Take our last session for example... i missed the previous one (We have it setup where it's easy for people to miss- they just go "ethereal" and don't take part in anything that session) - the session i missed was TPK (yay for missing that session). The GM restarted them at level 2 (since my and my wife's surviving characters are level 2 and 3).
So.. here we are with me on my level 3 wizard, my wife's level 2 druid, the curmudgeons level 2 druid, her boyfriend's level 2 combatant-of-some-type-i-don't-recall (plain old fighter i think) and our other player who's new character's class i forget.
We're in a small town that has been being raided by zombies, we've been hired by a merchant to protect/repair his house. That night a zombie raid comes through and the part that came to us we dealt with easily.. all was well and done - next day we go to investigate where the zombies came from... we eventually end up in an old crypt.... the guy-who's-class i can't remember got seperated from us for a minute (investigating a secret door - it went outside) when we get into combat - he's outside hearing range and not on LOS so he's effectively out of the fight.
leaving us with
1 warrior (lvl2)
2 druids (lvl2) + their pets (my wife has a riding dog, and the curmudgeon has a useless bird that didn't even come down in the crypt with us)
1 wizard (lvl3)
we open a sarcophagus... find a mummy inside.. my wife tries to take off it's gold mask... had to fort save (made it) and got off the mask
mummy wakes up
wife drops mask
i mage armor myself, and being an elf i take a shot with my bow.. and next round put it up
warrior starts going toe to toe with the zombie
other druid does i-don't-remember-what
my wife and her dog try to attack
i charge my hand with shocking grasp and deliver it succesfully
it goes on a few rounds like this - me expending two shocking grasps and a lesser orb of electricity - the warrior starts hiding behind my wife's riding dog! (WTF! dwarf you have like... 29 HP max! this isn't typical of this guy but it was... character-consistent... he wasn't doing shite and the dog was landing hits)
then the curmudgeon who is standing back shilleghs (sp?) her quarter staff... we continue with that round
next round... as i am the one of the two people in a position to manipulate the minitures on our grid I say "I assume you want to step up and attack, yes?" to her when it's the curmudgeons turn she's like "nope! i do nothing!" (obviously being flippiant because how dare i deduce what her actions were going to be from her previous ones and ask her to make sure i was right so i could move her miniture for her)
so basically it ends up with only me (3 wizard) and my wife (2 druid) fighting A ZOMBIE
we win.... in the process wife gets zombie rot and dies.... great
my wife isn't ****** about the zombie rot death... she (and I) are ****** at the curmudgeons behavior
basically she's always causing friction in the group and just being *****y....
how do I deal with this player?!
if i was the DM i would have had the zombie attack her (even though it would have drawn an AoO to do so) when she said "i do nothing!" and can easily justify it "intelligent monster attacks the one that looks weak and intimidated" and even would have give him bonus to his attacks because she was cowering.
but as another player in the group how do i deal with her in a fashion that won't offend the other players and won't ruin my play session.
if i was the DM i would have had the zombie attack her (even though it would have drawn an AoO to do so) when she said "i do nothing!" and can easily justify it "intelligent monster attacks the one that looks weak and intimidated" and even would have give him bonus to his attacks because she was cowering.
but as another player in the group how do i deal with her in a fashion that won't offend the other players and won't ruin my play session.
Nope. Attacking your wife made more sense in character. Remember, she tried to grave rob the mummy.
Plus, revenge never solves anything (in real life): just perpetuates the cycle.
#1: you can deal with issue. Same as using a drug to cure a symptom.
Stop trying to figure out her actions. She may be a person who dislikes others knowing her future stuff (an existentist in philosophical terms). Stop doing that (won't be easy; some us like feeling helpful or predicting stuff).
Let her do it when she wants to. Don't be so proactive with her; be reactive:
Don't say, " I assume you want to step up and attack, yes?""
Say: "May I move your minature since I'm closer? Just tell me what you want to do."
Let her feel she is in full control: that might be issue, she loses control when you know what she will do/move her pieces for her.
She might still do frustrating things, but that might be her character.
She seems to be a 90% roleplaying/10% optimizing. Which is ironic since Druids are a pretty strong class.
#2: Deal with problem. This is treating the actual sickness:
This is the harder one. Ask her some time but not in a accusatory tone (I know you might not think you are, but it is easy to go there).
"Why did you do nothing: When I asked what you were going to do? I was just trying to help. When that happens you make me frustrated. Like you did nothing just to spite me. What have I done?"
You don't want her to be one the defensive. You have to make it about you and your feelings (people, women included, respond better when you aren't being on offensive to them).
Not sure what she will say. Maybe she feels you are too pushy (sometimes signals get crossed even if you aren't trying to be that way).
Maybe, she wasn't thinking of you. She just thought her character would be frightened in that situation (who knows, Mummies can be scary).
It may not be heroic, but eh, sometimes people play un-heroic stuff anyways.
she doesn't roleplay for crap btw... her behavior is in character with-her-real-life presonality all her characters have the same personality: her's.
