DM
DM
Sorceress
Rouge/Beguiler
Fighter
Paladin/Cleric
Monk
Druid
Paladin
I play the Rouge/Beguiler, and the Fighter and I are both Cha. Neu. and quite close to evil. One of our DMs is still playing his Paladin, WHILE DMing, which I really don't like, since our party is big enough already. So, while we were in an inn, I used [i]disguise self[i] to disguise myself as a mysterious gnome, and snuck up to the Paladin's room. Unfortunately, he got a natural 20 on his listen check, so he heard me and I wasn't able to coup de grace him. I ran out into an alley, took off my disguise, and pretended to be chasing the 'culprit'. I have a great bluff modifier [+14], so I was pretty sure I could get away with it, but my friend the fighter knew about it, and had done something dumb, and pretty suspicious. A couple of other characters were interrogating him, and he let out the whole story. I almost bluffed my way out of it, getting a 33 on my bluff check, but the Sorceress rolled a natural 20 on her sense motive check. So right now, i'm busted, but I 'm pretty sure they'll forgive me. I was just trying to make a point that I didn't like our DM playing a character at the same time. He's had plenty of time to work him out to the story.
So I was wondering if you guys had any ideas about how I could get my DM to take out his Paladin from play, but short of trying to kill him again.
......... ask him too?
I realize this suggestion has been said over and over, but realize that's only because people just aren't freaking getting it.
"Hey Dan?" "Yeah Brian?" "Your NPC paladin is obnoxious. Mind ditching him?" "Oh all right."
This works because Dan and Brian are friends. If they are not in fact friends, they shouldn't be playing D&D together so the issue won't come up.
AND it's funny.
Or just use Drow knockout poison on him, put him in a coffin, and bury it. He'll be dead before he wakes up. That's mercy.
I suggest torching an orphanage, burning orphanages are the bane of all paladins.
Actually, this might just work. Put the Paladin in a position where he has to choose between honor and death.
However before you try killing the paladin again, you might want to consider some times:
First, the Paladin may be in the party to provide a moral guideline, keep things on track, and prevent the CN types from burning every second building down, stealing everything that isn't nailed down, and killing all the NPC's that the DM spent hours making. This is railroading and it's not good DMing, but it's way easier than getting the PC's to go the way you want while making them think it was their idea.
Second, DMing is difficult and sometimes frustrating and many DM's dream of the sweet life of being a player. Make the Paladin is your DM's outlet for when he needs to take a sword to some monsters.
Actually, this might just work. Put the Paladin in a position where he has to choose between honor and death.
Actually, it won't. The paladin is being "played" by the Dungeon Master. There is no in-game solution for out-of-game problems like this. High Octane and HeroofChaos are absolutely correct.
Talk to the DM and explain your concerns. D&D is supposed to be fun for everybody, and if someone isn't having fun then a conversation should be had.
I think you should murder him. That'll teach him real good.
Actually no, in most cases that won't teach him a damn thing. It'll just make him angry, and an angry DM can ruin the game for everyone.
Actually no, in most cases that won't teach him a damn thing. It'll just make him angry, and an angry DM can ruin the game for everyone.
I disagree. It is a long and round about way to teach the DM not to include his own character in his own campaign, but after several ruined games, he will get the message.
Of course, I could just be playing devil's advocate here. ;)
I disagree. It is a long and round about way to teach the DM not to include his own character in his own campaign, but after several ruined games, he will get the message.
Of course, I could just be playing devil's advocate here. ;)
Or he could get the right message and kick you out of his game. ;)
Is the DMPC doing anything to hinder the game, or is he simply playing because he wants to play the game alongside you guys... and you simply hate DMPCs on principle? If he's not being a jerk about his DMPC (IE: Stealing the spotlight and catering entirely to his character), then is there really a problem? Is it so wrong to play as a PC in your own game, if you don't metagame and you still pay just as much (or even more) attention to everyone else?
Actually, this might just work. Put the Paladin in a position where he has to choose between honor and death.
I think you mean dishonour and death. Choosing between honour and death is pretty easy. Only a rogue chooses death.
Is the DMPC doing anything to hinder the game, or is he simply playing because he wants to play the game alongside you guys... and you simply hate DMPCs on principle? If he's not being a jerk about his DMPC (IE: Stealing the spotlight and catering entirely to his character), then is there really a problem? Is it so wrong to play as a PC in your own game, if you don't metagame and you still pay just as much (or even more) attention to everyone else?
My sentiments exactly.
