PDA

View Full Version : Advice: Sociopathic Legolas?



Alejandro
2012-02-13, 04:54 PM
So, our party has an elf ranger in it, who has managed to make most of the other characters angry with him. I thought I'd ask for some feedback on a good way to deal with the situation. Here's the data; all of this has happened so far in a single dungeon delve:

He fights alright (the player is not very skilled at D&D, but he has a ranger (4E) so he's at least got a good striker) but during a battle, he gets put down and is dying. Several other party members take risks to get to him and attempt Heal checks to stop his death, and barely manage to save his life.

Later, when other party members are almost or completely out of healing surges, yet we are about to face an enemy we have to challenge now, another party member casts a ritual that lets the party give up healing surges and give them to a fellow party member. The goal here is to restock the paladin's healing surges, as he is our lone tank and defender. Everyone else gladly volunteers aid, except the elf, who is worried he "might run out" (he had 5 surges left, everyone else had 0, 1, or 2) and had to basically be browbeaten into giving two surges to the ritual. This is for the same paladin who shields him from harm regularly, at great risk, and for the same people who saved the elf from death earlier.

Later, we find a horrible pool of toxic chemical, which we analyze, learning that if it is released by our enemies, it will poison everyone in the nearby city, as well as the animals and plants, resulting in at least a hundred thousand deaths, plus killing even the elf's woods. We also discover that we can ruin this pool by pouring enough healing potion into it. Everyone else in the group pours the potions they have into the toxic pool, but we still need another...which the elf has. Again, he has to be convinced and persuaded to give up one healing potion in order to prevent a horrible catastrophe, but he only does so very begrudgingly, despite our party having an artificer who can make replacement potions for us simply, at a later time.

Later, we capture an enemy soldier and interrogate him as to our enemies' plans. The paladin does most of the questioning, as he is good at Intimidate. He answers our questions truthfully and doesn't try to escape or fight, because he knows he is outnumbered, weaponless, and outclassed, and in exchange, we agree to let him go, sans weapon. The elf decides, after the prisoner has given us information, that he should go ahead and shoot the prisoner in the head anyway, while he's still tied up. We manage to keep him from doing this, and tell him point blank that if he kills someone in cold blood like that, he'll have to deal with us. He backs down.

What's a good way to deal with this? Almost the entire rest of the party cannot stand this character. I've tried to detail the situation as closely as possible. There have been other incidents before.

hivedragon
2012-02-13, 05:09 PM
I don't think the elf has done anything wrong per say. But if the players see this as a problem the party should establish a contractual code of conduct. The players should decide what behavior they deem unacceptable; violating it means loosing out on loot gathered.

Alejandro
2012-02-13, 05:20 PM
Well, we are mostly (including the elf) official agents of a good and benevolent religious organization, and we try to portray that in our actions. Except the elf is just more likely to decide to randomly murder or refuse to help party members that need him.

marcielle
2012-02-13, 05:46 PM
Basic advice: settle this with a face to face talk out of game. Tell him the other players are getting annoyed and ask him why he is acting that way in an obviously good group. Ask him if he is intending on being the Belkar for comedic purposes(in which case, tell him it is amusing noone) or if he actually wants to play selfishly.

Alejandro
2012-02-13, 06:08 PM
I think it's the player himself. In the Vampire game he plays in, he plays a sociopathic random murderer that always tries to conflict with the other PCs.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-13, 06:14 PM
So yeah, it's not an issue you can solve in game then. It's up to your group then how much you value this guy's company versus letting him ruin your games this way.

RoboHobo
2012-02-13, 06:37 PM
Well the DM could produce a witness to the cold blooded murder and drag the whole party back to the "good and benevolent religious organization" to face your crimes (you are culpable too, you tied him up and didn't report the killing). Have it come out in trial that the rest of you didn't approve, so you get off lightly. Meanwhile it comes out that he is a murderer with no qualms about a whole village being poisoned. As punishment he is forced to wear some cursed item that can't be removed until he atones.

Could be a fun RP session and quest line, and could show him that there are in game consequences for being evil and selfish in game. Then again it sounds like he isn't into the RP and might just throw a hissy fit at his character's punishment and leave the group. In which case, mission accomplished!

