My friend who is the dwarf rogue is awesome in most ways but is always ridiculous when he role plays in DND, insulting/threatening NPCs and refusing the help is fellow party members. He always role plays a rogue who only looks out for himself and no one else. He wants to be evil, but our campaign is based on heroism, so he reluctantly changed his alignment as per the DM's instructions.
We were tracking a group of rat-men back to their lair to rescue a woman's kidnapped man and child when we came upon a man dressed in full armor claiming to be a paladin guarding a holy shrine. The rogue and the wizard immediatly asked the paladin to give up his expensive armor and weapons so they could sell them. The paladin was obviously taken aback, as we are all very young and we immediatly tried to mug him. Imagine how you would feel if you had been charged with a holy duty and a group of teenagers tried to mug you!
When he refused, the rogue insulted him and told him to let them see the holy shrine in proof that he was really a paladin, and the paladin replies that he doesn't take orders from foolish children. The rogue takes offense and charges forward. Then, to my outrage, the cleric, who is supposed to be a disciplined member of the holy church, joins him! Then the wizard! Only the ranger (who's player is absent and is being controlled by the DM), the halfing rogue, and I remain. I tell the rogue in real-life that he's disrupting the adventure and acting incredibly immature. He replies by mimicking me and stating that "he just wants to get to an encounter, he doesn't care who he's fighting!"
Let's just say that the paladin turned out to be a rat man who was using illusion magic to disguise himself, had 20 of his minions capture the cleric and rogue, and then we had to rescue the idiots which led to about 40 of them overwhelming us! The party except for the halfing rogue turned against me saying that if I had helped originally we might have won! They completely ignored me when I reminded them that they had thought it was a real paladin and had been trying to MUG him! They say that the ends justify the means.
They openly admit that they think an evil adventure in which they get to attack total strangers and rob them blind would appeal to them much more! How am I supposed to deal with this? (The DM the whole time tries to get us to work together, but other than that he doesn't do much besides tell the reckless players that in the future they should find out who they're fighting before rushing in)
Sorry for ranting, but I really need some advice. I also forgot to mention that the cleric and rogue say that since they were the ones who charged and successfully made the "discovery" that it was an illusion (again, they were just after his valuables) that they should be the only ones to get any loot and the rest of us get nothing. We are currently escaping from the dungeon the rat-men threw us into and are kind of working together again, though I fear another argument is inevitable; every character the dwarf rogue ever creates is prejudice against humans, making it impossible for me to play them (even though I really like them in DnD) and when we found the woman's family trapped in the prison with us, he tried to beat them up because they told him to "keep it down or they'll hear us and punish us" and "he doesn't take orders from humans".
His character is extremely volatile and is driving me crazy.
Talk to the DM. If my hunch is correct, then you and the DM should talk to the other players and make the ultimatum of either cutting out the crap or the "game" is over while you and the DM start a new game with new players. The DM having an ally should help overcome the incapability or unwillingness to confront the others. If my hunch is incorrect, then quit. The DM is on the other players' side after all. You cannot win. They will insist on continuing to play out their crazy fantasies, and you will not have your heroic fun.
It's the unfortunate reality. The other players are Real Jerks. Real Jerks need to be smacked silly into behaving. It's a meta-game problem that can only be solved by meta-game. If the Real Jerks will not behave, then you must go because you will not have fun. Being Real Jerks, they will call you names such as whiny baby and criticize you in future game sessions they have. It's just how Real Jerks are.
My friend who is the dwarf rogue is awesome in most ways but is always ridiculous when he role plays in DND, insulting/threatening NPCs and refusing the help is fellow party members. He always role plays a rogue who only looks out for himself and no one else. He wants to be evil, but our campaign is based on heroism, so he reluctantly changed his alignment as per the DM's instructions.
(sigh)
The rogue's player didn't change the PC's alignment; he just wrote something different on his character sheet. This is a textbook example of a player who wants to play an "evil" character as an excuse to be stupid and violent in game, without realizing that "I'm just roleplaying my character!" is not a good excuse for things like, e.g., mugging a paladin for his armor.
There are several failures that lead to this (extremely common, at least judging from the forums) issue, but the core problem is that the dwarf rogue's player has a history of being an immature jerk in-game. You can, and should, pull him aside privately and non-confrontationally; let him know that his fun is keeping you from enjoying the game, and ask him if there's a way you two could compromise--maybe working together to build a pair of closely-linked characters who have story reasons to back each other up.
Be prepared, however, for him to say no, and possibly even be offended: he apparently enjoys being an R-rated Snidely Whiplash, and from his perspective you're the one interfering with his good time. The only firm solution is to accept that he's going to be an immature jerk, and either find a new group or swallow your frustration and keep playing with your close friends.
