What would you do?

[Wednesday Boy]

I'm actually talking to one of the other players we came up with the plan to "accidentally" set off the wizard again with my cleric by taunting him when I'm "drunk" and do something in "self defense" so that we can get rid of the character if not the player as well... I feel he's a drag on the group with his constant arguing and bucking against what the rest of the group wants to do because he's acting like a spoiled child.

Don't do that, it's just going to worsen a bad situation and waste your gaming session. If you and the group don't want to game with him, address the situation out of character, explain to him why you can't game together, and part ways.

 

[delericho]

I'm mindful that we've only heard one side of the story here. I'll take it at face value, but reserve the right to change my view if the other player wishes to give his side.

The wizard would not let go of it and we decided as a group to leave the trap alone and keep marching down the path we were on, for literally 45 minutes he was whining and complaining in and out of character that we should have waited.

This sounds like a player issue. It should be resolved by talking to the player. Ideally, you would be able to come to an accomodation, if not, one of you will need to leave.

The next session (this past Saturday night) - I send over a text at the table to the GM that I wanted to pull my own prank on the Wizard to "kind of get him back" for his prank on me. I text the GM that I wanted to steal the wizard's flask and urinate in it. We do our rolls (me stealth and him perception) and he turns around as he notices a tinkling sound and proceeds to stab me with a javelin, which actually hit and scored a decent amount of damage.

And this is where it gets ridiculous.

How would you have handled this situation?

As DM, provided it was all in-character (and not a fight between players), then I would do nothing - it's an issue for the players to resolve.

If it's an issue between players, then I would halt the game until it gets properly sorted out. This may well mean both players retiring their characters, it may mean one or both leaving the game, or in the worst case it might mean the end of the campaign. But we don't go on until the player-side issues are dealt with, because they'll escalate.

As a player, if the Wizard attacks me and is then subdued, he dies. There's no need for a trial in this case, since I know he's guilty. This is especially true in the situation in Serpent's Skull - in that environment there's no place in the party for someone who's liable to stab us in the back.

Would you try to get rid of him in the proceeding sessions as he is the only CN character in the group and has own complete agenda and what he thinks is right and wrong?

"I was only playing my character" is not an excuse for disruptive behaviour. The player creates the character, and the player chooses how to portray the character. If the character is disruptive, it is incumbent on the player to play something different.

In the situation as described, the character can no longer remain in the group. The player has a choice: bring in a new character, or leave.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, I feel it's the player trying to go to extremes with the CN alignment and I know he's having personal issues IRL, so I believe that is also bleeding into the game with suppressed issues of rage that he is taking out IC on anyone he thinks has wronged him. I'm actually talking to one of the other players we came up with the plan to "accidentally" set off the wizard again with my cleric by taunting him when I'm "drunk" and do something in "self defense" so that we can get rid of the character if not the player as well...

If you do that then you are the problem player in the group, not the other guy. Don't do it.

It very much sounds like this is a player issue, whether dur to real-life issues, or just because of a clash of personalities. It needs a real-life solution.

Talk to the other player, preferably face to face. (Possibly one-on-one, or perhaps with the DM as mediator... probably avoid having the other players present as it's liable to turn into a dog-pile.) Explain that you're just there to play the game, that you don't want any real-world issues to bleed into the game. And ask for a moratorium on PCs attacking one another, on both sides.

And cut out the practical jokes, again on both sides. They may sound like a bit of harmless fun, but they obviously aren't.

 

[Umbran]

My character I feel is the one who is is wronged here.

I don't know your group, or the agreement you have when you sit down at the table. I can only speak to it by way of my own table, and what I understand to be typically acceptable behavior at games.

Based on those, I think you've both screwed up pretty badly. As players, not as characters. What you described would not have been allowed to continue at most games I run or play in.

If you have a table-agreement that says that it is okay to bring inter-party conflict to blows, that's a different matter. But, the fact that you chose to bring this here for justification suggests that you don't have that sort of agreement.

Suggestions/Comments?

• How would you have handled this situation?
• Would you have done the same thing or would you have killed him?
• Would you try to get rid of him in the proceeding sessions as he is the only CN character in the group and has own complete agenda and what he thinks is right and wrong?
• Am I over thinking it and being irrational myself?

As a player or GM, I would have had a discussion with relevant people (the GM and players involved) out of game. If things looked like they were coming to blows, I'd have called a halt to play right then and there to hold the discussion.

