I've been playing with the same group for over a year now. Some of our members have switched out, but our number has remained constant; 5 players (including myself). I'm fairly new to D&D, as this is only my second long-term character and campaign, so I play it pretty simple; I'm 100% elf ranger.
One of the other players is driving me crazy. He started out as a rogue, and later became a Master of the Masks. When he decided that he was unhappy with his character in combat, the DM let him switch to a Shadowdancer/rogue about a month ago. He played this as not informing the group of his class change in-game. He is also the only evil character in our group, but none of our characters know he is evil in-game.
My problem is not with his choice of character, but the fact that for the entire year, his character has gotten great joy out of teasing and toruturing my character. He never targets any of the other group members, because he and I are the only ones who RP. Early on, I established my character socially awkward (she has a charisma of 8) and not the type to fight verbally. My character is also skilled in poison crafting, so my natural instict was to just poison the damn rogue and be done with it. When I mentioned this, the DM gave a speech about party infighting and forbade me from poisoning and/or physically attacking the aforementioned rogue. My hands were tied unless I could uncover his treachery in-game, which I never could. This didn't stop him from also openly insulting my character to her face.
For the most part, my character has had to sit there and take his crap for the better part of the year. He uses his roguey skills to taunt me so often, I've started to dislike him in real life. I haven't kept my feelings a secret to the group; I've brought up how I feel to the DM, to the player, and to the group as a whole more than once. Though the DM has told our rogue to stop torturing me, he doesn't enforce it, and I am becoming really bitter.
Things came to a head last night when our group left some ghost-infested ruins and it became apparent to my ranger that the rogue had a horrible shadow hovering over him. With undead as one of her favored enemies, she naturally warned the group that the rogue appeared to be possesed, haunted, whatever (I have the highest spot AND had just been gifted with glasses of true-seeing) and attempted to kill the shadow. Our shadowdancer of course flipped out and stumbled all over himself to concoct a totally BS story to try to save his shadow. Keep in mind the other two members of the group are lawful good, and he actually said aloud that the shadow was evil.
What followed was the biggest whining session I have ever seen where the DM actually stopped the action and the rogue had a hissy fit, throwing his character sheet on the table and saying we should tell him how to play his character, etc. etc. He said that he had been dropping all kinds of hints that he had changed classes that the rest of the group was supposed to pick up on. I guess he failed to realize that the other two barely RP and he alienated my character to the point that she doesn't give a crap about anything his character says. It was also wonderful when he said he only targets me because I'm the only other one who RPs, even though both myself and the DM have asked him to stop singling me out.
Here's what really pissed me off: the DM turns to me and asks me if my ranger could handle travelling in a group with an evil shadow. (Of course not!) Up until that point, none of the other characters stepped in or spoke up. Lawful good, for crying out loud, with an admitted evil undead in their midst, and it falls to me to make a party-changing choice. For the umpteenth time, I was being asked to make a concession that goes completely against my character's personality so a "hidden" evil character could stay in the game, and I was being punished for having a physical reaction. Whiny shadowdancer, in the meantime, was saying "I was going to stay hidden, but if you push Max about this he's going to come out with the fact that he's evil and try to kill you!" (Oooh, that breaks the player attacking player rule, but I guess he has a good reason for being pushed to it and my reasons were never good enough.)
He chose to play an evil character. He chose to taunt my character for a year solid. He chose to become a class that has an evil undead with it that he PURPOSEFULLY made visible so he could harass my character with it. I am the villain for trying to kill the shadow that, as far as my character knows, is attacking him. The whole party sees me as the aggressor, since I'm the only one who's frustrated and they're content to sit back and watch.
Half of the session became everyone (aside from a new member who practically never speaks unless we're in combat) brainstorming how to work everything out. Shadowdancer made a big deal about how he was ad-libbing everything and we were expecting too much of him on the fly, when the previous week the DM actually said to him after the session, "You guys are leaving the ruins and her favored enemy is undead. She'll probably try to kill it if she sees it." I actually said to the group, "Well, if another one of you believes his story and tries to talk me into backing down, then I'll believe you since I trust your characters and I don't trust his." Everyone ignores that suggestion and the Shadowdancer acts exasperated because I'm being difficult and not wanting to go along with his very poorly constructed explanation about how he acquired the shadow a few days ago (he never left the party) and has been searching for it for 30 years (his character is 25).
I guess my point is, I'm not having fun anymore. I've been very open about my feelings to the group. I'm tired of being attacked by another player, and I'm tired of being punished for having constructed a personality for her that I try to stick to. I don't think I'd be as serious about it if it hadn't gone on for so long, and I don't want to be a drama queen who walks out on a session. My character isn't built b*tchy. She's just introverted.
This is supposed to be a fun game, right? Is there anything I can do beyond just stop playing with this group?
My problem is not with his choice of character, but the fact that for the entire year, his character has gotten great joy out of teasing and toruturing my character. He never targets any of the other group members, because he and I are the only ones who RP. Early on, I established my character socially awkward (she has a charisma of 8) and not the type to fight verbally. My character is also skilled in poison crafting, so my natural instict was to just poison the damn rogue and be done with it. When I mentioned this, the DM gave a speech about party infighting and forbade me from poisoning and/or physically attacking the aforementioned rogue. My hands were tied unless I could uncover his treachery in-game, which I never could. This didn't stop him from also openly insulting my character to her face.
What alignment is your Ranger? Cause if she isn't good, I don't see why she wouldn't be able to poison him and not lose face. And verbal abuse, even if it is in-character, is an ember which can easily spark party in-fighting, so I don't see why your DM isn't considering the other side to this.
For the most part, my character has had to sit there and take his crap for the better part of the year. He uses his roguey skills to taunt me so often, I've started to dislike him in real life. I haven't kept my feelings a secret to the group; I've brought up how I feel to the DM, to the player, and to the group as a whole more than once. Though the DM has told our rogue to stop torturing me, he doesn't enforce it, and I am becoming really bitter.
At this point, I blame the DM more than the player. The other guy obviously enjoys having a laugh at your expense. He's concerned with his own fun first and foremost. But your DM shouldn't be so wishy-washy. Even if it's in-character, constant harassment shouldn't be tolerated if someone's fun starts diminishing. Sounds like you got saddled with a half-hearted DM.
Things came to a head last night when our group left some ghost-infested ruins and it became apparent to my ranger that the rogue had a horrible shadow hovering over him. With undead as one of her favored enemies, she naturally warned the group that the rogue appeared to be possesed, haunted, whatever (I have the highest spot AND had just been gifted with glasses of true-seeing) and attempted to kill the shadow. Our shadowdancer of course flipped out and stumbled all over himself to concoct a totally BS story to try to save his shadow. Keep in mind the other two members of the group are lawful good, and he actually said aloud that the shadow was evil.
It also sounds like you have half-hearted allies. I know they don't RP, but do they show any real motivation at the table?
What followed was the biggest whining session I have ever seen where the DM actually stopped the action and the rogue had a hissy fit, throwing his character sheet on the table and saying we should tell him how to play his character, etc. etc. He said that he had been dropping all kinds of hints that he had changed classes that the rest of the group was supposed to pick up on. I guess he failed to realize that the other two barely RP and he alienated my character to the point that she doesn't give a crap about anything his character says. It was also wonderful when he said he only targets me because I'm the only other one who RPs, even though both myself and the DM have asked him to stop singling me out.Here's what really pissed me off: the DM turns to me and asks me if my ranger could handle travelling in a group with an evil shadow. (Of course not!) Up until that point, none of the other characters stepped in or spoke up. Lawful good, for crying out loud, with an admitted evil undead in their midst, and it falls to me to make a party-changing choice. For the umpteenth time, I was being asked to make a concession that goes completely against my character's personality so a "hidden" evil character could stay in the game, and I was being punished for having a physical reaction. Whiny shadowdancer, in the meantime, was saying "I was going to stay hidden, but if you push Max about this he's going to come out with the fact that he's evil and try to kill you!" (Oooh, that breaks the player attacking player rule, but I guess he has a good reason for being pushed to it and my reasons were never good enough.)
