D&D Problem

[Wez Yo]

Greetings my fellow adventurers! In my adventure, we have hit a bit of a speed bump. We have a Half-Orc Cleric (me), a monk, a sorcerer-monk, and a Summoner. The Summoner is one of our players second characters, so naturally, the original players are not so fond of him giving up his last character just because he was bored. So along came this new summoner, and with him, his childhood friend, Samwise (yes, there's a LoTR reference). So we hired them both, and The Monk (who is Lawful Good) asked Samwise for his last name. He wasn't comfortable giving this information away, so the Monk punched him, dealing 8 dmg. Then Samwise fought back with a scorching ray, and then the Monk punched him back, dealing 20dmg! So now we're in combat, and we don't want the Summoner to leave our party, but with Samwise being his childhood friend and all, he is most likly going to. I just feel that this is a really stupid thing that could've easily been avoided, but no. Here we are, and I have no idea what to do, so any tips would be helpful!!! :)

[vanyell]

what level is the party?

if it's over 6, make the summoner take the leadership feat. now samwise is a cohort, and the rest of the players should not complain as much becuase the summoner had to "pay" for this NPC

[Fendalus]

If anyone can cast Charm on the monk that might help. If that fails, try restraining both sides by grappling them. Then have them talk it out while tied up 20ft away.

Can't think of anything else right now.

Also, that doesn't seem like something a LG character would do, just attacking because someone wouldn't say their last name.

*Edit2* Gah, I rolled a 2 on my spelling check...

[Kelb_Panthera]

The monk's violent response to Samwise's reluctance was completely out-of-line. I can only imaginie that it was a result of the player's feelings about the summoner's player just up and changing characters for no reason. Either the monk's player doesn't understand what LG is supposed to be, or you have a much greater concern in that you have inter-player strife. I strongly suggest finding out which is the problem before trying to figure out what to do next.

[Wez Yo]

Lets see, the party members are as follows:

Half-Orc Cleric - 5th

Human Monk - 5th

Human Summoner- 2nd (I think)

Samwise - 3-4th level, never made clear. (He is an NPC, sorry if I failed to mention that)

Human Monk-Sorcerer - 3-4th

[DabblerWizard]

This problem can be solved in two ways.

- Completely in-character. This may be the harder route depending on how creative, flexible, and forgiving people allow their characters to be.

- Partially out of character. You sit down as a group of players and figure out why the monk punched the summoner. You then say, "look, for group harmony sake, we need to let this event slide, let's just move on, or, find a way to get passed this event".

[Doomboy911]

You could have samwise make up a fake last name and apologize.

[Devils_Advocate]

Clearly, the monk has gone insane or been possessed or some such thing. He must be subdued and taken to someone who can provide proper treatment. Restraint is not suggested. Use lethal force if that's what it takes not to have a violent lunatic running around.

[Vizzerdrix]

So we hired them both, and The Monk (who is Lawful Good) asked Samwise for his last name. He wasn't comfortable giving this information away, so the Monk punched him, dealing 8 dmg.

Yeah? Neither lawful, nor good is your monk.

[J.Gellert]

Punch the monk's player in the face.

What's with people deliberately trying to destroy games like that? No one in our group would ever dare destroy an evening like that. Because that's what this is.

Tell him that you don't want combat between party members. If he doesn't care, tell him that the D&D plays just as fine with only 3 players.

If you aren't as aggressive against this as I am, for whatever reason, then get him on a Neverwinter Nights PVP server to vent his D&D-fighting-anger. :smalltongue:

[Rasman]

The monk's violent response to Samwise's reluctance was completely out-of-line. I can only imaginie that it was a result of the player's feelings about the summoner's player just up and changing characters for no reason. Either the monk's player doesn't understand what LG is supposed to be, or you have a much greater concern in that you have inter-player strife. I strongly suggest finding out which is the problem before trying to figure out what to do next.

who said Monks HAVE to be Lawful Good?

I approve of your monk punching Samwise, he's obviously a Demon of some sort, otherwise his name would be Bob, or something not Obviously a reference to something else.

Although, for the sake of not killing plot, ask the monk to stop hitting him, but tell him to keep a close eye on him, just in case something fishy is up.

[Sliver]

who said Monks HAVE to be Lawful Good?

