Is this fair?

[Dusk Eclipse]

I have been musing over a situation that occured during last week session. I believe that my DM did a very unfair thing to my character and I am feeling a quite offended by this.

Now I ask the playground their opinion concerning this situation

The situation:
Ok in our eberron campaing a player brings a new character (a dervish) cause the session before this one his original character died and we don't have access to resurection magic (it is a 10th lvl party but we don't have a divine spellcaster) and we are in the mournlands.

All night long this player's character antagonize my TN rogue ok I can live with that, I have a friendshio/hate relationship with other characters so it is pretty normal for me to antogonize and be antagonized.

Then my character enters intop a kind of shock cause we found a shifter graveyard and all of them are wearing the emblem of the silver flame (which Dusk my character hates with ungodly passion) so he has some contradictory feelings and the dervish just suggest IC that since I hate the Silver flame we should make the shifters corpse sushi (they were relatively fresh corpses accoding to the DM because of the mournlands).

Thats when I decide I want to kill the dervish, I deviced a plan and all and passed it to the DM as a note to avoid other players noticing.

First unfair thing, the DM grants the Dervish a sense motive check to see if he noticed my plans, I get a bluff check, he fails but the player is now aware of the plan.

Then after we are wraping up the session the dervish returns to its trib, I follow him flying and surpasing (usually by 10 or more) my hide and move silently checks. Finally he goes to sleep I coup de grace him with my poisoned spiked chain dealing my 6d6 SA, he botches his saves and dies.

Then as I escape my DM starts narrating how the shaman of the tribe prepared a clone for me to kill while the real dervish is safe, he goes on a description on how this particular tribe was known for its shamanic magic of protection.

I know that my DM doesn't like PvP or evil in his campaing but he ruled that I was acting on my aligment so it wasn't a problem.

Either way I just feel that the DM just hand-waived something which in my character's eyes was a justifed action, I felt really really upset.

Before anyone suggest that I change groups I can't because for 1 the DM is my best friend's dad and second the role-playing community here is really scarce ( I know IRL most if our local gaming community forum)

Now playground and I am right feeling this way? or did my DM was right and I should accept it.

[Bibliomancer]

It was arbitrary and inflexible, but under the circumstances you should probably accept it, since a) the player in question had already recently lost a character and wouldn't want to die again, b) your character probably wouldn't have reacted that badly to a one-off jibe (even one in incredibly bad taste) without greater mitigating circumstances that above (especially since you hated the Silver Flame to begin with, and thus would probably not kill to avenge their honor), c) even if you would do above, you could have ignored it or bypassed it, and d) the DM provided an in-game explanation for what happened, which also conveniently implies that the Clone insulted you, not the Dervish, so both of you can act as though that joke never happened and your character has had his revenge on a Clone. Problem solved.

It wasn't the optimal thing to do, but it wasn't unreasonable.

[taltamir]

Then my character enters intop a kind of shock cause we found a shifter graveyard and all of them are wearing the emblem of the silver flame (which Dusk my character hates with ungodly passion) so he has some contradictory feelings and the dervish just suggest IC that since I hate the Silver flame we should make the shifters corpse sushi (they were relatively fresh corpses accoding to the DM because of the mournlands).

Thats when I decide I want to kill the dervish, I deviced a plan and all and passed it to the DM as a note to avoid other players noticing.
And this is where I stopped reading.
listen, roleplaying means that sometimes you metagame a little to play nice with the other PLAYERS.
So he suggested you cook and eat your sworn enemies and your response is to attack him on the spot? bah. I don't even understand why you are upset about the suggestion. this isn't a grave insult or anything.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Sounds like a case of "DM wants to keep the group together" to me.

Normally, I'd say that the DM is doing some rough railroading, but there's mitigating circumstances. For one, you don't mention your age, but if you are young it is quite possible that he is justified in feeling more paternalistic - he wants to keep "the only game in town" running but he also doesn't want to just say "no, you can't do that" to you. So he does a "split the baby" kind of situation in which you get your PKing done, your victim had enough chances to avoid the assassination that he shouldn't feel like he was done-in arbitrarily, and he still gets to keep on playing with his new character.

