As of recent, i've been engaged in a wonderous spree of chances to play DnD, Epic.
However as a player i'm "fresh off the boat" and Very inexperienced when it comes to both Roleplaying experience and the overall concept that DnD runs on. The largest issue is that We don't Agree and not rule-wise we have 2 Large rule-lovers in which both are Excellent at being graceful about it, no issues with the overall game-mechanics however in the end due to one specific reason...drama arrives at the table.
The percieved reason for it seems to be: Morals
I honestly have a Mayor hard time playing a "Good guy" it simply just doesn't go naturally for me in any way. Why i'm still Very curious about but overall backstabbing that NPC Guard-captain with a nice-sword always ends up being the "Go-to Option" or rather it's just how I both reason With my characters and how I personally would percieve the situation to be solved. (I'm very driven on self-benefit, but self-benefit tends to lean to "everyone being happy because then i'm happy" aswell) This does Not run well with the group....At All. However i've been trying to figure out Ways or heck even 101 for dummie guide-lines for myself just incase I lean towards the "seemingly odd end" which I almost 90% of the time do.
The groups seeming opinion however is to use one means or another to Punish me everytime I do it...I honestly have no hard feelings about it and i'm really trying but in the end i'm back to square one.
Soo i'm wonder and Really Hoping that some of you out there has experienced similar people like me and has either criticism or simply constructive tips for which you solved it on how either I or the group will be able to handle this "Mix of ideals" since I really do like this group.
Best regards to all of you.
There are ways you can play that sort of character, and enjoy the RP though, even in a group of holier-than-thou goodie-two-shoes.
For instance, you could try making light of it, and turn your ideas of dishonourable cowardice into jokey banter. It can be fun to play a sneaky weasely side-kick of a character who appears to always want to do the wrong thing, but somehow is made to be morally correct (and may on occasion just "do the right thing"). Just play off the conversation, keep it light, ham it up - and if the other players are more experienced, see if you can follow and give them cues for acting it out (if that doesn't work, just straight up discuss OOC with them what sort of character you want to play, and how you think it might fit in their "highly moral" party). Pick up on a character or two from fiction that gets away with it. See: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Love... and click away until you find a character description that you think would be fun (warning, tvtropes can be addictive).
I need help as a Inexperienced player in how to be better in the group while roleplaying and better at understanding certain concepts of this game and i'm Hoping to get some help from this akward forum post.
As of recent, i've been engaged in a wonderous spree of chances to play DnD, Epic.
However as a player i'm "fresh off the boat" and Very inexperienced when it comes to both Roleplaying experience and the overall concept that DnD runs on. The largest issue is that We don't Agree and not rule-wise we have 2 Large rule-lovers in which both are Excellent at being graceful about it, no issues with the overall game-mechanics however in the end due to one specific reason...drama arrives at the table.
The percieved reason for it seems to be: Morals
I honestly have a Mayor hard time playing a "Good guy" it simply just doesn't go naturally for me in any way. Why i'm still Very curious about but overall backstabbing that NPC Guard-captain with a nice-sword always ends up being the "Go-to Option" or rather it's just how I both reason With my characters and how I personally would percieve the situation to be solved. (I'm very driven on self-benefit, but self-benefit tends to lean to "everyone being happy because then i'm happy" aswell) This does Not run well with the group....At All. However i've been trying to figure out Ways or heck even 101 for dummie guide-lines for myself just incase I lean towards the "seemingly odd end" which I almost 90% of the time do.
The groups seeming opinion however is to use one means or another to Punish me everytime I do it...I honestly have no hard feelings about it and i'm really trying but in the end i'm back to square one.
Soo i'm wonder and Really Hoping that some of you out there has experienced similar people like me and has either criticism or simply constructive tips for which you solved it on how either I or the group will be able to handle this "Mix of ideals" since I really do like this group.
Best regards to all of you.
