Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JadeFox 03-15-07, 01:39 PM	I'm playing a human Sorceress/Barbarian/Rage-Mage. Fairly unusual multiclass, I am aware, but it works well enough for me. At the start of the game, all of our characters were doing pretty well for themselves, before the various Evil Forces (tm) destroyed their homes and forced them to go adventuring. The rest of the party pretty much went with the adventurer cliche, thriving under adversity and quickly becoming gung-ho about saving the world. That's what I usually do, but TBH, it doesn't strike me as very good RP'ing. So this time, I decided I would try something a bit different. My character is bitter about losing her old life, can't stand the other party members, is painfully aware of the fact that most of adventuring is walking through hip-deep mud so you can loot dead things, and resentful that life yanks her around. A good simmering hate for the entire world right there, nicely complimented by an active, burning hate for the bad guys (the reason she keeps adventuring). The DM...doesn't like this. He says my character is pretty damn anti-heroic. Other then the fact that she works for the good guys, she acts like more of a bad guy then some of the bad guys do. Aggressive, mean, etc etc. Which leads to my first question for all you readers... 1) Can a non-heroic personality charachter fit in in a heroic fantasy setting? Epically with a mostly heroic party? The second issue is far more specific, after an argument with the rest of the party over travel arrangements, my charachter learns that one of the party members has been lying about her name, origins, motivations, real reason for being here, etc. Even her real identity and gender (damn shapeshifters). And this, after that charachter had given a long speach about how honesty was important. So my rage-mage grabs a table and beats her to a pulp. 2) Was this good roleplaying or unacceptable PvP combat? --- Other comments, or RP'ing suggestions, are always appreciated. Thanks!
kelvinaw273 03-15-07, 01:52 PM	1) Yes, the hard bitten, cynical anti-hero is a tried and tested character concept. Your character is still the same at heart, but has become jaded and is angry at the world. If you want examples, think of Han Solo, Wolverine, and even Rambo. You're a good guy - that doesn't mean you have to be nice. As long as you are playing along with the hooks and the plot, and the other players don't mind, your DM has no cause to complain. 2) Hmmm. I wouldn't repeat it. Make you peace with that character, as they have become very aware of how you view hypocracy. Your character had a lot of anger, and they happened to be in the firing line and provided the straw that broke the camel's back. If it is just the once, good RP. Do it all the time and you have a problem.
Khatoblepas 03-15-07, 01:56 PM	Did the table do nonlethal damage? But seriously, if she revealed she'd be lying about her identity after the "Honesty is the Best Policy" deal, I'd be pretty annoyed, too. Does your character often take action as a way of expressing herself? I'd hit the shapeshifter with a table anyday. You're a barbarian. Not-Hitting-Things-With-Other-Things is your dump stat. =P
JadeFox 03-15-07, 01:57 PM	Did the table do nonlethal damage? But seriously, if she revealed she'd be lying about her identity after the "Honesty is the Best Policy" deal, I'd be pretty annoyed, too. Does your character often take action as a way of expressing herself? I'd hit the shapeshifter with a table anyday. You're a barbarian. Not-Hitting-Things-With-Other-Things is your dump stat. =P Yes, it did. :p And she's a barbarian-sorceress who's class abilities are dependent on getting ****** off. "Hit it until it stops doing whatever is annoying you" is a fairly standard response, yes. It's just not normally used on PC's.
Drag0nUL 03-15-07, 04:22 PM	To answer your questions: 1. I for one find the hero-saves-the-world concept way too overused. My two best characters were 'classical' anti-heroes: the first was a House Lyrandar rogue/fighter/dread pirate who valued nothing but his own life and shiny stuff. He even got to selling party members on the slave market(well the guy asked for it...you don't steal from a pirate and get away with it). And that didn't prevent him from being a very fun character and undertaking some quite heroic quests(for the right price of course). The second one(which I am currently playing) is a githyanki variant of the chrono-legionnaire. He has a constant and obvious contempt and feeling of self-superiority regarding any 'lesser being', including most of the party members(except for thew warforged fighter/artificier and the tibbit rogue who have proven themselves in many battles and have won a certain dose of respect in his eyes) which he treats as little more than servants. The only reason he adventures is that he wants to prove his own superiority upon anything. In short he is a total jerk and even of the most innocent child of Eberron crawled in front of him beging for help he wouldn't lift a finger, but would cut a balor in peices in a heartbeat for claiming to be anyting less than pathetic. In conclusion, I think it is more fun to play a character with unusual motivations than the usual LG/CG hero most people tend to play. 2. I think you played your character well. Although I don't think PvP is advisable in D&D game, there are some circumstances where the motives of two or more characters come into conflict. And I think it is better if the players play in-character and fight.
KillerGM 03-15-07, 04:23 PM	Well, I don't know about the anit-hero thing. It's really just a playing style, as long as you're not running around being Evil (notice the big E). I mean, even good guys can be angry at stuff. And just because you're a good guy doesn't mean you can't be mean, angry, or gruff. As long as you're not running around torturing people or something like that... Evil alignments are villians, not heroes. But attitude does not Evil make. I'd need more info on the character to rule hero/villian, but it sounds like you're just trying to be an anti-hero. No biggie. As for beating the other PC... I hate when DM's allow some characters to act "in character", but not others. The DM, by allowing the PC to run around and lie and basically be disruptive to the concept of an adventuring group, should expect there to be in-game concequences. I'm sure the player was "just playing his character." But, at the same time, so were you. This is why I hate party-disruptive playing styles. They expect to be able to lie, cheat, and steal from the group, but expect no negative repercussions at all. I mean, if my character had been adventuring with someone who had lied to me the entire time I had known them, well, I probably wouldn't beat them (being as I tend to play less-than-combative characters), but I AT LEAST would have stopped travelling with them. I hate that a DM would allow some anti-group actions but not others. That bothers me to no end. I hate group-disruptive players thinking that they can do whatever they want with the group and have no reprecussions because they're a PC. I hate when they hide behind "that's what my character would do". Well, my character would kick your lying, cheating, stealing butt out of my life. I'm sure I can accomplish whatever quest without one guy I can't trust at all. :D
The_Ryan 03-15-07, 04:44 PM	You left him alive, good enough. A few characters that I have had would have done different. I think you did your haracter right on that move. Ryan You're a barbarian. Not-Hitting-Things-With-Other-Things is your dump stat. Also, you just made my sig
