Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2551818" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>to be clear, i am not implying negative spin from the Gm posting etc. But more threads with one side describing the other doesn't add more weight to the argument, merely confirms the same type of disagreement between the same two parties.What i still want to know, and i may have missed, is the answers from the GM, who we have posting here, about what their expectations of the scenario were and what they expected to happen when they threw the goblin baby's setup to this group? What did they expect the &quot;right answer&quot; to be and when they threw the dwarf's hated foe babys into the mix with the paladin didn't they see trouble coming?Whether the palaldin stays or the dwarf stays isn't a matter of benefit of the doubt. its a matter of which character is IN CHARACTER not going to be able to tolerate the others and work with them. If the other characters had stepped up and supported the pally, then likely the dward would be hittin' the highway, but they didn't, they aren't. The group isn't giving the pally a good reason to stay. It might seem to you like they should be doing so, but they aren't. The decision of &quot;which character stays&quot; isn't a player referendum.Now, maybe they ought to have a referendum on &quot;which player gets booted&quot; but again, they have said No to booting either. right? With the paladin's motivations and the dwarf's action and lack of party backing, i would not be enjoying this palaldin in play. I would be certain that continuing to play my character would simply lead to more PC on PC conflict especially as the dwarf is going on with taunts and gloating and such and the party is tolerant of all this. Let the character dowhat the character would do and then bring in a new character more in sync with the group.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 2551818, member: 14140"] [/QUOTE] to be clear, i am not implying negative spin from the Gm posting etc. But more threads with one side describing the other doesn't add more weight to the argument, merely confirms the same type of disagreement between the same two parties. What i still want to know, and i may have missed, is the answers from the GM, who we have posting here, about what their expectations of the scenario were and what they expected to happen when they threw the goblin baby's setup to this group? What did they expect the "right answer" to be and when they threw the dwarf's hated foe babys into the mix with the paladin didn't they see trouble coming? Whether the palaldin stays or the dwarf stays isn't a matter of benefit of the doubt. its a matter of which character is IN CHARACTER not going to be able to tolerate the others and work with them. If the other characters had stepped up and supported the pally, then likely the dward would be hittin' the highway, but they didn't, they aren't. The group isn't giving the pally a good reason to stay. It might seem to you like they should be doing so, but they aren't. The decision of "which character stays" isn't a player referendum. Now, maybe they ought to have a referendum on "which player gets booted" but again, they have said No to booting either. right? With the paladin's motivations and the dwarf's action and lack of party backing, i would not be enjoying this palaldin in play. I would be certain that continuing to play my character would simply lead to more PC on PC conflict especially as the dwarf is going on with taunts and gloating and such and the party is tolerant of all this. Let the character dowhat the character would do and then bring in a new character more in sync with the group. [/QUOTE]

Verification