I don't blame you for being upset. This guy clearly wants to see himself come out on top in every situation, even ones where he should have to give a little elbow room. Sounds like the player's channeling his own self-esteem into this character, and can't bear the thought of someone finding fault with him.
I guess my point is, I'm not having fun anymore. I've been very open about my feelings to the group. I'm tired of being attacked by another player, and I'm tired of being punished for having constructed a personality for her that I try to stick to. I don't think I'd be as serious about it if it hadn't gone on for so long, and I don't want to be a drama queen who walks out on a session. My character isn't built b*tchy. She's just introverted.
If you can admit this to yourself, and you're not exaggerating, it's time to go. You've tried things, they didn't work, they don't seem to have a hope of improving. Try talking to your group one more time, in the odd chance that you might actually make some headway. If not, why keep banging your head against the wall? You might need to bite the bullet and move on, for your own sake.
Any sort of in-game circumstances aside, the game is supposed to be fun. You've been subject to behavior that has continuously taken the fun away. If you've been forthright and polite about explaining these conditions to the group and nothing has changed, you're pretty much out of options at this point. If you have qualms about leaving the group, it wouldn't hurt to bring up your concerns one last time. But I wouldn't expect anything major to change, assuming that they have a clear understanding of your concerns at this time.
A year of discomfort is plenty of due dilligence. If there are no indications of change, I would cut my losses and find a game elsewhere.
You've been antagonized for about a year or more, and you want to continue playing with this group? You've repeatedly told the DM how you felt during the times this shadowdance guy was targeting you, yet hasn't really done anything. Sounds to me like you need to get outta there.
Not only that, but you've got two players who are running LG characters, and they can't even do their job right. The DM can't do his/her job right, and you've got some shmuck having fun at your expense. This is no bueno.
I suggest you talk it over with your DM atleast one last time.
Press on the fact that it's actually serious. The rogue chances his character to have an undead shadow in a group where someone has a favoured enemy of undead. The rogue knew that and still went on with it. Ask what the rogue has been doing to make this work except for making demands of everyone else to just play along.
If you really want to try and work things out, I think that RetConning your favoured enemy might be one of the only options. (changing something and pretending it was like that the whole time).
Respect between players goes both ways. From what I hear from your side of the story the rogue doesn't worry much about whatever he plays might influence the party.
Though to be honest, I don't know what his side of the story is.
Ask the rogue if he would like it if someone bitched on his character the whole time. Say that you as a player are taking and tell him to just drop it.
If things continue like they were, I would personally have no problem walking out, being confident in the fact that I tried to make it work atleast.
In other words, if you live in a rural area, talk it over with your DM like others have said.
If you live in an urban area, find another group ASAP.
I don't know how you've presented your case in the past, but I think sending the DM an email with that same information as your post would be a good course of action, with the following addition that yes, either the Rogue player goes or you do.
You're considering leaving anyway, so it's not really an "ultimatum," just a statement of fact (depending on how you word it).
There comes a point where, when playing in character, a person needs to say, "You know what, this isn't working for everyone; I need to make some changes to my personality." The guy who always picks on others and is constantly rubbing everyone the wrong way works great in a story. He adds comic relief, really whitty quips that are remembered for a long time, dramatic foils to the often dour and serious main character, and are generally the more remembered characters in the long run. But, in a group setting where there are real people behind each of the heros, a little bit goes a long way. When you're irritating the person behind the character and not the character him/herself, you're going too far.
It sounds like you've tried to be reasonable about this. You've even made concessions in your own character concept (not poisoning the runt who's constantly getting on your nerves in what appear to be confrontational manners?). That has to be done both ways. Maybe try to meet him somewhere in the middle. It's usually better. However, the middle in THIS case is SOOOO one sided (him toning it down) that it's hardly fair, but, if over all, you enjoy the group (with the obvious exception), you enjoy the story, and you want to continue playing, it might not be a bad compromise.
I will say that I've actually asked someone to never come back to one of my games for behavior like this. It took him two weeks of begging to come back and play before I finally gave him the chance. I warned everyone ahead of time that he was coming back and that they were to try to welcome him and leave the past in the past. I warned him that I wouldn't tolerate overly aggressive behavior like this. When he came back with his new rogue, he specifically confronted the party before the session and said, "I really enjoy playing the mischievous guy who finds ways to mock his friends. It's supposed to be funny and not harmful. I'd be willing to forego this style of play, since I liked playing with the group, but if we could make it work I'd really appreciate it. What can we do to let me play this way without getting on your nerves?"
The players spent 15 minutes (far longer than I anticipated, but very well worth the time and effort) laying out ground rules that he could work with. One player even agreed to let him go almost the full distance with her character only with the stipulation that when she said, "Enough," that he lay off. Everyone had fun with it after that and it turned a bad experience into a very fun one. If you can find a way to have this conversation with everyone without coming off antagonistic, it would be best. Your DM should really be a big part of it, though.
Thanks very much for all of the advice! I needed some impartial perspective, so I really appreciate the comments here. I'm going to talk to the DM and tell him how strongly I feel about this. Based on his response, I may or may not return to the group.
Let us know how it goes! 
I'd leave the group. You've talked to your DM and he did nothing, You've talked to the players and they did nothing. There is nothing left for you to do, but pick up your stuff and quit playing with them. I wish the situation was better, but if it hasn't changed by now, it won't.
I wish you the best of luck in the future and not all gamers are jerks. Only most.
If the DM isn't going to help you out and the other players won't do anything. Ya I'd openly attack his character in game and then if you won leave the campaign. "Sorry but I can't travel with people that so openly side with evil." Create a super good character that attacks evil on site. A vigilante of sorts and then ask to re-join the group. If that guy again causes issue openly destroy his character again. And again until he starts working with the group or gets frustrated and leaves.
But I agree the issue is with your DM.
As a DM I never ever let a player pick an Evil alignment. It never works right and most of the players that want to be evil abuse it.
If you're not willing to go to war with this player with your characters *smile* then I'd find another group or start your own.
I hate to sound crude, but I think the guys just wants to get in your pants, and thinks the attention he is giving you is working toward that end.
If nobody else is willing to help, they must not care enough to keep you around. I'd walk away without an explanation. There is no reason to discuss it. Just walk away.
If you think you could enjoy the game elsewhere, give it a shot, elsewhere.
if you are a good character; i would notify a good-aligned church or possibly a lawful church: they hate undead creature just as much as you do.
if you are a evil:....do the follow but dont let them know your evil too!
Nesaea,
Sorry you're having such trouble. I'm seeing a couple of things here.
First, the problem player may have some personal issues that he's using his character to express. Maybe he doesn't quit because he doesn't feel like he's being understood, not that his personal problems are the other player's responsibility. Like a previous poster stated, maybe he likes you but doesn't know how to express that in an appropriate way. It's also possible he has a problem with you and is expressing that through his character because he doesn't know how to communicate. Whatever, his behavior is immature, inappropriate, and reflects poorly on him.