I'm not sure I would have done the same thing, but I can't really condemn him for his actions.

Remember: a DM must be Just, not Fair.

A DM can change the fabric of reality in order to preserve a story or a group, or to for his own private reasons. The very best DMs do this only rarely, and always without the players noticing. But, even if you notice the DM "cheating" the only thing you can really ask is whether his actions were Just; if they are you must grin and bear it. If not, then you should ask the DM privately to explain his actions - if you don't feel like you got a fair shake after that, you really do need to find a new DM.

[taltamir]

A DM can change the fabric of reality in order to preserve a story or a group, or to for his own private reasons. The very best DMs do this only rarely, and always without the players noticing. But, even if you notice the DM "cheating" the only thing you can really ask is whether his actions were Just; if they are you must grin and bear it. If not, then you should ask the DM privately to explain his actions - if you don't feel like you got a fair shake after that, you really do need to find a new DM.

I think the best response I have heard from a DM went something like that

PC1: I attack PC2
DM: no you don't.
PC1: what! but it is totally in character
DM: good for you, but you are still not doing it. PC1, you are not going to kill PC2; PC2, you are not going to antagonize him anymore, now lets please keep playing together.

welcome to babysitting 101.

[Thajocoth]

Thats when I decide I want to kill the dervish,

Personally, I see this as a problem. This is obviously a group that frowns on PvP (like most groups). He let you do it and came up with a way to keep it from being permanent (aka keep it from being a problem). Imagine if you came to a session with a new character and all sorts of cool new things you wanted to do with them, and someone else, not even the DM, just decides to off you, and everyone, including the DM just lets it happen. Talk about a killjoy... It starts losing it's fun, and grudges are created, even in groups that don't frown on PvP. That's not conducive to good gaming.

I've played with a few groups, and the one I had the most fun with was the one that simply fudged things over to accept situations and other players. The team gets along well, we've got good teamwork, bolstering one another instead of creating unnecessary problems and we do what the DM has planned and it's fun. If it's not we complain, say why, and the DM does better next time (rare case). Very friendly games. The other groups I've been in all fell apart because they didn't do these things. I know it's possible to have PvP and happy players, or a sandbox style world without boredom, but I haven't seen it, and I believe it takes a lot more work to do.

[Splendor]

1) Not sure why you would hate the idea of desecrating enemy corpses (silver flame guys) if you're evil.
--I remember reading about shifters who worked for the silver flame and had their claws coated in silver. They hunted lycanthropes.

2) No problem with him getting a sense motive check. He should be able to notice your character acting different (murderous) towards him.

3) You don't have access to raise dead (5th level) but you do have access to clone (8th level)?

4) Shaman's can't cast clone since it's an arcane spell not divine.
--Don’t shaman’s use the adept NPC class? They max out at 5th level spells and have raise dead.

5) To cast clone you have to be 15th level. That’s really high for Eberron. So the leader of his tribe is one of the most powerful spellcasters on Khorvaire?

6) The clone spell makes an inert duplicate, which means it's not alive. Doesn't breath! Your character should have noticed that.

7) A clone takes 2d4 months to grow and costs 1000gp. Does the tribe shaman do this for every member?

8) How far did you follow the dervish? Does his tribe live in the mournlands? (where nothing really lives) If not you would have killed him long before he got out of the mournlands.

9) If the person who was playing the dervish just made a new character he shouldn't have too much invested in the character.

Really it sounds like your DM should have just said “I’m not allowing you to kill him.” Period. He shouldn’t have told you it was ok and then randomly brought him back from the dead.

[RandomNPC]

Only time I've allowed PvP in my games was when I invited two new players into my game. One always plays a homebrew red half dragon and gave me a hassle about it untill I let it happen, it was not balanced. The other played a were-tiger with elastic chain mail, did not go over well.

