How to handle a Player who bashes on another player

[Tychris1]

Alright, so i'm DMing a campaign for some friends and a debacle came up over alignment. Here's the situation:

One of my players (A bronze dragon) gave birth to a Bronze Dragon/Bunny hybrid (Don't ask) which came out looking like a bunny. The other player in the group (A chaotic good half elf ranger) has been a "Batman" wannabe for most of the campaign; He's a "Stop having fun guys" guy, he despises parties and fun, he refuses to talk except through hand gestures/Longshot looks (Avatar the last airbender) and enjoys hunting animals for the sport of it. He found this to be incredibly stupid and wanted to kill the bunny. The two players argued and he backed off. Next session comes along and the Bronze Dragon player has to sit out due to RL issues. The Ranger takes this opportunity to hunt down the bunny, only to find that it change shaped into it's true Bronze Dragon Wyrmling form.

The ranger proceeded to open fire with his arrows on the dragon, and a battle commenced. The Ranger was severely beaten up and decided to let the Wyrmling go free, but it swooped back around for a potshot and the battle continued, ending with the wyrmlings death. With only 7 HP to his name, the Ranger takes the Wyrmling corpse, skins it, and eats it for lunch. I ask him abou how he feels and he tells me he doesn't care about murdering the wyrmling. The Bronze Dragon character comes back asking what happened in the session (A day afterwards). Upon learning that he grew angry and the two began to threaten to kill each other. The Bronze Dragon pointed out that the Ranger shouldn't be good anymore and I agreed, stating the Ranger was Chaotic Evil due to hunting down, killing, skinning, and eating the bronze dragon's child. The Ranger retaliated by saying that I didn't tell him his alignment would change, that he had done good actions before that, and that him being evil would only make it harder for the party to work together and that it "Wouldn't help us at all".

How do I handle this? My brain hurts. Do I kick him? Is he pure evil? Or neutral? Help.

Edit: And there current quest vendor is a very powerful Paladin Angel to complicate the matter. But she's not the moral policemen type Paladin. I'm thinking of ways to defuse this situation with the least amount of stress and arguing possible.

[Elricaltovilla]

So he killed skinned and ate another sentient being, not to mention his fellow party member's child, and doesn't think he should have an alignment change because of it? Furthermore, he thinks his character is BATMAN?:smallconfused:

He's evil. No doubt about it. In fact, if he's so concerned that an alignment shift is going to make it impossible for his character to be in the party, then tell him to roll up a new one.

He's chaotic evil, period.

[MeiLeTeng]

In terms of in character issues that's a pretty serious evil act.

Out of character though is probably more where you should be focused. You've got an interplayer conflict and probably had one before the actual aforementioned dragon murder. You should probably deal with that before you deal with anything else.

[Tychris1]

He is "Too attached" to his character, so he refuses to roll up a new one.

And yes, Batman. He broods, says his parents are dead, interrogates people by hanging them over building sides, sneaks around, stealth attacks, and refuses to abide by the laws of the current city (Which is run by a Vampire Rogue/Assassin Demigod).

Edit: This isn't the first time a conflict has arose. When his archer failed a fortitude save and was blinded he promptly quit, letting his character stand around and do nothing. When the Bronze Dragon character was playin the before mentioned Vampire Demi-God in the last campaign (The current campaign is them being heroes trying to overthrow the villains thy made last campaign) tried to make Vampire Spawn to follow him around and make an army he called the plan stupid and killed them. He enjoys C-Blocking the Bronze Dragon player.

[elonin]

My main question is why the dragon's child was left alone? If noone was playing the character while the player was absent then the kid should have been taken out of play.

[edit]Sounds like the ranger character was playing nongood before this.

[Tychris1]

Because he would argue that the child disappearing would make no sense (He's prone to arguing) and I did not believe he would go so far as to pull a Dr. Jekel and Mr. Hyde on me by doing that.

[Namfuak]

Killing a good creature is an evil act. Killing a good creature without provokation is an eviler act. Desecrating the corpse of a good creature you murdered is another evil act, though the actual eating is probably neutral since animals do it too. I don't usually use the alignment system though, since it is only either A. Useless (as in this situation where it doesn't matter what alignment he is 99% of the time) or B. Pointlessly Punitive (See Paladins).

[Sith_Happens]

Could you explain to me why the bronze dragon hasn't killed, in ways too brutal to be described on this forum, the half-elf who skinned and ate her child?

[Elricaltovilla]

Tychris1: If I were the DM, I would have a serious talk with the ranger's player about his behavior in group and I would absolutely put my foot down and tell him to roll a new character. His actions have lost him the privilidge of playing that character. That would be the least of what happened after that talk.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'd be ok with playing with someone like that in my group.

[Marnath]

It sounds to me like what you need to do is kick the problem player out of your group. If he can't behave himself and stop going after the dragon player's characters for what sounds like an OOC dislike, then he may not be a good fit for the group.


Otherwise, I'd have to say that any party member who objects to the immediate execution of this character should take an alignment hit. The dragon should certainly kill this guy, what he did is monstrous and even most evil dragons feel enough of a bond to their young that they'd kill him for what he did. I don't think any good party member would oppose it.

[Tychris1]

Ok. So, the reason he hasn't murdered him yet is because we do sessions on friday, and this happened last friday. He fully intends to do so (And has 27 Hp more then the ranger, alongside a 6d6 lightning breathe attack against 40 HP every 1d4-1 rounds). Our group is small, we're pretty much me and 3 other people (The third guy was a LG Cleric who got killed due to the Ranger's "No fun allowed" attitude leading to a Vampire draining him to death, and he responded by rolling up a new character that would be his cohort after they returned the cleric to life). Losing the Ranger might fracture us and will greatly hamper the size of the party.

[Water_Bear]

Right off the bat, this really isn't an alignment issue so much as a "Player being an asshat" issue. Depending on why the Ranger's Player is being an asshat, it will require different solutions;

If he's always been like this, remove him from the game. Politely if he's your friend, less so if he's not. It sucks to tell someone to leave, but if they're consistently disruptive and have nothing to offer you don't have much choice.

If he was once a less douchey player but has drifted into this behavior recently, see what if anything might have instigated the change. A tonal change in the games being run, personal issues in his life, breakdowns in the relationships among the players; any of this kind of stuff could result in players becoming *****. Once you know what the problem is, it can either be solved or he can be removed.

If he is reasonable except when it comes to this other Player, you might have a different can of worms entirely. Playing unusual characters such as Vampire Demigods and Brass Dragons, having former characters become powerful NPCs in future games, bizarre stuff like half-bunny pregnancies... it's possible the Ranger isn't the problem player here. If the other Player has gotten into Mary Sue BS, it is well within the Ranger Player's rights to try and squash that nonsense.

As for the Alignment aspect, of course it's Evil. He killed and ate a Metallic Dragon baby unprovoked. If he was a Paladin he would have Fallen so fast that he'd experience relativistic time dilation.

[Krobar]

If I was a player in that game I would have immediately killed that character, burned the body, and scattered the ashes to the four winds. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

He has it coming. He's chaotic evil to the core.

[Scow2]

How big's the Bronze Dragon? Large enough to swallow whole the ranger? If so I'd suggest that the Bronze Dragon first disarm the Ranger of any light piercing or slashing weapons he might have, then chow down.

And if the Ranger player objects, go into Vengeful Monologue of Justice.

[The Grue]

He is "Too attached" to his character, so he refuses to roll up a new one.

You are the DM, which means "roll a new character" is not an optional request.

If you want to force the issue head-on, ask him which he's more attached to: his imaginary fantasy character, or the group of real-life friends he plays games with. Cause with the level of asshat he's apparently been, he only gets to keep one.

[Tychris1]

He has always been a douchey kind of guy (It's been in a rather humorous tone mostly though). He does however seem to turn it up when the other character is involved.

Allow me to explain the last campaign. The last campaign had each of them playing evil overlord type baddies. The Cleric character's end game turned him into an immortal Lich Scarecrow Dread Necromancer who controls a legion of the dead and is a literal personifaction of decay. The Ranger character's old character was a Wraith Wizard who developed guns and advanced constructs before possessing the mind of a spectral Tarrasque Wraith and loading it into his giant flying dread ghost ship that tows around his flying castle library. He is also a pirate with an obssession with the spell Lightning bolt and all things electric (That's an OOC love that spilled in IC) who is a veritable force of death that cannot be killed and wants to purge the world of life. All of their old characters were intended as the final bosses for this campaign, and each of the players has a rivalry with one of the NPC's IC.

I can see the other two cases though, Water Bear.

[The Grue]

(That's an OOC love that spilled in IC)

Found your problem.

But seriously: that campaign, for one thing, sounds positively awesome in every way imaginable and you are a brilliant DM for even attempting to run it. But, if this guy has a history of being an assbag, I have to wonder why he's even in the group in the first place, or failing that why he hasn't been kicked out before now on grounds of asshattery.

In short, why do you keep this guy around?

[Tychris1]

Because we're high school students and alot of the time we just jerk each others legs and pretend to be jerks. The Cleric player is childhood friends with the Ranger player, even after the Ranger moved to the other side of the country. His d-baggy manner normally derives a laugh and isn't ever really pointed at a person in the group, but when it does everyone just stops talking. The only thing preventing the group from imploding is the fact that everyone seems to "Reset" the next day and just forgive whatever happened before. Once a conflict arises the past is brought back up again and the process repeats. Atleast that was up until now, the Bronze Dragon doesn't seem like he'll follow the forgive and forget mantra. But that's off topic, anyway, there's your answer Grue.

[Steward]

Your campaign style seems so elaborate and crazy (in a good way) that it seems as if there's not that much room for someone like that player to be in it, to be honest. He seems to resent when the other characters do things that are reasonably expected in a campaign that features:


immortal Lich Scarecrow Dread Necromancer who controls a legion of the dead and is a literal personifaction of decay

or


The Ranger character's old character was a Wraith Wizard who developed guns and advanced constructs before possessing the mind of a spectral Tarrasque Wraith and loading it into his giant flying dread ghost ship that tows around his flying castle library. He is also a pirate with an obssession with the spell Lightning bolt and all things electric


I definitely agree with the advice that you talk to him OOC. There is no such thing as an in-character resolution to a personality conflict between two players. Changing his alignment may be appropriate in-game but it won't solve the problem; neither would letting the Bronze Dragon eat him, unless you mean actually having someone kill and eat the player (not the character). Even if this conflict blows over, it's just going to come back later anyway if it's not addressed by a frank, serious discussion in the real world.

[Tychris1]

Urgh. DMing is stupid. Why can't I just cram loyalty implants into my players heads and call it a day? I'm going to have a 1 to 1 discussion with him tommorow regarding this scenario and hopefully resolve it. I'll come back with the results when I have them.

[Menzath]

skins it, and eats it for lunch.

Did he fort save Vs. that dragon bile? it's mighty nasty stuff. Contact DC26 fort, initial 3d6 str damage, no secondary. And that's every round he is exposed to it.
And to SAFELY skin a dragon for consumption that's a high knowledge:arcana check in my mind, also having survival or some profession(cooking stuff) skill check as well.


As far as being surprised his alignment changed... did he cast

Augury M F: Learns whether an action will be good or bad.
Before hand? If common sense could not connect the dots... he may very well deserve everything he gets.

EDIT: ah and of course the more serious problem of IRL inter-party relations.
So this elf batman-ish super evil murdering my party members spawn player, is like in most groups a friend of someone else's or of everyone's.
Well you have to remind him that whoever sits at the table is looking to enjoy a game, and have a good time. There are other ways in game to be a jerk to party members, while not having people want to kill you IRL and keep everyone happy.

But until you figure out HOW to do that, make nicey nice or get in game god-smashed by the DM's will, or TK'd by everyone in your party you pissed off.

[The Grue]

Because we're high school students and alot of the time we just jerk each others legs and pretend to be jerks. The Cleric player is childhood friends with the Ranger player, even after the Ranger moved to the other side of the country. His d-baggy manner normally derives a laugh and isn't ever really pointed at a person in the group, but when it does everyone just stops talking. The only thing preventing the group from imploding is the fact that everyone seems to "Reset" the next day and just forgive whatever happened before. Once a conflict arises the past is brought back up again and the process repeats. Atleast that was up until now, the Bronze Dragon doesn't seem like he'll follow the forgive and forget mantra. But that's off topic, anyway, there's your answer Grue.

Hm. Perhaps the issue is not the Ranger's behaviour, but mixed expectations. If jerkness is expected, laughed at, and encouraged in the group, someone who's less comfortable with that dynamic might have a harder time knowing when it's appropriate and when its not. If I may snip part of your post to illustrate,



alot of the time we just jerk each others legs and pretend to be jerks

There is an expectation of jerkness in the group, and an expectation that said jerkness will not be taken seriously.


His d-baggy manner normally derives a laugh

You have created a causal relationship; by laughing at the Ranger's antics when he's a douchebag, you reinforce that this behaviour is not only accepted by the group, but encouraged.


and isn't ever really pointed at a person in the group but when it does everyone just stops talking

Here the causal relationship breaks down. Ranger knows that he gets a laugh when he acts like a douchebag.


alot of the time we just jerk each others legs and pretend to be jerks

He sees other people in the group acting like jerks, in specific reference to one another. He infers that this is okay, and tries to join in...


but when it does everyone just stops talking

...only to find that, for some reason, the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to him.