Second, the DM is not managing the table well. He allowed an Evil PC into the party without group approval and should have known better given the alignments of the other PC's. The group I play in has set it as a house rule to not allow Evil PC's to avoid the conflicts it can cause within the party and amongst players. That's worked for us, but each group handles this issue differently. The game goes smoother and is more fun when players create characters that complement one another. The DM has catered to him and allowed him to be disruptive with his difficult character and in changing is character so often. What's the DM's relationship with this player? There may be a personal reason why the DM can't stand up to him.
It seems there are personal dramas outside of you that have extended to you. If you can't work this out one-on-one with each member or as a group, then I'd advise moving on if possible.
Good Luck!
One option is to show this thread to the DM and the problem player.
I hate to sound crude, but I think the guys just wants to get in your pants, and thinks the attention he is giving you is working toward that end.
Love this response! And in all seriousness it does make alot of sense.
You clearly have herculean levels of tolerance and patience. I doubt I would have lasted a month in such a game.
Neaea,
You've shown great patience, in fact, in many ways enabling him and the DM to continue their behavior.
In my mind it's a case of quit, or
Clearly state OOC to them all: "I'm Good, he's good, he's good. you are evil with a shadow, which is my favored enemy. You figure it out."
"DM, you have been advised and advised of this. I'm sick to death of it. I'm not gonna say he's leaving, but I can;t play true to Good alignment and my character any more, if this CRAP is gonna continue. I've put up with it for months and MONTHS."
IC: So, Rogue, depart this place forthwith, or draw steel, for you are leaving this company this day. If my goodly companions have anything in their codpieces, they are with me, or else cowards like you.
Something like that.
You have it within you to be a considerate leader. So lead. Or lead yourself to a new group.
I agree with an earlier poster that allowing evil PCs is just asking for trouble, and we don't allow them either (we tried it once, almost instant intra party death match, TPK in about two sessions!). Sounds like you've certainly given it your best shot. If things haven't changed by now, they probably ain't gonna. Still, if your bent on leaving, you might as well raise it one more time with your DM/other players, inc the problem guy. And if still no good - yup, find another group. They'll be one, but depending on where you live, you might have to travel a bit.
The DM and I sat down and talked seriously about my problems with the group's rogue/shadowdancer a few days ago.
The DM acknowledged that he really doesn't like it when people start getting angry at the table, so he tends to gloss over the fight by telling people to just stop rather than working things out. Unfortunately, his approach has meant that over the past year, every time the rogue taunted me and I tried to react, I was told to chill out and therefore was never allowed any retribution. We agreed that, had I been allowed to poison him from the start, it probably would have nipped all of this crap in the bud, but at this point that would be too little, too late.
He also said that since I am at the point of ultimatums (a la "I can't take this anymore), he was ready for the group to fall apart. (I didn't mention this in my previous posts, but I'm not the only group member who was thinking of leaving.) I want to thank everyone again for their thoughts and advice here on the boards; I used some of your points in our discussion!
I saw the DM again last night, and he said he sat down with the rogue seperately. I was stunned to hear that the rogue had been very passionate about the two of us who were thinking of leaving staying in the game. I was also informed that they spent 2 hours planning out what's going to happen with his character, and he has promised that he won't be hogging the spotlight all the time (which wasn't really my primary concern, but it's a start). The DM is taking completely control of his shadow's personality and actions outside of combat.
Our next session is tonight. As far as I'm concerned, it's the last chance I'm giving this group.
Here's hoping you find a solution to your problems tonight. Good luck.
I have been following this for awhile Neesa and am interested to hear what happens! Most the time the poster never responds ~ good luck!
I had to run out the door and cut my previous post short; I'm back now and I'd like to respond to a few comments that have been made.
About having an evil character in a good campaign:
When we first began playing as a group, the DM stated that he would not tolerate any openly evil characters in the campaign. He said he would prefer that no one roll an evil character, but that he would allow it on the condition that the evil character would know revealing his alignment to the party meant the party could turn on him. I mentioned to him that his other statement that he would not tolerate any fighting between party members really made this a tough one for us to enforce.
About leading:
I actually have a strong, leader-type personality, and I tend to hop into the driver's seat when it comes to organization of anything. Part of the fun I've tried to have with this game is to play a character whose personality is very different from my own, which means not being outspoken and shunning the leadership role. It's been tough ^_^;
On a side note; I tried DMing a one-shot from dungeon magazine a few weeks ago with a totally different group of people. It was a lot of fun ^_^
About alignments:
My character is chaotic neutral. As stated before, the other two (regular) members of the party are supposedly lawful good, and I have my own beef with them over their total lack of action when an evil shadow was revealed. When I brought this up to the DM, he said that he views the alignment on the paper as something at the character can be striving for without quite being there. I then asked him to place all of our characters alignment-wise. He placed me at chaotic neutral, the mage (lawful good) at neutral good, and the newbie cleric (lawful good) at true neutral. He said last week he tried to push the rogue through several hints to admit tht he's not quite completely evil, but the backstory the rogue has written for himself makes him unquestionably evil. I'm going to bring up alignment as a discussion before the session even starts tonight.
About the rogue coming on to me in a ridiculous way: Good point, but GOD I hope not.
About me having saint-like patience:
I admit, I'm ready to kill our shadowdancer/rogue friend now, but it took quite a lot of teasing for me to get to this point. It was much easier to take it in stride when the group was new and we were all feeling out our characters. Also, I think it's important to seperate what's going on in-game from real life, and I didn't start taking it personally right from the get-go. I tried to be more patient than usual as a part of my attempt to RP an unfamiliar personality type. In retrospect, I definitely should have put my foot down earlier. I think I mentioned that I've been pretty cranky with the group recently and have brought up my displeasure a bunch of times, so I'm not quite as patient as you're making me out to be ^_^
Hi Nesaea
Well I don't see any issue at all here.....
Unless we mention the Poor DM, the not-so-bright player and the 2 other players who appears to wish to be left alone....!
If I was in that situation I woud have done as you Nesaea, ask the player to stop, tell your Dm of the problem and if neihter of them wont do anything I might find a new group, or stop all together. The last have been in my own thinking a few times, leaving gaming I mean.
But you could also do something else, witch might seen childish, but next time the game is up tell them you can't make it, sorry. Next time again come late, then next time don't show and don't tell why.
Then, and only then, let the DM, only the DM, know how you feel and you are not looking forward to playing with the "evil" player and If he, the DM, can't/won't do anything about it tell him you are eaving the group unless he talk to the problem-player and solve the problem and quickly.
OLG, Copenhagen, Denmark
Nesaea, you sound like the kind of player that any DM worth his dice would be proud to have at the table. I hope you find a better group. I highly recommend Meetup.com and even this forum for finding other people to play with in your area. It's important to find a group more at your maturity, skill and roleplaying level.
Best of luck.
I hope that the nights game goes well for you, as well as looking forward to hearing what happened. but i have to agree with what many have said before this.. if they dont fix it , leave. the fact you played a game with others in the near past , even if it was just a 1 night 1 shot suggest that there is at least the oppertunity to have fun gamming elsewhere for you, and where your at your not having fun.
as DM i tend to ask my players after the game (same night or via e-mail for real late ending games). if they had fun.. what they liked / didint like , and any issues. i do this becuse we are all there to have fun. sure we have bad nights. but your DM should be working to see to it that you all have fun, not that 1 player has more fun at the expence of yours.
Given you have talked about it with them allready i tend to feel that the chances for resuliton is slim, but i give you credit for talking yet again and giving them another chance. Good luck! you deserve a good group of compatible gamers.