Perhaps you should have had your character realize that he had fallen in with the wrong crowd and just walked away from the scene leaving them to be caught by the rat-men... of course, then you'd have to tell the poor woman that you couldn't save her man and child...
Play your character, let them play theirs. If they get caught or killed then Oh well. Move on with the session and play the game while they reroll characters.
.(ALERT: This is passive-aggressive behavior and typically not how you should resolve issues in a group. ALERT END)
If one of my party members started beating your potential allies/random innocent people I would stop him forceably. That would be playing out your alignment. The door swings both ways you see, two can play at this game
.Actually, I agree with the above posts that encourage you to talk to your fellow player. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
But when the worst happens kill him.
Even if the said "good" Cleric survived his attack, his diety would be so outraged by his display of evil to attack a Paladin (paragon of good and emmesarry of the diety on earth etc etc) that his clerical powers would be instantly stripped of him, loosing all spells and class powers etc, right then and there.
The point being of course, that this typically ends any problems with this kind of playstyle. The players will either leave (and good ridance) or they will quickly smarten up. This seems harsh, but in most cases where players behave like this, it is because the DM allows it and doesn't show them consequences, and typically they get more and more outlandish the longer it is allowed. It is the invironment that is enabling this behavior.
DMs should learn to teach the Players right off the bat that there are consequences for their actions, just like in real life. If I was the DM the PCs who were so arrogant enough to charge and attack that Paladin to rob him would have been summarily killed by the paladin. (as a DM I would have made him a real Paladin, added a few more levels and given him a bad ass magic weapon, just to make sure he could and would kill them)
Yeah, that's one of the problems I alluded to. In my opinion, the DM messed up by altering the encounter when the rogue attacked. An analogous situation in real life might be a group of friends seeing a priest walking down the sidewalk--big guy, looks like he could handle himself, but wearing a suit and a Roman collar.
One friend says "Hey, guy. I'm going to need all your money." When the priest understandably refuses, the friend starts hitting him, and then the other friends join in. One guy stands back, horrified, and says "No way am I helping! This is awful!"
If it turns out that the priest was really an escaped convict, that turns the greedy, evil morons into the heroes, and makes the one non-moron look foolish. As the DM, that's (hopefully) not the situation you want: instead, you go ahead and make the priest an ex-boxer, who efficiently knocks out the morons. That way the morons start to get the idea that actions have consequences, even in the game...
Ofcourse this situation could have been that the DM had planned the Paladin to be a rat illusionist all along and the players simply revealing the truth in a way the DM hadn't expected but I take from what you have said that simmilar things have happened before and that even if that was the case this time it doesn't change the problem.
If someone at the table said, "You get no lootz bcuz I'm the awesome!"...
...I'd simply say, "No." If he gets pissy and irate, sit there blank faced and wait for his temper tantrum to subside, then say, "Can we game now?"
Don't get drawn into arguments, and don't bicker. If his PC starts giving you a hard time "In Character", have your PC draw his weapon and say, "You're done insulting me." Hold some dice in your hand, and let the DM know you have readied action X if the Dwarf keeps acting obnoxious.
If it comes to it, fight and kill the PC. In my experience, though, people can and will act obnoxious until someone calls them on it...but only if you back up your threats. Be prepared to roll a new character or to deal with out of character backlash from this guy.
Even if the said "good" Cleric survived his attack, his diety would be so outraged by his display of evil to attack a Paladin (paragon of good and emmesarry of the diety on earth etc etc) that his clerical powers would be instantly stripped of him, loosing all spells and class powers etc, right then and there.
As a side note, that doesn't happen in 4e (since the OP references 'beastmaster ranger', that means he's playing 4e). Once the powers are yours, they're yours.
Anyway, going back to the issue at hand ...
To the above poster who said that these guys are just using D&D to act out sociopathic fantasies, I'm inclined to agree. You don't fit in this group, so you should probably bail. As another side note, though, I'll mention that you didn't *have* to rescue the rest of the party. Even though it turned out that Paladin wasn't a Paladin (btw, did the DM call for insight checks against the rat-man's bluff?), the fact that they were more than willing to mug a total stranger for his stuff would be sufficient evidence for me to realize 'these are not people whose lives are worth saving'. There's some 'consequences for your actions' right there.
I would be sorely tempted to ask the DM if the paladin was supposed to be a rat-guy from the get-go or not, just to satisfy my curiosity.
The rogue is a Steve and the group are going along with it.
You could try talking frankly about it, but you might have to put up with it or find another group.
PtM
The fact that you seem to have gamed with this player before and he always plays the same "type" means this can't be a new problem. If it isn't, then really its a self-inflicted wound. You chose to play with this player knowing what they're like.
