Rant about my Party

[Eltab]

and his character is so against people telling him what to do that he told me if he ever diagreed with me again I’d have to just step back and let him do what he wanted with no objections, or he would kill me.

There is a simple test...
Your PC: Hey guys, grab an umbrella before you go outside; it's pouring down rain.
His PC: How dare you tell me what to do! I attack RAWR!
When this happens, it is an infallible sign that you must (A) have a long away-from-table talk with the DM, and (B) prepare to leave the group.

If the gaming gods are benevolent, most of the rest of the group will want to come with you and abandon him.
If not, well, it was an internet group and you have a world full of potential new group-mates. Hopefully ones who will try to get along.

 

[Schmoe]

You say you like these guys, but they are treating you like crap. On top of that, you don't seem to enjoy the game. And who could blame you? That's not a game I would touch with a 10' pole.

Find a better group, one that has some mutual respect for you. It shouldn't be hard.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Remedial action is not limited to capitulation or exit, though, else you've justified bullying as something you can ask to have stop, but if they bullies say no, it's now your problem.

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 reject this simplified dichotomy, as it is based on a specific outcome goal, namely the end of conflict. But rarely does capitulation actually result in a cessation of conflict -- generally it leads to passive aggressive behavior and the transference of the conflict to other areas.

If the initial attempt at compromise fails, it could be for a number of reasons -- your position is unreasonable, their position is unreasonable, or, the far more likely, one or both sides isn't representing the actual causes of the conflict. If you fail to reach a compromise, quitting or quitting is a poor resolution mechanic if you want to actually resolve anything. Instead, direct addressing of underlying reasons and feelings is a more appropriate step, especially in situations as fraught as this one.

Personally, I still feel that the OP is being bullied. This needs to be called out and discussed (since the game is online, this is at least physically safe) or the OP needs to absent himself immediately. On this latter point we agree, but not because it's how you resolve conflicts but because you should never continue to submit yourself to abuse. Abuse being a different animal than conflicting points of view in game.

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

I was uncertain if you were using that word as intended -- no offense meant, but I don't know your posting style well and it is the internet; assuming vocabulary skills isn't always warranted. So I hedge in your favor by being explicit. Glad you can confirm.

However, that said, I would strongly hesitate to diagnose pathological behavior from the details in the OP. And, if your argument is only for the pathological case, which would hopefully be far more obvious and verging into abuse rather than disagreement, what's your advice for the OP?

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!

Two things. Firstly, I specifically called out that the group had already acknowledged and approved the choice of class and oath prior to the events in my example. Perhaps you overlooked that. Second, if the group allows your paladin to start play, they've tacitly agreed to the class. If they allow your oath into play, they've tacitly agreed to the oath. If they have no objection to your play of that class and oath up until the conflict, they've tacitly agreed to your play. Complaining that you don't like the class, the oath, and the play only at the point of conflict is a failure of the group to honor the social contract of the game -- the group is now at fault, not the player. The time to complain is beforehand.

If something unforeseen emerges, as it can do, then that's a discussion that needs to be had frankly and openly with the whole group, yes. However, the paladin not lying for your convenience certainly is not this case, and, as a group, you've already approved this play prior to the events unfolding. The fault is yours. If you then insist that the player alter their character because you've decided to retroactively remove your permission, the breach of social contract is on you, not the paladin's player. If the group agrees with you, and threatens the character with violence, that's essentially threatening the player with emotional violence and is a bullying tactic. Bullying does not go well with capitulation.

In most group environments, one might expect that qualms about adding a 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.

This is heavy on blame the victim.

 

[Nagol]

Remedial action is not limited to capitulation or exit, though, else you've justified bullying as something you can ask to have stop, but if they bullies say no, it's now your problem.

On an immediate personal, as opposed to social, level, the bullying is the bullied person's problem. The bullies aren't going to take issue with it. If someone is doing X and you ask them to stop and he refuses, it's your problem to solve. The principal solution available to the bullied person is to remove oneself from the situation and/or group.

I reject this simplified dichotomy, as it is based on a specific outcome goal, namely the end of conflict. But rarely does capitulation actually result in a cessation of conflict -- generally it leads to passive aggressive behavior and the transference of the conflict to other areas.