I am probably just going to shift my player's perception of her and behavior toward.. considering the druid was my IRL wife I can reasonably say that my wizard considered them a good friend and therefore has a very low opinion of the curmudgeon's character, blaming her for the death of a comrade through her cowardice.
basically over time i'll have my character trust her less and less, treat her more and more gruffy, and eventually stop considering her an asset to the group at all to the point he will not go out of his way to help her.
She just stood there and let your friend die after a history of being a pain in the ass? Character alignments please?
she let my wife's character die
and her "being a pain in the ass" is her IRL personality
oh.. and we're all good-aligned characters.. she's NG i believe (being a druid and all)
her actions don't constitute an alignment change.. just cowardice
she let my wife's character die
and her "being a pain in the ass" is her IRL personality
oh.. and we're all good-aligned characters.. she's NG i believe (being a druid and all)
her actions don't constitute an alignment change.. just cowardice
Ok, you're a good aligned character. No stabbing her in her sleep. Still, he'd definitely be annoyed about it. And if this is a pattern, it could easily be considered the last straw.
So here's what you do.
Next time you are in a town, you inform the party it is time to move on. You 'forget' to notify the problem character of this, therefore they are left behind. When inevitably called on it, point out the IC motivations for this act, and that OOC it's a problem. Problem player makes a new character. If the same repeat, or just refuse to accept them in the first place. If not leave her be. Either way problem solved.
She just contributed by her inaction.
What I would do on game is this:
Leave the dungeon.
Go outside. Breathe the fresh air. Draw my sword.
Kill her bird.
Tell her, IC "That's for my wife. You're next. Step up to combat, or into the grave I'll dig for you."
It's definitely possible this is a crime of passion in-character reaction.
From there you can argue her bird vs. your wife. or
Her bird didn't do anything to help, either.
Or, IC to her boyfriend's PC "Why do we even have her here, if she's not gonna fight?" But say it as if people got to guess IC / OOC, and don't distinguish the difference.
If people ask you to clarify, Say "I said what I said. It is what it is."
You respect for your friend is allowing you to give her extra rope / allow things that she doesn't deserve.
Or you IC , move for her to be ejected from the party, since she "could have helped, and didn't even try, and your wife died."
It might end up in your Being slain by whoever, for being a dick. But the point will have been made.
You are mad because the player you have had problems with in the past let your wife's character die, or at least didn't help.
Maybe I read wrong, but to your character, your wife's character is just another druid you've been adventuring with. Not all that much reason to get so personally upset -- an adventurer can handle themselves, this is what they signed up for.
You seem clearly most perturbed that the other woman let your wife's character get killed, not that some newbie druid let another druid die.
This may not be any use, but you should try working out the issues you have out of character rather than trying to come up with in-character reasons why your wizard will now hate the druid to get back at her. I mean, you just planned out that you will grow to dislike the druid more and more over time.
It's quite likely some members of the play group cannot handle whatever sort of campaign is being run. I don't think you are all on the same page as to what kind of game you want to be in, especially if you don't like each other to begin with.
Maybe I read wrong, but to your character, your wife's character is just another druid you've been adventuring with. Not all that much reason to get so personally upset -- an adventurer can handle themselves, this is what they signed up for.
Even if the characters were just friends, getting angry because one of the members did nothing and it resulted in their death is still a very human reaction. Or are you suggesting that adventurers do not have feelings?
as for the druid...i have never ever got along well with druids (i prefer to burn the wooden fort and half the forest down rather than the harder (and longer) way). see if you can sort out your differences or get tough on her.
Is she a pain in other social situations?
I ask because if not, she may in fact only be playing because her SO is, and basically doesn't like it. In this case there is nothing you can do but pull her aside and say: "Look, you don't want to be here, it's pretty obvious you don't want to be here, you just want to be with X. This is cool, but you're not having fun and you are spoiling ours. X isn't going to stop just from you being an ass, it's just going to annoy everyone and won't do your relationship any good. If you really want to keep him, either let him come alone or kick the attitude, because this is going to just put a strain on everyone, and no-one will thank you however it falls in the end."
If so, well then there are a number of reasons she might be doing this - she could be used to being #1 centre of attention, she may not like being told what to do etc. Easiest way of defusing the situation then is to give a little: NEVER assume what she's going to do, never try to push her. You could try appealing to her for help on occasion, making it clear that she is the one in control. If she improves a little, great. If she uses this to jerk your chains, you know she's always going to be an ass.
Talk to the boyfriend, tell him to get her in line or they're both uninvited. Seriously, if her RL personality is "pain in the ass", why would you hang out with her at all, let alone RP with her?
And why would he? :P
Talk to the boyfriend, tell him to get her in line or they're both uninvited. Seriously, if her RL personality is "pain in the ass", why would you hang out with her at all, let alone RP with her?
i'm not the dm, he's a good player, and he's been playing with this group a LOT longer than me
I am probably just going to shift my player's perception of her and behavior toward.. considering the druid was my IRL wife I can reasonably say that my wizard considered them a good friend
Uh, why does the fact that the deceased druid is played by your IRL wife mean that in the game you have any more of a friendhip with her then any other party member? Thats called metagaming. If on the other hand you and your wife have been roleplaying a close friendship throughout the game thats different.