Alejandro
2012-02-13, 06:43 PM
"The elf decides, after the prisoner has given us information, that he should go ahead and shoot the prisoner in the head anyway, while he's still tied up. We manage to keep him from doing this, and tell him point blank that if he kills someone in cold blood like that, he'll have to deal with us. He backs down."

We kept him from doing it.

Coidzor
2012-02-13, 07:03 PM
Get together with the rest of the group and hash out what wording would be best used to ask your fellow player to stop playing a stupidly violent character that's not matching the tone of the game that the rest of you are going for.

Outside of the game.

lt_murgen
2012-02-13, 07:41 PM
Kill him.

Kill him quickly and as gruesomly as possible.

Kidding.

THe best thing to do is to let the party handle it. Quietly let the other members know that you will be extremely tolerant of intra-party shenanigans.

We had one character like that- a truly lecherous bard. The party found a unique solution to point out his bad behavior. Any time he did something offensive (like pinching the Queen's butt) he would find himself waking up completely naked, tossed out of the sleeping quarters (tent, inn, etc) into the cold/sewer puddles, etc. After a few times, he got the message.

Tiki Snakes
2012-02-13, 07:45 PM
I know a player who does similar things sometimes. Especially regarding shooting NPC's.

Admittedly, the theme of self-preservation above helping others this character seems to be portrayed with is not quite the same situation, however (and could be a reaction to the near-death incident perhaps?)

Alejandro
2012-02-13, 08:13 PM
No, that theme has been around before that. We had a game one day where the paladin's player could not attend, and we suddenly had no defender and one less healer (lay on hands.) We tried to get him to help draw some of the enemies' attacks away from the other squishier characters, but he just said 'no, I use a bow' and let the rogue and myself (the wizard) attempt to hold the enemies back while he stayed well behind everyone else, despite having one of the higher HP and AC totals.

When we finally convinced him that we needed his help and that he could twin strike with swords and not just his bow, 3 PCs had already gone down at least once. We almost lost a few characters that day.

Soylent Dave
2012-02-13, 10:02 PM
I know a player who does similar things sometimes. Especially regarding shooting NPC's.

I suspect most groups have had players like this at some point - especially if you've ever had people in your group who are new to roleplaying.

Players who do this sort of thing are (consciously or otherwise) looking for the boundaries in the world - the thing that makes roleplaying different from most other forms of entertainment is that ability to do whatever you want; these players want to push that to the limit.

Which - in the sort of game you're playing - means killing NPCs for no reason; refusing to co-operate with the rest of the group and any other way you can think of to try and hit the 'walls' of the game.

(people do it for different reasons - some do it because they're immature, some because the idea of having no barriers freaks them out so they try and create some, others refuse to accept that there aren't any and commit extreme acts to try and prove that barriers exist; there are reasons too, but the behaviour is basically the same)

As a few people have suggested, the only way to really address it is out of character - explain to the player the sort of game you're playing, the sort of characters you are (and the sort of character he'll need to be if he's hanging out with them!). You'll sometimes find that this kind of player relaxes once he's been explicitly told what the 'unspoken rules' are (i.e. it's not against the rules to stab innocent NPCs in the head for no reason, it's just a bit pointless)

You may also find that you have a player who only roleplays so he can create this kind of conflict - in which case he's probably better off looking for a different group, because he's never going to fit in.

-

(on the other hand, it could just be an extreme case of self-preservation; some players will do absolutely anything to keep their characters alive - up to and including avoiding combat.

I don't really understand that one, though (which is a shame, because I've got a player like that))

Coidzor
2012-02-13, 11:29 PM
No, that theme has been around before that. We had a game one day where the paladin's player could not attend, and we suddenly had no defender and one less healer (lay on hands.) We tried to get him to help draw some of the enemies' attacks away from the other squishier characters, but he just said 'no, I use a bow' and let the rogue and myself (the wizard) attempt to hold the enemies back while he stayed well behind everyone else, despite having one of the higher HP and AC totals.

When we finally convinced him that we needed his help and that he could twin strike with swords and not just his bow, 3 PCs had already gone down at least once. We almost lost a few characters that day.

I'm suddenly reminded of a column on rpg.net (http://www.rpg.net/columns/building/building16.phtml)

Bastian Weaver
2012-02-14, 05:00 AM
Have you tried putting a Greater Mark of Justice on his head? I've heard it works pretty well.

