You see, my party currently contains a rogue rogue. He does... THE most outlandish things, and claims that he's "playing his alignment".
I will give you examples and facts. I do not expect you to agree with me, but I would very much enjoy a little advice. You see, this is only my second campaign. I'm very new to this, but I've played around with the character builder SO MUCH and have read players handbooks 1 and 2 quite intently.
AHEM.
Back on subject-
1. We save the son of a powerful merchant while doing a monster-killing job in his warehouse. We didn't fully complete the job (There was another room left, but my paladin insisted on bringing him back to his father first.) but the rogue required PAY. He insisted not only on getting it all up front, but on getting extra because "Saving the kid wasn't in the job description and costs extra." He even held a knife to the kid's back and made him comply. He rolled insanely on stealth, to hide the knife... and then managed to "nat 20" the intimidate check so the kid wouldn't blab.
We got a lot of cash.
2. The rogue INSISTED we skip town because "We have the gold". Mr. McPaladin once again would not allow it. Because I have a good intimidate and a scary fullblade just friggin' WAITING for the blood of evildoers, he complies. (Also because the paladin just HAPPENED to mention that goblins like to horde "loot")
3. During the fight, the rogue gets hurt. A LOT. I lay hands on him... while he pickpockets me. Our party warlord gets blinded as well, so the rogue "robs him blind".
4. At the end of the fight, he retrieves the loot. (Yeah, I didn't know SQUAT about goblins. I was just BSing it, but apparently they DO like to horde "loot") After that, he tries to make a run for it. We give chase, and he plays his last card. "I'll kill the merchant if you don't let me go." We let him go, and he and the wizard go to mug the merchant anyways. Little did they know that he was a fighter that likes to carry his giant-*** axe with him. The rogue backstabs the wizard and claims that "the wizard made him do it." The merchant isn't very smart, so he accepts it and walks off. The rogue loots the body and runs away.
The warlord and I will use different characters next time, so we won't know about the rogue's "teamwork issues". He says he'll be different, but still insists that he was "playing his alignment". This makes me wary of what actions he'll take next game.
If backstabbing your teammate is chaotic neutral, then what is evil?
As I said before, any comments or advice would be appreciated.
Thank you.
"But it's what my character would do!"
Well, he MADE his character that way, which means he wanted to be disruptive even before the game began. Perhaps you should bring this up with the DM and see if it bothers him as well. If so, you should both have a talk with him. Tell him it's not fun for the rest of you when he acts like that. If he whines, well perhaps it's time to find a new player to fill his spot. I've seen several players who never get invited to games anymore because of the number of times they played a barbarian that attacks the party's mage for "talking down to him" or some such nonsense.
tl;dr Find out if everyone else is annoyed by this behavior, take appropriate action.
This is a pretty common problem; we call it Chaotic Stupid. It usually involves a player who is as disruptive as possible and inclined to steal from and kill other NPCs regardless of their importance to the party and even other party members. They then defend these actions by claiming "I'm just playing my alignment". My question is, what does your DM have to say about this? Is he aware you are having a problem with this, or does this sort of thing happen all the time? Is your DM inexperienced, or does he just not have a problem with the player's behaviour? Chaotic Neutral is NOT the same as Chaotic Evil, no matter what some of these people think, and it's no excuse for attacking his own party members, let alone robbing them WHILE THEY WERE HEALING HIM. I'd recommend talking to the rogue's player about this, but in my experience he's just going to parrot the alignment defense and continue to screw over the party. Personally, I'd just kill the rogue, no explanation given, but then this sort of thing really irritates me. ;)
I've played with people like this before, and usually what happens is they get caught in-game by the other characters, who take swift revenge, or they are left to die because they did something so blatantly stupid that the rest of the party abandoned them in disgust rather than be found guilty by association. Your character should have been able to make a spot check when his character robbed him, especially since you were healing him at the time; the simplest solution would be to catch him next time he tries this and either kill his character or turn him over to the authorities, but unless you can convince your DM to issue a moratorium on CN or CE characters (at least for this guy), he's just going to pull this same crap with his NEXT character. If you WANT to be in a PVP style game, that's your choice - - otherwise, I would advise you to speak to your DM and tell him how you feel about it.