Well, last night's game was amazingly different from the way things have gone for the past month. Not only did the harassment stop, but the DM made a big effort to throw us into a situation that required a lot of teamwork (working a siege engine), and we had more positive interaction in those few hours than we have in the last few months.
The rogue completely rewrote his character concept, and was eager for feedback at the end of the session about the changes he had made. His character and mine had the first friendly exchange we've had in-game in about 6 months. He did have a little RP session off by himself that was pretty cheesy, but cheese I can stand ^_^ There was no hint of teasing, and he even had his character apologize in-game for the taunting done by his shadow in the haunted ruins. The fact that the DM had taken over his shadow's personality was also a huge plus; it spoke to several party members and was actually interesting to interact with.
The DM also made an effort to put everyone into an individual RP session by giving us a lot of time in town to each do our own thing. (The campaign has been constant action on the road with no towns and precious few rest stops for quite a while.) I was so excited to see other people jumping in that I turned to him while there was a little table talk going and asked him to handle everyone else's session first. (Since the rogue and I tend to dominate the RP arena, I really wanted to make sure we didn't do long, involved story stuff one after another that might bore the people who have been so shy about RP). Even our newbie cleric spoke up! The feeling around the table was entirely different. Everyone around the table was smiling, laughing, and participating, as opposed to just the rogue laughing and uncomfortable silence from the rest of us.
Last night was a big step in a new direction, and I'm actually looking forward to the game next week. I really thought that the rogue was incapable of not being a douche, but last night he proved me wrong. Realistically, one positive session doesn't necessarily mean he won't return to his old ways, but I think he was serious about the change, and the fact that he and the DM spent 2 hours reworking his character had a huge impact. I hope this is the start of a new group cohesiveness that I've really been missing.
I want to thank everyone again for their feedback; if I had just decided to stomp off, I think I would still be brooding over it. I'm going to be checking out the links that have been posted to help find groups in my area anyway; having other options should everything fall apart can't be bad ^_^
My lesson from all of this: speaking frankly to the DM one-on-one is what works with this group.
Now if only I could get the cleric to stop picking his nose...
(Seriously, he does it all the time and he sits right across from me. He stopped going at it with gusto after I asked him loudly if he needed a tissue, but it wasn't enough to stop him completely...I haven't been able to bring myself to ask him if he's digging for gold :P)
re: your cleric and nosepicking.
The thing that you need here is called a cluehammer. You don't make subtle suggestions. You don't make offhand remarks. You take him to one side at some point, and tell him, straight to his face, "Listen. You pick your nose, in plain view, while sitting right across from me, and it's disgusting. You need to stop doing that in public. It hurts you socially here, and I'm sure it hurts you socially elsewhere, too. If you could fix the habit, I'm sure it would help you significantly."
If he is anything like I suspect he is, he's long since learned to interpret teasing as an attack, rather than as a prod to correct antisocial behavior. The only way to get the clue into his system is to present it as calmly, rationally, and completely as possible, not around other people, as if it's just information that he's not aware of. At some level, it probably is.
I am glad things went better , so much so , that now the biggest problem is the nose picking. if the nose picking can't be corrected , maby your view point can be , by moving to a diffrent seat ? .. a nose picking cleric .. i wonder if that could be a good personality trait for a future char , what god hmmm . lol
in any case , i hope things continue to go smooth for you now that you had that talk.. Good luck !
Hehe, sounds like best case scenario ending.
Nice to have confirmation that things like this can get sorted out instead of just leaving. Goodluck on your future sessions.
Yes, it's time to quit the group. I've learned the hard way long ago, if you're not having fun and the DM does nothing to help you get the fun, or worse, contribute to not having fun, it's time to leave.
If somewhere there's still a nudging doubt such that part of you still wants to play, out of character outright tell the annoying player to stop being a jerk to you. You don't care if he's "just roleplaying"; he's purposely "roleplaying" being a jerk, and you are sick of it. If he refuses to knock it off and especially if the DM gets on your case about this, then leave. They're not going to be sorry to see you go and will call you names after you left, but that is no concern of yours.
Ah, I see I came to this conversation a bit late.
It is certainly good news this situation has a happy ending. My experience has often found it rare for the jerk to change his ways, but I am pleased to hear this jerk has.
Get support from the other players and just kick the evil character out of the group for his behavior towards you. That eliminates the character without the infighting the DM forbade.
If the DM refuses or you cannot resolve this very soon, find another game where you will be happy. You shouldn't ever have to go through a year of this sort of crap.
Well, last night's game was amazingly different from the way things have gone for the past month. Not only did the harassment stop, but the DM made a big effort to throw us into a situation that required a lot of teamwork (working a siege engine), and we had more positive interaction in those few hours than we have in the last few months.
The rogue completely rewrote his character concept, and was eager for feedback at the end of the session about the changes he had made. His character and mine had the first friendly exchange we've had in-game in about 6 months. He did have a little RP session off by himself that was pretty cheesy, but cheese I can stand ^_^ There was no hint of teasing, and he even had his character apologize in-game for the taunting done by his shadow in the haunted ruins. The fact that the DM had taken over his shadow's personality was also a huge plus; it spoke to several party members and was actually interesting to interact with.
The DM also made an effort to put everyone into an individual RP session by giving us a lot of time in town to each do our own thing. (The campaign has been constant action on the road with no towns and precious few rest stops for quite a while.) I was so excited to see other people jumping in that I turned to him while there was a little table talk going and asked him to handle everyone else's session first. (Since the rogue and I tend to dominate the RP arena, I really wanted to make sure we didn't do long, involved story stuff one after another that might bore the people who have been so shy about RP). Even our newbie cleric spoke up! The feeling around the table was entirely different. Everyone around the table was smiling, laughing, and participating, as opposed to just the rogue laughing and uncomfortable silence from the rest of us.
Last night was a big step in a new direction, and I'm actually looking forward to the game next week. I really thought that the rogue was incapable of not being a douche, but last night he proved me wrong. Realistically, one positive session doesn't necessarily mean he won't return to his old ways, but I think he was serious about the change, and the fact that he and the DM spent 2 hours reworking his character had a huge impact. I hope this is the start of a new group cohesiveness that I've really been missing.
I want to thank everyone again for their feedback; if I had just decided to stomp off, I think I would still be brooding over it. I'm going to be checking out the links that have been posted to help find groups in my area anyway; having other options should everything fall apart can't be bad ^_^
My lesson from all of this: speaking frankly to the DM one-on-one is what works with this group.
Now if only I could get the cleric to stop picking his nose...
(Seriously, he does it all the time and he sits right across from me. He stopped going at it with gusto after I asked him loudly if he needed a tissue, but it wasn't enough to stop him completely...I haven't been able to bring myself to ask him if he's digging for gold :P)
Excellent to hear. Congrats!
Don't poison the rogue.
Poison his gold.
this way the next time he pays the barmaid for a drink, there will be a dead barmaid. Net time he goes into a shop to buy something, he will kill the shopkeeper. Needless to say this obvious connection between dead people and the rogue will need some explaining on his part, just make sure you aren't around.
Don't poison the rogue.
Poison his gold.
this way the next time he pays the barmaid for a drink, there will be a dead barmaid. Net time he goes into a shop to buy something, he will kill the shopkeeper. Needless to say this obvious connection between dead people and the rogue will need some explaining on his part, just make sure you aren't around.
You are a genius and I salute you. If you had given the first reply, it would have been done by now. I will keep this suggestion as a secret weapon ^_^ *makes a note*
Don't poison the rogue.
