A) That's not very lawful, when someone specifically asks. Usually a monk (not having ties to matereal possessions) would be willing to comply. (And that "I'm not lawful GOOD" crap doesn't fly with me..)
B) It doesn't do well for gamer ethics either. I have very little patience for my peers, especially when they're male. I'm not above PKing someone when I'm annoyed. Proof is if he doesn't comply, I'll push him down the stairs resulting in falling damage. Even if he comes back up by then I could pullout my dagger and slash his guts. How strong can he be after an epic fight with monsters?
I have however stayed within both player and character alignment. Obviously it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how I think as a player. But I justify my character's actions as neutral good. An overly emotional, though sometimes dopey guy, who believes the monk has unjustly murdered innocent lives. And as such isn't happy about it one bit.
Ofcourse this does not explain in-character why I'd take the sword. But I'll say it's shiny or something.
This is not to say I'm an anti-social guy persay, we also found a phoenix down (yes, our GM allows phoenix downs). My immideate thought was to ressurect our fallen comrade. Granted he never ****** me off..
I've done a decent job of justifying my player ethics when my character ethics, though it's pretty obvious we're two very different alignments. But I feel a player should always think of the real-life gaming table first before that of his character.
Yes, this perhaps makes me a meta-gamer. But better to live a meta-gamer then be a guy having to roll up a new character..
Another annoyance I have is the poor imagination of the team-mates. I thought D&D was suppose to be about epic fantasy adventures. Instead we're wandering around outside leveling up. This isn't Final Fantasy.. And I'm an idea man, therefore when my ideas are not even considered, I get testy.. >: p
Come on, making "rat-stew" to feed to the orc camp and give them all filth fever disease?! That's a good plan!
let's see here:
Proof is if he doesn't comply, I'll push him down the stairs resulting in falling damage. Even if he comes back up by then I could pullout my dagger and slash his guts. How strong can he be after an epic fight with monsters?
First off... it's just plan stupid to try and soften up a monk by pushing him down some stairs, first, he has slow fall, so it's not going to do much, second, he get's to oppose your bullrush with, I believe, a balance check, which he should do rather well. Second, you're murdering the guy because he took the item you called dibs on. It sounds like you're both evil, and are settling treasure distribution in a fitting manner.
I have however stayed within both player and character alignment. Obviously it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how I think as a player. But I justify my character's actions as neutral good. An overly emotional, though sometimes dopey guy, who believes the monk has unjustly murdered innocent lives. And as such isn't happy about it one bit.
Now, does your character actually think this? Because it sounds like the rational an evil character would bull up to explain why he murdered a fellow party member.
Ofcourse this does not explain in-character why I'd take the sword. But I'll say it's shiny or something.
again EVIL! you're contemplating killing a fellow party member because he took your shiny phallis-substitute. Not only is your character evil at this point, he's also either an idiot or insane.
This is not to say I'm an anti-social guy persay, we also found a phoenix down (yes, our GM allows phoenix downs). My immideate thought was to ressurect our fallen comrade. Granted he never ****** me off..
would you use a future phoenix down to resurrect the monk after he took 'your' sword? what about if you beat it out of him and he then died because a monster came around the corner and you beat him to a level at which the monster could just walk up and coup-de-grace him? If you wouldn't, then you are evil, specifically, LaVeyan Satanist Evil, this is how we think ("You **** me off, screw you. You help me out, I'll help you").
I've done a decent job of justifying my player ethics when my character ethics, though it's pretty obvious we're two very different alignments. But I feel a player should always think of the real-life gaming table first before that of his character.
Then let the sword go. There will be other shinier swords, and maybe you can do the same to the monk in the future. If you're trying to think of the players first and the characters second, then you need to let it go and try to foster lines of communication between all the players. Even my evil characters who would consider the same thing would probably let it go because "Whodunks" are crappy things to do(whodunks are things which are completely in-character but ruin the game for someone else).
