Just ranting... (Long post warning)

[mgshamster]

I'm in an online game, and our DM messed up. And that's OK; it happens. And he's admitted to the mistake and is trying to correct it.

But the DM isn't the problem, the problem is the new player.

The DM tried to do one of those, "split the party up so each group can see one side of a war." It's a fun trope and when done well it makes for a good story.

Unfortunately, it wasn't done well. The DM ended up making it so each split group hated the warring side they were on. This made it so none of use had any reason to try and understand them or their point of view.

In the game, we're passing through a swamp (our mission goal is on the lands beyond the swamp) and there's three warring tribes: lizardfolk, turtlefolk, and toadfolk. Before going into the swamp, we were warned by our swamp guide that these three races are extremely dangerous, they're in a war with each other, and they viciously attack any outsiders.

During sleep one night (we were railroaded here, none of us awoke and the guy on watch - which was an npc - didn't do anything) each of us was taken by one tribe. My barbarian and the mystic were kidnapped by the turtles - hogtied to a stick and carried off. The warlock and an NPC were taken by the toads (who tried to kill all of us earlier that day and we won). The fighter was left behind and rescued by the lizardfolk; the new player is playing a lizardfolk PC (hence, he was rescued instead of kidnapped).

For my part, my barbarian and the mystic PC with me were threatened by the turtles. We were told to help them steal an artifact from the lizards (who themselves stole it from the toads), and if we didn't, they would kill us. If we escaped, they would hunt us for all eternity. So we agreed hoping to find an escape later on. Screw those bastards. They also told us that the toads took some of our friends and the lizards took the rest.

The warlock had similar experiences with the toads.

Both the toads and the turtles set off for war, with the PCs in tow, and we all converge on the lizardfolk settlement.

Now, this would be a perfect way to get us all to side with the lizardfolk tribe, right? Except here's the twist: the lizardfolk tribe ended up taking the fighter prisoner so they could perform magical experimentations on him - despite both the fighter PC in-character not wanting it (his background involved having been held prisoner and escaped from a wizard and he hates magic) AND the player himself strenuously objecting. The player does not like playing anything other than champions or thieves - anything more is too complex for him and has stated flat out that he does not want this to happen to his PC even if it's supposed to grant him more power.

And that's the mindset of the group leading into the story.

So we arrive at the lizardfolk encampment and I manage to convince the turtles to attack while the mystic and I sneak in to "steal the artifact." In reality, I'm sneaking in to find my friends and hopefully escape. Fortunately, our mystic has an ability to communicate telepathically will people, and he uses it to find the fighter, who tells us what's going on. He's been taken prisoner and they're going to magically experiment on him with the artifact.

I try to find a way to sneak into the building he's imprisoned in, but the entire thing is made of stone (roof and all) with no windows. So I can't sneak in. I'm about to attack the two guards, but the mystic stays my hand and tells me to talk to them instead.

Meanwhile... This is the part where the toads assault the lizardfolk (and the turtles), with the warlock in tow. The warlock is stuck in the battle with the toads, doing his best to not be involved in the actual fighting. The turtles are still engaged with the lizardfolk, and this makes it a three-way front with all three tribes attacking each other and us PCs doing whatever we can to avoid combat ourselves. The new player (the lizardfolk PC who rescues the fighter) is actively engaged in the battle fighting the turtles and the toads - but he's playing some magical class and can fly, so he's not really in direct threat. He's just been moving a flaming sphere around the battle. During this time, the lizardfolk PC player is complaining that no one is helping him fight off the toads or the turtles and how he's going to die if none of the other PCs comes to help him.

Back to me: So I walk up to the guards and say hi, taking a huge gamble that I won't be attacked right out. Turns out, they don't want to attack us, they're just under orders to keep our friend imprisoned so he can be magically experimented on. I even tried offering to trade places, willing to accept the experiment in place of my friend if they let him go. Nope. It has to be him.

Right at that moment, the fighter figures out how to escape, and comes busting out the door. The lizardfolk guard attacks him (spits acid in his face), and then I immediately attack the guard.

And game pauses right there.

This is the part where the group gets into a huge argument.

The lizardfolk PC player is absolutely pissed that we attacked his people and that as a party we aren't doing whatever we can to help the lizardfolk tribe fight off the toads and turtles or help him in combat. He in no way has blamed the DM and thinks the problem is entirely on the other players.

He even said (slightly paraphrased), "Don't you guys realize that now there's no way my PC would ever join this party? And frankly, I don't know if I want to play with a group of players who are so willing to do this to my PCs backstory so callously. Even if I'm not playing the character anymore, I'll still know the other players don't care in the slightest about making it possible/enjoyable for other players to play with them." (By the way, that last sentence is a literal exact quote).

During the entire scene, he also kept trying to argue that we should just accept imprisonment and it's wrong to try to escape (claiming if we try and free the prisoner, his PC would have no reason to join our group). And that if we don't side with the lizards, we're taking a huge gamble and will be hunted by all three tribes instead of just two (which none of us care about, because we all want to escape this cursed swamp - remember, our quest is on the other side of the swamp and we're just passing through). And the entire time, neither the DM nor the new player are doing anything to make the lizard tribe (DMs fault) or the lizardfolk PC (players fault) more likely to side with the group of PCs or to give the PCs a reason to side with them.

