How to punish a metagamer?

[GameOgre]

And I acknowledged that capital punishment is arguably a moral good. As for it being non-lawful, I don't think there's any way you can make that argument. It is an act carried out by a duly appointed government in line with its democratically established legal structure and only occurs after multiple lengthy reviews.

And those people would be wrong.

If you don't believe that the alignment game mechanic is based on real-world moral strictures and understandings, you're woefully in the dark. If you do believe this, then you should probably acknowledge that an act of retribution for an evil act is probably defensible as something other than chaotic evil.

And, importantly, there seems to be very little going on in this thread to condemn the actually evil act of taking something from someone via mind control. The fighter's player arguably started the conflict by refusing to give up a magic item (though we have no context on what the item actually was, or what the party's agreed-upon loot division rules were, so this is impossible for us to judge), but the spellcaster's player inarguably escalated that conflict to a level it should never have reached.

To put it simply: if you're defending the guy who took advantage of someone via mind control, you don't have a lot of moral ground to stand upon when condemning the guy who tried to get back at him.

I feel the same way. The OP isn't seeing anything objectively and getting lots of knee jerk responses.

The OP doesn't care to view the party's actions as they really were.He is stuck in his side verse the other side mentality.

I agree now. your group needs to kick this guy to set him free and deal with whatever happens. It doesn't matter what you guys do now he is going to spread his version of how you guys roll to his friends and he has plenty of ammo. both sides have points and it sounds like both sides behaved badly.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

. . .both sides have points and it sounds like both sides behaved badly.

That doesn't make each equally bad. Mind control on a misbehaving and selfish ally is a different level of bad than a revenge murder.

 

[GameOgre]

No one was killed or even attacked. BEFORE the guy could do anything they changed things. So the guy maybe was GOING to do something after he was attacked but did not. The wizard at least DID attack him.

 

[GameOgre]

The whole thing is silly at this point though. We could agrue back and forth all day but the point is the OP isn't seeing anything but "this guy needs to go". So he is right. For whatever reason if the group feels that the guy needs to go then they should kick him.

Being right or wrong doesn't have a lot to do with it. They are NOT working out. I doubt the guy will return anyway. Unless he has no other choice or is really good friends with someone.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

"at this point"?

The OP was just yesterday. Do you expect the entire drama and dialog and reflections to reach conclusion in a day?

Patience.

 

[Dannager]

That doesn't make each equally bad. Mind control on a misbehaving and selfish ally is a different level of bad than a revenge murder.

They're close enough to make this whole thread a giant case of the pot calling the kettle evil.

 

[Holy Bovine]

And I acknowledged that capital punishment is arguably a moral good. As for it being non-lawful, I don't think there's any way you can make that argument. It is an act carried out by a duly appointed government in line with its democratically established legal structure and only occurs after multiple lengthy reviews.

...at least that is how it is usually done in the USA. Other places...well...

And those people would be wrong.

But would they be CE?

If you don't believe that the alignment game mechanic is based on real-world moral strictures and understandings, you're woefully in the dark. If you do believe this, then you should probably acknowledge that an act of retribution for an evil act is probably defensible as something other than chaotic evil.

Actually I think alignments are an incredibly simplistic mechanic used to measure in game actions. It is only when people add in real, modern world morality (y'know the kind that doesn't really exist in a medivel world) that problems begin cropping up.

And, importantly, there seems to be very little going on in this thread to condemn the actually evil act of taking something from someone via mind control. The fighter's player arguably started the conflict by refusing to give up a magic item (though we have no context on what the item actually was, or what the party's agreed-upon loot division rules were, so this is impossible for us to judge), but the spellcaster's player inarguably escalated that conflict to a level it should never have reached.

Sure, mind control is pretty evil. Did I give the impression it was not? All I am saying is that any player who first method of dealing with in game conflict to murder helpless people is probably going to cause many, many more problems down the road. Maybe the mind-control happy mage should be sanctioned too.

To put it simply: if you're defending the guy who took advantage of someone via mind control, you don't have a lot of moral ground to stand upon when condemning the guy who tried to get back at him.

*whew* good thing I wasn't actually doing that then.

 

[Dannager]

...at least that is how it is usually done in the USA. Other places...well...

And the point is that it is very possible to kill a defenseless person in a way that is both lawful and arguably within the bounds of socially-accepted morality. Thus, clearly, it must be something else about his actions that makes them chaotic evil, or his actions are not chaotic evil at all.

But would they be CE?

