Rant about my Party

[Nagol]

I'm still rather confused as to how you have a monolithic 'party' which is being acted against by one player.

There Wheaton Rule is a good rule of thumb, but I can't get behind your call for subsuming all conflict into the will of the collective. Firstly because I don't believe such a collective actually can exist, it's a bunch of people not a mindmeld, and secondly, conflict can make a game awesome, so long as it's not violating the Wheaton Rule.

I don't call for subsuming all conflict into the will of the collective for starters and I'm addressing the pathological case. If the situation has grown so dire that the player cannot conceive of continuing play and remaining true to the characterization of the PC, that's a good indication the character is a poor fit to the group.

I'm of the opinion that the responsibility of not stalling the game/breaking the party lies on the player that is introducing the conflict. Feel free to conflict away as much as you wish -- so long as you aren't raising blocks that prevent others from enjoying themselves. If a character is offended by behaviour typical to that group, it isn't a group problem; it is that player's problem to work through.

Roleplaying is a social activity. If a person isn't enjoying a group activity, by all means discuss with others what you don't like. However, it is the responsibility of outliers in any group to take remedial action if the group rejects the appeal. A PC can be constructed with traits, values, and principles, but the player needs to understand where the group behavioural expectations lie and colour inside those lines when portraying them. For some groups that means no sexual violence; for other groups that means murder-hobos wreaking havoc.

There is a difference between a trait and the action a PC takes because of it. A player can almost always play true to the trait without blocking the table. If A is doing something that is blocking B and C because of some internal reason ("I'm playing my alignment!/My character wouldn't do that!/I won't hurt animals even if they're imaginary!") then A has to be the prime motivator of any solution because there is only one solution that doesn't require A's acceptance and it is a simple one: get rid of the annoyance.

 

[Aenghus]

See, when it comes to real people social interaction, simple rules that aren't really just generalities about very complex interactions (like Wheaton's Rule, which doesn't define what the nominal individual behavior is, but goes with the pornography rule - you know it when you see it) just don't work. Majority rules is a great way to bully and abuse a new player as much as it could be a way to learn the social pattern of a group.

Honestly, the OP seems to be the target of some bullying by his peers and it seems like there are a number of people excusing it and saying 'hey, man, just give them your lunch money, you're the problem here.'

In cases of bullying that isn't immediately put a stop to by the other participants the correct response is likely to leave. I despise bullies and all they stand for.

Speaking as a player and DM that has limits on the amount of intra-party conflict I can tolerate, majority rules is a simplistic way of reducing conflict, hopefully reducing the amount of non-productive conflict in the group. Individual play goals can be incompatible in a whole host of different ways, compromises of various sorts often have to be made to engineer a viable game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't call for subsuming all conflict into the will of the collective for starters and I'm addressing the pathological case. If the situation has grown so dire that the player cannot conceive of continuing play and remaining true to the characterization of the PC, that's a good indication the character is a poor fit to the group.

I'm of the opinion that the responsibility of not stalling the game/breaking the party lies on the player that is introducing the conflict. Feel free to conflict away as much as you wish -- so long as you aren't raising blocks that prevent others from enjoying themselves. If a character is offended by behaviour typical to that group, it isn't a group problem; it is that player's problem to work through.

Roleplaying is a social activity. If a person isn't enjoying a group activity, by all means discuss with others what you don't like. However, it is the responsibility of outliers in any group to take remedial action if the group rejects the appeal. A PC can be constructed with traits, values, and principles, but the player needs to understand where the group behavioural expectations lie and colour inside those lines when portraying them. For some groups that means no sexual violence; for other groups that means murder-hobos wreaking havoc.

There is a difference between a trait and the action a PC takes because of it. A player can almost always play true to the trait without blocking the table. If A is doing something that is blocking B and C because of some internal reason ("I'm playing my alignment!/My character wouldn't do that!/I won't hurt animals even if they're imaginary!") then A has to be the prime motivator of any solution because there is only one solution that doesn't require A's acceptance and it is a simple one: get rid of the annoyance.

Sorry, cannot agree with the 'your problem, fix it or your ditched' dichotomy you've set up. In normal social interaction, if someone expresses a strong dislike for performing a group activity, the group can also bend. You've set up a situation where individuals must always subsume themselves to the gestalt, where there is also the outcome of a group accommodating the individual. I can't tell if you're only advocating for the extreme persistent pattern, which I could agree with you and falls within such broad social rules as Wheaton's, but then you keep using examples that seem to indicate that any action that causes a situation that must be resolved should always result in the individual acquiescing to the group.

The example of the paladin being asked by the party to lie for their benefit despite lying being expressly against his code (a code well known to the group and previously approved as acceptable to the group social contract) is an example of where I would say that it's incumbent on the group to acknowledge and alter their behavior as the problem and not the player of the paladin. Yet your formulation would place this on the paladin's player to change their character or leave the group.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In cases of bullying that isn't immediately put a stop to by the other participants the correct response is likely to leave. I despise bullies and all they stand for.