He's claiming we've all made the game unplayable for him because we didn't immediately ignore our own PC's story and motivations to automatically side with his.

My counter argument has been, from the beginning: "If you wanted us to help you and your people, then you shouldn't have tried to kidnap and experiment on my friend!" I think the lizardfolk PC should be rebelling against his people for trying to do that to someone he supposedly rescued (it would also be a good reason for the Lizardfolk PC to leave the tribe and join the party). But he's perfectly fine with it happening, because not once has he done or said anything against it. His only argument against it has been, "I don't know what my king is going to do, I can't read his mind. And he's also using this artifact on an 'outsider' to the tribe, which should be proof enough that he's not trying to gain the power for himself." Seriously. That's his justification for why we should fight with the lizards instead of trying to escape. Now, he's not saying that as a character - that's the player justifying why he's not helping the group.

At this point, the warlock Player says, "why don't you just knock the guards out instead of attacking them?"

And here's the literal exchange that happened:

Lizardfolk Player: "That's not any better than killing them, it's just more cowardly."

Warlock Player: "No, it really isn't, and I feel like I should resent the implied insult there if it wasn't so laughable."

Lizardfolk Player: "It's not my fault you decided that's an insult. "

Warlock Player: "Within the statement 'x tactic is cowardly', there's an inherent implication that whoever uses 'x tactic' is also cowardly. It may not be deliberate, but it's there. And if you said it without deliberately making the insult, that just means you said it without thinking of the effect on other people - exactly what you just called out the rest of the party for."

Lizardfolk Player: "I'm just not going to respond to someone determined to make a fight out of a disagreement of opinion for no reason."

The DM's fix was to backtrack the scene and make it to the lizard guard didn't spit acid at the fighter, and therefore my barbarian didn't attack the guard. And the DM apologized for Messing the story up. For my part, I'm trying to find a way for my barbarian to stay in character while also find a way to get on the side of the lizardfolk. Ideally, I'd prefer it if they hadn't tried to imprison and experiment on my friend.

So when we last left off, my barbarian spotted the warlock behind the lines of the toads, tried to sneak a weapon into the fighters hands so he could escape, and then charged the toads to rescue the warlock. Abandoning my imprisoned friend is not exactly what I wanted to do, but hey - I'm trying to bring in group cohesion and side with the lizards so the lizardfolk PC would have cause to join our group.

I mean, normally I'm not one to claim the "entitled player" accusation, but god damn does this guy just reek of it! He's super pissed that the rest of us aren't hardcore metagaming to force our characters to align with his PC's background, while doing absolutely nothing to try to get his PC to join the group.

This is why I always tell my players, "It's your responsibility to ensure your PC wants to be with this group and wants to be on this adventure."

Rant over. Thanks for listening.

[War_lord]

Yeah, I think the DM needs to have a talk with the new player. The player seems to have this really fixed idea in his head of the Lizard folk being a race of basically good noble savages. And that's running headlong into the DM's (and D&D established lore's) vision of the Lizard folk as brutal pragmatists. And I think the DM is making a mistake by bending in the face of that kind of pressure.

And the player is being a massive hypocrite by demanding every other character bend their motivations to align with his, while at the same time refusing to yield on his own characterization even a little bit.

[Segev]

Taking the rant at face value, yeah, the new player has a huge double-standard he's not seeing past. "How dare you not respect my backstory, even if it means disregarding yours!" It's an easy trap for somebody to fall into, but as presented, he's definitely in the wrong.

[Lance Tankmen]

honestly went back home for vacation and thought id have the same background alignment problem with a friend when i ran a quick campaign, he was a true neutral dwarf druid, luckily the paladin was oath of ancients so they bonded but then every one wanted to use a boat but the dwarf, i let the split happened and later decided it was minor and in tune with his race.

this guy of yours though isn't respecting the PC whos characters getting altered(though thats the DM's choice) nor is he respecting your party's obvious dislike for the war, though id call out the DM as railroading captures and threatening with chasing you for eternity is very petty. I mean really some backwater mud savages will chase me past their known borders because i didn't jump in on there tribal conflict? bland

[gfishfunk]

Everyone, players and DM, have a joint obligation to create a cohesive story and a party that works. "My character would not do that" is bogus. You control your character, not the other way around. Find a way to justify it and roll.

[Sigreid]

Funny thing is if the fighter had been rescued and just treatd well by the tribe, the lizard man tribe would be the only one of the three your party had no beef with.

[Unoriginal]

Lizardfolk Player sounds like a hypocritical jerk and DM seems too lost on the "let's make it feel good for one player" mindset to change things.



but he's playing some magical class and can fly, so he's not really in direct threat. He's just been moving a flaming sphere around the battle.

How did he use two Concentration spells at once?