Well.. The player deciding his character is LG, is not acting very LG..


The Monk (who is Lawful Good) asked Samwise for his last name.

[Another_Poet]

Yeah, talk to the player and tell him this needs to stop. Unless a GM is specifically running an evil campaign or a player-versus-player campaign, the expectation among D&D players is to form a party that will band together and work to achieve a shared quest or defeat some terrible evil.

Turning on one's fellow adventurers is unacceptable. Some bickering and difference of opinion is fine, but a member of a military unit who attacks another member can just be put up against a wall and shot for all the good they're doing the cause. An adventuring group is more like a gang than a military unit but the same principle applies. If you turn on a friend you get shanked. Or, best case scenario, thrown out.

Tell your player they can make a character that disagrees with other characters but attacking other characters is out of bounds. If they say it is in-character for their char to react that way, then tell them they have made an illegal character and will have to roll a new one.

A player who backstabs fellow party members (without prior GM/group consent) is just as much of a rule-breaker as a player who uses a strange race or class without prior GM consent. Tell them so.

[ondonaflash]

House rule: Attacks between player characters miss by default.

[Wez Yo]

See now, the person who is playing the monk is VERY stubborn. HE would not easily comply to any of these techniques, for he would feel like he is doing the right thing, and that he had the right to do so, considering we hired him with a contract. He would NEVER admit he is wrong, even if the GM kicked him out of the game. and I couldn't try to trick him, because he's been playing D&D since he was about 5. He knows quite a bit of stuff about that game;much more then I do.

[kamikasei]

See now, the person who is playing the monk is VERY stubborn. HE would not easily comply to any of these techniques, for he would feel like he is doing the right thing, and that he had the right to do so, considering we hired him with a contract. He would NEVER admit he is wrong, even if the GM kicked him out of the game.

This does not sound like someone worth playing with in the first place.


and I couldn't try to trick him, because he's been playing D&D since he was about 5. He knows quite a bit of stuff about that game;much more then I do.

Who said anything about tricking him? I would suggest resolving it entirely out of game; "dude, that was completely out of line, intra-party violence is not acceptable, if you have a problem with how things are going you can bring it up OOC and we can work it out".

[Kish]

He thinks he has the right to randomly beat people up with a Lawful Good character? ...And when you say he's been playing D&D since he was five, you mean for almost a year, right? :smallsigh:

[Myou]

Tell the player that his actions never happened, and start the introduction again. Warn the player that breaking character to attack party members in a team game without provocation will quickly lead to expulsion from the group.

[Nero24200]

Think I'll echo what most folk have been saying in that the Monk seems out of order. Why on earth would he think assaulting a random person he just met was a good thing. It's not good, it's not lawful, it's not smart, it's not disciplined, and quite frankly it goes against common sense.

I'd personally propose a sit-down, have the other players talk to him and just ask why he felt he had to do that, though my best guess is some kind of resentment towards either the group or that particular player.

Also, it should be noted that playing for years doesn't make you a master. I've played field hockey as a kid, it doesn't mean I'm a master of it. I've used computers since I was a child, yet I still struggle to understand quite alot regarding them. I studied fantasy and myths since an early age as well, yet just about anyone who likes fantasy could probably list more than a few myths that I havn't even heard about. Playing "since he was 5" shouldn't, and doesn't, grant him an all-access pass to allow him to do anything he wants.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

If I were running the game, I'd stop.

I might then have a discussion with the two players - separately if necessary - and try to get them to play nice.

[Starbuck_II]

He thinks he has the right to randomly beat people up with a Lawful Good character? ...And when you say he's been playing D&D since he was five, you mean for almost a year, right? :smallsigh:

Maybe he has played AD&D for 5 years as a Pally. Back then was different.
But yeah, the Monk should be a Pally so he can bump uglies with Samwise instead of just punching him. :smallcool:

[Myou]

Maybe he has played AD&D for 5 years as a Pally. Back then was different.
But yeah, the Monk should be a Pally so he can bump uglies with Samwise instead of just punching him. :smallcool:

The proper term is "have gay sex", not "bump uglies". :smallsmile:

[Thorcrest]

Having played a monk, Lawful Neutral though, that has punched other players in the face, I can TELL that the monk is out of line! Yup, the guy that has done this before says he is out of line. You need a good reason, maybe the character was harassing someone, needed some sobering up, etcetera. However, with what has been posted in the OP, no indication of that was given.