I'm glad to hear that you have the opportunity to play D&D, and hope that you will find the game to be a fun hobby for years to come. I would say that starting D&D somewheree in the epic levels (lv 21-30) will make you introduction to the game more difficult, but since you have more experienced players to help you hopefully this won't be a problem. You might have meant "epic" as in it's epic to play D&D rather than playing D&D in the epic tier, if so I'll appoligize for rambling.
As far as alignment is concerned (aka morals), your character strictly speaking does not have to be good. Having said that D&D works best when the players and DM (who is running the game) are all on the same page as to what is morally acceptable. D&D as a default discourages evil PCs, and IMO backstabbing a captain guard to get their magic sword is evil. Your DM may of course disagree and in the end it is HIS/HER opinion that matters.
One thing to consider is that from your fellow players perspective any criminal activities your character may chose to make (killing or stealing from the guard captain) will get all of them in trouble more than likely (if he's caught of course). In short PC's actions have consequences, the punishment for killing "inocent" people in a civilaized area is usually harsh to say the least and would usually derail a campaign. It is in my opinion OK if your character differs morally from the other PCs, as long as you keep in mind that any action you character takes can have serious reprocussions that will effect not only your character, but the other PCs as well (and the campaign).
By the way when you mentioned "the situation to be solved" did you mean your character wanted the guard captains sword, solution backstab (to kill) the captain to get it? Another thing to consider, if the captain of the guard has a nice sword your character will probably not be able to kill him in one attack, and probably could not take him on by yourself. This is actuall out of game thinking (often known a metagaming), but still try to keep in mind that your character while powerfull can run into challenges that he may not be able to overcome (especially if he is working alone).
Drawing more parallels you could equate a Paladin to a Policeman and a Priest to your local church priest and if you were adventuring with those people to achieve a goal, would you start hitting a wealthy looking individual over the head in front of the Policeman and Priest without reprisals?
Overall you can play your character as you see fit but you have to remember to respect the people that you are travelling with?
One of my previous players was going to kill a group of pirates that the group had disabled and asked questions. To be honest as a DM I had no problem with this alignmentwise( he is unaligned and they had been trying to kill the group so to my mind 'offing' them stops a lot of future issues) however the rest of the group were good so didn't agree with him so he didn't do it. If however he'd have snuck off and killed them without the rest of the groups notice then that'd be fine.
D&D is a bloodthirty, gritty environment where thieves could have their hands chopped off and bandits and murders are hung or beheaded and unless your playing the PG version this should be kept in mind even by the good characters.
IMO backstabbing a captain guard to get their magic sword is evil.
But what if was going to sell the sword to a pawn shop so he could use the money to feed some starving orphans?
_____________________
It's nice to see that you're asking for some help with this because quite a few of the players that I've come across that behave like this in games tend to cause groups to fall apart due to in game behavior and by the end of things they think nothing of it.
Now you don't need to play a "good" character. If you want to play a character that is more or less evil or does bad things then do so but just be aware of what you're doing. Killing a guard-captain is bad. Killing him in front of your party which is good aligned is worse. Killing them in broad daylight in the center of town is much worse. Killing him in the middle of night while he sleeps is bad but nobody will probably know it was you unless you did a very poor job of it.
It's all about picking your points and times of attack wisely. Learn when to lie, steal, sneak and kill, but even more learn when it's best to pretend to be good.
If you want his sword then it might be best to maybe try talking to him a bit first so you can size him up. Maybe later ask around town to learn about his sword as well as his exploits. Later, when it's more convenient, sneak in and either try and steal it or kill him and take it. And most of all don't go flaunting that you have the item in that very same town because people will notice. And don't flaunt it in front of your group. Probably best to keep the sword hidden until the next town or you individually come across a treasure chest or something.
It's all about playing it smart; not playing it on impulse.
It's all about playing it smart; not playing it on impulse.
That's all that needs to be said right there.
(I'm very driven on self-benefit, but self-benefit tends to lean to "everyone being happy because then i'm happy" aswell)
D&D is a team-oriented activity. Instead of 'only what benefits me', think more 'what benefits the team, because that also benefits me'. Or just 'what benefits me AND the team'.
