Need some help with player issues might contain Rise of the runelord spoilers!

[Zeikstraal]

Hello there playground I come to you again asking for some great advice.

I play in the Rise of the Runelord campaign, a premade for Pathfinder. And we found the deed for the Foxglove Manor, and with no heirs, we become the owners. My barbarian asked this to our Cleric and Rogue, and they confirm. Even the DM said it was ours.
Now the Rogue comes up with the great plan, to give the deed to the Lord of justice, a corrupt politician. My barbarian and the Cleric do not want that to happen, and the Cleric brings up the fact that he is a corrupt man, and is not even willing to commit to stop the murders that happen in his city. My Barbarian tells the Rogue he can give it to him, if he is willing to buy the Barbarian out, but the Rogue simply says "I found it and it is not ours".
Despite me and the Cleric and probably the fighter (who was absent), he still bings the box containing the deed to the Lord of justice and gives it to his assistent saying "this needs to go as quick as possible to the lord of justice!!"
And then leaves again.

We stopped the session there.

Now he just threw a great roleplaying scenario out of the window with just giving it away.
My Barbarian will not be pleased and neither will the Cleric. And I'm not sure how to bring this up. I can't let him buy me out, because he will miss a lot of gold pieces, gold pieces which he does not have. I don't want to go all out on the rogue and create uncomfortable situations or go so far that he will change character. But neither will I just let it fly.
This is not the first time he has done actions that has negative consequences for the party. The Cleric caught him lying after asking if he found something, which he did, but hid frome the party.
And the cleric allready told the Rogue he had to fight smarter in combat because he was "absorbing all of his healing". And not charge into the monsters and especially not at close quarters because he was an easy target. The Rogue didnt like the critique he gave him, so I want to bring it up without upsetting the player.

But how can I do this in Character??

If something is not clear feel free to ask ofcourse!!

[Baroth]

Simple, let him die next combat, problem solved.

[(Un)Inspired]

Simple, let him die next combat, problem solved.

This is almost exactly what i would do. Instead of actually killing him though, you need to show him that if he wants to hoard treasure he will find that you can hoard your magic.

Make him figit uncomfortably with low health for a while till he asks why you're not healing him. Tell him that his character has begun to create a rift with yours and that if he's not going to share his resources with the party then the party simply can't afford to share its resources with him.

I would say the most important thing would be to not show any emotion when dealing with him this way. You say that he's gotten upset when confronted in the past. That's ok. Just show him that this character dispute hasnt really effected you, or your character. You're not being petty or vengeful by withholding healing, it's just business.

[Zeikstraal]

I'm the barbarian not the Cleric, but i will suggest this to him. But we also are a goodly party, I don't think we can just let him die becuase he is hoarding the treasure. But it is intrueging to be honest.

[jaydubs]

Being good-aligned doesn't mean you have to be a doormat. He has an easy way to save himself - by agreeing to be more party oriented.

[(Un)Inspired]

Hehe sorry about that. I'm not sure how I got it in my head that you were the cleric.

The point of my suggestion isn't to let him die. It's to show him that teamwork is necessary in a party. He's gotta see that just because his rogue can spot treasure better than anyone else doesn't mean that said treasure is his alone for the keeping.

Just don't ever get emotional over the lesson you are giving him. Yes he's a being a pink sock but don't get dragged out with him. If you let people see you get frustrated then this whole exchange devolves into revenge and no one learns anything and he'll never change.

[WbtE]

I'm the barbarian not the Cleric, but i will suggest this to him. But we also are a goodly party, I don't think we can just let him die becuase he is hoarding the treasure. But it is intrueging to be honest.

If you feel that way, the odds are that your DM does, too. In any case, having a history of letting your companions die tends to make people think the worst. My advice is pretty simple: tell the rogue that you feel a bond of trust has been broken and that you are not prepared to adventure with him any longer. Wish him good luck and good day.

(This does create a small problem for your DM, but you shouldn't be making in-character decisions for metagame reasons.)