It is possible, however, that these two players had discussed doing this prior to the session, and they are just playing out a script that they wrote as they wanted some party tension. Let's face it when every party member agrees to do exactly the same thing it takes out the fun of interesting character development and intra-party conflict (usually verbal, sometimes non-lethal) that can be had in a neutral/good party without repercussion.

[Optimystik]

The proper term is "have gay sex", not "bump uglies". :smallsmile:

I'd sig that if I had room :smallfrown:


He thinks he has the right to randomly beat people up with a Lawful Good character? ...And when you say he's been playing D&D since he was five, you mean for almost a year, right? :smallsigh:

Also this...

[Devils_Advocate]

If you can't get the Monk's player to cooperate, I'm not sure that that's necessarily that big of a problem. You can simply respond entirely in character. One of your party members goes berserk and attacks one of the new hires simply for not answering a question? Well, the obvious response is to take that crazy bastard down, hard. I'm guessing that your cleric disapproves of the monk's behavior enough to try to stop him. Assuming that that's the case... try to stop him! Then shout at him, beat on him, kick him out of your group, and/or whatever is appropriate to your character. Show him that the sort of behavior that he's demonstrated won't be tolerated, at least not by you.

[Wez Yo]

It is possible, however, that these two players had discussed doing this prior to the session, and they are just playing out a script that they wrote as they wanted some party tension. Let's face it when every party member agrees to do exactly the same thing it takes out the fun of interesting character development and intra-party conflict (usually verbal, sometimes non-lethal) that can be had in a neutral/good party without repercussion.
Sorry, but I don't think that is possible... Samwise is an NPC, played by the GM, and my GM is NOT a person to do that :/

[eepop]

Attacking another PC in a campaign where that is not specifically allowed is a bad idea...

BUT

Why was the summoner allowed to have control of an NPC anyway? Players get to control PCs. If a player introduces an NPC by some means, it is the DM who has control of it, and the DM who determines whether that character gives out their name or not.

And if a PC then attacks that NPC because the DM says that he won't give out his last name, then that PC should look out for falling rocks.

[Myou]

I'd sig that if I had room :smallfrown:



Also this...

Why thank you! :smallredface:

[Wez Yo]

Attacking another PC in a campaign where that is not specifically allowed is a bad idea...

BUT

Why was the summoner allowed to have control of an NPC anyway? Players get to control PCs. If a player introduces an NPC by some means, it is the DM who has control of it, and the DM who determines whether that character gives out their name or not.

And if a PC then attacks that NPC because the DM says that he won't give out his last name, then that PC should look out for falling rocks.
IT WAS the GM who was controlling him.

[Fievel]

If you want to go the heavy-handed route, random acts of violence are clearly a Chaotic act, so your Monk will be unable to advance as a monk until he atones.

[Fievel]

See now, the person who is playing the monk is VERY stubborn. HE would not easily comply to any of these techniques, for he would feel like he is doing the right thing, and that he had the right to do so, considering we hired him with a contract. He would NEVER admit he is wrong, even if the GM kicked him out of the game. and I couldn't try to trick him, because he's been playing D&D since he was about 5. He knows quite a bit of stuff about that game;much more then I do.

Well, an important thing to note is that he doesn't have to admit that he's wrong.

The fact remains that he is wrong.

So you can really go with whatever consequences you and the DM feel are appropriate (not the least of which should be an alignment change), whether he thinks he's wrong or not.

[frogspawner]

We have a Half-Orc Cleric (me), a monk, a sorcerer-monk, and a Summoner. ...The Monk (who is Lawful Good) asked Samwise for his last name. He wasn't comfortable giving this information away, so the Monk punched him...
Why is it your problem? As you're just a player, you don't have to worry. Just play your character.

"What Would the Half-Orc Cleric Do?" (WWtHOCD?)

If your religion is Chaotic/Evil, like the so-called "Lawful Good" Monk is suddenly acting, you might support him - and be pleased he has at last 'seen the light' (er, dark).

Otherwise, you should probably assume the Monk has become possessed/insane, and join in to defend the innocent (if secretive) Samwise.