What?

Actually I think alignments are an incredibly simplistic mechanic used to measure in game actions. It is only when people add in real, modern world morality (y'know the kind that doesn't really exist in a medivel world) that problems begin cropping up.

...the morality of capital punishment isn't something that gets examined in a medieval world?

And it's ludicrous enough already without even delving into the idea that D&D doesn't represent a medieval world so much as it depicts a fantastical world free of many of the social characteristics that defined that era.

Sure, mind control is pretty evil. Did I give the impression it was not? All I am saying is that any player who first method of dealing with in game conflict to murder helpless people is probably going to cause many, many more problems down the road. Maybe the mind-control happy mage should be sanctioned too.

And that's the problem - the mind-controlling Wizard was acting on behalf of - and likely with the tacit or explicit approval of - the OP. In other words, a whole lot of pot and kettle.

 

[tylermalan]

This is the DUMBEST THREAD EVER!

I say that light-heartedly, but really though... it is.

Alishea, on a weekly basis (or however often you play) you are being held hostage by a person whose company you don't enjoy, whose personality doesn't jive with your group, and whose play style is extremely annoying at best. This hostage situation is brought about by the connections this player has with other players from a "big" gaming group.

I know I can't be the only one rolling his eyes at this point.

I gave you the best general advice ever in my previous post, but now I'll be more specific. Here is how I would handle it, if I were in your exact situation:

The DM speaks to this player. The DM tells this player that he has been getting a vibe from the group that this player's playstyle doesn't fit. As the DM has a responsibility to the group (as opposed to only one person), the DM has spoken to half of the group (but not all) about this vibe. The DM's hunch regarding the vibe has been verified.

Because of this, the DM believes that this player would have more fun playing with a different group - one that fits his playstyle better. The DM explains that he believes there will be constant conflict and he doesn't want that, and explains that he knows that this player doesn't want that either (because this player is so nice and conscientious). With all this in mind, the DM asks the player if he can help him find another group that better suits his playstyle. The DM is firm and clear that this is not a suggestion.

Good luck!

 

[Mad Hamish]

a) there's nothing about Pipes of the Sewers that makes them automatically a caster's item.
b) how would you like it if it was your character who was mentally controlled and forced to give up his treasure?
c) it doesn't take a great mind for a character to realize "The wizard was chanting and gesturing like he does when he casts a spell and I started to feel completely different about things. The bastard mentally controlled me."
d) if a dispute about minor magical item is worth magically assaulting one of your companions you don't really have a leg to stand on if the assaulted party decides to off the assaulter.
What do you think would happen if you did it to a merchant or an NPC noble?
e) as to the idea that we can assess the player of the fighter based on this description as being "one of those" characters, that's just rubbish. He may be a perfectly reasonable player with a perfectly reasonable character but the original poster is coming in with a chip on their shoulder (or he could be a complete prat with the roleplaying skills of an inbred goldfish) we can't tell.
f) as to the idea that the fighter is being evil that's just rubbish. He was mentally assaulted and he took out the attacker. If you ran across a demon who was magically restrained would it be evil to kill it?
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. "

When somebody has mentally assaulted a companion for treasure they don't qualify as innocent anymore

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

I'd say that charming somebody to steal from them isn't 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings'
And if attacking sleeping sentients was enough to mark you as evil there'd be a whole heap of 1st ed AD&D characters who were evil for attacking sleeping dragons.

g) if the treasure had previously been distributed based on need without issues did you try discussing with the player why it would be better if it went to the oracle, did you listen to his points and consider them?

h) the well issue could well come down to different ways the events were visualised, first you describe it as the rogue was pulled into the well, then it was as if he fell in (note that a rogue falling into a well that he knows about is suspicious in itself) the fighter's player might have thought that the pulled in description made it look unnatural. Also it's really not up to other players to tell him that his actions don't make sense and try and make him change them. If the GM has a problem he can do it and if he doesn't then it's not really anybody else's job.

i) How exactly is it using player knowledge to want to keep a magic item that your character can use?
It might not be the best use of it for the party but that's different from being metagaming and in a case like this it's certainly not enough reason to get worked up enough to compel another PC.
Now if an elven wizard wanted to get the +5 holy, (+3 more modifiers) longsword instead of the fighter who's fully specalised for longswords with improved critical and other abilities then the players is being a prat, but for a minor item which they can both use it's not really a huge deal, he'd probably find that he couldn't use it that well and either give it up or put some skill points in so he could use it.