If this is a new problem though, which it could very well be because gamers like this are a lot like children. When confronted with a new authority figure some children need to push boundaries and see what they can get away with. If that's the case then the DM needs to talk to the player and outline what is and what is not acceptable.
assuming you think the players are fine and the dm is doing a good job:
Start play your character. What does your PC ingame believe was the reason they attacked the paladin ? Maybe they got a feeling that there was something wrong, and now they are mad at you for a good reason ? How does your character feel about being tricked by an evil ratman-illusionist ?
Its always more easy to think others are playing there role wrong / a bad role, because the "Roleplay" for your own char gets disrupted by them. Roleplay it out, and if someone dies, leaves the group or have to reroll .... then be it. Of course, if you dont have fun while doing it, or it gets annoying after a time, then you have to talk to the other players or maybe search fo a new group.
The dwarf's not "evil", he's "stupid" with limited (or missing) impulse control.
I believe that this is referred to as "chaotic stupid".
- Convince everyone to blow it off, rebuild the characters and just play an evil campaign. Pick up a nice, solid, brutish goliath rageblood and let go of your own impulse control. Of course, that also means being willing to thump your own party members if they step across the line with *you*, but ignore it if they're just tormenting NPCs. Who cares about those schlubs? It sounds like somethign that most of the other players would have fun with,a nd you might enjoy the contrast too.
- Get a DM who's willing to do what it takes to bring the players in line (ie, the aforementioned "make the paladin badass" technique). See if you can moderate his behavior that way.
- split the difference. Play an evil campaign, as before, but play a scary, scheming evil guy, who has *plans*. When the rogue-player is going to do something that interferes with these plans, reign him in yourself (though you'd better be sure that you have plenty with which to back up your threats). Of course, there will be plenty of nameless NPCs that your character won't care about ("Oh, them? Yeah. They're fine. Have fun with them") but it'll at least start working in the idea that there is a category of NPC that ought to be left be (at least for a little while). Of course, your character should also be doign something for his character (possibly throwing in a few schemes on the side to benefit his character's long-term game goals) to make it more to the point where his character accepts it as the price of doing business, rather than being tempted to stick a knife in your character's ribs.
- Talk with the guy offline, and away from the game. You said he's a cool guy and a friend. Note that there's some conflict between you, and that you'd rather there not be. Ask him why he plays the way he does - what he gets out of it. Then figure out if there's a way to fit that into a campaign in a way that works. If he just likes playing crazy-evil, possibly his character could be bound by some good god. Think Belkar, with the Mark of Justice, in Order of the Stick. That would let him have his crazy-evil character, but still be somewhat restrained within the bounds of campaign, and potentially someone who could interact with the other players appropriately. If he cares about the being able to do what he wants, but doesn't care about the crazy so much, maybe have him play a stealthy evil character - who doesn't want the party to *know* that he's being evil (for whatever reason) but keeps doign evil behind their backs. Note that blaming him and getting upset at him and whatnot are all really quite counterproductive to this process. The objective is to figure out a playstyle that will let the two of you (and the rest of the party) play together and enjoy yourselves in game, not to assign fault.
Even if the said "good" Cleric survived his attack, his diety would be so outraged by his display of evil to attack a Paladin (paragon of good and emmesarry of the diety on earth etc etc) that his clerical powers would be instantly stripped of him, loosing all spells and class powers etc, right then and there.
As a side note, that doesn't happen in 4e (since the OP references 'beastmaster ranger', that means he's playing 4e). Once the powers are yours, they're yours.
Nothing in 4th edition stops the deity in question from evoking a form of punishment upon it's followers that stray so grieviously. Such as sending an army of angels to smite them or a bolt of lightning from the sky.
And although it is not an automatic mechanic like it was in 3.5 to loose one's powers if they erred, there is nothing stating that a deity cannot so curse a follower either. In older edditions it was automatic, even if done unitentionally, and without judgment by the diety, even if done under the influence of a charm type spell. In forth edition it would be up to the deity in question to intervene dirrectly.
Your best bet might just be to play an evil campaign, it's not as hard to do as you would think.
The key to making a evil party fun and working, is coming up with a reason why you need each other, once you have that you can just sit back and watch the Saturday morning cartoon that is a evil party in action.
The DM can rule the player Distracted for not acting in lines with his written down alignment. This is a core rule written in a side bar in the DMG2, around page 15 I think. It can range from a slap on the wrist (can't use action points) to almost crippling penalties (can't heal, -2 to all saves, grants combat advantage, all of the above, etc).
Don't have the book in front of me but hopefully someone can get you the exact language and page reference.