BW0222 03-15-07, 04:55 PM	JadeFox, That's what I usually do, but TBH, it doesn't strike me as very good RP'ing. So this time, I decided I would try something a bit different. My character is bitter about losing her old life, can't stand the other party members, is painfully aware of the fact that most of adventuring is walking through hip-deep mud so you can loot dead things, and resentful that life yanks her around. A good simmering hate for the entire world right there, nicely complimented by an active, burning hate for the bad guys (the reason she keeps adventuring). There is nothing wrong with unusual personalities, anti-heroic characters, etc. Anything which makes your character stand out is usually a good thing. That said... there are somethings you must always be careful of. 1. You don't wish to make your character so disliked that no one want's to be with her. "Can't stand the party members"? Well, eventually they won't want to be near you. 2. The other PCs don't trust you. You are unreliable, you threaten, bully, put down, you are impulsive, you tell at folks in the middle of the dungeon, etc. to the point where they aren't sure they can rely on you in extremely dangerous situations. You never want to put other players in the situation where they have to meta-game why they aren't kicking you out of the party. Far better for you to meta-game a reason not to go that far. 1) Can a non-heroic personality charachter fit in in a heroic fantasy setting? Epically with a mostly heroic party? Sure. Non-heroic folks can fit into a party. However, you need a level of trust and you can't be so cowardly that folks couldn't have you with them. If you had an extremely good reason why you had to adventure, you can certainly roleplay grudingly going ahead. Folks may know that you will complain, but they also know that you aren't going to let folks die or refuse to enter a dungeon. Money, power, family obligations, guild/professional ties, etc. can all require you to adventure even though you don't want to. The second issue is far more specific, ... So my rage-mage grabs a table and beats her to a pulp. 2) Was this good roleplaying or unacceptable PvP combat? It was bad roleplaying and unacceptable PvP combat. First, how does this do your character any good? It is a pretty stupid action. Either that person will leave the party or the party to tell you to leave. Either way, that doesn't help you. What if they attack you in your sleep, turn you into the guards, toss your familiar off a cliff, etc., etc. Second, why does your character get to decide on the rules of the party? Does that mean I have to spill my guts anytime you want to know anything? What if I have a personal life I don't care to discuss with someone I only "work" with and only for a few weeks? What if it is better for the party if the other PCs doesn't tell us? What if it has nothing to do with us or the mission? I'm not under any obligation to tell you anything. Third, even if you sort it out, no one will every trust you again. If people don't do what you want them to do, you are willing to beat their brains in. Fine. What happens when you disagree with treasure division, guard duty, or something else? Are you going to beat my head in? Am I even going to wait to find out? Honestly, the only reason they wouldn't kick you out of the party is if they meta-game. So what you are really doing is, "I can scr*w your characters because that is the way my character is but you can't react to it in any logical way or else the campaign ends." If they roleplay murdering you in your sleep, turning you into the guards on assault charges, or kicking your out of the group -- all perfectly reasonable things to do -- of course you would complain because that means that Friday nights you are watching TV instead of playing D&D with your friends? As a player in your group, I would immediately hold an in character meeting. "I don't trust X. She has shown a willingness to threaten, intimidate, and even attack other members of the party. I vote her out." You and the DM can figure out what that means for you within the campaign for the next six months.
JadeFox 03-15-07, 06:21 PM	First, how does this do your character any good? It is a pretty stupid action. Either that person will leave the party or the party to tell you to leave. Either way, that doesn't help you. What if they attack you in your sleep, turn you into the guards, toss your familiar off a cliff, etc., etc. Second, why does your character get to decide on the rules of the party? Does that mean I have to spill my guts anytime you want to know anything? What if I have a personal life I don't care to discuss with someone I only "work" with and only for a few weeks? What if it is better for the party if the other PCs doesn't tell us? What if it has nothing to do with us or the mission? I'm not under any obligation to tell you anything. Barbarian. Strong chaotic. ****** off strongly chaotic barbarian. Of course it wasn't the rational decision, it was vicious and impulsive, but I figured, given her mood, vicious and impulsive *was* good RP'ing. Evil alignments are villians, not heroes. But attitude does not Evil make. I'd need more info on the character to rule hero/villian, but it sounds like you're just trying to be an anti-hero. No biggie. Chaotic Good. Just mean chaotic good.
KillerGM 03-15-07, 06:43 PM	Barbarian. Strong chaotic. ****** off strongly chaotic barbarian. Of course it wasn't the rational decision, it was vicious and impulsive, but I figured, given her mood, vicious and impulsive *was* good RP'ing. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The other player was acting the way his character would, and so were you. It was just that it came down to conflict, because that's what each character would have behaved. In response to BW0222: I would have looked at the DM and said that I wouldn't adventure with the lying character. *That* kind of behavior doesn't benefit the game in anyway, in just such the way you describe - it will bring about conflict in the group, either socially ("We kick him out") or physically ("I bash him with a table"). Faulting the "rage in a can" character for reacting in a standard way for her but not faulting the character who instigated the rage is very lopsided. The player of the liar chose to play a certain way, and should be expected to have his character face the consequences, just like the other characters have to face the consequences of the liar's actions. Chaotic Good. Just mean chaotic good. Right, that may be what your alignment says on the sheet, but we all know that doesn't have to mean that's what you *play*. I was more referring to how the character is played, decision she made, etc. Though I am a proponent that just because a character is good-aligned does *not* mean they have to be "nice". I just don't know enough about the character to say that she's one or the other. Or Neutral, even! :P
Callista 03-15-07, 07:20 PM	I think your character ought to take a gruff sort of liking to one or two other party members. It's OK for her to hate adventuring--that's good RP. But her hating the other party members, while being a logical character concept, may begin to wear on the other players. I suggest that she should try to persuade the people she decides is OK after all that "I can't wait until all this is done. We'll go hunt deer together and forget all this adventuring stupidity." Or some such. Well, that is, if she's a classical barbarian... adjust to taste if she's not. It gives her more of an "I hate this but I guess we're all in it together" thing--kind of the way Han Solo gets to be Luke's friend after a while, or Gimli and Legolas start getting along OK despite having hated each other to begin with. Be cynical, but warm up to your party members.
GTOBoi21 03-16-07, 01:24 AM	I think your character ought to take a gruff sort of liking to one or two other party members. It's OK for her to hate adventuring--that's good RP. But her hating the other party members, while being a logical character concept, may begin to wear on the other players. I suggest that she should try to persuade the people she decides is OK after all that "I can't wait until all this is done. We'll go hunt deer together and forget all this adventuring stupidity." Or some such. Well, that is, if she's a classical barbarian... adjust to taste if she's not. It gives her more of an "I hate this but I guess we're all in it together" thing--kind of the way Han Solo gets to be Luke's friend after a while, or Gimli and Legolas start getting along OK despite having hated each other to begin with. Be cynical, but warm up to your party members. I agree, playing a wood elf in a human/half-orc mainly group, i can understand the sentiment but u can't just hate them all, my character is actually really good friends with our half-orc fighter/cleric now... going toe-to-toe with a red dragon together and living through it will do that sometimes, knowing that my character would start out not liking the other pcs, i kept a list of my character's perceptions of each pc, now there are a few of them that i would readily go into combat with.