Silma
2012-02-14, 07:08 AM
Have you tried putting a Greater Mark of Justice on his head? I've heard it works pretty well.

second that :smallbiggrin:


Also, have you tried solving this conflict in-character? You could threaten him that is he does that again he's out of the party. And I mean his Character is out of the party, not the player himself. So, basically explain to him that if he continues behaving like that, he must make a new character that is more in sync with the party's overall behavior.
I can't really say since I'm not really there when you pay, but this conflict seems kinda fun, anyway. It makes for interesting twists.

Need_A_Life
2012-02-14, 08:47 AM
Well, first you'd need to figure out if it's an in-character or out-of-character problem.

If it's out-of-character, then tell him that it's supposed to be a cooperative game and that you're trying to play Good people and that cold-blooded killing of helpless prisoners would land him straight in the "kill him for great justice" camp.

If it's in-character, take it in-character. I've played cowardly wizards, who'd reguarly hide the last potion of cure for himself, would always have an emergency Invisibility prepared "just in case (I have to run away because someone's slaughtering the lot of us)," and wouldn't have taken to the front even if it was the only way to "win" an encounter (see: Invisibility).
Not every character has to be altruistic or put others first. He's looking out for himself, THEN the party... which is perfectly acceptable.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-14, 09:24 AM
As others have suggested, talk to the player and try to explain why the way he plays his character is not appropriate for the campaign, but don't get your hopes up, if he's always playing the sociopathic character he probably doesn't even know where to start playing something different.

I've had a similar experience to yours, in my D&D gaming group there was a guy who, regardless of what class and concept his character had, always turned Chaotic Evil in a few sessions or at least acted like one, for no reasons whatsoever.
It wasn't because of character developement, he simply turned evil and killed random NPCs, sometimes even going as far as doing PvP with other characters of the group if the DM allowed it.

I guess roleplaying to some people is just a way to channel their frustration.

dsmiles
2012-02-14, 10:47 AM
Well, if this a problem player, inform said player that he/she can either "shape up or ship out," as it were. If his/her attitude doesn't change, don't invite him/her back to game. Problem players aren't worth the time and effort. If they really want to play, they'll get their heads on straight after a few sessions of not being invited. If they come back and are still problem players, tell them that you will not be inviting them back, and leave no room for debate.

If this is a character problem, there are no rules forcing the other players to bring said character back from the dead. There are no rules forcing the "leader-type" character to choose said character with the "you and one or two allies in burst" powers.

Alejandro
2012-02-14, 01:14 PM
Well, I'll see what we can do. I'm not the GM in this case. We'd have asked him to just stop coming a long time ago, except that another member of the group (whom everyone likes and respects very much, and who is a good gamer) has already made it clear that they will stop gaming with us if anyone is ever asked to leave, and we do not want to lose that gamer.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-14, 07:01 PM
Well, I'll see what we can do. I'm not the GM in this case. We'd have asked him to just stop coming a long time ago, except that another member of the group (whom everyone likes and respects very much, and who is a good gamer) has already made it clear that they will stop gaming with us if anyone is ever asked to leave, and we do not want to lose that gamer.

Then that person might just have to choose between you guys and this...person, or else you'll have to decide if keeping them is worth suffering him.

Dimers
2012-02-15, 12:15 AM
Darn. I came to this thread ready to answer how to be a sociopathic Legolas, and it would've been all funny, too. :smallannoyed: :smallwink:

Engine
2012-02-15, 03:36 AM
Well, first you'd need to figure out if it's an in-character or out-of-character problem.

If it's out-of-character, then tell him that it's supposed to be a cooperative game and that you're trying to play Good people and that cold-blooded killing of helpless prisoners would land him straight in the "kill him for great justice" camp.

If it's in-character, take it in-character. I've played cowardly wizards, who'd reguarly hide the last potion of cure for himself, would always have an emergency Invisibility prepared "just in case (I have to run away because someone's slaughtering the lot of us)," and wouldn't have taken to the front even if it was the only way to "win" an encounter (see: Invisibility).
Not every character has to be altruistic or put others first. He's looking out for himself, THEN the party... which is perfectly acceptable.