Starting to see the problem? What you need to ask yourself, and the rest of your group, is "why is it okay for everyone to act like jerks to one another, except the ranger?" If it's because you're not as comfortable with him as you are with each other, then maybe the rest of the group should tone down the antics a bit so as not to give him the wrong impression. My instinct here is that the Ranger is uncomfortable with the group dynamic, but likes the people in it and likes playing the game and wants to fit in, but because he's uncomfortable with the dynamic itself he's not sure when and how that is. All he sees is people being rude to each other and laughing, so he thinks that if he's rude to everyone they'll laugh too. When this doesn't happen, he gets frustrated, feels excluded, and lashes out.


Urgh. DMing is stupid. Why can't I just cram loyalty implants into my players heads and call it a day? I'm going to have a 1 to 1 discussion with him tommorow regarding this scenario and hopefully resolve it. I'll come back with the results when I have them.

At the risk of sounding condescending and like I know more than you just because I'm older...the answer to your question is "because learning how to interact with people is important and you should get in the habit of it". Still, I share your sentiment. Life would be a lot easier if miscommunications weren't a thing.

[Skysaber]

Ok, firstly you are in error for not having stepped in when the ranger first attacked the bunny. That was the point where you had to stop the action, inform the player that was an evil act, and remind him of the consequences thereof.

That was also the time to point out that Batman, while he pushes the border in some regards, has a code where he never takes a life and that's what pulls him back when so often the rest of his behavior is questionable.

Attacking, killing and eating an innocent goes so far beyond the bounds that it defies description.

So, you have several ways of handling this now that things have escalated to this point.

One, if the Bronze wants to kill the ranger, let him. It is both appropriate and justified. Don't even let the ranger put up a defense.

Two, go Greek on him, by which I mean Greek Gods and their legendary punishments. You are in charge of the pantheon, just say someone (Diana, Goddess of the Hunt, would be perfect for this as rangers in general are central to her portfolio and the act of killing and eating children would have horrified her), but any local equivalent would do (particularly any goddess whose portfolio includes mothers or family).

Relics & Rituals: Olympus has several suggestions for divine curses, and they include the lovely little text "The effects and penalties of these punishments
are divine in nature and cannot be countered by any mortal means" ie, there is no magic save the forgiveness of the divinity you offended that can remove these. He can spam a thousand Wishes on it a day for the next thousand years and not even budge it.

They are called "punishment feats" and the mechanic is you choose one of his feats. He loses that feat, gaining the "punishment feat" in its stead.

The punishments are Blindness (remember that no mortal magic can remove this punishment, so even should he acquire every magic item in the game that grants Blindsense, or any other replacement for sight, those just don't work for him).

Disfigured, permanently reduce his charisma to 1 and his base move to 10ft. Do remember that nothing can improve this. Even if he gets polymorphed, he polymorphs into something horribly disfigured. He acquires a different type of movement, then it still goes no faster than 10ft - even if it was a magic carpet or a major artifact granting the movement. He can't even ride a horse faster than 10ft. It's a divine curse, not a minor inconvenience.

Madness, character is permanently affected by the Insanity spell.

Or Transformed, the character is polymorphed into an animal.

Do recall, offending the divine with heinous acts should have even more horrible consequences.

Those are the only two appropriate punishments, but if you want to defy reason and go soft on this character, you have other options.

One, he is haunted by that child's ghost. Grant it all of the ghostly abilities and let it use them against him constantly - and protect that ghost against anyone else interfering. Seriously, clerics who try to turn or cast spells against it find themselves stripped of all spellcasting ability. Other find they have the Unluck spell cast on them (by a diety, no save).

Two, possibly combined with One, above. A Geas/Quest to make amends.

Three, possibly combined with the first two, ranger is struck by a wasting illness from his depraved meal. Transform him into a ghoul, or just knock all of his attributes down by 6, as though by multiple instances of Bestow Curse.

Most important of all, DO NOT let his escape any punishment you decide on until he has fully and completely mended his ways and made things right. This should AT MINIMUM include a True Res for the infant he destroyed and weregild to the parent - wealth which must permanently be deducted from his WBL no matter what level he attains.

[Pickford]

Alright, so i'm DMing a campaign for some friends and a debacle came up over alignment. Here's the situation:

One of my players (A bronze dragon) gave birth to a Bronze Dragon/Bunny hybrid (Don't ask) which came out looking like a bunny. The other player in the group (A chaotic good half elf ranger) has been a "Batman" wannabe for most of the campaign; He's a "Stop having fun guys" guy, he despises parties and fun, he refuses to talk except through hand gestures/Longshot looks (Avatar the last airbender) and enjoys hunting animals for the sport of it. He found this to be incredibly stupid and wanted to kill the bunny. The two players argued and he backed off. Next session comes along and the Bronze Dragon player has to sit out due to RL issues. The Ranger takes this opportunity to hunt down the bunny, only to find that it change shaped into it's true Bronze Dragon Wyrmling form.

The ranger proceeded to open fire with his arrows on the dragon, and a battle commenced. The Ranger was severely beaten up and decided to let the Wyrmling go free, but it swooped back around for a potshot and the battle continued, ending with the wyrmlings death. With only 7 HP to his name, the Ranger takes the Wyrmling corpse, skins it, and eats it for lunch. I ask him abou how he feels and he tells me he doesn't care about murdering the wyrmling. The Bronze Dragon character comes back asking what happened in the session (A day afterwards). Upon learning that he grew angry and the two began to threaten to kill each other. The Bronze Dragon pointed out that the Ranger shouldn't be good anymore and I agreed, stating the Ranger was Chaotic Evil due to hunting down, killing, skinning, and eating the bronze dragon's child. The Ranger retaliated by saying that I didn't tell him his alignment would change, that he had done good actions before that, and that him being evil would only make it harder for the party to work together and that it "Wouldn't help us at all".

How do I handle this? My brain hurts. Do I kick him? Is he pure evil? Or neutral? Help.

Edit: And there current quest vendor is a very powerful Paladin Angel to complicate the matter. But she's not the moral policemen type Paladin. I'm thinking of ways to defuse this situation with the least amount of stress and arguing possible.

Something to stress here: Murder (killing without provocation) is an evil act. Always. No exceptions. If you kill an evil character without provocation as a paladin, for example, you fall.

1) There's no reason at all to not DM fiat the bunny back into existence.
2) There's also no reason the Dragon can't kill the Ranger, it has perfect provocation.
3) The paladin must punish (this may include killing) the ranger or it will fall.

As a side note, you seem to have a weakness for catering to this player. If you enjoy seeing the party fragment even more, I suggest continuing this. Otherwise, if you want actual cohesion, I would recommend not doing so into the future.

[The Grue]

snip

I'm actually going to disagree completely and unabashedly with Skysaber here; dishing out in-game punishment is only going to make things worse.

Ranger's in-game actings out are merely a symptom of the bigger problem, which is his issues with the game dynamic. Solve those, and he'll stop causing problems in the future. If you can resolve the OOG cause of these problems, you can wave your magic GM wand and restore the game state to before the ranger murdered, skinned and ate the bunny-dragon and continue as though nothing happened. Remember, it's a pretend fantasy world.

Ultimately, you can deal with Ranger in one of two ways: You can try and help him work through his personal issues and help him mesh with the group, or you can wash your hands of it and kick him out. Keeping him in the group but with massive character sanctions is a half-measure that only makes the problem fester and get worse.

[Tychris1]

Wow that is alot of content in a small burst of time. Give me a minute, I have to run through this step by step, so i'll start by answering one comment and slowly edit in more answers as I can make them.

Yes, I have a weakness towards this character, because he tends to be aggressive and confrontational with the added bonus of being good friends with another party member. I've been aprehensive in smacking him down because I do not wish to possibley fragment his friendship with the other Cleric party member (Who I am also good friends with and hang out with repeatedly). By making him pick sides. It's why I have danced around the problem as much as possible. I wish I hadn't, but I did, and now i'm trying to correct it.

@Paladin: Yes, she is going to drop a nuke on his face. No doubt about it at this point.

@Grue Allow me to clear some fogs of illusion. The group was originally the Ranger and the Cleric. I found the cleric in a comic book store and we became friends a year or two ago. He introduced the Ranger, who was rude and jerky to me and the cleric (Even going so far as to call my brother stupid and idiotic desie never seeing him). The "ritual" of the jerk circle, so to speak, was just between them. I thought it was serious at first and even tried to fix things by having a group therapy session, as it were. Slowly I adapted to it and just went with the flow of it, growing dulled to it. Eventually the Ranger character introduced the Bronze Dragon character into the group and I grew to like him too despite never seeing him before. Then DnD started up from me mentioning a PbP I was in to the Cleric and this whole bile mess started. He's apparently been like this even when he was young. I got integrated, not the other way around. I'm just, well adapted, so to speak. And yes, that did sound a little condescending. I wasn't posing a question so much as making an off handed joke. I appreciate the sentiment however.

@SkyS Thanks for the ideas, but I don't think IC punishment will help. The alignment shift was just a gentle nudge to show that he was deep in the wrong here and that we'd have to discuss this later.

[killem2]

I would drop a rock so fast on that character faster than he can say Wait, I'm a paladin now?

[Xervous]

@Skysaber, permanently polymorphing him into a small, defenseless bunny would be poetic justice.

[Tychris1]

Ok, I think I got everything. I like DMing, but my heart has always been being a player, and I can't wait for this to be behind me so that someone else can DM the next campaign.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As a GM, I have a simple policy on inter-party conflict:

"I do not prohibit or interfere in inter-party conflict, I merely take advantage of it. Now, are you going to roll initiative and go at it, work things out, or am I going to start rolling on my random encounter chart?"

Having said that, yes the Ranger is Evil. He killed, skinned, and ate a sentient being. It doesn't get much more evil than that. Tell him to be fortunate that he wasn't a Paladin or he'd have fallen so hard he'd have left skid marks on the alignment chart.

[Sugashane]

Urgh. DMing is stupid. Why can't I just cram loyalty implants into my players heads and call it a day? I'm going to have a 1 to 1 discussion with him tommorow regarding this scenario and hopefully resolve it. I'll come back with the results when I have them.

No, DMing is like working with the public, it can be very fun and rewarding, but you have to deal with the occasional (or frequent depending on occupation lol) idiot. This player is an IDIOT. Had he done that in my game he would have been evil and there might have been a chance any other party members that did not act would also be facing a pretty dire alignment switch (who wouldn't stop the abuse/murder/desecration of a child of a friend (and obviously one that is not a friend's)? If the bronze dragon doesn't kill him then he isn't roleplaying properly either IMO.

The idea that he would have to be told that is an evil act is incompetent. That is him saying he wants to be as evil as his alignment will allow without repercussions. The fact he is good friends with a person in the group should not be a factor, but take this knowing I have fired a family member. Remember, you're not picking between anyone, the player is, because he is the one picking to be disruptive and childish. You are the enforcer.

I agree with Pickford except on number one. It was a roleplay (albeit a poor excuse of one) it was not meant to be the "last laugh" as some do on their last day of playing in a group. I would replace it with him having a possibility for atonement, an arduous quest where he eventually earns back his alignment and pays for a True Resurrection to bring the dragon back.

[Rahdjan]

Ok, I think I got everything. I like DMing, but my heart has always been being a player, and I can't wait for this to be behind me so that someone else can DM the next campaign.

Not to sound harsh, but I kind of blame you for allowing this to happen. Yes the Ranger is a jerk and your group needs a serious out of game discussion, but you shouldn't have let something so serious happen to a character when that player isn't present. That'd be like coming back after missing a game for RL demands and finding out your character lost a hand or something worse. I'm glad you're trying to resolve this but as a GM you can say "Time Out, this isn't going to happen". That all being said, I really hope this Ranger gets what's coming to him and that as players you can resolve this issue and remain a group.

[Elricaltovilla]

That'd be like coming back after missing a game for RL demands and finding out your character lost a hand or something worse.

Something worse like having your child killed skinned and eaten by someone you knew and considered a friend?:smallconfused:

[dascarletm]

Not to sound harsh, but I kind of blame you for allowing this to happen. Yes the Ranger is a jerk and your group needs a serious out of game discussion, but you shouldn't have let something so serious happen to a character when that player isn't present. That'd be like coming back after missing a game for RL demands and finding out your character lost a hand or something worse. I'm glad you're trying to resolve this but as a GM you can say "Time Out, this isn't going to happen". That all being said, I really hope this Ranger gets what's coming to him and that as players you can resolve this issue and remain a group.

I agree. It's a lesson all DMs need to learn. The best way to handle a character missing is to postpone him entirely from the current session.

Here is how I would of handled the ranger:

Ranger: I'm going to go kill the wyrmling etc.
Me: Well Richard (my name for brass dragon guy) isn't here, so you'll hafta do that when he returns.
Ranger: But in the game the wyrmling still exists and I'm a character and I can go after it if I want.
Me: Yes, but Richard isn't here John(The Ranger). His character also exists and would take measures to try and stop you. You can't just wait till Rich is gone and then kill his character or stuff pertaining to while he is out.
John: But my character can cuz he's in the world and I want to do it now and not go find the mystical gunblade of dragonflying demon linked energy scepter that is green. It is what the character would do
Me: Well you control the character, he's your imaginary construct. You have to make consessions out of game that will impact in game due to real life issues. You need to be constructive in telling the narrative. It is your responsibility as a player, also don't be a ****.
John: But...
Me: No, one more word and the gunblade will be red.
John: But red will throw off my forest motif!
Me: Deal with it.:smallcool:

[Rahdjan]

Something worse like having your child killed skinned and eaten by someone you knew and considered a friend?:smallconfused:

That could fit under the definition of "worse". I was trying for an example that would mechanically impact the character, not just RP.