There are people who can run a chaotic neutral character without being a complete jerk. The player of this Rogue is not one of those people.
This is a pretty common problem; we call it Chaotic Stupid. It usually involves a player who is as disruptive as possible and inclined to steal from and kill other NPCs regardless of their importance to the party and even other party members. They then defend these actions by claiming "I'm just playing my alignment". My question is, what does your DM have to say about this? Is he aware you are having a problem with this, or does this sort of thing happen all the time? Is your DM inexperienced, or does he just not have a problem with the player's behaviour? Chaotic Neutral is NOT the same as Chaotic Evil, no matter what some of these people think, and it's no excuse for attacking his own party members, let alone robbing them WHILE THEY WERE HEALING HIM. I'd recommend talking to the rogue's player about this, but in my experience he's just going to parrot the alignment defense and continue to screw over the party. Personally, I'd just kill the rogue, no explanation given, but then this sort of thing really irritates me. ;)
I've played with people like this before, and usually what happens is they get caught in-game by the other characters, who take swift revenge, or they are left to die because they did something so blatantly stupid that the rest of the party abandoned them in disgust rather than be found guilty by association. Your character should have been able to make a spot check when his character robbed him, especially since you were healing him at the time; the simplest solution would be to catch him next time he tries this and either kill his character or turn him over to the authorities, but unless you can convince your DM to issue a moratorium on CN or CE characters (at least for this guy), he's just going to pull this same crap with his NEXT character. If you WANT to be in a PVP style game, that's your choice - - otherwise, I would advise you to speak to your DM and tell him how you feel about it.
Hooray for somebody who understands my pain!
My DM is indeed inexperienced. He does, however, have history as a player dating back before even the dinosaurs.
Me and my friends are all a bunch of newbies, and to be fair... he balances encounters well and makes tricky traps.
He's trying to discourage this sort of behavior, as are my brother and I. I think that if I list my reasons point by point as I've done in this topic, my DM may see the light.
The rogue player is a friend of mine, and normally he can be quite mature. I'm not sure WHY he is being "Chaotic Stupid".
Heeheehee... chaotic STUPID.
Maybe if I just sit him down and talk... hopefully he'll see reason.
Though if all else fails, my brother will be a fighter in the next campaign. I'm a bard.
(I just HAD to be a bard after watching "The Gamers 2")
I'm sure that if his wallet gets too big, we can have it arranged for a hammer of equal size to spontaneously appear above his noggin.
NO. QUESTIONS. ASKED.
If nothing else teaches him, I'm confident a boot to the head will.
Oh, and I did make a perception check. I caught him, but I didn't quite want to scold him in the middle of a heated battle.
Thank you for your advice, and I'm glad someone agrees that hosing your own **** PARTY before the enemies isn't quite "Chaotic Neutral".
Well, he MADE his character that way, which means he wanted to be disruptive even before the game began.
This.
There is no excuse for playing a disruptive character. None. D&D is a group game, and it is not fair for one person to waste everyone else's valuable playing time.
Further, alignments are roleplaying guidelines, not straitjackets. Not only are there many ways to play any alignment, there are many ways at playing any alignment and not being a jerk to the rest of your party while doing so, Chaotic Neutral included.
Even furthermore, your rogue is chaotic evil. No questions asked. Among the rest of his jerknicity, threatening to murder a child for money and murdering an ally in cold blood are two big No-No's in the Good and Neutral Character Guidebook for Healthy Living.
I'm sure that if his wallet gets too big, we can have it arranged for a hammer of equal size to spontaneously appear above his noggin.
NO. QUESTIONS. ASKED.
If nothing else teaches him, I'm confident a boot to the head will.