---

If I was GM, I'd have a mysterious cloaked figure charge in and attack the Mad Monk. Then let the Mad Monk keep rolling attacks, and as many extra attacks as he wants - and when there's enough damage, says his rolls were for what the mysterious stranger was doing to him - so the mad player's character keels over dead. Slight pause. Then the stranger throws back his hood and reveals he is the real Monk - just as the dead body morphs back into the doppleganger that had infiltrated the party...
(...and if he does it again, same again... and again... and...)

PS: And No, he doesn't get XP for it! :smallwink:

[Doc Roc]

Retcon all of it to non-lethal damage.

[Umael]

How old is everyone in your group? Can you give us a bit about what they are like?

Because the Monk doesn't strike me as being very mature, the GM strikes me as being weak, the Summoner strikes me as being the new kid, and the only one who seems (from what little we have) to have a half-way decent ounce of common sense is you because you identify this as a problem and are asking how to stop it!

[dsmiles]

I don't see why everyone is so against PvP antics in tabletop DnD. If there is a good roleplaying reason for the monk to whip the summoner's @$$, he should, by all means, do so. If there was a houserule in place already against PvP, then he should get warned. Next step is out the door. If there wasn't a houserule already in place, let them fight it out, sometimes that happens (even between friends). Then, after all is said and done, emplace a houserule against PvP.

[frogspawner]

I don't see why everyone is so against PvP antics in tabletop DnD.
Because it can be bullying. Which is what this sounds like.

[Fievel]

I don't see why everyone is so against PvP antics in tabletop DnD. If there is a good roleplaying reason for the monk to whip the summoner's @$$, he should, by all means, do so. If there was a houserule in place already against PvP, then he should get warned. Next step is out the door. If there wasn't a houserule already in place, let them fight it out, sometimes that happens (even between friends). Then, after all is said and done, emplace a houserule against PvP.

Bolded for emphasis.
"He was uncomfortable revealing personal information" is not a good reason to beat up Samwise (Note, not the Summoner, the Summoner's friend.)

[frogspawner]

"He was uncomfortable revealing personal information" is not a good reason to beat up Samwise...
That makes me think of another solution. What good reason might Samwise the Halfling have for not wanting to reveal his surname...?

So the Mad Monk beats the poor hobbit to a pulp (other characters helping or hindering, according to their choice/alignment), and as the poor npc lies broken and bleeding he finally says "My name is Samwise.... Bitterleaf..." :smalleek:

See why he might not want to reveal that? :smallwink:

(Of course the new Summoner, being a lifelong friend, should know what the hobbit's name is - and that his cousin is an infamous psychotic 'god of war'. Who would take swift and bloody revenge on people who beat up his family. If the Summoner is feeling well-disposed to the Monk, he might tell him before it goes too far... But otherwise, soon enough it'll be "Splortch Time!" for the Monk. I wonder what his new character will be? A first-leveller I'd say - since he's such a D&D 'expert', the lower level shouldn't be a problem for him... :smallbiggrin: )

[Tyndmyr]

IT WAS the GM who was controlling him.

Seriously, if a random stranger I'd never met demanded my name, and I politely refused, wherapon he started beating me? Yeah, I'd kill him on the spot. I think nearly any PC or any alignment would be justified in doing so.

It really doesn't matter if the GM or a player is controlling either char. In neither case is this consistant with a LG alignment, and it frankly doesn't even seem a realistic response. The reaction should be to burn the offending character with fire.

[Ellye]

You should try to solve this following the first steps:

1) Talk it out IC. Try to put some sense in the head of that monk. Don't be overly aggressive while trying to this, since the Monk's player doesn't seem to be great at separating IC from OC.

If it doesn't work:

2) Talk it out OC. Everyone in the group should be mature enough to handle this type of talk and understand that D&D is a game and that no one should be ruining the fun. Try to make the Monk player visualize how his characters actions were absurdly out of common sense. Retcon everything if necessary.

If that doesn't work:

3) D&D plays fine with three palyers.

[Optimystik]

It really doesn't matter if the GM or a player is controlling either char. In neither case is this consistant with a LG alignment, and it frankly doesn't even seem a realistic response. The reaction should be to burn the offending character with fire.

