What To Do with Player?

[Kae'Yoss]

That lacks logic

It's a bit playing with words, but the logic's there: There's someone who lied told an untruth, and might have had his reasons for it, and there's the guy who likes lying for lying's sake.

Chances are you can trust the first guy with his white lie - especially if he promises not to do it again, and explains why he did it. The other guy: How could you trust him? He lies to poeple just for kicks. He probably likes to hurt others.

I love the real men don't play good characters thing. I'll have to tell my husband that. He'll be amused.

Sorry to stray from the Path of Topic, but are you *the* "Rikka"?

Muh?

Which particular "virtue of egoism" crap might that have been? I'm pretty sure I missed it, but it sounds like so much fun, could you link it?

Cheers.

I can't quite remember who said it or where it was said, but the "reasoning" went like this: Normal virtues, like charity, are a lie, as people just aren't nice and virtuous. Therefore, being egoistic and caring only for yourself is a virtue and should be striven for. I think it was one of those obnoxious elf haters who tried to justify their hatred of elves - they weren't "virtuous" (like they define it, i.e. selfish bastards), but embody the "false virtues" and are an idialized version of man that is untrue.

To me, it sounded like someone sitting in a psychology class getting bored and decided to bash others with pseudo-style.

 

[Thomas Percy]

OK, I will try new player next Sunday.
Thanks for help.

 

[Arnwyn]

So if things go wrong in the game (e.g. a TPK, loss of a prized possession due to bad luck, death of a major character, etc.) you can call for a do-over? Gah!

Absolutely not.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word "especially" - for us, it's ONLY when there is an 'outside of the game' problem.

If something happens, even through the worst of reasons, it happens. It becomes part of the history of the campaign and stays there...I just can't imagine a tabletop game where this tenet is not carved in stone. Anything else leads down a very slippery slope with the "save...reboot" monster waiting in the murk at the bottom.

I consider that 'carved in stone' stance to be entirely ridiculous (though admittedly it may be necessary for groups who are incapable of distinguishing between a game problem and a player problem). Like I said in my post above - my group and I can recognize a player problem when we see it.

 

[haakon1]

New player joined our group 4 weeks ago.
He agreed to play good or neutral - aligned character then.
Because rest of the PCs is good and noble.
His PC killed innocent sleeping person last game session,
and done it in such stupid way that rest of the PCs found the murderer in one round (speak with dead).
I stop a session this moment.

The PCs will want to kick out from their fellowship and imprison (or polymorph) the murderer.
The players lament, new player broke his word and plays evil-aligned character.

How to resolve this problem?

Solve it in game. Let the PC's play their characters, which means turning in the murderer if they are Lawful Good, or possibly "solving the problem themselves" if they are Chaotic Good and justice is far off/unreliable.

Once he is turned over to the authorities, play them too, as NPC's you devise. They might be corrupt and let him off (what's in it for them in doing so?), they might be evil and recruit him for their evil plots, they might be Lawful Evil and enforce the law in a gruesome way (see "Braveheart" for medieval execution with extreme prejudice!), or they might be good or neutral and just hang him and burn the body (no Raising possible). Note that hanging is considered an ignoble and insulting way to be executed, whereas beheading is more respectful (for the nobility and such).

Assuming the PC ends up dead (or recruited into an evil conspiracy and moved to NPC status until such time as the DM gets feline amusement by bringing back the villain), it's up to you and the player to decide if the player can create a new character, or should no longer game with you.

 

[haakon1]

Oh, no. He's a player and DM from 7 years (AD&D, 3e, Cthulu, Warhammer).

Killing of sleeping innocent NPC was a peak of his "evil" career for now. He signed a pact with demon, he trying to buy a cloak of Vecna in every shop, he tortured a lot of people (he has charm person spell), and he was impressed very much by Nazi-like ideology of campaign top bad guy. The player said his character is neutral-aligned, so he can do such things.

I'm reading yours advices and I'm thinking "is it the character problem or the player problem?"

Oh, that changes things. I'd definitely play out the trial of the character, with or without the player in attendence, and the judge is definitely going to be a Lawful Neutral hanging judge who thinks the site of blood -- lots of blood -- is good for convincing the Chaotic Evil, which is what he's got here, to repent their ways before suffering similarly gruesome fates. He done change a venue'd down to Spaghetti-Western style Texas, woo-ee! I might even throw in something about little demon spirits coming to steal the soul from his warm body (a la "Conan" and "Ghost") after the theatrical gory death scene.

And the player would not be invited to future games.

 

[starkad]

I'd throw his butt out of my house and my gaming table faster than he could blink.

What he did was excusable - if it weren't for the prior actions, or the 'real men' comment. Those compiled mean to me he isn't worth having in my group; he'd destroy chemistry, and it's taken me 7 years to build correct chemistry with my group.

If he's a new player you just met, I would suggest not coddling him, not altering things to not hurt his feelings. I'd throw him out, and be done with it.

 

[Rothe]

Oh, no. He's a player and DM from 7 years (AD&D, 3e, Cthulu, Warhammer).

Killing of sleeping innocent NPC was a peak of his "evil" career for now. He signed a pact with demon, he trying to buy a cloak of Vecna in every shop, he tortured a lot of people (he has charm person spell), and he was impressed very much by Nazi-like ideology of campaign top bad guy. The player said his character is neutral-aligned, so he can do such things.

I'm reading yours advices and I'm thinking "is it the character problem or the player problem?"

Clearly player problem. Especially with his excuses. He's basically come in under the pre-rext of fitting in to the group then proceeded to screw with your heads. My alignment made me do it is the oldest excuse in D&D for problem players. Kick the player. His character is now an NPC, have the PCs come up with a way to try him and execute him without him spilling their secrets. You might be able to weave a nice story about how the other PCs were duped and they can now work to redeem themselves from being associated with the previous idiot. Or just redo. The real life BS you guys had to suffer justifies it IMHO.

 

[Henrix]

Killing of sleeping innocent NPC was a peak of his "evil" career for now. He signed a pact with demon, he trying to buy a cloak of Vecna in every shop, he tortured a lot of people (he has charm person spell), and he was impressed very much by Nazi-like ideology of campaign top bad guy. The player said his character is neutral-aligned, so he can do such things.

Of course he can do such things. Even a lawful good character could do such things.

He'd very soon stop being neutral (or lawful good), though. Alignment is not a straitjacket, but a reflection of how the character acts (DMG p.134).
You're the DM, in the end you decide what is good and evil in your campaign.
It is fair to give him a warning before he does things that'll change his alignment.

But he sounds like you ought to kick him out.

 

[pawsplay]

I can't quite remember who said it or where it was said, but the "reasoning" went like this: Normal virtues, like charity, are a lie, as people just aren't nice and virtuous. Therefore, being egoistic and caring only for yourself is a virtue and should be striven for.

That is a reasonable position. But it does not lead to "act like a jackass and people will still like you." I have no problem with ethical egoism as a concept, but I don't think it's actually in anyone's best interest to act like a tool.

Since, if acting for others is actually the right thing to do, it's in your best interest to do so, and since it's often in your best interest to act on behalf of others, there is more semantic difference than actual difference between egoism and traditional virtue ethics or utilitarianism.