy symbol the thief would have until I finished the incantation to the HARM spell to return it, and if he ever did something like that again he`d be on the reciving end of a destructon spell faster than you could say !uh oh he looks *******!:b:
djamidin 05-25-04, 10:02 AM	Originally posted by Hot Rod You have a PALADIN in the party and he didn't object to the thief's actions? Did anyone back the wizard up vs. the LE (acting) thief? well i back tyron up mentally everytime. but i am carefull not to escalate things. i am the wizard gnome in the party btw. and i think the game is terribly great. even the stress within the party is cool.
Tyron 05-25-04, 10:19 AM	and i think the game is terribly great. I agree.
djamidin 05-25-04, 10:22 AM	btw i think it all started the very moment three easterling highly overpowered(i think demigodlike) decided that the roque was key and wathever more and decided that the roque had more right to leadership thereafter. the roque in my opinion turned arrogant and overconfidand wen in that moment the DM turned him seemingly important. the rest of the party in that moment choose roque side (and indirectly DM side) wat i think is quite lame and bootliking. only tyron(wizard) and me (but carefull wenn to rebel) were hesitant at the intentings of the strangers(read npc easterlings). find it olso funny that three strangers get more respect then partymembers that are familiar to the party in general. well i have uttered my arguments over this a bit. greets gnomy
Vaettyr 05-25-04, 11:08 AM	I also think the problem (based on what I've read here) is the Rogue's role in the campaign. Personally I'm against making any one character 'key' or more important than any other character in the party, as this inevitably leads to problems. Unless this is a ruse, as the wizards suggested and I'd be happy to agree with, then I'd say it's sort of a bad move on the DM's part. As for the various justifications that have been listed, I tend to side with the wizard. Wizard put the party in danger, rogue steals his spellbook, wizard tries to get it back (through non-violent means), rogue responds with violence. If the goal was to get the wizard to talk, I'd have to say theft was not a good motivator. She may have been more than willing to talk once her property was returned, albeit peacefully. As for the Ranger incident, I'd totally side with the wizard. They're her spells, she may dispense them as she sees fit. Simply expected, or even demanding, the wizard to aid in that manner is expecting a bit much, especially when you won't ask nicely. On a side note, I feel for you Tyron. Every wizard I've ever played has not only had similar problems, but eventually was slain by his/her own party, all save the current one, and usually over similar circumstances (though I have to claim responsibility for some of them).
lantzer 05-25-04, 12:32 PM	find it olso funny that three strangers get more respect then partymembers that are familiar to the party in general. Its not that unusual. Parties often have a 'Pack Omega' (to steal a term from the sociology of wolves) who get little respect from the others. Often it's the loose cannons, who end up using even more wild behavior as a way of getting attention. And a good business definition of an expert is: ' A man from out of town with a briefcase'. An interesting side effect of party dynamics: Sometimes, the impulsive loose cannon type of character is effectively party leader and strategist, even though he is held in low regard by the party. Why? because whenever he goes off and does somethng stupid, reckless, dangerous, or silly, the party is often dragged along because even though they know its stupid, they can't leave a companion to his fate. This doesn't exactly endear the character to the party, though. Eventually they've had enough and do abandon him.
Edymnion 05-25-04, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by Maruku Well, you might as well hear the rogue's side of the story. And maybe some of the ooc stuff. Altho it is metagaming, both the rogue and the wizard keep in consideration the way the DM is going to play. After reading that, I'm even more convinced that the Wizard was well within her rights to blast the rogue into oblivion. Godlike NPCs make the Rogue "the key". Rogue apparently goes "Hey, I'm the most important, I can screw around and nobody can really hurt me, because I'm the key to the entire campaign!" Rogue proceeds to act like an overbearing idiot to the wizard. Instead of actually sitting down and TALKING to the wizard, he fricken steals from her at what seems like every oppertunity he gets whenever he has a point to make. Wizard warns him to stop it, or else. Rogue, all hyped up on being so important, apparently thinks "Yeah, I'm the important one here, not you. You aren't even one of the original party members, you don't have the balls to follow through on your threats!" and kept pushing. The Wizard gets fed up with the constant thorn in her side and removes it. You think the Wizard was overreacting by casting Suggestion to get you to voluntarily give the spellbook back? No, overreacting would have been to use Hold Person, then beat you into unconciousness, and pry the book from your fingers. Wizards use magic, plain and simple. She used it to try and peacefully resolve the situation, and you freaking shot at her. You are the one that overreacted in that situation, not her. Rogue Player, face it, you screwed up, you screwed up bad, and you payed the price for it. Next time, stop trying to play someone else's character for them. Time to get a new "key", because the Rogue got what was coming to him. Lesson learned. You do NOT tick off a powerful wizard who has given you multiple warnings. That wizard is going to be what keeps your party alive in a great many encounters. To the Wizard Player, perhaps you should show the party just how important you are to their continued livelyhood. Next time they go up against something hard, teleport back home for an hour or so and let them try winning WITHOUT your firepower to back them up. If any of them survive, they won't be so quick to turn against you next time.
Maruku 05-25-04, 02:12 PM	You ppl are convincing me I shouldn't screw around the way I've been doing. Idd, the wizard is entitled to her own way of thinking and acting. However, if this doesn't fit in with the party, maybe the party should let her go. Idd, one should try to point it out to the wizard, hoping she changes her behaviour. If, however, the wizard doesn't change her attitude, no point in forcing her, just let her be. This however brings with it some interesting OOC problems. How should we continue the game in case the party decides to leave the wizard? Especially, when you take into account a part of roleplaying that was rewinded by the DM (don't ask why/how), where the remaining partymembers left the wizard. The wizard didn't accept this and dominated the remaining members to start her own party. If someone speaks Dutch btw, go to this forum (http://www.gamesnstuff.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1423&sid=88b42e0cca6dcd1a92a62864d3728840). Its a Dutch forum where I opened a thread. It shows the story from another perspective.
Dragontooth 05-25-04, 03:19 PM	Well if the DM reversed what happen. Maybe the Rogue will be smart about how to approach the Wizard. Taking something from somebody to try and make them understand isn't the appropriate action. Lets face it if someone breaks into my house I'm gonna shoot them, and ask questions later. This is basicly what the rogue did to the Wizard. And the Wizard was well into her right in killing the rogue, even if the last theft was cheap wands its still the Wizards property. If you have a problem with another character you discuss this problem with the other party members, and as a group you approach the wizard about the problem. If that doesn't work. Then as the party you take steps to settle it. Either live with the problem or kick the Wizard out of the party and have that player create a new character.
Tyron 05-25-04, 03:19 PM	I started roleplaying together with my nephew at the age of nine. He taught me how to roleplay and later how to DM. Playing for so long I took the art of DMing for granted. In my last (this) campaign I DMt from 1st till 14th level. At 14th level I asked the party of one of them would like to play DM for a while. Taking DMing for granted I did not talk the new DM into how to DM, my fault. I think many of the incidents that have occured are due to the way the adventure is DMt and how the adventure is structured. Not to blame the DM I think it is his first time. Luckily its never to late to see your (in this case my) fault and learn from it. So I have asked the new DM if he would like to read the DMG and if he would like to have some advice from me as exDM. And hopefully sort things out! Although role-playing these incident is good fun. It can also spoil the game and that is not were is about. The main concepts a DM must almost always stick to are: 1) The PC are the story, story follows from their action. Give characters choice ''never force story on them'', 2) the PC are the heroes, 3) play by the rules as they are balanced and clear and this creates trust between players and dm, 4) Stay neutral don't involve yourself in party choices/dynamics play the world as it is and let the world feel real (if you stick to the rules you're halfway). That's it I think. (There are off course many other concepts about many subjects but I think these are the most important) Forgot: admit mistakes :) You're just human and humans make mistakes.