Not this. You can try, but I doubt it will work as you are only treating the symptoms (a disruptively played character) and not the disease (the player whose actually playing the disruptive character). Take out his character, and there's nothing stopping the player from creating and equally disruptive (and metagamingly embittered) character. What you have is a out-of-character problem that requires an out-of-character solution. The best solution, IMO, is to make a serious effort to talk to him out of game and say something to the effect of:
"Dude. Dude. Seriously. The way you've been playing your character is not cool, man. You're [list grievances], and its making the game less fun for everyone else. So please, quit it so we can all get back to enjoying the game."
And if that doesn't work:
"Dude. Dude. Seriously. We've had this talk before. The game can continue with or without you. Kay? Seriously."
And if that doesn't work:
Make serious on your threat. Boot him from the game.
I made a rogue who was evil. He was greedy as heck but was willing to work in the group, I really did not want to be a disruptive player. The other two players were Paladins.
Every time I would make a thievery check or stole some gold from the guy that hired us the two other players got mad at me (even though in character they would have no idea I did). Even before I did a single rougish thing the Paladins were getting mad at my character because OOC they knew he was evil. I never once made an action against the other players (although sometimes I wanted to). It became pretty bad and we spent a lot of time arguing in and out of character about my actions and whether the Paladins should hate me when they would have no idea I was even evil.
Luckily it was my first 4th Ed. character and I did not understand healing surges or how you get your entire Con into HP so I gave him 8 Con. Yeah, he died quick.
So yeah, it suck when "Character Alignment" ends up causing party conflict, even when it is being used against you.
Chaotic stupid? No.
We call it Chaotic Dick. It's appropriate.
I had a similar problem with my first DnD 4th character except I saw it from the other side of the fence.
I made a rogue who was evil. He was greedy as heck but was willing to work in the group, I really did not want to be a disruptive player. The other two players were Paladins.
Every time I would make a thievery check or stole some gold from the guy that hired us the two other players got mad at me (even though in character they would have no idea I did). Even before I did a single rougish thing the Paladins were getting mad at my character because OOC they knew he was evil. I never once made an action against the other players (although sometimes I wanted to). It became pretty bad and we spent a lot of time arguing in and out of character about my actions and whether the Paladins should hate me when they would have no idea I was even evil.
Luckily it was my first 4th Ed. character and I did not understand healing surges or how you get your entire Con into HP so I gave him 8 Con. Yeah, he died quick.
So yeah, it suck when "Character Alignment" ends up causing party conflict, even when it is being used against you.
I'm the DM of the above story.
Yeah that wasn't really your fault, the other two should have done a better job of not meta-gaming. I will say that you might have taken it too far when you were looting a sarcophagus while the others were in combat.
I have no problems with non-disruptive actions (like most of yours were) as long as the consequences aren't complained about (You would have been in serious trouble if you weren't worm food).
Even some inter-party conflict is fine, as long as everyone is having fun with it (actively wants it) and can remain a cohesive group inspite of it.
In the OP's example It strikes me as extreme douchery.If it keeps up with his next character boot his ass, a player like that takes from everyone's fun. That said, a good character should have smacked him down hard when he drew the knife on the boy, when he complained you could say "I was only roleplaying". As a DM there should have been some consequences for his actions; the fighter merchant should have kicked his ass, the noblemans son should have told his dad, his dad should have pulled some strings and sent either the guard or assassins after the rogue, etc; But these are things you get better with over time.
We're in a religious military order, everyone is Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good, EXCEPT for our rogue/scout.
We all work together as character because our PLAYERS want to work together, but this rogue's player just refuses to play nice. He'll do things like the following: Repeatedly kick a bound prisoner in the genitals until the prisoner falls unconscious. He does it while our characters are asleep and he's on watch.
Now I know there are roleplaying opportunities to having a character with a radically different alignment, but it's just not working. We try to handle it with our characters (like talking to him through the chain of command, reprimanding his character for his unlawful actions) But he just takes it personally as a player and justifies it by saying it's what his character would do.