[Zeikstraal]

The DM thinks it is not a good idea, and the Fighter isn't down with it either. And he thinks it is better to go to him and say that it was not a good idea to give it away, and that he does things where the other 3 party members don't agree with, and we don't feel okay with that. So he has to change his behavior, or there will be further consequences.

I dunno, it could work i guess.

You have other ideas maybe, I dont want to kick his character either, because he enjoys it.

[(Un)Inspired]

Have you tried threaten to karate chop the player out of game? I find that the fear of a good solid chop does wonders for moral.

[Baroncognito]

Now the Rogue comes up with the great plan, to give the deed to the Lord of justice, a corrupt politician.

I absolutely cannot understand the logic in this decision at all. "Hey, this guy's corrupt. Let's give him stuff!"?

[Zeikstraal]

You mean the player or the character. A player yes, and kicked him eventually since it didnt help. A character not, yet. Was never really necessary, up until now maybe. Point is also, we are a group of friends and I don't want to get anyone upset. For me what happens in game, is in game. But I don't think the Rogue feels the same about it.
Because of that it is a really difficult situation for me.

[Zeikstraal]

I absolutely cannot understand the logic in this decision at all. "Hey, this guy's corrupt. Let's give him stuff!"?

Nope, me neither. Nor can anyone else in the group. It is really dumb, really really really dumb. I don't know why he did it. He said it did not belong to us. But certainly not to a corrupt politician.

[Baroth]

I'm the barbarian not the Cleric, but i will suggest this to him. But we also are a goodly party, I don't think we can just let him die becuase he is hoarding the treasure. But it is intrueging to be honest.

Since when can't you loot his body after he's dead? I was a barbarian in a CotCT campaign and we had the same issue with our rogue. He wasn't flanking in combat, just running in and getting stabbed to death. It was. Taking to much meta, healing, and divine intervention to keep him alive even after we tried talking to him about it until one fight we all just stopped.
The clerric stopped healing him, the wizard stopped devoting all his spells to trying to buff him, and I stopped leaving the big boss alone in order to rush over and kill the trash monsters around him. That fight went more smoothly than any fight we ever had, with the wizard doing battlefield control, the cleric healing the barb, and the barb killing the baddies, it's amazing how effective a team is when everyone is doing their jobs instead of worrying about the welfare of one guy. And after the fight we got to loot the big baddy and the rogue, so bonus.

[Greenish]

Since when can't you loot his body after he's dead?I think he meant that hoarding the loot wasn't a sufficient reason to let the rogue die.


Anyway, maybe the rogue had some scheme (harebrained or not) about trying to buy the corrupt politician. After all, a pet politico might come in handy.

[icefractal]

Explain that he has violated the group's trust, and that he may be expelled from the party. Then give him one chance to make amends - if he either:
A) Gets back the mansion, using his own personal resources, and not seeking recompense for any expenditures or consequences.
B) Buys everyone out. If he doesn't have enough gold at present, then he forfeits all future treasure until the debt has been paid.
Otherwise, he's out of the group. Oh, and it goes without saying that if he tries to steal from the group during this probation period, he gets kicked out and all his possessions are confiscated (you should watch him carefully, obviously).

Now yes, this will sting, a lot. Especially if he's the type to be possessive of treasure. That's the point - if he wants to use the "I'm just playing my character" card, then he has to accept in-character consequences. If he wants you to be nice because he's a player, then he should do the same. And if giving up loot is just too much for him, he can always retire the Rogue and bring in a different (hopefully less antagonistic) character.


Incidentally, I would not just go with a warning. You already warned him not to do it, and he did anyway. The only kind of warning that would matter is an out of character warning to stop this kind of thing or the character will be out, which would need everyone on board with it.

[Andrewmoreton]

Find out what is in character reasons are then deal with the issue in character.
(As an aside as GM running said adventure path, I would not take that manor if you paid me. Take that nice Goblin fortress in Thistle point instead and turn that into a nice mansion. Seriously the place is a plague pit and haunted )

As a GM I can think of some good reasons he could have done what he has done. I can't think of a good reason he did not tell you in advance though

[Spuddles]

You dont want to stop him because he's having fun, but it sounds like his fun is at the expense of 4 other people.