Tyron 05-25-04, 06:12 PM	Especially, when you take into account a part of roleplaying that was rewinded by the DM (don't ask why/how), where the remaining partymembers left the wizard. The wizard didn't accept this and dominated the remaining members to start her own party. If the DM changes the alignment of the wizard into Neutral Evil after the disintegration incident. Then the wizard is played neutral evil. And dominating is perfectly evil although maybe al little bit more Lawful. :)
djamidin 05-25-04, 06:44 PM	forget it tyron i know we two are right. we will work things out with the rest of the party. people thx for all the feedback. we realy appriciated it. and we will let jou know how things wil work out and how matters are gonna be resolved. my regards to all. djam aka wizard gnome he-she-sir-mam
Arthan "Heavy Fist" 05-26-04, 12:08 AM	Having read the entire thread, I agree that the Rogue was out of line and that it did play out well IC eventually. It seems that the easiest way this could have been avoided would be: The wizard flies up from the chasm alone. The rogue takes afront when the ranger gets to the top. The wizard refuses to discuss the "problem" and goes to sleep to recover spells. Let the wizard get an hour into REM sleep... then wake her up and tell her we need to talk. If she goes back to sleep, wake her up in another 45 mins or so. She'll never be able to recover spells until the party has at least aired out the problem. Allot less violence, no theft and a depleted mage is allot less dangerous to deal with in a confrontation. Since there was no theft involved and a low threat confrontation style... hopefully the wizard will be more willing to address the concerns of other party members. Just some thoughts.
Maruku 05-26-04, 05:14 AM	So it has been decided. I think the only way to solve this problem is to split up as a party. Both the wizard and rogue act out of line, neither of them is willing to act differently. So imo, this is an unsolvable problem. The party needs to split up, I think. This because everybody is quite powerful, so I don't think everyone is completely depending on the others.
Maruku 05-26-04, 05:23 AM	Originally posted by Arthan "Heavy Fist" Let the wizard get an hour into REM sleep... then wake her up and tell her we need to talk. If she goes back to sleep, wake her up in another 45 mins or so. She'll never be able to recover spells until the party has at least aired out the problem. Allot less violence, no theft and a depleted mage is allot less dangerous to deal with in a confrontation. Since there was no theft involved and a low threat confrontation style... hopefully the wizard will be more willing to address the concerns of other party members. Just some thoughts. I like the idea, but how can you tell the mage doesn't have any spells memorized anymore? Maybe she warns not to wake her up twice and then casts disintegrate on the rogue?
Tyron 05-26-04, 08:34 AM	I think the only way to solve this problem is to split up as a party. Both the wizard and rogue act out of line, neither of them is willing to act differently. Who said I am not willing to act different. I understand your feeling about that the wizard is not playing as a team player. And that she acts to much on her own and sometimes leaves the party to do her own bussines. I can understand that you are upset over that. But try to see it from the wizards perspective. We have a party that is accompanied by three almost godlike (maybe more don't know if gods can do things they do) NPC. A wizards who can fight like a fighter (and has intelligence over 31, cause the DM said the NPC has more int then you have), a cleric (have seen her cast true resurrection several times on a day) and who can fight like a fighter and can do almost godlike things and a fighter (who has more strength then our main fighter) thats leads the three npc who can cast things as ethereal jaunt, wall of force (not dnd wall of force but better) and knows the answer to all the riddles and dilemma's we encounter. A few more things they can do walk the winds real fast, having no armor what so ever but still have a higher ac then our fighter dressed in magical full plate and with a magical shield. An example of the amazing things they can do and have done. Two horned devils plane shifted from the abyss to the material plane with two prisoners. The NPC reacted by moving 200ft to the prisoners free them not taking attacks of oppurtunity and travel more then 200ft back cast their special wall of force to protect themselves and all of that even before we had the oppurtunity to react. If you see things like that you and almost every player (except my party not counting the illusionist) becomes to ask himself. What reason is there for the wizard (in my case) let say the entire party to stay, why don't they put the ''key'' into one of their dimensional pocket travel to their lands solve the problem and get back in less then a hour. Why do we have to risk our lives to help them if they are perfectly able to do it themselves. This is a normal question to ask. Just as it is why don't we just teleport to your lands its much quicker then flying there with your magic carpets or why is there time to adventure in a dungeon for no obvious reasons and no time for the wizard to buy some scrolls and healing potions. (Costed more then two days ic, although at the end of the adventure we should have assembled three artefacts to destroy an enemy, but there was no reason in game to presume that except that the items felt good. The wizard ruined the story because the wizard teleported away with one of the artefacts (see incidents), when she arrived at the destination the whole world was angered and everybody responded with bring the item back.) or why can't we find the temple of BAUBAU but the NPC can at every moment. If the wizard asks such things and is pushed back into a corner by the NPC. It is to me very clear why the wizard has acted the way she has done. This has nothing to do with the wizard not playing as a team player. This everything to do with the wizard feeling useless, there is no reason to adventure, there is no danger what so ever (NPC will take care of that), you may not use your characters abilities to teleport to their lands, I can't even use my arcane sight to scry on these NPC but if I leave the party to buy some scrolls (not seeing the point in staying), or teleport away with one of the artefacts you are accused of not being a teamplayer. To me it is not a matter of the wizard not wanting to play as a teamplayer. But it has everything to do with the way the adventure is structured and how the adventure hooks are presented. When the wizard adventures she would like to see that adventure flows from her and the party actions. Not the actions from three NPC and that we are just bystanders seeing how the DM is adventuring against himself. Think of the things I have mentioned above MARUKU, where in the adventure did we had any CHOICE. Had the illusionist choice in being captured he suddenly was, had the rogue choice in being the key and suddenly having a godlike ''time bend'' ability, had the ranger choice in become a wonderful singer with magical properties, etc. If this does not change and the DM does not realise he has made a few mistakes the wizard will leave the adventuring party and find some adventure where the wizard can mean something. Not being a bystander who may only do things that do not disturb the story. Thats not my kind of roleplaying. I think I made myself clear....no hard feelings to the players and the dm. Ps Yes the wizard tried to get rid of the NPC. That's why the wizard has proposed to use them as lure and don't do things they said. These action in my opinion gave at least some excitement/adventure.
jokotoko 05-26-04, 09:40 AM	Originally posted by Tyron But try to see it from the wizards perspective. We have a party that is accompanied by three almost godlike (maybe more don't know if gods can do things they do) NPC. A wizards who can fight like a fighter (and has intelligence over 31, cause the DM said the NPC has more int then you have), a cleric (have seen her cast true resurrection several times on a day) and who can fight like a fighter and can do almost godlike things and a fighter (who has more strength then our main fighter) thats leads the three npc who can cast things as ethereal jaunt, wall of force (not dnd wall of force but better) and knows the answer to all the riddles and dilemma's we encounter. A few more things they can do walk the winds real fast, having no armor what so ever but still have a higher ac then our fighter dressed in magical full plate and with a magical shield. An example of the amazing things they can do and have done. Two horned devils plane shifted from the abyss to the material plane with two prisoners. The NPC reacted by moving 200ft to the prisoners free them not taking attacks of oppurtunity and travel more then 200ft back cast their special wall of force to protect themselves and all of that even before we had the oppurtunity to react. Right....after reading this I really wonder why you still play in this campaign. This is railroading to the extreme...I would certainly have quit long ago!