[Dhuraal]

Lizardfolk Player sounds like a hypocritical jerk and DM seems too lost on the "let's make it feel good for one player" mindset to change things.




How did he use two Concentration spells at once?

....... Magic

[Unoriginal]

....... Magic

Magic has its rules.

[Sigreid]

Magic has its rules.

There are ways to fly without concetration. Without knowing class, level, or at least magic items there is no way to know if rules are being followed.

[mgshamster]

Lizardfolk Player sounds like a hypocritical jerk and DM seems too lost on the "let's make it feel good for one player" mindset to change things.

The DM has admitted his errors and is trying to work with the party. Up until that point, I had issues with him, too. But he's trying, so I give him a lot of leeway in that.


How did he use two Concentration spells at once?

Magic item. He's got a broom of flying, I think.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ye gads! Taking everything in the OP at face value, I'm not sure I could continue playing alongside the character if the solution to this problem is "rewind and redo but in a manner that makes less sense". The player sounds pretty problematic. I suppose he is thinking that if you guys had helped the lizardfolk win the battle, he would see you as worthy allies and decide to adventure with you. But... ideally that scenario would happen organically, and it sounds like the DM set it up to be very difficult for that to happen.

Perhaps the DM should have the toads and turtles overwhelm the lizardfolk, and an arrangement is reached where your fighter friend is released for the aid of you and the party in defeating the other two tribes. I think that could work to resolve the entire issue. As powerful warriors and in assisting the tribe, the new (entitled) player would have reason to want to seek adventure with the group. Do you think that'd work?

I was playing a Shield Lander in an Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk game (is that the name?), and in his backstory he had survived in an occupied Shield Lands for years after Iuz had conquered, using his knowledge of the terrain to maraud the occupying forces until eventually when they conquered Admunfort he was found by a merchant ship in the Nyr Dyv and brought to Urnst. Anyways, he had fought the tiefling commanders of Iuz's armies many times, and thought of cambions simply as evil and powerful leaders of the forces of darkness essentially.

So, present day campaign, we're adventuring under the castle, and come across a cambion. He starts animating statues and attacking us with fire magic. Then... with a word, half the party fails their save against his attack and get dominated and attack me. Luckily, my Shield Lander is a fighter and was able to take the focused assault. With a gaze, the tiefling is able to stun another PC. Long story short, we defeat him, but it was tough. I'm about to execute him after we get what little information we can from him, and one of the other PCs (a new recruit after another player had to quit) objects, saying we can use him as a pack mule. I thought at first the player was kidding, but she was serious. She said we could lug him around and he could carry treasure for us. His slender physique aside, I pointed out that he has powerful magic, and could control our minds just by looking at us or speaking. She said we could gag him and put a blindfold over him. I fell into arguing the pragmatism of this, but then went back to my character motivations; he's too dangerous and we're better off killing him; it would be hard to justify trusting that we could keep this cambion around safely, and that it would be worth the risk simply so he could carry a sack around. She started arguing that I wasn't acting knightly and that I was betraying my lawful good alignment. I explained that my character isn't egalitarian in that sense, and doesn't have a modern view of what it is to be "good". The creature has demon blood, and tried to kill them, and has powerful abilities to use against them. Consider this an execution, ridding the world of an evil creature that just tried to kill us and would spread more harm if kept alive (the creature was in charge of organizing and supplying an army of monsters beneath the castle). I went ahead and killed the tiefling in-game, and the player rage-quit, so I offered to take the action back and risk going through the dungeon with a mind-controlling tiefling shuffling blindly alongside us, even though it didn't make sense to my for my character. But she refused, saying that my character was too cold-blooded and she didn't like the tone of the game.

I don't know if I handled that as best I could have, but I really felt we were stuck between her metagame reasons for keeping the cambion alive, vs my in-game story reasons for executing him. Alignment is tricky as well sometimes, but I felt it was within reason for a goodly knight to consider evil demon-blooded creatures as not deserving of the rights and mercies afforded the humans and demi-humans.

Anyways, the OP's story reminded me of this so I thought I'd share.

[BillyBobShorton]

This sounds like what would happen if you played D&D with people you didn't know hundreds of miles apart from eachother and no real-time discussions as events unfold. Oh wait...

DM sounds green (no pun intended), Lizard Player sounds like one of those players who thinks their background is a freaking soapbox instead of just saying, "I'm an adventurer in D&D. Let's have fun."

IMO, when a DM pits deep character interests against one another on a level surpassing anything more than who sleeps with the barmaid, he's pretty much setting things up to suck hard for at least one person at the table.

Inter-party tension, secrets, lies, and conflict are all just stupidity in motion. And Newton's law says, an object in motion...

[mgshamster]

Funny thing is if the fighter had been rescued and just treatd well by the tribe, the lizard man tribe would be the only one of the three your party had no beef with.

I know, right! That was the first thing I thought of, and that's what I had expected the DM to do.


snip

I like your ideas, and I'm going to bring them to the DM as suggestions to try and make this work. Also, great story!