BW0222 03-16-07, 08:54 AM	JadeFox, Barbarian. Strong chaotic. ****** off strongly chaotic barbarian. Of course it wasn't the rational decision, it was vicious and impulsive, but I figured, given her mood, vicious and impulsive *was* good RP'ing. Why do people always play chaotic as stupid? Unless you have a 3 int and wisdom, your character should be able to figure out what JadeFox can not -- you are causing the other players to hate you, not trust you, and they will take appropriate measure to protect themselves from future actions. Chaotic people are interested in their own personal well being. Taking actions which threaten your own good is just stupid. What do you think would happen if one soldier shot at another member of his own unit? Do you think they would all say "That's the way he is. Let's continue." If you are going to justify being stupid as "good roleplaying" then please don't complain when they roleplay kicking you out of the party, because that is exactly what their characters would do! You can say this is what your character would do, but who made up the character? Who decided he was irrational? You (JadeFox) did. It was your choice to make your character an irrational lunatic who attacks his own party members. You had another choice. You could make up a character who wasn't insane -- in that way. One who wouldn't cross the line where the only rational response of the other characters didn't need to include killing, attacking, retaliating, or kicking you out of the party. You can call that meta-gaming, but it is less so that asking several other players to repeatedly try justifying why they are travelling with someone who threatens, attacks, bullies, etc. them. It is fine coming up with unusual character or those who have issues. There are lots of traits which are not desirable. You don't have to be honest, you can be impulsive, you can be insane, etc. but there is a line at which the only logical outcome is that your character won't be playing anymore. That depends upon the group, but attacking and threatening another PCs is normally well over that line. In an RPGA game, I'd honestly have to take your character away and ask you to leave the table the moment you attacked the PC. Most home games are a bit more mature and players can handle a certain amount of PvP barbs, pranks, insults, mild threats, etc. but the line always exists. If you choose to play a character who must cross the line, I'm not going to feel sorry for you when we must kick you out of the party. Again, as a character, I'd vote you out of the party. As a player I can't feel sorry for you when you spend your Friday nights watching TV instead of gaming with us.
Stormbrand 03-16-07, 09:42 AM	My opinion is that pummeling the dishonest character supports party unity. After all, any criticisms aimed at you for your character being difficult to work with apply more to the dishonest character. What you will need to work on however, are your character's redeeming features. Being unable to stand the rest of the party is a bad trait, which will cause problems. Decide what it would take for your character to warm up to other party members - often players decide in advance how their character will treat the party, in complete defiance of everything that happens since meeting them. Real life relationships change all the time, so decide how the PCs can win your respect. Why do people always play chaotic as stupid? Unless you have a 3 int and wisdom, your character should be able to figure out what JadeFox can not -- you are causing the other players to hate you, not trust you, and they will take appropriate measure to protect themselves from future actions. Chaotic people are interested in their own personal well being. Taking actions which threaten your own good is just stupid. What do you think would happen if one soldier shot at another member of his own unit? Do you think they would all say "That's the way he is. Let's continue." If you are going to justify being stupid as "good roleplaying" then please don't complain when they roleplay kicking you out of the party, because that is exactly what their characters would do! You can say this is what your character would do, but who made up the character? Who decided he was irrational? You (JadeFox) did. It was your choice to make your character an irrational lunatic who attacks his own party members. You had another choice. You could make up a character who wasn't insane -- in that way. One who wouldn't cross the line where the only rational response of the other characters didn't need to include killing, attacking, retaliating, or kicking you out of the party. You can call that meta-gaming, but it is less so that asking several other players to repeatedly try justifying why they are travelling with someone who threatens, attacks, bullies, etc. them. It is fine coming up with unusual character or those who have issues. There are lots of traits which are not desirable. You don't have to be honest, you can be impulsive, you can be insane, etc. but there is a line at which the only logical outcome is that your character won't be playing anymore. That depends upon the group, but attacking and threatening another PCs is normally well over that line. In an RPGA game, I'd honestly have to take your character away and ask you to leave the table the moment you attacked the PC. Most home games are a bit more mature and players can handle a certain amount of PvP barbs, pranks, insults, mild threats, etc. but the line always exists. If you choose to play a character who must cross the line, I'm not going to feel sorry for you when we must kick you out of the party. Again, as a character, I'd vote you out of the party. As a player I can't feel sorry for you when you spend your Friday nights watching TV instead of gaming with us. That is far too close to a personal attack. Be careful not to take it further. Your soldier analagy is incorrect - a soldier taking a shot at his own unit would be like the Rage Mage fireballing or axe-hacking at her party. This was closer to the soldier getting into a fist fight with a unit member who deceived the group. Only adventuring parties are less formal than army units. So Jade, your character reacted fairly in context, you simply need some way to reassure your allies that they have nothing to fear from you. Now that everyone is used to this dour, miserable, harsh brute (brutess?) with them, her suddenly conveying approval for something the others say or do will probably come as a surprise. ;)
JadeFox 03-16-07, 02:49 PM	Why do people always play chaotic as stupid? Unless you have a 3 int and wisdom, your character should be able to figure out what JadeFox can not -- you are causing the other players to hate you, not trust you, and they will take appropriate measure to protect themselves from future actions. Chaotic people are interested in their own personal well being. Taking actions which threaten your own good is just stupid. While it doesn't have too chaotic can also mean *impulsive* which is what I was indicating here. Also, ref, personal attack. What do you think would happen if one soldier shot at another member of his own unit? Do you think they would all say "That's the way he is. Let's continue." If you are going to justify being stupid as "good roleplaying" then please don't complain when they roleplay kicking you out of the party, because that is exactly what their characters would do! The whole point of the way my charachter got press-ganged into the adventuring party is that were pretty much forced to stick together by circumstances. IC, she would happily leave, given the option, but she can't leave anymore then they can dump here. Their more or less stuck. You can say this is what your character would do, but who made up the character? Who decided he was irrational? You (JadeFox) did. It was your choice to make your character an irrational lunatic who attacks his own party members. Irrational, certainly, but lunatic? She was angry, understandably so. You had another choice. You could make up a character who wasn't insane -- in that way. One who wouldn't cross the line where the only rational response of the other characters didn't need to include killing, attacking, retaliating, or kicking you out of the party. You can call that meta-gaming, but it is less so that asking several other players to repeatedly try justifying why they are travelling with someone who threatens, attacks, bullies, etc. them. So rolling up a deceptive, manipulative, thieving spy is okay....but rolling up a barbarian who hits that charachter when they get outed...not okay. Yeah, that's a stable situation right there. Now that everyone is used to this dour, miserable, harsh brute (brutess?) with them, her suddenly conveying approval for something the others say or do will probably come as a surprise. That or result in a doppleganger check. :w00t:
BW0222 03-16-07, 03:01 PM	Stormbrand, My opinion is that pummeling the dishonest character supports party unity. After all, any criticisms aimed at you for your character being difficult to work with apply more to the dishonest character. Perhaps. Certainly at some point, if the dishonesty affected the party, the party would be within its rights to vote that character out of the party. For example, if some guards showed up and arrested, cause problems for, etc. the rest of the PCs. However, I'm not sure that the character owes you all the details of their lives. Starting out you are nothing but co-workers. If they choose to hide their identify, yes the character sounds pretty shady, but that wouldn't necessarily equate into not being able to trust them with respect to the party. Certain characters might to react negatively to a 'shady' character, but I'm not forced to immediately protect myself from them. Ok... maybe they are a criminal, have a violent ex-husband looking for them, killed the wrong person in a duel, were former slaves, are on a secret mission from an order of knights, etc. That doesn't mean I can't trust them not to attack me, betray me, or otherwise do something which forces me to protect myself. That is far too close to a personal attack. Be careful not to take it further. There are no personal insults there, no were any intended. I merely said what I would do if a player choose to bring a character whose background/personality requires them to attack others to that at the table. And pointed out the real world consequences of that. If the post was a little dramic... sorry. The fact that JadeFox asked if this was appropriate certainly means that he is at least worried about its effects... so I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with him. Your soldier analagy is incorrect - a soldier taking a shot at his own unit would be like the Rage Mage fireballing or axe-hacking at her party. This was closer to the soldier getting into a fist fight with a unit member who deceived the group. Only adventuring parties are less formal than army units. Sorry, JadeFox said: So my rage-mage grabs a table and beats her to a pulp. Sorry, having a table slammed across your head isn't a fist fight. The character could have been killed and is cetainly going to the hospital/church to get healed on that one. The problems with JadeFox's character's actions are obvious: First, unless that party has a charter, there is no agreed upon code of conduct which says "You must tell us everything", nor who decides what is relatent information, nor what the 'punishment' for breaking such rules is. You have a number of folks who have, informally, gotten together for some common purpose. The only 'agreement' is that we work together. Anything outside of the mission, is certainly not part of any understanding. Second, JadeFox's character (by herself) decided that some rule (which the other PC did not agree to) was broken and that she would implement punishment. No one will like this. Third, since this character is willing to do this, how do any of the players know what else will set her off? If we have an arguement over say treasure distribution or me not wishing to discuss my cousin with her... is she going to decide that I deserve to be beaten unconcious? What protection do I have against unreasonable beatings? I don't even have the protection of a vote or needing multiple folks to agree. Forth, even if (as another character) I agreed with her actions (beating up the other PC) and wasn't afraid I would get beat up for some made up reason, isn't the other PC going to retaliate? Isn't she going to find her own unwritten 'rule' which she things the barbarian broke sometime in the future? Isn't she (or someone else) going to now feel entiltled to be judge, jury, and executioner also? If someone in your unit lied about their real name and refused to talk about it and someone else decided to take a baseball bat to them... would you honestly want the two of them with loaded weapons in a fire-fight? Fifth, even if they were smart enough not to "go off" at a time which might get everyone killed, does anyone want to waste game time as players go to extreme lengths to protect themselves against possible actions of other players. Sixth, I don't like character picking on 'weaker' characters through meta-gaming. I can beat up the wizard because his only way of defending himself is with lethal force. My beating him up is somehow not crossing the line, but his casting spells somewho is? Seventh, from experience we know where this is going. The other player will retaliate. If you can beat her up with a table, she can drown your familiar (without your knowledge), shapechange into you and go assault a guard, etc., etc. You'll then sit there fuming until you get a chance to re-retaliate. The other players will choose sides. Within a few weeks one of you won't be in the campaign. IMO, PvP in this context rarely has a good outcome. It is fine when players both decide to part in it, barbs and insults between the fighter and barbarian which then come down to "Let's take this outside". Otherwise, it leads to really hard feelings which go into real life and can last well beyond the campaign. If we vote the player out, are we honestly going to trust him not to make up another equally insane character in the next campaign? I know several folks who honestly are never invited to games because they tried similiar stuff in previous campaigns.
Bruunwald 03-16-07, 03:08 PM	On the one hand, an interesting and dynamic party can be made up of all kinds of people. You have the gung-ho guy, the sneaky guy, the cheery guy, the somber guy, and yes, even the angry or gruff or just plain old distempered guy. On the other hand, you never know when one of these types is going to rub a particular DM the wrong way. In your case, I fall on the side of your DM, but for personal reasons somewhat different from his own. See, I have had a player for the past seven years, who ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, plays the disgruntled, I-hate-my-life-and-all-my-friends-I-don't-like-adventuring-whah, whah, whah-guy. (It is not as unique and different an approach as you might think.) This player has gotten progressively better about this as the years have gone by. Each character is a little bit easier to get along with than the last. But they all share some fairly dubious traits in common: flying into a rage, constant complaining, eating the brains of fallen non-human foes (when the current character is not human herself), sometimes refusing to help during important battles, and being used for not much more than for the player to vent personal frustrations into the game setting. Now, despite the fact that she is playing this, technically, in-game, from an outside point-of-view, I think you can see why this can rub everybody else as behavior very similar to that of a disruptive player's. It does not help that the same personality is being transplanted onto several characters. Your DM ought not try to compromise your vision of your character, or try to pigeonhole anybody. But he may be reacting to personality overload. Too much of anything - even a good thing - can be bad. Too much of a tolerated annoyance is just... an annoyance. Anyway, just my perspective. If it helps.
Cifer 03-16-07, 03:45 PM	@BW You might want to read the thread again. The damage she dealt was nonlethal and she was provoked by the fact that the very same guy who deceived them had put up a great speech about being honest to each other and having no secrets before. To come back to topic, I think while playing an antihero is quite possible, it can soon grow tiresome for everyone. Slowly taking a liking to at least some of the characters as others suggested might be helpful indeed. See whether you can strike a compromise with your DM there.
