We are playing in a modern setting. We were at the house of a missing agent gathering clues. 1 of the party members cast detect evil and finds an evilness emminating from the soccer mom that just pulled in next door with her kids. We go over to speak to her. The kids are fine, we realize that the necklace she is wearing has an evil curse on it that will kill her. We try to pursuade her to give us the necklace to inspect it. She states that it is a gift from her husband and she will not let us see it. we tried for over an hour to convince this woman to let us inspect this necklace and anything else we could think of, to no avail!! My rogue succesfully uses slight of hand to get the necklace and begins to tell the group to give up and lets go.
Our paladin realizes the evilness has gone from the mom to me. IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!! he says " ok shade, give me the necklace. I know you have it!" The mom flips out. I give the necklace to my husband silent who is standing next to me to give to the paladin or whatever. out in the open it becomes obvious that the curse is that of a death worm. They all yell "drop it!" to silent. He drops it. when it hits the concrete, the gem breaks thus releasing the 150ft death worm we had to kill.
This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened, or if the party hadn't yelled drop it to silent he would not have dropped it!!
I am tired of everyone blaming us for this when we were both victim of circumstance. Does anyone agree with me??? They say my fault because i took the necklace in the first place and his for dropping it. What do you think??
This is an entirely in-game conflict, right? Why don't you just resolve it in-game? Are you just looking for ideas on how your character can convince the other characters? If the players are just having their characters blame you for amusement purposes, then just roll with it, but I can't imagine that's the case.
no, its not really in game conflict. we are all really good friends and see each other on a daily basis for the most part. Their characters don't really argue with us about it, but will drop a referance to it once in awhile, but in real life they are talking about it constantly and driving me crazy.
one even suggested talking to the dm to see if our alignments should be changed to chaotic evil instead of chaotic neutral since we were evil and stole the necklace and brought on the death worm.
I think the players are blaming us for amusment purposes, but it is getting really old and i'm tired of being blamed for something that shouldn't even be blamed on me anyway, not that i plan on blaming the paladin in or out of game for this. But i think my rogue acted completely in character and found the best way possible to diffuse the situation and move game play along.
(You were thinking of something like that perhaps?)
Zmortis. I like your advice I think I will try that next time it comes up. Hopefully it will work. Thank you so much.
I think I see what you mean, to explain..your characters are always used as the scapegoat for any 'wrongdoings' and it's starting to bug you 'in game'. If this is the case I'd have a short chat out of game stating maybe " Look guys, you find it fun to have a go at my characters but I'm getting really bored of it and it's ruining my enjoyment....can you knock it off a bit?".
Hopefully if you confront the rest of the group then they may realise it's ruining your game, it may just be they don't really realise the effect.
Just my understanding.
I actually think stealthily stealing the necklace off the womans neck was superb work. The others should've said their goodbyes and you would have had the opportunity to deal with the thing without putting anyone else at risk. In character, I'd blame the Paladin for letting it fall to the floor (although it might have been great roleplaying from the Paladin's player).
Out of game, if it's really starting to bother you, I'd try to tell them that it's starting to get to you. If they don't stop, tell them again and if they still keep on blaming you (did anything bad happen actually? Did you defeat the monster or did it result in several deaths?), miss out a session or two and jump in again later. Whatever you do, the joke will grow stale after a while, so put on that "Armor of repel jokes +2" and sit it out...
/boggle
tried that, one of them who is a really good friend although we are usually very sarcastic to each other, thinks its funny that i get so frustrated when she starts up on this.
This is definitely the bigger issue than the in-character one.
tried that, one of them who is a really good friend although we are usually very sarcastic to each other, thinks its funny that i get so frustrated when she starts up on this.
This is why they do it. The more frustrated you get, the more fun they have, the more likely they will continue. Stop getting frustrated. It's a game. Once they see that you aren't reacting to their comments they will stop.