...and therefore has a very low opinion of the curmudgeon's character, blaming her for the death of a comrade through her cowardice.
Yep, you can certainly have your character view the curmudgeon as a coward. But remember, the player, herself, is not doing anything wrong with her character based on her alignment. She is primarily neutral and will look to her own welfare first.
...basically over time i'll have my character trust her less and less, treat her more and more gruffy, and eventually stop considering her an asset to the group at all to the point he will not go out of his way to help her.
Nothing wrong with that.
Even if the characters were just friends, getting angry because one of the members did nothing and it resulted in their death is still a very human reaction. Or are you suggesting that adventurers do not have feelings?
No, I think he was suggesting that using real life relationships to justify in-game feuds is a form of meta-gaming. The OP didn't say, his character was going to become bitter because of the long in-game relationship his wizard shared with the druid. He specifically stated it was because IRL the druid's player was his wife.
IC: If there's any RP in your group, your character could make a stink about it. Either be sorrowful or blame the death entirely on the cmgn.'s character. But since you have IRL irritation this approach might make things go to far (or the cmgn. might perceive it that way). It might just be better to drop the whole thing.
IRL: Live with it dood, people complain about much worse. You can mention it and see if the cmgn. will listen. It's worth a shot but gl with that. Don't make a big stink about it; you'll make a big problem out of a small one. Move on.
IC: If there's any RP in your group, your character could make a stink about it. Either be sorrowful or blame the death entirely on the cmgn.'s character. But since you have IRL irritation this approach might make things go to far (or the cmgn. might perceive it that way). It might just be better to drop the whole thing.
With respect, I think this is a poor approach - because it is simply allowing someone to make your hobby miserable for no other reason than they can.
To the OP:
My advice is to bring it up, both you and your wife. Say that you are not interested in Party Killing, and that her behaviour is making the game less fun. This is her chance to respond. She will probably be unreasonable and spiteful, but if you raise the subject calmly then being nasty is her move.
Also explain to the other players that you are struggling to see reasons why your wizard would want to travel/adventure someone who he saw abandon a comrade to die. Again, this is a chance for the curmudgeon to defend her actions.
At the very least, this will get the subject open to discussion, because I imagine this is an ongoing problem not being addressed.
With respect, I think this is a poor approach - because it is simply allowing someone to make your hobby miserable for no other reason than they can.
To the OP:
My advice is to bring it up, both you and your wife. Say that you are not interested in Party Killing...
Technically, she did not engage in party killing. The DM killed the druid via his zombie.
Again, this is a chance for the curmudgeon to defend her actions.
She is a neutral character who feared for her own life. Thats a valid explanation.
At the very least, this will get the subject open to discussion, because I imagine this is an ongoing problem not being addressed.
Tell you DM you want to play in a party with only good alignments.
I thought the druid was NG. And this is a problem independent of her alignment. Only yours matters as it determines what counter actions are feasible and which they likely wouldn't consider.
Not quite.
Actions determine alignments, not the other way around. The Lawful Goodliest person on the face of the planet can commit murder if properly motivated. If he does so repeatedly (or with other evil actions), he will fail to be Good, but a single action does not cause an alignment shift. "Because I'm XX Alignment" does not stop a character from acting.
But, at any rate, this is probably an above-board issue, and should be covered above-board.
And why would he? :P
Some guys can't help but be lead around by their
I would deal with the situation in game.
Basicly... your characters adventure together. You face dangerous and deadly situations ALL the time... both becuase it's right and good, and because you stand to reap huge rewards for the risks you take. You need to be able to count on each other, and have each others backs... otherwise you will all die.
At a critical moment... you faced an evil undead thing... and you were already one man down. In the face of this evil... the character in question (regardless of her players motives) did nothing. She stood still and did nothing... and now, one of your fellowship is dead. She is dead... and it's very likely that had this Druid not failed to stand up to the evil, she would NOT be.
It is COMPLETLY approprate for your character to bring this up... and to say that the risks you take are too great to not be able to trust the people you are with. Your character would be within his rights to ask her to leave... and say that he simply can not adventure with someone he can not trust when things get dangerous. Ask for a vote of the other characters...
...if they are roleplaying their characters at ALL, it would be hard for them to dissagree with this rational.
i'm not the dm, he's a good player, and he's been playing with this group a LOT longer than me
Then talk to the DM and the jackass with a masochist streak. Hell, talk to the entire group (minus her because I know this type of person and she'll only cause more issues when trying to discuss her) and see if you're the odd man out or if they're all sick of her antics. If everyone is tired of her ruining the game, it's her or the entire group. If you're the odd man out, you're either gaming with a bunch of idiots or a bunch of people who enjoy pain.
Also, the group I play in regularly has had 2 couples not let back in. Both couples had a guy who was a good RPer, and the girl seemed only interested in causing issues. It's unfortunate for the guy, but sometimes the whip is long and covered in barbs.