We're at our wits end about what to do, so I'm glad I came upon this thread and I hope it gets more responses.
I'm currently playing a CN precision damage twf that pretty much hates everyone and everything. I even offered to take up a bounty on another PC but, I demanded five times the going rate. The NPC's refused me, both because they couldn't afford it and the DM doesn't want to encourage interparty killing. I left my offer open and then told the other character "They didn't offer me enough or I'd be here to kill you. I would have taken their offer but, I almost like you."
Though this guy seems like a classic disruptive player I think some of the problem lies with your DM. He seemed to be getting away with alot and why are you making new characters. shouldn't you get some clubs and go find the rouge to get your equipment back and make him build a new character. If your DM told you to make two more victims I mean characters to team with the rouge than he's the problem.
"Chaotic" merely means he's not going to submit himself to authority on his own accord. It's not in his nature to allow someone else to call the shots - whether it be a party leader or ruler. This need not be outright riotous, and if there *is* a party leader, the Chaotic person will still go along with him as long as their interests are similiar... but if the group takes a turn he doesn't care for, you can bet the Chaotic character will take action. A Chaotic Good character might ***** and complain, though eventually swallow his own pride, if he's convinced the mission is for the greater Good, while a Chaotic Evil person will probably try and either sabotage the mission or outright murder the leader, so he's in charge. Chaotic Neutral will do something in between on the moral scale
Neutral is a moral balance between self and others. He'll willingly do a few things that a Good character probably would feel remorse over, but he won't cross that line where the harm to others far outweighs the gain to himself - which is clearly not what your rogue is doing.
Shadow, from Final Fantasy 6, is probably the best example of a true Chaotic Neutral character. When you first find him, he'll throw in with you... for no reason that the main characters know, and will leave you at random. He'll then join the evil Empire as a bodyguard because they pay well. Yet, when the Empire crosses the line, and is about to commit global genocide, he betrays them boldly, and at great personal risk... and is nearly slain.
If you save his life, he becomes a loyal companion and stays with you through thick and thin, to the end.
Yeah that wasn't really your fault, the other two should have done a better job of not meta-gaming.
And unfortunately their DM should have refused to allow evil and rabidly LG characters in the same party without EXPRESS admission from all players that they would NOT make the INEVITABLE pvp conflict needlessly disruptive. There is INHERENT conflict in mixing good and evil player characters - and faithful roleplaying makes problems MORE likely, not less. In such cases it takes superior roleplaying to be faithful to your chosen alignments while keeping such tensions in check so as to not disrupt the game. The paladin players may have been metagaming but they should not have even had the opportunity to do so. An evil character should not have been a PC in a party with not just one but TWO paladins. And the first time the paladins made their metagaming moves against the evil character you should have stopped the game and LAID DOWN THE LAW.
Your situation and the OP's fall under the same unwritten rule - nobody, NOBODY, has the right to run disruptive characters. There is no excuse, no justification. NONE. NOT EVER. Alignment is not an excuse to have your character act like a jerk and needlessly interfere with the normal flow of game events. That applies to GOOD characters as well, even if evil characters are the typical culprits.
Even some inter-party conflict is fine, as long as everyone is having fun with it (actively wants it) and can remain a cohesive group inspite of it.
Emphasis mine. No DM can just let such situations unfold to the extent that it IS a problem without taking some share of responsibility, either for allowing it to build in the first place, or for not stomping it out faster in the second place, with a stake in the heart to prevent a third place.
"Thats what my character would do!"
Players who accept this as a valid argument to make must, logically, accept that the other people's character will have an unpleasant reaction to the things they do, because... thats what their characters would do. *** for tat. You can;t have one side without the other. Seriously though, lose him.
The first and second campaign I've DMed have similar characters.Those sessions never left session one: I ended the game abruptly and said "Guys, this campaign is not going to work if you play your characters stupidly and you won't cooperate with each other. I'm going to start a new campaign next week and if you don't shape up, we'll end it again and we're not going to have fun."