Strange kind of relationship though, if your friend is getting so much out of seeing you getting frustrated - but who am I to judge, especially when I don't know the people involved...
On the roleplaying Issue, two points:
1. Not actions but intentions factor into alignment. Stealing, Lying even killing are not evil acts per definition (at least according to the alignment system, RL opinions may vary) but the intention behind them are. Stealing for your own profit with utter disregard to the plight of your victims is evil, stealing in order to save someone with no victim at all is not.
2. You should be having words with the paladin about what exactly good and lawful mean. You took a risk for the sake of the party and instead of that risk being honored, he stabbed you in the back. Pointing out the theft, if he wants to consider removing a cursed necklace from a clueless victim that, may be right, doing it then and there was not.
Bottomline, solve the RL issue with the players first, then kick the paladin to the curb socially for betraying your trust and endangering the party in game.
The paladin if he was thinking beyond the typical "Im a paladin so i need to be anti rogue at all time" would have considered that a cursed item owned by a person who is refusing to give it up may be being controlled in some way by the item in order for the item to use its victom to defend itself from being destroyed.
The fact your husband dropped it is just great roleplaying and if the person who told him to drop it is considered an expert or more knowledgable about magic or cursed items so it defered to in those circumstances then why wouldnt your husband listen to him. Its like why the party defers to a rogue when dealing with traps is because the rogue knows best so even if the rogue finds no traps when there is one nobody else is the party checks for traps behind them they trust the rogues skills.
So in the end there was just alot of mistakes by pretty much everyone mentioned. You taking the the necklace was in response to nothing else working and was actually a great idea under the circumstances. The paladin calling you on it was irresponsible from a RP, character and alignment point of view for the following reasons.
- Paladins are not rogue haters, they do not have an issue with the open locks/doors skill nor the stealth or move silently skills and even pick pockets. Infact a paladin may not only wish to train those skills but actively use them. Paladins are against the use of those skills being used to break the law. A paladin may wish to use open locks to open a locked chest or get into a building rather than break the door down especially when the person or object hes pursuing has nothing directly to do with the owner of the door itself. A paladin may use stealth or move silently to sneak past innocent guards or even evil monsters if getting to where hes going is more important then confronting those hes avoiding especially if it could endanger the mission. A paladin may even use pick pockets to steal a cursed necklace or other evil item in order to avoid conflict with an innocent but naive person who owns it.
- Him confronting you over taking the necklace could actually be looked at as maybe not an evil act but an act against good and I as a DM would actually take note of this and if it happened too often would give the character a warning that his connecting with his god feels to be fading and he might want to find a way to commune with his diety or a representative to find out why. The reason is by pointing it out when and how he did he put yourself and the women in danger as by outing you she may physically attack you and put you into a position of needing to defend yourself and therefore someone could get hurt or killed. As well if the necklace was in any way controlling her or changing her perception of the world she could go into a blind rage and in the end force you or someone else to kill her. She herself though not evil may not be good and could infact have a way of hiding her evil from the paladin and put all of you in danger. In the end he created the circumstances for someone to get hurt and that would go against his ethics so would actually leave with you confront you out of ear shot of the person and if he still felt after you defended your actions that what you did was not appropriate he may choose to take the item from you and inform the victim of what you did but impress again the situation to the women and do his best to assure her that it is in her best interest to not possess the item and if possible gladly return the necklace after the curse has been lifted if at all possible but even he would not return the item in its current state nomatter how he came to possess it due to the damage it could do if not dealt with. I could even accept a paladin forcefully taking the necklace from the women in order to cleanse it because in the end the greater good is what matters and the women keeping the necklace would be a far greater evil than taking it, he would then proceed to a church of his faith and attone for the act not because it was evil but because he did something he felt was necessary for the greater good but in the process negatively affected an innocent.
