Help: Paladin putting group in danger...
- Thread starter Myrmidon
- Start date
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Re: Hmm...
Well, if one of my players started to pout during the game, we'd all take a break from the gaming, pout along with him, offer him some cheese to go with his whine, giggle a lot at his expense, and then drive on with the game.
Lela said:
Well, if one of my players started to pout during the game, we'd all take a break from the gaming, pout along with him, offer him some cheese to go with his whine, giggle a lot at his expense, and then drive on with the game.
schporto
First Post
I like the ideas (especially Lela's!) about the mentor teaching some. But I like hands on gods. So have the paladin get beat down. Have his god appear to him and explain that if he (the paladin) dies the god shall forsake him. The paladin has a sacred duty to advance the god's cause and he can't do that dead. Or couple that with Lela's. Like I said my twist is I like gods who appear to the divine players in my games.
-cpd
-cpd
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
So the Paladin's god should forsake him for dying in battle against an enemy? If I was that Paladin I'd start looking for a new god.
Rashak Mani
First Post
Funny no one mentioned the fact that the paladin said... one against 4 will never win.
This is what I call the "Balanced Game" notion... most players beleive the DM will never ever put them against an encounter they have no or little chances of winning. If the opposition looks daunting its because the DM left some kind of weakness in order to defeat that monster, etc...
Many players cant figure that an encounter is too deadly....
This is what I call the "Balanced Game" notion... most players beleive the DM will never ever put them against an encounter they have no or little chances of winning. If the opposition looks daunting its because the DM left some kind of weakness in order to defeat that monster, etc...
Many players cant figure that an encounter is too deadly....
Rashak Mani
First Post
Actually once I had the opposite problem... the Paladin got bitten by a T-Rex and ran away from combat. When the T-Rex gave another PC some attention the paladin instead of using some kind of missile weapon to save his companion was drinking cure light potions (duh great help).
His mount threw him off his back and charged back at the T-Rex ! After that he was much more aware of the Paladins posture and honor.
His mount threw him off his back and charged back at the T-Rex ! After that he was much more aware of the Paladins posture and honor.
Thanks to all for the advice. I haven't gone through every post, but I wanted to address a few of them.
The rogue did indeed steal a book from the monk. The player wanted to hit the Ninja of the Crescent Moon class, we worked out that he'd had a mentor, but didn't complete the training. Said monk was a killer for hire, so the rogue decided to take off with his "instruction manual," thus he could a) prevent the master from further study b) learn the class on his own. So the theft was never consisdered an issue.
The entire group was aware of how powerful the monk was, and for those who doubted he let the group "spell up" for a couple of rounds and took a tanglefoot bag to the chest, then took the rogue to -6 hp in the first round. Everybody noted that I was rolling d12's for his fists. So it was obvious that he was no joke.
While this player is the second youngest member of the group, he's 26. Way too old to pout and throw tantrums when things don't go his way. We've all been know to get upset when the dice gods forsake us, but he takes it to a new level sometimes. On the other hand I guess that means he likes his character, and there's nothing wrong with that.
My main concern is that when he refused to leave, the rest of the group felt obligated to stand with him. Someday this might result in the entire group getting killed, and nobody wants that.
The rogue did indeed steal a book from the monk. The player wanted to hit the Ninja of the Crescent Moon class, we worked out that he'd had a mentor, but didn't complete the training. Said monk was a killer for hire, so the rogue decided to take off with his "instruction manual," thus he could a) prevent the master from further study b) learn the class on his own. So the theft was never consisdered an issue.
The entire group was aware of how powerful the monk was, and for those who doubted he let the group "spell up" for a couple of rounds and took a tanglefoot bag to the chest, then took the rogue to -6 hp in the first round. Everybody noted that I was rolling d12's for his fists. So it was obvious that he was no joke.
While this player is the second youngest member of the group, he's 26. Way too old to pout and throw tantrums when things don't go his way. We've all been know to get upset when the dice gods forsake us, but he takes it to a new level sometimes. On the other hand I guess that means he likes his character, and there's nothing wrong with that.
My main concern is that when he refused to leave, the rest of the group felt obligated to stand with him. Someday this might result in the entire group getting killed, and nobody wants that.