Technically, she did not engage in party killing. The DM killed the druid via his zombie.
Only technically. Deliberately abandoning party members at critical moments amounts to the same thing.
She is a neutral character who feared for her own life. Thats a valid explanation.
A character who panics and leaves companions to die is not a suitable person to adventure with or otherwise trust with your life.
Remember, IC the wizard has been sharing the rewards he risks his life for with this person - who has not been sharing the risks. Why give that up for someone you cannot trust to help you in a crisis (like combat).
Tell you DM you want to play in a party with only good alignments.
Alignment has nothing to do with it. Playing in a party without deliberate troublemakers would be more accurate.
Alignment has nothing to do with it. Playing in a party without deliberate troublemakers would be more accurate.
Exactly. Even an evil character understands the desire to preserve his or her assets, and therefore take steps to ensure allies do not die.
Exactly. Even an evil character understands the desire to preserve his or her assets, and therefore take steps to ensure allies do not die.
Even an Evil character recognises that outnumbering your enemy only helps if your numbers are actually fighting. ;)
Anyone who is a liability who refuses to aid the party is not entitled to shares of loot, XP, or anything else which comes out of being a party member.
Even an Evil character recognises that outnumbering your enemy only helps if your numbers are actually fighting. ;)
Anyone who is a liability who refuses to aid the party is not entitled to shares of loot, XP, or anything else which comes out of being a party member.
Indeed. :P
Is she a pain in other social situations?
I ask because if not, she may in fact only be playing because her SO is, and basically doesn't like it.
And she comes along because he isn't allowed to do anything that doesn't involve her.
Get him laid by someone else, and show her the video. It's that simple.
And she comes along because he isn't allowed to do anything that doesn't involve her.
Get him laid by someone else, and show her the video. It's that simple.
Ah, the kind of problem that may require the assistance of a skilled professional.
Ah, the kind of problem that may require the assistance of a skilled professional.
If it were me, I'd be tempted to make it a personal mission to get him laid just to thwart the damn overabundant manipulative bastards that will prey on anyone that looks weak. Kinda like how blood draws sharks for miles. :P
Get him laid by someone else, and show her the video. It's that simple.
victory!
snip...
Take our last session for example... i missed the previous one (We have it setup where it's easy for people to miss- they just go "ethereal" and don't take part in anything that session) - the session i missed was TPK (yay for missing that session). The GM restarted them at level 2 (since my and my wife's surviving characters are level 2 and 3).
So.. here we are with me on my level 3 wizard, my wife's level 2 druid, the curmudgeons level 2 druid, her boyfriend's level 2 combatant-of-some-type-i-don't-recall (plain old fighter i think) and our other player who's new character's class i forget.
snip...
I feel your pain on the whole issue but the above section intrigues me.
Unless i counted wrong your party contains 6 players.
You mentioned the session you and your wife missed resulted in a party wipe.
Did you ever establish what happened. I mean 4 players can do alot unless the GM is putting nasty encounters they cant handle.I have a weird feeling it may have been brought on by the cmdg.
These sort of things should be investigated so can probably see a pattern of behaviour. If it is so then its ingame evidence that the adventurer is not pulling his weight regardless of his/her allignment and you can deal with ingame sanctions on loot and monetary awards. Just tell her the group can not afford to pay her overtime for sleeping on the job.
If you cant find sensible ways to resolve the situation then you may have to result into more bizzare tactical manuevers.
Block a doorway so she can not walk back through unless you allow it. The game assumes allies give permission for things like moving through an allied square but if you say you dont allow anyone to run back then she wont be able to pull back. Just yell out a battle cry "Not one step backwards comarades"
or something like that These can work if its a gamer problem and she is trying out a new allignment playstyle. If she is not a gamer and she is only there for the 'clingy' (aka "under the thumb") supervision of her SO then the problem is beyond me and may require a marriage councilor or some buyback scheme for the guy's family jewelery :D
Alignment has nothing to do with it. Playing in a party without deliberate troublemakers would be more accurate.
Wrong, if your going to accuse her of being a bad roleplayer, alignment has a lot to do with it. Her character acted in a manner that was self serving, thats within her character's ethics. Was it smart, probably not but in the heat of combat people act in accordance with their values. Perhaps her character thought that as a group you were all doomed so she hung back to give herself the option to flee. The point is, smart or not, it's within her character's alignment to act in such a manner.
Now your character is totally within his rights to hold her character accountable for her cowardice. It makes perfect IC sense. But OOC dont be surprised when these things happen in a party that is not entirely composed of the core "Good" alignments.
Your options are, 1. Have the rest of the party IC sit her character down and explain that she either makes an effort to back the party or they will leave her behind. 2. Ask the player to start finding justification for her character to not act with cowardice (with neutral characters this should not be difficult for the reasons that have already been stated by yourself and Sunic) or simply to create a new character that is of good alignment.
It's understandable that she is causing problems and your right, something needs to be done to change this. To say, however, that she is not roleplaying her alignment correctly is wrong, neutral characters do on occasion act in cowardly self-serving ways. Now if she starts knifing party members in the back or stealing from the party, that would be rping wrong as those would be "evil" actions. Incidently, this is why many DMs place strict control on what alignments are allowed in their games.
