1st Campaign: I want to kill my party member. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Trisorion Apr 08, 2014 21:32:41	First D&D campaign here. So I understand that PvP is almost always in poor taste, but I find myself in an odd position. Other than quitting the campaign I don't see another way out. And I feel that my character would rather kill the problem player and save the world then go home and twiddle his thumbs. The main thrust of the campaign lines up very closely with my characters motivations and back-story so I definitely want to complete it. Unfortunately fate would have me paired up with a LG Paladin player character who often takes extreme risks that endanger both himself and the party as long as it makes him look Good. In our back stories (which were written before we knew what the campaign was) we had worked together once. He dove in front of a charging mounted rider to save someone and had to be saved himself. After returning to good health he denounced our cause and left. The remaining defenders (myself included) suffered heavy casualties leaving most of my comrades dead. He views our cause as ill-conceived and said that leaving was the right thing to do. I feel that he is a vain, glory-seeking, fool and a coward. So we begin playing and in a few short sessions he has done the following extremely stupid things: · used lay on hands on the animal companion of a person we just met in the middle of a dangerous journey, only to not have the ability available when it was needed in a fight. One of our party members was a few HP from being permanently dead. But boy did the paladin look like such a good guy healing that lady's sickly weasel! · intentionally let 30 zombies get within striking range of the sleeping party during his watch rotation. After the zombies killed one of our NPCs he managed to (barely) use his one-time-use magic item of uber mass cure to kill the undead. The DM remarked it was nearly a full party wipe. · Allowed one of the main bad guys to escape because the bad guy said "I surrender" after having murdered 1 of our player characters and many many NPCs. Once the paladin backed off the bad guy ran away at 1 HP into a portal to another dimension. (As he had been known to do in the past) I have argued in game with the paladin to the point that I had to stop because I could tell it was making the game not fun for the other 3 people in our party. After the incident with the undead I came close to saying that my character abandons the campaign and returns to the city. I am LN, I worship Wee Jas. Saving this plane of existence (which, it seems, is what our main quest boils down to) is too important to let our idiot paladin doom the entire party. Some compromises must be made... I am lawful in that I follow my god's word obediently and the laws of men to the letter (although I am not above trying to bend them sometimes). We are currently in a no-man's-land/war-zone that is not under the jurisdiction of any authority. That leaves me only accountable to my god. What should I do? What would you do? (P.S. One further complication is the player that plays our paladin is extremely attached to their character. They are not really role playing, they happen to be lawful stupid in real life and picked the right class to act that out. I think they would cry in real life if their character dies. To be clear they are a friend of mine, but they are super attached. Also, the DM has been briefed of my intentions and thinks they are reasonable given our characters. I have warned him that if the paladin almost kills everyone again...)
#2 Xaspian Apr 09, 2014 1:58:50	PvP doesn't work unless people want it to happen, and want it to work. Don't intentionally plan to kill another PC without getting the okay of the PC's player. You need to find more reasons for your character to stick around his character. Rather than say it makes most sense to kill him, take as assumed that your PCs will work together and not kill each other, then find an explanation for it. Maybe there's a closer personal bond which allows you to overlook his flaws, maybe there's something magical compelling you to stick near to him, maybe you (or your god) believe he will serve some greater purpose in the future despite his flaws. If you really cannot find any reason at all for your PC to stick around, then perhaps the best bet would be to have your character to set out on their own, working on the same goal. Then introduce and play a new character who can get on with the paladin. Your old character can become an NPC which, if the DM's up for it, can crop up from time to time as either an ally or a rival. One last thing, that should probably be the first thing - have you talked to the other player about all this? If they are your friend, then meet up out of game and tell them what you feel, and what you're considering, and get their opinion. This is about their character as much as yours, so they should be included in the conversation.
#3 svendj Apr 09, 2014 2:38:47	You two seem to have a different RP style. You may not like his style, but killing his character for that is way out of line. Let's look at your examples: Trisorion wrote:
#4 svendj Apr 09, 2014 2:41:30	Xaspian wrote:
#5 Xaspian Apr 09, 2014 3:30:47	svendj wrote:
#6 Trisorion Apr 09, 2014 6:15:09	In response to Svendj, The whole argument of that "DND is about having fun, not winning" never sat well with me. What if I think killing the paladin would be fun? You can see how this immediately brings up a contradiction in your moral imperatives. So far, I think DND is about roleplaying to the best of your ability. I dont care about winning in abstract, but I have to care about what my character wants to do (i.e. save the world, continue to exist, follow his god's will). Once I abandon my characters feelings D&D just becomes an incredibly unwieldy set of rules with outmoded turn-based combat from the age before computers. I need to tell my story, and that is all I would expect from anyone else in the party. Our DM has no qualms about killing the players, so I cant just be happy with losing from time to time. Two of the seven of us are permanently dead after four sessions. Every time we do something extremely stupid, or we take too long to deliberate in a situation that calls for action he rolls the skull die. It is a d6 with a skull on one side. If the skull turns up something really bad happens. The paladin has forced him to roll the skull die at least 6 times. That is more than everyone else in the party together. The paladin has been in one campaign with our current DM in the past. The entire party died in very dramatic fashion. The player who is currently playing a paladin was playing a druid. She certainly became emotional when the druid died. I think the DM likes to play with her because she is one of the best role players because she doesn't role play at all. You can see her panic when her character is in danger. From everyone's advice I have decided to speak to the paladin in game and be as blunt as possible. “What you do with your own life is between you an Paelor, but if you needlessly endanger the lives of others or the fate of this plane again you will answer to my great-sword. Or you better hope you run faster than me” (The paladin actually does run faster than me) I get the impression here that most people plan to follow a campaign for more than two months under the assumption that their characters have plot protection. The unique nature of our campaign makes me feel more okay about PvP.