There you go again, solving your problems with fire. Didn't the therapy help? :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

1. In character conflict mediation, the need to work together for a higher goal if the party has one, etc. It could be a continuing source of interesting conflict as long as you don't let it get out of hand.

2. If the aggression extends to the real life players, don't resolve it inside the game. Resolve it outside the game. Talk about it and retcon anything inside the game that you need to.

[Jan Mattys]

Samvise is played by the GM?

Well, then...

All of a sudden, the little boy in front of you starts glowing with the intensity of a thousand suns. When you finally are able to see again, you see Samvise... it's just that it doesn't look very "samvise-ish" any more. He has grown a large pair of wings, a massive build and a very, very pissed off attitude.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/Kain_Darkwind/angel-demon.jpg

While a powerful magical effect paralyzes you, you just have the time to hear a whisper in your head:

"Oh, crap".

The towering figure stares steely at you for a time that feels like eternity, then waves its hand in your general direction, and you feel like you can move again.

"Years of waiting and observing, self contained in such a pitiful mortal vessel" - its voice echoes in your head even before you can hear it with your ears - "and what's the ultimate prize? Having to endure the pain of being mocked by some travesty of a good-doer".

The creature slowly unsheats a flaming sword, and turns to the Summoner with what looks like a sad, disillisioned smile: "I'm sorry, dear friend. I had plans for you to never know my true nature. I had plans for us to enjoy a longtime, full friendship. I had plans to explore this "Prime Material" of yours, and be as pleasant as possible a companion. But some things come first. Pride, as you might call it, is one."

With a single, graceful movement, the creature turns at you again, this time taking what looks like a melee battle stance.

"Punch me now, insect"

GM: Roll initiative, Monk

[Wez Yo]

How old is everyone in your group? Can you give us a bit about what they are like?

Because the Monk doesn't strike me as being very mature, the GM strikes me as being weak, the Summoner strikes me as being the new kid, and the only one who seems (from what little we have) to have a half-way decent ounce of common sense is you because you identify this as a problem and are asking how to stop it!

We're all about 14-15-16. I'm 14, so is the summoner . The GM is 16 and the Monk is 15. I'm actually the newest to this game. The monk has a lot of background to this game. He's the one that got me, the GM, and the summoner into this game in the first place. I don't really know what else to say :/ Besides the Monk is very quick at thinking around situations, and never gives up his point, even if you give him undeniable proof...

[Kallisti]

Ask him why he did it. When he inevitably fails to come up with a strong LG reason, tell him his alignment moves one step toward chaotic and one step toward evil. He is now TN. And no longer able to advance as a monk.

If he wants to keep the character, he'll need to roleplay learning to control his temper issues.

If he protests, tell him he can follow the rules and accept the consequences or go play a game with cheat codes.

You want to be an omnipotent god accountable to none? Neverwinter Nights, with cheat codes, can give you ability scores of up to a hundred and fifty without crashing. Or maybe more. Also, you get to be 40th level, take no damage ever, and nobody calls you out for your actions. Cheat codes are great for having disgusting amounts of power.

D&D is a group game, though. If he doesn't want to play with other people, he shouldn't play with other people.

[Umael]

We're all about 14-15-16. I'm 14, so is the summoner . The GM is 16 and the Monk is 15. I'm actually the newest to this game. The monk has a lot of background to this game. He's the one that got me, the GM, and the summoner into this game in the first place. I don't really know what else to say :/ Besides the Monk is very quick at thinking around situations, and never gives up his point, even if you give him undeniable proof...

Can't say I'm too surprised.

I'm going to tell this to you now, and you probably won't believe me, but... you can ditch the player of the monk and you will be able to find another player who is better. You do not "owe" it to this guy for getting you into the hobby that is role-playing and you are not "indebted" to him so you have to keep playing with him.

That said, I predict that this guy's behavior will not change until a number of years have gone by and he's had his head kicked a few times (I mostly mean metaphorically... mostly). If he is doing something you don't like, tell him, tell him to stop it, and if (when) he doesn't, say goodbye. Then leave.

[Devils_Advocate]

Retcon all of it to non-lethal damage.
Here I was being generous and assuming that he was doing non-lethal damage already (since Monks can do that without penalty).

Maybe it's just because that's what I'd do by default if I was playing a Monk. Capturing foes alive has many uses.