At the end of the day think of real situations you have been in. If you and a group of friends are having a movie nite or barbeque and you all brought snacks, food and drink then someone who's a friend of a friend and they started to drink your other friends booze and food...,
From left field. There may be a clash of culture in the situation above. I come from a culture where if there is a party everyone shares in the food and drink, whether they brought something or not. In California and college it used to baffle me when friends would quibble over who bought what and how much they spent. I never got idea of bringing food to a BBQ for just one self (although i have seen it), or drinking beer with friends with out offering the one guy without. Where I come from that ussually is not an issue, unless someone with a good job is always showing up to the party with out contributing anything.
(I'm very driven on self-benefit, but self-benefit tends to lean to "everyone being happy because then i'm happy" aswell)
D&D is a team-oriented activity. Instead of 'only what benefits me', think more 'what benefits the team, because that also benefits me'. Or just 'what benefits me AND the team'.
That is important point. DnD is a group activity and very team oriented. Not only do you have to have a group of people to play, group has got to work together to make the game work. The freedom in a table top RPG is very tempting to new role players. YOu have the freedom to decide and attack the NPC guard are not, that is very tempting when such a decision is new for a gamer. But doing what you like in an RPG because you can, can ruin a game. I think you need some dicipline. Remember this not just your game session, it is the groups session. You may have to compromise your Pc's behavior to become a better DnD player. In the end you will have to actively think about how your actions effect the other players and act on the interest of the group. Eventually you should mature and then learn how to stretch the groups boundaries. One thing to remember, playing a PC who does what they like when they like, without the considerations of the other players is just selfish.
Keep in mind that your actions aren't happening in your own little world - just as your character is reacting to his instincts, his actions are forcing the other party members to react according to theirs. Their decision may be that they would not team up with your type of character - you can't force them to accept someone who's actions go against their beliefs just because that's the kind of character you want to play. It may be fun for you, but it's probably at the very least a distraction to them and changes the focus from team quest to dealing with the antics of one party member.
I'm also a new player (3.5 campaign since November) but my experiences are from the other side of this issue. I've had several occasions where another party member did something my character would be opposed to, the worst one being the "lawful good" fighter who killed our neutral rogue for doing something the fighter warned him not to. The DM gave the fighter a pass (no consequences or realignment) as he was also a newer player, but my first reaction was my character (neutral good) would be afraid the fighter would snap again, and seriously thought about leaving the party or asking him to leave. Since I was new and didn't want to make waves I decided to continue on but my character still doesn't trust him.
Did he warn him not to murder innocents, to not **** or fondle kids? If not then that seems like a major overreaction. That reaction ain't lawful in the least. Informing a constable or acting as a bounty hunter and turning him in would sound more reasonable for a lawful good character.....
I'm also a new player (3.5 campaign since November) but my experiences are from the other side of this issue. I've had several occasions where another party member did something my character would be opposed to, the worst one being the "lawful good" fighter who killed our neutral rogue for doing something the fighter warned him not to. The DM gave the fighter a pass (no consequences or realignment) as he was also a newer player, but my first reaction was my character (neutral good) would be afraid the fighter would snap again, and seriously thought about leaving the party or asking him to leave. Since I was new and didn't want to make waves I decided to continue on but my character still doesn't trust him.
Did he warn him not to murder innocents, to not **** or fondle kids? If not then that seems like a major overreaction. That reaction ain't lawful in the least. Informing a constable or acting as a bounty hunter and turning him in would sound more reasonable for a lawful good character.....
It went something like this:
Levels 2 & 3 party of 4 enters room through a portal gateway with thousands of possible destinations, using a clue found elsewhere. Inside the room is a table and chairs and a cup on the table.
DM: Tiefling Pirate (TP), you know this is some sort of religious relic with a strong aura of good.
TP: "Get that thing away from me", throws chair at it.
DM: Lawful Good Fighter (LGF) you recognize this is the Holy Grail.