Maruku 05-26-04, 09:53 AM	Railroading can be fun, but idd, if your general ideas about life differ from the DM's, it can be somewhat inlogical.
Vaettyr 05-26-04, 09:54 AM	Did somebody say Deus Ex Machina? Seriously though, while quitting may not always be an option, I'd try and sit down with the DM and go through some major points in the DMG together. You said you DMed before he did, so hopefully he respects you enough to take your advice on the situation. If bad comes to worse though, and the games ceases to be fun for the rest of the players, just offer to take the reigns back for a while. At the very least it will give the other DM another chance to see how DMing is done properly, and I'm sure he'll have a new appreciation and insight into what you're doing. Aside from that though, I've walked out on games for less. Adventuring with god-like NPCS really breaks the suspense of disbelief (why don't they just do it themselves) and sucks all the fun out of it.
Hazrat 05-26-04, 01:27 PM	Hmm, after reading what Maruku posted at the Dutch forum I'm more in favor of the wizard than I already was. You do know that you are omitting and twisting important parts of the story over there at gamesnstuff.com? Other things that seem rather decisive to me in this matter are the incident where the wizard asked for his stuff back and received a crossbow bolt from the rogue, as well as the continued believe by the rogue that stealing stuff is an acceptable way to influence people.
Crowmeister 05-26-04, 03:56 PM	Not sure of this has been said before but I (the paladin of the party) was dead at that moment. After a heroic charge upon the blue dragon :D I was resurrected hours later so I didn't even know about all the things that were going on
Tyron 05-26-04, 04:06 PM	You do know that you are omitting and twisting important parts of the story over there at gamesnstuff.com? Better trust a Chaotic neutral wizard than trusting chaotic good thief. (the paladin of the party) He Paly friend, if the rogue steals again could you show some of your moral superiority and arrest the thief. And confiscate his treasure to be handed over to the wizard as allowance for emotional and material pain inflicted. :angel: You as Paladin of the god of justice (TYR) would not allow such things to be tolerated, would you.
Crowmeister 05-26-04, 04:15 PM	Originally posted by Tyron Better trust a Chaotic neutral wizard than trusting chaotic good thief. He Paly friend, if the rogue steals again could you show some of your moral superiority and arrest the thief. And confiscate his treasure to be handed over to the wizard as allowance for emotional and material pain inflicted. :angel: You as Paladin of the god of justice (TYR) would not allow such things to be tolerated, would you. Well if I'll be alive next time I sure will. By the way, by the way things are looking right now I'm not sure if there'll be a party much longer. :( So the rogue won't be able to steal from you anyway
Tyron 05-26-04, 04:20 PM	After a heroic charge upon the blue dragon (Not willing to negotiate) You were putting the party in an awful lot of risk with charging the blue dragon. What if the rogue decides that he will not tolerate your behavior. You're were putting the ''key'' in danger, you know. But Paly remember the wizard is your friend and will back you up if the rogue decides to control your actions by stealing things from you.
Votan 05-26-04, 05:09 PM	Originally posted by Tyron You were putting the party in an awful lot of risk with charging the blue dragon. What if the rogue decides that he will not tolerate your behavior. You're were putting the ''key'' in danger, you know. But Paly remember the wizard is your friend and will back you up if the rogue decides to control your actions by stealing things from you. Clearly stealing things was wrong. Lethal force was a bit excessive although history was somewhat on your side. In general, going after spell-books is dirty pool for another player to do. Nobody is as item dependent as a wizard. On the other hand, despite one's alignment, discussing problems with the party was not the worst way to go about things. Arrogant actions, even when do to good roleplaying, do not make for a fun game much of the time. It is a very fine balancing act.
thalious 05-26-04, 05:38 PM	Seems like the player of the rogue is just whining over the consequences of a very stupid action. Never steal a wizards spellbook and then try rub it in their face, unless the wizard is very depleted of spells from casting. OOC: Generally, when a players has their character act against another PC, expect an overreaction at best.
The Changeling 05-26-04, 07:31 PM	Originally posted by Tyron You were putting the party in an awful lot of risk with charging the blue dragon. What if the rogue decides that he will not tolerate your behavior. You're were putting the ''key'' in danger, you know. But Paly remember the wizard is your friend and will back you up if the rogue decides to control your actions by stealing things from you. This is starting to sound like you're trying to get other party members in "your" side... is it really so that either you or rogues player must leave group? :rolleyes: Eventhou I've read whole topic I don't really want to comment about who ever is right here. To me it sounds like biggest problem here is ones again BAD/NEW DM! Consider this, if there was not all this "the chosen one" crap and godlike NPC's with +10 vorpal bananas, would you still have disintegrated your partymember? You said you felt useless now because of those NPCs etc. (Oh well, atleast I can still kill other party members! :smirk: ) It's usually bad idea to make one of PCs much more important than others. It's not fun for players to see NPCs doing everything much better than their characters. <Just my 2 cents>
CJ1720 05-26-04, 08:51 PM	It seems to me that the basic problem is one that every adventuring group faces at some level or another: How do you act in character, but still play together? It is incumbant for each player to direct his or her character to behave in ways that do not destroy the group! The challenge is to find a way to be in character and still maintain enough group cohesion for the adventure to be completed. We all meta-game to a certain degree. It's like watching a TV program or a movie -- we know most things that are happening are leading somewhere. If we want to play, we have to go along with the plot. A good game allows for player decisions and adapts to the choices; a bad one does not. Good players play together some how some way; a bad one does not. That's the challenge the entire party failed to raise itself to. That's also the reason why it's a general rule of thumb not to steal from or attack other members of your party -- it makes it darn near impossible for the group to continue adventuring together. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am a native speaker of English and any mistakes in spelling, grammar or word use are entirely unintentional and I don't want to hear about it. My hats off to anyone who writes well enough in a foreign language to post intelligent comments in a forum such as this. BTW I speak four languages, but I only post in English.