Speaking as a player and DM that has limits on the amount of intra-party conflict I can tolerate, majority rules is a simplistic way of reducing conflict, hopefully reducing the amount of non-productive conflict in the group. Individual play goals can be incompatible in a whole host of different ways, compromises of various sorts often have to be made to engineer a viable game.

The behavior described in the OP is bullying. The other players are threatening to attack and otherwise hurt the character of the OP, and the players are also using social bullying to make it his fault for having pre-approved and known morals. Not all bullying is swirlies and shoving you in a locker, but this kind seems to be something a many in our hobby are willing to overlook or excuse to remain part of the group.

 

[Nagol]

Sorry, cannot agree with the 'your problem, fix it or your ditched' dichotomy you've set up. In normal social interaction, if someone expresses a strong dislike for performing a group activity, the group can also bend.

And I wrote as much. "However, it is the responsibility of outliers in any group to take remedial action if the group rejects the appeal." I'm unsure how to be more plain.

You've set up a situation where individuals must always subsume themselves to the gestalt, where there is also the outcome of a group accommodating the individual.

No, I've set up a situation where one person is affected by/affecting a group and attempts to reach compromise have failed. Without compromise there are two choices for the disaffected: change or leave.

I can't tell if you're only advocating for the extreme persistent pattern, which I could agree with you and falls within such broad social rules as Wheaton's, but then you keep using examples that seem to indicate that any action that causes a situation that must be resolved should always result in the individual acquiescing to the group.

What part of "... I'm addressing the pathological case." left you in doubt?

The example of the paladin being asked by the party to lie for their benefit despite lying being expressly against his code (a code well known to the group and previously approved as acceptable to the group social contract) is an example of where I would say that it's incumbent on the group to acknowledge and alter their behavior as the problem and not the player of the paladin. Yet your formulation would place this on the paladin's player to change their character or leave the group.

Because at no point is it incumbent on the group to honour choices they didn't have a hand in -- choosing Paladin as a class, for example. Should the group honour it? Yes! Must the group honour it? No!

In most group environments, one might expect that qualms about adding a character with specific and understood principles would be raised early, but perhaps the group is used to winking at those requirements? Even if the group expects the requirements to be enforced and intends to continue their murder-hobo ways, they have no obligation to alter their behaviour to protect you from your choices. It would be appropriate if the group gave you a warning prior to bringing that character in that it could be a problem, but failing to do so doesn't put them in the wrong. When faced with the stark choice disappoint your mates or disappoint your deity, what do you do? What consequences flow from that decision? That's one of the risks the player assumes by playing a character with unbending principles.

 

[Manbearcat]

This doesn't make any sense.

You say you're a 13th level Cleric. That is 2 spells at 5th level, 1 spell at 6th, and 1 spell at 7th. Yet you only raised this poor woman from the dead a single time so your party could subsequently kill her again? I see 3 more opportunities there to put her in an extended purgatory of sociopathic, PC-induced death loop.

Have you no self-respect?

 

[Chaosmancer]

This doesn't make any sense.

You say you're a 13th level Cleric. That is 2 spells at 5th level, 1 spell at 6th, and 1 spell at 7th. Yet you only raised this poor woman from the dead a single time so your party could subsequently kill her again? I see 3 more opportunities there to put her in an extended purgatory of sociopathic, PC-induced death loop.

Have you no self-respect?

After the second time he attacked the party, then left. Also, my 7th was used throwing a big flame strike at Strahd, and I think one of my 5ths had been used up by something else, I can't remember what.

So, I only had one more Raise Dead left for the day.

 

[Manbearcat]

After the second time he attacked the party, then left. Also, my 7th was used throwing a big flame strike at Strahd, and I think one of my 5ths had been used up by something else, I can't remember what.

So, I only had one more Raise Dead left for the day.

I guess that is a swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing and a miss by me.

You were intimating that you felt that the murderhoboing by your pals made a farce of play. I was taking that farce and pressing the accelerator to the floor to satire the whole deal.

Nevermind.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I guess that is a swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing and a miss by me.

You were intimating that you felt that the murderhoboing by your pals made a farce of play. I was taking that farce and pressing the accelerator to the floor to satire the whole deal.

Nevermind.

Sorry, online sarcasm is hard to catch sometimes.

I'd give myself a batting average of .230

(Why yes, I had to look that statistic up, I would have never guessed the numbers worked that way myself)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because at no point is it incumbent on the group to honour choices they didn't have a hand in -- choosing Paladin as a class, for example. Should the group honour it? Yes! Must the group honour it? No!

Welcome to the thrust of the problem...