It's not only the DM's job to make the game fun, it's also the players' job, although to a lesser degree. Being a douchebag and annoying other players is a no-no in my table.
Let that sink in.
Every player also has the right to choose the characters that their character will associate with (barring being locked in a room with them).
Let the disruptive ass play his disruptive ass character. Leave him in town. He can continue to play his annoying jerk character as long as he wants. The rest of you, however, will go on fun and exciting adventures together, while he narrates stories to himself.
I've always explained to my players the following:
You guys and gals are all going to be getting together each week, in the same place, to hang out and have fun. To succeed in the games, your characters are going to need to stick together (most of the time) and work together (most of the time). You can either create a character idea that wants or needs to stick with the party and work with the party, which means that by doing so, you will also be doing a good job roleplaying, or create a character idea that doesn't want or need to stick with the party or work with the party, but does anyway, which will be bad roleplaying.
You have a third option of creating a character who will not stick with the party or work with the party. Feel free to create as many of these characters as you like. Bring them. I may use them as NPCS, or we might need spare paper. They won't show up in the game, because the game is a story about a group of people who stick together and work together.
These characters aren't real people. It's not like Chaotic Butthole really exists somewhere in the world and your annoying player is channelling him. He's made a choice to play someone you would choose to avoid. Oblige him.
If I were a DM and saw this, i'd tell the player he's out, good luck.
My games feature heroic characters.
"And what my character would is beat the living
out of him for that. Then refuse to adventure with him further."Make clear that you are not willing to tolerate such a backstabbing party member anymore, tell the player, and if he is not willing to change then have great fun turning him into the guards and getting all your stuff back.
And unfortunately their DM should have refused to allow evil and rabidly LG characters in the same party without EXPRESS admission from all players that they would NOT make the INEVITABLE pvp conflict needlessly disruptive. There is INHERENT conflict in mixing good and evil player characters - and faithful roleplaying makes problems MORE likely, not less. In such cases it takes superior roleplaying to be faithful to your chosen alignments while keeping such tensions in check so as to not disrupt the game. The paladin players may have been metagaming but they should not have even had the opportunity to do so. An evil character should not have been a PC in a party with not just one but TWO paladins. And the first time the paladins made their metagaming moves against the evil character you should have stopped the game and LAID DOWN THE LAW.
Your situation and the OP's fall under the same unwritten rule - nobody, NOBODY, has the right to run disruptive characters. There is no excuse, no justification. NONE. NOT EVER. Alignment is not an excuse to have your character act like a jerk and needlessly interfere with the normal flow of game events. That applies to GOOD characters as well, even if evil characters are the typical culprits.
Emphasis mine. No DM can just let such situations unfold to the extent that it IS a problem without taking some share of responsibility, either for allowing it to build in the first place, or for not stomping it out faster in the second place, with a stake in the heart to prevent a third place.
I don't know where you get off on judging me or the games I run especially on such a small snippet.
In any event the so called "evil" character never did anything that I would call evil, selfish yes, but not evil. It could have just as easily said unaligned on his character sheet. If the other players had been Better roleplayers it wouldn't have been an issue. If I thought his actions were disruptive I would have laid down the law, if the affor mentioned players had judged on his actions instead of one word it would have been an entirely different story.
It wasn't a problem except poor roleplaying wise and that's not something you stop the game for, when paladins are getting upset at thievery checks to open a locked door because the chacter sheet says "evil" that's an RP issue not a disruption one. No actions were ever taken in any way against the rest of the party and nothing was done that would otherwise cause a problem for them so I don't see how it's disruptive. If a player can't seperate IC and OOC knowledge that's an entirely seperate issue than disruptive players.
If things had gone to crap, then yes I would take responsibility, but since they didn't, I don't see why I should.
You can call me a bad DM all you like, but that doesn't make it true and quite frankly I have four happy players that are always eager for the next session and I think they'd know better than you.