Really a DMPC is simply an NPC and it is all a matter of semantics really. They are cheating themselves of a proper playing experience. Furthermore, regardless of how much they don't want to meta-game, the DM knows what is going to happen in the mod. and will choose appropriate tactics they may not have taken if they didn't know what was going to happen next. Lastly, I don't think I have ever met a DMPC that has died (especially if other characters have tried to kill it for whatever valid/invalid reason(s)).
And really, if the party IS underpowered, let some of the players have extra PCs/cohorts. Although, if it works for your game I guess you can go ahead and do it, I just think it's lame is all.
Or he could get the right message and kick you out of his game. ;)
And just for the record ... I didn't say I wanted to kill the DMPC. But I am more than happy to encourage other players to try.
Just for sheer entertainment value. Heh.
I'm not crazy and would prefer my character to not get Blue Bolted.
I'd post something constructive, but HeroofChaos has already said all that needed saying.
i like you, let's be friends
In our group your PC would have been interrogated, judged guilty and executed immediately for attempted murder of a fellow companion (happened once in a similar case). Then probably we would have handed you the pally so that you had a PC to run.
A metagame excuse is no reason to keep a very guilty character from his just desserts... Especially when your group hates metagaming.and mine usually die, that quite double my player experience, after some games I change character. nobody complains...
He ended up dying a horrible death after they were ambushed by half-demons. They even tried to have him brought back to life but he was happy in the afterlife.
Of course in my group it was a joke that the ranger was often so quiet people forgot he was there.
DM included.Not every DMPC is going to hurt the game or destroy player fun, don't paint the scene with a broad brush.
Actually no, in most cases that won't teach him a damn thing. It'll just make him angry, and an angry DM can ruin the game for everyone.
Now that all depends on whom "him" is referring. If it is referring to the character in question, you are correct it will result in an angry DM. However if "him" is referring to the player in question, then it will not result in angering the DM he will be deceased. (assuming the attempt is successful, if not then it will most likely result in anger from the DM all the same.) Murdering the DM will solve the problem of him running a DMPC. Although it could result in explosion from the group and/or a lengthy period of incarseration.
For what its worth I highly advise telling the DM you do not enjoy his DMPC and that you appriate it if he were drop him.
nit picky stiff
Show
Natural 1s and 20s are NOT auto fail and success on skill checks. Tthus the sorceress would still have to beat your bluff check regardless if she were to roll a nat 20 or not. Tthe same is true for the pallies listen check.
That being said PCs are not subject to the same bluff/diplomancy/sense motive rules as NPCs. They, PCs, can choose to believe, or not believe as their players see fit. So even had the sorceress still failed her sense motive on your bluff, her character can simply choose to not believe you, or she may choose to believe you, depending on what she feels is the best responce for her character.
That being said PCs are not subject to the same bluff/diplomancy/sense motive rules as NPCs. They, PCs, can choose to believe, or not believe as their players see fit. So even had the sorceress still failed her sense motive on your bluff, her character can simply choose to not believe you, or she may choose to believe you, depending on what she feels is the best responce for her character.
I play the Rouge/Beguiler
As a rogue/beguiler try using any of the many beguiler spells that influence others, specifically a first level spell called hypnotism.It doesn't alert the target that they were being charmed if they succeed on the saving throw.
So I was wondering if you guys had any ideas about how I could get my DM to take out his Paladin from play, but short of trying to kill him again.
Failing beguiling him into liking you, find the nearest area of quicksand and bluff him into walking over it or I dunno hire some orcs or something to loot the town and have them lure the paladin to charging across the quicksand. I mean c'mon Paladin, is he wearing plate? *Blurb*
Actually, it won't. The paladin is being "played" by the Dungeon Master. There is no in-game solution for out-of-game problems like this. High Octane and HeroofChaos are absolutely correct.
Talk to the DM and explain your concerns. D&D is supposed to be fun for everybody, and if someone isn't having fun then a conversation should be had.
Yes, this is the only thing that can work. PKing will not work at all. The DM can kill your PC without even trying.
This is another example of why a DMPC is a bad idea. The only folks who like them are the ones who run them.
Of course it's a game, and-within reason-no one should get super angry regarding PC actions. But, some people could have gotten really "miffed."
I recommend you continue playing and have fun. If you can't have fun under the current conditions, calmly tell your DM how you feel. Then decide whether you wish to continue gaming with him or not, based on the outcome of that conversation.
I play the Rouge/Beguiler, and the Fighter and I are both Cha. Neu. and quite close to evil.