Your husband as i said dropping it was possibly good RPing but at the same time if he is known for being unflinching in danger and rarely startled or surprised then him dropping it unless again he did so because he took the drop it statement as a command from a more knowledgable person he may be responsible for the issue due to the fact a person not normally startled wouldnt drop something without a good reason or explanation just because someone said it in a shocked tone.
Same goes for the person who made the statement as unless he knew what the curse was and knew it negatively affected anyone who held the object wouldnt tell someone else to drop it especially after seeing the women not negatively affected while wearing it, you having it in your possession and not negatively affected by it and no immediete sign of affect when your husband took possession of it.
As well if the DM's ultimate goal was for your to confront the curse like you did then its nobodys fault as at some point it was going to happen anyways and would have happened nomatter who had it in the possession.
In the end youd know best if that whole scenario conflicted with how the players normally played there characters and if it did then it wasnt an RP incident it was a RL incident due to someone or everyones personality leaking into there character at that moment which does happen.
To deal with them simply just turn the tables. Tell the paladin he needs to attone for not being more pro-active about protecting the world and ridding it of evil by not doing what was necessary to protect the women from the evil of the necklace even if it meant taking it from her without hurting her because unless he had a better idea it would have been worse to let her keep it. Tell whoever who told your husband to drop the necklace to quit being a coward and getting so jumpy around jewelry even if it is cursed when it was obvious touching it wasnt going to kill you and maybe he should reconsider the life of an adventurer if he is so jumpy. Tell your husband to not be so jumpy and maybe invest in glue if hes going to be so clumsy when holding dangerous and fragile items. And if the DM is giving you a hard time tell him he created the scenario and didnt allow for an obvious alternatives to the solution and in the end if he created less fragile cursed items this would never have happened in the first place.
I appologize for this being so wordy but ive played in many games myself where conflict has happened due to a player choosing to play an evil character who is destructive to the party, someone constantly rushing into rooms and combat and ultimately causeing party wipes or near wipes solely due to there action or just generally causing a conflict because they cant see past the letters and numbers on there character sheet. As well even DM's who create scenario's with only a single solution but not making sure the characters are even capable of doing what is required or not the type of players to consider the solution at all.
Ultimately if they still feel its necessary to give you a hard time and its creating hostility enough to reduce your enjoyment of not only the game but there presence let them know what its doing and inform them if they choose to continue making you feel bad for solving a problem none of them could then there putting there relationship with you and possibly even your husband at risk because they cant be mature enough to stop harassing you and all thats doing is telling you they dont appreciate you and ultimately dont want you around anyways.
OK, here is what happened. Nobody is mad at me, but they blame shade and her husband silent for causing this fight.
We are playing in a modern setting. We were at the house of a missing agent gathering clues. 1 of the party members cast detect evil and finds an evilness emminating from the soccer mom that just pulled in next door with her kids. We go over to speak to her. The kids are fine, we realize that the necklace she is wearing has an evil curse on it that will kill her. We try to pursuade her to give us the necklace to inspect it. She states that it is a gift from her husband and she will not let us see it. we tried for over an hour to convince this woman to let us inspect this necklace and anything else we could think of, to no avail!! My rogue succesfully uses slight of hand to get the necklace and begins to tell the group to give up and lets go.
Our paladin realizes the evilness has gone from the mom to me. IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!! he says " ok shade, give me the necklace. I know you have it!" The mom flips out. I give the necklace to my husband silent who is standing next to me to give to the paladin or whatever. out in the open it becomes obvious that the curse is that of a death worm. They all yell "drop it!" to silent. He drops it. when it hits the concrete, the gem breaks thus releasing the 150ft death worm we had to kill.
This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened, or if the party hadn't yelled drop it to silent he would not have dropped it!!
I am tired of everyone blaming us for this when we were both victim of circumstance. Does anyone agree with me??? They say my fault because i took the necklace in the first place and his for dropping it. What do you think??