LGF: Picks Cup off floor & puts back on table, tells TP "Don't do that again!"
NR (Neutral Rogue): Draws one of 2 cursed daggers of returning DM gave to him to keep him in line (bit of a munchkin) and stabs Cup. Knife flies off & embeds into wall, Cup hasn't moved & is unharmed.
LGF: Draws Greataxe, tells NR "Don't do that again or I'll kill you!"
NR: Stares at LGF, shrugs, stabs Cup with 2nd knife, same result, no damage to Cup.
LGF: Rolls d20, hits, rolls damage, NR is below 1/2 HP's.
Me: "Why'd you do that?"
LGF: "That's the Holy Grail, & I told him I'd kill him if he did it again."
Me: "It's not connected to your religion, there's not even any Christianity in this campaign, and it wasn't harmed anyway. It can take care of itself."
LGF: "I don't care, it's an extremely holy religious relic."
NR: Draws regular dagger & stabs LGF, minimal damage (if he even hit) & says "Fair is fair".
LGF: Rolls d20 again
Me: "Stop, what are you doing?"
LGF: "That's a hit". Rolls damage, NR now at -6 HP.
I try heal checks: fail, fail, critical fail kills him (yes our DM loves to use critical fails on everything he can, thinks they're hilarious). I ask LGF why he had to use lethal force instead of just trying to restrain him, his response was again "BECAUSE I told him I'd kill him if he did it again!"
Oh and turns out the Cup was the DM's way of letting the NR remove the curse from the daggers, so NR was just following the plot line, but the rest of us didn't know that.
I honestly have a Mayor hard time playing a "Good guy" it simply just doesn't go naturally for me in any way. Why i'm still Very curious about but overall backstabbing that NPC Guard-captain with a nice-sword always ends up being the "Go-to Option" or rather it's just how I both reason With my characters and how I personally would percieve the situation to be solved. (I'm very driven on self-benefit, but self-benefit tends to lean to "everyone being happy because then i'm happy" aswell) This does Not run well with the group....At All. However i've been trying to figure out Ways or heck even 101 for dummie guide-lines for myself just incase I lean towards the "seemingly odd end" which I almost 90% of the time do.
The groups seeming opinion however is to use one means or another to Punish me everytime I do it...I honestly have no hard feelings about it and i'm really trying but in the end i'm back to square one.
As one of the (apparently) few people who has successfully played an Evil character in a Good party - more than once -
The Prime Directive: Don't Eff With The Party.
How you justify that in-character is up to you, but the acceptable level of in-party mischief is not affected at all by alignment.
Note that this doesn't mean that no in-party mischief is allowed. That's up to the players. Two high-dex characters could be constantly picking each other's pockets, but any non-trivial items taken somehow are back where their proper owner expects them when they are needed. If the paladin has firmly said "leave my stuff alone!" then he's off limits to such pranks.
Breaking the Prime Directive is not only bad for the PC party. It's also bad for the group of players sitting around the table. And that's why it's the Prime Directive.
The only exception to this is if the DM has some NPC that your character is answerable to, give orders that directly contradict it.
First rule: Don't turn the party's natural allies into enemies unnecessarily.
Your party is mostly good, the City Guard is good. Your party takes care of threats that are too big for the City Guard or for some reason (e.g. not in the city) outside the City Guard's scope. Naturally there will be some rivalry, but fundamentally your party and the City Guard ought to be on the same side. Knifing the Captain of the Guard messes this up and creates all sorts of problems.
Second rule: Take the long view. Don't create obstacles between you and your goals.
(This is actually the general rule, the Prime Directive and the First Rule are more specific variants of it.)
What are your evil character's goals? How is he using the party to further those goals? How much does he need the party, and therefore how much does furthering the party's goals help him pursue his goals? (If the answer is really low, why is your character even with the party?)
Respect your character's goals always. Respect your party's goals as needed to further your character's goals.