TroyXavier
First Post
This reminds me a bit of what happened in my old gaming group(currently inactive). One of the players had a monk and she made the rather foolish mistake(she had first initiative) to keep fighting a huge monstrous scorpion, while the rest of the group had realized we were overmatched. Her character of course was mauled by it. Unfortunately, she never took it well, and dragged the campaign down for the next few weeks. Still, she had warning beforehand that:
1. Sometimes it's better to run instead of fight
2. That if you do something stupid you can get killed
Hopefully, if we ever play again, she'll take those lessons to heart.
1. Sometimes it's better to run instead of fight
2. That if you do something stupid you can get killed
Hopefully, if we ever play again, she'll take those lessons to heart.
Tyberious Funk
First Post
<Silent Bob mode>
Thorfinn Fumbleweed. Thorfinn was a Kender thief in the first party after we upgraded from Basic D&D to AD&D 2ed, along with myself, the Bard, a Paladin and occasionally a ranger. Like a typical Kender, Thorfinn was an annoying character, but we all loved the guy that played him and he was pretty funny just the same. He had so many mishaps with greek fire oil that he had commissioned the local tailor to make him a fireproof cloak (but that's another story for another day... needless to say, a Kender without any hair is a funny site).
Thorfinn thought he was invincible. For a thief, he did an awful lot of charging in to battle and, I must admit, he wasn't too bad a fighter (mainly thanks to a good CON and some lucky HD rolls). Our DM didn't mind throwing us the occasional encounter that was beyond the level of the party, often with the aim of testing our tactics... in all fairness we became damn good as a result. I've won some tough battles with the help of low-level spells like Grease, Sleep and Levitate.
Unfortunately, Thorfinn didn't always understand how the DM operated and sometimes charged the most insane battles at ridiculous times (heck, these foes *must* be beatable, the DM wouldn't put them there otherwise). He charged a party of camping ogres when the party only consisted of himself and my Bard (both only 4th level at the time) and then wondered why we ended up battered and bruised in a burlap bag. On one occasion, fleeing a cave of Draconians, he decided to turn back because he felt we hadn't finished the adventure properly. He had only 1hp and no healing left.
The DM was weak and gutless and somehow Thorfinn always lived although he was often humiliated. But he never learned. And it wasn't just the character - it was the player. The same guy did the same stuff in different campaigns, in different game settings playing totally different characters. He certainly wasn't above pouting if things didn't go his way, so it wasn't as if he didn't take his gaming seriously. I gotta say, it drove me crazy because it forced our encounters to develop a slightly sour flavour - among other things, I often suspected the DM was fudging rolls.
The point (I'm getting there), is that some players never learn. They don't want to learn. And besides, as some other posters have pointed out, it really isn't your role to "teach" the guy a lesson. Give the guy the necessary 'fair break' (ie, a warning about the power of his enemey) and then let the game flow. If the rest of the party want to dive in and help him, then they'll suffer the consequences too. However, I suspect the rest of the party has enough sense to take some of the less-than-subtle hints and will eventually abandon the Paladin to his death. And despite the pouting you'll endure, it will probably be better for you in the long run.
Trust me, you don't want to end up DMing Thorfinn Fumbleweed.
</Silent Bob Mode>
Thorfinn Fumbleweed. Thorfinn was a Kender thief in the first party after we upgraded from Basic D&D to AD&D 2ed, along with myself, the Bard, a Paladin and occasionally a ranger. Like a typical Kender, Thorfinn was an annoying character, but we all loved the guy that played him and he was pretty funny just the same. He had so many mishaps with greek fire oil that he had commissioned the local tailor to make him a fireproof cloak (but that's another story for another day... needless to say, a Kender without any hair is a funny site).
Thorfinn thought he was invincible. For a thief, he did an awful lot of charging in to battle and, I must admit, he wasn't too bad a fighter (mainly thanks to a good CON and some lucky HD rolls). Our DM didn't mind throwing us the occasional encounter that was beyond the level of the party, often with the aim of testing our tactics... in all fairness we became damn good as a result. I've won some tough battles with the help of low-level spells like Grease, Sleep and Levitate.