Frodo Lives 05-26-04, 09:49 PM	From the sounds of it the DM made a couple of very bad choices. First he introduced Super Powered NPCs, this is always a bad idea. IF you need extra firepower in the group an NPC is a good idea. IF an NPC is needed for plot reasons, then it can be a good idea. But never, ever have an NPC who is more powerful than the average party member travel with them not only does it overshadow the PCs, it makes the challanges seem less important because the NPC will always save the day. Second, he focused on a single PC and made him the "key" to the story line. This gives the player an inflated sense of self worth, and unless it is a very mature group this can cause problems. I believe that both these factors lead to these problems. If the PCs were left to fend for themselves then I doubt the wizard would have left them. If the one player didn't have an invincible feeling because he is the "chosen one" then I seriously doubt that he would have handled the situation like that. That being said I find it hard to believe that the rest of the party didn't beat the snot out of the rogue for opening fire on the wizard, to say nothing of stealing from her. After all, if he will turn on the wizard then anyone can be next. I don't blame the wizard for her actions as they certainly seemed reasonable to me. The rogue was acting like he thought he was invincible and had the right to try to push others around, or had a death wish. If any character should leave the group it is the rogue. If the DM can't allow that for story reasons then it is a bad story. A whole campaign should not revolve totally around one character, because in D & D anything can happen. BTW I can't believe the whole rewind thing, what is everyone supposed to pretend it didn't happen? That is pretty bad story telling in my book. However it does seem that the DM is pretty new to this so I'd give him a break. But I do think that he needs to be taught some of the finer points in the game as well as given a list of "Don't Do This" rules. They are easy to find on the What's a DM to do board.
Thorak 05-26-04, 10:13 PM	I have to ask; why are these PCs adventuring in the first place? As you describe them, those three NPCs are more than capable of doing whatever could be necessary. And, quite frankly, once I realized I was in a campaign that centered around all the PCs being the piddling servants of the real heroes, I'd tell the DM that the campaign is ridiculous and go home.
Tyron 05-27-04, 06:56 AM	I have to ask; why are these PCs adventuring in the first place? As you describe them, those three NPCs are more than capable of doing whatever could be necessary. And, quite frankly, once I realized I was in a campaign that centered around all the PCs being the piddling servants of the real heroes, I'd tell the DM that the campaign is ridiculous and go home. Good question. At first I wanted to see how it developed, he is after all a new DM, so I thought give him a chance. But I realize now that it is time to sit around the table and discuss with him some issues that are pointed out in the DMG. First he introduced Super Powered NPCs, this is always a bad idea. IF you need extra firepower in the group an NPC is a good idea. IF an NPC is needed for plot reasons, then it can be a good idea. But never, ever have an NPC who is more powerful than the average party member travel with them not only does it overshadow the PCs, it makes the challanges seem less important because the NPC will always save the day. We as party don't need extra firepower we have two wizards who are capable enough to loosen a few Fireballs or more.... I personally am against using NPC to travel with the PC, because it becomes tempting for the DM to influence actions of PC to much. But your ideas are good guidelines for using NPC, by the way. I personally like games where players decide (have the feeling ;) ) what to do, not the DM. This is starting to sound like you're trying to get other party members in "your" side... is it really so that either you or rogues player must leave group? I just tried to point out that interpreting actions is very subjective. The paladin charging the blue dragon. The paladin not willing to negotiate with the dragon. Is more or less the same as the wizard teleporting in a demonic sorcerer. Both actions endagered the party and the ''key''. Thus the rogue could have done the same with the Paly if he was consistent. Consider this, if there was not all this "the chosen one" crap and godlike NPC's with +10 vorpal bananas, would you still have disintegrated your partymember? You said you felt useless now because of those NPCs etc. (Oh well, atleast I can still kill other party members! ) You understand my point of view. If the DM is playing a movie. What more fun is it to ruin it, and see how the DM reacts. Maybe then there will develop some real roleplaying and adventuring. See the blue dragon incident its thanks to the wizard that the NPC temporarily left the party. The wizard teleporting away with an artefact was also exciting, angrying an outsider, NPC and unfortanetely PC. But these incidents in my opinion were real roleplaying. Second, he focused on a single PC and made him the "key" to the story line. This gives the player an inflated sense of self worth, and unless it is a very mature group this can cause problems. One more thing the NPC are the rogue's servants protecting, obeying his every word, him against possible events. So the rogue does not really needs a party he has three godlike NPC to back him up. Summarising: I think most of the problems lie with the DM introducing overpowered NPC and making the rogue the ''key''. If he had not done this I think (almost) none of the problems would have occured. And the wizard would have been a team player and never left his fellow adventures alone. Not saying that stupid things won't happen, cause it is after all just a game.
eRaz0r 05-27-04, 07:23 PM	Get a new DM. Simple. Don't even try and split off with a new party. It's not even worth it. Just get a new DM. The more I read this, the more I feel that there are problems deeper in this game than the animosity between these characters. Start a new campaign, think of some characters who have a reason to be together... with a new DM who has an idea about a good game where the PCs are the heroes, not some DMPCs who own the world.
Arthan "Heavy Fist" 05-28-04, 03:06 PM	Just sounds like newbie DM mistakes. It sounds like the party has enjoyed gaming together for along time. Suggestions: Take back the overall campaign DMing. Allow the newbie to run scenerios within the campaign to get more experianced. The best DMs are home grown and that takes time and patience... just don't turn over complete control, do it slowly. Review the power level of NPCs or set a cap on levels that are 2/3 of the average PC; that will hopefully reduce the impact of godlike NPCs on the PCs. The 2nd or 3rd rule of gaming is never have a long running NPC or cohort out power the PC within their niche. Everyone should feel needed within the group. Run multiple plot lines, that way the rogue is critical to this plot line but the others are important in other ones. Besides at the levels your describing most of the party should have outside ties to various political groups or causes maybe they even have lands etc... that people are seeking their help. Waking sleeping mages: Most mages don't sleep with spell components in hand :) Free AOO if they do start casting :) Only a truely evil mage would disintergrate someone for waking them up.
eRaz0r 05-29-04, 04:50 AM	While I totally agree with you, Arthan, on the central issue at hand ... Waking sleeping mages: Most mages don't sleep with spell components in hand Free AOO if they do start casting Only a truely evil mage would disintergrate someone for waking them up. 1/ Not all spells require components 1a) Many mages sleep with the spell component pouch under their pillow :) 2/ Cast on Defensive. 2a) Unarmed people can't take AoO w/o Improved Unarmed Combat, and if I were woken up with a sword at my throat, I think I'd already be thinking Disintegrate rather than Negotiate. 2b) Unless someone's rolled initiative you can't take combat actions - ergo no AoO, or Ready to interrupt spellcasting. 3) I agree. Not for waking them up. But for preventing them from getting rest just so that they have me at a disadvantage in their "negotiations".. I'd become tempted after the fifth wakeup call. Or at least a Geas, because I'm not evil :)
Arthan "Heavy Fist" 05-29-04, 11:14 AM	All good points on how mages could cast on waking up. My point was more on the psychology of the character to character confrontation then the game mechanics. My point from the begining is that it's better to attempt to resolve inter character disputes in non-violent ways to keep the trust and not escalate the dispute. Waking someone up to say, "Hey we need to talk about this... we trust each other with our lives and need to know that trust is still there after that stunt you pulled." has to be pre-ferred then violating the trust and stealing equipment. If you just wanted to have excuses to wake the mage up simply shake them gently and say "Shhh, we heard something outside the peremeter, we'll go check it out, be ready to fight." After a few false alarms where the mage is acutely aware that he needs people to watch over him while he rests, then ask him to talk. [Common sense versus game rules. Personally for me it comes down to real life versus gaming, I sure as hell wouldn't be cuddling up to my pillow if my team mates all had their hands on their pistols and were ****** that I left another Joe to walk back to base camp from a patrol in hostile territory. It's a whole different ball game when everyone is armed and you can die for being an ***hole.] A mage that could leave other party members could also easily find that the campsite shifted a few hundred meters while they slept. How quickly would they decide that resolving trust issues is again important to them, when they need the others to watch over them while they recover spells and study. Maybe they wake up an hour into their sleep with the others tearing down camp to move. Sure there are ways that a mage of high enough level could create a safe zone or teleport to an inn, etc... but the point is trust. Why adventure with people you don't trust? Why would you waste the spells to get away from your own party members when you'll need those spell slots for the enemy.