Ignoring problem players, good =/= brave. The good aligned commoner is more likely to run away than stick around and fight some skeletons for example. Likewise, evil =/= cowardly.
A good D&D player, and a responsible PERSON, does not attempt to solve out-of-game problems with in-game petty revenge schemes. Anyone who stoops to that is making themselves every bit as much of a problem as the player they claim is the cause of it all.
#2:
People in real life don't read minds. How is the problem player going to change her behavior if YOU DON'T TELL HER THERE'S A PROBLEM? Okay, sure she should recognize she's being a witch - BUT SHE DOESN'T. Until you make that known to her you have no cause to complain that she's not trying to do better. You don't have to like this, but that's the way it IS.
You have two choices here. First is to say nothing to her. If you take this option you silently AGREE to tolerate her behavior and you have no right whatsoever to complain about it from that point forward.
Second is to speak with her about the problem:
"Say Brunnhilde, I have to tell you that I've noticed that you don't seem to be enjoying yourself as much as everyone else. Is there something that we other players have done that bothers you? Is it that you just don't want to be here at all? Is it just your CHARACTERS attitude? I only ask because if any of that's true then it's really spoiling MY enjoyment of the game - and I WANT to have fun here. If I'm wrong, well then I'd appreciate you helping ALL of us to figure out why it SEEMS that way so that we can all enjoy the game more."
No accusations. No personal attacks. This is not about HER - it's about YOU; about YOUR enjoyment of the game. And your enjoyment is increased if SHE has more fun.
Once you've done this; when you've COMMUNICATED the problem to her, and THEN her response is, "Get lost you whining, geek jackass," then you get to appeal to her boyfriend: "Mr. Milquetoaste, I'm sure you adore your girl and all but at the game she's being a pain. Nothing major, as I'm sure you've noticed, but she doesn't seem to be enjoying being here and we sense a bad attitude that extends from her to her characters in-game. We would be appreciative if you could help us find out why she acts so witchy and clear the air."
Then you talk to the DM: "Mr/Mrs DM, she's being a pain. We've talked to her about it but it's done no good. It's now your responsibility to help establish a proper rapport among the players." The DM then gets to have the same conversations with her that you've already had. The difference being that if she's STILL being a witch at that point then the DM not only has the right, but the responsibility to kick her to the curb. Oh it should be done as politely as possible but it should still be done. "Brunnhilde, you're invited not to attend until such time as you actually want to enjoy the game and play well with others."
In short, this is a COMMUNICATION issue and you need to talk to HER about it as the first step. Hell is other people, but D&D IS a social game and real-life social issues will occasionally arise that must be dealt with IN real life.
Again, it is not a problem of alignments. It is a problem of bad players. She could have 'Stick Up Ass Good' (As in Normal Good < Exalted Good < Stick Up Ass Good) on her sheet, and still behave that way.
Ignoring problem players, good =/= brave. The good aligned commoner is more likely to run away than stick around and fight some skeletons for example. Likewise, evil =/= cowardly.
If her character had been overcome with panic and fled, then you are right, even Lawful Good characters have moments of weakness. But to simply hang back until she could decide whether to join in or flee is a calculated move. The core "good" alignments do not act in such a self serving manner. A good example of how neutral can and does act in this manner would be Han Solo in Star Wars. He is admittedly a guy who looks out for number 1, himself. Sure, he shows tendencies toward good, hence he would be Neutral Good, but up until meeting Luke he has always made sure that if noone else came out alive, he would. Now the rest of the characters know he is an opportunist, they have come to accept it even though it often angers them (when he announces he ain't attacking the Death Star with the rest of them). Still when he does come back to save Luke in the end, it's an exception to the rule, hence everyone being surprised because they know it's not in his nature to perform such an act of heroism. But if he continually acted outside his percieved manner, then others would (and eventually they do) come to no longer see him as purely an opportunist (his alignment would have essentially changed).
I know many people, especially those looking forward to 4th edition do not like the alignments (thats a whole different debate), but if they are being used then understand that neutrals will on occasion act in calculated ways to save themselves.
So the good guy has to always charge in?
He has to act in a calculated manner to try and save his party members. If you see that as "just charging in" thats your strategy. If you want to play a character that can have the option of just acting in regard to his own self interest, play a neutral character. They are available for a reason.;)
#1:
... Okay, sure she should recognize she's being a witch ...
... acts so witchy ...
... if she's STILL being a witch ...
... some of us who practice Wicca would find the use of 'witch' as a term of unpleasant behaviour offensive. I know it's in common usage in some parts and I'm sure you don't intend any offence whatsoever, so I thought I'd just say that I treat the label 'Witch' as a term of respect.
You are right on the nail about how to deal with the problem in a non-confrontational, non-blame-apportioning way, which is the absolutely best way to deal with it. If it all goes pear-shaped from there, it makes it very clear who has the problem and who is acting in a mature, responsible fashion.