Besides the Monk is very quick at thinking around situations, and never gives up his point, even if you give him undeniable proof...
If he refuses to admit that he's wrong, that should be his problem, not yours. So if he refuses to admit that he's wrong, don't let him make it your problem; make it his. When he acts like a jerk, oppose him and seek to counteract his jerkishness. If he won't shut up until you agree with him, then the rest of the group should avoid even spending time with him, never mind playing a game with him.

One thing that others are saying that I disagree with is that the Monk should be punished by having his alignment changed. Now, I agree that he isn't Lawful Good unless this is very out of character for him, but I prefer not to use alignment as a tool to punish players. The Monk class's alignment restriction (like most alignment restrictions) is pretty stupid anyway. It is sufficient for the Monk to simply suffer the negative consequences of other characters realistically reacting to his behavior.

[ZombieGenesis]

Does, "I back down from the fight, giving an apology for my rash actions", now apply as a beat-all approach? Perhaps not. At least if Samwise dies, you might still have the original character...yay?

[Lawless III]

Samvise is played by the GM?

Well, then...

All of a sudden, the little boy in front of you starts glowing with the intensity of a thousand suns. When you finally are able to see again, you see Samvise... it's just that it doesn't look very "samvise-ish" any more. He has grown a large pair of wings, a massive build and a very, very pissed off attitude.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/Kain_Darkwind/angel-demon.jpg

While a powerful magical effect paralyzes you, you just have the time to hear a whisper in your head:

"Oh, crap".

The towering figure stares steely at you for a time that feels like eternity, then waves its hand in your general direction, and you feel like you can move again.

"Years of waiting and observing, self contained in such a pitiful mortal vessel" - its voice echoes in your head even before you can hear it with your ears - "and what's the ultimate prize? Having to endure the pain of being mocked by some travesty of a good-doer".

The creature slowly unsheats a flaming sword, and turns to the Summoner with what looks like a sad, disillisioned smile: "I'm sorry, dear friend. I had plans for you to never know my true nature. I had plans for us to enjoy a longtime, full friendship. I had plans to explore this "Prime Material" of yours, and be as pleasant as possible a companion. But some things come first. Pride, as you might call it, is one."

With a single, graceful movement, the creature turns at you again, this time taking what looks like a melee battle stance.

"Punch me now, insect"

GM: Roll initiative, Monk

This is so beautiful I can't even...

[kaiguy]

I've got nothing to add for the interpersonal problems, OOC.

However, in-game? No problem at all:

1) the monk recognized Samwise as a dangerous thief and murderer from long ago - possibly during a trip Samwise took where his childhood friend was not invited. Samwise tried to cover, but failed, etc.

2) Samwise is a golem, a replacement of the real Samwise, sent by a wizard, who used him to cast an insanity spell on the monk.

3) A gnome illusionist made Samwise appear as a pinata to the monk, who was simply trying to get candy to come out.

And so on. In game, there's no problem for a creative DM.

[MickJay]

That would just reward the unjustified, aggressive behaviour and make the offender look extra clever. You might as well say "hey, you should attack people for no reason whatsoever more often, you'll look smart and everyone will like you".

If the monk knew, or was somehow convinced that Samwise was indeed a suspicious character, that's fine. If he's just making a wild, unbased guess and acting on that, there should be some consequences (frankly, it would break the immersion for me if a PC was allowed to act stupid without any kind of penalty).

[Tyndmyr]

There you go again, solving your problems with fire. Didn't the therapy help? :smalltongue:

It was wonderful. Truly wonderful. We talked about our feelings, then sang kumbyah, then closed out the evening with a marshmallow roast. It was all going so lovely until the marshmallow roast. *sobs*

[Wez Yo]

Alright, now he proposed a plan for me, and he wants me in on this, here is the plan:I just remembered that, when going through Samwise's stuff, we found his journal. We cast detect magicon it, and we guessed that it had explosive runes, but we were really just metagaming. We could capture them, tie them up, and keep watch over them. I could say that I got bored, and so I proceeded to flip through the journal for something I recognize. I'll "accidently" set off the runes, which will deal 6d6 damage to me and those around me, i.e. Samwise and the Summoner. If you heal me beforehand, then I'll survive, but it'll surely do enough damage to kill them both. It'll save us money, and more importantly, it'll prevent us from doing anything that is of debatable lawfulness or goodness. What do you think?"