Mature players work out their playstyle differences through candid but polite and respectful discussion. Working out-of-game frustrations out in-game in this way is, to my mind, a bit childish, and fairly passive-aggressive. You bought into it, so you're at fault, too.

Sorry, but you asked for our thoughts.

 

[Desdichado]

In that case, the second lethal force was voluntarily initiated against party member, said initiator [the wizard] would no longer be in the group. Whether we'd out-and-out kill him, turn him into authorities, or just send him on his way would depend on the make-up of the group at the time. But there is no way characters in my group would trust or tolerate someone who willingly turned on a party member in such a fashion.

What authorities? They're on a deserted island populated by cannibals and zombies!

Frankly, I think the concept of a group of people stranded in the wilderness and personality conflicts coming into play is kind of a classic story. The first thing I'd do is see if I could make anything out of that. Is there any fun to be had with a group of characters that's struggling to get along in a tough situation? For me, it's always important to remember that your PCs are not you... it seems a bit silly to be offended or upset on their behalf. They're not unlike the characters in a novel or movie, in most respects, and let's face it: the only thing that makes novels or movies interesting is the characters going through challenges, difficulties and conflict. To some extent, that kind of thing should be sought out by the players, not avoided. In my opinion.

However, if the answer to that question is no, you can't do that, for whatever reason (and it sounds like because the player in question is acting out passive aggressively real life issues in game and deliberately just trying to annoy the rest of the group for whatever reason) then the issues should be addressed out of game. Continuing some kind of proxy conflict through your characters that you're not enjoying seems silly; if the issue is the behavior of the player himself, then you need to talk to him player(s) to player and let him know that he's bringing the group down and that's not what the rest of you had in mind for the game, that you're not enjoying it, and he needs to knock it off.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I appreciate all the thoughts/comments/advice from everyone and agree that i probably need to chat with the other player and/or the DM about the situation. I think what annoyed me personally was the reaction to what (in my mind) was a harmless joke that my character was caught in the middle of doing.

I think what I had a hard time wrapping my mind around was that I'm more of a "get back at you with something similar jokingly type," I'd never take lethal action against another PC in my group unless struck with murderous intent first (as in this situation). Worst case scenario I'd probably get into a fist-fight or grappling match to sort it out then at the end we'd drink together and our prank issues would be resolved.

I've never had a personal problem with the player in question and this is the first actual intra-party conflict that has come to any kind of blows in our group (albeit we are a pretty new group together).

I may have gotten a bit carried away out of character after the fact because I felt that the other guy played his character too extremely, which again needs to be sorted out of character with that player and/or the DM to get things back to quasi-normal. I think the thing that disturbed me the most was how much actual intra-party conflict went on after the Wizard was subdued. Our monk and thief got into their own heated exchange and a few words were tossed around. There was a bit of confusion between the two on what was IC and what was OOC, but after they discussed it for a few moments they realized that the thief was going only IC and the monk was the one confused, so the role-played it out nicely.

It was actually kind of funny that the Monk's player came up to me after the game and said that it was a really fun game for him with the chaos and drama that unfolded. As an aside, we tried to keep everything in-character during the whole exchange as far as I know (at least I reacted with my cleric the way I felt he should be played), but again the Wizard's player is seemingly a pretty passive aggressive guy with a lot of at-home issues that he's dealing with so that's what made me think he was using his character as a proxy to take out his suppressed rage.

After writing all that I've decided to talk to the GM since he is friends with the Wizard's Player and see what he thinks of the situation and ask his advice for how to handle it or just have him talk to the player to see if he wants to continue to play like he has been. I'll let everyone know how it hashes out if they are interested.

Thanks,
Trav


So after I wrote all this stuff I did in fact talk to the GM and he had already decided to kick the player from the group as most of the posters had suggested if it was their game. I didn't ask for him to do it, just voiced my concerns in an email. He thanked my honesty and said that the player just wasn't meshing anyhow. So the situation has been resolved.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Late to the party, but here's my input anyway. As always, feel free to ignore it.

• How would you have handled this situation?
• Would you have done the same thing or would you have killed him?
• Would you try to get rid of him in the proceeding sessions as he is the only CN character in the group and has own complete agenda and what he thinks is right and wrong?
• Am I over thinking it and being irrational myself?

Wow, a lot of things I'd have handled differently.
Arguing about the trap? I'd either have sprung it, like you did, or knocked the wizard out and carried his unconscious body through the jungle. Every time he starts to bitch, just remind him that he's unconscious and can't talk.