Wrong, if your going to accuse her of being a bad roleplayer, alignment has a lot to do with it. Her character acted in a manner that was self serving, thats within her character's ethics. Was it smart, probably not but in the heat of combat people act in accordance with their values. Perhaps her character thought that as a group you were all doomed so she hung back to give herself the option to flee. The point is, smart or not, it's within her character's alignment to act in such a manner.
Now your character is totally within his rights to hold her character accountable for her cowardice. It makes perfect IC sense. But OOC dont be surprised when these things happen in a party that is not entirely composed of the core "Good" alignments.
Your options are, 1. Have the rest of the party IC sit her character down and explain that she either makes an effort to back the party or they will leave her behind. 2. Ask the player to start finding justification for her character to not act with cowardice (with neutral characters this should not be difficult for the reasons that have already been stated by yourself and Sunic) or simply to create a new character that is of good alignment.
It's understandable that she is causing problems and your right, something needs to be done to change this. To say, however, that she is not roleplaying her alignment correctly is wrong, neutral characters do on occasion act in cowardly self-serving ways. Now if she starts knifing party members in the back or stealing from the party, that would be rping wrong as those would be "evil" actions. Incidently, this is why many DMs place strict control on what alignments are allowed in their games.
*scrolls down to find original post*
To the OP:
My advice is to bring it up, both you and your wife. Say that you are not interested in Party Killing, and that her behaviour is making the game less fun. This is her chance to respond. She will probably be unreasonable and spiteful, but if you raise the subject calmly then being nasty is her move.
Also explain to the other players that you are struggling to see reasons why your wizard would want to travel/adventure someone who he saw abandon a comrade to die. Again, this is a chance for the curmudgeon to defend her actions.
At the very least, this will get the subject open to discussion, because I imagine this is an ongoing problem not being addressed.
With all due respect, I don't see anything to do with alignment. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Her character acted in a way that was pointlessly detrimental to the rest of the party. We can say this is self-serving, but honestly, I don't care what this has to do with alignment.
We agree on the points I was making and solutions suggested, let us please not make this into an alignment debate because I am really not interested. Thank you.
*scrolls down to find original post*
With all due respect, I don't see anything to do with alignment. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Her character acted in a way that was pointlessly detrimental to the rest of the party. We can say this is self-serving, but honestly, I don't care what this has to do with alignment.
We agree on the points I was making and solutions suggested, let us please not make this into an alignment debate because I am really not interested. Thank you.
You keep talking about her "character" acting in a wrong fashion yet you discount alignment. Her "character" acted in accordance with her alignment. If you want to say the "player" acted in a manner that was detrimental to play then say the "player", that would make more sense, otherwise alignment does play into this.
You keep talking about her "character" acting in a wrong fashion yet you discount alignment. Her "character" acted in accordance with her alignment. If you want to say the "player" acted in a manner that was detrimental to play then say the "player", that would make more sense, otherwise alignment does play into this.
I think I meant player. :embarrass Then again, this is one of those situations where the behaviour is both OOC & IC bad for an adventurer.
He character froze up and a critical moment, and as a direct result of her inaction, a member of their party has died. If he character can't 'hack it'... why would the others in her party want to adventure with her?
Basicly... confront her character IN game about it. Say 'Why didn't you do anything? You just stood there and watched... and ___ died because of it. We have faced danger before... what was differant THIS time?'
This forces the player to explain her characters behavour... IN character. If she does not have a good explination (because the only reason she did it was the player was being petulant) then her character won't be able to answer well... and you and the others in the party can ask her to go her own way... for her and their safty... or you can lay the groundwork for it. Something like 'Well... what we do is very dangerious... and one of us has already paid the ultamte price for your inaction. If it happens again... we are done.'
It sounds like you don't have a good way to deal with the problem out of character. She is the other players girlfriend... we have ALL seen this sort of thing before, its unfortunte. If you can, talk to him privatly about it. Tell him you think she dosn't really want to play and is only showing up cuz she dosn't wanna be 'left out'. Ask him if he agrees that this is the case... and what might be a solution?
... some of us who practice Wicca would find the use of 'witch' as a term of unpleasant behaviour offensive.
No offense is intended but I make no apologies. I'd have used the "b-word" instead as that is the word I wanted to use as it seems the most accurately descriptive. However, the COC forces stupid euphamisms to be used.
No offense is intended but I make no apologies. I'd have used the "b-word" instead as that is the word I wanted to use as it seems the most accurately descriptive. However, the COC forces stupid euphamisms to be used.
No apology is necessary either, I'm aware no personal offence was intended, I just thought I'd mention it.
Treat her like you'd treat a team-mate or a co-worker. Personally, I'd sit her down with a cup of coffee and discuss the matter at hand. Try not to get an audience involved. Give her time to prepare this conversation, so she won't be surprised and has a chance to say everything she wants to say. Call her and say something like "Listen, I feel we have some personal issues that surface during our D&D game. Could we discuss those over a cup of coffee?"