Stormbrand 03-16-07, 09:01 PM	Stormbrand, Perhaps. Certainly at some point, if the dishonesty affected the party, the party would be within its rights to vote that character out of the party. For example, if some guards showed up and arrested, cause problems for, etc. the rest of the PCs. However, I'm not sure that the character owes you all the details of their lives. Starting out you are nothing but co-workers. If they choose to hide their identify, yes the character sounds pretty shady, but that wouldn't necessarily equate into not being able to trust them with respect to the party. Certain characters might to react negatively to a 'shady' character, but I'm not forced to immediately protect myself from them. Ok... maybe they are a criminal, have a violent ex-husband looking for them, killed the wrong person in a duel, were former slaves, are on a secret mission from an order of knights, etc. That doesn't mean I can't trust them not to attack me, betray me, or otherwise do something which forces me to protect myself. There are no personal insults there, no were any intended. I merely said what I would do if a player choose to bring a character whose background/personality requires them to attack others to that at the table. And pointed out the real world consequences of that. If the post was a little dramic... sorry. The fact that JadeFox asked if this was appropriate certainly means that he is at least worried about its effects... so I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with him. Sorry, JadeFox said: Sorry, having a table slammed across your head isn't a fist fight. The character could have been killed and is cetainly going to the hospital/church to get healed on that one. The problems with JadeFox's character's actions are obvious: First, unless that party has a charter, there is no agreed upon code of conduct which says "You must tell us everything", nor who decides what is relatent information, nor what the 'punishment' for breaking such rules is. You have a number of folks who have, informally, gotten together for some common purpose. The only 'agreement' is that we work together. Anything outside of the mission, is certainly not part of any understanding. Second, JadeFox's character (by herself) decided that some rule (which the other PC did not agree to) was broken and that she would implement punishment. No one will like this. Third, since this character is willing to do this, how do any of the players know what else will set her off? If we have an arguement over say treasure distribution or me not wishing to discuss my cousin with her... is she going to decide that I deserve to be beaten unconcious? What protection do I have against unreasonable beatings? I don't even have the protection of a vote or needing multiple folks to agree. Forth, even if (as another character) I agreed with her actions (beating up the other PC) and wasn't afraid I would get beat up for some made up reason, isn't the other PC going to retaliate? Isn't she going to find her own unwritten 'rule' which she things the barbarian broke sometime in the future? Isn't she (or someone else) going to now feel entiltled to be judge, jury, and executioner also? If someone in your unit lied about their real name and refused to talk about it and someone else decided to take a baseball bat to them... would you honestly want the two of them with loaded weapons in a fire-fight? Fifth, even if they were smart enough not to "go off" at a time which might get everyone killed, does anyone want to waste game time as players go to extreme lengths to protect themselves against possible actions of other players. Sixth, I don't like character picking on 'weaker' characters through meta-gaming. I can beat up the wizard because his only way of defending himself is with lethal force. My beating him up is somehow not crossing the line, but his casting spells somewho is? Seventh, from experience we know where this is going. The other player will retaliate. If you can beat her up with a table, she can drown your familiar (without your knowledge), shapechange into you and go assault a guard, etc., etc. You'll then sit there fuming until you get a chance to re-retaliate. The other players will choose sides. Within a few weeks one of you won't be in the campaign. IMO, PvP in this context rarely has a good outcome. It is fine when players both decide to part in it, barbs and insults between the fighter and barbarian which then come down to "Let's take this outside". Otherwise, it leads to really hard feelings which go into real life and can last well beyond the campaign. If we vote the player out, are we honestly going to trust him not to make up another equally insane character in the next campaign? I know several folks who honestly are never invited to games because they tried similiar stuff in previous campaigns. First of all, cheers. :pint: You did sound somewhat dramatic, but my reply was perhaps over-ominous :emp: . Everything you said was valid however. Your point about the table is well-noted. I was metagame thinking because I knew the table did nonlethal damage. In a more real-world context, suddenly it seems far more serious. My view is that the one who got pummeled had it coming, espescially after his hypocritical speech about honesty. First, unless that party has a charter, there is no agreed upon code of conduct which says "You must tell us everything", nor who decides what is relatent information, nor what the 'punishment' for breaking such rules is. You have a number of folks who have, informally, gotten together for some common purpose. The only 'agreement' is that we work together. Anything outside of the mission, is certainly not part of any understanding. Second, JadeFox's character (by herself) decided that some rule (which the other PC did not agree to) was broken and that she would implement punishment. No one will like this. I agree with all of this, but this is very lawful thinking (probably why I agree with it). As I understand, however, this was not a one-shot mission - the group worked together for a while or something. Amusingly enough, it was the deceitful PC who made the rule by her speech, :D . Granted the pummeling was not agreed upon. Third, since this character is willing to do this, how do any of the players know what else will set her off? If we have an arguement over say treasure distribution or me not wishing to discuss my cousin with her... is she going to decide that I deserve to be beaten unconcious? What protection do I have against unreasonable beatings? I don't even have the protection of a vote or needing multiple folks to agree. Forth, even if (as another character) I agreed with her actions (beating up the other PC) and wasn't afraid I would get beat up for some made up reason, isn't the other PC going to retaliate? Isn't she going to find her own unwritten 'rule' which she things the barbarian broke sometime in the future? Isn't she (or someone else) going to now feel entiltled to be judge, jury, and executioner also? Very good points again. Although again Lawful thinking. Which is why I pointed out where the character needs to warm up. I think the pummeling given was well-deserved, but these are the reasons I don't pummel on a whim. If someone in your unit lied about their real name and refused to talk about it and someone else decided to take a baseball bat to them... would you honestly want the two of them with loaded weapons in a fire-fight? No, but military units are less personal than adventuring parties - I serve because I am on orders from high up. Soldiers need to work together. Adventuring bands can afford less unity. If someone lied about their real name, they would have some explaining to do. If they were leading us towards fulfilling intentions and goals we never knew about, I would consider that placing me and my allies at unacceptable risk. Sixth, I don't like character picking on 'weaker' characters through meta-gaming. I can beat up the wizard because his only way of defending himself is with lethal force. My beating him up is somehow not crossing the line, but his casting spells somewho is? I don't like picking on full stop. You should have seen the fights this has gotten me into. My policy when being attacked is to use lethal force by default. This scares people off quite well. If forced to defend myself, no promises are made that my attacker will remain alive. Yup, changes are needed to avoid this kind of PvP - it was understandable from the character, but she has to start giving the party reasons to trust her. We certainly agree on that much. Thanks for your reply.