I was left character sheets and told to play them one day, and the party had already decided to kill them off. When I told them the group asked me to remove them from the game they asked what happened and I had to tell them. There wasn't a sad, confused "Oh, ok" or something like that, but the half dragon player did say "How'd they get past my DR? they're only level 3!" and I had to tell him all about balance and homebrews. It was the most akward conversation I've had over a game, because I was expecting saddness over loss of character and being kicked out, instead I got confusion over how 3rd level characters beat a homebrew half dragons DR.

[herrhauptmann]

He joked that you should desecrate the corpses of your sworn enemies. Joked that to a TN rogue. THat might be in poor taste, but it's not like saying to a paladin "Lets kill them and violate the bodies."

I think you overreacted a little (not knowing exactly how the other player spent all night antagonizing you). If his teasing was bothering you that much, you should've been an adult (regardless of age, it's never too early to start) and said "Cool it."

The problem I see now, is the other player coming back next week with a plot in place to kill YOUR character, because your rogue obviously wanted, and tried to kill his dervish. I wouldn't be surprised if his dervish now wants to "kill you in return first." Escalation is always so messy.

[Dusk Eclipse]

First It seems I need to explain why I got the problem with the dervish insulting the shifters.

Though my character hates the silver flame, he is incredibly pride of his shifter heritage, he lived in a border village with thrane where the prejudgdice againts shifters was quite intense even if the crusade was finishied, as such he was raised to be prideful over his heritage.

The shock came from founding his kinsmen wearing the symbol of his enemies, he was having mixed feelings about the whole situation.

Maybe I am trying to justify myself.

And for the clone thing I wasn't refering to the actual clone spell but as handwaive on the DM's part.

Oracle Hunter: Our group is somewhat young, I am the oldest excluding the DM, at 17 while the player of the dervish is 15, so yeah maybe it was a situation such as that.


What irks me the most was the handwaving, hell I was expecting to have a guard spotting me and be obliged to flee from the tribe, that would had the same effect and I would haven't felt cheated.

[Swordgleam]

Really it sounds like your DM should have just said “I’m not allowing you to kill him.” Period. He shouldn’t have told you it was ok and then randomly brought him back from the dead.

I second this. If your DM didn't want the dervish dying, he should have told you that upfront, instead of letting you think that your plan was going to work (and probably wasting everyone's game time with it) and then DM fiat-ing away the results.

That said, I'd tell him that and then move on. Either way, it seems like the dervish wasn't going to die. The unfair thing isn't that he kept you from killing another PC, it's that he let you waste your time thinking you could.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What irks me the most was the handwaving, hell I was expecting to have a guard spotting me and be obliged to flee from the tribe, that would had the same effect and I would haven't felt cheated.
You would have preferred the DM said "Yeah, a guard spots you" when you had been rolling so well with your Hide checks? :smallconfused:

[Dusk Eclipse]

You would have preferred the DM said "Yeah, a guard spots you" when you had been rolling so well with your Hide checks? :smallconfused:

We play with nat 1 being an autofail and nat 20 being an auto success on skill checks, so guard getting lucky is not unexcpected (and has already happened in other sessions)

[Frosty]

Inform the Dervish player to stop antagonizing you. Failing that...leave the group if you're not having fun.

[Emmerask]

I don´t really understand your motivation there I must say. Seems a bit like "I hated the previous pc and therefore the new one as well" metagaming?

The sense motive part seems okay if you don´t allow it there then the skill has little use :smallwink: I would have even allowed every character a sense motive check...

And what I don´t understand as well is why the dm lets you attack a teammate if he doesn´t want the logical conclusion, someone dies, to happen?

Frankly I would have just said: you begin to swing your weapon, but something doesn´t feel right you look up into the sky and.... A transdimensional cow falls ontop of you, you take 100d6 dmg ? do you want to take the dc 100 reflex save for half?

[Emmerask]

Inform the Dervish player to stop antagonizing you. Failing that...leave the group if you're not having fun.

He did say that the he is antagonizing the other pcs as well so I´m guessing that this is actually wanted :smallwink:

[valadil]

The only thing I think your DM did wrong is he let you just go ahead and do it. In his shoes I'd have taken you aside and had a talk about what was going on. If I couldn't have talked you out of trying to kill the other PC I'd have explained that the odds were stacked against you. It does depend on the game though. PCicide is okay sometimes and not okay other times. In general the group needs to be on the same page with that though, so I can see why the GM would side against the only PC killer.