He wants ME to heal him and not my other party members after he's done all of this... :/

[Bibliomancer]

Alright, now he proposed a plan for me, and he wants me in on this, here is the plan:I just remembered that, when going through Samwise's stuff, we found his journal. We cast detect magicon it, and we guessed that it had explosive runes, but we were really just metagaming. We could capture them, tie them up, and keep watch over them. I could say that I got bored, and so I proceeded to flip through the journal for something I recognize. I'll "accidently" set off the runes, which will deal 6d6 damage to me and those around me, i.e. Samwise and the Summoner. If you heal me beforehand, then I'll survive, but it'll surely do enough damage to kill them both. It'll save us money, and more importantly, it'll prevent us from doing anything that is of debatable lawfulness or goodness. What do you think?"

So...his response to randomly attacking an NPC for no reason is to kill that NPC and a PC? And to top it all:


He wants ME to heal him and not my other party members after he's done all of this... :/

Give up on him. In my group we have a lot of PvP conflict, but people 1) never rarely take it personally and 2) always have an in-character reason (and I'm working on weeding those out). If someone caused trouble for no reason and then refused to understand the problem, we'd kick him out of the group.

[Thieves]

Hrrrmmm... Well, now, taking it actually out into the RL and out of the game, I'll just take it to rely on your wit, buddy: DO try to assess how predictable this guy is. If he's got this bully-type twist to his behavior, and you are to spend time with him either way (for example school), you better try to think it thoroughly. I mean, it might be better to go "Ok, I'll do that..." with this guy and later "Guys, we'd better not annoy him unless we want to be in a world of s***" with your friends... rather than stand behind your friends in this one instance. Playing it smart will benefit you more than playing it brave... BUT first check out if that monster's big, if there IS a backlash to fear. If there's not and you can face it head-on - check out the ways in previous posts. But I guess you might have been intimidated, this happens. I remember that at this age even a year's difference tends to make for a big gap of perceived respect, so, especially with an unswayable personality, this guy might try to exert real big time of an influence on you all - even more so if the GM is not strong enough to oppose.

So, two of my outta-game ways:
1) Try thinking who might have the most influence over this Mad Monk guy. The GM perhaps, being a bit older? I don't know, you gotta figure it out, and then tell this person to seriously try and scold this guy, out of character.
2) Riskier one depending on how annoyable Mad Monk is: let this session die out. "Dude, there's no session going on now, we're kinda busy and don't wanna play." And assemble without him and play it the way it's meant to be played [no cryptomercial here], in an atmosphere of trust.

In-game? What's been said, rewind (or retcon, whatever it's called here), tell the guy of all the consequences of what he wants to do and then ask for his decision.

By the way, the plan with the bombing using Explosive Runes pushes him back another -1:-1, into Chaotic Evil. As a monk... he's pretty much dead to the world.

Sorry if that's scoundrel-ly advice on my part, but... that's in my name, and no one really elaborated on this aspect before.

[Yahzi]

IT WAS the GM who was controlling him.
Wait wait wait.

The monk is right.

The only proper thing to do when the DM introduces a DMPC is to kill it immediately.

The monk player, through long years of experience, knows this. All DMPCs must be killed on sight. If you don't agree, then... just try playing with a DMPC for a few sessions. Then you'll understand.

I play my NPCs as characters in their own rights. I give them goals, and motivations, and plans. They do what is best for themselves. But I would never play them the way I would play a PC. That never ends well.

[frogspawner]

...it'll prevent us from doing anything that is of debatable lawfulness or goodness. What do you think?"

He wants ME to heal him and not my other party members after he's done all of this... :/
I think it'd be a Chaotic & Evil thing to do. If your character's alignment is opposed to those principles - use your most effective Inflict Wounds on him instead (then finish him off, or take him to the authorities).

OOC, don't go along with this RW bully, whatever your character's alignment - or your alignment will suffer....


The only proper thing to do when the DM introduces a DMPC is to kill it immediately.
Nah. The NPC has only just arrived. It's too early to judge. It sounds to me more like the DM is trying to give the newly-rolled up PC a bodyguard until he catches up levels with the rest of the party. Perfectly reasonable.