Yes, this perhaps makes me a meta-gamer. But better to live a meta-gamer then be a guy having to roll up a new character..
because the monk sold your compensation stick? see that think spanning the lake over there? yeah, build one and GET OVER IT.
Another annoyance I have is the poor imagination of the team-mates. I thought D&D was suppose to be about epic fantasy adventures. Instead we're wandering around outside leveling up. This isn't Final Fantasy.. And I'm an idea man, therefore when my ideas are not even considered, I get testy.. >: p
D&D is a game in which your capabilities are limited by your level, maybe the other players want to gfo take on some balors or dragons, but know they're not high enough level, so they want their characters to level up some so they can do interesting crap.
Come on, making "rat-stew" to feed to the orc camp and give them all filth fever disease?! That's a good plan!
EVIL!! This is not a "Killing is evil, unless the victims are evil, in which case it's good. Don't buy it? Here, toke up until you do." situation. This is biological warfare, which is EVIL! It's also a really stupid plan, as the orcs will certainly survive long enough to KILL YOU.
Intelligence is not always spoken
Wisdom is not always good
And charisma isn't always about getting people to like you, but getting what you want.;)
I have nothing to worry about as the monk is not high enough level to slow fall, and even if he were, try to imagine this from a three dimensional perspective...
He's trapped in a cellar, there's only one way up, the stairs, the pathway of which I am block. His only course of action is to move up the stairs, risking me kicking him back down. Eventually he's going to fail a check and take damage.
He could try to attack, but that would take penalties wouldn't it? His movements are severely limited, and he has no space to make fighting maneuvers. He's at a complete disadvantage.
He at most could try throwing stuff at me. But what? the dead rats? The very sword I want? If he throws the sword, it's probably going to miss. And then I run and go grab it anyway.
There are not witnesses, we're the only two in the cellar. And his argument was I did not contribute to the fight so I don't get the loot. (Which I don't care of the rest of the loot, I just want the badass weapon..)
I'm showing just how important I really am. Where he looks powerless in comparison.. And I'd say that's pretty good gaming for a rogue PC..
It should be like in the player's handbook that you never come between a rogue and his loot lol!:P
This is why rogues don't "contribute". We disarm traps, and leave ourselves healthy incase our team-mates decide mutiny.. And then we flank them.
Perhaps not in "the real-world" this is good alignment. But in D&D, I'm doing nothing but good.
Defending the poor little rats.
Being friendly to npcs.
Willing to help stop the evil orc camp. (Didn't even ask for a reward or anything, just felt sorry for them and was willing to help.)
I think it's great artistic wise when a clever evil player can control an incompetent good character. That's the the line separating neutral evil and neutral good. XP
Also the GM described my character as wearing a mask, even if the others COULD know what I was doing in-character, I could just run, hide, lay low for awhile, and not wear my mask.
Intelligence is not always spoken
Fair enough
Wisdom is not always good
"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, perception and intuition"
I suppose you could argue "Ignorance is bliss" but I still think wisdom is generally a good thing.
And charisma isn't always about getting people to like you, but getting what you want
I suppose, but people generally don't do what you want if they hate you.
He's trapped in a cellar, there's only one way up, the stairs, the pathway of which I am block. His only course of action is to move up the stairs, risking me kicking him back down. Eventually he's going to fail a check and take damage.
Or, if he's not an idiot, just chill in the cellar. people can survive a few days without water, and I assume within like 24 hours, the rest of the party will come by to investigate what the hell is going on.
Ask him why he doesn't think you contributed, explain how you did, if he maintains you didn't contribute, blame it on your weapon and say that if you get the "badass sword" you can contribute next time.
Even if it's genuinely a case where your character made no contribution, you can always offer to owe him on the next haul of loot.
But I feel a player should always think of the real-life gaming table first before that of his character.
You should think of how trying to kill fellow party members affects the game. Even on the most pragmatic level, an entire fellow character is generally more useful than a +1 to hit and damage.
I've had arguments over loot in my games too, but it's never turned out this bad.