Actually, I would say that it is your fault, maybe not completely, but you share at least half of the blame. You stole the item in front of the paladin, whom you know had a detect evil up and going! You might have forgotten that he had it up, but that does not matter. You had to have known what would have happened if the paladin discovered that you had the necklace in your possession. To expect the paladin to metagame and keep his mouth shut when it would have gone against the nature of the character is simply wrong. And no offense intended, but it is also more than a bit childish.
And in regards to your second to last paragraph (This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened, or if the party hadn't yelled drop it to silent he would not have dropped it!!), remember that if you had not stolen the necklace in the first place none of this would have happened. Again, no offense intended, but you are quick to place the blame on others but you are refusing to accept that you, too, were at fault.
OK, here is what happened. Nobody is mad at me, but they blame shade and her husband silent for causing this fight.
We are playing in a modern setting. We were at the house of a missing agent gathering clues. 1 of the party members cast detect evil and finds an evilness emminating from the soccer mom that just pulled in next door with her kids. We go over to speak to her. The kids are fine, we realize that the necklace she is wearing has an evil curse on it that will kill her. We try to pursuade her to give us the necklace to inspect it. She states that it is a gift from her husband and she will not let us see it. we tried for over an hour to convince this woman to let us inspect this necklace and anything else we could think of, to no avail!! My rogue succesfully uses slight of hand to get the necklace and begins to tell the group to give up and lets go.
Our paladin realizes the evilness has gone from the mom to me. IN FRONT OF EVERYONE!! he says " ok shade, give me the necklace. I know you have it!" The mom flips out. I give the necklace to my husband silent who is standing next to me to give to the paladin or whatever. out in the open it becomes obvious that the curse is that of a death worm. They all yell "drop it!" to silent. He drops it. when it hits the concrete, the gem breaks thus releasing the 150ft death worm we had to kill.
This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened, or if the party hadn't yelled drop it to silent he would not have dropped it!!
I am tired of everyone blaming us for this when we were both victim of circumstance. Does anyone agree with me??? They say my fault because i took the necklace in the first place and his for dropping it. What do you think??
Actually, I would say that it is your fault, maybe not completely, but you share at least half of the blame. You stole the item in front of the paladin, whom you know had a detect evil up and going! You might have forgotten that he had it up, but that does not matter. You had to have known what would have happened if the paladin discovered that you had the necklace in your possession. To expect the paladin to metagame and keep his mouth shut when it would have gone against the nature of the character is simply wrong. And no offense intended, but it is also more than a bit childish.
And in regards to your second to last paragraph (This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened, or if the party hadn't yelled drop it to silent he would not have dropped it!!), remember that if you had not stolen the necklace in the first place none of this would have happened. Again, no offense intended, but you are quick to place the blame on others but you are refusing to accept that you, too, were at fault.
First off read before you speak i guess should be the moral of this story. The reading required would be page 218 of the players handbook 3.5 and study up on the detect evil spells. Just incase you dont here is essentially what detect evil does, you get to see the aura's of evil beings or items. This does not mean you get to detect when a rogue steals something or any other action it doesnt tell you why there evil or any of there evil acts either in the past or currently going on. Therefore the paladins detect evil would have done nothing in regards to seeing the item being stolen. Now the detect evil would allow him to know if the item has changed location but from her description the paladin was actively trying to RP the necklace from the women with the rest of the party and since detect evil requires concentration he would have stopped its use once he got the information he needed from its use.
Now as for the paladin ratting her out, that is not a requirement of being a paladin or a LG character. The paladin unless always roleplayed that way rather than just taking an opportunity to rat out the rogue. A paladin would have little issue with the rogues theft as taking the evil cursed item from the unwary women who refuses to give it up is by no means an evil act. Though the paladin would probably have prefered it went willingly and would probably make every attempt to return the necklace if it survived its disenchantment or at least attempt to repay the women its monitary value when after the deed is done would not otherwise mind the fact they managed to take the necklace without harming the women especially if the paladin at any point thought her refusal to give up the necklace may be caused by the necklace itself. A paladin who rats out a rogue for an inherently good act is also the type of paladin who will not allow a party to collect dungeon treasure as even though they are in there to destroy evil unless he has proof that any of the items were stolen would ere on the side of caution and refrane from becoming a thief himself. And honestly how many players actually play a paladin like that? So rather than claim the paladin did what a paladin should do yet has no issue being a hypocrite when it suits his treasure horde people need to learn what the alignments actually mean and that there is always wiggle room and exceptions to every rule as sometimes the ends do justify the means even if it means an atonement spells later for skirting the edge.