It seems to me even a character of average intelligence would be able to see the negative in messing with their own teammates while they are still needed.
After he is done using them well that is a whole other story.
Ask him if he doesnt like his character. Maybe that is the reason why is is playing that way. If he says yes then tell him the party sees him as a liability and will refuse to travel with him any more if he keeps acting the way he is. If he says no then ingame take his character to the police and have your buddy roll up a new char.
I don't know where you get off on judging me or the games I run especially on such a small snippet.
As you say, I'm NOT your judge. What I wrote was advice to you and anyone who might find themselves in your position. You don't have to take it. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to comment on it. But when you post your laments on public forums I don't have to weep with you.
It wasn't a problem except poor roleplaying wise and that's not something you stop the game for
It most certainly IS. Letting bad roleplaying go without even a comment only invites greater difficulties as a direct result. If the paladins were meta-gaming - STOP THE GAME and tell them to quit meta-gaming. Or... is your game going to be the better for continuing to allow them to meta-game, causing irritation for the rogue player and character, and diverting gaming time from being spent on productive actions? It may not be causing shouting matches and hissy fits - but it IS a problem isn't it? Why else would it have been posted about it in the "What's a Player to Do" forum?
If things had gone to crap, then yes I would take responsibility, but since they didn't, I don't see why I should.
Don't WAIT for things to go to crap. Forbidding evil and LG characters from being party members together is a preventative measure, because unless everyone is agreed at the outset to responsibly explore the inherent roleplaying conflicts of directly oppositional philosophical attitudes you're unecessarily inviting trouble.
You can call me a bad DM all you like, but that doesn't make it true and quite frankly I have four happy players that are always eager for the next session and I think they'd know better than you.
I'm not calling you a BAD DM. I'm saying that you can be a BETTER DM because from what I read you could have taken steps that would have prevented and/or reduced the issues in question. If you are indeed a fine DM whose players are completely satisfied then you have NOTHING to fear from my digital words and no reason to be defensive.
You are flat out just being a jackass.
But consider; What if the pali & warlord are members of the adventurers guild. Surely they'd say something about the actions/suspected actions of the rogue rogue they just adventured with.
Maybe they just related the tale in the various tavern where other adventurers so frequent.
So official sanction or just word-of-mouth. Either one should be enough to start a new character off with some knowledge of the rogue.
Likewise I feel your pain concerning the actions of CS people.
In our 3.5 game wich, because of the people playing, can be quite RP heavy at times (about every other week), we have a newcomer - who's just not used to the style. Where ever he played before, the enviroment was clearly all dice based killing action & heavily optimization oriented. It ALL about the numbers for him.
Wich leads him to do CS things during those long RP sessions that don't seem to have any stabby/zappy ACTION! occuring.
His latest bout of CS syndrome very nearly caused me to have to draw steel on him - in a less than ideal social setting. Honor, of personal, leige, party, guild, and host, all simply demanded it.
Fortunately the DMs agrieved NPCs inititive roll was one higher than mine and my direct involvement after that would have been socially worse than had I drawn the weapon on him to begin with.
Unfortunately terrible social damage - in a campaign where social status is very important - has still been done. And honor still demands that we'll clash over it. We'll just be settling it more privately is all.
And through it all the player has little clue that his RP actions off the grid can have just as large (or larger) an impact as any amount of sneak attack damage he could deliver.
He doesn't even understand why I rolled inititive. He knows I did, he knows that the NPCs was higher. And he knows that when I was beat I "held action". But he's completely clueless as to what triggered it or what would've come next....
As players we feel that once he gets used to a game where characters aren't simply the sum of the #s on a sheet + a d20 he'll be a great asset. That's why we let him play to start with.
We can teach him a better way. We've done it with others.
But it's going to be rough now till then.....
Nor do you have to post in an obviously "I am better than you" way while looking down your nose at others.
You are flat out just being a jackass.