IMHO, a way too coward and selfish character is never an IC problem.
OOC, you know you're playing a cooperative game. You know that you're playing with other people, so you should plan to play a character that could cooperate with the others. Playing a cautious character is acceptable, playing a character that'll never take risks to save the party isn't, always IMHO.

Why?

You let the party die, even if you could do something to save it. Now everyone at the table have to roll a new character, except you. Good job, now everyone at the table will roll a character that'll never save *your* character. Teamwork will suffer, encounters will be harder and so on. And most of the times there will be less fun, because players will be wary and unwilling to take risks for their characters, they'll be aware that if things go down no one will be there to save their characters.

Too selfish and coward characters are an OOC problem, so the OP should talk to the player and do not try to find a solution IC. The player should be aware that playing this kind a character is disruptive for the game, because RPGs are for the most part a cooperative game and is expected from everyone to contribute to the fun of the group. Being too selfish IC means that the player is acting selfish OOC, and RPGs aren't for selfish people.

Coidzor
2012-02-15, 04:15 AM
Now I'm reminded of an article by a one Rich Burlew which stressed how the decision of how to react or act was ultimately on you the player and that you can always choose to react differently or explore another angle of the character rather than act to the detriment of the game.

Dimers
2012-02-15, 10:02 AM
Now I'm reminded of an article by a one Rich Burlew which stressed how the decision of how to react or act was ultimately on you the player and that you can always choose to react differently or explore another angle of the character rather than act to the detriment of the game.

Yeah, that was a good article. It's here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

Another_Poet
2012-02-15, 01:33 PM
The elf character hasn't done anything wrong. He sounds solidly Lawful Neutral. He is naturally selfish but when the group pressures him he will do the right thing. Lawful... and neutral.

If it's bothering the players out-of-character they should talk it out. But the IC conflict seems just fine to me.

On the other hand I would seriously consider whether the Paladin is correctly playing his alignment. It's one thing to accept the free donation of healing surges... it's another to pressure someone into giving up the healing surges they're worried they will need. Seriously, that is Not Compassionate. It is Not Selfless. It is, in fact, rather manipulative. I wouldn't expect a saint-like person to demand I donate a kidney to them, just because I'll have one left. They might ask for it, but you said the group brow-beat the elf into donating.

At that point the paladin should have said: "No, let him be. He's afraid and this gives him comfort. I'll take what you're all willing to give and I will make my stand with it."

I mean... paladin.

I'm not saying the paladin should fall for this one indiscretion. He did what any smart soldier would do. But a paladin needs to be more than a smart soldier, he needs to be a paragon.

Actually, if the paladin began being the voice that spoke up for the elf from the bullying of the others, it would be an interesting situation. He could become the mediator who makes the party get along.

Need_A_Life
2012-02-15, 08:07 PM
IMHO, a way too coward and selfish character is never an IC problem.
OOC, you know you're playing a cooperative game. [...] Playing a cautious character is acceptable, playing a character that'll never take risks to save the party isn't [...] You let the party die [...] Good job, now everyone at the table will roll a character that'll never save *your* character.... alrighty.
Seems you find this really important. I come from the direction that roleplaying is cooperative storytelling too, but we don't agree on what cooperative means in this context.

First, where did you get the idea that dying together is a good idea? Because if the ranger believes, presumably based on how previous encounters went, that he'll need X healing surges to get through the day without keeling over dead, then I get not wanting to spend one unnecessarily (definition of this will vary by character, obviously).

Second, I've yet to play in a game where players ever did more than joke about holding a grudge over a character death. It's a game.
In fact, I had great time when my dwarven character had survived what would have otherwise been TPKs a truly staggering amount of times. When he met the others, he explained honestly how the expedition had been more lethal than he'd expected and how he'd seen many good men die trying to reach our goal.
When one of these people (played by someone I've known half my life) accused me of working against the expedition and leading all these people into a trap, my character slapped him and told of the many brave men I'd had to watch die in our pursuit to destroy the demonic menace and added that should he ever doubt me, I'd gladly duel him to protect my honour.

That was a fun scene, even though it wasn't exactly cooperative in the teamwork sense. It was definitely cooperative in the story sense, though.