[Barsoom]

I'm thinking of ways to defuse this situation with the least amount of stress and arguing possible.Remove the Ranger's player from the group. Delete him from your Facebook. Set up a filter to automatically delete all his emails. Forget he every existed.

[kabreras]

In our group when a character is absent he always fall in the background with his personnal belonging.

The ranger should never had been able to kill the bunny.

Now imo the best you can do is to calm down the situation, talk to the player an raise the bunny back to life
- ooohhh yes that bunny killing, it was all in your dream last night
- Sorry, wrong bunny, bronze dragons have a thing for bunnies and this one was a great wyrm child... hear her comming for you...

...

[dascarletm]

Remove the Ranger's player from the group. Delete him from your Facebook. Set up a filter to automatically delete all his emails. Forget he every existed.

I think too often the advice is to kick people from the group or leave the group. People improve, and usually don't think they are being jerks or don't realize their actions are jerkish. I think 99% of the populace wants to be a good person, or at least a good friend. Just show your perspective.

[TuggyNE]

I think too often the advice is to kick people from the group or leave the group. People improve, and usually don't think they are being jerks or don't realize their actions are jerkish. I think 99% of the populace wants to be a good person, or at least a good friend. Just show your perspective.

I don't wholly disagree, but I think it would be more accurate to say that 99% of the population believes themself* to be a good person, whether or not they actually are. Not sure how many people would seriously want to be good (i.e., different) if they knew that they weren't.


*Shut up, it's totally a word! :smalltongue:

[Qintopon]

Personally I would have let him try to go through with it and then had the little innocent bunny kill him instead. :smallbiggrin: That's what you get for being a douche.

Other than that, it sounds like the previous campaign was designed more for evil characters, and the ranger is having a hard time adjusting to the concept of "I'm not an evil asshat anymore." And him being an evil asshat in RL (just assuming here) means that he's simply playing himself. Part of the challenge of the game is playing somebody who isn't you. I would encourage you to encourage him in that way. I've always found that encouraging appropriate behavior is easier (and more effective) than punishing asshat behavior. That being said, I don't get the impression that he has received a lot of the former so it's not completely out of the question that he might need some - and badly. So I would probably do both.

The best way to fix a mistake that you have committed throughout the game is just to fix it. Tell them, I'm sorry I didn't (fill in the blank) before, and then do it. You are still a person and you are allowed to make mistakes. Then if anybody doesn't like it, you can tell THEM to be the DM. It's your responsibility given to you by your players, and your privilege given to you by the game. If you would rather be a player (as you have said in your comments) then it shouldn't be too much of an issue if one of them says okay. If none of them say okay then they've given you the joy and punishment of authority. :smallcool:

There is definitely a lot of good advice in this thread and I would suggest that every DM read it!

[dascarletm]

I don't wholly disagree, but I think it would be more accurate to say that 99% of the population believes themself* to be a good person, whether or not they actually are. Not sure how many people would seriously want to be good (i.e., different) if they knew that they weren't.


*Shut up, it's totally a word! :smalltongue:

Maybe, but I'd say at least give the guy a chance. Personally I feel a little bad for the guy reading this stuff.:smallfrown: But then again I empathize too easily.

[Barsoom]

I think too often the advice is to kick people from the group or leave the group. People improve, and usually don't think they are being jerks or don't realize their actions are jerkish. I think 99% of the populace wants to be a good person, or at least a good friend. Just show your perspective.If a player has his PC kill and eat the child of another PC, and then argues against a forced alignment change because it'll make it more difficult for them to work together, you don't need to convince me that he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. I totally understand he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. However, him not realizing he's being a jerk is not a point in his favor here.

Also, I am a bit of a softie in heart too, and agree people can change. But this guy clearly has a long way to go, and you probably want them to change at a respectable distance from you.

[Qintopon]

I don't empathize. He's a jerk. :smalltongue:

[Cerlis]

obviously the dude's parents where killed, eaten and raped (in that order) by a rabbit . As that is the only reason why the ranger would so want to murder the bunny. :smallsigh:

plenty of bunnies out there, and none of which are probably the children of your ally.

OOC its obvious that the one player sees the dragon player as some sort of gaming rival. He wanted to kill the bunny because it was something precious to the other player.

The biggest step would be to personally (and not in front of the other players) get him to admit that he had no in character reason for going after him and he wanted to C-Block the other player

[dascarletm]

If a player has his PC kill and eat the child of another PC, and then argues against a forced alignment change because it'll make it more difficult for them to work together, you don't need to convince me that he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. I totally understand he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. However, him not realizing he's being a jerk is not a point in his favor here.

Also, I am a bit of a softie in heart too, and agree people can change. But this guy clearly has a long way to go, and you probably want them to change at a respectable distance from you.

Another good point. I just have good friends who in game got so carried away and caught up in the moment, that when we talked about the actions (similar to this, but I won't get into it) saw it was obviously a bad move, and jerkish.

I had a guy who used to be in our group (years and years ago...) who had it out for me. Heck, he burnt a cigarette hole in my parents carpet on purpose. Now, this may be more like that. In which case....... idk. Things end up working themselves out. Play it as it comes I say.

[Barsoom]

Another good point. I just have good friends who in game got so carried away and caught up in the moment, that when we talked about the actions (similar to this, but I won't get into it) saw it was obviously a bad move, and jerkish.And this is clearly not the case here. A whole gaming session passed since, with plenty of opportunity for the offending party to realize the error of his ways, but at least according to what the OP has given us, error of ways was not realized.

[dascarletm]

And this is clearly not the case here. A whole gaming session passed since, with plenty of opportunity for the offending party to realize the error of his ways, but at least according to what the OP has given us, error of ways was not realized.

Just suggesting he may be more towards that end of the spectrum. Only the OP and the player knows for sure.

[Fitz10019]

Under the rule of cool, the DM can say 'that ain't cool.'

There were a number of points where the DM could have prevented this. Wyrmlings fly.



- ooohhh yes that bunny killing, it was all in your dream last night


Another version of this would be the Burmling has psyonic powers, the whole thing was an illusion / test of character. Now the Burmling is invisible to the Ranger, and whenever the Ranger falls asleep, he turns into a vulnerable bunny. He still shifts alignment.

[Coidzor]

If a player has his PC kill and eat the child of another PC, and then argues against a forced alignment change because it'll make it more difficult for them to work together, you don't need to convince me that he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. I totally understand he doesn't realize he's being a jerk. However, him not realizing he's being a jerk is not a point in his favor here.

:smallconfused: I'd assume he was a sociopath or had some kind of medical issue vis-a-vis his empathy centers well before assuming that he didn't realize he was being a jerk, especially given that we've had it confirmed that his sense of humor is purposefully being a prat to people. Even middle school kids have higher minimum standards of behavior and mindfulness than to miss that.

Sure, he needs to grow up, but it ain't just that.

[SciChronic]

Tbh,

1. you shouldn't have let the ranger fight the bunny, since the parent had RL demands.
2. you shouldn't have let the Ranger push you around, you're the DM you get the last word on everything. If you feel like it you could summon a giant swarm of bronze gold and silver dragons to attack the ranger, and all of them being great wyrm.
3. yes the ranger is evil, no ifs ands or buts
4. you should've had the baby dragon win in the fight. you should have a DM screen. DMs are allowed to lie about their rolls if it makes combat more intense, and in this case, to teach the Ranger a lesson about doing dickish things for the sake of being a ****.
5. You need to talk to the guy. and either find a solution to his douchebag attitude, or drop him from the group and find another person to play with. His presence in the group is caustic and you need to find some kind of solution to it because this will just happen again further down the line.

[Kerilstrasz]

A quest opportunity...
the mother dragon has a dream vision... the X god appears and forbids him/her revenge his/her slain baby.. The X god asks the mother dragon to do this (think of a quest) and upon completion the baby dragon returns to life as a Paladin of that God(just give the dragon/bunny 1lvl in Paladin without multyclass restrictions)... this baby's sole life purpose now is to hunt down and kill any/every mortal who ever killed a good dragon. and that is with the blessing of the God. Have the baby dragon have a divine grated ability that makes it a real threat against those people... like DR that applies only to "dragonkillers" , double saves and dmg...

[Raendyn]

The Ranger retaliated by saying that I didn't tell him his alignment would change, that he had done good actions before that, and that him being evil would only make it harder for the party to work together and that it "Wouldn't help us at all

the label is only a label. you play your char as you think he would be played, enter his phyco-profile and act the way he would act in any occasion. The " CG" or "CE" under the " alignment" line is just for OOG mention. Theoritically he could never change the label on his sheet, but the DM may secretly change his allignment several times. So he shouldn'y change the way he acts just cause the label changed.

His type of playing already "Doesnt help at all", so the label wont make much of a difference.

You DIDN'T LET HIM ALIGNMENT WOULD CHANGE?
OMG!!! What ****y DM/GM are you? Why didnt you? TOTALY YOUR FAULT!!

jokes, aside? How much did you laugh when he said that? Are you also obligated to tell them that they would die if they jump in the volcano magma? or if they go and fight the end game boss while they are still lvl 2 and they know that he rides an Adult Red Dragon?? Hmmm, let me think how would I call that?? Ah yeah! FACK LOGIC! :thog:


Because he would argue that the child disappearing would make no sense (He's prone to arguing) and I did not believe he would go so far as to pull a Dr. Jekel and Mr. Hyde on me by doing that.

So he can argue against logical things. Why didnt you argue that the Mother Wouldn't make sense to abbandon her new-born child, near the guy that already tried to murder it before????


This isn't the first time a conflict has arose. When his archer failed a fortitude save and was blinded he promptly quit, letting his character stand around and do nothing.
Did you even penaltize this *******? Did you kill his char for this behavior? Did you subtracted TONS OF XP, for no-sense role-play?

He enjoys C-Blocking the Bronze Dragon player.

Its your obligation to support this guy and punish the offender.

Could you explain to me why the bronze dragon hasn't killed, in ways too brutal to be described on this forum, the half-elf who skinned and ate her child?

I wonder that too, but also why didnt a lighting struck him dead while he tried to do the murdering.


Ok. So, the reason he hasn't murdered him yet is because we do sessions on friday, and this happened last friday. He fully intends to do so (And has 27 Hp more then the ranger, alongside a 6d6 lightning breathe attack against 40 HP every 1d4-1 rounds). Our group is small, we're pretty much me and 3 other people (The third guy was a LG Cleric who got killed due to the Ranger's "No fun allowed" attitude leading to a Vampire draining him to death, and he responded by rolling up a new character that would be his cohort after they returned the cleric to life). Losing the Ranger might fracture us and will greatly hamper the size of the party.

Bro, I've been in your shoes, honestly, more than once, but you should consider and choose

3-man, no-fun, toxic, out of control PARTY- 2-man, Fun, Real Role-play.

I would choose the 2nd option, but I chose the 1st one many more just to save OOG relationships. I regreted it every single time.

-
Killing-forbiding the character isnt a sollution, just talk to him and tell him straight things like that, he is your friend but he ruined everyone's fun, and you play in order to have fun. tell him that he is an @ss and that any RL issues wiuth his team-mate are to be put aside durring the session. Tell him to change attitude and become a proper player or he would be kicked out.

If he agrees to stop being an @ss.
Try to stop the fight between them.TBH the death of the wyrmling is tottally your fault and If I were you I'd bring it back to life via DM-fiat asap, something like: the wyrmling is destined to do BLAH BLAH epic, wolrd-changing sh1t in 2000 years and thats why Kelemvor brought it back to life, after all he is known to raise those that died too soon and unfairly. That would ease the Dragon's anger and could progress the story as a story-hook, also noone talk much or disagrees much in front of such a being. (You can change kel with something appropriate to your setting if you are not in FR)

If he disagrees. Make sure the dragon player enjoys every kind of evil treatment on the ranger and his corpse later without any alignment shifts:belkar::belkar::belkar:

BaH, I fell asleep duirng posting last night, and now the thread is too huge to read with my limited ATM time. W/e I post what I wrote and hope that not all are ninja's.

[Vertharrad]

A quest opportunity...
the mother dragon has a dream vision... the X god appears and forbids him/her revenge his/her slain baby.. The X god asks the mother dragon to do this (think of a quest) and upon completion the baby dragon returns to life as a Paladin of that God(just give the dragon/bunny 1lvl in Paladin without multyclass restrictions)... this baby's sole life purpose now is to hunt down and kill any/every mortal who ever killed a good dragon. and that is with the blessing of the God. Have the baby dragon have a divine grated ability that makes it a real threat against those people... like DR that applies only to "dragonkillers" , double saves and dmg...

You want to punish the baby's mother for the actions of another? With just the first half of the underlined I'd say NO, all of it HELL NO.
To the OP talk to the rangers player with the rest of the group so it becomes known you won't tolerate such ****** from anyone. If the rangers player admits his wrong doing continue the game have the ranger turn CE, give the dragons player the combat he wants and go from there. If the rangers player won't deal with his "demons" go ahead and tell him where the door is, "boot him to the curb" and don't look back.

[TuggyNE]

Theoritically he could never change the label on his sheet

Hmm, that seems like an odd thing to say. Of course the character can change alignment! There is no magical "I'm a PC I will always be X alignment" guard surrounding them. Similarly, they might change weight, religion, XP, level, class, name, even height or gender or race or size.

Nothing on a character sheet is immutable. Not even the invisible "PC" checkbox. :smalltongue:

[Raendyn]

Hmm, that seems like an odd thing to say. Of course the character can change alignment! There is no magical "I'm a PC I will always be X alignment" guard surrounding them. Similarly, they might change weight, religion, XP, level, class, name, even height or gender or race or size.