If the initial attempt at compromise fails, it could be for a number of reasons -- your position is unreasonable, their position is unreasonable, or, the far more likely, one or both sides isn't representing the actual causes of the conflict. If you fail to reach a compromise, quitting or quitting is a poor resolution mechanic if you want to actually resolve anything. Instead, direct addressing of underlying reasons and feelings is a more appropriate step, especially in situations as fraught as this one.

On the contrary, quitting immediately and completely resolves the situation of dealing with the people in the group as part of the group. Unlike many environments for social bullying, gaming is a non-critical leisure activity that no one can hold hostage and is not necessary for well-being; quitting is simple and elegant solution.

Personally, I still feel that the OP is being bullied. This needs to be called out and discussed (since the game is online, this is at least physically safe) or the OP needs to absent himself immediately. On this latter point we agree, but not because it's how you resolve conflicts but because you should never continue to submit yourself to abuse. Abuse being a different animal than conflicting points of view in game.

Certainly some of the tells are present, but we are getting one short description from one participant. It may be more egalitarian forms of group pecking order behaviour. Whether or not the OP feels bullied is immaterial to me though. He feels frustration that his preferred style (not-murder-hoboing everything) is given short shrift by the group's preferred style (murder-hobo everything). He has tried to persuade the group to his style and been rebuffed. There are few options remaining. (1) He can continue to hector the others and remain frustrated that they don't want to explore his preferred style and deal with their frustrations with him, (2) he can capitulate and join in on the murder-hoboing and abandon his preferred style, or (3) he can leave.

For me, no gaming is better than bad gaming.

I was uncertain if you were using that word as intended -- no offense meant, but I don't know your posting style well and it is the internet; assuming vocabulary skills isn't always warranted. So I hedge in your favor by being explicit. Glad you can confirm.

However, that said, I would strongly hesitate to diagnose pathological behavior from the details in the OP. And, if your argument is only for the pathological case, which would hopefully be far more obvious and verging into abuse rather than disagreement, what's your advice for the OP?

Leave. Leave immediately. Pause only long enough to look around the group and see if there are any other players that might be redeemable. Find or start a different group.

Two things. Firstly, I specifically called out that the group had already acknowledged and approved the choice of class and oath prior to the events in my example. Perhaps you overlooked that. Second, if the group allows your paladin to start play, they've tacitly agreed to the class. If they allow your oath into play, they've tacitly agreed to the oath. If they have no objection to your play of that class and oath up until the conflict, they've tacitly agreed to your play. Complaining that you don't like the class, the oath, and the play only at the point of conflict is a failure of the group to honor the social contract of the game -- the group is now at fault, not the player. The time to complain is beforehand.

I tend to agree though with several caveats. The group may have a different idea as to what your oaths will actually entail (in fact each person in the group may have his own idea) since enforcement of oaths and PC performance varies wildly by table. The actual play experience may be different enough from expectation as to be intolerable to one or more members of the group. The group may (like my group does) have a social contract of "You play what you want; I'll play what I want. If we can't get along, there will be a reckoning."

If something unforeseen emerges, as it can do, then that's a discussion that needs to be had frankly and openly with the whole group, yes. However, the paladin not lying for your convenience certainly is not this case, and, as a group, you've already approved this play prior to the events unfolding. The fault is yours. If you then insist that the player alter their character because you've decided to retroactively remove your permission, the breach of social contract is on you, not the paladin's player. If the group agrees with you, and threatens the character with violence, that's essentially threatening the player with emotional violence and is a bullying tactic. Bullying does not go well with capitulation.

This is heavy on blame the victim.

Not blame. Acknowledgement of personal responsibility. One of the typically unspoken obligations all PCs have is to support the group. When you employ a PC with external obligations, one of the risks in the game is those obligations may be tested. How the player handles a situation where multiple obligations come into conflict can be an interesting situation.

The obligations attached to your character may affect other PCs, but other PCs are not beholden to them. Just because my PC was willing to adventure with yours yesterday does not imply I cannot refuse to adventure with you tomorrow based on how the relationship has evolved. How should the group handle that conflict? Any way the group is comfortable with including exiling your PC, mine, or both.

 

[Lanefan]

Remedial action is not limited to capitulation or exit, though, else you've justified bullying as something you can ask to have stop, but if they bullies say no, it's now your problem.

I reject this simplified dichotomy, as it is based on a specific outcome goal, namely the end of conflict. But rarely does capitulation actually result in a cessation of conflict -- generally it leads to passive aggressive behavior and the transference of the conflict to other areas.