[Temperjoke]

Based on events on how you've presented them, the new player is at fault. I don't know that this is something that can be fixed either, if the new player isn't willing to shift his viewpoint either. He seems to have the idea that he's the main character, as opposed to everyone being equal characters. I mean, maybe if he listens to the DM and gets in sync with the group, but I suspect that he won't, especially since he's not being consistent with his own backstory. I mean, the lizardfolk were going to do something to his character that his character would object to, and he's still idolizing them.

Going by what you've shared, I'm pretty sure that the only thing to do is cut him out of the group. I mean, according to what you've said, he's already trying to emotionally blackmail the group into doing what he wants, and even if he comes around this time, it's going to happen again.

[Honest Tiefling]

Everyone, players and DM, have a joint obligation to create a cohesive story and a party that works. "My character would not do that" is bogus. You control your character, not the other way around. Find a way to justify it and roll.

I disagree. I think this is a perfectly find argument. For instance, I am assuming the Barbarian is NOT evil, and he is complaining that he wouldn't let his friends be captured and experimented on. I think it is perfectly fine for the Barbarian's player (hello) to say this. This approach also means the Barbarian is going to leap to the defense of his buddies, keeping the party together later.

There is a time for people to say 'well, I can change my character or interpret this situation in a way to make my character go along with it'. There is a time to say 'look, I'm a freaking paladin of justice, can we please not murder the children and eat them?'.

Compromise needs to go both ways, and favor party cohesion and adhere to what the campaign is supposed to be about. I don't really get the idea this was mean to be an evil campaign, so letting one of the party get experimented on is probably a no-no.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with Honest Tiefling, and that's part of why I shared a similar scenario. Because in that case I *was* essentially arguing "but my character wouldn't do that", and, as Tiefling explains, that is certainly a justifiable explanation for the choices our characters make. But it's all about context. We're trying to stay true to our characters, make the game make sense, and work together and compromise with each other. It's a delicate balance.

[2D8HP]

Based on events on how you've presented them, the new player is at fault....


The Fighter in the campaign described here, and my perspective is mostly the same as what mgshamster (hey Zanan!) described.

It was a comical conga line of railroading,

Me: "I kick the door to try and break free"

DM: "The door opens inward, take one HP of toe stub damage".
Me: Curses like Captain Haddock from the Tintin comics.

I was honestly expecting my PC to either be killed or effectively turned into a NPC, until the DM narrated the other PC's coming into the scene, and as far as I could tell everyone was role-playing in-character in ways that made sense given the situation the DM described, and the new player justly complained that given the situation he couldn't see an in-character motivation for his PC to join the party, at which point the Warlocks player suggested a way to de-escalate the conflict which the new player said was cowardly!!??

I was almost laughing at just how badly this was going, until the insult to the Warlock player, who seemed to be working the hardest to diffuse the situation. Until the insult I thought that the DM was more to blame for setting up the conflict, which he then tried to ret-con us out of, but given the insult at this point I don't see any in-character or out-of-character reason for my PC to trust the Lizard Witch PC.

Sad really.

[mgshamster]

For my part (the barbarian player), I was trying to stay true to my story - I had three native tribes that have all done wrong by me or my friends, and I've managed to get them to all fight each other so I can rescue my friends.

However, as a player, I'm also trying to work with the group and I've even changed my actions and we've retconned a scene to make it so I didn't attack the lizardfolk tribe directly.

The lizardfolk PC player, on the other hand, has done nothing to make his own PC join the group, and has done plenty in the way of trying to tell me how I should play my character so that it works best for his PC.

Anyways, I've given the GM two suggestions:

1) Retcon the story back to where the lizard tribe never imprisoned the fighter.

2) have the king of the lizard tribe (who just showed up on scene) offer the fighter a deal: help defend the tribe and you're free to go, no strings attached.

Both of those would give reason for the party to help the lizards and, if option 2 is taken, lead a path to mending relations.

However, even as things stand, I believe the current story is good enough for the lizard PC to join the party. All he has to say is, "I believe my people are wrong for how they treated someone I rescued, and I won't stay with them for that." And bam! He goes with the party and has somewhat of a tragic backstory.

[Dr.Samurai]

1) Retcon the story back to where the lizard tribe never imprisoned the fighter.

2) have the king of the lizard tribe (who just showed up on scene) offer the fighter a deal: help defend the tribe and you're free to go, no strings attached.

Both of those would give reason for the party to help the lizards and, if option 2 is taken, lead a path to mending relations.

However, even as things stand, I believe the current story is good enough for the lizard PC to join the party. All he has to say is, "I believe my people are wrong for how they treated someone I rescued, and I won't stay with them for that." And bam! He goes with the party and has somewhat of a tragic backstory.
I think all of these would work. But you do raise a good point. PCs are exceptional, and it would be perfectly in line with the expectations of a PC to have a different perspective than that of "his people" and choose a life adventuring rather than stay somewhere where he feels an outsider.

The in-game should be salvageable. But what of the out-game? :smallconfused:

[2D8HP]

....The in-game should be salvageable. But what of the out-game? :smallconfused:


Well my Fighter definitely has more reasons to be loyal to the Barbarian and the Warlock (both in and out of character).