Poison his gold.
this way the next time he pays the barmaid for a drink, there will be a dead barmaid. Net time he goes into a shop to buy something, he will kill the shopkeeper. Needless to say this obvious connection between dead people and the rogue will need some explaining on his part, just make sure you aren't around.
My good sir, your suggestion is made of win and I will keep it in mind.
But be prepared to become chaotic evil if you ever do use the poison gold thing.
Don't fool yourself - even if people suspect the rogue and he is brought to "justice" for killing those people - it would be your hand that did it. Random innocent people dead just to punish someone you dislike? That's evil through and through.
Chaotic Neutral-No-More.
But be prepared to become chaotic evil if you ever do use the poison gold thing.
Don't fool yourself - even if people suspect the rogue and he is brought to "justice" for killing those people - it would be your hand that did it. Random innocent people dead just to punish someone you dislike? That's evil through and through.
Chaotic Neutral-No-More.
That's why you don't poison his gold, you poison your own - at least the smattering of coins in the obvious, easily-pilfered pouch you wear on your belt.
But be prepared to become chaotic evil if you ever do use the poison gold thing.
Don't fool yourself - even if people suspect the rogue and he is brought to "justice" for killing those people - it would be your hand that did it. Random innocent people dead just to punish someone you dislike? That's evil through and through.
Chaotic Neutral-No-More.
It would be an evil act, not a chaotic evil one. Further, in and of itself, it probably wouldn't be enough to shift alignment. What's more, you don't have to make it a lethal poison. A non-lethal poison will still get the rogue incarcerated and out of your hair.
One rule of thumb all my characters live by on adventures is this:
I am risking my life. The people with me are risking their life with me. I don't ask that they sacrifice themselves to save my life, nor do they expect it of me unless I am playing a paladin. I will never adventure with someone I don't trust at my back, nor will I do anything to disrupt that trust with another party member.
Even if I am playing a disreputable, hot tempered, low-life punk...the party knows they can trust me with their lives.
If a party member steals from me, taunts me to distraction, leaves me hanging when the battle is desperate, or plays fast and loose with all our lives - one of us is out.
If a PC should go so far as to earn my enmity by wanting or threatening my death then I will not stop or hold back from seeing that they are no longer alive to be a risk to my welfare or the welfare of my patrons or fellow party members - just as I would not allow a demon who is bent upon the destruction of me or my loved ones to live. At that point there is no difference to me, they both are the same level of threat, they both want you dead.
This is not an issue of alignment, it is an issue of actions. I don't care what alignment someone is just so long as they don't act on it to mine or the party's detriment.
Man, I wish more people thought like that. So far, I've played ONE session with a chaotic evil type rogue in the SW saga setting and I'm about ready to kill his char. Simply because he likes to keep talking about selling the 2 teammates of his who have a bounty on them set by an evil empire and the first time his char met mine while I was in a trance, he tried to secretly jab me with a poison needle, which he failed at. I have no idea why people who play rogues, and especially chaotic evil rogues, think that somehow, being a jerk is roleplaying and that they're going to be immune to the partys beatdowns. I mean, in all honesty, if some guy who tried to keep stealing party members stuff, poison them, sell them to the authorities etc. is basically going to find himself without a party in real life or being beaten up and then left hanging over a cliff.
Man, I wish more people thought like that. So far, I've played ONE session with a chaotic evil type rogue in the SW saga setting and I'm about ready to kill his char. Simply because he likes to keep talking about selling the 2 teammates of his who have a bounty on them set by an evil empire and the first time his char met mine while I was in a trance, he tried to secretly jab me with a poison needle, which he failed at. I have no idea why people who play rogues, and especially chaotic evil rogues, think that somehow, being a jerk is roleplaying and that they're going to be immune to the partys beatdowns. I mean, in all honesty, if some guy who tried to keep stealing party members stuff, poison them, sell them to the authorities etc. is basically going to find himself without a party in real life or being beaten up and then left hanging over a cliff.
Yep. I've been in groups where we've killed PCs who were like that, kicked them out of the group, or if it was the group that didn't mesh with my PC, I walked my PC out of the game and made a new one. Actions should have consequences.
Edit: Corrected typo
Actions should have consequences.
When I DM, this is pretty much my golden rule. I'll never stop a player doing anything, but there are always consequences.
Actions should have consequences.
When I DM, this is pretty much my golden rule. I'll never stop a player doing anything, but there are always consequences.
True, it's something a love as a player. If I'm very reluctant to do something because it causes a severe disadvantage for me as a character, but eventually decide that it has to/needs to happen, don't have wave the consequences as a dm.
But.
The example given a few posts up (the chaotic evil jerk) is not something that you can handle in game. I have seen many groups try and handle or punish the charactern, it doesn't help.
The player is the jerk, not the character. Talk to the player and the DM.
It irks me that some persons actually use the "but I'm just playing my character" line as a defense when playing such a character, when you try to talk to them about it, whether in game or outgame They usually fail to realise what kind of reactions it provokes in other players/characters.
Man, I wish more people thought like that. So far, I've played ONE session with a chaotic evil type rogue in the SW saga setting and I'm about ready to kill his char. Simply because he likes to keep talking about selling the 2 teammates of his who have a bounty on them set by an evil empire and the first time his char met mine while I was in a trance, he tried to secretly jab me with a poison needle, which he failed at. I have no idea why people who play rogues, and especially chaotic evil rogues, think that somehow, being a jerk is roleplaying and that they're going to be immune to the partys beatdowns. I mean, in all honesty, if some guy who tried to keep stealing party members stuff, poison them, sell them to the authorities etc. is basically going to find himself without a party in real life or being beaten up and then left hanging over a cliff.
this is why i hate rogues and the unaligned and evil alignment. people think it's an excuse to screw ver everyone. like in my current group, i play a lawful good deva swordmage(first time playing lawful good), one other is an unligned cleric of Avandra? and unaligned infernalock. no matter how my character acts towards them they are always thinking of how they can screw him over which i don't get. the damn guy throws himself in harms way for them for crying out loud.
this is why i hate rogues and the unaligned and evil alignment. people think it's an excuse to screw ver everyone. like in my current group, i play a lawful good deva swordmage(first time playing lawful good), one other is an unligned cleric of Avandra? and unaligned infernalock. no matter how my character acts towards them they are always thinking of how they can screw him over which i don't get. the damn guy throws himself in harms way for them for crying out loud.
We played with a guy like that way back during 2ed. He played a rogue and kept screwing over the party and stealing from us. Finally, sick of it, the party cleric glyphed all of our containers and in the middle of a dangerous dungeon, there was a burst of fire and we had a very blackened rogue with us. He actually had the nerve to demand that we heal him or he wouldn't continue on with us. So we said, "Go ahead and stay by yourself Hope you surive." It didn't take him long to catch up.
Man, I wish more people thought like that. So far, I've played ONE session with a chaotic evil type rogue in the SW saga setting and I'm about ready to kill his char. Simply because he likes to keep talking about selling the 2 teammates of his who have a bounty on them set by an evil empire and the first time his char met mine while I was in a trance, he tried to secretly jab me with a poison needle, which he failed at. I have no idea why people who play rogues, and especially chaotic evil rogues, think that somehow, being a jerk is roleplaying and that they're going to be immune to the partys beatdowns. I mean, in all honesty, if some guy who tried to keep stealing party members stuff, poison them, sell them to the authorities etc. is basically going to find himself without a party in real life or being beaten up and then left hanging over a cliff.
this is why i hate rogues and the unaligned and evil alignment. people think it's an excuse to screw ver everyone. like in my current group, i play a lawful good deva swordmage(first time playing lawful good), one other is an unligned cleric of Avandra? and unaligned infernalock. no matter how my character acts towards them they are always thinking of how they can screw him over which i don't get. the damn guy throws himself in harms way for them for crying out loud.