#7 svendj Apr 09, 2014 8:07:09	I hope you refrain from too much bluntness, because some (even most) people don't react well to threats (IC or OC). Or to put it more succinctly, "Them's fightin' words." I can't fault you from wanting to keep your character and the party alive, anyone would do the same. My suggestion is to do so in a polite and respectful manner. By the way, there's nothing "unique" about your campaign in the sense that players don't have plot protection. It sounds more like a case of a DM with a bit of a god complex who thinks the players can only continue to exist by his good graces. Guess what, you as a player actually have a say in how you'd like the DM to run the campaign as well. After all, a campaign without players is just one guy telling a story in an empty room. If you have a problem with the level of lethality in the campaign, bring it up after a session some time and see how the others respond. You might be surprised to hear what they think.
#8 Tsulia Apr 09, 2014 9:11:26	Ignore the game for a moment. Ask yourself these questions - Do you like the person in question? In general. Ignore the DM for this question. - Would the other 5 people enjoy a gaming session without this person? - Does it really bother you if you make them cry? - Does it matter what Gender they are to you, does this really change anything? (My reasoning is, both genders can be equally stupid and irritating, don't let that cloud your judgement). Then ask... - Can we not ask them to leave? - Why does the DM want to keep them alive (as seems to be the case, via zombie massacre) - Can you not work with the DM to have the paladins actions reduced? Either when it comes to important matters or matters of actual roleplay - combat, let them do w/e and hope they die. (personal preference, they let others die, let her learn it works both ways). Now, many will consider my post to be flamebait, trollbait or just madness - doesn't matter. I don't care how you make your character, I don't care about any of that. What I care about (in regards to other party members) is that if they are purposely getting people killed off - I end up looking at it like a profit margin; does the party (remainder) profit by the players death? Can we buy in one or two of the now dead members back in as other characters? But before any of this slips over your mind... ask this ... *Do you really* want to continue gaming with that person?** I would have you ask that first, because I know of two people at my club - who'll not play together, because one of them (whom run a WoD game now) has screwed over 3 D&D parties (one I've been in) several Shadowrun groups AND attempted to get into my WFRP group purely so he could play a mutant; instant no. Reason? The guy that now refuses to play with him... is a TROLL SLAYER - aka, orange haired dwarves whom kill mutants for a living... see what I mean? Ultimately the choice is your own; a worst case but best case I can see - is you hanging up your character, but intact and with items, and hope you get to finish playing them one day.
#9 bawylie Apr 09, 2014 12:26:17	Yup. I've been here. Almost exactly here. 1 time with a LG Dwarf fighter 1 time with a LE human rogue. In both cases, I was able to appeal to their senses of honor & obligation to mitigate some of their excesses. For example, the LE wanted to avoid debts, so I often pointed out where his actions would oblige him to repay damages. (He once killed a man with a daughter, I explained to him that he owed the girl a father, having taken one from her without recompense - he adopted her). For the LG, I was able to explain that his duty to his comrades was an immediate duty - that must come first in any situations involving peril. To neglect that relationship or push it down to a lower level was to say in the sight of God that our lives were meaningless apart from our convenience to him. That any good soldier would treat us as a brother at minimum. Anything less meant death - if I can't trust you to have my back, then you cannot trust me with yours, and our deaths are a matter of time. So you put us first or we part ways. Even the LE was on board with that (though more for the self-preservation than for the honor).
#10 Dave_son_of_Dave Apr 09, 2014 15:54:54	Actually, from my own point of view, the things that the Paladin has done thus far sounds kind of awesome. The idea of letting the ultimate bad guy go because he surrendered sounds like a good characer move, and even the trolling with the zombie thing wokrs in my mind. I actually like it when players do something unexpected or unconventional, because it helps keep things fresh and exciting. Granted, the characters in game might be upset by the concept of nearly getting jumped by zombies due to negligence, but I can't help but think of it from a plot standpoint and see that the added conflict makes the overall story more exciting in the long run. It also means that the players have to play the game on a whole different level, simultaneously thinking about not only what the DM is going to throw at them, but what on earth the Paladin is going to do next. I would look at the situation more as just another element of the game than necessarily as a problem.
#11 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat Apr 09, 2014 18:08:16	Trisorion wrote:
#12 CCS Apr 09, 2014 23:40:40	Hmm, seems the ONLY thing your Paladin player did wrong was letting the zombies get too close. And that mistake presumes that they knew the zombies were there. Afterall, not much blame to be placed if the dice said the perception check doesn't reveal them until ______. But if I were the pally & knew in time that the zombies were there? 1) I'd have spent a round waking at least one more PC, (mostly to bear witness to: 2) I'd have played bait by charging the zombies & detonated my heal/kill undead ability "out there". (Because there's more glory to be had in a tale like that than in standing & waiting;)) ........... But so you're annoyed with the paladin enough to want to stab them (to death). And you believe you're in a game where that'd be condoned.... Well, you can certainly try that. But just from what you've written I can tell you that won't solve the problem you have. Because your problem sounds like a real life difference with the other player. So guess what happens? You kill her paladin. And she makes another character. Unfortunately for you she's still the same PERSON with the same RP style as she was last week or 30 minutes ago or whenever she lost her pally.... ........ so maybe talk to her IRL about it. In the meantime? Grit your teeth as the do-gooder heals slickly animals, always assign a 2nd person standing watch with her, and make a mental note to shoot the next fleeing enemy in the back.... and realize that the world IS better off with paladins like this about than it is with your type of character. After all, she'll heal sick animals & keep her word. You? You want to kill her for that.
#13 svendj Apr 10, 2014 1:00:15	CCS wrote:
#14 merb101 Apr 10, 2014 7:32:43	Dave_son_of_Dave wrote:
#15 Krusk Apr 10, 2014 14:33:23	In our back stories (which were written before we knew what the campaign was) we had worked together once. He dove in front of a charging mounted rider to save someone and had to be saved himself. After returning to good health he denounced our cause and left. The remaining defenders (myself included) suffered heavy casualties leaving most of my comrades dead. He views our cause as ill-conceived and said that leaving was the right thing to do. I feel that he is a vain, glory-seeking, fool and a coward.