Unfortunately, Thorfinn didn't always understand how the DM operated and sometimes charged the most insane battles at ridiculous times (heck, these foes *must* be beatable, the DM wouldn't put them there otherwise). He charged a party of camping ogres when the party only consisted of himself and my Bard (both only 4th level at the time) and then wondered why we ended up battered and bruised in a burlap bag. On one occasion, fleeing a cave of Draconians, he decided to turn back because he felt we hadn't finished the adventure properly. He had only 1hp and no healing left.
The DM was weak and gutless and somehow Thorfinn always lived although he was often humiliated. But he never learned. And it wasn't just the character - it was the player. The same guy did the same stuff in different campaigns, in different game settings playing totally different characters. He certainly wasn't above pouting if things didn't go his way, so it wasn't as if he didn't take his gaming seriously. I gotta say, it drove me crazy because it forced our encounters to develop a slightly sour flavour - among other things, I often suspected the DM was fudging rolls.
The point (I'm getting there), is that some players never learn. They don't want to learn. And besides, as some other posters have pointed out, it really isn't your role to "teach" the guy a lesson. Give the guy the necessary 'fair break' (ie, a warning about the power of his enemey) and then let the game flow. If the rest of the party want to dive in and help him, then they'll suffer the consequences too. However, I suspect the rest of the party has enough sense to take some of the less-than-subtle hints and will eventually abandon the Paladin to his death. And despite the pouting you'll endure, it will probably be better for you in the long run.
Trust me, you don't want to end up DMing Thorfinn Fumbleweed.
</Silent Bob Mode>
Hmm... Sorry to interrupt all the back-patting, but the whole situation doesn't sit well with me.
There are plenty of situations in which the party might deserve to get smacked for arrogance - trying to go after a powerful wizard in his home, deciding to start an all-out war with a guild of assassins, wanton dragon hunting...
But I always despised the whole "Single enemy walks into a bar, and slaps the party around showing them just how insignificant they are" deal. It's what always happens in bad anime.
I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the primary goal of a D&D game is handing out lessons in humility, and I don't think it's unreasonable if some player doesn't feel happy about being lorded over by an NPC. In particular if it wasn't something the character brought on himself, but the consequence of the backstory of one of the other PC's.
Not to mention that, given all the talk about humility and arrogance, "letting the party spell up" and "taking a tanglefoot bag to the chest" doesn't exactly sound humble... By the rules people are advocating here, the arrogant jerk deserves to be taken down by four people he thought were below him more than the Paladin does for thinking 4 against 1 shouldn't be bad odds. (Although it does sound like the guy maybe needs a heads-up on how Aura of Courage works...)
For that matter, this kind of approach ("Go ahead, fool, take your best shot... Bwa ha hah...") completely ruins whathever verisimilitude D&D has left, because in a sane world, no matter how powerful you are, you don't let someone with a greatsword take the first shot because you know you have the AC and hit points to take it.
There are plenty of situations in which the party might deserve to get smacked for arrogance - trying to go after a powerful wizard in his home, deciding to start an all-out war with a guild of assassins, wanton dragon hunting...
But I always despised the whole "Single enemy walks into a bar, and slaps the party around showing them just how insignificant they are" deal. It's what always happens in bad anime.
I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the primary goal of a D&D game is handing out lessons in humility, and I don't think it's unreasonable if some player doesn't feel happy about being lorded over by an NPC. In particular if it wasn't something the character brought on himself, but the consequence of the backstory of one of the other PC's.
Not to mention that, given all the talk about humility and arrogance, "letting the party spell up" and "taking a tanglefoot bag to the chest" doesn't exactly sound humble... By the rules people are advocating here, the arrogant jerk deserves to be taken down by four people he thought were below him more than the Paladin does for thinking 4 against 1 shouldn't be bad odds. (Although it does sound like the guy maybe needs a heads-up on how Aura of Courage works...)
For that matter, this kind of approach ("Go ahead, fool, take your best shot... Bwa ha hah...") completely ruins whathever verisimilitude D&D has left, because in a sane world, no matter how powerful you are, you don't let someone with a greatsword take the first shot because you know you have the AC and hit points to take it.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