Is your character going to need allies in the future? Where feasible leave potential allies liking him, not happy to see his back but wishing his head were somewhere other than above it...
As one of the (apparently) few people who has successfully played an Evil character in a Good party - more than once -
..,
You propably are one of the few people who can successfully play an Evil Pc in a Good party.
I' ve Dmed less than half a dozen players I felt comfortable playing an Evil Pc in a good group, over the last 30+ years. That kind of focus on character and dicipline as a player is rare. But it is not just the player with the Evil pc that that must be disciplined, those playing good also need to be focused and disciplined as well. It is rare for the player of Good Pcs not to be suspicious of Evil Pcs. In other words, If the one Evil Pc in the group of Good Pcs makes the players of the Good pcs upset, then it is a sound idea to change the Evil Pc's alignment. The players of the Good Pcs will never trust the Evil Pc, no matter how well you can effectively role play Evil. Declare Unaligned, stay loyal to your companions and commit crimes as needed to stay in character. But only if your that rare type of player.;)
You propably are one of the few people who can successfully play an Evil Pc in a Good party.
I've been told things like that before - including by DMs who hadn't realized I was playing an evil character until I suddenly turned on some NPCs and then pointed out how it and all prior behavior was totally in character...
... and for a long time I didn't get it.
And the first time I heard a DM say that no evil PCs were allowed in his games, I didn't understand why.
Then I heard some of the horror stories... and understood the bans... and thought about what I was doing that was different.
But it's really just a slightly extreme case of "the individual PC may have goals and ambitions other than those of the party as a whole". Which is true of an all-Good party, even on a literal save-the-world quest: one wants to save the world and amass a fortune, another to save the world and spread the worship of her deity, a third to save the world and become king of a piece of it, etc.
The evil PC who is impulsive and short-sighted would be tough... that's really when there's no reason to follow the rules that allow an adventuring party - or a role-playing group - to function.
A good PC doesn't ever really have to think about long-term goals; IMHO it makes a better character and a better characterization if he does, but there's nothing wrong with "kill the monsters that are attacking the village", and simply advancing in level implies gaining in power, wealth, and fame - three common goals.
The evil PC has to have a reason to go help kill the monsters, rather than use the chaos of their attack as cover to steal the silver ornamentation from the church. Or even go help the monsters.
You propably are one of the few people who can successfully play an Evil Pc in a Good party.
I've been told things like that before - including by DMs who hadn't realized I was playing an evil character until I suddenly turned on some NPCs and then pointed out how it and all prior behavior was totally in character...
My cousin has done the same thing to me as a Dm. It wasn't that I or any of the other players did not know his Pc was Evil, we just forgot. So when his PC pulled off some utterly brilliant evil action, there would be an "Oh yah, his Pc is Evil."
I think there is a lot of role playing potential for an Evil/ Good mixed group. Eventually there has got to be a conflict in the group, with such diametrically oppossed moral philosophies. That alone is a great catalyst for drama in any ongoing story. But the truth is most players lack the maturity and focus to play such a game. For most players DnD is a simple diversion, developing dynamic and dramatic indepth roleplaying that can be found in a such a morally diverse group is just not the goal.
I'm also a new player (3.5 campaign since November) but my experiences are from the other side of this issue. I've had several occasions where another party member did something my character would be opposed to, the worst one being the "lawful good" fighter who killed our neutral rogue for doing something the fighter warned him not to. The DM gave the fighter a pass (no consequences or realignment) as he was also a newer player, but my first reaction was my character (neutral good) would be afraid the fighter would snap again, and seriously thought about leaving the party or asking him to leave. Since I was new and didn't want to make waves I decided to continue on but my character still doesn't trust him.
Did he warn him not to murder innocents, to not **** or fondle kids? If not then that seems like a major overreaction. That reaction ain't lawful in the least. Informing a constable or acting as a bounty hunter and turning him in would sound more reasonable for a lawful good character.....