#16 BRJN Apr 13, 2014 17:30:55	Trisorion - You need to talk with the Paladin's player first, then the DM, and then the rest of the group individually. Let them know that you are uncomfortable with the group dynamics. And why. Do this away from game so everybody can digest the information. Do NOT turn this into "its either him or me"; that's just as group-destructive as a Lawful Stupid character. When talking with the DM, ask him to also talk with the group about it. Then: follow his lead. Keep in mind fictional characters - hey, isn't your group exactly that? - who have had to deal with companions who were much below their league. Aragorn and Merry/Pippin outside of Bree. All 12 Dwarves watching Bilbo learning how to ride a horse. The Hogwarts teaching staff and Harry Potter (which book was it that they disobeyed warnings and awakened the monster in the basement?). You may have to grit teeth and bear it for a while, as they catch up on basic knowledge that you learned long ago. As long as the PC (both personas) is making effort to improve, be patient and non-abrasive. But if you get dig-in-heels, start planning how you and your character can make a graceful exit. P.S. re: bad guy runs away: Let the group know that you are of the mind to take down all enemies, no allowing escapes. Also let group know that you will KO (not kill) enemies upon request. The rules easily allow for this.
#17 StanatBorderlands Apr 17, 2014 20:51:12	The counter argument: You are probably going to have to kill the Paladin... The great thing about D&D is that many different types of people can play, all with their own ideas of how to play. You meet people from all over the world that have a tremendous vaariety of ideas about how D&D is to be played. The game fits nearly everyone. That is wonderful when those of a similar bent wind up in a group together. It is awful when incompatibles wind up in a group together. Anyone that has played for any length of time has run into a "Lawful Good" Paladin that is in fact "Obnoxious Annoying." You can claim that the others in the party are intolerant of the Paladin's '"play style" & should be open to "new ideas in role-playing," when in fact such behaviour would just amount to letting the party wrecker run rampant. There is no excuse for such a player, and the DM should talk to the Paladin. If the paladin's behaviour is "role-playing," then no one should complain if you DO kill her. It is, after all, "role-playing." The "adventure group" is an artificial construct. In "real fiction" if one member of the group constantly worked to the detriment of the others, that member would no longer be allowed to be in the group. In D&D, we all come from work or school or where-ever and meet up for some gaming, so, by default, everyone is included. That implicit inclusivness means people are going to have to give a bit, and compromise on occasion. So, the Paladin that insists on doing things her way, all the time, and (seemingly) always to the detriment of the group, is being incredibly selfish and insisting that she is the star and the rest of you are bit players. So, I suspect "talking it out" is not going to work. It seems to me that you are not going to get what you want out of the game if she is in the party, and she will not get what she wants if you are happy. You both seem to be far enough apart that compromise will not bring you together. You can try to reason with her. You can explain with specific examples why certain actions are counter productive to the party. ( e.g. you deciding to let the undead in close was more important the preserving the life of the party member that died as a result). Or why certain actions are not lawful. Or not good. You can appeal to her sense of comradery with the players & encourage a more agreeable approach. You could even get the other 3 to get together and make "Laws of the Party." Voted on and passed 4-1. Now we are clear about what is not lawful. But, as I said above, the party is contrived, and everyone is invited, no character can really be kicked out unless the player is as well. So, based purely on personal experience of playing in and running countless campaigns, and with no claim that the rest of the world works this way, this is what will happen. It is up to you to decide if you want deal with the fall out or not. You possibly give the Paladin a warning along the lines of, "We know you are doing this on purpose. We are tired you you getting us killed. Do it again, and one night when you go to sleep, you will not wake up." Then, when she does it again, one night when she goes to sleep, you kill the Paladin. When you do that , there is an almost 50% chance the player will quit. There is an almost 50% chance that she will roll a new character with revenge in her heart. There is a miniscule chance that she will change her behavior. You mentioned that she has previously played in the DM's campaigns. There is a better that 50% chance that the DM will take her side, and YOUR character's days will now be numbered. And, the DM may miraculously bring her back to life anyway. The other players will react. If any of them are her good friends, they will follow her lead & quit or look for revenge. If any of them agree with you, they will be pleased by the turn of events. Unless the DM turns on you. Then you will be a lonely dude indeed. It will be quite satisfying in the short run to kill her, and MAYBE you will plant a seed of doubt in her if she behaves erratically. In the long run, though I doubt it will change her behaviour. To me your options are learn to live with it, or find a different group that you can live with. After all, in "Real Fiction" you do not "have" to stay together. Based on what you wrote, you should be able to find a group that thinks like you do, i.e. work together to acheive the task at hand. Or, even better, start your own campaign and invite the people you want. Anyhow, good luck. I really hope reason works. It just doesn't seem like it will in this case.
#18 Seth_Ulrik Apr 19, 2014 1:58:51	I'd like to chime in as well. What everyone has said is all really solid points on the matter and I would like to reiterate one or two, possibly three. Talking is vital. Talking is quite possibly the key, as is compromise from BOTH/ALL on the subject if you all wish to continue gaming. Should she have Lay on Hands on a sick animal? Resource-wise, probably not. Roleplay-wise, probably so. If you have problems with the Paladin's playstyle, instead of plotting death, speak up -after- the day's session. Be to the point on the matter without casting stones at anyone. Do a 'round-the-table' discussion, where everyone gets a turn to lay out all the problems the group has. From what I've read from you and the others, it seems like a compatibility issue. You don't like her playstyle, but that is OK, not everyone plays the game the same way. Everyone at the table needs to understand that. As far as the DM killing folks, if the group is ok with a 'deadly' DM, then that's fine, if not, again speak up after a session! Everything seems to be boiling down to TALKING to one another, and its really that simple. No one needs to leave the group or be kicked out, or have their character mercilessly killed in their sleep. The game is about having fun, and if someone in the group isn't having fun, you figure out why and compromise with each other until everyone is having fun again. Simple as that. But again, I'm really just rehashing what everyone else has already said.