Pranks are harmless fun, especially when he started the cycle. Taking it to murderous violence is completely irrational, inappropriate, and proves that the character is unworthy of trust or respect (even going non-lethal would have been an overreaction, but a forgivable one). My characters would have beaten him unconscious, checked for mind control magic, and either left him lying in the woods, bleeding and broken, or killed him (the declaration of unending murderous intent would normally have me execute the just-declared major villain). Even if the Wizard had won, the rest of the party should have kicked him out of the group: someone like that is not someone you want to have at your back in life-or-death situations.

Relative alignment has nothing to do with my response. It's not the alignment that tells you about the character, it's his actions. The wizard has been a contrary, group-destroying, murderous jerk in every instance described. I wouldn't go on a road trip with him, let alone on life-threatening adventures; why should my character feel any differently?
Side Note: Most Chaotic Neutral characters are actually some variety of Evil. The actions they take, and the extreme self-centered selfishness they engage in, are the hallmarks of Evil. This stems from player confusion about the differences between Good, Neutral, and Evil, as well as the mercurial nature of Chaotic. Murderous, thieving, psychotics are not Chaotic Neutral - they're Chaotic Evil. End Side Note.

Regardless of his survival (and oaths of unending murderous enmity mean he's a personal villain that yearns for your life's blood), he's out of the group. Merely refusing to heal him ever again is generous of your character. Any of my characters that didn't kill him would refuse to travel with or near him, sort of a, "Leave, now, and never return. If I ever see you again, I will kill you," situation.


Players having personal issues is understandable. We've all either been there or will be there, so some patience and consideration is essential on the personal level. Find out what's going on, discuss things calmly away from the game, and try to resolve any inter-player issues. It's a pity to ruin a real friendship over some imaginary slights.
But certain actions are unforgivable for those affected (the characters, in this instance) and the player needs to understand that he has kicked his current character out of the campaign. What his character did is unforgivable (excluding extenuating circumstances, such as demonic possession, hint-hint), and not being killed is as much mercy as he should expect in character. Although his next character should get an easy entry into the party (it's a polite thing for the players to do).


Best of luck.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So after I wrote all this stuff I did in fact talk to the GM and he had already decided to kick the player from the group as most of the posters had suggested if it was their game. I didn't ask for him to do it, just voiced my concerns in an email. He thanked my honesty and said that the player just wasn't meshing anyhow. So the situation has been resolved.

Glad everything worked out!

For what it's worth, here's how I would have handled the situation as the player of a high-Wis PC. (And assuming the other guy's whining is good-natured role play, rather than a passive aggressive outlet.)

"You want to find out who's setting these traps? Okay, you set it off. We'll be watching from cover. We'll back you up when the cannibals arrive."

Alternatively, if I'm playing a lawful type: "You want to find out who's setting these traps? Okay, we'll set it off together and find out for sure. But you must vow right now that after we dispatch the cannibals, you'll quit whining and trust the group's wisdom in the future."

Again, this is all assuming good-natured role play, with no players POed.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'm glad it's been resolved.

Also, I'm aware that we only have one side.


BUT, here's my take based upon what's been presented:


That is not roleplaying CN. Unless you JUST met, and even then it's extreme. His actions were evil, plain and simple.



I can think of no instance in which it would be acceptable to kill someone (especially a friend or teammate) for peeing in your drink. Revenge of a different sort? Sure!

I'm saying that even if there were no prior instances. Even if you were the one starting it.

But lethal force? No.

 

[Desdichado]

It was actually kind of funny that the Monk's player came up to me after the game and said that it was a really fun game for him with the chaos and drama that unfolded. As an aside, we tried to keep everything in-character during the whole exchange as far as I know (at least I reacted with my cleric the way I felt he should be played), but again the Wizard's player is seemingly a pretty passive aggressive guy with a lot of at-home issues that he's dealing with so that's what made me think he was using his character as a proxy to take out his suppressed rage.

Sounds like this is a moot point, since the guy's gotten the boot, but I'd take this as a warning sign, though. If the other players thought the interaction was fun, maybe it's you who was over-reacting.

And be careful reading too much into all these militant responses you get here. I wouldn't take that as justification for anything. Either way, it's a bit hard to tell what the interaction was really like without being there, but I'm getting kinda mixed messages from your various descriptions of it.

I've noticed in the past that some folks here get really militant and harsh about the very idea of player vs player conflict, but you should happily ignore them if it's something that your group is having fun with. Same with the "that's not CN, that's EVILLLL!!!!" cries.