Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3680823" data-attributes="member: 8439">To roll this almost all the way back, there's a significant issue here for the party and the players.... Regardless of whether the paladin actions were appropriate, I think the player actions were inappropriate both in breaking a group agreement and lamely justifying it afterwards. This sort of behavior has the potential for "And now you better metagame accepting my actions even as I refuse to apologize, because I'm a PC" written all over it. I have been in far too many groups where the party unrealisticly held on to loose cannon disruptive members because one player was taking advantage of the team player mentality of the others (and occasionally claiming they were a better roleplayer for "just playing my character".)If all the players were actually thrilled by the paladin's actions but just roleplaying a conflict they look forward to having again in the future, you can of course ignore this advice.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> If the Paladin does not make any concessions to in the future participating in party deal making and accepting that he is bound by their agreements, and it seems the other party members are letting the incident drop due to players not wanting conflict, I strongly suggest that you step in as a DM speaking to players, not a god speaking to the paladin. In most groups, either everyone has to occasionally metagame a little to keep "the party" together, a few people end up metagaming a lot and possibly feeling bitter about it, or you stop metagaming completely and take the conversation to it's logical in character conclusion where the party gives the paladin an ultimatum about ether being part of the group and bound by group agreements (which he may ask to have strong input into) or not being part of the group and going his own way. For some groups, the last option is the prefered one, for some the first, but I find the middle option only works for the "I'm just playing my character" guy.</blockquote>

Verification