BW0222 03-16-07, 09:34 PM	JadeFox, While it doesn't have too chaotic can also mean *impulsive* which is what I was indicating here. Also, ref, personal attack. Not a personal attack. IMO, the actions of your character are stupid if self interest is important to her. They do not benefit her. I don't think you are stupid sice you clearly asked if the action was inappropriate PvP or good roleplaying. IMO, it is never good roleplaying to create a character personality or background in which you must use PvP. The whole point of the way my charachter got press-ganged into the adventuring party is that were pretty much forced to stick together by circumstances. IC, she would happily leave, given the option, but she can't leave anymore then they can dump here. Their more or less stuck. Again, who make up that background and personality? Please don't hide behind a background which you made up and then say that you had no choice but to take such an action. Leave yourself outs. So rolling up a deceptive, manipulative, thieving spy is okay....but rolling up a barbarian who hits that charachter when they get outed...not okay. Yeah, that's a stable situation right there. I give you the same rights as I would give the rest of the party to react to your characters actions. If their choice in making a character is equally unacceptable, then by all means ask for a vote to kick them out of the party. I don't by "But my background says I have to cheat and scr*w the party." anymore than yours saying that your character must attack other PCs. If you can put forward a case that said lies were against the interests of the party, risked my PCs neck, risked the mission, removed al trust, etc., I'd be voting with you. As to what actions do and do not warrent being kicked out of the party, attacking another PC is an automatic in my book. Lying is a judgement call. I certainly can see situations when hiding your past (and even lying to the party about it) isn't an automatic trip out of the party. I brought up examples such as hiding from an abusive husband, a former slave, on a secret mission, your father was a traitor, etc. Until I knew for sure what the PCs background was, as long as she was contributing to the immediate goal of the party, I wouldn't be an automatic kick out of the party. In my group, I would also trust that the DM did not allow a character to enter the game with a background asking to be kicked out of the party. I'd also expect the background to be within a playable alignment (presumably there are no evil in your campaign?). If I didn't know the DM, I'd give the character the benefit of the doubt until I had reason to believe that she was mass murderer or something. i.e. Attacking another player is clearly over the line. It immediately creates all sorts of issues which I've brought up. I think you must realize this or you wouldn't have asked if it was unappropriate. Lying may or may not be. Now that everyone is used to this dour, miserable, harsh brute (brutess?) with them, her suddenly conveying approval for something the others say or do will probably come as a surprise. You don't need to approve it. "Folks. This is nuts. Do we really want to travel with someone who lies to us, who I can prove is a spy? Especially after she called for honesty in the party. I say... heck no!" [break a table] "I say we hold a vote and toss her lying ass out of the party." If the party votes 'No', then I'd say, "Well I can't trust her and I don't want to see folks, included me, get killed or tossed in prison or worse when someone comes looking for her and we are with her. Can we at least check in the guard post and make sure she isn't wanted? Maybe have someone keep an eye on her when she is in town? Put her on probation of something?" Your original question was: 2) Was this good roleplaying or unacceptable PvP combat? IMO, it was unacceptable PvP combat. Roleplaying reasons can not make PvP acceptable. That type of PvP almost alway leads to the end of the campaign and often hard feelings and issues with future gaming. You can loose real world friends over it. Even risking it is never acceptable. If the other players choices (in creating a lying character) are so bad that you feel that your character could not stand it... ask to vote the character out of the party. This is a much better solution as it makes the real world consequences of your actions far better for everyone.
JadeFox 03-16-07, 09:36 PM	Again, who make up that background and personality? Please don't hide behind a background which you made up and then say that you had no choice but to take such an action. Leave yourself outs. Uhhh. No. After the game started the various PC's were, by circumstance, forced to work together.
Joe Outside 03-17-07, 04:26 AM	OK, I'm confused. BW, first you claim Jadefox is roleplaying poorly because her surly short-tempered rage mage is surly and short-tempered (a side effect of the prestige class, if not of background), call her chaotic, impulsive reaction poor roleplaying of the chaotic alignment, and then again cite poor roleplaying because she didn't respond to the provocation she received by rationally calling an in-character vote--a very lawful concept. What alignment are barbarians again? That said, I agree that there is no such thing as "good" PvP. There is, however, in-character PvP (CvC, really) that can crop up, especially when anti-heroic characters are involved. As long as the team 'can' function as a team, the occasional CvC is managable (admittedly, I wouldn't have used a table to beat the liar to a pulp--fists ought to have meen sufficient, and would have gone a long way towards helping you convince the rest of the party that character death was never on the agenda) as long as a habit isn't made of it and steps are taken to work with the party the rest of the time. JadeFox had already gotten some good advice in that respect and I don't have much to add there. Antiheroes exist, and can add some valuable spice when a player's done the heroic "same old, same old" for a while. It can make for a lively character dynamic. Just make sure you've got some redeeming features, too.
geekling 03-17-07, 07:29 AM	That said, I agree that there is no such thing as "good" PvP. As a sidenote. I will have to disagree. There are plenty of good PvP. While the OP's pickle does not fall into it. PvP in itself is not automatically bad. Ya' know... when it finally comes to a goodhearted PvP mettle between the bog-standard not too clever fighter and the dex-based too clever for his own good TWF rogue/swash buckler. To finally settle once and for all the sissy-swords no real man would ever be caught seen with vs. the 'man-hood extender' bastard sword and brute strenght, conflict. Or the pick the hysterical gnome up by the scruff of the neck and manhandle her out of the situation. Before she manages to rip the face (or other body-part more in reach) of the important NPC the party needs to kind of get on with. On account of him being half the party's boss and ummm... one of the good guys even if the gnome have very good reason to believe otherwise. Or that weird male ritual where a fist-fight turns into some kind of male bonding thing. Where somewhere in the middle turns from actually trying to harm each other into grins wide enough to reach from ear to ear, exchanging good natured insults and errr... just have fun really. PvP can be good.