And most of the times there will be less fun, because players will be wary and unwilling to take risks for their characters, they'll be aware that if things go down no one will be there to save their characters.I think I'd be bored playing in your games then. Because by that logic there's no adventurers in D&D unless they've got a Deus Ex Machina, in case they get horribly murdered.
No one leaves their haven in Vampire games, as they might make enemies if people know they exist.
Troubleshooters in Paranoia commit suicide, so they won't get some horribly suicidal mission.

In some games, yes, "harmony and the glory of teamwork" is a perfectly fine theme. But there's hardly anything wrong with "I'm going to get filthy rich or die trying and the odds are in the 'murdered horribly' category."
Heck, in D&D you have the best possible argument for saving your team members, even if you're a cowardly, greedy misogynistic character: As long as the others live, your lifetime expectancy goes up considerably.


Too selfish and coward characters are an OOC problem, so the OP should talk to the player and do not try to find a solution IC.There's that word 'too.'
I don't agree that the ranger is too selfish or too cowardly. I think he's selfish and cowardly, sure, but not overly so. After all, by my reading he's given in every time the others asked him to, albeit reluctantly.


The player should be aware that playing this kind a character is disruptive for the game, because RPGs are for the most part a cooperative game and is expected from everyone to contribute to the fun of the group.Cooperative games =|= Teamwork.
Look at the average Vampire the Masquerade game and tell me that paranoid, selfish and cowardly characters can't be fun or that people wouldn't want to play in a game where that's prevalent.


Being too selfish IC means that the player is acting selfish OOC, and RPGs aren't for selfish people.Disagree.

Roleplaying isn't for people who won't share the spotlight.
Being a [CENSORED] in character doesn't mean you act like that out of character.
If a player is making things less fun for the rest, sure, have a talk with him. Don't demonize him or say that he's not a "real roleplayer." It's unbecoming.
Just remember that when you start a campaign spend a minute or so explaining how you expect the group dynamic to work. You get to avoid a lot of issues that way.

Coidzor
2012-02-15, 08:28 PM
Troubleshooters in Paranoia commit suicide, so they won't get some horribly suicidal mission.

You're bringing up Paranoia in a discussion of a game where the group of players care about the social dynamic. :smalltongue:


In some games, yes, "harmony and the glory of teamwork" is a perfectly fine theme.

Maybe this is one of those games. Maybe this is one of those groups and he's abusing their lack of ability to boot him for violating the group's compact because of this other person's massive bundle of issues. We don't really have enough information to say one way or the other about that.


Heck, in D&D you have the best possible argument for saving your team members, even if you're a cowardly, greedy misogynistic character: As long as the others live, your lifetime expectancy goes up considerably.

So how exactly is that an argument in favor of hoarding needed resources and backstabbing the party? That sounds more like an argument in favor of even slightly problematic characters overcoming their foibles to do what most benefits them in the long run, which is keep the party going rather than hold onto those 50 potions of cure light wounds that one can't really make good use of.


Look at the average Vampire the Masquerade game

Vampire the Masquerade is not your average cooperative game by my understanding. Backstabbing is part of the system and actively encouraged by White Wolf last time I checked into the system. To the point where the LARPs have difficulties with disintegrating into IRL feuding and bickering if they don't actually put in restraints on the White Wolf sanctioned mindset.


Roleplaying isn't for people who won't share the spotlight.

So why is being a selfish player and playing a selfish character that tries to hog the spotlight ok then?


Being a [CENSORED] in character doesn't mean you act like that out of character.

However, choosing to play a CENSORED character and trolling the group by doing so is acting like a CENSORED as a player.


If a player is making things less fun for the rest, sure, have a talk with him. Don't demonize him or say that he's not a "real roleplayer." It's unbecoming.

Indeed. Though if he's being a troll, don't be afraid to call him on his REDACTED.


Just remember that when you start a campaign spend a minute or so explaining how you expect the group dynamic to work. You get to avoid a lot of issues that way.

Agreed.

Engine
2012-02-15, 08:39 PM
... alrighty.
Seems you find this really important.

If you say so.:smallconfused:


I come from the direction that roleplaying is cooperative storytelling too, but we don't agree on what cooperative means in this context.

Could be.


Second, I've yet to play in a game where players ever did more than joke about holding a grudge over a character death. It's a game.