One of our DMs is still playing his Paladin,
Could it be that you and that DM have very different ideas about the flavor of the game you want to play?
I agree with Master Vega, Mufflon, and Ac Noj. If the DMPC truly isn't harming the game, then I think you should avoid trying to get rid of him. It seems like you have a great group. No one seemed to get really mad when your initial plan at murdering the DMPC was discovered.
The problem with this is that the DMPC is harming the game. Its very presence is determental to at least one players fun, and that is reason enough for it to disappear. If the DM really wants to run a character, then s/he should do so, from the other side of the screen.
High Octane and HeroofChaos are absolutely correct.
I'm only going to half tick my sig since I got an assist and he got it first anyway.
The problem with this is that the DMPC is harming the game. Its very presence is determental to at least one players fun, and that is reason enough for it to disappear. If the DM really wants to run a character, then s/he should do so, from the other side of the screen.
If the rest of the group is OK with it, the one player may have to deal, because the DM has the right to his fun as well.
Sounds like the original poster is just peeved at DMPC. There is nothing wrong with a DM having a PC, and it might just be a difference in philosophy within the group.
You need to have a conversation with the DM. He might be willing to give up the PC, or giving up the PC might limit his fun and you will have to decide whether to leave or continue.
Killing hte DMPC is unlikely.
There is nothing wrong with a DM having a PC, and it might just be a difference in philosophy within the group.
I disagree with this statement, but this is not the time for that debate.
The problem with this is that the DMPC is harming the game. Its very presence is determental to at least one players fun, and that is reason enough for it to disappear. If the DM really wants to run a character, then s/he should do so, from the other side of the screen.
Or the DM could be using the DMPC as a device to keep the OP from disrupting everyone else's game? You never know, but my advice mirrors everyone elses: Talk to your fellow players (to see how they feel) then your DM.
That being said PCs are not subject to the same bluff/diplomancy/sense motive rules as NPCs. They, PCs, can choose to believe, or not believe as their players see fit. So even had the sorceress still failed her sense motive on your bluff, her character can simply choose to not believe you, or she may choose to believe you, depending on what she feels is the best responce for her character.
That's called meta-gaming and a responsible Dm should smack that down as soon as someone tries to pull that kind of a stunt.
What the Op is most likely not saying is that the Dmpc is there to curtail the sociopathic nature of his character and the fighter.
That's called meta-gaming and a responsible Dm should smack that down as soon as someone tries to pull that kind of a stunt.
Bull ****.
You cannot and should not expect players to act in regards to what charisma based skills tell them otherwise the guy playing a bard could literally play all the other characters through constant diplomacy checks and bluff checks.
Bull ****.
You cannot and should not expect players to act in regards to what charisma based skills tell them otherwise the guy playing a bard could literally play all the other characters through constant diplomacy checks and bluff checks.
Your darn tootin I expect my players to act as their character would and not with what the player knows.
It wont take long before the PCs find out just how corrupt the other PC is and then take actions.
I also take my players aside when something doesn't include the whole group.
But then, if you play a traitor in my games, I hang you out to dry. I give no special favor to the traitorous PC for "story's sake", so if he's going to off one teammate, he better off them all... especially if he's a likely suspect.
Edit:
Scene description: As you chase the gnome down the alley, it somehow gains enough distance from you that it can turn a corner in front of you. Then, when you see your comrade, panting as he looks in the direction the perpetrator should have gone. "****, lost him."
"Where did he go?" you ask.
"Down thataway," the man points tiredly, "little *******'s fast."
You nod in understanding and look down the way as the rest of the party takes off, and before you take your first step a thought enters your mind. You turn to him and ask, "How'd you get out here so quick?"
"Whatever that gnome was up to woke me up... When I saw him dash out, I followed him," he replies, sounding sincere... but then he always sounds sincere, even when you needed him to bluff you and your group into (insert place here).
You look at him again, remembering you never saw him during the chase, and noting that he somehow appeared in time for the gnome to disappear. You know he can use magic to disguise himself. Your friends have gone on after the gnome, and do not need you to help if he is truly out there to be caught. Given all these factors, you choose to keep an eye on your friend until your other comrades return... and when they do, you'll question him further.
That's not a sense-motive roll. That's thinking in character.
So I was wondering if you guys had any ideas about how I could get my DM to take out his Paladin from play, but short of trying to kill him again.