Not so much anyone else yet though.

[Deleted]

Everyone, players and DM, have a joint obligation to create a cohesive story and a party that works. "My character would not do that" is bogus. You control your character, not the other way around. Find a way to justify it and roll.

Pretty much this.

Background/fluff is malleable, part of the fun is making it work with everyone else. Even if you don't find that fun, it makes the game work so much smoother.

For me, the very first thing one should do as a player, is figure out why your character would be part of the group. If you can't make a protagonist then you aren't playing a PC and that character goes into the NPC box.

This is where the backgrounds of 5e don't go far enough. There should have been a section that talks about the bond with the group. It would help foster the ideology that the players are not just individuals, but a team.

[gfishfunk]

There is a time for people to say 'well, I can change my character or interpret this situation in a way to make my character go along with it'. There is a time to say 'look, I'm a freaking paladin of justice, can we please not murder the children and eat them?'.

I respect your disagreement, but do note that I said everyone had that obligation. It's a group obligation. The paladin has an obligation not to shoot down anyone's approach for the sake of his valor and the Warlock has an obligation not to force a split due to eating murdered children.

[Sigreid]

I respect your disagreement, but do note that I said everyone had that obligation. It's a group obligation. The paladin has an obligation not to shoot down anyone's approach for the sake of his valor and the Warlock has an obligation not to force a split due to eating murdered children.

But if you don't eat the murdered children you're just wasteful and will make mother earth cry!

[Temperjoke]

But if you don't eat the murdered children you're just wasteful and will make mother earth cry!

What if we leave them for animals to eat?

[gfishfunk]

But if you don't eat the murdered children you're just wasteful and will make mother earth cry!

.....And that is how you get your Paladin and Druid to rationalize cannibalism.

Don't say I never shared the keys to running a good game, because this here is DMing gold.

[Segev]

But if you don't eat the murdered children you're just wasteful and will make mother earth cry!

Nonsense. The proper use for murdered children is small-sized zombies. OR tiny-sized, if they're Halfling or gnome children.

If they were murdered by a guardian's betrayal, of course, you want to go for a full create undead spell in order to make Slaymates.

[Sigreid]

Nonsense. The proper use for murdered children is small-sized zombies. OR tiny-sized, if they're Halfling or gnome children.

If they were murdered by a guardian's betrayal, of course, you want to go for a full create undead spell in order to make Slaymates.

Well, you just gave me an idea for an adventure. Revanent children seeking revenge on a town/orphanage for a cruel headmaster.

[2D8HP]

Well, you just gave me an idea for an adventure. Revanent children seeking revenge on a town/orphanage for a cruel headmaster.


See kids that's PROPER worldbuilding!

[Ninja_Prawn]

Nonsense. The proper use for murdered children is small-sized zombies. OR tiny-sized, if they're Halfling or gnome children.

You know, I happen to have a spell or two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481810-Low-Level-Necromancy) for that... :smallamused:

Shameless self-promotion, ho!

[Sicarius Victis]

I am the player of the Warlock in question, and my point of view - OoC, at least - is basically the same. The lizardfolk player is effectively demanding that the rest of the party all act out of character, just so that the lizardfolk player doesn't have to a) act out of character, or b) even slightly change their backstory.


Well my Fighter definitely has more reasons to be loyal to the Barbarian and the Warlock (both in and out of character).

Not so much anyone else yet though.

Really? What about the Mystic, or the Martyr?:smalltongue:



The in-game should be salvageable. But what of the out-game? :smallconfused:

You know, I'm really not sure.



I was honestly expecting my PC to either be killed or effectively turned into a NPC, until the DM narrated the other PC's coming into the scene, and as far as I could tell everyone was role-playing in-character in ways that made sense given the situation the DM described, and the new player justly complained that given the situation he couldn't see an in-character motivation for his PC to join the party, at which point the Warlocks player suggested a way to de-escalate the conflict which the new player said was cowardly!!??

I was almost laughing at just how badly this was going, until the insult to the Warlock player, who seemed to be working the hardest to diffuse the situation. Until the insult I thought that the DM was more to blame for setting up the conflict, which he then tried to ret-con us out of, but given the insult at this point I don't see any in-character or out-of-character reason for my PC to trust the Lizard Witch PC.

I must admit that at that insult I did have to laugh for a moment. It was both pathetic and ludicrous, and I honestly wasn't actually even slightly annoyed until the "I'm just not going to respond to someone determined to make a fight out of a disagreement of opinion for no reason" part.


I respect your disagreement, but do note that I said everyone had that obligation. It's a group obligation. The paladin has an obligation not to shoot down anyone's approach for the sake of his valor and the Warlock has an obligation not to force a split due to eating murdered children.

What are you talking about? We don't eat murdered children, that's barbaric! Besides, they taste better while they're still alive, anyways.

[Temperjoke]

Well, you just gave me an idea for an adventure. Revanent children seeking revenge on a town/orphanage for a cruel headmaster.