BW0222 03-17-07, 01:00 PM	Joe Outside BW, first you claim Jadefox is roleplaying poorly because her surly short-tempered rage mage is surly and short-tempered (a side effect of the prestige class, if not of background), Actually I never said that. I said his choice of playing a character which must react by attacking another PC was a poor choice and IMO poor roleplaying. You can roleplay any character good. Might as well select one were 'good' roleplaying doesn't likely end the campaign. call her chaotic, impulsive reaction poor roleplaying of the chaotic alignment, No. I said that folks don't have to play chaotic as insane or irrational. Elves don't fly into rages or attack each other all the time. Bards don't go nuts and attack each other. You can come up with all sorts of backgrounds which would prevent this. You don't go nuts on women, you don't go nuts on someone who it isn't a fair fight, you challenge them to a fight and then make fun of them if they refuse, you ask your mates if it is ok to beat up another mate, you need to put your war paint on before going nuts -- giving others a chance to get folks in between, etc. You can come up with a dozen backgrounds or personality traits which prevent you from attacking outright. Cases where you don't find yourself having to cross that line first. and then again cite poor roleplaying because she didn't respond to the provocation she received by rationally calling an in-character vote--a very lawful concept. Chaotic is not irrational. Lawful is not rational. One can be lawful good and insane (Don Quixote) or chaotic evil and highly calculating. Sorry, at some level you have the responsiblity to make the game fun. Lots of folks put a lot of time and effort into it and having it end by something which you do have control over -- your character -- is just a waste of everyone's time. And, yes, the same goes for the other player, if his character's background and personality was such that they were scr*wing the rest of the party with the likely outcome that they would need to kick him out of the party, then the player (and DM) should know where that leads and come up with something different. What alignment are barbarians again? Any non lawful. That doesn't mean they can't turn to their chief and say "Can I kill this idiot?" or figure out that attacking someone they need to adventure with isn't a good idea. That said, I agree that there is no such thing as "good" PvP. There is, however, in-character PvP (CvC, really) that can crop up, especially when anti-heroic characters are involved. PvP is short for player character vs. player character. No one actualy thinks the PvP term refers to actual player vs. actual player. Otherwise JadeFox would be in jail and the other player in the hospital. Thus, your CvC is term meaningless. PvP already means the same thing -- one player character against another player character. As long as the team 'can' function as a team, the occasional CvC is managable That type of PvP almost never works. The other player is going to be upset. They will roleplay their character getting even. And since we have established the precident that individual initiating the action can decide a) what is and is not an appropriate reason to initiate PvP, b) what is an appropriate "punishment", and c) as long as they can justify this as a likely/reasonable reaction for their character, it's fine at the table. The other player will think and say, "Now how would my sneaky-type character react to someone publicly beating the snot out of me? Humm... we'll she isn't going to have a physical fight and she is a dopplegannger/shifter?" Certainly it would be perfectly reasonable for her to take the form of JadeFox's PC, go punch out a city guard, and run. The guards would then pick up JadeFox's PC and he'd spend a night in jail and maybe some roughing up. Eventually they confirm he was elsewhere at the time of the assault. Certainly no more worse than what he did to the other PC. And then how is JadeFox's PCs going to react to a night in jail. Is JadeFox going to say "Yes, that's what her character would do? Good job Joe.". No. He'll do something even worse to the other PC. It will continue until someone makes the perfectly rational decision that eventually someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed and taking out the other PC first is a reasonable action. Alternately someone else in the party says enough and someone gets pre-emptively booted. All these actions are perfectly justified by the backgrounds/personality of the characters. That is the problem with using backgrounds/personalities as shields against responsiblity for their resulting actions. geekling, >That said, I agree that there is no such thing as "good" PvP. As a sidenote. I will have to disagree. There are plenty of good PvP. While the OP's pickle does not fall into it. PvP in itself is not automatically bad. I have always said "that type of PvP". I think the line in when both sides do not agree to the PvP. i.e. one attacks, intimidates, bullies, messes with, etc. the other without prior agreement. If two half-orc PCs want to go outside the inn and fight it out to see who gets the +1 sword, fine. Your examples of acceptable PvP are great. However, I think all cases assume that the other player is willing to have such a confrontation. PvP can be good. Yes. However, in this case, I think we can agree that the other player likely didn't agree to being attacked (whether or not she 'deserved' it) and it isn't likely to have a good outcome. IMO, a threat to vote her PC out of the party would have been a much better tactic. The player (and DM) would have learned that at some point certain backgrounds/character traits just can't work. JadeFox also comes through with clean hands if it does come to kicking a player out of the gaming group.
danielinthewolvesden 03-17-07, 04:09 PM	You and only YOU, choose- as a PLAYER- to play a disruptive PC. Thus, it is never "in character" to be disruptive, it is always an OOC choice- and a bad one. Yes, the resentment and angst are perfectly OK (altho angst is often overdone). But not the PvP stuff. You must design a PC that will get along with the party, even if she hates the rest of the world. Now, the shapeshifter might also be at fault. But having a secret background is not nessesarily disruptive. True, if the shapeshifter is acting against the party secretly , then that is wrong also.
Angel Black 03-17-07, 04:58 PM	1) Can a non-heroic personality charachter fit in in a heroic fantasy setting? Epically with a mostly heroic party? 2)( my charachter learns that one of the party members has been lying ...So my rage-mage grabs a table and beats her to a pulp.)Was this good roleplaying or unacceptable PvP combat? 1) Yes.Samples: Frodo(Lord of the Rings) is a non-heoric guy that becomes a hero because he felt he must.Vegeta(Dragonball Z anime) was a bad guy that realizes that he can live among good guys and enjoy it... 2) Unacceptable, unless shapeshifter says that he was a spy for the bad guys or a murderer of someone the the rage mages care for... Advice: Be cynical, and little by little begin to be more friendly with your team, it is true that a non-funny, not-so-kind character can be part of a team but it is also true that people knows that they need good friends, and must avoid bad friends.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-17-07, 11:37 PM	As usual, I'm confused as to why some adventuring groups contimue to voluntarily travel with unstable-bordering-on-psychotic people rather than ditching them in the middle of the night. Especially when they prove that they're totally willing to attack party members for what is really no good reason. You may have been RPing, but the others should have also RPed and left your nutball character in the mud.
danielinthewolvesden 03-18-07, 02:24 AM	As usual, I'm confused as to why some adventuring groups contimue to voluntarily travel with unstable-bordering-on-psychotic people rather than ditching them in the middle of the night. Especially when they prove that they're totally willing to attack party members for what is really no good reason. . Very true- folks- there is at least one more option other than "put up with it" ot "Kill him"- that is- have the group leave him. BUT, if you do this, NEVER give a reason. Either just leave or say Good-bye, but do not give any reason or you will have hours of screaming arguments over "metagaming" or "you didn't see me". Just say your PC has decided he hates that PC for "it's just what my character would do".:P