eRaz0r 05-29-04, 01:24 PM	I completely agree with you Arthan. On the other hand, unless there's already too much water under the bridge, most people respond to respect with respect in turn. Waking the wizard over and over just to make sure they don't get any rest and *then* talking about trust issues is less effective than simply sitting down before resting and roleplaying a little talk. Moving the camp, stealing stuff, preventing rest - these are all antagonistic tactics that only serve to alienate and annoy. I put them all in the same category, one only slightly lower than violence in effectiveness, because they don't work in getting cooperation and trust. The only thing that works is mutual respect, and possibly mutual reliance ... Besides, why doesn't the Wizard use Rope Trick and then no one has to stand guard.
Tyron 05-29-04, 02:09 PM	Besides, why doesn't the Wizard use Rope Trick and then no one has to stand guard. The wizard has prepared a mordenkainen's maginificient mansion to sleep very quietely and safe during the coming night :D . And for the rogue well he loves the outside, so I think the wizard will leave him there for a few nights. Until he is prepared to undergo a geas spell in order to be cerntain that the rogue will not border the wizard again. Or promises to the wizard and the paladin not to steal again and accept the consequences.
Arthan "Heavy Fist" 05-29-04, 04:45 PM	eRaz0r, I think we're on the same sheet of music. The earlier the group talks about problems the better. But as you can tell by the post between ours, neither side is being very mature about resolving a mutually created problem created by a newbie GM. We've all given them good advise, they can do what they want with it now. Personally, I'm signing off this thread. Cheers.
djamidin 05-29-04, 06:00 PM	thx for al the advice. tommorow another gamesession with the party and all but me tyron and our present dm are gonna have a pre chat about how to proceed from now on. we will let u know our choices so u all will find out if its gonna be resolved or not. i have very high expectations however considering everybody in the group has an open mind now. but u will know. good night. djam(gnome wizard in party)
Tyron 05-29-04, 08:54 PM	Tomorrow we will make a few good arrangments about party behavior. As mentioned earlier these incidents were good roleplaying, but it can also spoil the game. We've all given them good advise, they can do what they want with it now. Personally, I'm signing off this thread. Cheers. I've appreciated your advice Arthan "Heavy Fist" :bow: . I'm sure we will work things out on a mature way. As djamidin said we will let you board members know.
CJ1720 05-29-04, 09:24 PM	Again, it boils down to how can we as players be true to our characters and still make the party work. If you've ever been involved in a group effort, you know that some degree of compromise is in order and setting aside of personal needs. Both characters were acting as though they were invulnerable and didn't need the others. When we only act out our whims, we get situations like this. When we remember the social contract, we work together. In the immortal words of my grandmother, "Play nice!"
Maruku 05-31-04, 10:19 AM	Originally posted by Hazrat Hmm, after reading what Maruku posted at the Dutch forum I'm more in favor of the wizard than I already was. You do know that you are omitting and twisting important parts of the story over there at gamesnstuff.com? Yupz... done that deliberately. Just like this opening post is missing some crucial information. I was just checking if it would be possible to start a thread where ppl would accord with the rogue. And it looks like it works. It was just to have some backup in a discussion. And to illustrate that you shouldn't take posts on a forum for granted. No matter how smart someone is, you still get a certain bias from reading posts, so you should always review these posts critically. I'm afraid that Tyron will use this biased thread in an OOC discussion. To be honest, I don't think users from this board can give 100% accurate insights. I have read some very helpful stuff nevertheless, but I'm not willing to accept advice like 'drop the DM'.
Tyron 06-02-04, 11:04 AM	To be honest, I don't think users from this board can give 100% accurate insights. I have read some very helpful stuff nevertheless, but I'm not willing to accept advice like 'drop the DM'. You can never give 100% accurate insights, but you can discuss certain topics. As we have done here. This might not be 100% accurate but at least it gives a broader perspective on the subject. I had a chance to explain the situation from my perspective and you had your chance. When I opened the thread I just wanted to have some opinion about stealing things and as the thread evolved I tried to summarize the entire story as accurate as possible, not deliberately misguiding people. This is different from what you have done. Accept that the discussion evolved as it is and we should try to find a way to solve the issue.
Frodo Lives 06-02-04, 07:07 PM	I agree that dumping the DM isn't very constructive advice, and I know that changing gaming groups isn't easy or even desireable, as most times you are much better off discussing things OOC and IC to resolve issues. It has been stated that this is a new DM and it is certainly clear that he is making a few major mistakes that some new DMs are prone to. The best thing is still to talk it over with him and the entire group to work things out. I also understand that we are only getting a biased version of the events in question from the wizards point of view, and if we were presented with another version the wizard might come off looking a lot worse. That being said I can't think of a single reason that the rogue would be justified in starting a campaign (no pun intended) of violence and blackmail against the wizard and have the rest of the party be fine with it. It should have been stopped by the rest of the party before it even got that far. The party might not like the wizard, but they have to respect her (him?) and her rights as a member of the party. The facts are the rogue opened fire on the wizard and the wizard didn't fight back, and after multiple warning to not touch his stuff the rogue paid the price. I fail to see how the rogue is in a defensible position here. If the rogue approched the situation from a different angle by talking like reasonable adults whose lives depend on each other and the wizard still acted like a jerk then maybe he would have more support. But as it stands the rogue broke a couple of cardinal rules in adventuring. No stealing from other party members (no matter what the excuse) and no attacking other party members. Where is the bias in that? As other members of these boards we can't give 100% accurate advice, because we weren't at the table when the events in question occured. But then again, no matter how you tilt the events the rogue still comes out as the bad guy in this situation. Unless, of course, we are being out and out lied to and the events were *significantly* different than those presented.
trapspringer 06-04-04, 10:37 AM	Sweeeeeeeet..... Seriously, that sounds like it worked it self out. I theorize all party difficulties can be addressed in game, so long as the DM stays out of it. Sure, characters will die, but it will usually be deserved. Stealing the spell book would be the same as taking half the fighters HP, his armor, and his weapon.
Hathorym 06-04-04, 11:10 AM	What an amusing thread! Thanks. As a DM, if my "chosen" one was smoked for being a doorknob by the party wizard, I would have just had the NPCs show up and say, "Oh... maybe we were wrong...", NPC points at the wizard, "HE'S the chosen one!" Done well, with a lot of pomp, it could be very amusing. :)
Vaettyr 06-04-04, 12:25 PM	Originally posted by Harhorym "Oh... maybe we were wrong...", NPC points at the wizard, "HE'S the chosen one!" :rofl: That's the funniest thing I've heard on here yet. DM should definitely do that!