COMMUNICATION. Talk to him about it. Tell him it's a problem for you and unnecessary for the group. Suggest that if he want's to DM - he should DM. If he wants to be a player - he should be a player. If he wants to play both sides of the field, maybe he should see about doing so in seperate campaigns. Present your objections. Listen to AND CALMLY CONSIDER their responses.
BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER should you be attempting to get what you want outside of the game by killing PC's IN the game. Not even if it's a worst-case kind of DMPC that you HATE having to deal with. If real-world people manipulation is your motive and your goal you're NOT going to win friends and influence people by TICKING THEM OFF through killing their PC's.
Talk to the REAL WORLD people involved.
Edit: and, oh yeah, who was the bright person who first decided it was a good idea to run a character in a campaign that already had characters of OPPOSITIONAL alignments and behavior? Did you start running an evil character and THEN have the paladin enter the group, or was the paladin in the group and then you decided to let your character degenerate into evil tendencies and then get upset when the paladin NATURALLY acted against you? Might want to think that one over before you have that conversation - but one way or another you NEED to have that conversation and fix your issues before everyone gets really stupid.
Alyri -- Assuming the other PCs have known the OP long enough, and they know he's a sly dog... and he's very suspiciously right where the fleeing villain should have been... I'd say the PC playing the sorceress better not trust him no matter how convincing he sounds. If I were the GM of a group that made PCs roll sense motive and bluff as straight-jackets, I'd give the other PCs a rather substantial bonus.
But then, if you play a traitor in my games, I hang you out to dry. I give no special favor to the traitorous PC for "story's sake", so if he's going to off one teammate, he better off them all... especially if he's a likely suspect.
Edit:
Scene description: As you chase the gnome down the alley, it somehow gains enough distance from you that it can turn a corner in front of you. Then, when you see your comrade, panting as he looks in the direction the perpetrator should have gone. "****, lost him."
"Where did he go?" you ask.
"Down thataway," the man points tiredly, "little *******'s fast."
You nod in understanding and look down the way as the rest of the party takes off, and before you take your first step a thought enters your mind. You turn to him and ask, "How'd you get out here so quick?"
"Whatever that gnome was up to woke me up... When I saw him dash out, I followed him," he replies, sounding sincere... but then he always sounds sincere, even when you needed him to bluff you and your group into (insert place here).
You look at him again, remembering you never saw him during the chase, and noting that he somehow appeared in time for the gnome to disappear. You know he can use magic to disguise himself. Your friends have gone on after the gnome, and do not need you to help if he is truly out there to be caught. Given all these factors, you choose to keep an eye on your friend until your other comrades return... and when they do, you'll question him further.
That's not a sense-motive roll. That's thinking in character.
I completely agree.
We had an incident about 8 months back right along these lines. One of the players was playing a real numbnut of a character. Was always asking for money for anything he did, lying and stealing from the group as a whole. was just being a big jerk. Finally the other players couldn't take it anymore and refused to show up to play. Friday rolls around and only numbnut shows(well besides me). He asked where everyone else was and well we went outside(so the store wouldn't hear) And well lets say I opened up with both barrels. It took him almost that next full week before he actually expressed remorse for his attitude, now he is one of the better players in the group.
What so many seem to not grasp is these characters lay their lives in the hands of each other on a consistent basis, would any(actual person) actually trust a someone who is constantly lying and stealing and committing random murders?
Why do you play with one who does then?
2. There are no natural 20's on skill checks. There are conditional modifiers, and some skills have special results if you succeed or fail by 5 or more. Read the skill rules. For example, I'd say the sense motive against your bluff after the attempted murder gets a +10 bonus since you're highly suspect. +20 or more if they are already pretty certain you did it (based on witnesses, etc.) and/or if your bluff is little more than "No I didn't, I saw some other guy do it."
I'm pointing this out mainly to prevent future bluff/diplomacy abuse. The main issue at hand got addressed by the 2nd post and some others.
Your darn tootin I expect my players to act as their character would and not with what the player knows.
It wont take long before the PCs find out just how corrupt the other PC is and then take actions.
I also take my players aside when something doesn't include the whole group.
Thats another common misconception about skills like diplomancy and bluff. They can not force an action the character does not want to do. That is to say they are not charm person, or suggestion or anything like that. All a diplomancy role can do is change an NPCs attitude towards you, it does not force any action. The NPC maybe more inclined to do you a favour, but s/he is not forced to.
The problem with this is that the DMPC is harming the game. Its very presence is determental to at least one players fun, and that is reason enough for it to disappear. If the DM really wants to run a character, then s/he should do so, from the other side of the screen.