#19 Xhosant May 08, 2014 14:53:25	Sorry to join the party late. Ok, so assuming you've tried the real life talk solution to no avail (first thing to be done), you can move on. By backgrounds, your characters have bad blood. The actions you described, are a) unwise but legitimate (the healing), b) dumb planning but justified (the non-killing i get, but tying him up should have been a priority of you all) and c) our solution: So, he intentinally (I assume you mean in-character, as in 'the paladin spotted them but did nothing', as in the other way around he could have done nothing) allowed the zombies close. Why would he do that? To look awesome, i collect. You character suspects him as a vain glory-hound, correct? Incidents such as the one you mentioned are when your character should get investigating. If you can prove the character did something JUST to look good, in-character, you have something that floats. I don't mean 'act dumb and let the villain get away', that's ok. But 'he intentionnaly didn't tie him/botch the tie so he would seem like the gullible, tragic figure when his kindness is exploited'. Or 'he intentionaly allowed the zombies close, endangering everyone, so that he could seem heroic by fighting them back'. Those actions are neither Lawful (he's lying) nor Good (he caused grief for his own gain/fame). Once your character has gathered enough evidence to 'prove' his suspicions, it would be perfectly in-character (and grand/epic for all parties involved) to confront him. One scenario is a Trial by Combat (nonlethal of course) leading to the Paladin's fall (for crimes against alignment) and exile (due to your lost trust), setting him on a path to Redemption/ Corruption. That's very easily something the player could enjoy as well, having him reroll his 'primary' character while the other still exists, and appears, under his control. Or maybe through fall/divine rebutal, the paladin sees the errors of his ways (the vain bit, Laying on hands-ing passerbies is perfectly fine unless other reasons stand), starting his path to redemption (again), this time inside the party. Again, an epic storyline. So, OOC: first thing. IC murder: lousy and half-assed. IC tale of fall and rise that begins by subtlety and error: epic and enjoyable (i hope).
#20 hardihood1 May 23, 2014 13:22:51	Iv done what you wish, kill other players. ones iv worked with the DM to stop a party from letting my god be imprisoned, i was a secret agent of sorts and let the DM know of my plans to stop the party. he did not help me in anyway, but he let me do my bidding. i killed a party of 6. to their fault they beleaved i was possed and wouldnt attack me, bad choice on their part. i was so worried the group would be mad and hate me. but when it was done everyone love the story twist. infact they still talk about it 2 years later and fear this character to comeback, he was a bad azz. another time i tried changing the story by killing are employer to get his share of the treasure. i tried to do this in secret but was found out by one player and he was "LG" and tried to stop me. i killed them both. but i felt bad after, the dead character was really mad. the rest of the table thought it was great and loved it. and wonted to make packs so this person would not begrudge me. i still felt like the biggest jerk, and infact took a brake from the group and told the person im sorry, i was wrong. so their can be bad feeling that come along with PvP, be carefull....
#21 Noon May 30, 2014 16:55:44	Xaspian wrote:
#22 Seuleslintan Jun 14, 2014 10:34:35	Trisorion wrote:
#23 baldhermit Jun 14, 2014 10:44:06	Because passive aggressive in game solutions solve all of lives problems much easier than simple adult conversation could, right ?
#24 Bullywug Mar 25, 2015 22:44:00	If he rushes in to a combat for a stupid reason, let the enemies knock some sense in to him maybe just shoot back from a distance so your not in danger, and use your cantrips or bow, attacking any that aren't next to him first.
#25 Matyr Mar 26, 2015 2:07:16	Bullywug wrote:
#26 Hamenopi Apr 09, 2015 7:16:52	baldhermit wrote:
(Reply to #26) baldhermit	Hamenopi wrote:
#28 Zathris Apr 09, 2015 12:08:08	I don't understand how Hypocrisy wins the internet
#29 krappleby1976 Apr 15, 2015 23:27:35	From what ive read, the paladin did what a paladin would do, i played a game with someone playing a paladin, and some of the arguments we had in game were extremely interesting. We argued over nothing.. But it was part of the game. here is a questions for you to consider, 1. Instead of the animal the paladin saved, what if it was a family member, would you still be anoyed at the fact they used up their ability on someone rather than you? I know from experience it is extremely difficult to play with a LG paladin, But it can be really good fun. We used to do stuff just against the paladins believes, like take a sword from a dead man. (what an argument). Think of it this way.. In game rules If the paladin deliberately left the animal to suffer, he would loose favor with his gods. it is not the paladin thing to do. (this is just the dog example) i would just use this to make the game more of an interseting game. play to annoy the paladin, its good fun. (note, not annoy the player just the character) do stuff unpaladin like. For example, in the case of the crim who surrendered, Why not, if you think he deserved to die do so. You killing him, does not cuase issues for the paladin, as the paladin has done his bit by letting him go. you as a character do not have to follow every path the paladin chooses.
#30 Krusk Apr 16, 2015 16:25:04	Zathris wrote:
#31 THExFALLENxLORD Apr 16, 2015 19:40:43	Healing the animal may seem like a waste, but remember good aligned characters don't let creatures of almost all types suffer. As for the zombies, only 1 NPC was killed, not a PC which is more valued honestly, unless the NPC was of importance it shouldn't matter too much. However, as a LG character the paladin shouldn't have done that, since it puts a risk on PCs and NPCs, also the paladin should at least mourn for the death of the NPC, pay for a decent burial, or both. Since it was caused by the problem that he created. As for the main villain, again think through the eyes of the character, it is foolish to just let him go after all that, and MOST paladins would have at least knocked him out, and that's what should have been done at the minimum. As for the thought of PvP, before you come to that, talk to her first. Explain why you even thought about killing her character, talk it out first. And remember let her play as the character she wants, but don't cease playing yours the way you want either. If killing her character is what YOUR character would do because of all of these things then do it, if not then don't. Just remember, anything you do has a consquence. If you do kill her character, one or more of these things could happen. 1:She could just stop playing. 2:You could lose her as a friend not just a party member 3:She could always just make another equally annoying character 4:She makes a new character and doesn't make those "mistakes" again 5:She makes a character with revenge in her heart. Her character sounds more of CG then LG btw, but that's only with the examples you given. One more thing, if you do decide to kill her, just remember, most people don't like to be killed through stealth or things they can't at least defend against. So it is advised to make a proper in and out of game challenge, otherwise the negative possiablites are more likely to come to pass.
#32 Rauricsghost Apr 16, 2015 20:14:03	If others feel the way you do just kick his pc out of the group, not the player though. Explain why he cannot adventure with your group anymore.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Trisorion

