Help reign in a player who refuses to play his role

[Obryn]

This is the reason that I don't like "roles" in D&D. I knew that these kinds of threads would occur, and it makes me very, very sad.

...and you never saw anything like this in previous editions? I seem to remember lots of similar threads on every board I've ever been on.

Thread title regardless, this is about a player who's being intentionally disruptive. That transcends game and edition.

-O

 

[Lizard]

This is the reason that I don't like "roles" in D&D. I knew that these kinds of threads would occur, and it makes me very, very sad.

This isn't different from pacifist fighters, wizards who refuse to cast spells, or rogues who only steal from their own party. s are edition-proof.

 

[eleran]

This isn't different from pacifist fighters, wizards who refuse to cast spells, or rogues who only steal from their own party. s are edition-proof.

amen brother, a-freakin'-men.

 

[hopeless]

Halfling Paladin of the Raven Queen?

So, I have a player in my group that REFUSES to fulfill his role as defender in the party. He is a paladin-- who chose daggers as a weapon because they did the least damage (he is trying to make his character less effective for some reason). He insists on hiding in the back ranks and throwing daggers, and because he is a Paladin of the Raven Queen, he refuses to use his Lay on Hands on dying PCs because "it's their time".
Of course we have tried talking to him-- explaining that maybe warlock, rogue, or ranger might be better for him, but he insists he wants his "character concept" to be a halfling paladin who dual-wields daggers.
Anything else I can do?

Out of curiosity being a Paladin of the Raven Queen isn't he violating his oath by deliberately hiding from battle since he's resorting to ranged combat and "hiding" behind his fellow PCs?

I know Paladins are different now under 4e but they should still have an oath to oblige by and Unaligned isn't going to cover the fact he's just as much a threat to the rest of the party as the actual monsters, he can argue he doesn't have to heal another pc but wouldn't that also mean he can't heal himself?

 

[Wormwood]

This is the reason that I don't like "roles" in D&D. I knew that these kinds of threads would occur, and it makes me very, very sad.

Not even remotely the point.

 

[ST]

So there is such a thing as wrongbadfun!

And here I thought it was just a meme.

Oh yeah. If I derive enjoyment out of kicking you in the head, and you don't derive enjoyment from being kicked in the head, that's no good.

Also since nobody put it in the thread yet, here's the time-honored link:

Geek Social Fallacies

 

[gnfnrf]

I've had a remarkably similar problem to this, and it's a tough nut to crack.

First, discuss this (privately) with the other players and the DM, because any solution needs to be motivated by more than you. If either the DM or the majority of players also feels this is unacceptable, then you can deal with it. If everyone else doesn't care, or doesn't care enough to force the issue, drop it.

Assuming there is consensus to act, I'd propose the following approach.

Talk to the player, and say the following, roughly.

"I appreciate that you've made a character that fits your concept, and are roleplaying accordingly, but you've made a character that can't function in an adventuring party. Right now, I can't roleplay MY character effectively (nor can the rest of the group), because my character (and the other characters) would never travel with your character. However, since as players, we're in the same game, if we were to do that, it would be effectively asking you, as a player, to leave the game. So please understand that if you don't compromise your roleplaying concept of a dagger throwing non-healing non-defending paladin, we will no longer compromise our roleplaying concepts of adventurers who don't share treasure with people who we don't see as helping us achieve our goals."

--
gnfnrf

 

[Arbitrary]

That guy is just playing a useless character. I've seen many of them.

On a related note, what about offspec characters? Healadins, Ranger tanks, etc. I see potential with some builds to squeeze one class into another and Paragon multiclassing is certainly going to change character roles.

 

[blargney the second]

If you're genuinely confused about his behaviour, ask him why he's doing it.
-blarg

 

[TK Lafours]

That guy is just playing a useless character. I've seen many of them. .

I'll admit I've intentionally played my share of somewhat useless characters in 3.5 (though I never sabotaged a party or refused to help if I could). Mostly because I rebelled against the few optimal builds that totally outclassed everything else. And if other optimized power-gamer characters were going to dominate the combat anyway, I might as well have some fun. That might be what the player in question here is thinking. I kind of get it.

That said, 4E isn't 3.5 (I don't think). Playing a 'paladin' who hangs in the back and throws knives doesn't prove anything about the 4E system, its limitations or imbalances. The name of the class is only as important as you make it. It says as little or as much about your character's ideals, background or personality as you want, it simply represents a set of skills and powers that your character is capable of. Choosing a class is just a step in making a character that does what you want it to do. So, regardless of my character's personality, background or what he calls himself, if he's going to duel wield daggers from the back of the party I'm probably going to choose Ranger.

Thus, I'll have Wally the crazy religious-nut ranger who claims to be a paladin, observes paladin rights and even wears a holy symbol, but stays in the back and duel wields daggers fairly effectively. The word 'ranger' might never even come out of Wally's mouth and he'll probably get offended if you refer to him as a ranger. On the character sheet, it's going to say 'Ranger' but that's okay, Wally never has to know that.