This has nothing to do with D&D, except that D&D has been the setting on which the problem evolved. This is a matter of interpersonal behaviour, and it should be treated as such. Any solution involving D&D is a wrong one, since it doesn't address the actual issue. Either she's obnoxious, you experience her as obnoxious, or she just 'rubs you the wrong way'. Some people simply have bad chemistry. Either way, there's a problem that should be addressed, since you participate in the same group-activity time and time again.
Treat her like you'd treat a team-mate or a co-worker. Personally, I'd sit her down with a cup of coffee and discuss the matter at hand. Try not to get an audience involved. Give her time to prepare this conversation, so she won't be surprised and has a chance to say everything she wants to say. Call her and say something like "Listen, I feel we have some personal issues that surface during our D&D game. Could we discuss those over a cup of coffee?"
The girl in question is another players girlfriend and, outside of the D&D game, I get the impression the OP and her have NO other connection. Thus... metting with her alone to have coffee and disscuss their 'Game Relationship' might not be possible, or approrate.
The girl in question is another players girlfriend and, outside of the D&D game, I get the impression the OP and her have NO other connection. Thus... metting with her alone to have coffee and disscuss their 'Game Relationship' might not be possible, or approrate.
Why not? Because she might be under the impression he's trying to score, or because the boyfriend might be under the impression they have a relationship?
This is real life, not a soap opera. Since the OP is married, I assume most (if not all) people involved are adults. This is not a problem, merely an excuse to avoid a tough conversation.
Why not? Because she might be under the impression he's trying to score, or because the boyfriend might be under the impression they have a relationship?
This is real life, not a soap opera. Since the OP is married, I assume most (if not all) people involved are adults. This is not a problem, merely an excuse to avoid a tough conversation.
Do we really want to be arranging private meetings with people known to act in petulant and spiteful manners? If the OP offend her by daring to raise the subject at all, she could tell her boyfriend a pass was made at her. Said boyfriend is now torn between loyalty and trust towards his girlfriend or the OP.
No good outcome.
If you only know her at the gaming table, this is a matter for the gaming table. Discuss it reasonably and calmly, but in front of the whole group, so there is no sneaking about and skullduggery going on - and everyone knows what was said.
Like it or not. He's chosen to ally himself with this girl. It's not up to the OP to split that up, or choose. She's making it barely tolerable, and thus should be disinvited.
Because in the end, ignore the fact that she's hooked up with the buddy, what would you do? Boot her.
So boot her. Because the fact of their relationship has nothing to do with how or why the game was set up. He brought her in, I assume. It's his responsibility to take care of the mess she makes, socially, since she doesn't seem to want to do it herself. So she goes. If he does too, c'est la vie.
Like it or not, I think that's the way it is.
Good luck.
If you only know her at the gaming table, this is a matter for the gaming table. Discuss it reasonably and calmly, but in front of the whole group, so there is no sneaking about and skullduggery going on - and everyone knows what was said.
These are my thoughts as well... if the OP has zero contact with this woman outside of the scope of the game... little is to be gained but much risked by going outside the existing scope of the relationship to settle this issue.
she acted out of character, drastically, what are the normal consequences for metagaming?
Again, no, based on her character's alignment, her actions are not that out-of-character. As a player she is creating strife and thats a bad thing, but her neutral character could do what she did and still be in-character.
it goes on a few rounds like this - me expending two shocking grasps and a lesser orb of electricity - the warrior starts hiding behind my wife's riding dog! (WTF! dwarf you have like... 29 HP max! this isn't typical of this guy but it was... character-consistent... he wasn't doing shite and the dog was landing hits)
I think that you need to take a moment and re-evaluate what happened. Your wife's character didn't die just because the druid didn't get involved. Your meat shield didn't do anything either.
So you need to ask the question... Why was his inaction ok, but her inaction gets you steamed? Why doesn't he share equal blame in this matter?
You're ok with his response because its character consistent. Well, look at it from her character's point of view. You're blasting the thing with spells, your wife and her dog are attacking it, and its still standing. What's worse, the party's fighter, the one that has the best chance in melee has decided to hide because he's afraid. For low level adventurers, its perfectly reasonable for her to take that as a cue to keep away from it.
For out of character reasons, they had just had to roll up new characters, and likely didn't feel like doing that again against something that could kill them all if they entered melee with it. She had also just seen her boyfriend validate doing nothing as a viable strategy.
You also said that the way she plays her character is with her own personality. So what? Some people do that. If you have a personal problem with her personality, you need to bring it up with her or the DM, but if she doesn't always support everything the group does you should expect that she isn't always going to risk her neck for you.
So what happened. Your wife's character robbed the dead and was killed by the angry victim. You decided to help, but the other two were afraid of dying as a result and stayed out.
You're blaming one person, when blame can be shared equally between your wife and the two other players. You have no reason to believe that your suggestion of a course of action made her specifically avoid it, and the way that you complain so hard about her inaction but justify the inaction of the other character suggests that it is more of a personal dislike of her and that the situation is just a vent for that dislike.
Only way you can deal with it is either talking to her and her boyfriend or finding another group.
I think that you need to take a moment and re-evaluate what happened. Your wife's character didn't die just because the druid didn't get involved. Your meat shield didn't do anything either.