Apr 08, 2014 21:32:41

First D&D campaign here. So I understand that PvP is almost always in poor taste, but I find myself in an odd position. Other than quitting the campaign I don't see another way out. And I feel that my character would rather kill the problem player and save the world then go home and twiddle his thumbs.

The main thrust of the campaign lines up very closely with my characters motivations and back-story so I definitely want to complete it. Unfortunately fate would have me paired up with a LG Paladin player character who often takes extreme risks that endanger both himself and the party as long as it makes him look Good. In our back stories (which were written before we knew what the campaign was) we had worked together once. He dove in front of a charging mounted rider to save someone and had to be saved himself. After returning to good health he denounced our cause and left. The remaining defenders (myself included) suffered heavy casualties leaving most of my comrades dead. He views our cause as ill-conceived and said that leaving was the right thing to do. I feel that he is a vain, glory-seeking, fool and a coward.

So we begin playing and in a few short sessions he has done the following extremely stupid things:

· used lay on hands on the animal companion of a person we just met in the middle of a dangerous journey, only to not have the ability available when it was needed in a fight. One of our party members was a few HP from being permanently dead. But boy did the paladin look like such a good guy healing that lady's sickly weasel!

· intentionally let 30 zombies get within striking range of the sleeping party during his watch rotation. After the zombies killed one of our NPCs he managed to (barely) use his one-time-use magic item of uber mass cure to kill the undead. The DM remarked it was nearly a full party wipe.

· Allowed one of the main bad guys to escape because the bad guy said "I surrender" after having murdered 1 of our player characters and many many NPCs. Once the paladin backed off the bad guy ran away at 1 HP into a portal to another dimension. (As he had been known to do in the past)

I have argued in game with the paladin to the point that I had to stop because I could tell it was making the game not fun for the other 3 people in our party. After the incident with the undead I came close to saying that my character abandons the campaign and returns to the city.

I am LN, I worship Wee Jas. Saving this plane of existence (which, it seems, is what our main quest boils down to) is too important to let our idiot paladin doom the entire party. Some compromises must be made...

I am lawful in that I follow my god's word obediently and the laws of men to the letter (although I am not above trying to bend them sometimes). We are currently in a no-man's-land/war-zone that is not under the jurisdiction of any authority. That leaves me only accountable to my god.

What should I do? What would you do?

(P.S. One further complication is the player that plays our paladin is extremely attached to their character. They are not really role playing, they happen to be lawful stupid in real life and picked the right class to act that out. I think they would cry in real life if their character dies. To be clear they are a friend of mine, but they are super attached. Also, the DM has been briefed of my intentions and thinks they are reasonable given our characters. I have warned him that if the paladin almost kills everyone again...)

Xaspian

Apr 09, 2014 1:58:50

PvP doesn't work unless people want it to happen, and want it to work. Don't intentionally plan to kill another PC without getting the okay of the PC's player.

You need to find more reasons for your character to stick around his character. Rather than say it makes most sense to kill him, take as assumed that your PCs will work together and not kill each other, then find an explanation for it. Maybe there's a closer personal bond which allows you to overlook his flaws, maybe there's something magical compelling you to stick near to him, maybe you (or your god) believe he will serve some greater purpose in the future despite his flaws.

If you really cannot find any reason at all for your PC to stick around, then perhaps the best bet would be to have your character to set out on their own, working on the same goal. Then introduce and play a new character who can get on with the paladin. Your old character can become an NPC which, if the DM's up for it, can crop up from time to time as either an ally or a rival.

One last thing, that should probably be the first thing - have you talked to the other player about all this? If they are your friend, then meet up out of game and tell them what you feel, and what you're considering, and get their opinion. This is about their character as much as yours, so they should be included in the conversation.

svendj

Apr 09, 2014 2:38:47

You two seem to have a different RP style. You may not like his style, but killing his character for that is way out of line. Let's look at your examples:

Trisorion wrote:

svendj

Apr 09, 2014 2:41:30

Xaspian wrote:

Xaspian

Apr 09, 2014 3:30:47

svendj wrote:

Trisorion

Apr 09, 2014 6:15:09

In response to Svendj,

The whole argument of that "DND is about having fun, not winning" never sat well with me. What if I think killing the paladin would be fun? You can see how this immediately brings up a contradiction in your moral imperatives. So far, I think DND is about roleplaying to the best of your ability.

I dont care about winning in abstract, but I have to care about what my character wants to do (i.e. save the world, continue to exist, follow his god's will). Once I abandon my characters feelings D&D just becomes an incredibly unwieldy set of rules with outmoded turn-based combat from the age before computers. I need to tell my story, and that is all I would expect from anyone else in the party.

Our DM has no qualms about killing the players, so I cant just be happy with losing from time to time. Two of the seven of us are permanently dead after four sessions. Every time we do something extremely stupid, or we take too long to deliberate in a situation that calls for action he rolls the skull die. It is a d6 with a skull on one side. If the skull turns up something really bad happens. The paladin has forced him to roll the skull die at least 6 times. That is more than everyone else in the party together.

The paladin has been in one campaign with our current DM in the past. The entire party died in very dramatic fashion. The player who is currently playing a paladin was playing a druid. She certainly became emotional when the druid died. I think the DM likes to play with her because she is one of the best role players because she doesn't role play at all. You can see her panic when her character is in danger.

From everyone's advice I have decided to speak to the paladin in game and be as blunt as possible. “What you do with your own life is between you an Paelor, but if you needlessly endanger the lives of others or the fate of this plane again you will answer to my great-sword. Or you better hope you run faster than me” (The paladin actually does run faster than me)

I get the impression here that most people plan to follow a campaign for more than two months under the assumption that their characters have plot protection. The unique nature of our campaign makes me feel more okay about PvP.

svendj

Apr 09, 2014 8:07:09

I hope you refrain from too much bluntness, because some (even most) people don't react well to threats (IC or OC). Or to put it more succinctly, "Them's fightin' words."

I can't fault you from wanting to keep your character and the party alive, anyone would do the same. My suggestion is to do so in a polite and respectful manner.