Sure. Never said you should kill or ban or insult someone. But in the end one could be tired of changing characters because someone in the group doesn't help.


In fact, I had great time when my dwarven character had survived what would have otherwise been TPKs a truly staggering amount of times. When he met the others, he explained honestly how the expedition had been more lethal than he'd expected and how he'd seen many good men die trying to reach our goal.
When one of these people (played by someone I've known half my life) accused me of working against the expedition and leading all these people into a trap, my character slapped him and told of the many brave men I'd had to watch die in our pursuit to destroy the demonic menace and added that should he ever doubt me, I'd gladly duel him to protect my honour.
That was a fun scene, even though it wasn't exactly cooperative in the teamwork sense. It was definitely cooperative in the story sense, though.

I truly can't see a point, pal.


I think I'd be bored playing in your games then. Because by that logic there's no adventurers in D&D unless they've got a Deus Ex Machina, in case they get horribly murdered.
No one leaves their haven in Vampire games, as they might make enemies if people know they exist.
Troubleshooters in Paranoia commit suicide, so they won't get some horribly suicidal mission.

You're misunderstanding me. I tried to explain that IMHO a player that plays a character unwilling to take risks for the group is a player disruptive for the game, because in the end she sees just her character, just her game, when at the table there's a group.


In some games, yes, "harmony and the glory of teamwork" is a perfectly fine theme. But there's hardly anything wrong with "I'm going to get filthy rich or die trying and the odds are in the 'murdered horribly' category."
Heck, in D&D you have the best possible argument for saving your team members, even if you're a cowardly, greedy misogynistic character: As long as the others live, your lifetime expectancy goes up considerably.

Never said that one should always play a "good" character. As you pointed out, teamwork increase life expectancy, so most of the times even with an evil character, even with a greedy character, even with a selfish character you could find some reason to help. And not just in D&D.


Cooperative games =|= Teamwork.
Look at the average Vampire the Masquerade game and tell me that paranoid, selfish and cowardly characters can't be fun or that people wouldn't want to play in a game where that's prevalent.

As I already said, playing a selfish character is fine. But as a player you should look at the group. Even in the V:tM books it says that a player should not play a disruptive character, and I feel that an overly selfish character is disruptive.



Roleplaying isn't for people who won't share the spotlight.
Being a [CENSORED] in character doesn't mean you act like that out of character.
If a player is making things less fun for the rest, sure, have a talk with him. Don't demonize him or say that he's not a "real roleplayer." It's unbecoming.
Just remember that when you start a campaign spend a minute or so explaining how you expect the group dynamic to work. You get to avoid a lot of issues that way.


Well, I agree.
And that's exactly what I said. Talk to the player, because an overly selfish character, IMHO, is not an IC problem but an OOC problem. Well, that's funny.
You disagree with me, but I agree with you.:smallbiggrin:

Need_A_Life
2012-02-16, 03:43 AM
You're bringing up Paranoia in a discussion of a game where the group of players care about the social dynamic. :smalltongue:Quite intentional, I assure you.
The point of my post was that being a backstabbing [CENSORED] can be a perfectly viable thing and Paranoia is one of the few games/settings where this is all but required.

So how exactly is that an argument in favor of hoarding needed resources and backstabbing the party?In the same way that I've played [3.5] Clerics who didn't heal everyone to full hit points after each fight. I made a judgement call that the healing would be more useful later or that another character needed it more. The ranger believed he needed 5 healing surges. The paladin disagreed. The Paladin, in fact, "browbeat" the ranger into donating (which isn't very Paladin-like*).


Vampire the Masquerade is not your average cooperative game by my understanding.Again, if you read my post you'll see that I'm arguing that roleplaying games are more about cooperative storytelling rather than cooperative teamwork. I find the first critical and the second a purely optional choice.

LARPs have difficulties with disintegrating into IRL feuding and bickering if they don't actually put in restraints on the White Wolf sanctioned mindset.Not so much in my experience (barring players who don't understand the idea of being in-character, making a character who's more than dots on a sheet etc.).
Sharing a beer with the people who've been doing their best to kill you all evening after the game ends and applaud them for their efforts, compliment them on what they did right and in general give feedback probably helps, though.