First off read before you speak i guess should be the moral of this story. The reading required would be page 218 of the players handbook 3.5 and study up on the detect evil spells. Just incase you dont here is essentially what detect evil does, you get to see the aura's of evil beings or items. This does not mean you get to detect when a rogue steals something or any other action it doesnt tell you why there evil or any of there evil acts either in the past or currently going on. Therefore the paladins detect evil would have done nothing in regards to seeing the item being stolen. Now the detect evil would allow him to know if the item has changed location but from her description the paladin was actively trying to RP the necklace from the women with the rest of the party and since detect evil requires concentration he would have stopped its use once he got the information he needed from its use.
First off, read before You speak! If you read my post you will see that I never said that the paladin detected the rogue actually stealing the necklace. Additionally, the rules actually support what I said. The paladin had detect evil up and saw that the necklace on the woman was evil (i.e. detected the evil aura on the necklace that was on the woman). Then, at some point not too long after the evil necklace was suddenly in the hands of the rogue. Considering that the woman refused to give up the necklace it is safe to say that the only way the rogue could have gotten it was to have stolen it! She is, after all, a thief.
Also, do the rules preclude talking with someone while concentrating on detect evil?
Now as for the paladin ratting her out, that is not a requirement of being a paladin or a LG character. The paladin unless always roleplayed that way rather than just taking an opportunity to rat out the rogue. A paladin would have little issue with the rogues theft as taking the evil cursed item from the unwary women who refuses to give it up is by no means an evil act. Though the paladin would probably have prefered it went willingly and would probably make every attempt to return the necklace if it survived its disenchantment or at least attempt to repay the women its monitary value when after the deed is done would not otherwise mind the fact they managed to take the necklace without harming the women especially if the paladin at any point thought her refusal to give up the necklace may be caused by the necklace itself. A paladin who rats out a rogue for an inherently good act is also the type of paladin who will not allow a party to collect dungeon treasure as even though they are in there to destroy evil unless he has proof that any of the items were stolen would ere on the side of caution and refrane from becoming a thief himself. And honestly how many players actually play a paladin like that? So rather than claim the paladin did what a paladin should do yet has no issue being a hypocrite when it suits his treasure horde people need to learn what the alignments actually mean and that there is always wiggle room and exceptions to every rule as sometimes the ends do justify the means even if it means an atonement spells later for skirting the edge.
I never said that ratting her out was a Lawful Good requirement for the Paladin. But neither is such an act forbidden! As for what a paladin would and would not do if they ratted out the rogue, that is your opinion. That is it. Your opinion. There is no single Right or Wrong way to play a paladin. This particular paladin could conceivably see theft in this case as being wrong but see taking "the spoils of war" in the dungeon as fitting in with fighting evil. Nor did I actually say that the paladin "should" have acted that way. I was pointing out that she knew how this particular paladin would have acted. She could have just as easily stolen it when the paladin was not around! Instead, she stole it in front of the paladin. And based on part of her post (This is not my fault or silents fault!! if the pally ( my real life son) had just kept his mouth shut then none of this would have happened) I think that it is pretty safe bet that she knew her son would act this way. It is also probably a safe bet to assume that her son is quite young. That could have a lot to do with why he did what he did.
I still stand by what I said. The rogue (or rather, the player of the rogue) is equally responsible for this. Please read and note that I am not blaming her entirely for this.