Nothing on a character sheet is immutable. Not even the invisible "PC" checkbox. :smalltongue:

dude, we agree!
Did you read the rest of the chat under the line you quote?

It has happened before, my Sheet says NG, I wanna use a item that only good ppl can use.
DM :" I goes boom, you take 2d6 dmg"
Me oog: WTF bro? I have 120 hp, what the 2d6 thing?
DM: I didnt rly wanna dmg you, just to show off that UMD fails misserably.
ME: And why is that?
DM: Hm dunno, you should find out in game.
Party: casts divinations/ talk about 2 last sessions, grabs books reads the item more than carefully.
ME: takes 4 more times that 2d6 dmg...
ME: Dude I cant find out why I cant use it, I meet all the prereqs.
DM: You sure? That maybe poison, maybe holy water flask you made 4 random NPC's drink from so you can find out what it rly was, disagrees that you meet the prereqs.
ME: Facepalm.... Oh crap....
-
Thats what I ment :thog:

If provides nice plot to not know your alignment. You type LG but you play LN? then noone is obligated to tell you on which alignment you are on. If you think you are playing LG then continue acting like this, but when you go to the Tample and find out that the god denies you your 1st paladin lvl you can consider why. And all those repreq's that have alignment restrictions, are not supposed to be judged by the player, nor by the party not even by the DM oog, but by the being that would provide you with the class/item/feat.

There are gods that would consider the same person NG but near to going TN and others that consider him TN nearly NG and such..

[TuggyNE]

dude, we agree!
Did you read the rest of the chat under the line you quote?

I did, but I must have misinterpreted that line. (It was a little unclear that it was setting up a hypothetical "suppose that the player didn't change written alignment", rather than a prescriptive "the player can't change written alignment".)

[Seffbasilisk]

This is a complicated issue, so lets deal with it in sections.


One, the dragon bile and all that.

You already let him prepare and eat it, so I'm assuming you handwaved that he took care of the poison and the like. That's the past. Done, not changeable without a rolling back of the clock. That's always a drag.

Two, is he evil? Well, when he actually killed it? He was defending himself against the aggressor in that instant. He thought he'd driven it off, but it came back for more. That second? Killing it wasn't evil.

When he first hunted it out? Evil. When he first attacked it? Evil. When he skinned it? Maybe Neutral. Eating it? Evil. Sentient being and all that.

So, he's pretty fallen, but not being a paladin this won't be obvious for some time.

Three, the consequences. I'd say it's totally within the dragon mother's right to do a total beat down. If someone killed one of my kids, intentionally, not even mentioning cooking and eating them, I would do such horrific things to them it's not even worth mentioning because I'd be perma-banned. (Kids use this site.)

Four, the OOC. Remind them all that there is a line between IC and OOC. That what happens in the game, stays in the game, and vice-versa. No vendettas, or replacement characters with an OOC grudge. If the players really have a beef OOC, three rounds bare-knuckle boxing. If they're not up for that? Not a huge deal. If they are? It'll work out the aggression, and they can deal with it more rationally.

Five, handling it. Sorry dude, you're the DM here. You're the arbitrator, the one to keep them all playing together and having fun. One makes a problem for the other? If you sandbox hard, they'll be dealt with in turn. You can have a God intervene, the wyrmlingbunny come back as a ghost, or what have you AFTER the parent gets 'er licks in.

Six, seeing as your style seems to be more 'let it happen, it could be awesome', let the dragon do her beat-down. Maybe she'll be merciful, maybe the ranger rolls a new character. Seems rather straight forward. You didn't restrain the ranger from his actions, why the dragon?

Anything I missed?

[Water_Bear]

Why are so many people suggesting using DM Fiat to punish the Ranger? That's like the prototypical Bad DM move, breaking the rules or violating the setting to hurt someone's character because you dislike something they did for OOC reasons. I cannot fathom why anyone would advocate that.

That's not to say he shouldn't talk to/kick out the Ranger's Player. But the only consequences the Ranger should face are those which arise logically from the game story (such as the other PC's angry Dragon).

[killem2]

Why are so many people suggesting using DM Fiat to punish the Ranger? That's like the prototypical Bad DM move, breaking the rules or violating the setting to hurt someone's character because you dislike something they did for OOC reasons. I cannot fathom why anyone would advocate that.

That's not to say he shouldn't talk to/kick out the Ranger's Player. But the only consequences the Ranger should face are those which arise logically from the game story (such as the other PC's angry Dragon).

I suppose it depends on how the setting was presented.

If he allows evil characters in his campaign, then all is well, I do not allow evil characters unless they are all evil, so if someone in my sessions started this stuff, I'd hit them like a mack truck for not following the basic guidelines I set forth.

:smallbiggrin:

[OverdrivePrime]

For good or for ill, part of the DM's job is to be the group counselor. You have the ability to connect with your players at a deep level, find what motivates them and use that to help create an even greater game experience for everyone.

However, you also have the responsibility to maintain a positive game experience for the greater group. Talk to your players. Do your best to see things from their point of view, but always keep in mind that a reason is not the same as an excuse.

Your Ranger's player absolutely seems like a disruptive, problem player who's causing a tide of suck and crap to affect the rest of your group. Make sure that he understands that his actions are making the game less fun for everyone else, including you. Make sure that he understand that if his behavior doesn't improve, you will have to remove him from the group.

Finally, you are the authority here. You missed the opportunity to intervene early and shut this Player-Killing nonsense down. A player should never have their character killed or severely impacted just because they couldn't make the game. Allowing someone to be punished for having something come up in real life is absolutely not cool. PvP should only be allowed if both players are present (and aware that PvP is an option in your game. As DM you have the option to ban PvP if your players can't handle it.)

You also missed the opportunity (and responsibility) to stand up to your problem player. If you say "Roll a new character" he says, "what level, sir?" End of story, or he sits this campaign out. You can run a perfectly fun game with just 2 players. One of the best campaigns I ever played in wound up being just about my Barbarian and his Ninja friend, because the Fighter/Mage we started playing with turned into a power-mad jerk. We played that campaign for another 2 years, and it was awesome.

Now you have to deal with the mess, which absolutely means an alignment change for the imbecile ranger. He's not Batman. He's not even the Punisher. He's just some evil sicko who gets off on power and eats sentient beings. Now, does he know what's coming for him? Does he know the Dragon is well within his rights to execute him with extreme prejudice? I'd go so far as to allow the dragon to go into a berserk rage when he attacks.

Either way, the ranger's player is going to be rolling a new character. It's unfortunate that he's insisting on doing it the hard and jerky way.

[Threadnaught]

Man that guy's a... Well, nah, it's not worth it. The only way I can refer to this guy without being banned is by calling him the "Slaughterer", for obvious reasons.

The guy doesn't see any problems with attempting to murder a child, before succeeding then skinning and eating said baby. He doesn't think there's anything morally wrong with that?
Besides calling the relevant authorities to claim this psychopath before he hurts anyone OOG, there are a few things you can do in-game.

First of all, give your other players the rights and freedoms that you have given the Slaughterer. Bronze Dragon will most likely end him very quickly.

Secondly, next time your players are away, their characters become NPCs controlled by you, or are no longer accessible to the rest of the party until that player rejoins the group. This includes Cohorts, Followers, Animal Companions and Equipment.
If you remove the character, the chances of anything adversely affecting them is vastly minimized.
If you play the character, there are a few rules.
1: Try to play as the player would.
2: Minimize the amount of resources you expend as to leave more for the character's player.
3: Levelling should be left entirely up to the player.
4: If the character or any of their allies/possessions are attacked, they are allowed to defend themselves by any means necessary. If the attack is meant to kill/destroy the target, the character must (in most cases) respond in kind.

Third and last of all, it sounds like the Slaughterer is turning himself into a major villain. Consider taking control of the Slaughterer's character, now as an NPC, this guy enjoys killing and eating babies of all races, types and subtypes. He attacks the Slaughterer's newly rolled character and becomes a rival to both the Slaughterer and the BD.
He's like Batman, but he hunts, kills and eats innocent people for fun. The Slaughterer wouldn't even be able to (justifiably) call you out on changing his character, because the Slaughterer already did that. :smallamused:


I do not allow evil characters unless they are all evil

Dang, no chances of having a Wizard with plans to create his own vast evil empire, siding with a Paladin or some party of heroic adventurer types for the purpose of killing the competition? My Anti-Drizzt's out then.
Lawful Evil, never harm an innocent when there's no benefit, do good when the rewards are enough.

[Scow2]

If there's still time before the situation resolves, and the Bronze Dragon doesn't kill the ranger player...

Make it so that the Evil part of his alignment doesn't completely overwrite the player's previous alignment. I'm not sure if there are official rules for it, but his soul has been "blackened" by the depths of the evil of the act he committed. He might still be "Chaotic Good" at heart - but until he receives an Atonement spell for his action (Which should not be as simple as just walking up to a priest and getting the spell cast - the character must be genuinely penitent), his alignment is blighted by an evil mark so strong that he's treated as being Evil for the purposes of spells that adversely affect evil targets (Such as Smite Evil, Holy Smite, and Holy Word), and is rejected by most things that require a Good alignment.

However, as the mark is on his spirit, not his body, his natural weapons do not count as [Evil] for the purpose of overcoming Damage Reduction. Because he's still Good in the overall cosmology (Now with one massive, mortal sin), he's also still Chaotic Good.

[Valdor]

You are the DM, which means "roll a new character" is not an optional request.

If you want to force the issue head-on, ask him which he's more attached to: his imaginary fantasy character, or the group of real-life friends he plays games with. Cause with the level of asshat he's apparently been, he only gets to keep one.

This. I wanted to say this. I agree with the theory that you need to shift alignment, cause let's face it, blatant murder and consuming of another sentient creature for no reason is evil, and if he can't deal with that tell him to roll a new character. When in turn he refuses to do this then just tell him "I'm sorry you don't want to play with us any more. It has been fun, see you later". I know this is super passive aggressive but you have to do what you have to do. The alternative is to flat out tell him what he is disruptive and it will not be allowed to cause conflict in the groups fun. Either way, something needs to change.

[navar100]

Your mistake was enabling the behavior. You can remedy it.

1) Pretend it didn't happen. The bunny is alive and well, all hunkydory.

2) Tell the ranger player to knock it off and get over himself. Choose to play differently. Choose to get along with the party.

3) If the ranger player absolutely cannot do that, offer to have him retire the character and play a different one. Scout's honor nothing bad will happen to the character off camera or even have to appear in the campaign as an NPC. If the player absolutely refuses even that option, introduce him to the otherside of the door.

[nedz]

The Ranger player has to learn that his actions have consequences.

This means that PvP should happen. In fact if it didn't happen due to DM fiat then I would expect that the Dragon player would quit.

All in all this probably means the end of this campaign, but it could turn out to be more interesting. Just buy some popcorn and call out the initiatives.

[Coidzor]

dude, we agree!
Did you read the rest of the chat under the line you quote?

It has happened before, my Sheet says NG, I wanna use a item that only good ppl can use.
DM :" I goes boom, you take 2d6 dmg"
Me oog: WTF bro? I have 120 hp, what the 2d6 thing?
DM: I didnt rly wanna dmg you, just to show off that UMD fails misserably.
ME: And why is that?
DM: Hm dunno, you should find out in game.
Party: casts divinations/ talk about 2 last sessions, grabs books reads the item more than carefully.
ME: takes 4 more times that 2d6 dmg...
ME: Dude I cant find out why I cant use it, I meet all the prereqs.
DM: You sure? That maybe poison, maybe holy water flask you made 4 random NPC's drink from so you can find out what it rly was, disagrees that you meet the prereqs.
ME: Facepalm.... Oh crap....
-
Thats what I ment :thog:

If provides nice plot to not know your alignment. You type LG but you play LN? then noone is obligated to tell you on which alignment you are on. If you think you are playing LG then continue acting like this, but when you go to the Tample and find out that the god denies you your 1st paladin lvl you can consider why. And all those repreq's that have alignment restrictions, are not supposed to be judged by the player, nor by the party not even by the DM oog, but by the being that would provide you with the class/item/feat.

There are gods that would consider the same person NG but near to going TN and others that consider him TN nearly NG and such..

Yeah, no. 1. The DM is just an ass if he's not going to have open communication with the players about that sort of thing. 2. The gods don't determine what is or is not alignment x or y. No Euthyphro dilemma for you by RAW.

[Thebar99]

I normally don't support heavy handed, arbitrary punishments. This is a job for Baleful Polymorph (cute, innocent, tasty bunny).

[Fyermind]

I have a decent amount of experience in conflict resolution. I've found the easiest way to placate everyone is to start by admitting a mistake.

I would handle the situation come friday as follows.

"Okay guys, last session when we were missing players, I let things get more than a little out of hand. I'm sorry. In order to prevent the campaign from breaking into tiny pieces and having everyone and their uncle trying to kill the ranger forcing him to create a new character that he really doesn't want to do, I'm rolling back the clock.

We are going to call that session a shared dream sequence. You all know what happened, and furthermore, you know this which is what happened next. The Paladin vowed not only never to work with you again, but also to hunt you down. The dragon similarly swore vengeance. The ranger lost his only friends, and because the side of good became so distracted, it suffered serious losses at the hands of evil. Also the ranger became an evil NPC.