Just what did I say that led to this opinion of me? Did I call anyone a jackass? Did I call someone names or question his intelligence? What phrase did I use that indicated my expressed opinion would be anything other than, "You SHOULD do this, not that," as opposed to, "I am better than you, know more than you, and the game MUST be played as I say or you're doing it wrong?" Just because there's no "IMHO" doesn't mean it ISN'T just an opinion that can be ignored as desired.
If you want to call me out for something by all means have at. We can do it publicly or privately as you wish, but I'm going to request that you now back your DIRECT insults.
All I did was state with conviction that nowiwantmydmg is at least partially responsible, albeit mostly after the fact, for the situation described in his post. As stated, it is my opinion that players who are allowed to have their characters do whatever they want on a whim, negatively affecting the campaign by their unecessary actions, with the DM only trying to pick up the pieces after he has let their actions stand, need a more proactive DM. I've made that mistake. So have others. If players are metagaming - stop the game and tell them to knock it off.
If one player introduces an evil PC into a party that already has a couple of LG paladins then the DM should disallow the character entirely, demand a different alignment, or put the game on hold long enough to get VERY clear understanding and agreements from all the players about how the inevitable conflicts will be handled - not by metagaming and attempting to FORCE a showdown ASAP, but by more satisfying roleplaying means. I've made that mistake too. So have others. I've watched campaigns severely derail any number of times because of it.
None of that makes anyone a BAD DM, unless your definition of "bad" includes simple fallibility. Mine doesn't. None of that means the players are incorrigible either, nor does it mean that the game WILL crash and burn when/if it happens. It just means it CAN and therefore stating that a DM should be responsible for taking active measures to prevent it or reduce its impact is eminently reasonable.
...I suppose this is why I rarely play 'good' characters?
Am I the only person who would have beat his ass down to the ground again if my character noticed him stealing from me while I was saving his life?
No.
Why get upset...if what I said is untrue...
you have NOTHING to fear from my digital words and no reason to be defensive.
....don't be a hypocrite please.
[/threadjack]
The other option would probably just cause more problems, but I'll post it anyways, make an unaligned or evil character yourself. Now please, just hear me out, make this guy to work with everyone else, and even be nice to the rogue for a little while. Then, when night comes, offer to take watch and then kill him while he sleeps. If he complains say "Its what my character would do."
I now feel fully justified in wanting to unleash my radiant FURY upon his loathsome brow.
Know well that I HAVE spoken with our DM and with the person in question. The DM agrees that he WAS out of line and will start putting consequences to his outlandish actions.
Since he IS a beginning DM, I know that the adventures will most certainly keep getting better as he learns new things.
The rogue has also admitted, after having shown him this thread, that he was being CE. He told me that, as this was his first campaign in a long while, he was kinda testing the waters. He says the REAL "House" will make himself known in the next game.
Yes, he modeled his character after Gregory House.
...And after Locke from FF6. His rogue's full name is "House Locke".
Oh, and someone asked why it was the warlord and paladin who will be replaced next game.
Well, both of these characters were MEANT to be played with a cohort.
Abel the paladin was MEANT to be played with Cain the wizard, for instance.
The wizard and rogue joined us fairly unexpectedly, and they wanted to make their own characters. Thus, my brother got rid of his ranger and I got rid of my wizard.
For ONE game.
Until Cain and Abel can once again play together, they are retired. Same with Oswin and Will.
(Yes, those are ALL the names of Fire Emblem characters. But to be perfectly honest, Cain and Abel were more based off of the Bible characters.)
Anyways, I really wanted to try out the bard. That's the class I originally wanted to play until I found out it wasn't in the Player's Handbook.
So I'll be a bard in the next game. My brother is fighting between Fighter and Warden.
...But by all means, continue talking about your Chaotic Stupid stories. They are very interesting, and I like to hear them.
(I love a good story. Once again, BARD! If it is anything like I imagine, it will be the best class for role-playing EVER! Oh, I can't WAIT to recite lymerics and make up songs at the table... don't worry, I won't do it TOO much I certainly don't want to bother the other players.)