It went something like this:
Levels 2 & 3 party of 4 enters room through a portal gateway with thousands of possible destinations, using a clue found elsewhere. Inside the room is a table and chairs and a cup on the table.
DM: Tiefling Pirate (TP), you know this is some sort of religious relic with a strong aura of good.
TP: "Get that thing away from me", throws chair at it.
DM: Lawful Good Fighter (LGF) you recognize this is the Holy Grail.
LGF: Picks Cup off floor & puts back on table, tells TP "Don't do that again!"
NR (Neutral Rogue): Draws one of 2 cursed daggers of returning DM gave to him to keep him in line (bit of a munchkin) and stabs Cup. Knife flies off & embeds into wall, Cup hasn't moved & is unharmed.
LGF: Draws Greataxe, tells NR "Don't do that again or I'll kill you!"
NR: Stares at LGF, shrugs, stabs Cup with 2nd knife, same result, no damage to Cup.
LGF: Rolls d20, hits, rolls damage, NR is below 1/2 HP's.
Me: "Why'd you do that?"
LGF: "That's the Holy Grail, & I told him I'd kill him if he did it again."
Me: "It's not connected to your religion, there's not even any Christianity in this campaign, and it wasn't harmed anyway. It can take care of itself."
LGF: "I don't care, it's an extremely holy religious relic."
NR: Draws regular dagger & stabs LGF, minimal damage (if he even hit) & says "Fair is fair".
LGF: Rolls d20 again
Me: "Stop, what are you doing?"
LGF: "That's a hit". Rolls damage, NR now at -6 HP.
I try heal checks: fail, fail, critical fail kills him (yes our DM loves to use critical fails on everything he can, thinks they're hilarious). I ask LGF why he had to use lethal force instead of just trying to restrain him, his response was again "BECAUSE I told him I'd kill him if he did it again!"
Oh and turns out the Cup was the DM's way of letting the NR remove the curse from the daggers, so NR was just following the plot line, but the rest of us didn't know that.
Hang on. Some guy with a big sword killed your guy, and your guy went back and worked with him anyway? What were they doing that was so earth-shatteringly important that he had to team up with someone who murdered him?
-Try not to play yourself, but rather to play your character. Your character may share some of your morals/ideals/pragmatism/etc., but part of the fun is playing a role (even if your character is similar to you).
-Minorly inconveniencing the group/party by playing in character is part of role-playing. Majorly inconveniencing the group/party is bad form. How to tell the difference? If you do the first, some other characters might be ticked off, but the players are OK; if you do the second, the players are ticked off. This obviously varies from group to group... you can use trial and error to see where they stand, use your instincts, or discuss it with your group (or, ideally, all of the above).
-When I DM (when don't I DM?...), and especially when there are PCs of differing moral outlooks/alignments, I tell my players to think of their characters as the cast in a movie/play/TV show. They don't have to get along; they don't have to have the same goals and motivations; they can disagree about what's Right or Expedient _ but they're the cast, and their actions should be such that whatever happens, it makes sense for them to continue adventuring together. Arguing over whether to help someone for free (or charge money), whether killing a helpless enemy is OK, etc. is fine... even minor rough-housing (fighting to subdue) can be OK in specific circumstances, but when a group has turned on one PC (or vice versa), when PC (s) are no longer part of the team but rather working against it, either some changes need to be made or the group needs to change. Playing an amoral pragmatist amidst goodie-two-shoes PCs can be a lot of fun if you remember that at the end of the day the group needs to work together... and it can be a disaster when you forget that if you stop playing a protagonist (even a protagonist that disagrees with the group) and start playing an antagonist, you're suddenly another monster for the party to stop. You don't have to be a Good Guy, you can try to wheedle payment out of a damsel in distress and inject your pragmatism into conversations about what you should do, but find a way for your character to continue adventuring with whatever group you're in, or else you need to find a new character or find a new group.