The point is we werent there so we dont know the whole story and background. But its a game and the fact of the matter is a person should never be harassed out of game for something they did in character. But if she gets to be harassed for something she did in character then do does everyone else and thats what this whole things boils down to. Because right now there treating what she did in game as something she did therefore she has every right to get on the other players case for what they chose to do in character that screwed the situation up.
See again the issue im having with your post is your making assumptions neither of us actually know for sure about. As my post stated there are many different scenarios and i listed off several for each event allowing her to pick and choose which ones suited her situation so she could decide if the actions of others was appropriate to how they were playing there character at the time. Though you claim not to fit a paladin in a bubble of expectations i have to disagree as you have once again in this post put another class in a bubble of expectations. A rogue is not a thief, there are many ways of playing a rogue and the ability or interest in stealing is not required to be the class. Again you are assuming the rogue steals on a regular basis therefore the paladin would automatically know who took the necklace based solely on it going missing. That is again an assumption your making based solely on the fact she is playing a rogue and the situation is about her stealing the necklace. For all we know everytime she stole something before she was never caught doing so therefore her party could be oblivious to her thieving skills.
The point is we werent there so we dont know the whole story and background. But its a game and the fact of the matter is a person should never be harassed out of game for something they did in character. But if she gets to be harassed for something she did in character then do does everyone else and thats what this whole things boils down to. Because right now there treating what she did in game as something she did therefore she has every right to get on the other players case for what they chose to do in character that screwed the situation up.
And you are not making assumptions?
As for the rogue not being a thief. In this case the rogue was a thief! She stole the necklace! It matters not if it was for noble intentions. It was still an act of theft.
Addtionally, I partially agree that a player should not be harrassed by other players for something that happend in game, but it seems to me that she is also tossing some blame at her son for what his character did.
Let's take the forum poster and potential player personalities out of this discussion for a moment.
The party consists of a Paladin, and two rogues.
The Paladin can be an easy going one, or he can be an obstructive jerk (in character). The rules allow for either option, so it is a role playing choice.
The player in this instance opted to play a bit of the stick up the behind obstructive jerk as the personality for the Paladin in this case. Once again a permissible role playing choice.
The best option for the rogue characters (in character) since they outnumber the paladin is the one I mentioned above - tell him to remove the stick and let them do their job, or take a hike. He can dislike their methods all day long, but when the paladin obstructs the course of good over a matter of protocol, then they have the right (in character - not metagame) to call him on it.
The paladin (in character) then has a choice to make about how it is going to be. He is either going to be calming down and letting the rogues do their job too, or hitting the road over "creative" differences to approach.
In Metagame mode when DMing I would put it this way. If someone brings a character into a game which has built in "role playing" differences with another player's standard character mode of operation (such as with Paladins and Rogues, Paladins and warlocks, Paladins and etc.), I am going to require both players to include in their character backgrounds just exactly why these two characters will manage to get along in a party for the most part. If they conceive that they are going to RP bickering and hindering each other as "fun" through every one of my playing sessions, then as a DM I'm going to put my foot down, and make someone play a different character of a similar role type (make the player with the Paladin change to a fighter for example).
When I am the DM, then the excuse of "role playing your character concept" is not permission to rain on the parade of the other players. I'll make you work harder to come up with a better concept, or you can opt to go find a game where that kind of player behavior is allowed.
I hope this helps.
Let's take the forum poster and potential player personalities out of this discussion for a moment.
The party consists of a Paladin, and two rogues.
The Paladin can be an easy going one, or he can be an obstructive jerk (in character). The rules allow for either option, so it is a role playing choice.
The player in this instance opted to play a bit of the stick up the behind obstructive jerk as the personality for the Paladin in this case. Once again a permissible role playing choice.