By the way, there's nothing "unique" about your campaign in the sense that players don't have plot protection. It sounds more like a case of a DM with a bit of a god complex who thinks the players can only continue to exist by his good graces. Guess what, you as a player actually have a say in how you'd like the DM to run the campaign as well. After all, a campaign without players is just one guy telling a story in an empty room. If you have a problem with the level of lethality in the campaign, bring it up after a session some time and see how the others respond. You might be surprised to hear what they think.

Tsulia

Apr 09, 2014 9:11:26

Ignore the game for a moment.

Ask yourself these questions

- Do you like the person in question? In general. Ignore the DM for this question.

- Would the other 5 people enjoy a gaming session without this person?

- Does it really bother you if you make them cry?

- Does it matter what Gender they are to you, does this really change anything?
(My reasoning is, both genders can be equally stupid and irritating, don't let that cloud your judgement).

Then ask...

- Can we not ask them to leave?

- Why does the DM want to keep them alive (as seems to be the case, via zombie massacre)

- Can you not work with the DM to have the paladins actions reduced? Either when it comes to important matters or matters of actual roleplay - combat, let them do w/e and hope they die. (personal preference, they let others die, let her learn it works both ways).

Now, many will consider my post to be flamebait, trollbait or just madness - doesn't matter. I don't care how you make your character, I don't care about any of that. What I care about (in regards to other party members) is that if they are purposely getting people killed off - I end up looking at it like a profit margin; does the party (remainder) profit by the players death? Can we buy in one or two of the now dead members back in as other characters?

But before any of this slips over your mind... ask this ...

Do you *really* want to continue gaming with *that* person?

I would have you ask that first, because I know of two people at my club - who'll not play together, because one of them (whom run a WoD game now) has screwed over 3 D&D parties (one I've been in) several Shadowrun groups AND attempted to get into my WFRP group purely so he could play a mutant; instant no. Reason? The guy that now refuses to play with him... is a TROLL SLAYER - aka, orange haired dwarves whom kill mutants for a living... see what I mean?

Ultimately the choice is your own; a worst case but best case I can see - is you hanging up your character, but intact and with items, and hope you get to finish playing them one day.

bawylie

Apr 09, 2014 12:26:17

Yup. I've been here. Almost exactly here.

1 time with a LG Dwarf fighter

1 time with a LE human rogue.

In both cases, I was able to appeal to their senses of honor & obligation to mitigate some of their excesses.

For example, the LE wanted to avoid debts, so I often pointed out where his actions would oblige him to repay damages. (He once killed a man with a daughter, I explained to him that he owed the girl a father, having taken one from her without recompense - he adopted her).

For the LG, I was able to explain that his duty to his comrades was an immediate duty - that must come first in any situations involving peril. To neglect that relationship or push it down to a lower level was to say in the sight of God that our lives were meaningless apart from our convenience to him. That any good soldier would treat us as a brother at minimum. Anything less meant death - if I can't trust you to have my back, then you cannot trust me with yours, and our deaths are a matter of time. So you put us first or we part ways.

Even the LE was on board with that (though more for the self-preservation than for the honor).

#10

Dave_son_of_Dave

Apr 09, 2014 15:54:54

Actually, from my own point of view, the things that the Paladin has done thus far sounds kind of awesome. The idea of letting the ultimate bad guy go because he surrendered sounds like a good characer move, and even the trolling with the zombie thing wokrs in my mind. I actually like it when players do something unexpected or unconventional, because it helps keep things fresh and exciting. Granted, the characters in game might be upset by the concept of nearly getting jumped by zombies due to negligence, but I can't help but think of it from a plot standpoint and see that the added conflict makes the overall story more exciting in the long run. It also means that the players have to play the game on a whole different level, simultaneously thinking about not only what the DM is going to throw at them, but what on earth the Paladin is going to do next. I would look at the situation more as just another element of the game than necessarily as a problem.

#11

Man_in_the_Funny_Hat

Apr 09, 2014 18:08:16

Trisorion wrote:

#12

CCS

Apr 09, 2014 23:40:40

Hmm, seems the ONLY thing your Paladin player did wrong was letting the zombies get too close. And that mistake presumes that they knew the zombies were there. Afterall, not much blame to be placed if the dice said the perception check doesn't reveal them until ______. But if I were the pally & knew in time that the zombies were there? 1) I'd have spent a round waking at least one more PC, (mostly to bear witness to: 2) I'd have played bait by charging the zombies & detonated my heal/kill undead ability "out there". (Because there's more glory to be had in a tale like that than in standing & waiting;)) ........... But so you're annoyed with the paladin enough to want to stab them (to death). And you believe you're in a game where that'd be condoned.... Well, you can certainly try that. But just from what you've written I can tell you that won't solve the problem you have. Because your problem sounds like a real life difference with the other player. So guess what happens? You kill her paladin. And she makes another character. Unfortunately for you she's still the same PERSON with the same RP style as she was last week or 30 minutes ago or whenever she lost her pally.... ........ so maybe talk to her IRL about it. In the meantime? Grit your teeth as the do-gooder heals slickly animals, always assign a 2nd person standing watch with her, and make a mental note to shoot the next fleeing enemy in the back.... and realize that the world IS better off with paladins like this about than it is with your type of character. After all, she'll heal sick animals & keep her word. You? You want to kill her for that.

#13

svendj

Apr 10, 2014 1:00:15

CCS wrote:

#14

merb101

Apr 10, 2014 7:32:43

Dave_son_of_Dave wrote:

#15

Krusk

Apr 10, 2014 14:33:23

In our back stories (which were written before we knew what the campaign was) we had worked together once. He dove in front of a charging mounted rider to save someone and had to be saved himself. After returning to good health he denounced our cause and left. The remaining defenders (myself included) suffered heavy casualties leaving most of my comrades dead. He views our cause as ill-conceived and said that leaving was the right thing to do. I feel that he is a vain, glory-seeking, fool and a coward.

#16

BRJN

Apr 13, 2014 17:30:55

Trisorion -

You need to talk with the Paladin's player first, then the DM, and then the rest of the group individually. Let them know that you are uncomfortable with the group dynamics. And why. Do this away from game so everybody can digest the information. Do NOT turn this into "its either him or me"; that's just as group-destructive as a Lawful Stupid character. When talking with the DM, ask him to also talk with the group about it. Then: follow his lead.