To be honest, I don't think it's the fault of the class so much as it's the guy playing the class. Any class can appeal to a jerk, even Leaders. I wouldn't say the Rogue, by and of itself, is designed for self-absorbed gameplay. It just seems to attract those kinds of people more than most others. But then again, I've been playing in the same group for over a decade, and we've been best friends since we were young teenagers, so I guess my experiences have been a bit too blissful.
There's a certain type of mentality that certain people have when playing rogues. You tend to recognise them pretty quickly as in the very 1st session, they'll try to steal stuff from your char. or do other stuff to you. And none of these people will ever play a robin-hood type rogue but always someone who's out for himself and who can get away with being a jerk to party members. Which doesn't make sense because even as chaotic evil, most people wouldn't be dumb enough to want to needlessly aggravate everyone in your party for small things. But I guess it's alignment stereotyping, like how this other player thinks because i'm a 'Good' avenger, my char should be willing to throw himself to the enemies and go in front and tank for everyone cause we have no defender and he has the highest AC.
There's a certain type of mentality that certain people have when playing rogues. You tend to recognise them pretty quickly as in the very 1st session, they'll try to steal stuff from your char. or do other stuff to you. And none of these people will ever play a robin-hood type rogue but always someone who's out for himself and who can get away with being a jerk to party members. Which doesn't make sense because even as chaotic evil, most people wouldn't be dumb enough to want to needlessly aggravate everyone in your party for small things. But I guess it's alignment stereotyping, like how this other player thinks because i'm a 'Good' avenger, my char should be willing to throw himself to the enemies and go in front and tank for everyone cause we have no defender and he has the highest AC.
I like rogues and I have never once played a idiot rogue who steals from the group. That is moronic. Kick them out immediately. Hell my rogue would kill another rogue who kept doing that. I say its the player who is the one to blame, not a class. I also blame younger and dumber players from games like WoW who think D&D is just WoW and that alingment doesnt matter because in an MMO you don't have alingment. How damn stupid are they? You can't get away with it in tabletop because the game revolves around the group. Without the group there is no game. To the OP I say KILL the jerk. Do it. Kill the shadow, kill the PC and laugh loud and long. The guy is being a CHILD. If he wants to be evil and he gets found out guess what happens? He either gets killed if he's being really evil or he gets rejected from the group ICLy. What good alinged group is really going to party with a known evil person unless it's totally necessary? I read Order of the Stick but really now. Belkar is a STUPID concept. Kill him or get rid of him. His presence in the OOTS shouldnt be allowed.
What good alinged group is really going to party with a known evil person unless it's totally necessary? I read Order of the Stick but really now. Belkar is a STUPID concept. Kill him or get rid of him. His presence in the OOTS shouldnt be allowed.
That's Belkar's whole point. OOTS exaggerates concepts to the point of absurdity for the humor. Belkar doesn't belong anywhere BUT OOTS. ;)
What good alinged group is really going to party with a known evil person unless it's totally necessary? I read Order of the Stick but really now. Belkar is a STUPID concept. Kill him or get rid of him. His presence in the OOTS shouldnt be allowed.
That's Belkar's whole point. OOTS exaggerates concepts to the point of absurdity for the humor. Belkar doesn't belong anywhere BUT OOTS. ;)
Exactly, in a real play-group nobody would tolerate Belkar's character and kick him. He's just there because it's for comic effect in the comic.
I stopped playing in a group because of a thieving Rogue. The first time me (Warlord) and the Fighter caught him trying to pocket some loot on the sly we took him out of sight of the rest of the party and gave him a kicking. The DM was reluctant to let us do this, although happy to let the Rogue steal from us. We told him if we caught him again he'd lose a hand. We caught him again. We restrained the Rogue but the DM outright stopped us from taking his hand. I didn't show up for any more sessions with that group.
What good alinged group is really going to party with a known evil person unless it's totally necessary? I read Order of the Stick but really now. Belkar is a STUPID concept. Kill him or get rid of him. His presence in the OOTS shouldnt be allowed.
That's Belkar's whole point. OOTS exaggerates concepts to the point of absurdity for the humor. Belkar doesn't belong anywhere BUT OOTS. ;)Exactly, in a real play-group nobody would tolerate Belkar's character and kick him. He's just there because it's for comic effect in the comic.
I stopped playing in a group because of a thieving Rogue. The first time me (Warlord) and the Fighter caught him trying to pocket some loot on the sly we took him out of sight of the rest of the party and gave him a kicking. The DM was reluctant to let us do this, although happy to let the Rogue steal from us. We told him if we caught him again he'd lose a hand. We caught him again. We restrained the Rogue but the DM outright stopped us from taking his hand. I didn't show up for any more sessions with that group.
I would have stopped at that point as well.
Says a lot about the DM that he's willing to let the thief steal from you but reluctant to let you get a bit of payback.
The thing about thieves (sorry - rogues) is that it ultimately doesn't matter how much stuff they secretly accumulate, nor does it really matter how much they steal from other party members.
What matters is that they carry out the role that they are intended to do : do the stuff that other characters cannot or will not do. Yeah, yeah - in 4e, thieves have a minor "striker" role (which really adds up to 2d8 sneak attack damage if you have CA) -but all that is a complete waste of time if the thief player is not brave to the extent of foolhardy, and willing to take on all the risks involved in crawling into tunnels first, climbing pillars to retrieve stuff, disabling traps, jumping into the water first etc etc. If he/she won't do that, the thief character is useless. You may as well have another ranger, and then your problem becomes arguments over saving wildlife and not destroying the planet - rather than whether or not he steals from the other PCs.
If your party has a thief that is dishonest, greedy and disruptive - tough luck. That's life. That's like complaining that your barbarians are uncivilised and violent, or that druids are boring and overly concerned with the environment. But if your thief character adds nothing to the party in terms of the scouting/bomb disposal/risk-taker role, then you have to ask the thief player what he thinks he's playing at. It's like a fighter that won't fight, or a cleric that won't heal.
The thing about thieves (sorry - rogues) is that it ultimately doesn't matter how much stuff they secretly accumulate, nor does it really matter how much they steal from other party members.
Sure. If no one roleplays. If they DO roleplay, then stealing from the party matters a great, great deal.
If your party has a thief that is dishonest, greedy and disruptive - tough luck. That's life.
Yep. It's tough luck that the thief will end up dead or gone from the group. You got that right.
That's like complaining that your barbarians are uncivilised and violent,
No, it's like complaining that your barbarian attacks other party members for no reason.
or that druids are boring and overly concerned with the environment.
How old are you?
Sure. If no one roleplays. If they DO roleplay, then stealing from the party matters a great, great deal.
Oh how silly. I almost forgot. Roleplaying - the answer to everything. What game have you been playing for the last 30 years? The magic user goes to use his wand - oh it's missing - I wonder where that could have gone?
Yep. It's tough luck that the thief will end up dead or gone from the group. You got that right.
Wow. What a player you must be. I mean - how tough is that? Intra-party fratricide. Now that's roleplaying! That's much better than a thief that steals. How is it not an example of the mighty virtue that is roleplaying for a thief to not steal?
No, it's like complaining that your barbarian attacks other party members for no reason.