All we have is one players word on that. That player cold be a drain on the whole group's fun as well. From his actions so far, I would tend to lean to the side that the player's character is causing undo harm to the whole group.
Thats another common misconception about skills like diplomancy and bluff. They can not force an action the (player) does not want to do. That is to say they are not charm person, or suggestion or anything like that. All a diplomancy role can do is change an NPCs attitude towards you, it does not force any action. The NPC maybe more inclined to do you a favour, but s/he is not forced to.
Color changed to show proper word.
You betcha they can. Sitting in your house right now, you don't have a clue of whats going on 3 doors down. In D&D most times the players siting around the table will know whats going on. That is the difference. What you are suggesting is out of character knowledge/meta gaming. How can you actually play a game of D&D when the players can just do whatever they want no matter what the skill checks say? Why even play if the ultimate rule comes down to Do you believe me or not?
That being said PCs are not subject to the same bluff/diplomancy/sense motive rules as NPCs. They, PCs, can choose to believe, or not believe as their players see fit. So even had the sorceress still failed her sense motive on your bluff, her character can simply choose to not believe you, or she may choose to believe you, depending on what she feels is the best responce for her character.
It's not as the player sees fit. It's what the character actually knows. They are two distinct people there, Bob the player and Kain Darkfire the character. Bob may know that Randy's character Wiley Snaketongue just tried to murder Dudley Doright, How would Kain Darkfire know that, if Wiley was a smooth-talking fibber? Doesn't matter if Randy isn't a smooth-talker(you know one of those reasons we play the game, we do it to play something we are not) As long as he can do an adequate job of roleplaying a smooth talker the skill points in bluff helps show just how good the 'actual' character is at it.
Sitting in your house right now, you don't have a clue of whats going on 3 doors down. In D&D most times the players siting around the table will know whats going on. That is the difference. What you are suggesting is out of character knowledge/meta gaming. How can you actually play a game of D&D when the players can just do whatever they want no matter what the skill checks say? Why even play if the ultimate rule comes down to Do you believe me or not?
Diplomacy specifically does NOT influence PC reactions - just NPC reactions. Player A can't use his PC's super diplomacy skills to force player B to alter his PC's attitudes towards his character. Neither can an NPC force Player B to alter what are for PLAYERS strictly their own roleplaying decisions. It is player B's choice as to how he wants his character to react to Player A's PC, or any NPC regardless of what diplomacy skills or die rolls they make.
Other "roleplaying" charisma-based skills (bluff, intimidate) do have game effects upon PC's but you should realize that their influence only extends so far. Just as Gather Information can be bypassed and ignored by roleplaying so can some effects of bluff and intimidate for the very reason that some things are unquestionably matters to be left to the PLAYER to decide for the character. Consider:
A fire giant looms over a near-dead PC, having far more hit dice, current hit points, and hopelessly outsizing the PC, says, "Surrender or I'll pull your legs off." The giant has no intimidation skill and the DM makes no roll of dice to force the player to act in a given way. The player nonetheless gets to decide if the threat being made to his character is one he wishes to have his character submit to.
A goblin with a fraction of the hit dice, current hit points and half the size of an uninjured PC says to that character, "Surrender or I'll pull your legs off." The player rightfully laughs at the threat as empty and amusing, not intimidating. Ah, but if the DM assigns a fat wad of intimidation skill points to the bugger and makes a high roll, well then the PLAYER is supposed to accept the idea that by skill alone the goblin has him cowed?
Some things, even in fantasy, are just implausible beyond the suspension of disbelief. Many DM's will agree that whether the skill says so or not, it SHOULD be up to a player to decide if his PC is intimidated.
Even Bluff points out that it can fail not because of the lack of skill or the die roll, but because it is inherently unbelievable.
That isn't meta-gaming. It's roleplaying, and because the rules CANNOT comprehend the nuances of all situations at all times it is not just the right but the responsibility of the DM to step in and insist that sometimes the "rules" just don't apply. That is certainly the case wherever the rules can intrude upon the free-will roleplaying choices of the PLAYER.
Also, if diplomacy did force other players to act alongside you, I would always play a diplomancer, and become the most powerful man in the game. :P
Bluff, however, does affect PCs... Of course, I don't care how good the OP's character is at bluffing, the circumstances weigh far too heavily against him. The character could make an epic bluff check, but at this point I would allow the other PCs to disregard it and keep their suspicion of him... especially with their knowledge of his character.