Tyron 06-07-04, 10:57 AM	As other members of these boards we can't give 100% accurate advice, because we weren't at the table when the events in question occured. This thread also contains the point of view from the rogue's perspective. I agree with you that threads are always somewhat biased but I think this thread gives a reasonable view of what has happened during play. It has been stated that this is a new DM and it is certainly clear that he is making a few major mistakes that some new DMs are prone to. I've talked with our new DM about the mistakes he has made and how I as exDM would have handled it. I adviced him to read the DMG. But for some reason I do not understand entirely. Our new Dm does not want to read the DMG he argues that he does not want to be bound by rules. As he thinks (I presume) that it will block his creativity. I explained that the DMG is a GUIDE and not a rulebook and that it contains very useful advice about how to create adventure etc. But he still refuses to read the DMG :( . How can I convince him in reading it? I theorize all party difficulties can be addressed in game, so long as the DM stays out of it. Sure, characters will die, but it will usually be deserved I agree with you that the DM must stay out of conflict within the party. And that the party must solve these problems themselves. But in our case the troubles within the party were largely caused by the NPC that were added. Shifting the balance in the party to what it is now.
Vaettyr 06-07-04, 11:37 AM	Originally posted by Tyron Our new Dm does not want to read the DMG he argues that he does not want to be bound by rules. Run. Run far, run fast, and never look back. Seriously though, would your DM let the players play the game if they refused to read the PHB? If so, why are you guys played D&D at all. Just sit around and play round-robin. If he's worried reading a book will block his creativity and refuses to read it on that basis, that's just willful ignorance. If you need some help trying to get him to read the DMG, you might try a few of these helpful suggestions: * Ask him if reading a recipe blocks a cook's creativity, or if reading a text book blocks a teacher's ability to teach. Fervently hope he notices the irony * Tell him the DMG is filled with candy * Photocopy important pages and tape them up in hard to avoid places, like his bathroom mirror * Next time you're playing your character, blatantly ignore some rule on the basis that it interferes with your character concept * Have everyone else in your group read the DMG obviously in front of him, and hope he buckles under the peer pressure
Frodo Lives 06-07-04, 09:23 PM	I adviced him to read the DMG. But for some reason I do not understand entirely. Our new Dm does not want to read the DMG he argues that he does not want to be bound by rules. That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, bar none. I know I should get out more as I'd probably hear really dumb things more often, but still..... :rolleyes: If the new DM doesn't want to be bothered to even read the DMG then I don't know how he expects to run a game. Or have the players commit on the slightest level to his game. If the DM won't use D & D rules, then how are the players going to know how to play in his campaign? I take back what I said, this DM isn't worth the time to play with if he is going to be like that. Normally I would be the last person to say "you're fired" to a DM or switch groups without doing everything to try to fix the problem, but that's beyond help.
eRaz0r 06-08-04, 07:12 PM	I take back what I said, this DM isn't worth the time to play with if he is going to be like that. Normally I would be the last person to say "you're fired" to a DM or switch groups without doing everything to try to fix the problem, but that's beyond help. Yes ! I am vindicated ! Can I say "I told you so" ? hehe. Joking aside, I said it before, and I'll say it again - the problems here are deeper than just a scrap between the PCs. If this DM were experienced in running other games, I might be tempted to say "yeah, whatever, DMG is just a guide, and you don't have to read it all if you don't want to. But at least consult it for the specifics of how the WOTC game designers attempted to balance the game." However, it seems more and more like this DM has no clue how to run any roleplaying game - he shows no hint of grasping issues such as playability, story elements, pacing, structure, game balance, and most of all "fun for the whole family". Furthermore, he sounds like he has no desire to learn either. That's his real problem. Even the best DM's suffered from the former, but never the latter. So I repeat : Get a new DM.
HamHam 06-08-04, 08:21 PM	This thread has given me a very interesting idea... Make a PC be some special "promised one" or "key" or whatever with the explicit purpose of making them arrogant to create both inter and intra character conflict. This could work great on a character who is already rather full of himself. Once he finds out he is "special" he'll probably alienate the whole party. Then, arrange things so that the "key" realizes he actually can't do everything by himself, resulting in an epithany and character growth. It's actually a fairly cliche story-telling technique, but might be nice if you can keep IC (in other words, the players themselves don't end up getting mad at each other).
aka Jimmy 06-17-04, 08:22 PM	Originally posted by Maruku lol, idd, the ranger wasn't that nice. But having to hear that from the ranger himself tells a thing or two about the wizard. Warning is hardly what the wizard was doing. Not one time did the wizard inquire about the rogue's reasons. And then again, the wizard had it coming this time. She did apologize, but she will be zero-toleranced next time (I like the verb), probably by kicking her out of the party. Mind you, the wizard owes the party bigtime, since the party, together with the rogue saved her life. Although this still doesn't justify any harmful actions, it should mean something for the way the rogue and wizard interact. And for the last word this post. Try looking upon actions in a Kant perspective. The intention in stealing the wands can hardly be called evil. Disintegrating a human being is! This person is a total moron. Seriously, how could you even think that?
aka Jimmy 06-17-04, 08:33 PM	Originally posted by Maruku You ppl are convincing me I shouldn't screw around the way I've been doing. Idd, the wizard is entitled to her own way of thinking and acting. However, if this doesn't fit in with the party, maybe the party should let her go. Idd, one should try to point it out to the wizard, hoping she changes her behaviour. If, however, the wizard doesn't change her attitude, no point in forcing her, just let her be. This however brings with it some interesting OOC problems. How should we continue the game in case the party decides to leave the wizard? Especially, when you take into account a part of roleplaying that was rewinded by the DM (don't ask why/how), where the remaining partymembers left the wizard. The wizard didn't accept this and dominated the remaining members to start her own party. If someone speaks Dutch btw, go to this forum (http://www.gamesnstuff.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1423&sid=88b42e0cca6dcd1a92a62864d3728840). Its a Dutch forum where I opened a thread. It shows the story from another perspective. Thats a bunch of self-serving BS. If anyone should be kicked from that party, its you Marku. Send your insufferable theif off with his bootlicking NPCs and make a new (less annoying) character to travel with the rest of the group doing something else.
aka Jimmy 06-17-04, 08:46 PM	Originally posted by Maruku Yupz... done that deliberately. Just like this opening post is missing some crucial information. I was just checking if it would be possible to start a thread where ppl would accord with the rogue. And it looks like it works. It was just to have some backup in a discussion. And to illustrate that you shouldn't take posts on a forum for granted. No matter how smart someone is, you still get a certain bias from reading posts, so you should always review these posts critically. I'm afraid that Tyron will use this biased thread in an OOC discussion. To be honest, I don't think users from this board can give 100% accurate insights. I have read some very helpful stuff nevertheless, but I'm not willing to accept advice like 'drop the DM'. More idiocy. Look, in this thread it may have started off "one-sided" but we have long since heard your side and that of several other party members. And, after this more accurate look at the situation: You are still wrong.