No. It's not.
How old are you
I was wondering how long it would take. You don't like something that is being said. First thing: claim it shows lack of roleplaying. Second thing : claim it matters how old someone is. What's next? Let me guess....you're going to go on about powergaming and munchkinism?
A party has a thief. For decades now, untold numbers of parties put up with the thief stealing stuff from them because it's one of the axioms of D&D. Like getting drunk in the tavern or having a morality debate with the paladin in the middle of a dungeon. If the party has any cohesion, they'll get their stupid trinkets back off the thief, otherwise a cleric missing his holy symbol isn't going to be of much benefit to the thief when he needs healing. What a party cannot survive is carrying a pointless character.
Says a lot about the DM that he's willing to let the thief steal from you but reluctant to let you get a bit of payback.
Gee I wonder if the DM and the rogue are friends? If your a spineless DM then quite frankly GTFO of D&D. You don't belong. Dont' let one player screw the group and then never pay the piper when caught. That is bs and poor dming. I wouldn't stop it. Of course I'd tell the player flat out he cannot play that kind of rogue in my game. Right along with LG assassins. :-p
A party has a thief. For decades now, untold numbers of parties put up with the thief stealing stuff from them because it's one of the axioms of D&D. Like getting drunk in the tavern or having a morality debate with the paladin in the middle of a dungeon. If the party has any cohesion, they'll get their stupid trinkets back off the thief, otherwise a cleric missing his holy symbol isn't going to be of much benefit to the thief when he needs healing. What a party cannot survive is carrying a pointless character.
Uh no it is totally not. That is a poor RPers excuse. "Oh I'm playing a rogue, therefore I steal from the party." If your good alinged please do tell me how you justify stealing from trusted friends, prety much betraying their trust. Should be rich to hear this one. Sorry pal but rogues aren't cleptomaniacs.
Uh no it is totally not. That is a poor RPers excuse. "Oh I'm playing a rogue, therefore I steal from the party." If your good alinged please do tell me how you justify stealing from trusted friends, prety much betraying their trust. Should be rich to hear this one. Sorry pal but rogues aren't cleptomaniacs.
but they CAN be. Along with any other class, race alignment combinations.
Uh no it is totally not. That is a poor RPers excuse. "Oh I'm playing a rogue, therefore I steal from the party." If your good alinged please do tell me how you justify stealing from trusted friends, prety much betraying their trust. Should be rich to hear this one. Sorry pal but rogues aren't cleptomaniacs.
but they CAN be. Along with any other class, race alignment combinations.
They CAN be if they want to piss people off and basically ruin the group, yeah. The idea that rogues must steall from the group probably comes from idiots in WoW who think its fun to be loot ninja, at least in this day and age it does. Before MMOs it was just the jerk who plays to "win" or felt it was fun to be disruptive to the game.
If your party has a thief that is dishonest, greedy and disruptive - tough luck. That's life. That's like complaining that your barbarians are uncivilised and violent, or that druids are boring and overly concerned with the environment.
The linking element being that 'none of them are necessarily true'.
You know, even for WoWers, thieves who ninja loot are quite frowned upon. Like if they choose 'need' for a cloth armr specially made for mages. You can bet that the same people in the group with the thief at that time will NEVER ever team up with that thief again, because they can't trust him. Same thing applies for D&D. Why would you team up with someone they don't trust? A thief who loots from party members? Then surely he should have no problem with being beaten up or being chased out of the party. That's the logical consequence of his acts. It's like people who roleplay those kind of chars never ever think of the consequences of their acts or refuse to accept them. At most you'll be out a thief character but that's not a huge issue in 4th ed.
And i'm bloody sick of the whole 'but they're rogues, it's in their character description to act like jerks to their party members' excuse that I keep hearing. There's nothing wrong with acting like jerks to NPCs but once you do it to party members, you start to cross a line.
Oh how silly. I almost forgot. Roleplaying - the answer to everything. What game have you been playing for the last 30 years? The magic user goes to use his wand - oh it's missing - I wonder where that could have gone?
We're talking about what happens when the thief GETS CAUGHT. The victim doesn't go "I wonder where that could have gone."
Wow. What a player you must be. I mean - how tough is that? Intra-party fratricide. Now that's roleplaying! That's much better than a thief that steals. How is it not an example of the mighty virtue that is roleplaying for a thief to not steal?
The difference is that one shows that actions have consequences. If you steal, expect to be gotten rid of one way or the other. How depends on the party. A mean low down party will likely kill or maim you for it. A more noble party will just have you arrested or leave you behind. They're certainly not going to be stupid and just continue to let them steal.
No, it's like complaining that your barbarian attacks other party members for no reason.
No. It's not.
Let me guess....you're going to go on about powergaming and munchkinism?
If the shoe fits......
Oh, and by the way, so far you've avoided responding to every argument I've made. If you can't make a counter argument and can only try to tear me down personally, you lose.
For decades now, untold numbers of parties put up with the thief stealing stuff from them because it's one of the axioms of D&D.
We never did. Even in junior high school when people still stole from the party, we tried to catch them. If we did, they died or got left behind. Stealing from the group is a no no.
Now. Try actually responding with real arguments of your own.
I don't need to make "counter-arguments".
Why? Because half of the posters above and Maxperson in particular have a complete and total misunderstanding of this.
1. If if if. If a thief chooses to steal from his own party. If a barbarian is uncouth and savage. If a druid is a hippie. If these things happen, I say you have to live with them, because they are virtually D&D traditions. Anywhere does it say that a thief must steal from his party? No. So what's the problem?
2. Let's assume the party thief is one of those that is dishonest. He steals some junk or another from the cleric or MU or whoever. Great. At some point he gets found out - either the party has cohesion as a group and they force him to give it back, very funny don't do it again; or they don't have cohesion, and the thief goes off on a solo quest - campaign over for him - roll up a new character.
3. Making the not-unreasonable assumption that the party has cohesion, and actually want to play the game - what then is more destructive? A thief that is dishonest, but does his job, picking the locks and climbing down the well; or a thief that is everyone's best friend, is as honest as the day is long - but spends the adventures acting as a half-a$$ed ranger? Because that is the point. Thieves have a job to do - and doing it is far more important than messing about with silly D&D side traditions that have been going on for years and years.
4. There's a lot of nonsense here about "roleplaying". Some people want to label anything they don't like as "poor roleplaying". That's not for you to decide. You don't get to make that call. Just because you happen to think that one action or another might be destructive to your group dynamic doesn't make you universally right. Over the years, I've seen countless party rows and in-fighting. How much was caused by thieves? Very little, as long as the thief is useful and functional. Most in-fighting I saw was caused by paladins, druids and clerics and their particular roleplaying. The thief steals a potion of diminution from the MU - your view? Bad roleplaying - kill the thief. The paladin starts a fight when the odds are hopelessly against the party, the party drains down its one-shot items and hps escaping - your view? Good roleplaying - give the paladin a slap on the back.
This isn't an argument about rules, but play dynamics and attitudes. My opinion is that thieves get a bad deal generally, and the most important aspect is that they are functional and effective. The rest is just dressing. Other opinons seem to be that you can take any situation that you don't like and slap negative labels on it. That's helpful.
I don't need to make "counter-arguments".
Yes you do. If you don't, you and your claims become useless in this discussion. Anyone can make a faulty claim. Only those who can back it up with a good argument are worth listening to.
Why? Because half of the posters above and Maxperson in particular have a complete and total misunderstanding of this.