The best option for the rogue characters (in character) since they outnumber the paladin is the one I mentioned above - tell him to remove the stick and let them do their job, or take a hike. He can dislike their methods all day long, but when the paladin obstructs the course of good over a matter of protocol, then they have the right (in character - not metagame) to call him on it.
The paladin (in character) then has a choice to make about how it is going to be. He is either going to be calming down and letting the rogues do their job too, or hitting the road over "creative" differences to approach.
In Metagame mode when DMing I would put it this way. If someone brings a character into a game which has built in "role playing" differences with another player's standard character mode of operation (such as with Paladins and Rogues, Paladins and warlocks, Paladins and etc.), I am going to require both players to include in their character backgrounds just exactly why these two characters will manage to get along in a party for the most part. If they conceive that they are going to RP bickering and hindering each other as "fun" through every one of my playing sessions, then as a DM I'm going to put my foot down, and make someone play a different character of a similar role type (make the player with the Paladin change to a fighter for example).
When I am the DM, then the excuse of "role playing your character concept" is not permission to rain on the parade of the other players. I'll make you work harder to come up with a better concept, or you can opt to go find a game where that kind of player behavior is allowed.
I hope this helps.
Im in complete agreement with you. Hindering the partys goals are rarely if ever acceptable. Id post more but i have to go out so this will be a short post for once.
usually his character does not comment when Shade or Silent take anything and the group is pretty used to shade & silent taking stuff. Usually when our DM says "you find...." the first words from shade or silent as we write it down is "no you don't.." with a smile. We may be the sneaky little rogues, but we have become party lead together and the party usually goes wherever we say. Though Silent is a bit on the reckless side and will charge in whether we are ready or not. Shade on the other hand thinks about it a little more and usually pulls silent back if its not a good idea to do something.
My son is 15 and a gamer. He plays D&D, werewolf, WoW, COD, Halo,..... but he also plays football and soccer and overall a well rounded pretty good kid. He spends more time looking over the pathfinder book checking on his character stuff than i do.
usually his character does not comment when Shade or Silent take anything and the group is pretty used to shade & silent taking stuff. Usually when our DM says "you find...." the first words from shade or silent as we write it down is "no you don't.." with a smile. We may be the sneaky little rogues, but we have become party lead together and the party usually goes wherever we say. Though Silent is a bit on the reckless side and will charge in whether we are ready or not. Shade on the other hand thinks about it a little more and usually pulls silent back if its not a good idea to do something.
"Usually" he does not comment, but was this first time? Or has it happened before?
Bearing these in mind, I think it's fair for the players to have expected these leaders to have done something reckless anyway based on past behaviour. The fact that some of them are still harping on it would suggest the possibility of resentment over the past behaviour and this being a last straw for them.
My son is 15 and a gamer. He plays D&D, werewolf, WoW, COD, Halo,..... but he also plays football and soccer and overall a well rounded pretty good kid. He spends more time looking over the pathfinder book checking on his character stuff than i do.
usually his character does not comment when Shade or Silent take anything and the group is pretty used to shade & silent taking stuff. Usually when our DM says "you find...." the first words from shade or silent as we write it down is "no you don't.." with a smile. We may be the sneaky little rogues, but we have become party lead together and the party usually goes wherever we say. Though Silent is a bit on the reckless side and will charge in whether we are ready or not. Shade on the other hand thinks about it a little more and usually pulls silent back if its not a good idea to do something.
I'd kick you and your husband out of the group if you kept trying that crap.
I admit i caused alot of **** for running the assassin out of the party but its done and over with and now the rogue in the party who has indicated he isnt above doing the same (together we found a bag of gold which the rest of the party dont know about and i dont know its exact contents beyond him telling me there gold in it) though I myself know theres 500g in the bag my character was told somewhere between 100-200g which i have no reason to doubt as the rogue has not been dishonest to me in-game but since the assassin incident happened later that session (which is why i think the assassin did it as he is very new and the DM allowed him to play an evil character in a party with a good cleric and 3 unaligned) But after the session i made it very clear to the party that my character is not above theft but much like anyone i wont tolerate it if its done to me or anyone i know. So dont expect to not be driven from the party if you cant keep your fingers in your own pockets or at the very least out of mine.