I highly suggest you do not take this path. Furthermore, we have some serious issues to discuss OOC when it comes to targeting players and things they hold dear when they are not present. I know I've been really relaxed in the past about how we handle conflict resolution, and I'd like it to stay that way. I'm not a paid counselor or anything, so just try to stay a little more respectful while we're playing."

If the dragon player still wants revenge I'd add "You have no idea whether the characters in your shared dream are really the characters you are with now. This could be a plot by an enemy to divide you that was intercepted by your own willpower."

[killem2]

Dang, no chances of having a Wizard with plans to create his own vast evil empire, siding with a Paladin or some party of heroic adventurer types for the purpose of killing the competition? My Anti-Drizzt's out then.
Lawful Evil, never harm an innocent when there's no benefit, do good when the rewards are enough.

Nope, guess not. :smalltongue:

I have a decent amount of experience in conflict resolution. I've found the easiest way to placate everyone is to start by admitting a mistake.

I would handle the situation come friday as follows.

"Okay guys, last session when we were missing players, I let things get more than a little out of hand. I'm sorry. In order to prevent the campaign from breaking into tiny pieces and having everyone and their uncle trying to kill the ranger forcing him to create a new character that he really doesn't want to do, I'm rolling back the clock.

We are going to call that session a shared dream sequence. You all know what happened, and furthermore, you know this which is what happened next. The Paladin vowed not only never to work with you again, but also to hunt you down. The dragon similarly swore vengeance. The ranger lost his only friends, and because the side of good became so distracted, it suffered serious losses at the hands of evil. Also the ranger became an evil NPC.

I highly suggest you do not take this path. Furthermore, we have some serious issues to discuss OOC when it comes to targeting players and things they hold dear when they are not present. I know I've been really relaxed in the past about how we handle conflict resolution, and I'd like it to stay that way. I'm not a paid counselor or anything, so just try to stay a little more respectful while we're playing."

If the dragon player still wants revenge I'd add "You have no idea whether the characters in your shared dream are really the characters you are with now. This could be a plot by an enemy to divide you that was intercepted by your own willpower."



I did this once, not under the same circumstances but close!

[Coidzor]

I have a decent amount of experience in conflict resolution. I've found the easiest way to placate everyone is to start by admitting a mistake.

I would handle the situation come friday as follows.

"Okay guys, last session when we were missing players, I let things get more than a little out of hand. I'm sorry. In order to prevent the campaign from breaking into tiny pieces and having everyone and their uncle trying to kill the ranger forcing him to create a new character that he really doesn't want to do, I'm rolling back the clock.

We are going to call that session a shared dream sequence. You all know what happened, and furthermore, you know this which is what happened next. The Paladin vowed not only never to work with you again, but also to hunt you down. The dragon similarly swore vengeance. The ranger lost his only friends, and because the side of good became so distracted, it suffered serious losses at the hands of evil. Also the ranger became an evil NPC.

I highly suggest you do not take this path. Furthermore, we have some serious issues to discuss OOC when it comes to targeting players and things they hold dear when they are not present. I know I've been really relaxed in the past about how we handle conflict resolution, and I'd like it to stay that way. I'm not a paid counselor or anything, so just try to stay a little more respectful while we're playing."

If the dragon player still wants revenge I'd add "You have no idea whether the characters in your shared dream are really the characters you are with now. This could be a plot by an enemy to divide you that was intercepted by your own willpower."

It does appear to give an out and not back anyone into a corner...

[Tychris1]

I decided to talk to him over this situation before reading Fyerminds post, deciding to see how I could work things out. Here's our conversation, verbatim (Names taken out for privacy purposes).

DM: Alright
DM: Serious time.
Ranger: What fun.
DM: You have to understand that constantly kicking Bronze Dragons sand castle isn't good player behavior.
Ranger: Define "constantly". Counting this one, I've only "cockblocked" him twice.
DM: DnD is a team game, we're all trying to have fun as a group, what Bronze Dragon derives as fun does not have to be the same as yours.
DM: 3 times.
Ranger: What he seems to forget about the previous one, the vampire thing was that I actually needed to kill those people to become a Wraith.
DM: When he tried to pull his own way out of the Blood Knight capture and you shut him down
DM: By just firebombing the place
DM: The Wraith part only said you needed to hit a certain tally of living people.
DM: They were Undead.
Ranger: No, they weren't.
Ranger: Those people were humans, and Bronze Dragon wanted them to start some "vampire army" which may or may not have worked.
DM: The regular people weren't, but the 2 random citizens you acid orb'd in the face were turned into vampires.
DM l: Because Bronze Dragon got ahead of you guys
Ranger: What Bronze Dragon was talking about is the time when I was afk for a while and I was on autopilot.
DM: And you just lightning bolted everything that came into range
Ranger: You held things up when the opportunity to kill two people arose.
DM: You weren't on auto pilot at that point.
Ranger: Yes, but you presented that conflict when I came back.
Ranger: I decided to kill them to increase the tally needed to ascend.
DM: I'm the DM, I should know how my own sessions went. They got acid orb'd after you guys hung out in their house because Bronze Dragon just drained them to death.
DM: Yes, you put your own goals and personal fun over that of another party members.
DM: That is not good kosher.
DM: By killing his minions.
Ranger: What the hell are you talking about? Those people were humans, not vampires.
Ranger: You ASKED me if I wanted to kill them.
Ranger: You were arguing with Bronze Dragon when I came back.
DM: I argued with Bronze Dragon because he wanted to send them running into the street
Ranger: Stating that I should have the choice to kill them rather than have them being converted to vampires.
DM: And I explained to him that they would die miserably doing that.
DM: His plan would only work if he had more time to work with, and he wanted to instead take a drastically more dangerous and fast option.
DM: Which would have put both you and Joe out on your asses when it came to enjoyment.
Ranger: I knew the plan was logically unsound, the city guards were after us, and we were either about to light the city on fire or the city was on fire.
DM: Since he would've exposed you.
Ranger: I'll be back.
Ranger: Okay.
DM: Alright
Ranger: Anyway, the "cockblocking" I do isn't to mess with Bronze Dragon. It's because I seriously think they are bad ideas.
DM : Having a child isn't a bad idea.
DM: It is an RP choice
DM: You have no right in telling someone how to play their character
Ranger: Okay, and this supposed child would have served as a bit of a derailment, in my eyes.
DM: I'm not saying this is your fault
DM: I'm not saying all the fault lands on you
DM: This is also my fault
DM: I should have stopped you and put the child into a kind of temporal stasis loop
DM: But my current form of DMing has been very loose in what I will allow you guys to do. And I realize now that a firmer hand is required
Ranger: And that's another thing, to say that I can't control how another person plays their character is one thing. But the thing is, the choices I make are all in-character.
DM: In certain scenarios
DM: In character?
DM: IN CHARACTER?
DM: You said your character was batman
Ranger: Yes.
DM: Batman follows a very strict moral code of one law.
Ranger: Okay, that was jokingly.
DM: He doesn't kill people.
DM: Even so
DM: That is a decent enough basis
DM: Or in your case
DM: Murder is a no no
DM: Your character can't suddenly say "I hate that my parents were murdered, I want to overthrow the evil regime that murders whole families!"
DM: And then turn around to murder someone's family and EAT THEIR CHILD.
DM: That is your OOC feelings and knowledge influencing your IC decisions.
DM: That was very OOC and I should have noticed it at the time.
DM: But I didn't and that's my fault.
DM: That's why I'm talking to you now
Ranger: So it's not in character for a hunter to go and find an animal he's perfectly used to eating, hunt it, and kill it?
Ranger: I keep stressing, I even gave up on the chase and was walking back, showing mercy.
DM: It's not in character for a hunter to track down a defenseless child of a friend (I know, loose term), attack it unprovoked, kill it, skin it, and eat it.
Ranger: But then it came back and attacked.
Ranger: OOC, at first, I didn't even know it was Bronze Dragon 's.
Ranger: It's not normal for a rabbit to turn into a dragon.
Ranger: I only put two and two together after the fact.
DM: You screamed in chat that it was an abomination and opened fire as a result.
DM: And then repeatedly said KILL IT! KILL IT!
Ranger: Yeah, something like that ain't normal.
DM: It isn't normal
DM: But that is a moral TALK that should be had with Bronze Dragon. Or with a more moral figure, like, I dunno, an Angel or something?
DM: Anything
Ranger: To also examine my character's entire moral code based off of this one action is a bit unfair, as well.
DM: This one action is a very big action.
Ranger: The ironic thing being, that when the opportunity to kill my children arose, I refused to do so.
DM: It breaks the entire moral code of every single good aligned nation/religion/path ever.
DM: Yes, that is rather ironic.
DM: And I felt that was good of you.
Ranger: more children*
DM: Your character is tainted.
DM: To say the least
DM: But he is still a person
DM: And he can still go back to the path of good.
Ranger: Hell, if threatened to eat Bronze Dragon on more than one occasion, in character.
Ranger: I threatened* god damn.
DM: That always felt like it was in a comical tone. Teasing him on the fact that dragon eating was pretty much smiled upon by the evil empire of evil.
DM: Which is fine
DM : Being a jerk that way is ok
Ranger: And for Bronze Dragon to threaten to kill me next session is completely unjustified, as well.
DM: I already know
DM: Cleric explained it to me
Ranger: His character doesn't know, and has no way of knowing that I actually did the deed.
DM: No need
DM: He has ways of doing so
DM: For starters, Andy has a SLA that allows him to basically have "Suit Sensors On" in SS13 on 6 people.
DM: Which is you guys and his child.
DM: So he would know it died.
DM: And from there he has Zone of Truth
Ranger: But who did it?
DM: And just flat out ask you
DM: Who did it
Ranger: Well, if I'm suddenly evil I could just lie, then.
Ranger: I have no objection to being Evil. Evil characters are way more fun.
DM: Zone of Truth isn't optional
DM: It's an AoE that forces you to speak the truth
DM: No matter what alignment.
Ranger: But from a group standpoint, an alignment shift will cause derailment for the campaign.
Ranger: Be right back.
DM: You going around doing stuff like murdering Bronze Dragons things will cause derailments. This whole scenario is a derailment.
DM: We're horribly derailed as is.
DM: Bronze Dragons child side thing would not have been as bad of a derailment as this. It was a cute little thing that could allow him to role-play his character a bit more, and be mentioned every once in a while, but now it's been blown out of proportion by the act of murder, skinning, and eating.
Ranger: Okay, back.
DM: And these derailments are only going to continue
DM: Unless we fix the root problem
DM: That is your interactions with Bronze Dragon.
DM: If you want to have your 3 round prize boxing match with him over his intelligence then by all means do so.
DM: But do not drag it into DnD.
DM: I am trying to have a nice group session where we can all just sit around and have a good time.
DM: Bashing each other is not going to accomplish this.
Ranger: It's funny. The both of you think I do such actions because it's Bronze Dragon and I'm picking on him.
Ranger: I want to stress that I think they are legitimately bad ideas that can and might happen.
DM: The Vampire idea was a potentially bad Idea.
DM: And the Bronze Dragon Wyrmling wasn't "bad".
Ranger: If Cleric were to offer an idea filled with holes, which has happened, most likely.
DM: You can judge his ideas all you want, but if they do not have some horrible impact upon the party then you cannot go ahead and smash them down.
Ranger: I usually don't, that's the thing.
Ranger: To say that I "always" cockblock him is a gross over exaggeration.
DM: Most of the time when he wants to do something it ends with people saying "No Bronze Dragon.". I'll admit, I do that too, but that's when something Bronze Dragon wants to do cannot be done mechanically.
DM: If you believe he tells bad ideas then mold them instead of break them.
DM: Instead of zerg rushing the guards tell him to use the Vampires as a distraction, or to keep his child under a safe eye so that he doesn't have to fret about it all the time.
DM: And yes, your right, you being evil will not help the party.
DM: But me saying your Chaotic Evil is just a sticker.
DM: I cannot literally force you to be Evil, it is my way of saying your current course is going to be disruptive to the party.
DM: That's you, not me.
Ranger: That's the thing. If Bronze Dragon were to have a kid, you and I both know he would take it too far.
DM: I don't know that, because Bronze Dragon hasn't been given such a big project to look over.
DM: Cleric has his whole reviving quest and Heironeous thing going on, you have your snuggly and being batman and stealth based missions, Bronze Dragon hasn't been given much to work with.
DM: I'm throwing him a bone.
Ranger: Well, that's the thing.
DM: And you buried it 3 feet underground.
Ranger Bronze Dragon hasn't received much "development" because he's barely there.
DM: How many sessions has he missed?
DM: Not counting this most recent one.
DM l: Because his grandma getting in a car accident is a completely legit excuse.
Ranger: And to change my character's alignment over one action he did, strictly because it comes to grips with another player, regardless of my character's past actions is a bit unfair.
Ranger: All of his excuses are legitimate.
Ranger: But, regardless of excuse, he is absent from a session or so.
DM: It is unfair to kill another players child while he is not there.
DM: I will accept blame for that.
Ranger: A lot can happen, development-wise, in a single session.
DM: But you have to as well.
Ranger: An alignment change is going to just complicate the situation more.
DM: THE ALIGNMENT CHANGE DOESN'T MATTER
DM: HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU
Ranger: Bronze Dragon is only pushing it because he has to get "revenge" on me, or something.
DM: This has nothing to do with your alignment change.
Ranger: Don't I lose stats for changing alignment?
DM: This has to do with you and Andy.
DM: No
DM: You literally change 2 letters
DM: Blam
DM: Alignment change
DM: Woohoo
DM: If the reason you are pissing and moaning over your alignment change is because you lose stats then I'm incredibly frustrated.
DM: Not to mention
Ranger: It's also a bit of character attachment.
DM: You worship the elven god of nature, the forest, and life. You literally just bitch smacked your whole religion.
DM: Alright
DM: Then look at this like character development.
Ranger: "Worship" is a strong word.
DM: Fine
DM: Pay respect.
DM: Whatever.
DM: You have fallen, hard
Ranger: Considering he's a hunter, it's mainly respect of the land for a good hunt.
DM: So hard that you left skid marks on the alignment chart.
DM: So now you have to atone.
DM: And now you can REALLY be Batman
DM: Or the Punisher
DM: Or what have you
DM: The important part is that you just don't pull these kind of shenanigans again.
Ranger: I won't, if it's going to cause a stupid ****storm as big as this again.
DM: They are disruptive and don't help with party cohesion. I'm still new as a DM, and I'm still getting my footing.
DM: And this whole situation
DM: Feels like pulling teeth.
Ranger: But that's just it.
DM: And I'd greatly prefer not to go through it again.
Ranger: The only reason you're giving me an alignment change is to appease Bronze Dragon.
Ranger: I figure something as big as that would be mentioned AFTER the session is over.
DM: Because he is pissed off for a good reason.
DM: I failed as a DM.
Ranger: But as soon as he brings it up, you jumped on the bandwagon with him.
DM: Yes
Ranger: You seemed completely fine with it during the fact.
DM: Because I didn't want to step on your flow.
DM: I want to let you guys do your own thing
DM: And just watch everything unfold.
Ranger: That, and to say that I heartlessly/brutally/manically murdered the stupid thing isn't exactly giving the situation justice.
Ranger: It got me to near-death, and I even showed MERCY on it, as it was escaping.
DM: You called yourself a hunter
Ranger: Saying whatever what was going on wasn't worth it.
DM: And it has an Intelligence score of 14
DM: It might have thought you would hunt it down
Ranger: And I am, but no hunter is going to kill himself over something like that.
DM: And track it like you did the first time around
DM: So it retaliated in self defense to end a seeming threat to it's existence.
Ranger: To literally turn my back on it, when I'm bloodied, just for it to get another free hit in doesn't exactly seem "evil".
DM: Evil people aren't stupid, but they can be cowardly.
Ranger: If anything, I finished it because it was going to kill me at that rate.
DM: You turning away from the fight when you are bloody could mean more then mercy.
DM: To the dragon
Ranger: It was pretty much out of mercy, because as I said "I'm going to start walking back, now." I'm pretty sure I said something along the lines of, "this isn't worth it"
DM: You did
DM: You said that verbatim
Ranger: Considering that for me to die and chalk up the dead character list to 2 would be stupid.
DM: Followed with the words "I'm getting out of here."
Ranger: Yeah, it's not worth it, I'm going to leave it alone, now. I'm getting out of here.
DM: That doesn't justify the action.
DM: Attempting to do something evil, and then realizing you are going to die as a result of it, only to flee in order to save your own hide, isn't noble or good.
Ranger: "Saving my own hide" can be observed from your perspective, sure.
Ranger: But apparently trying to play by my character seems to be the wrong choice.
DM: Your character is a baby eating psychopath?
DM: He's been that way this whole time?
Ranger: No, he's an animal/dragon eating psychopath.
DM: Dragon's are sentient beings
DM: That's like saying eating an elf is okay because they aren't humans.
DM: Or that eating dwarves is fine because they're short.
Ranger: To each their own, really.
DM: No
DM: To each is not their own
DM: Not when it comes to murdering and eating sentient beings
DM: That is a very hard line
DM: And it is known by every moral person
DM: And your character leaped over it
Ranger: Whatever, it doesn't even matter. I've said I already enjoy playing the Evil role more.
DM: Good
Ranger: The only reason I'm attempting to defend myself is within the wants of the other members and the needs of the campaign.
Ranger: An alignment change WILL make the campaign harder.
DM: Because your character is an NPC. He'll be the rival of the character you role up next, the "Evil Batman" so to speak. I'm the DM, when I say roll up a new character it is not a polite request.
DM: I have to enforce order
Ranger: I seriously have to write up a new character over this?
DM: Either write up a new one or go on a holy quest
DM: Pick your poison.
DM: If you honestly care more about your character then the group of people you play with, then I have nothing more to say.
DM: I'm trying to be lenient here.
Ranger: All for just straying off the path for a single action, completely disregarding all the other things my character has done?
DM: "The other things your character has done"
DM: I haven't seen Traezelle go all Saintly up in the streets.
DM: Curing the blind and feeding the hungry
DM: He's a good guy
DM: But he isn't that good.
DM: And he made a single, BIG, moral action.
DM: One of the biggest evil moral actions ever.
Ranger: To completely erase/change my character play style over that is just downright stupid.
DM: I've made my ultimatum.
DM: Based on the action you have done.
Ranger: I already killed the "sacred holy baby" of awesomeness before it actually became sentient, and that was ret conned.
Ranger: And now I'm suddenly super evil because Bronze Dragon threw a hissy fit over it.
DM: Because Bronze Dragon reminded me that he actually had things planned for this, and that he was a member of this party. I admit, that was my fault, and I didn't want to step on your character back then.
DM: But I realize now that letting you guys run completely uncheck will lead to this.
DM: So I'm taking a sterner hand now.
Ranger: By completely changing a character or ripping it out of my hands.
DM: In this one instance, yes.
Ranger: Just because he couldn't do a stupid plan with a more than likely lackluster pay off.
DM: I do not intend to do this often.
DM: And I do not gain amusement or joy out of doing it.
DM: But it is something that needs to be done when the situation arises.
DM: You want to handle all three of you guys? Then you DM.
DM: I'm pulling my hair out here
Ranger: So if I get an alignment change, you're telling me I can't even play that role? That's kind of dumb.
DM : And I'm trying my damn hardest
DM: No
DM: I said you can try to atone
DM: And fix your errors
Ranger: What if I don't want to?
Ranger: My character is already so damned evil.
Ranger: I don't think he can ever go back.
Ranger: Or will want to.
DM: Then that means you want play a psychotic maniac, or at least refuse to budge him from that spot.
DM: And I will not let that character be a member of the party.
Ranger: Then why alignment change at all?
DM: You have heard all I have to say. And i believe I have heard all you have to say. At this point we're running in circles. I'm done. Take this, think it over, and come back when you have made your decision on this manner. If you want to keep playing then I'll gladly DM for you, but the group as a whole cannot continue with this attitude. Things have to improve.
DM: I'm done.
Ranger: Whatever.