I'm also a new player (3.5 campaign since November) but my experiences are from the other side of this issue. I've had several occasions where another party member did something my character would be opposed to, the worst one being the "lawful good" fighter who killed our neutral rogue for doing something the fighter warned him not to. The DM gave the fighter a pass (no consequences or realignment) as he was also a newer player, but my first reaction was my character (neutral good) would be afraid the fighter would snap again, and seriously thought about leaving the party or asking him to leave. Since I was new and didn't want to make waves I decided to continue on but my character still doesn't trust him.
Did he warn him not to murder innocents, to not **** or fondle kids? If not then that seems like a major overreaction. That reaction ain't lawful in the least. Informing a constable or acting as a bounty hunter and turning him in would sound more reasonable for a lawful good character.....
It went something like this:
Levels 2 & 3 party of 4 enters room through a portal gateway with thousands of possible destinations, using a clue found elsewhere. Inside the room is a table and chairs and a cup on the table.
DM: Tiefling Pirate (TP), you know this is some sort of religious relic with a strong aura of good.
TP: "Get that thing away from me", throws chair at it.
DM: Lawful Good Fighter (LGF) you recognize this is the Holy Grail.
LGF: Picks Cup off floor & puts back on table, tells TP "Don't do that again!"
NR (Neutral Rogue): Draws one of 2 cursed daggers of returning DM gave to him to keep him in line (bit of a munchkin) and stabs Cup. Knife flies off & embeds into wall, Cup hasn't moved & is unharmed.
LGF: Draws Greataxe, tells NR "Don't do that again or I'll kill you!"
NR: Stares at LGF, shrugs, stabs Cup with 2nd knife, same result, no damage to Cup.
LGF: Rolls d20, hits, rolls damage, NR is below 1/2 HP's.
Me: "Why'd you do that?"
LGF: "That's the Holy Grail, & I told him I'd kill him if he did it again."
Me: "It's not connected to your religion, there's not even any Christianity in this campaign, and it wasn't harmed anyway. It can take care of itself."
LGF: "I don't care, it's an extremely holy religious relic."
NR: Draws regular dagger & stabs LGF, minimal damage (if he even hit) & says "Fair is fair".
LGF: Rolls d20 again
Me: "Stop, what are you doing?"
LGF: "That's a hit". Rolls damage, NR now at -6 HP.
I try heal checks: fail, fail, critical fail kills him (yes our DM loves to use critical fails on everything he can, thinks they're hilarious). I ask LGF why he had to use lethal force instead of just trying to restrain him, his response was again "BECAUSE I told him I'd kill him if he did it again!"
Oh and turns out the Cup was the DM's way of letting the NR remove the curse from the daggers, so NR was just following the plot line, but the rest of us didn't know that.
Hang on. Some guy with a big sword killed your guy, and your guy went back and worked with him anyway? What were they doing that was so earth-shatteringly important that he had to team up with someone who murdered him?
My character wasn't killed - we had 2 rogues at the time, as Mr Munchkin had his initial Cleric commit suicide by mimic once the DM said he was going to fix the 1 pt of healing cantrip he was abusing (opens every door in the dungeon before my rogue can check for traps / listen, eventually leading to "I open the dungeon door with my back turned" & "I walk blindly down the tunnel").
The rogue that was killed stayed killed - player rolled up a new character. I was very new to d&d and didn't know what to do about the fighter, though I did talk with the DM. He was initially going to change his alignment from LG to ?? but decided to give him a bye as that player was even newer than I was (his first campaign since ad&d, though he thinks he knows all about it because he played Everquest online for years). I also had a talk with the fighter's player about my issues with his actions & he did admit it could have been handled differently but never apologized to anyone. He plays both his d&d characters (fighter & wizard) as shoot first and never mind the questions - he views everything as xp to be killed on sight so he can level up (EQ = D&D).
If you continue to make the game too difficult for the other players to play, you may just come across a moment when a group of bounty hunters have you in a corner and your party just walks away as you scream for help. They probably still like you as a friend, but it's a not-so-subtle way of telling you to play a different character. Preferably one that they don't have to worry in between each session how you're going to get them in trouble next.