Keep in mind fictional characters - hey, isn't your group exactly that? - who have had to deal with companions who were much below their league. Aragorn and Merry/Pippin outside of Bree. All 12 Dwarves watching Bilbo learning how to ride a horse. The Hogwarts teaching staff and Harry Potter (which book was it that they disobeyed warnings and awakened the monster in the basement?). You may have to grit teeth and bear it for a while, as they catch up on basic knowledge that you learned long ago.

As long as the PC (both personas) is making effort to improve, be patient and non-abrasive. But if you get dig-in-heels, start planning how you and your character can make a graceful exit.

P.S. re: bad guy runs away: Let the group know that you are of the mind to take down all enemies, no allowing escapes. Also let group know that you will KO (not kill) enemies upon request. The rules easily allow for this.

#17

StanatBorderlands

Apr 17, 2014 20:51:12

The counter argument: You are probably going to have to kill the Paladin...

The great thing about D&D is that many different types of people can play, all with their own ideas of how to play. You meet people from all over the world that have a tremendous vaariety of ideas about how D&D is to be played. The game fits nearly everyone. That is wonderful when those of a similar bent wind up in a group together. It is awful when incompatibles wind up in a group together.

Anyone that has played for any length of time has run into a "Lawful Good" Paladin that is in fact "Obnoxious Annoying." You can claim that the others in the party are intolerant of the Paladin's '"play style" & should be open to "new ideas in role-playing," when in fact such behaviour would just amount to letting the party wrecker run rampant. There is no excuse for such a player, and the DM should talk to the Paladin. If the paladin's behaviour is "role-playing," then no one should complain if you DO kill her. It is, after all, "role-playing."

The "adventure group" is an artificial construct. In "real fiction" if one member of the group constantly worked to the detriment of the others, that member would no longer be allowed to be in the group. In D&D, we all come from work or school or where-ever and meet up for some gaming, so, by default, everyone is included.

That implicit inclusivness means people are going to have to give a bit, and compromise on occasion. So, the Paladin that insists on doing things her way, all the time, and (seemingly) always to the detriment of the group, is being incredibly selfish and insisting that she is the star and the rest of you are bit players.

So, I suspect "talking it out" is not going to work.

It seems to me that you are not going to get what you want out of the game if she is in the party, and she will not get what she wants if you are happy. You both seem to be far enough apart that compromise will not bring you together.

You can try to reason with her. You can explain with specific examples why certain actions are counter productive to the party. ( e.g. you deciding to let the undead in close was more important the preserving the life of the party member that died as a result). Or why certain actions are not lawful. Or not good. You can appeal to her sense of comradery with the players & encourage a more agreeable approach.

You could even get the other 3 to get together and make "Laws of the Party." Voted on and passed 4-1. Now we are clear about what is not lawful.

But, as I said above, the party is contrived, and everyone is invited, no character can really be kicked out unless the player is as well.

So, based purely on personal experience of playing in and running countless campaigns, and with no claim that the rest of the world works this way, this is what will happen. It is up to you to decide if you want deal with the fall out or not.

You possibly give the Paladin a warning along the lines of, "We know you are doing this on purpose. We are tired you you getting us killed. Do it again, and one night when you go to sleep, you will not wake up."

Then, when she does it again, one night when she goes to sleep, you kill the Paladin.

When you do that , there is an almost 50% chance the player will quit. There is an almost 50% chance that she will roll a new character with revenge in her heart. There is a miniscule chance that she will change her behavior.

You mentioned that she has previously played in the DM's campaigns. There is a better that 50% chance that the DM will take her side, and YOUR character's days will now be numbered. And, the DM may miraculously bring her back to life anyway.

The other players will react. If any of them are her good friends, they will follow her lead & quit or look for revenge. If any of them agree with you, they will be pleased by the turn of events. Unless the DM turns on you. Then you will be a lonely dude indeed.

It will be quite satisfying in the short run to kill her, and MAYBE you will plant a seed of doubt in her if she behaves erratically. In the long run, though I doubt it will change her behaviour.

To me your options are learn to live with it, or find a different group that you can live with. After all, in "Real Fiction" you do not "have" to stay together.

Based on what you wrote, you should be able to find a group that thinks like you do, i.e. work together to acheive the task at hand.

Or, even better, start your own campaign and invite the people you want.

Anyhow, good luck. I really hope reason works. It just doesn't seem like it will in this case.

#18

Seth_Ulrik

Apr 19, 2014 1:58:51

I'd like to chime in as well. What everyone has said is all really solid points on the matter and I would like to reiterate one or two, possibly three. Talking is vital. Talking is quite possibly the key, as is compromise from BOTH/ALL on the subject if you all wish to continue gaming. Should she have Lay on Hands on a sick animal? Resource-wise, probably not. Roleplay-wise, probably so. If you have problems with the Paladin's playstyle, instead of plotting death, speak up -after- the day's session. Be to the point on the matter without casting stones at anyone. Do a 'round-the-table' discussion, where everyone gets a turn to lay out all the problems the group has.

From what I've read from you and the others, it seems like a compatibility issue. You don't like her playstyle, but that is OK, not everyone plays the game the same way. Everyone at the table needs to understand that.

As far as the DM killing folks, if the group is ok with a 'deadly' DM, then that's fine, if not, again speak up after a session!

Everything seems to be boiling down to TALKING to one another, and its really that simple. No one needs to leave the group or be kicked out, or have their character mercilessly killed in their sleep. The game is about having fun, and if someone in the group isn't having fun, you figure out why and compromise with each other until everyone is having fun again. Simple as that.

But again, I'm really just rehashing what everyone else has already said.

#19

Xhosant

May 08, 2014 14:53:25

Sorry to join the party late.

Ok, so assuming you've tried the real life talk solution to no avail (first thing to be done), you can move on.

By backgrounds, your characters have bad blood. The actions you described, are a) unwise but legitimate (the healing), b) dumb planning but justified (the non-killing i get, but tying him up should have been a priority of you all) and c) our solution:

So, he intentinally (I assume you mean in-character, as in 'the paladin spotted them but did nothing', as in the other way around he could have done nothing) allowed the zombies close. Why would he do that? To look awesome, i collect. You character suspects him as a vain glory-hound, correct? Incidents such as the one you mentioned are when your character should get investigating. If you can prove the character did something JUST to look good, in-character, you have something that floats.