Too many players who play rogues seen to feel it gives them a licence to steal from the party. All players like that do is kill the fun for the other players especially as the games continue and the rogue has everything they could want while the rest of the party struggles to maintain what they have. Im all for rogues going through taverns and houses and stealing things but the moment one steals from the party they have basically told me there going to be a disruption and everytime they disrupt the game somehow there rogue abilities take a break and they get caught stealing even candy from a baby.
Are Shade (you) and Silent (him) husband and wife in real life or just in the game?
Do Shade and/or Silent take things from other characters in the game? Hide things from other characters in the game?
Are you and the other female friend near the same age?
Who else plays? Shade (You) Silent, Paladin (15 Year old Son of Shade).
Do you and silent talk alot? Make all the in game choices? Roll dice everytime someone else does?
ok. the group as a whole consists of our two rogues, the paladin, a wizard with attention deficit & is known to wander off and we have to find/rescue him pretty often, a priest whose god is a traveler. a fallen gale, a nymph fighter, a half demon who wants to be an angel, and a half elf with multiple personalities. 1 thinks its a male elf fighter ( chaotic evil) and the other is a female human bard ( chaotic good)
the two rogues are the only ones that ever loot the bodies. and that is only when we think to do it. when we don't loot them, nobody else does. We usually get extra xp at the end of the game.. given by the other players because they love the "no you don't". We don't take things that could be useful to the other players when we find it, we give it to them and we all share money. unless the one with multiple personalities gets the money as the fighter personality. he is secrative and hides everything he gets from everyone. most of the characters are actually exceedingly wealthy in their own rights, especially our two rogues. Since the rest of the group are our friends we generally shower them with gifts all the time. houses, vehicles, phones... paying their expenses for everything without any hesitation. buying them new weapons and armor.
no, silent and shade are married. in RL we are not. The paladin is not our child, but the player of the paladin is my RL son.
no we don't take from other characters. As i mentioned before we usually give the other characters everything they desire because they are friends of our characters. I can't recall ever hiding anything from them, i mean i did slight of hand the necklace but i had no intention of not telling them or anything like that. I took it to diffuse the situation, get to neutral ground and as a group find a way to safely diffuse the curse on it.
Yes, the other female in question is the same age as me. She is the one who plays the character with multiple personalities.
kelly(shade) & Jeremy (silent) do talk about ideas and possabilities of what we could do when our characters are not currently doing anything, but we don't make all the group decisions. If the group doesn't want to do something, we don't do it, if they want to, we do.. however, much to our frustration, when the group is trying to figure out what to do or where to go next they look to Silent and Shade for the answer. out of game we have even suggested that making us the party lead might not be the best idea. having two rogues make the decisions is not the best idea. however, with the rag tag group of screwed up misfits we have all created. it somehow seems to work out well. none of us have ever rolled dice to make a decision on wether to listen to another player. if the majority of the group wants to do something we do it. At any time any characfter can decide not to go do something with the rest of the group but to go off and do his/her own thing which does happen once in awhile. though this has never created any issues in or out of game.
for the most part we are a close group of friends in RL and in character. we all play wow together as well. the girl who plays the multiple personality character has had blow ups overtime with each member of the group and we have all begun distancing ourselves from her ( she is the one annoying me with this in RL). My RL sons character usually doesn't have any issue with shade or silent taking or doing anything. the only other time he had an issue is when silent was dangling a **** off a balcony with every intention of dropping him and the pally wanted us to let him live to be arrested by the police instead of killed. it took a little talking between the pally(rick) and silent to come to an agreement, but in the end. Silent brought him down so the pally could call the cops and have him arrested. which is what did happen.
i hope that better explains the dynamics and situation a little better for everyone.