I'm a terrible DM.......

[Barsoom]

You're not a terrible DM, he's a terrible player. I must admit I only skimmed the wall of text (from some point it became too painful to read), but there is no doubt my initial assessement was corrent - there's no place for this guy at your gaming table. He is beyond salvation, as a team member.

[dascarletm]

I decided to talk to him over this situation before reading Fyerminds post, deciding to see how I could work things out. Here's our conversation, verbatim (Names taken out for privacy purposes).
*Snip*
I'm a terrible DM.......

Don't beat yourself up. Manipulating Finessing the emotions of your players is a skill that takes time to learn.

[JusticeZero]

He is "Too attached" to his character, so he refuses to roll up a new one.
That makes getting rid of him so you can have a better table even easier.

[dascarletm]

I think this is where you went wrong:

DM: Because your character is an NPC. He'll be the rival of the character you role up next, the "Evil Batman" so to speak. I'm the DM, when I say roll up a new character it is not a polite request.
DM: I have to enforce order
Ranger: I seriously have to write up a new character over this?
DM: Either write up a new one or go on a holy quest
DM: Pick your poison.
DM: If you honestly care more about your character then the group of people you play with, then I have nothing more to say.
DM: I'm trying to be lenient here.
Ranger: All for just straying off the path for a single action, completely disregarding all the other things my character has done?

It seemed to me like he was turning around at this point. He seemed to act as though he was attacked and was being defensive. Most people do this. When he said "Well I won't do this anymore because of the ****storm this caused..." was what seemed a way to say I won't do it but still feel like he is on top. He seems competitive, and needs to make excuses to feel like choices are his.

Also, I just want to say telling a player to roll up a new character, and you must do it no matter what is a horrible idea.

[Coidzor]

I decided to talk to him over this situation before reading Fyerminds post, deciding to see how I could work things out. Here's our conversation, verbatim (Names taken out for privacy purposes).