I don't mean 'act dumb and let the villain get away', that's ok. But 'he intentionnaly didn't tie him/botch the tie so he would seem like the gullible, tragic figure when his kindness is exploited'. Or 'he intentionaly allowed the zombies close, endangering everyone, so that he could seem heroic by fighting them back'. Those actions are neither Lawful (he's lying) nor Good (he caused grief for his own gain/fame).

Once your character has gathered enough evidence to 'prove' his suspicions, it would be perfectly in-character (and grand/epic for all parties involved) to confront him. One scenario is a Trial by Combat (nonlethal of course) leading to the Paladin's fall (for crimes against alignment) and exile (due to your lost trust), setting him on a path to Redemption/ Corruption. That's very easily something the player could enjoy as well, having him reroll his 'primary' character while the other still exists, and appears, under his control. Or maybe through fall/divine rebutal, the paladin sees the errors of his ways (the vain bit, Laying on hands-ing passerbies is perfectly fine unless other reasons stand), starting his path to redemption (again), this time inside the party. Again, an epic storyline.

So, OOC: first thing. IC murder: lousy and half-assed. IC tale of fall and rise that begins by subtlety and error: epic and enjoyable (i hope).

#20

hardihood1

May 23, 2014 13:22:51

Iv done what you wish, kill other players. ones iv worked with the DM to stop a party from letting my god be imprisoned, i was a secret agent of sorts and let the DM know of my plans to stop the party. he did not help me in anyway, but he let me do my bidding. i killed a party of 6. to their fault they beleaved i was possed and wouldnt attack me, bad choice on their part. i was so worried the group would be mad and hate me. but when it was done everyone love the story twist. infact they still talk about it 2 years later and fear this character to comeback, he was a bad azz.

another time i tried changing the story by killing are employer to get his share of the treasure. i tried to do this in secret but was found out by one player and he was "LG" and tried to stop me. i killed them both. but i felt bad after, the dead character was really mad. the rest of the table thought it was great and loved it. and wonted to make packs so this person would not begrudge me. i still felt like the

biggest jerk, and infact took a brake from the group and told the person im sorry, i was wrong.

so their can be bad feeling that come along with PvP, be carefull....

#21

Noon

May 30, 2014 16:55:44

Xaspian wrote:

#22

Seuleslintan

Jun 14, 2014 10:34:35

Trisorion wrote:

#23

baldhermit

Jun 14, 2014 10:44:06

Because passive aggressive in game solutions solve all of lives problems much easier than simple adult conversation could, right ?

#24

Bullywug

Mar 25, 2015 22:44:00

If he rushes in to a combat for a stupid reason, let the enemies knock some sense in to him maybe just shoot back from a distance so your not in danger, and use your cantrips or bow, attacking any that aren't next to him first.

#25

Matyr

Mar 26, 2015 2:07:16

Bullywug wrote:

#26

Hamenopi

Apr 09, 2015 7:16:52

baldhermit wrote:

(Reply to #26)

baldhermit

Hamenopi wrote:

#28

Zathris

Apr 09, 2015 12:08:08

I don't understand how Hypocrisy wins the internet

#29

krappleby1976

Apr 15, 2015 23:27:35

From what ive read, the paladin did what a paladin would do,

i played a game with someone playing a paladin, and some of the arguments we had in game were extremely interesting. We argued over nothing.. But it was part of the game.

here is a questions for you to consider,

1. Instead of the animal the paladin saved, what if it was a family member, would you still be anoyed at the fact they used up their ability on someone rather than you?

I know from experience it is extremely difficult to play with a LG paladin, But it can be really good fun. We used to do stuff just against the paladins believes, like take a sword from a dead man. (what an argument).

Think of it this way.. In game rules

If the paladin deliberately left the animal to suffer, he would loose favor with his gods. it is not the paladin thing to do. (this is just the dog example)

i would just use this to make the game more of an interseting game. play to annoy the paladin, its good fun. (note, not annoy the player just the character) do stuff unpaladin like.

For example, in the case of the crim who surrendered, Why not, if you think he deserved to die do so.

You killing him, does not cuase issues for the paladin, as the paladin has done his bit by letting him go. you as a character do not have to follow every path the paladin chooses.

#30

Krusk

Apr 16, 2015 16:25:04

Zathris wrote:

#31

THExFALLENxLORD

Apr 16, 2015 19:40:43

Healing the animal may seem like a waste, but remember good aligned characters don't let creatures of almost all types suffer. As for the zombies, only 1 NPC was killed, not a PC which is more valued honestly, unless the NPC was of importance it shouldn't matter too much. However, as a LG character the paladin shouldn't have done that, since it puts a risk on PCs and NPCs, also the paladin should at least mourn for the death of the NPC, pay for a decent burial, or both. Since it was caused by the problem that he created. As for the main villain, again think through the eyes of the character, it is foolish to just let him go after all that, and MOST paladins would have at least knocked him out, and that's what should have been done at the minimum. As for the thought of PvP, before you come to that, talk to her first. Explain why you even thought about killing her character, talk it out first. And remember let her play as the character she wants, but don't cease playing yours the way you want either. If killing her character is what YOUR character would do because of all of these things then do it, if not then don't. Just remember, anything you do has a consquence. If you do kill her character, one or more of these things could happen. 1:She could just stop playing. 2:You could lose her as a friend not just a party member 3:She could always just make another equally annoying character 4:She makes a new character and doesn't make those "mistakes" again 5:She makes a character with revenge in her heart. Her character sounds more of CG then LG btw, but that's only with the examples you given. One more thing, if you do decide to kill her, just remember, most people don't like to be killed through stealth or things they can't at least defend against. So it is advised to make a proper in and out of game challenge, otherwise the negative possiablites are more likely to come to pass.

#32

Rauricsghost

Apr 16, 2015 20:14:03

If others feel the way you do just kick his pc out of the group, not the player though. Explain why he cannot adventure with your group anymore.