If the initial attempt at compromise fails, it could be for a number of reasons -- your position is unreasonable, their position is unreasonable, or, the far more likely, one or both sides isn't representing the actual causes of the conflict. If you fail to reach a compromise, quitting or quitting is a poor resolution mechanic if you want to actually resolve anything. Instead, direct addressing of underlying reasons and feelings is a more appropriate step, especially in situations as fraught as this one.

Personally, I still feel that the OP is being bullied. This needs to be called out and discussed (since the game is online, this is at least physically safe) or the OP needs to absent himself immediately. On this latter point we agree, but not because it's how you resolve conflicts but because you should never continue to submit yourself to abuse. Abuse being a different animal than conflicting points of view in game.

There's a difference between bullying (which by definition involves a significant element of aggression, intimidation and power-over) and simply being a solid majority that refuses to yield to a lone voice of opposition.

And once it's obvious the majority isn't going to yield then said lone voice of opposition has but three options: keep shouting, capitulate, or leave. None are perfect.

Two things. Firstly, I specifically called out that the group had already acknowledged and approved the choice of class and oath prior to the events in my example. Perhaps you overlooked that. Second, if the group allows your paladin to start play, they've tacitly agreed to the class. If they allow your oath into play, they've tacitly agreed to the oath. If they have no objection to your play of that class and oath up until the conflict, they've tacitly agreed to your play. Complaining that you don't like the class, the oath, and the play only at the point of conflict is a failure of the group to honor the social contract of the game -- the group is now at fault, not the player. The time to complain is beforehand.

Not necessarily. If the tone going in boils down to "play what you want and let the chips (and corpses) fall where they may"* then anything will and must be accepted, as must any resulting conflict; and the DM is obligated to allow such.

* - this is more or less how I usually do it for my games: play what you like, but don't be surprised if it doesn't go the way you might expect or want.

If something unforeseen emerges, as it can do, then that's a discussion that needs to be had frankly and openly with the whole group, yes. However, the paladin not lying for your convenience certainly is not this case, and, as a group, you've already approved this play prior to the events unfolding. The fault is yours. If you then insist that the player alter their character because you've decided to retroactively remove your permission, the breach of social contract is on you, not the paladin's player. If the group agrees with you, and threatens the character with violence, that's essentially threatening the player with emotional violence and is a bullying tactic. Bullying does not go well with capitulation.

This is heavy on blame the victim.

Depends. If the player brought in a paladin knowing full well what the response would be (and I've had this happen in my game), then too bad so sad. Ditto for assassins, who also don't always get the most welcoming of welcomes.

One of the typically unspoken obligations all PCs have is to support the group.

Even that's not an absolute given.

When you employ a PC with external obligations, one of the risks in the game is those obligations may be tested. How the player handles a situation where multiple obligations come into conflict can be an interesting situation.

The obligations attached to your character may affect other PCs, but other PCs are not beholden to them. Just because my PC was willing to adventure with yours yesterday does not imply I cannot refuse to adventure with you tomorrow based on how the relationship has evolved. How should the group handle that conflict? Any way the group is comfortable with including exiling your PC, mine, or both.

And with this I very much agree. Role-playing yourself out of a party is very much an option - done it myself, numerous times - based on what the character would do and its motivations for so doing. But that doesn't mean I'm leaving as a player; I'll just roll up another one and run it out.

Lan-"also keep in mind that bullying or intimidating or even killing a character in character does not equate to doing the same to its player"-efan

 

[Aenghus]

There's a difference between bullying (which by definition involves a significant element of aggression, intimidation and power-over) and simply being a solid majority that refuses to yield to a lone voice of opposition.

And once it's obvious the majority isn't going to yield then said lone voice of opposition has but three options: keep shouting, capitulate, or leave. None are perfect.

A games group has no obligation to allow any arbitrary PC to be played. I prefer to set limits beforehand and only approve character concepts that meet my requirements. An other alternative is to allow almost anything but allow them to sink or swim with no special "PC glow" in place.

Lan-"also keep in mind that bullying or intimidating or even killing a character in character does not equate to doing the same to its player"-efan

As regards your end-note the subjective nature of bullying and variation in vulnerability among people means the exact same nominal behavior among one set of players may be tolerable whereas with a different set of players it may constitute bullying.