Frodo Lives 06-17-04, 10:48 PM	I would still like to hear how this was resolved. It certianly sounds interesting. I won't repeat all of what has already been said but it is worth stating a few things after re reading the entire thread once more. 1) The DM is making a lot of mistakes and really it isn't a campaign I could take to seriously, not reading the DMG :rolleyes: 2) I doubt that a new DM should be trying to run a game with this kind of firepower. A new DM would have a much much easier time with a lower level party. 2) Maruku, sorry buddy but you are wrong. Stealing from the wizard (who doesn't sound like the most pleasent person around) is a no win situation. You would have gotten much further by talking like reasonable adults instead of the childish threats. If it didn't work the first time, or the second why the heck would you think it would have a chance the third? You have behaved very badly and got what you deserved even if you were in the right (which is questionable). Even with a skewed version of events, there is no way you were in the right. And most of the other posters agree. 3) The rest of the party should have intervened much sooner, they shouldn't have let it escalate to this level. No matter which side they support, this wasn't the way to handle the wizard's actions. 4) Tyron, your character did do some things that got the rest of the party rightfully upset and in character the wizard doesn't have the tact or diplomacy to pull it off. They may have had a right to be mad at you, but I still think that you were perfectly justified in your actions against the rogue. Let us know what's going on and how this was resolved, I for one would love to know!
Tyron 06-18-04, 08:05 AM	I will let you hear how we have or better said are solving the issue soon, tonight european time.
Tyron 06-20-04, 03:48 PM	i for some reason have the feeling that DM is brweing an end to the campaign and that the old DM will take control. ic and out of character there have been made some negotiations. one ooc agreement was wizard be more like a teamplayer and NPC godlike were going bye bye. as for how it will end up for the atmosphere we shal see. greets gnomie wizardie
djamidin 06-20-04, 03:55 PM	last post was actualy mine. greets again gnome wizaaard
Tharamil 06-21-04, 02:03 AM	Good IC playing, and signs of a good gaming group. The actions before the incident indicate roleplaying skill at moments and the Lady spellcaster was within rights to do something about it. I do recommend that a player with a spellcaster that high learn how to protect your stuff better, and not just from PCs but the Red Wizards for example. An afternote though: i wonder how much the DM controlled the events to cause the rogue to die. I would be interested to know what happened at that incident. 1 Did the rogue and wizard roll for initiative to get the spell off 2 The Rogue has spell ability also, did they both have spells still going from fight 3 Did the rogue fail the save, and if so the damage might not have been enough to kill them. The wizard started this by remorising spells just after a battle. Dont they need 8 hours of rest first and any spell slots cast within the last 8 hours cannot be refilled. This is assuming that she can study within 24 hours of just memorising them in the first place. then every interuption adds 1hr to the total rest needed. on top of that 1 further hour to prepare the new spells. :confused:
Tharamil 06-21-04, 02:13 AM	Good IC playing, and signs of a good gaming group. The actions before the incident indicate roleplaying skill at moments and the Lady spellcaster was within rights to do something about it. I do recommend that a player with a spellcaster that high learn how to protect your stuff better, and not just from PCs but the Red Wizards for example. An afternote though: i wonder how much the DM controlled the events to cause the rogue to die. I would be interested to know what happened at that incident. 1 Did the rogue and wizard roll for initiative to get the spell off 2 The Rogue has spell ability also, did they both have spells still going from fight 3 Did the rogue fail the save, and if so the damage might not have been enough to kill them. The wizard started this by remorising spells just after a battle. Dont they need 8 hours of rest first and any spell slots cast within the last 8 hours cannot be refilled. This is assuming that she can study within 24 hours of just memorising them in the first place. then every interuption adds 1hr to the total rest needed. on top of that 1 further hour to prepare the new spells. :confused:
Monkey76 06-21-04, 02:11 PM	I disagree that this is solely the rogue's fault. I think it is both the rogue's and the wizard's AND the party's fault. I think the wizard (sun-elf) was creating party problems w/ her behavior. She was also guilty of some arrogance. The rogue aggrivated the problems by using a bad method to force her to change. The sun-elf has been reckless and unwilling to discuss her dangerous behavior. The rogue tried to force her to talk by stealing valuable objects. That was foolish. If the party disliked the sun-elf's behavior they should have agreed to sanction her until she discussed her actions with them. If she still wasn't willing to talk, then they should have booted her out of the party. In a standard game, a party needs to work together if you are going to have fun (remember this is supposed to be fun). Stealing from PCs rarely fixes anything. Talking often does. The rogue had the right goal, but he used a very poor method to achieve it. My post does not address the problems caused by the god-like NPCs or the rogue's key-role. However, this situation could have occured w/o either of those problems.
Tyron 06-21-04, 05:49 PM	The most likely scenario: The rogue and wizard have agreed to settle the score during a mage-battle (this is a non lethal battle in Fearun, just to compare the characters skills in battle) on the rogue terms. I think this will be done after the new DM finishes his adventure retires as DM and takes up his character that he played for almost 2 years to reach level 15. Maybe if he is still willing to DM I'll advice him to start a new campaign from low level and read the DMG first. Most likely after this ''mage battle'' the wizard will become a NPC and I playing the wizard will continue the campaign as DM that we have played from 1ste till 14/15 level. The wizard will remain friendly towards the party and they can always seek her aid or advice if the party deems so. ''But if I know the rogue’s player well, he will try to settle the score on a different way, but we have to wait to find out :) '' Now to answer your questions: 1 Did the rogue and wizard roll for initiative to get the spell off The rogue readied to counterspell but the wizard casted a disintegrate which the rogue tried to counterspell by using a dispel magic but failed. 2 The Rogue has spell ability also, did they both have spells still going from fight The wizard still had a lot of low level spells slots available and a few mid and high level spell slots including a disintegrate. 3 Did the rogue fail the save, and if so the damage might not have been enough to kill them The rogue had about 90 hit point before the incident, but the disintegrate spell did over 100 points of damage. Disintegrating the rogue to dust. The new DM reacted by letting the godlike NPC to immediately cast true resurrection on the rogue. The strange thing was that the NPC were tens of miles away from where the incident happened. But I think godlike beings can do such things :D . If the party disliked the sun-elf's behavior they should have agreed to sanction her until she discussed her actions with them. If she still wasn't willing to talk, then they should have booted her out of the party. In a standard game, a party needs to work together if you are going to have fun (remember this is supposed to be fun). To explain the struggle within the party. I must tell the following. Somehow the rogue is linked to the wellbeing of the adventure the new DM made. He constantly gives the rogue presents (the 3 godlike NPC that serve as the rogue commands) special abilities (''time bend'' the rogue can travel back in time) and during the last session a stone golem and a major artefact: Major artefact, Gauntlet of BOW BOW +6 Cha Regeneration 5 +4 will AC +3 (insight) Arcane Spell level / spells known / spells per day / spells (mininmum) saves 0 / 5 / 5 / dc 20 1 / 4 / 4 / dc 21 2 / 3 / 4 / dc 22 3 / 3 / 3 / dc 23 4 / 3 / 2 / dc 24 5 / 2 / 2 / dc 25 6 / 2 / 2 / dc 26 7 / 1 / 1 / dc 27 8 / 1 / 1 / dc 28 Me as playing the wizard don't object to the gifts given (anymore). But within the party and the players I think there is starting to amass some turmoil against how the new DM DM's. I've accepted the way the DM DM's in the knowledge that he is finishing the adventure. This in my opinion has led to many of the incidents described. The rogue just think thats he is to important and this is backed up by the DM. Finally some details about the last session: we have miraculously defeated a GOD in its own realm within a demi plane (The wizard did not want to go into the god's realm but was put under pressure by the godlike NPC and decided to go woth the flow), within that demi plane you can't use disintegrate to disintegrate stone or things like that, can’t use teleport and dimension door but portals still work, we have seen some new godlike moves of the NPC harmlessly shaking of magic that could have killed any other character. At the end of the last session one last incident occurred. This all happened before a portal through which you can time travel back into to time (Yes, we have discussed time travelling and against her will the wizard has agreed to go with the flow). At the last moment the wizard saw a NPC wanting to go through the portal. The wizard reacted and used telekinesis to stop him going through and succeeded. But when the wizard said that she wanted to cast dominate person on the NPC, somehow casted through the portal there were dispel magic spells aimed to dispel the telekinesis spell. We could not see through the portal but they could see us and cast spells. The wizard became disappointed about this act of deus ex machina and pushed the NPC back into the portal and go with the flow. For the last session: We are planning to travel back in time and save the lands that are linked to the ''key'' rogue. And see how the story ends. :)
eRaz0r 06-29-04, 05:01 PM	If it were me, I'd just sit there. Whenever the DM asked me what my character was doing, I'd say "What do you think I should do?" If he suggests even once that you were in charge of your own character just smile and nod and then say "Ok then, well I'll do whatever you think will advance the story. Since I don't know how this story goes, I'm really excited to see what happens. So you just go ahead and tell me what that is and I'll do that."