So why is being a selfish player and playing a selfish character that tries to hog the spotlight ok then?Where did he hog the spotlight? By refusing to follow the orders of a Paladin? By not dumping magic items into water, saving some people his character might actually wish dead (racism, patriotism or pure sociopathy could all cause this behaviour and all are IMHO perfectly valid for a character**)?


If he's being a troll, don't be afraid to call him on his REDACTED.That's always the way to handle it.
However this thread seems to have devolved from "How do we deal with this player" to "No True Roleplayer" territory, so I'll just sum up what my opinions are and leave it at that.

Ask the group if they're having less fun with a selfish character in the group. If yes, talk to the player about it. If no, your characters may still want to have a word with him.
Don't assume that he's wrong and you're right. No such thing in cooperative storytelling (usually. If you are playing with people who are drunk and/or high, results may vary).
Make sure everyone, including the rangers player, is enjoying themselves. Bad gaming is worse than no gaming, after all.


* Though as someone who doesn't like Paladins that part doesn't bother me too much.
** I, for example, have an OOC hate of elves in D&D. I know it's because I've seen too many "advanced-magical-scholar-immortal-superior-and-arrogant" Elves in former campaigns, but that doesn't prevent me from wanting to kill the pointy-eared [CENSORED].

Ashtagon
2012-02-16, 03:56 AM
The elf character hasn't done anything wrong. He sounds solidly Lawful Neutral. He is naturally selfish but when the group pressures him he will do the right thing. Lawful... and neutral.


Being Coerced through fear (aka group pressure) isn't lawful behaviour. It's pretty much the definition of neutral if you have to do it because of forces external to you. If you are lawful (or whatever alignment), you do lawful (or whatever alignment) stuff because you believe it to be the correct thing to do, not because someone else made you do it.

Alejandro
2012-02-18, 07:13 PM
The elf character hasn't done anything wrong. He sounds solidly Lawful Neutral. He is naturally selfish but when the group pressures him he will do the right thing. Lawful... and neutral.

If it's bothering the players out-of-character they should talk it out. But the IC conflict seems just fine to me.

On the other hand I would seriously consider whether the Paladin is correctly playing his alignment. It's one thing to accept the free donation of healing surges... it's another to pressure someone into giving up the healing surges they're worried they will need. Seriously, that is Not Compassionate. It is Not Selfless. It is, in fact, rather manipulative. I wouldn't expect a saint-like person to demand I donate a kidney to them, just because I'll have one left. They might ask for it, but you said the group brow-beat the elf into donating.

At that point the paladin should have said: "No, let him be. He's afraid and this gives him comfort. I'll take what you're all willing to give and I will make my stand with it."

I mean... paladin.

I'm not saying the paladin should fall for this one indiscretion. He did what any smart soldier would do. But a paladin needs to be more than a smart soldier, he needs to be a paragon.

Actually, if the paladin began being the voice that spoke up for the elf from the bullying of the others, it would be an interesting situation. He could become the mediator who makes the party get along.

The paladin never browbeat or threatened or asked for a thing from the elf. It was the rest of us who called the elf on his behavior.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-18, 09:03 PM
On the other hand I would seriously consider whether the Paladin is correctly playing his alignment. It's one thing to accept the free donation of healing surges... it's another to pressure someone into giving up the healing surges they're worried they will need. Seriously, that is Not Compassionate. It is Not Selfless. It is, in fact, rather manipulative. I wouldn't expect a saint-like person to demand I donate a kidney to them, just because I'll have one left. They might ask for it, but you said the group brow-beat the elf into donating.


You don't regrow your kidneys after 8 hours of restful sleep (usually).

Siosilvar
2012-02-18, 09:38 PM
-paladin stuff-

OP mentioned Healing Surges; IIRC Paladins don't have to be Lawful Good in 4e.

If he is, your advice stands, of course.

Another_Poet
2012-02-21, 03:06 AM
The paladin never browbeat or threatened or asked for a thing from the elf. It was the rest of us who called the elf on his behavior.

Right, and if he stood by and didn't object, he's bad at paladinning.


You don't regrow your kidneys after 8 hours of restful sleep (usually).

You don't regrow healing surges either if you die in the next battle. It's a reasonable worry.


OP mentioned Healing Surges; IIRC Paladins don't have to be Lawful Good in 4e.

In that case, objection withdrawn.