Nice idea, if you really want to mess with the players, you could make it so that the headmaster wasn't being intentionally cruel, but circumstances being forced upon him made him act cruel. Like, he didn't want to cut the kids' meals down to one bowl of gruel a day, but there wasn't enough money coming in to cover all the expenses. Or that the headmaster only maintained an illusion of prosperity when in public sight, while hiding his sickly and starving condition (because he was putting himself through worse in a poor attempt to help the kids). Which side will the players help? Who is the real enemy?

[Sigreid]

What are you talking about? We don't eat murdered children, that's barbaric! Besides, they taste better while they're still alive, anyways.

Besides, you can only be accused of eating babies so many times before you start wondering what they taste like.

[Honest Tiefling]

I respect your disagreement, but do note that I said everyone had that obligation. It's a group obligation. The paladin has an obligation not to shoot down anyone's approach for the sake of his valor and the Warlock has an obligation not to force a split due to eating murdered children.

Very true, but I hate it when people say you can't ever say 'this is really against my character concept', especially after a few sessions where retcons are a little harder. From what I gather, being chill with magical experiment thing is really against the fighter's character and might be a little had to retcon at this point. Also, people don't tend to like being experimented upon or captured. Kinda hard to rationalize that.

Sometimes you gotta compromise, sometimes, you gotta be the guy to ask for one.

[2D8HP]

...
Really? What about the Mystic, or the Martyr?:smalltongue: Totally loyal to the Mystic!

The Martyr?

I think the Martyr is off learning Orcish if you igday my riftday.

:wink:

[Zergrinch]

Mystic player here, and sad to say, I'm guessing the situation doesn't look like it's salvageable from an OOC perspective. It's the first real disagreement I have ever seen in my time here in the Giant in the Playground Forums, and I find it a bit sad, really.

[DracoKnight]

I think the Martyr is off learning Orcish if you igday my riftday.

:wink:

There's a story here, and I really wanna hear it now :smallbiggrin:

[mgshamster]

There's a story here, and I really wanna hear it now :smallbiggrin:

Lol. It ain't much. We made a deal with an orc tribe for our last mission. As a reward, they granted us passage through their lands and gave us a guide through the swamps.

During the huge railroading that went on (which the GM has since apologized for), that player abandoned the game without telling anyone and refuses to respond to emails. I know that player is still posting on forums, so they're physically OK. They were just fed up with the GM and left.

So now we're joking about the PC "off learning orcish" with some of them orc studs.

[2D8HP]

So now we're joking about the PC "off learning orcish" with some of them orc studs.


Well...

The PC did ask the Orcs about "language study", and seemed awfully keen on "respecting their culture" - say-no-more, and there was a fellow half elf with a 16 CHA standing right here!

Yep, deep into learnin' Orcish society if you-know-what-I-mean-not-that-I'm-insinuating-anything-perish-the-thought.

[Lindonius]

Lizard player is a douche but I'm also sensing a weak DM here. Allowing dodgy UA classes and giving a brand new player a flying broom are red flags for me. Also I can't tell what class the lizardman player is supposed to be. If it's homebrew than he just REEKS of "that guy" to me.

[War_lord]

Lizardmen aren't UA, they're a player race as of Volo's guide.

[djreynolds]

Tell everyone your wife is pregnant and is at the hospital in labor ready to deliver.... and join a new game

[Blacky the Blackball]

Well, stepping in to try to be a voice of reason and compromise...

The big issue here is that the fighter considers this tribe of lizardfolk to be "his people". That's the bit that strikes me as the sticking point for the whole thing, so let's explore that.

Firstly, is this particular tribe the one that the fighter is from? If so, then he has a good point about them being "his people" - but I'd be curious about the DM's motivations for having them hold him prisoner and magically experiment on him.

If these lizardfolk aren't the fighter's tribe, but are a different tribe of lizardfolk, then why are they "his people"? After all, if these were a bunch of humans that had imprisoned one of the PCs and were experimenting on them would a human PC refuse to allow them to be attacked because they were "his people"?

I expect not.

Human PCs fight human enemies all the time without it causing a problem, because the other humans they're fighting are not from their particular tribe/clan/family or faction - and this should be no different. Just because they happen to be the same race doesn't mean they can't be the enemy for other reasons. Particularly since lizardfolk are emotionless so they shouldn't have a special sentimentality for their own race. They co-operate with their own tribe because it's sensible to do in order to better survive, but - as pragmatists - a rival tribe of lizardfolk is no better or worse than a rival tribe of troglodytes or humans. They're competitors for resources that should be befriended, ignored, or fought depending on which is the most pragmatic and advantageous thing to do; without heed of their race.

If the fighter's player is happy to assume that because these aren't "his people", but are a different (rival?) tribe so they mean nothing to his character, the whole thing is solved.

Of course if they are the fighter's own tribe then he has every reason to want the party to help them. If that is the case then I'm not sure what can be done to salvage things because the DM has put the party in an impossible situation.