Also some players, especially new players, adopt a primary pawn or avatar stance where the PC stands in for themselves, and any bullying or intimidation of the PC effectively is also intimidation of the player themselves. I discourage this stance as the sole stance of players and encourage them to adopt PCs with at least one attitude different to themselves, in an attempt to reduce the one to one correspondence between PC and player.

As a referee I've had to step in a number of times in games to put a stop to intimidation tactics that were being too effective against vulnerable players, that I would have ignored or cautioned when players able to fend for themselves where concerned.

 

[Sunseeker]

Lan-"also keep in mind that bullying or intimidating or even killing a character in character does not equate to doing the same to its player"-efan

I think this needs a qualifier of "does not necessarily equate" in there. One could assume it, but in fairness one could not. Threats of violence against violent characters often work, but I've met too many players who can't separate players from characters and it can get blurry who is really threatening whom.

 

[Lanefan]

A games group has no obligation to allow any arbitrary PC to be played. I prefer to set limits beforehand and only approve character concepts that meet my requirements. An other alternative is to allow almost anything but allow them to sink or swim with no special "PC glow" in place.

This second alternative is exactly what I do. No special snowflakes here.

As regards your end-note the subjective nature of bullying and variation in vulnerability among people means the exact same nominal behavior among one set of players may be tolerable whereas with a different set of players it may constitute bullying.

Also some players, especially new players, adopt a primary pawn or avatar stance where the PC stands in for themselves, and any bullying or intimidation of the PC effectively is also intimidation of the player themselves. I discourage this stance as the sole stance of players and encourage them to adopt PCs with at least one attitude different to themselves, in an attempt to reduce the one to one correspondence between PC and player.

As a referee I've had to step in a number of times in games to put a stop to intimidation tactics that were being too effective against vulnerable players, that I would have ignored or cautioned when players able to fend for themselves where concerned.

I think this needs a qualifier of "does not necessarily equate" in there. One could assume it, but in fairness one could not. Threats of violence against violent characters often work, but I've met too many players who can't separate players from characters and it can get blurry who is really threatening whom.

True, and this is where session 0 and-or one's introductory write-up to the game comes in, where it's made absolutely clear that what happens in character stays in character and is not reflected in real life. (and never mind bullying: this comes up most often IME when dealing with in-character romances between characters whose players are not themselves romantically involved, and who may even be involved IRL with someone else at the table!)

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

True, and this is where session 0 and-or one's introductory write-up to the game comes in, where it's made absolutely clear that what happens in character stays in character and is not reflected in real life. (and never mind bullying: this comes up most often IME when dealing with in-character romances between characters whose players are not themselves romantically involved, and who may even be involved IRL with someone else at the table!)

Lanefan

I don't think Session 0's can resolve this. Everyone plays nice at a Session 0 (News at 11, People Lie!), the people who don't? You probably know they're not going to play nice the first time you talk to them about D&D. This sort of bullying, threatening, inability to separate real from fantasy, player from character, happens over time. It's a slow build, often between two players who turn out to have vastly different personalities and approaches to gaming. Tabletop gaming is a lot like dating. You can sort out the REALLY bad matches from your first encounter. But from there on out? Both sides have to do some legwork to really dig in to the other person's personality, and both of them have to be willing to open up to risk people seeing their true personality. It is somewhat ironic that tabletop gaming is a very social game designed for a typically anti-social group of people.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think Session 0's can resolve this. Everyone plays nice at a Session 0 (News at 11, People Lie!), the people who don't? You probably know they're not going to play nice the first time you talk to them about D&D. This sort of bullying, threatening, inability to separate real from fantasy, player from character, happens over time. It's a slow build, often between two players who turn out to have vastly different personalities and approaches to gaming. Tabletop gaming is a lot like dating. You can sort out the REALLY bad matches from your first encounter. But from there on out? Both sides have to do some legwork to really dig in to the other person's personality, and both of them have to be willing to open up to risk people seeing their true personality. It is somewhat ironic that tabletop gaming is a very social game designed for a typically anti-social group of people.

It occurs to me that we may be coming from different backgrounds here.

Ignoring one-offs and convention games, I almost never game with people I don't already know halfway well from outside the game; and thus I know what to expect and how to lay down the law. If you're talking about something like FLGS games where nobody previously knows anybody then I can see your points.

Lanefan