DM: Alright
DM: Serious time.
Ranger: What fun.
DM: You have to understand that constantly kicking Bronze Dragons sand castle isn't good player behavior.
Ranger: Define "constantly". Counting this one, I've only "cockblocked" him twice.
DM: DnD is a team game, we're all trying to have fun as a group, what Bronze Dragon derives as fun does not have to be the same as yours.
DM: 3 times.
Ranger: What he seems to forget about the previous one, the vampire thing was that I actually needed to kill those people to become a Wraith.
DM: When he tried to pull his own way out of the Blood Knight capture and you shut him down
DM: By just firebombing the place
DM: The Wraith part only said you needed to hit a certain tally of living people.
DM: They were Undead.
Ranger: No, they weren't.
Ranger: Those people were humans, and Bronze Dragon wanted them to start some "vampire army" which may or may not have worked.
DM: The regular people weren't, but the 2 random citizens you acid orb'd in the face were turned into vampires.
DM l: Because Bronze Dragon got ahead of you guys
Ranger: What Bronze Dragon was talking about is the time when I was afk for a while and I was on autopilot.
DM: And you just lightning bolted everything that came into range
Ranger: You held things up when the opportunity to kill two people arose.
DM: You weren't on auto pilot at that point.
Ranger: Yes, but you presented that conflict when I came back.
Ranger: I decided to kill them to increase the tally needed to ascend.
DM: I'm the DM, I should know how my own sessions went. They got acid orb'd after you guys hung out in their house because Bronze Dragon just drained them to death.
DM: Yes, you put your own goals and personal fun over that of another party members.
DM: That is not good kosher.
DM: By killing his minions.
Ranger: What the hell are you talking about? Those people were humans, not vampires.
Ranger: You ASKED me if I wanted to kill them.
Ranger: You were arguing with Bronze Dragon when I came back.
DM: I argued with Bronze Dragon because he wanted to send them running into the street
Ranger: Stating that I should have the choice to kill them rather than have them being converted to vampires.
DM: And I explained to him that they would die miserably doing that.
DM: His plan would only work if he had more time to work with, and he wanted to instead take a drastically more dangerous and fast option.
DM: Which would have put both you and Joe out on your asses when it came to enjoyment.
Ranger: I knew the plan was logically unsound, the city guards were after us, and we were either about to light the city on fire or the city was on fire.
DM: Since he would've exposed you.
Ranger: I'll be back.
Ranger: Okay.
DM: Alright
Ranger: Anyway, the "cockblocking" I do isn't to mess with Bronze Dragon. It's because I seriously think they are bad ideas.
DM : Having a child isn't a bad idea.
DM: It is an RP choice
DM: You have no right in telling someone how to play their character
Ranger: Okay, and this supposed child would have served as a bit of a derailment, in my eyes.
DM: I'm not saying this is your fault
DM: I'm not saying all the fault lands on you
DM: This is also my fault
DM: I should have stopped you and put the child into a kind of temporal stasis loop
DM: But my current form of DMing has been very loose in what I will allow you guys to do. And I realize now that a firmer hand is required
Ranger: And that's another thing, to say that I can't control how another person plays their character is one thing. But the thing is, the choices I make are all in-character.
DM: In certain scenarios
DM: In character?
DM: IN CHARACTER?
DM: You said your character was batman
Ranger: Yes.
DM: Batman follows a very strict moral code of one law.
Ranger: Okay, that was jokingly.
DM: He doesn't kill people.
DM: Even so
DM: That is a decent enough basis
DM: Or in your case
DM: Murder is a no no
DM: Your character can't suddenly say "I hate that my parents were murdered, I want to overthrow the evil regime that murders whole families!"
DM: And then turn around to murder someone's family and EAT THEIR CHILD.
DM: That is your OOC feelings and knowledge influencing your IC decisions.
DM: That was very OOC and I should have noticed it at the time.
DM: But I didn't and that's my fault.
DM: That's why I'm talking to you now
Ranger: So it's not in character for a hunter to go and find an animal he's perfectly used to eating, hunt it, and kill it?
Ranger: I keep stressing, I even gave up on the chase and was walking back, showing mercy.
DM: It's not in character for a hunter to track down a defenseless child of a friend (I know, loose term), attack it unprovoked, kill it, skin it, and eat it.
Ranger: But then it came back and attacked.
Ranger: OOC, at first, I didn't even know it was Bronze Dragon 's.
Ranger: It's not normal for a rabbit to turn into a dragon.
Ranger: I only put two and two together after the fact.
DM: You screamed in chat that it was an abomination and opened fire as a result.
DM: And then repeatedly said KILL IT! KILL IT!
Ranger: Yeah, something like that ain't normal.
DM: It isn't normal
DM: But that is a moral TALK that should be had with Bronze Dragon. Or with a more moral figure, like, I dunno, an Angel or something?
DM: Anything
Ranger: To also examine my character's entire moral code based off of this one action is a bit unfair, as well.
DM: This one action is a very big action.
Ranger: The ironic thing being, that when the opportunity to kill my children arose, I refused to do so.
DM: It breaks the entire moral code of every single good aligned nation/religion/path ever.
DM: Yes, that is rather ironic.
DM: And I felt that was good of you.
Ranger: more children*
DM: Your character is tainted.
DM: To say the least
DM: But he is still a person
DM: And he can still go back to the path of good.
Ranger: Hell, if threatened to eat Bronze Dragon on more than one occasion, in character.
Ranger: I threatened* god damn.
DM: That always felt like it was in a comical tone. Teasing him on the fact that dragon eating was pretty much smiled upon by the evil empire of evil.
DM: Which is fine
DM : Being a jerk that way is ok
Ranger: And for Bronze Dragon to threaten to kill me next session is completely unjustified, as well.
DM: I already know
DM: Cleric explained it to me
Ranger: His character doesn't know, and has no way of knowing that I actually did the deed.
DM: No need
DM: He has ways of doing so
DM: For starters, Andy has a SLA that allows him to basically have "Suit Sensors On" in SS13 on 6 people.
DM: Which is you guys and his child.
DM: So he would know it died.
DM: And from there he has Zone of Truth
Ranger: But who did it?
DM: And just flat out ask you
DM: Who did it
Ranger: Well, if I'm suddenly evil I could just lie, then.
Ranger: I have no objection to being Evil. Evil characters are way more fun.
DM: Zone of Truth isn't optional
DM: It's an AoE that forces you to speak the truth
DM: No matter what alignment.
Ranger: But from a group standpoint, an alignment shift will cause derailment for the campaign.
Ranger: Be right back.
DM: You going around doing stuff like murdering Bronze Dragons things will cause derailments. This whole scenario is a derailment.
DM: We're horribly derailed as is.
DM: Bronze Dragons child side thing would not have been as bad of a derailment as this. It was a cute little thing that could allow him to role-play his character a bit more, and be mentioned every once in a while, but now it's been blown out of proportion by the act of murder, skinning, and eating.
Ranger: Okay, back.
DM: And these derailments are only going to continue
DM: Unless we fix the root problem
DM: That is your interactions with Bronze Dragon.
DM: If you want to have your 3 round prize boxing match with him over his intelligence then by all means do so.
DM: But do not drag it into DnD.
DM: I am trying to have a nice group session where we can all just sit around and have a good time.
DM: Bashing each other is not going to accomplish this.
Ranger: It's funny. The both of you think I do such actions because it's Bronze Dragon and I'm picking on him.
Ranger: I want to stress that I think they are legitimately bad ideas that can and might happen.
DM: The Vampire idea was a potentially bad Idea.
DM: And the Bronze Dragon Wyrmling wasn't "bad".
Ranger: If Cleric were to offer an idea filled with holes, which has happened, most likely.
DM: You can judge his ideas all you want, but if they do not have some horrible impact upon the party then you cannot go ahead and smash them down.
Ranger: I usually don't, that's the thing.
Ranger: To say that I "always" cockblock him is a gross over exaggeration.
DM: Most of the time when he wants to do something it ends with people saying "No Bronze Dragon.". I'll admit, I do that too, but that's when something Bronze Dragon wants to do cannot be done mechanically.
DM: If you believe he tells bad ideas then mold them instead of break them.
DM: Instead of zerg rushing the guards tell him to use the Vampires as a distraction, or to keep his child under a safe eye so that he doesn't have to fret about it all the time.
DM: And yes, your right, you being evil will not help the party.
DM: But me saying your Chaotic Evil is just a sticker.
DM: I cannot literally force you to be Evil, it is my way of saying your current course is going to be disruptive to the party.
DM: That's you, not me.
Ranger: That's the thing. If Bronze Dragon were to have a kid, you and I both know he would take it too far.
DM: I don't know that, because Bronze Dragon hasn't been given such a big project to look over.
DM: Cleric has his whole reviving quest and Heironeous thing going on, you have your snuggly and being batman and stealth based missions, Bronze Dragon hasn't been given much to work with.
DM: I'm throwing him a bone.
Ranger: Well, that's the thing.
DM: And you buried it 3 feet underground.
Ranger Bronze Dragon hasn't received much "development" because he's barely there.
DM: How many sessions has he missed?
DM: Not counting this most recent one.
DM l: Because his grandma getting in a car accident is a completely legit excuse.
Ranger: And to change my character's alignment over one action he did, strictly because it comes to grips with another player, regardless of my character's past actions is a bit unfair.
Ranger: All of his excuses are legitimate.
Ranger: But, regardless of excuse, he is absent from a session or so.
DM: It is unfair to kill another players child while he is not there.
DM: I will accept blame for that.
Ranger: A lot can happen, development-wise, in a single session.
DM: But you have to as well.
Ranger: An alignment change is going to just complicate the situation more.
DM: THE ALIGNMENT CHANGE DOESN'T MATTER
DM: HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU
Ranger: Bronze Dragon is only pushing it because he has to get "revenge" on me, or something.
DM: This has nothing to do with your alignment change.
Ranger: Don't I lose stats for changing alignment?
DM: This has to do with you and Andy.
DM: No
DM: You literally change 2 letters
DM: Blam
DM: Alignment change
DM: Woohoo
DM: If the reason you are pissing and moaning over your alignment change is because you lose stats then I'm incredibly frustrated.
DM: Not to mention
Ranger: It's also a bit of character attachment.
DM: You worship the elven god of nature, the forest, and life. You literally just bitch smacked your whole religion.
DM: Alright
DM: Then look at this like character development.
Ranger: "Worship" is a strong word.
DM: Fine
DM: Pay respect.
DM: Whatever.
DM: You have fallen, hard
Ranger: Considering he's a hunter, it's mainly respect of the land for a good hunt.
DM: So hard that you left skid marks on the alignment chart.
DM: So now you have to atone.
DM: And now you can REALLY be Batman
DM: Or the Punisher
DM: Or what have you
DM: The important part is that you just don't pull these kind of shenanigans again.
Ranger: I won't, if it's going to cause a stupid ****storm as big as this again.
DM: They are disruptive and don't help with party cohesion. I'm still new as a DM, and I'm still getting my footing.
DM: And this whole situation
DM: Feels like pulling teeth.
Ranger: But that's just it.
DM: And I'd greatly prefer not to go through it again.
Ranger: The only reason you're giving me an alignment change is to appease Bronze Dragon.
Ranger: I figure something as big as that would be mentioned AFTER the session is over.
DM: Because he is pissed off for a good reason.
DM: I failed as a DM.
Ranger: But as soon as he brings it up, you jumped on the bandwagon with him.
DM: Yes
Ranger: You seemed completely fine with it during the fact.
DM: Because I didn't want to step on your flow.
DM: I want to let you guys do your own thing
DM: And just watch everything unfold.
Ranger: That, and to say that I heartlessly/brutally/manically murdered the stupid thing isn't exactly giving the situation justice.
Ranger: It got me to near-death, and I even showed MERCY on it, as it was escaping.
DM: You called yourself a hunter
Ranger: Saying whatever what was going on wasn't worth it.
DM: And it has an Intelligence score of 14
DM: It might have thought you would hunt it down
Ranger: And I am, but no hunter is going to kill himself over something like that.
DM: And track it like you did the first time around
DM: So it retaliated in self defense to end a seeming threat to it's existence.
Ranger: To literally turn my back on it, when I'm bloodied, just for it to get another free hit in doesn't exactly seem "evil".
DM: Evil people aren't stupid, but they can be cowardly.
Ranger: If anything, I finished it because it was going to kill me at that rate.
DM: You turning away from the fight when you are bloody could mean more then mercy.
DM: To the dragon
Ranger: It was pretty much out of mercy, because as I said "I'm going to start walking back, now." I'm pretty sure I said something along the lines of, "this isn't worth it"
DM: You did
DM: You said that verbatim
Ranger: Considering that for me to die and chalk up the dead character list to 2 would be stupid.
DM: Followed with the words "I'm getting out of here."
Ranger: Yeah, it's not worth it, I'm going to leave it alone, now. I'm getting out of here.
DM: That doesn't justify the action.
DM: Attempting to do something evil, and then realizing you are going to die as a result of it, only to flee in order to save your own hide, isn't noble or good.
Ranger: "Saving my own hide" can be observed from your perspective, sure.
Ranger: But apparently trying to play by my character seems to be the wrong choice.
DM: Your character is a baby eating psychopath?
DM: He's been that way this whole time?
Ranger: No, he's an animal/dragon eating psychopath.
DM: Dragon's are sentient beings
DM: That's like saying eating an elf is okay because they aren't humans.
DM: Or that eating dwarves is fine because they're short.
Ranger: To each their own, really.
DM: No
DM: To each is not their own
DM: Not when it comes to murdering and eating sentient beings
DM: That is a very hard line
DM: And it is known by every moral person
DM: And your character leaped over it
Ranger: Whatever, it doesn't even matter. I've said I already enjoy playing the Evil role more.
DM: Good
Ranger: The only reason I'm attempting to defend myself is within the wants of the other members and the needs of the campaign.
Ranger: An alignment change WILL make the campaign harder.
DM: Because your character is an NPC. He'll be the rival of the character you role up next, the "Evil Batman" so to speak. I'm the DM, when I say roll up a new character it is not a polite request.
DM: I have to enforce order
Ranger: I seriously have to write up a new character over this?
DM: Either write up a new one or go on a holy quest
DM: Pick your poison.
DM: If you honestly care more about your character then the group of people you play with, then I have nothing more to say.
DM: I'm trying to be lenient here.
Ranger: All for just straying off the path for a single action, completely disregarding all the other things my character has done?
DM: "The other things your character has done"
DM: I haven't seen Traezelle go all Saintly up in the streets.
DM: Curing the blind and feeding the hungry
DM: He's a good guy
DM: But he isn't that good.
DM: And he made a single, BIG, moral action.
DM: One of the biggest evil moral actions ever.
Ranger: To completely erase/change my character play style over that is just downright stupid.
DM: I've made my ultimatum.
DM: Based on the action you have done.
Ranger: I already killed the "sacred holy baby" of awesomeness before it actually became sentient, and that was ret conned.
Ranger: And now I'm suddenly super evil because Bronze Dragon threw a hissy fit over it.
DM: Because Bronze Dragon reminded me that he actually had things planned for this, and that he was a member of this party. I admit, that was my fault, and I didn't want to step on your character back then.
DM: But I realize now that letting you guys run completely uncheck will lead to this.
DM: So I'm taking a sterner hand now.
Ranger: By completely changing a character or ripping it out of my hands.
DM: In this one instance, yes.
Ranger: Just because he couldn't do a stupid plan with a more than likely lackluster pay off.
DM: I do not intend to do this often.
DM: And I do not gain amusement or joy out of doing it.
DM: But it is something that needs to be done when the situation arises.
DM: You want to handle all three of you guys? Then you DM.
DM: I'm pulling my hair out here
Ranger: So if I get an alignment change, you're telling me I can't even play that role? That's kind of dumb.
DM : And I'm trying my damn hardest
DM: No
DM: I said you can try to atone
DM: And fix your errors
Ranger: What if I don't want to?
Ranger: My character is already so damned evil.
Ranger: I don't think he can ever go back.
Ranger: Or will want to.
DM: Then that means you want play a psychotic maniac, or at least refuse to budge him from that spot.
DM: And I will not let that character be a member of the party.
Ranger: Then why alignment change at all?
DM: You have heard all I have to say. And i believe I have heard all you have to say. At this point we're running in circles. I'm done. Take this, think it over, and come back when you have made your decision on this manner. If you want to keep playing then I'll gladly DM for you, but the group as a whole cannot continue with this attitude. Things have to improve.
DM: I'm done.
Ranger: Whatever.


I'm a terrible DM.......

That conversation is too long for it to be anything good.

[Marnath]

I decided to talk to him over this situation before reading Fyerminds post, deciding to see how I could work things out. Here's our conversation, verbatim (Names taken out for privacy purposes).


I'm a terrible DM.......

No you're not. He's a terrible player. Chaotic good hunters do not murder their friend's baby in cold blood and then eat it. Even if it was just some random encounter wyrmling it still wouldn't be ok to eat it because it is sapient, and his character would know that.

[Grollub]

In theory, as a DM, you don't really have to do anything yet.. play the next game where that last one left off ( if you aren't just going to wipe it away and bunny is alive ). The dragon/bunny mother should go postal on the ranger and kill him. Problem solved with that character.

At that stage you can say to them both, "this feud end's here". If it doesn't throw down the ban hammer on whoever is retarded enough to continue the feud, as it would get devolved to a player vs player ( instead of a character vs character ) fight.

[137beth]

You are not a terrible DM, no one could really work this situation out in a way that makes everyone happy. It's impossible. Don't blame yourself.

[Vertharrad]

I think this is where you went wrong:


It seemed to me like he was turning around at this point. He seemed to act as though he was attacked and was being defensive. Most people do this. When he said "Well I won't do this anymore because of the ****storm this caused..." was what seemed a way to say I won't do it but still feel like he is on top. He seems competitive, and needs to make excuses to feel like choices are his.

Also, I just want to say telling a player to roll up a new character, and you must do it no matter what is a horrible idea.

No he was not turning around at this point, no mention about trying to get atonement or forgiveness. He just wants his character to be a *** to whomever he pleases. And the DM has the right to make an evil PC become an NPC. The player isn't realizing or accepting where he went wrong, so a problem would've happened again if given the chance or the PC would've become Dragon chow...

Tychris1 your not a terrible DM, you have tried to bring a good and fun experience to your players...sometimes bad apples seep in.

[Threadnaught]

I think this is where you went wrong:


It seemed to me like he was turning around at this point. He seemed to act as though he was attacked and was being defensive. Most people do this.

WARNING! Contains extreme amounts of sarcasm. You have been warned.

Let's have a little story about four guys, Barry, Gary, Harry and Officer Jim.