They have been given every reason to assume the fighter wants rescuing, but the fighter actually doesn't want this. Any in-character confusion (for example the other player character attacking the guard that's attacking the fighter) can be put down to just that - in-character confusion; and if the fighter wants to persuade the party to ally with the other lizardfolk instead of attacking them then that should also happen in-character - with no hard feelings to the other players for their characters' mistake because it wasn't their fault; the DM was the one that contrived the situation, not them. Instead of the fighter's player stopping the game to argue about it out of character, the fighter should be stepping forward to tell the other PCs in character not to attack the lizardfolk because it's been a misunderstanding.

[Herobizkit]

At first glance, this does seem like a in-game vs. out-of-game issue.

Out-of-game, there's at least a small amount of table etiquette that assumes that all the PCs are 'together' for one reason or another. In a beer n' pretzels style game, you're at the table, you're one of the gang, and off you go together for killing things and taking their stuff.

In-game, the lizardman PC (already a potential red flag - playing a monstrous PC) is on the side of the lizardman NPC's and said NPC's are in direct conflict with the other players. In-game, the lizardman PC hasn't done the "screen time" necessary to establish that he stands apart from the other lizardfolk and isn't an enemy. The in-game PC's also don't know the lizardman's background until said lizardman explains it to them "on-screen".

It just sounds like the lizardman player assumed that he was automatically part of the group because he's a PC, but the in-game activities didn't support his position and the players sided on the GAME portion to ascertain his group participation. In short, the PLAYERS shut him out of the co-op aspect of the game because of plot and continuity of their CHARACTERS' situation.

The solution is simple - the lizardman player can DO SOMETHING in-game to at least marginally flag the character as a potential ally. However, it sounds like the player's pride has been hurt as a result of what he thinks is a group snub.

Hopefully things will get better moving forward.

[caden_varn]

Well, stepping in to try to be a voice of reason and compromise...

The big issue here is that the fighter considers this tribe of lizardfolk to be "his people". That's the bit that strikes me as the sticking point for the whole thing, so let's explore that.

Firstly, is this particular tribe the one that the fighter is from? If so, then he has a good point about them being "his people" - but I'd be curious about the DM's motivations for having them hold him prisoner and magically experiment on him.


Lizardman & Fighter are not the same character, unless I have gotten VERY confused...

[2D8HP]

Lizardman & Fighter are not the same character, unless I have gotten VERY confused...


Your right.

The Fighter who was captured by the "Lizard Folk" (actually re-flavored Dragonborn), is a half-Elf, and the new player is a "Witch" (re-flavored Druid), so the "Lizard Witch", is a Dragonborn Druid.

Also the half-Elf Fighter is the most AWESOME! PC EVER (except for the Barbarian, Martyr, Mystic, and Warlock)

[mgshamster]

Some updates:

GM decided to step up and lay down the law (made me very proud).

I gave him some suggestions in private, and publicly told everyone that what we need to do is ensure everyone is going to metagame a little bit and roleplay a lot to ensure all our PCs are on our own side together.

I gave a suggestion to the lizardfolk PC player that his character may even consider what the tribe is doing to the fighter to be wrong, and that could be a reason the PC leaves the tribe and goes with the PC.

At this point the lizardfolk PC player went into a long tirade about how this is his character and I have no right dictating what his character should and should not do (while ignoring that this is *exactly* what he did to me the other night). He also complained about how not *everyone* else has been metagaming to make it work (specifically complaining that the fighter was still trying to escape imprisonment).

So publicly the GM steps in, tells everyone to calm down and please discuss this reasonably like adults. He then set up a series of questions for each person to answer, asking them their complaints and their opinion on how to fix it and then *he* would decide the correct course of action. (Yay! Go DM!)

During this event, he also said, "Guest characters are just that - guests. They can be made to disappear or they can become a permanent part of the party." If it's not obvious, this is in direct reference to the new player and the DMs way of saying, "You're not officially a part of the group yet, so tread lightly."

The new player went into another tirade about how he found it very insulting to be called a "guest." Yes, that's the same player who just the other night said, "it's not my fault you found that to be insulting."

I'm really surprised the DM didn't kick him out them and there.

However, I stepped in and said, "Look, were all enjoying this game. All of us want to play. So all of us should metagame a little and roleplay a lot to ensure our characters end up in the same party and on the same side. If you can do that, then rock on and let's game. If you can't do that, there's the door. Go find another game."

[Zergrinch]

Lizard player is a douche but I'm also sensing a weak DM here. Allowing dodgy UA classes and giving a brand new player a flying broom are red flags for me. Also I can't tell what class the lizardman player is supposed to be. If it's homebrew than he just REEKS of "that guy" to me.

I do believe he's a power gamer. I learned a trick - I never thought you could weaponize a broom of flying like that to replicate sneak attack.

His basic attack consists of hovering above an enemy's head, casting thorn whip (which pulls an enemy 10 feet closer - which is up in the air) and dropping said enemy down to the ground for sweet 1d6 + 1d6 + WIS mod damage.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

His basic attack consists of hovering above an enemy's head, casting thorn whip (which pulls an enemy 10 feet closer - which is up in the air) and dropping said enemy down to the ground for sweet 1d6 + 1d6 + WIS mod damage.