[PinkysBrain]

Trying to PvP in a group which doesn't only consist of close friends (or in a game where everyone plays with a stack of sheets in the first place and it's expected) is only going to cause metagame drama ... as it did here.

It's on your own head.

[magic9mushroom]

I think the best response I have heard from a DM went something like that

PC1: I attack PC2
DM: no you don't.
PC1: what! but it is totally in character
DM: good for you, but you are still not doing it. PC1, you are not going to kill PC2; PC2, you are not going to antagonize him anymore, now lets please keep playing together.

welcome to babysitting 101.

I would get extremely pissed off if a DM said that to me.

A GOOD DM would have avoided the situation.

[RebelRogue]

I would get extremely pissed off if a DM said that to me.

A GOOD DM would have avoided the situation.
Even a good DM can't prevent people from doing stupid things.

[magic9mushroom]

Even a good DM can't prevent people from doing stupid things.

Exactly, so he lets the consequences of those stupid things play out, enhancing verisimilitude and teaching the players not to be stupid.

[Gralamin]

Exactly, so he lets the consequences of those stupid things play out, enhancing verisimilitude and teaching the players not to be stupid.

That isn't effective when players start feeling antagonized because their players are. PVP is something DMs have to be very careful with (And oddly enough, a lot of problem threads have to do with PVP). Having some good ground rules on PVP, and having the players discuss PVP as a story aid are fine. Having a character attack another is not.

[Kylarra]

I'd say a "good DM" is more likely to stop the game for some OOC discussion at that point, assuming they didn't want PvP in their game. Heavy-handed decrees from on high, allowing whatever to happen regardless of feelings, and passive-aggressive ingame penalties are generally not the most optimal of solutions.

[magic9mushroom]

I'd say a "good DM" is more likely to stop the game for some OOC discussion at that point, assuming they didn't want PvP in their game. Heavy-handed decrees from on high, allowing whatever to happen regardless of feelings, and passive-aggressive ingame penalties are generally not the most optimal of solutions.

^^That too.

[taltamir]

I would get extremely pissed off if a DM said that to me.

A GOOD DM would have avoided the situation.

a good DM? the DM cannot make you mature. A good DM cannot prevent petty and childish players from being petty and childish.

there are only three things you can do, OOC discussion, leaving the group yourself, getting the group to agree to kick out some other person.


Exactly, so he lets the consequences of those stupid things play out, enhancing verisimilitude and teaching the players not to be stupid.

Not really, it just makes for a lousy experience for all, and griefing.

PS. the DM doesn't need to stop the game for an OOC discussion, anyone can do that. The most mature person (DM or player) usually does. Your DM is not your babysitter/kindergarten teacher.

[Nero24200]

I'd say the DM could've handled it better (it does scream DM fiat quite loudly. Saving someone in that way isn't exactly subtle), however, I can understand why your DM did it. Killing another PC is always problematic, and killing him for such a silly reason doesn't help.

Also, I don't see how you're "acting to alignment", this wasn't a rush of emotion or anything, you planned out the kill in cold blood.

I would say talk to your DM and the player in question - Sort something out so that the insult didn't happen and that the character (or character's clone) didn't die - It's the most mature and reasonable way of handling this.

In the gamming group I'm in we have one general rule - the party must work together. If someone is playing a cleric of Torm no one is allowed to turn around and say "I want to play a Cleric of Bane". If someone decides to be a druid we aren't allowed to play a blighter. These are just class-based examples but you get my meaning.

If the other player planson playing a character who constantly noises up other PC's, even at the wrong time, then he should re-think his character. However, this also means you shouldn't have your character go so far over something so small.

[Volkov]

Fair is making everyone a beholder mage. Just is making sure everyone gets a time to shine.

[DabblerWizard]

This issue has to do with the difference between maintaining character consistency vs. maintaining reasonable group dynamics.