If by half the posters you mean only you, then you would be correct. You are the only one making these faulty claims and then refusing to back them up with any kind of rational argument.
1. If if if. If a thief chooses to steal from his own party. If a barbarian is uncouth and savage. If a druid is a hippie. If these things happen, I say you have to live with them, because they are virtually D&D traditions. Anywhere does it say that a thief must steal from his party? No. So what's the problem?
The problem is only IF he does. No one is worried about the thief who doesn't. Come on man, learn how to create a real argument.
2. Let's assume the party thief is one of those that is dishonest. He steals some junk or another from the cleric or MU or whoever. Great. At some point he gets found out - either the party has cohesion as a group and they force him to give it back, very funny don't do it again; or they don't have cohesion, and the thief goes off on a solo quest - campaign over for him - roll up a new character.
Or they actually roleplay a realistic personality and react like they would if someone stole from them and became untrustworthy in a group where trust = life.
3. Making the not-unreasonable assumption that the party has cohesion, and actually want to play the game - what then is more destructive? A thief that is dishonest, but does his job, picking the locks and climbing down the well; or a thief that is everyone's best friend, is as honest as the day is long - but spends the adventures acting as a half-a$$ed ranger?
You keep spouting this fallacy as if it will actually become true if you say it enough. Those are not the only two options available. Option C, which is the far, far more common option chosen, is the rogue who does his job AND is honest and doesn't steal from the party.
play dynamics and attitudes. My opinion is that thieves get a bad deal generally,
They bring it on themselves when they steal from the party.
I DMed for a group where a ninja stole a magic sword from the party. As soon as the other party members found out, they drugged him, took him out to the woods, and executed him. The argument that "oh he does his job well" doesn't hold up because as Max has stated, the other party members have to be able to trust him with their lives. What comes next? Does he "forget" to disable a trap because the fighter has a helmet he would really like to have for himself? Does he lead the party into an ambush because he was bought off?
Yes, a rogue can steal from the party members if he is roleplaying a thief who is in it for himself and doesn't give a rat's ass about his supposed friends. However, he should expect to face the consequences for that action.
You talk about tradition in D&D. You know what I recall as a tradition? Someone that steals from you is your enemy. PCs tend to kill their enemies.
Stealing = death? Because murdering someone is good punishment for stealing, really teaches them not to do it again.
And what about the fighter who steals from the party? Is it his class that is the issue or the fact that he steals? Or is it what he steals? Is there a difference between stealing 2 gold and stealing a magic item? Or does any theft earn the rogue(or fighter) death at the hands of the party?
Also, Max, you appear to be a hypocrite. Stating that cymb does not support his 'counter-points' while at the same time putting forward unsupported points yourself. Your tone and manner are not appreciated in this forum.
Stealing = death? Because murdering someone is good punishment for stealing, really teaches them not to do it again.
As I've said before, it depends on the group. Not all groups are goody two shoes types. Go steal from a mafia boss and see how good a shape they leave you in.
Also, Max, you appear to be a hypocrite. Stating that cymb does not support his 'counter-points' while at the same time putting forward unsupported points yourself. Your tone and manner are not appreciated in this forum.
I have supported my arguments, and quite frankly, if you don't like my tone and manner, put me on ignore. I'm very sure we won't miss each other.
I also love how so many idiots play Good alinged rogues and then totally ignore that when they steal from their friends. Does that sound good to you? Sorry but you steal from the party you get what you deserve when they either kill you, abandon you or turn you over to the authorities. You also get what you deserve when they kick you out of the group.
It amuses me to no end that someone can try to say that a character stealing from his party is acceptable or that killing a caught thief is not appropriate.
D&D games are played in psuedo-medeval worlds. If you look back to the medeval era in our world you can see that theiving depending on the location was quite often punished by death or maiming.
Games are played in setting where it is usually the group against the world. A world full of peril and outside threats. In that situation how could a party allow someone from inside their group to steal from them? Being driven off is probably the luckiest someone should expect in those circumstances.
Well it probably is somewhat evil to punish thievery with death if your D&D world is supposed to be somewhat heroic but the guy who was pro stealing from the party used arguments like "well it's a tradition!" You know what else is a tradition in D&D? KILLING BETRAYERS. That includes thieves. (Oh and so was alingment restrictions, race restricions, level limits, ect. Guess we need to bring all those back huh? FAIL.)
Well it probably is somewhat evil to punish thievery with death if your D&D world is supposed to be somewhat heroic but the guy who was pro stealing from the party used arguments like "well it's a tradition!" You know what else is a tradition in D&D? KILLING BETRAYERS. That includes thieves. (Oh and so was alingment restrictions, race restricions, level limits, ect. Guess we need to bring all those back huh? FAIL.)
I might agree that death is a little rash, but in some cultures losing the theiving hand or other appendage served as a grim reminder.
But in the OPs situation of a rogue trying to poison an ally first thing and also holding the threat of turning them in over their heads... thats just not good for a party. Would you hang around someone trying to kill you or threatening to turn you over to the authorities?
Here is the perspective I have about it.
You are in the middle of a wilderness. There are monsters of everytype wandering not only the forest you are in, but the mountains ahead of you and the plains behind you. The only thing keeping you from death is the four other members of your party. They watch your back, hit the enemy and are often bleeding trying to keep alive right along side of you.
If one of those members becomes a threat from within the party, that means you are surrounded by enemies and have to watch your back because now your "Brother in arms" decided he is greedy. Well, next time he moves, or so much as blinks out of line, a sword and spell impact will drop him and thats one less threat to the real members of the party.
If you are fighting for your survival, you kill any threat you have to. The biggest threat isn't the unseen dragon, its the guy you thought you could trust.
When I DM I enforce an overriding Rule -1 (preceding even Rule 0) which states "You don't have to love each other - you don't even need to like each other - but you do need to find a way to work together." Inter-party conflict is fine, but only to the point where it begins to negatively impact the overall enjoyment of the game. If the Rogue skimming off the top does not do this then all is well. If it does, then it needs to stop.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Rogue skimming from the party and neither is there anything inherently right about it. It is only an issue if it makes the game less enjoyable as a whole and that is something that needs to be decided upon by each group as fits their game.
Some groups just don't care that much about the loot, focusing on the overall story and play experience and seeing said loot as simply another in-game element, while other groups view loot and its equitable division as an out-of-game element and messing with or stealing from it to be a violation not against the PCs but against the players.
Neither view is wrong.
When I DM I enforce an overriding Rule -1 (preceding even Rule 0) which states "You don't have to love each other - you don't even need to like each other - but you do need to find a way to work together." Inter-party conflict is fine, but only to the point where it begins to negatively impact the overall enjoyment of the game. If the Rogue skimming off the top does not do this then all is well. If it does, then it needs to stop.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Rogue skimming from the party and neither is there anything inherently right about it. It is only an issue if it makes the game less enjoyable as a whole and that is something that needs to be decided upon by each group as fits their game.
Some groups just don't care that much about the loot, focusing on the overall story and play experience and seeing said loot as simply another in-game element, while other groups view loot and its equitable division as an out-of-game element and messing with or stealing from it to be a violation not against the PCs but against the players.
Neither view is wrong.
About time I saw this answer. Just what I had in mind: the point of the game is for everyone to have fun. If you detriment the fun, you need to change your ways. That said, I personally would have a bit of a problem with some sneaky little backstabber () making off with more than his fair share of the hard-earned goods. Then again, what else should one expect from a someone who makes a living through theft?
Take care, friend.
P.S- good to see you on the boards again, cobb. It's nice to see a familiar face once in a while.