So you need to ask the question... Why was his inaction ok, but her inaction gets you steamed? Why doesn't he share equal blame in this matter?
Thats actually a very good observation RunningWilder, I too am curious why the dwarf fighter's player shares no blame in this. If anyone should have been up front fighting I think it should have been the fighter.
Thats actually a very good observation RunningWilder, I too am curious why the dwarf fighter's player shares no blame in this. If anyone should have been up front fighting I think it should have been the fighter.
Good point, why I've been saying how he should talk with the Druid. His blame should be more with the Fighter since the Druid doesn't seem to be a melee creature yet (assuming not level 5).
It could have summoned, but those would be weaker than the Fighter.
Really, if the Druid's character in essence followed the Fighter's action by not acting... than this supports her not metagaming: whether or not the players were.
I like how the OP glasses over the fact that his wife stole from the victim (mummy) and blames the Druid. He even downplays it by calling it a zombie later and "Zombie rot" instead of mummy rot.
A series of insightful observations.
+1
stupid as in being ignorant on purpose
***** meaning being diffucult on purpose. so i would say just call her out and say "quit being a stupid *****" and that might solve all your problems. or just find a new game. explain to the DM she's a stupid ***** and just don't play.
or tell the husband to grow balls and kick her from the table for being a stupid *****. idk. pick one of those. but yea, explaining that someone is being a stupid ***** helps ALOT
Again, no, based on her character's alignment, her actions are not that out-of-character. As a player she is creating strife and thats a bad thing, but her neutral character could do what she did and still be in-character.
this character has a tendency to cast close range spells then not use them? then i question her intellect for having said spells, and her roleplay, as it would go against her personality to take them. and didn't someone say she was NG, or did i misread?
this character has a tendency to cast close range spells then not use them? then i question her intellect for having said spells, and her roleplay, as it would go against her personality to take them. and didn't someone say she was NG, or did i misread?
Neutral good is opportunistic, essentially a neutral character with good tendencies providing that acting upon those motives will not seriously endanger herself. Think Han Solo in Star Wars, he's an opportunistic guy driven by protecting himself. When the rebels attack the Death Star he bows out citing self preservation. The reason the rest of his friends are surprised when he does turn up just in time is because they know that particular action was out of character for him. In other words acts of selfless heroism are the exception not the rule for NG characters.
As for wasting a spell, last I checked there was no rule against player stupidity. Maybe she thought she could take it then saw the fighter run squealing like a little girl and decided if he couldn't stand toe to toe with the mummy how in the world was she going to fare against it, then decided she was safest standing back. An action within the boundries of her alignment as she saw the situation.
In the end we need to remember, we are hearing one side of the story. Maybe she has another, maybe the other players do not hate her as much as the OP says they do. Maybe this wasn't the first time he moved her miniature as he attempted to second guess her action and she finally got tired of it. We dont really know. What we do know though is that she wasn't the only one not helping out in the fight and no blame has been cast the fighter's way which seems a bit odd to me.
Neutral good is opportunistic, essentially a neutral character with good tendencies providing that acting upon those motives will not seriously endanger herself. Think Han Solo in Star Wars, he's an opportunistic guy driven by protecting himself. When the rebels attack the Death Star he bows out citing self preservation. The reason the rest of his friends are surprised when he does turn up just in time is because they know that particular action was out of character for him. In other words acts of selfless heroism are the exception not the rule for NG characters.
What is described there is TN or CN.
NG is as devoted to helping others as LG, they just have different ideas as to the importance of order.
Oh and please do not insult female canines by using the same term to refer to this woman. Dogs are quite nice, loyal, and generally friendly - three things that cannot be said of the problem player. This is directed at Zillah obviously.
thats not how the books portray NG. and I'd honestly call han solo TN before I'd call him NG.
After reviewing alignments, I'll concede the point. It's not how I run it but then it's not my game we are discussing. Although from what the book says Han would be CG not TN. That said, I am still curious why we hear nothing about the IC consequinces the fighter should expect for his role in the death of a party member. According to the OP, he plans to have his character develop an open hostility towards the Druid, I have to assume he will also be showing the fighter his distrust and hatred as well as it was the fighter who opened up a path to the deceased character.
That said, I am still curious why we hear nothing about the IC consequinces the fighter should expect for his role in the death of a party member. According to the OP, he plans to have his character develop an open hostility towards the Druid, I have to assume he will also be showing the fighter his distrust and hatred as well as it was the fighter who opened up a path to the deceased character.
Obviously he's going to have to make a new character, since his current one will despise the other two companions for their inaction and be unable to trust either of them enough to adventure with them. Since wife is making a new character anyway, he should just roll one up as well and start fresh.
Looking back at the original posts, there are a number of examples of pitfalls that you should avoid while DMing. The basic one is "Don't make a ruling when you're angry."
For example, the OP states that he would have had the "zombie" attack the druid who did nothing because she looked weak and was cowering. Well, if that's the case, he should have attacked the dwarf, who was cowering for two rounds instead of one.