So Barry, stabs Gary. Harry starts screaming for Jim to come and arrest Barry while trying to disarm him and stop him from skinning Gary. Barry decides to shoot Harry because he feels as if he is being attacked and is defending himself. Barry's response is perfectly justified. Why would Jim arrest him for a non existent crime?

Besides, as Barry was skinning Gary, he offered to pay for his funeral and "look after" his wife. It seems to me like Barry was turning around at that point.

Now that, that's over with, time for a little sincerity.


I'm a terrible DM.......

Well even if that's true, he is by far an even worse player.
I doubt your comment about your skills as DM has any basis in fact btw. :smalltongue:

Honestly, stories like this make me glad all I have to deal with is intelligent gamers turned stupid players and a munchkin.

[killem2]

I'm a terrible DM.......

'fraid not. Dealing with unpleasant people, especially when they don't KNOW they are being unpleasant is a difficult thing to do.

[Arc_knight25]

Your not a terrible DM. DMing is a hard role, trying to keep balance between players IC and OOC.

I've played with the same people for over 2 years and some nights, we just get snippy with one another. One person starts quoting rules, the next disagrees and time is wasted. But in the end our DM calmly(most of the time) redirects us back to the game.

Its a real skill to have. Be firm but be fair. Your ultimatium was more then fair and from this players past actions was as firm as it needed to be. You even took blame for what happened which is more then I can say for some.

All in all. I hope he comes to terms with everything and that you guys can get back to having fun.

[Trasilor]

Having the courage to speak up against a problem player is difficult to do, and something that many DMs can't do. It does not make you a bad DM.

If I had the talk with the ranger, I would put it more simply:

DM: Do you want to participate in this campaign? Then design a character that compliments the party, not one the works against other players.

Players tend to make their characters in a vacuum, never asking the obvious questions: Why is [character name] working with these other people? Why doesn't he/she just go and find another group that matches their goals?

[prufock]

I have to say I'm curious as to all this worked out.

[TheDarkSaint]

What you just experienced was passive aggressive behavior in its finest form. When you really stop and read what he is saying, he never admits a wrong. Never admits to being problem player and tries to justify everything.

He constantly tries to change or derail you from what you were talking about with justifications and snide comments. Sometimes you got sucked in, other times, you held your ground. Good for you. :)

You are going to run into people like this in life. The best thing you can do is just keep repeating yourself, over and over.

Good luck with your game :)

[Crazysaneman]

The thing I don't understand is why you allowed him to skin and eat another party members' child? Especially since the quest hub is a paladin, <EDIT> and especially since the parent was not there to defend the child, his(?) being there may have stopped the dumb ranger from doing it at all</EDIT>. Why didn't you say to this obvious problem player that he needed to really think it through, then punish him for stupidity somehow relevant to the plot. Seems like it's time for the "everyone wakes up, everything from x date was a dream. tighten up!" moment.

[The Grue]

*snip*

Well handled, but in future conversations with this player be wary of him trying to change the subject or derail you on specific examples, lest you get bogged down into an argument of semantics. He pretty much started right off the bat:


DM: Alright
DM: Serious time.
Ranger: What fun.
DM: You have to understand that constantly kicking Bronze Dragons sand castle isn't good player behavior.
Ranger: Define "constantly". Counting this one, I've only "cockblocked" him twice.
DM: DnD is a team game, we're all trying to have fun as a group, what Bronze Dragon derives as fun does not have to be the same as yours.
DM: 3 times.

Bolded his trap, and you walking into it. If I had been having that conversation, I'd have responded like this:


DM: This is not a discussion about specific examples of your behaviour, and we're not going to get sucked into an argument over details. This is your DM telling you to knock it off, so sit down, listen up and don't change the subject.

If he wants to play dumb at that point, ignore it and continue lecture. He's perfectly aware what he's doing, he just wants to play it off as "whoops I didn't know that skinning and eating another character's child would piss him off" to avoid consequences.

EDIT: Also, as useful as chat logs are for post-op analysis with your Playground buddies you should consider having future discussions with him in person. That way when he tries to interrupt and derail you, you can say "Hey, shush, I'm not finished talking yet."

[rexreg]

Tychris1 - being a DM is rough sometimes...i've walked away from the table thinking, "I'm done. I don't want to do this anymore." & I've been playing w/ the same group for 15+ years...by the time next week rolls around, everything's good again..

i read over your conversation w/ Ranger & think you did about as well as could be...if there were, in retrospect, parts of the discussion that didn't go swimmingly, remember that hindsight is 20/20...i think you tried to be patient, logical, & positive...i've not met Ranger, but his approach to the game would have netted him a one-game tryout w/ my group & an invitation to not come back...working w/ inferior material will always make the job harder...

you are not a bad DM...maybe inexperienced, but it's gotta start somewhere...your plots sound wild & fantastic; there is passion in your stories...i think you handled yourself well in dealing w/ Ranger - better than i have in the past w/ problem players...learn by experience (hopefully) & try to do better next time...keep on keepin' on & may the Dice Gods smile upon you :smallsmile:

[ericgrau]

It's really tempting to answer this in regards to his character because it's so obviously bad. But this is a player maturity issue, not a character issue. He's ruining the fun of the game, you talked to him and he disregarded you. Tell him you can't have him around if he continues to ruin the fun of others in the group. If he still refuses to do anything different, then kick him out simple as that.

Don't consider it a failed effort just because he didn't listen to you. That's up to him not you. You didn't even provoke him. You made an effort to explain the situation first and talk to him before taking drastic action, exactly like you should. Now you move on to the next step when talking fails: take drastic action.

I know it's tough to do with a friend, but if he refuses to act differently there's nothing else that can be done and you need to step up and deal with it. Tell him he's going to be out if he keeps act this way. If he says no way man you suck I'm going to keep doing it, then he's saved you a lot of trouble. Then you can kick him out right away without feeling bad about not letting him try to do better.

[Threadnaught]

I can see one good thing this player has done. That's an interesting villain right there.

[Ace Nex]

Ranger is evil. He can wine, but it that's like saying "I didn't mean to murder this guy by opening on him and then eating him." Seriously, if you did that to a human baby irl you'd be locked up forever, or worse. That's some serious level of wrong, and if he has issue, let him complain. It doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong. On the upside, you can rez the baby with the loot you'll get off the rangers body.

[SciChronic]

i seriously dislike the Ranger's attitude of "well nobody told me it was bad."

i killed a baby cause nobody stopped me, therefor i'm innocent, the blame is on them

Him killing an innocent, sentient being is obviously grounds for him at least becoming tainted alignment-wise. As a person in the world of your game he would've at least heard tales and legends about how dragons would masquerade as humans and produce children, and therefore had the ability to change shape. He might not have known if it was true or not, but he would've heard at least parts of a tale.

It's not "normal" for a ranger to eat creatures with an Int score higher than 3.

Also his complaint about how a single action/decision shouldn't completely alter his character is utter bs. A single action you decide to take can have major repercussions on your life. Killing someone because you were drunk and decided to drive and hit somebody is a single decision you made. The police wouldn't say "well, it was your first time killing somebody by accident," you get charged for vehicular manslaughter and go to jail. Even worse, he intentionally killed the baby dragon, it wasn't an accident. It wasn't exactly premeditated because he thought it was a bunny at first (therefore under 3 Int), so that's not murder of the 1st degree, but he definitely qualifies for Murder 2. Tell that to him.

[Miranius]

Previous posters have mentioned this and i second it: you need a clean break in playing style, just a few sentences before the next session.
State that while you leave your players every and all freedoms, actions will have consequences. That there are not many rules, but one is that a player character can not be evil. So becomming evil = NPC.
Nothing personal, just the rules of the game for EVERYONE. Wrap it up with a clean slate for everyone from this point on so nobody can whine of retroactively changing the rules and that`s it.

[The Ravensong]

I'm noticing a trend in the gaming community that this kind of asshatery tends to happen when someone wasn't able to make it to the session. (A friend of mine wasn't able to make it to a session, at which point the party douchebag cast flesh to stone on the absentee player's pregnant wife, rearranged her, then stone to flesh to leave the two of them dead in a rather horrifying way).

People who act like this are not JUST D-Bags. They're cowards.
I don't have any life-changing wisdom to lend you that isn't already echoing through the thread. If telling him that your goal for this campaign was for everyone to be able to sit roll some dice and have fun, and that he is willfully and maliciously making decisions that ruin everyone else's night, I wouldn't say he needs psychological help, he might just be a douchebag, and unfortunately that's not always a disorder, sometimes it's a choice.

Watch the video below, you may see some familiar personalities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCWOCPxPmus

[killem2]

I would force him to pay for an atonement spell, Resurrection spell, and then pay for an alignment change spell to lawful good. lol. :smallyuk:


I'm noticing a trend in the gaming community that this kind of asshatery tends to happen when someone wasn't able to make it to the session.



When some one misses our sessions we just play their character as a straight combantant. I could not imagine taking advantage of something like that :smalleek:

[Water_Bear]

Previous posters have mentioned this and i second it: you need a clean break in playing style, just a few sentences before the next session.
State that while you leave your players every and all freedoms, actions will have consequences. That there are not many rules, but one is that a player character can not be evil. So becomming evil = NPC.
Nothing personal, just the rules of the game for EVERYONE. Wrap it up with a clean slate for everyone from this point on so nobody can whine of retroactively changing the rules and that`s it.

Isn't taking 1/3 of possible alignments out of play permanently is a little extreme?

The problem isn't that he was playing an Evil PC (he wasn't after all), it was that the guy was not being a team player IC and a bit of a jerk OOC. Reminding him that being a **** means getting kicked out ought to be enough, no reason to punish the entire party for one guy's dickishness.

[killem2]

Isn't taking 1/3 of possible alignments out of play permanently is a little extreme?

The problem isn't that he was playing an Evil PC (he wasn't after all), it was that the guy was not being a team player IC and a bit of a jerk OOC. Reminding him that being a **** means getting kicked out ought to be enough, no reason to punish the entire party for one guy's dickishness.

I am one of those extreme DM that's also ban 1/3 of the alignments. It's not that I don't trust the alignments, I don't trust the players that generally ASK me if they can be evil.

To me, it takes some finesse, to play an evil character among a group of normally good guys and do it as a team, sadly I think a lot of players who ask to play evil, treat it exactly the way you and I know it isn't. (Not that you can't be an evil psycho either :P, but its not strictly limited to evil psychos lol)

[Man on Fire]

Alright, so i'm DMing a campaign for some friends and a debacle came up over alignment. Here's the situation:

One of my players (A bronze dragon) gave birth to a Bronze Dragon/Bunny hybrid (Don't ask) which came out looking like a bunny. The other player in the group (A chaotic good half elf ranger) has been a "Batman" wannabe for most of the campaign; He's a "Stop having fun guys" guy, he despises parties and fun, he refuses to talk except through hand gestures/Longshot looks (Avatar the last airbender) and enjoys hunting animals for the sport of it. He found this to be incredibly stupid and wanted to kill the bunny. The two players argued and he backed off. Next session comes along and the Bronze Dragon player has to sit out due to RL issues. The Ranger takes this opportunity to hunt down the bunny, only to find that it change shaped into it's true Bronze Dragon Wyrmling form.

The ranger proceeded to open fire with his arrows on the dragon, and a battle commenced. The Ranger was severely beaten up and decided to let the Wyrmling go free, but it swooped back around for a potshot and the battle continued, ending with the wyrmlings death. With only 7 HP to his name, the Ranger takes the Wyrmling corpse, skins it, and eats it for lunch. I ask him abou how he feels and he tells me he doesn't care about murdering the wyrmling. The Bronze Dragon character comes back asking what happened in the session (A day afterwards). Upon learning that he grew angry and the two began to threaten to kill each other. The Bronze Dragon pointed out that the Ranger shouldn't be good anymore and I agreed, stating the Ranger was Chaotic Evil due to hunting down, killing, skinning, and eating the bronze dragon's child. The Ranger retaliated by saying that I didn't tell him his alignment would change, that he had done good actions before that, and that him being evil would only make it harder for the party to work together and that it "Wouldn't help us at all".

How do I handle this? My brain hurts. Do I kick him? Is he pure evil? Or neutral? Help.

Edit: And there current quest vendor is a very powerful Paladin Angel to complicate the matter. But she's not the moral policemen type Paladin. I'm thinking of ways to defuse this situation with the least amount of stress and arguing possible.

Hunting, killing, skinning and eating an inteligent being because you thought it's stupid...yup, pretty evil. What he though it gonna happen when he commits such act?

He is right that it won't help the party at all, that it will make it harder for them to work together and it also may cause problems with their boss. And you should still change it and play the consequences, making it very painful for him. This is a punishment - next time he will think before being a jerk and runing other people's fun.

[rexreg]

when starting a new campaign, i will usually state that the campaign will be either non-Good or non-Evil...
but, i have also found Lawful Evil, under the right circumstances, can work w/ a Good party, if they have common goals...if a player had a compelling reason for having an Evil character in a Good party, i'd consider it...mature players make certain things much, much easier...

[dascarletm]

when starting a new campaign, i will usually state that the campaign will be either non-Good or non-Evil...
but, i have also found Lawful Evil, under the right circumstances, can work w/ a Good party, if they have common goals...if a player had a compelling reason for having an Evil character in a Good party, i'd consider it...mature players make certain things much, much easier...

Yes, it's more a mater of the players playing the character well enough. Inter-party alignment discrepancies can be handled well as long as the players handle it in a mature manner, and keep it in character as well as finding ways themselves to keep it from full-on PvP.