AegisShade 12-31-06, 01:39 AM	I disagree that this is solely the rogue's fault. I think it is both the rogue's and the wizard's AND the party's fault. I think the wizard (sun-elf) was creating party problems w/ her behavior. She was also guilty of some arrogance.I really don't see how being arrogant makes the wizard at fault. It's what you do, not what you are (trait-wise) that gives people cause to treat you in certain ways. To say that an arrogant person deserves to be reined through blackmail and violence is like saying that rich people need to be made poor (I myself am not rich; just making a point) or beautiful made ugly (again, not that either). It's true that her arrogance led to actions which endangered the party, but not to any extremes that should warrant (IMO) evil acts against her.
Sphyre 12-31-06, 02:11 AM	The wizard warned the rogue after he stole the spellbooks/magical gear twice, that he is not going to be so polite if he does it again! After the third time that the rogue stole the spellbook's/magical gear the wizard reacted by disintegrating the rogue to dust. The wizard has a chaotic neutral alignment and the rogue a chaotic good alignment. May I have your opinion about this, was the wizard acting according to her alignment, would the stealing of party members gear be considered evil,....? Is this really an alignment issue? seriously. The rogue was being stupid. He :censored:ed someone off. He said don't :censored: me off. The rogue did it anyway. The wizard solved his problem. Sure, it was a neutral act because it was provoked and was in self defense (taking away your ability to defend yourself is an attack on you), possibly evil if the wizard wanted to hurt him, and didn't care exhausting other methods of stopping the stupid rogue that he thought would work. If anything the act was a little lawful, by properly warning tho rogue. But for any one act to change your alignment it must be so strong that it changes the character's whole veiw of the world. Everything is acting in alignment whether or not a specific act varies from the alignment. One evil act, esspecially when provoked won't make him evil, much like one good act, esspecially when provoked wouldn't make him good. If anything, I think that's quite probable on how a chaotic neutral wizard would act. First time? Ok you annoy me... Second time, ok, give it back to me, you have no choice. Ok next time? Screw this, now you can't do it again. Get the :censored: away from me you freak. He didn't want to disintigrate him, but the rogue was practically begging for it. The problem wasn't going away, so the wizard made it go away. As for the rogue, he was also in character if he were an idiot. Chaotic good may very well try to get someone to be good by stealing with the intention of returning it upon the change in another's behavior for the greater good if the character was using that logic. The problem was that the rogue was being incredibly stupid. He provoked the wizard into doing something about it, and the wizard wasn't going to change simply because the rogue was being stupid. Both were fine, alignment wise, don't worry about defining actions as good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It takes a lot to change someone. For the most part, depending on how much you roleplay, you could play a lawful good character as chaotic evil for a few sessions before it really seemed appropriate to change the alignment. Is that the way the character acts most of the time? Ok that's the alignment. But what about when you act chaotic good 99% of the time and you have one lawful evil act? Does that mean you should be lawful evil and never act chaotic good again? No it doesn't.
ShadowDragon8685 12-31-06, 10:21 AM	This situation seems pretty gorram clear to me. You've all been acting inappropriately, and you need to scrap the campaign and start a new one with the following understandings. 1: Everybody, but everybody, is to be a team player. 2: There will be no actions taken against other player characters as individuals, or the party as a whole. No matter what happens or what "justification" there may be, anyone who takes such actions are out of the group. 3: All characters made will be Good. Those characters who start out Good and downslide become NPCs on the slippery slope; expect to see them powergamed as villians by the end of the game. 4: Those players who cannot make a character who acts in a Good manner consistant enough to hold down the Good alignment are out of the group. As to the original question, whose fault is it? Well, let's not get picky; there's blame a'plenty to go around. The Wizard is a notoriously un-Team player. Hey, wizard - just being a hawt female elf wizard (I'm assuming, since Sun Elves are about once in a never depicted as anything but) dosen't mean you're the greatest thing to grace Toril since sliced Trollburgers. You have to play with your team - this means consulting them, and helping them when they need it. The Ranger shoulden't have been rude to the wizard. The wizard shoulden't have been rude to the Ranger. The Rogue shoulden't have stolen a Wizard's spellbook. In the D&D I know, that's considered a taboo that not even the DM will break. The Wizard's spellbook is Beyond Reproach, seeing as how literally all of his class features are dependant upon it. You got what you got for stealing, and you're damned lucky you lasted until the third strike to get struck out. Additionally, you were Very, Very, Very wrong to attack the wizard with a crossbow when she told, and failing that Suggested you to give her spellbook back.
Manic Man 12-31-06, 12:17 PM	Looks like the 3 godlike NPCs are DMPCs Basically this happens a lot to those who are still mentally immature. The idea here is that the DM wants the PCs to ahhh... ooohh.... at whatever the NPCs do. Also it seems the rogue player is a good friend of the DM?
Monkey76 12-31-06, 03:03 PM	I really don't see how being arrogant makes the wizard at fault. It's what you do, not what you are (trait-wise) that gives people cause to treat you in certain ways. To say that an arrogant person deserves to be reined through blackmail and violence is like saying that rich people need to be made poor (I myself am not rich; just making a point) or beautiful made ugly (again, not that either). It's true that her arrogance led to actions which endangered the party, but not to any extremes that should warrant (IMO) evil acts against her. Well, first I said "behavior." A personality/behavoir trait is not the same thing as physical appearance or how much money you have. Second, I said that what the rogue did was wrong and foolish. Here's my point, quoted: "Stealing from PCs rarely fixes anything. Talking often does. The rogue had the right goal [fixing the casters poor behavior], but he used a very poor method to achieve it." (Six months have passed since I posted and this thread is still going.)