I would let one PC kill another PC, only if they talked about it OOC, and agreed that this was fine. People might complain that this breaks verisimilitude, and that the other PC should accept that this is "just a game so they have to be okay with dying".

When a PC is killed by another PC out of the blue, it's perfectly understandable that the killed PC would take this action personally. This could lead to anything from temporary irritation, to sustained animosity, and it's not okay for players to make each other feel that way, not in person, and not even when they have a great back story.

[magic9mushroom]

This issue has to do with the difference between maintaining character consistency vs. maintaining reasonable group dynamics.

I would let one PC kill another PC, only if they talked about it OOC, and agreed that this was fine. People might complain that this breaks verisimilitude, and that the other PC should accept that this is "just a game so they have to be okay with dying".

When a PC is killed by another PC out of the blue, it's perfectly understandable that the killed PC would take this action personally. This could lead to anything from temporary irritation, to sustained animosity, and it's not okay for players to make each other feel that way, not in person, and not even when they have a great back story.

Yeah, I'd agree that they should certainly tell the DM, but whether to tell the victim, eh, it can lead to metagaming. Probably best though, as long as the player knows how to keep OOC and IC knowledge separate.

What's not OK is to tell them they can, and then fiat it away as not having happened.

[taltamir]

Yeah, I'd agree that they should certainly tell the DM, but whether to tell the victim, eh, it can lead to metagaming. Probably best though, as long as the player knows how to keep OOC and IC knowledge separate.

What's not OK is to tell them they can, and then fiat it away as not having happened.

you say that as if metagaming is pure evil with no redeeming factors.
metagaming is absolutely necessary and is actually a GOOD thing in certain cases... specifically, cases like this.

so, it bloody well better lead to some metagaming. Metagaming is exactly what the doctor ordered (that and a dose of maturity).

[DabblerWizard]

Yeah, I'd agree that they should certainly tell the DM, but whether to tell the victim, eh, it can lead to metagaming. Probably best though, as long as the player knows how to keep OOC and IC knowledge separate.

What's not OK is to tell them they can, and then fiat it away as not having happened.

I understand the desire to avoid metagaming and try to play the game out, as in character as possible. In situations like this though, that isn't always advisable.

Sometimes being a DM involves regulating appropriate behavior in your players.

And I agree with your last sentence. The DM in the OP didn't make the best decision. He sent mixed messages, and ultimately, it looks like, didn't resolve the issue for the OP.

[Thajocoth]

No decision the DM could've made would've been prefect.

"We don't do PvP here" - A problem for you, obviously.

"Ok, do it" - A problem for the other player (and, honestly, probably a problem for most of the other players as well. People don't want to have to worry about their own teammates, which is what a party's supposed to be. If you succeeded, I would not be surprised if every other player attacked you at once, as well as any character you brought to the table after that, and they would be completely justified in doing so to prevent repeat behavior. That wouldn't be very fun, would it?)

"Let's discuss this" - A problem for every player except you two (they're there to roleplay, not to watch a drama), making the other player feel unwelcome and ultimately, when you're denied the action, breaking your character's verisimilitude to conform to having a party that works together.

And, what he did... The one option that gives everyone what they want (you kill the guy, the other guy doesn't die, and the game doesn't come to a halt for everyone else), but requires a giant handwaved DM fiat everyone's simply supposed to ignore, but ultimately leaves the conflict unresolved, so really, it's just going to come up again in the future.

-----

Ultimately, that first option prevents the most problems, as you'd be the only one left unhappy, the other players would all be reassured, you'd eventually get over it so there'd be no long term grudges held, and the game wasn't stopped for unnecessary drama. This doesn't make it a good decision, just the best he could probably have done.

[pasko77]

Yes, it is fair.
As i see it, your behavior has been that of a troublemaker, so as you can arbitrarily decide "my PC wants to kill that guy", you should also remember that you can play nice to other party members and decide "my PC is mildly pissed by that guy, but not so much to kill him".
So it is all your fault if this goes into an escalation, and the DM was correct in stopping you.

All of this obviously IMO.