I almost bluffed my way out of it, getting a 33 on my bluff check, but the Sorceress rolled a natural 20 on her sense motive check.
Why don't we talk about how the Animal Training skill works as well in this situation. It fits fine with how people think of their characters, just well-trained dogs that can't think for themselves and need their 'master' to tell them what to do
I think killing the Paladin would bring about dire consequences and/or bad blood. Diplomacy my friend. I would try that first.
Why is everyone going on and on about diplomacy? The Op said he Bluffed
Why don't we talk about how the Animal Training skill works as well in this situation. It fits fine with how people think of their characters, just well-trained dogs that can't think for themselves and need their 'master' to tell them what to do
Heck, why don't we just take the players out of the equation and have them all be NPCs! It'll be great, like a big, complicated math problem! :D
Heck, why don't we just take the players out of the equation and have them all be NPCs! It'll be great, like a big, complicated math problem! :D
The players are not in the equation, it's about the characters. ;)
The players are not in the equation, it's about the characters. ;)
Really? I thought it was about having fun... Silly me.
I give my players all the control they want over what their characters believe (so long as it isn't too much of a stretch.) They don't have to believe some guy who got a 40 on his bluff. Even if they fail by the largest amount possible, they still have the choice to disbelieve or not fully trust the messenger's words. It's the bluff skill, not "alter trust" skill. If the bluff is to get out of something grave, there is always evidence the character could choose over the suspect's words. If the bluff is simple, the character being bluffed can take what is said with a grain of salt.
Only the player can choose if his character is completely sold on a bluff. I know my group wouldn't accept anything else.
Really? I thought it was about having fun... Silly me.
I give my players all the control they want over what their characters believe (so long as it isn't too much of a stretch.) They don't have to believe some guy who got a 40 on his bluff. Even if they fail by the largest amount possible, they still have the choice to disbelieve or not fully trust the messenger's words. It's the bluff skill, not "alter trust" skill. If the bluff is to get out of something grave, there is always evidence the character could choose over the suspect's words. If the bluff is simple, the character being bluffed can take what is said with a grain of salt.
Only the player can choose if his character is completely sold on a bluff. I know my group wouldn't accept anything else.
Then why even bother having skills?
Just let the players decide if they succeed, it's about having fun and all
We recently shifted around our whole D&D party, so we now have this as a whole group.
DM
DM
Sorceress
Rouge/Beguiler
Fighter
Paladin/Cleric
Monk
Druid
Paladin
I play the Rouge/Beguiler, and the Fighter and I are both Cha. Neu. and quite close to evil. One of our DMs is still playing his Paladin, WHILE DMing, which I really don't like, since our party is big enough already. So, while we were in an inn, I used [i]disguise self[i] to disguise myself as a mysterious gnome, and snuck up to the Paladin's room. Unfortunately, he got a natural 20 on his listen check, so he heard me and I wasn't able to coup de grace him. I ran out into an alley, took off my disguise, and pretended to be chasing the 'culprit'. I have a great bluff modifier [+14], so I was pretty sure I could get away with it, but my friend the fighter knew about it, and had done something dumb, and pretty suspicious. A couple of other characters were interrogating him, and he let out the whole story. I almost bluffed my way out of it, getting a 33 on my bluff check, but the Sorceress rolled a natural 20 on her sense motive check. So right now, i'm busted, but I 'm pretty sure they'll forgive me. I was just trying to make a point that I didn't like our DM playing a character at the same time. He's had plenty of time to work him out to the story.
So I was wondering if you guys had any ideas about how I could get my DM to take out his Paladin from play, but short of trying to kill him again.
Well the first thing is that a natural 20 is not a success on a skill check unless your DM has ruled it such. By the rules you'd add in their modifier and if its not enough to beat you they still didn't beat you.
The problem here is you let the other players know what you were doing and the one your trying to kill belongs to the DM, Long ago I used to sometimes play a character to help out the players. I've not done that in a decade though, I learned it caused more problems than it made.
There may be no real way out for you at this point. At this point its best to sit down with the DM and tell him why you were attacking the paladin, and see if he'll withdraw him. It seems the party is not one a paladin would want to be in anyway if the fighter also knew and did not warn him.
Also remember the old norse saying
Tell one your secret,
But all know what three know....
......... ask him too?
I obviously already tried to, but he said no.
The problem worked itself out. I guess that he saw how much it annoyed me when I tried to kill him, so my DM just had him kidnapped by a half-celestial guy, and it works really well with the plot.
Thanks for the ideas guys.