Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2912325" data-attributes="member: 32740">As somebody mentioned upthread D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game.  The OP is  both right and wrong in his reaction.  He is right to be appalled by the immaturity, rules ignorance, and even rudeness of the other player.  "Your character doesn't believe my character."  That is a pathetic excuse - and it IS just an excuse - to initiatiate intra-party violence.  There is no real justification for it.  SO WHAT if you WANT your PC to be egotistical.  The game is STILL one of cooperation.  That means that YOU, the player, YOU are responsible, indeed OBLIGATED to attempt to find a less obnoxious means of having your character portray that egotism than simply attacking another PC.  Moreso when the player has chosen an alignment (LG) that would suggest that there is VASTLY more substantial motivation required for such an action than "Your character superficially bruised my characters ego".The OP's response is thus understandable.  It was not, however, appropriate since the same rule still applies to HIM, despite the poor behavior on the part of the other player.  The better response would be to ACTIVELY SEEK a way to encourage the other player to stop being a jerk and find a means of your two characters to reach an accomodation so that play can resume.It's like choosing CE as your characters alignment when you know there is already a paladin or LG PC in the party.  Do so and you're just being a jerk for no justifiable reason.  You're roleplaying by ambush - attempting to artificially generate some form of disruptive amusement for oneself by baiting another player to have his PC react strongly - and then attempting to excuse it with "I was just roleplaying my character!" when the fault is ELECTING to not choose a compatible alignment in the first place knowing such disruption is inevitable.  The game at this point (just beginning a new campaign) should NOT be about reflexively opposing other PC's but the exact opposite - reflexively COOPERATING with other PC's.  If there is to be any genuine roleplaying-based PC vs. PC conflict let it be after play has MUCH better established the true personalities of all the characters and MEANINGFUL in-game opposition results and is NOT disruptive by being opposition for its own sake.Furthermore the DM must be made aware of HIS failure.  The offending player should have been cautioned by the DM regarding his unwarranted choice to be disruptive, as well as to grossly ignore his chosen alignment.  Of course that assumes that the DM is particularly aware of his responsibilities in this regard and has an idea of both why such players must be made to toe the line and how to guide them to be better players, not just submissive ones.  I applaud the OP's choice to take the high road, go back to the group and lead by example.  Hope it works out for you.  But don't think that taking the high road means you have to just tolerate that sort of crap.</blockquote>

Verification