Joe Outside 03-18-07, 06:10 AM	Actually I never said that. I said his choice of playing a character which must react by attacking another PC was a poor choice and IMO poor roleplaying. You can roleplay any character good. Might as well select one were 'good' roleplaying doesn't likely end the campaign. No, that is not poor roleplaying, it's--if anything--poor character choice. Roleplaying is, by definition, acting out the character of a role. If the character design is a surly, distrustful, perpetually angry individual whose natural reaction to irritation is to bash it, then bashing an irritant is proper roleplaying. Making such a character in a campaign where team unity is important may not be a great option (and the DM would be well within her rights to disallow such a character during creation if she sees potential problems) but once the character is approved by the DM and in play, then playing said character is good roleplaying and is a right that I will defend in players to the death. No. I said that folks don't have to play chaotic as insane or irrational. Elves don't fly into rages or attack each other all the time. Bards don't go nuts and attack each other. You can come up with all sorts of backgrounds which would prevent this. You don't go nuts on women, you don't go nuts on someone who it isn't a fair fight, you challenge them to a fight and then make fun of them if they refuse, you ask your mates if it is ok to beat up another mate, you need to put your war paint on before going nuts -- giving others a chance to get folks in between, etc. You can come up with a dozen backgrounds or personality traits which prevent you from attacking outright. Cases where you don't find yourself having to cross that line first. No, you don't have to, that is correct. A peaceful hippie can be just as chaotic as a sociopath. At it's core, chaotic simply suggests a disinterest in structure and order and an interest in personal freedoms (I say suggests as there is nothing as yet in any D&D literature that defines law and chaos to my satisfaction). You're also right that it's relatively easy to create a background and a loose personal code that will help prevent character interaction from potentially getting too far out of control. That likely would have been a good idea in this case, yes. But it didn't happen. And the DM allowed the character. Chaotic is not irrational. Lawful is not rational. One can be lawful good and insane (Don Quixote) or chaotic evil and highly calculating. It's probably closer to: "Personal freedoms and goals are first priority" vs. "The common cause outweighs my own." I'm not even seeing where irrationality comes into play. Sorry, at some level you have the responsiblity to make the game fun. Lots of folks put a lot of time and effort into it and having it end by something which you do have control over -- your character -- is just a waste of everyone's time. And, yes, the same goes for the other player, if his character's background and personality was such that they were scr*wing the rest of the party with the likely outcome that they would need to kick him out of the party, then the player (and DM) should know where that leads and come up with something different. And yet I will also defend the other player's right to roleplay the character the way she designed it. Yes, the game needs to be fun. Everybody needs to help that happen. Story brings fun. Conflict brings story. The DM controls conflict. In the OP, JadeFox says that the DM is unhappy with the character. Then it's the DM's perogative to remedy the situation. That could mean anything from talking with JadeFox about what changes can be made to the character to aid the party dynamic to asking JadeFox to either roll up a more suitable character or leave the group. If JadeFox is concerned about how her character's personality is impacting the party dynamic, then perhaps she could take the initiative and approach the DM about it first. As neither of these things happened, conflict did. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. Some of my group's most lovingly remembered stories involve situations where there was inter-character conflict, either because the DM allowed it or as a direct cause the DM's machinations. I won't say that the end result of this always improved the party dynamic, that would be untrue. But it did make for intense roleplaying and strong stories that we remember fondly. Any non lawful. That doesn't mean they can't turn to their chief and say "Can I kill this idiot?" or figure out that attacking someone they need to adventure with isn't a good idea. I don't recall there being a chief anywhere in JadeFox's story, or even hearing of anyone being in charge, much less anyone being something that JadeFox's character would consider an authority figure. This, however, is a more believable option than calling a party vote to vote the shapechanger off the island. PvP is short for player character vs. player character. No one actualy thinks the PvP term refers to actual player vs. actual player. Otherwise JadeFox would be in jail and the other player in the hospital. Thus, your CvC is term meaningless. PvP already means the same thing -- one player character against another player character. Actually, PvP does, indeed, mean player vs. player. It's a catchphrase taken from competitive video games before coming to PnP RPGs. That said, I'm aware that most everyone understands it to mean inter-character conflict, I still find the terminology important because I've seen unmoderated, unchecked CvC turn into PvP issues. I also like precision in terminology. If you don't care, go ahead and read my CvCs as PvP. It won't offend me if you do. That type of PvP almost never works. The other player is going to be upset. They will roleplay their character getting even. And since we have established the precident that individual initiating the action can decide a) what is and is not an appropriate reason to initiate PvP, b) what is an appropriate "punishment", and c) as long as they can justify this as a likely/reasonable reaction for their character, it's fine at the table. The other player will think and say, "Now how would my sneaky-type character react to someone publicly beating the snot out of me? Humm... we'll she isn't going to have a physical fight and she is a dopplegannger/shifter?" Certainly it would be perfectly reasonable for her to take the form of JadeFox's PC, go punch out a city guard, and run. The guards would then pick up JadeFox's PC and he'd spend a night in jail and maybe some roughing up. Eventually they confirm he was elsewhere at the time of the assault. Certainly no more worse than what he did to the other PC. And then how is JadeFox's PCs going to react to a night in jail. Is JadeFox going to say "Yes, that's what her character would do? Good job Joe.". No. He'll do something even worse to the other PC. It will continue until someone makes the perfectly rational decision that eventually someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed and taking out the other PC first is a reasonable action. Alternately someone else in the party says enough and someone gets pre-emptively booted. All these actions are perfectly justified by the backgrounds/personality of the characters. That is the problem with using backgrounds/personalities as shields against responsiblity for their resulting actions. If the rest of the party hasn't already called the guards (which they most likely ought to have—the best way to deal with an impulsively violent character is to remove the opportunity for impulsive action. Letting JadeFox's character cool her heels in a jail cell overnight would do everyone a world of good) then yes, the sneaky character would likely conspire to get JadeFox's PC arrested or otherwise embarrased. If she's a smart sneaky character, she'll do something that will also eliminate the chances of JF's PC acting impulsively physical again. If JF's PC is stuck cooling her heels in any way, she'll have to think, and thinking is good for character growth. And who said that it should be a shield against repercussions? Vaalingrade Ashland has a perfectly valid point. There is nothing preventing the rest of the party taking their completely in character and roleplayed selves and leaving JadeFox's completely in character and roleplayed self in the dust--if that is the in-character thing for them to do. I'll gladly defend anyone's right to roleplay their character they way they see fit. But expect everyone else to roleplay right back, because that's their right too. Oh, and JadeFox, about your first question in the original post (I just realized I've been spending all my mental effort on the second without referring to the first): Yes, Though I think there are better examples than Angel Black's for antiheroes...I would recommend looking more at Wolverine of the X-Men or Jayne from Firefly as examples.
steamboat28 03-18-07, 08:57 AM	You're a barbarian. Not-Hitting-Things-With-Other-Things is your dump stat. =P Also, you just made my sig likewise.
robertliguori 03-18-07, 01:47 PM	*shrugs* I have played characters that would have sided with the shapeshifter, the rage mage, or neither. My opinion? I've played (and prefer to play) full-on heroic games, where it is assumed that party loyalty trumps national, religious, political, and personal loyalties. In these kind of campaigns, the party paladin will side with his CN party over his church, because they are his party. In this party, neither keeping secrets nor beating with tables is acceptable behavior. However, in a less-heroic game, I could see either the deception or the table-beating as acceptable behavior. I would say that following the beating, you should express (loudly and angrily) that you all are a team, and need to start acting like one, and that being on a team entails trust and co-operation, and the sneaky person has any doubts about this, they should consider recent events for an example of what happens when party unity goes downhill. Now, the structure of the game and party may mean that lying and deception is acceptable, and beating is not. It might mean that beating is acceptable, but lying is not. But barring specific examples of expectations for this party, I'd say that the one is an acceptable response to another (if not an ideal one). Also, calling the guards is a Bad Idea. If the guards are leveled and adventurer-capable, drawing their attention to the shapeshifter will neutralize that character's advantages in this town. If they aren't, then they stand very little chance of restraining a Rage Mage. It's lose-lose for the doppleganger-character.