Hmm, my next character might have to be an Aaracockra Druid with Thorn Whip or a Winged Tiefling Sorc/Wiz/Lock with Lightning Lure now.

[Millstone85]

His basic attack consists of hovering above an enemy's head, casting thorn whip (which pulls an enemy 10 feet closer - which is up in the air) and dropping said enemy down to the ground for sweet 1d6 + 1d6 + WIS mod damage.Where does the modifier come from?

[Zergrinch]

Where does the modifier come from?

Upon rereading the description for thorn whip, I stand corrected. No wisdom modifiers added.

[Dr.Samurai]

Having just read the exchange (because I can't help myself) I'm wondering why it's assumed not wanting to escape imprisonment makes more sense. That part is baffling to me. Maybe it's worth reading the IC, because it doesn't make sense.

A PC that has been imprisoned has reason to try to escape, especially if he will be experimented on. And allies of that PC have reason to try and break him out. Especially in the chaos of a mass battle, it makes sense to try to sneak in and get your friend out.

That's not to remark on the trickiness of the situation that had been set up. Obviously, to get the lizardfolk PC to join you most easily, you would ideally ally with the lizardfolk and help them win the day. But that gets murky once the lizardfolk tribe *also* becomes antagonistic to the party, which they did when they took the fighter prisoner. I get the lizardfolk player complaining, because his character has loyalties to the tribe that aren't in question and seem normal (that's his tribe and he has no problems with his people).

But... I just feel I would have handled it differently. I'm not quite sure how to better put that.

[mgshamster]

Having just read the exchange (because I can't help myself) I'm wondering why it's assumed not wanting to escape imprisonment makes more sense. That part is baffling to me. Maybe it's worth reading the IC, because it doesn't make sense.

A PC that has been imprisoned has reason to try to escape, especially if he will be experimented on. And allies of that PC have reason to try and break him out. Especially in the chaos of a mass battle, it makes sense to try to sneak in and get your friend out.

I kept being told that this is not realistic. That in reality, this decision would have gotten me killed. That in real life, this is a really poor decision that would not work.

And the only logical decision is to work with the lizards; apparently, in reality, that's the only option that would lead to me staying alive. That is what my PC should be doing and anything else is just stupid.

If all this were real.

But don't I dare suggest to him what his character should or should not do, as my PC hasn't even met his PC yet.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, I saw all that. That's what's baffling me. I don't see where he's coming from. In reality, 90% of the adventuring attitude and lifestyle and choices would get you killed. That's a large part of being a PC in the game world. Not everyone can do it. Not everyone has the mindset for it and that's what sets them apart from NPCs. PCs take risks. They throw a wrench into the DM's plans. The OOC explanation for this is that they are being controlled by people playing a game, and adventuring is the name of the game, so to speak.

But no one plays the game to sit quietly in a jail cell, obeying your captors, hearing the sounds of battle outside, knowing your allies are out there, and choosing to do nothing more than exactly what you are told.

I mean... of course I have to make the caveat that someone might play that type of character.

Really I think what happened is the lizardfolk player had a vision of how things would pan out, and is taking it personally that it didn't go that way. And nailing himself to that cross is preventing him from seeing that none of the actions you guys took were malicious or out of character or unwarranted.

Good luck figuring this out!

[Sigreid]

And some of us play to live out our fantasy of fearlessly never doing as we're told.

[Segev]

You know, I happen to have a spell or two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481810-Low-Level-Necromancy) for that... :smallamused:

Shameless self-promotion, ho!

Those are beautiful. Are you seeing anybody? Would you like to discuss making little undead abominations together over dinner?


Serious question, though: does undead lieutenant take the undead you give him out of YOUR command pool or otherwise allow you to maintain control of them with JUST the casting of undead lieutenant, or is it merely giving the undead lieutenant a mind capable of giving orders on your behalf?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Serious question, though: does undead lieutenant take the undead you give him out of YOUR command pool or otherwise allow you to maintain control of them with JUST the casting of undead lieutenant, or is it merely giving the undead lieutenant a mind capable of giving orders on your behalf?

Sorry, darling. I'm not in the market for a partner right now.

The spell allows you to transfer undead you already control to the lieutenant, but (and I guess this isn't covered by what's written in the text) my intent is that you can't reassert control through the lieutenant. If your control would expire during the spell, they are unleashed at the end of it. If you somehow recruited a lieutenant that could cast Animate Dead in its own right, any undead it created would not be transferred to you; they are under the sole control of the lieutenant. That's my position.

[Hawkstar]

The action here is clear - Destroy all three tribes down to the last as a warning to all who'd screw with the party. The lizardman player can re-roll a character who isn't hostile to the party's interests.

[Sariel Vailo]

ya know i tink this rant is better than the one i had. but i digress ur lizardfolk is a hypocrite but fear not just kill him literally just be done with him ask the dm to talk to the player to understand whats going ona and if all else fails Ahem
MORTAL KOMBAT.
Good thing iwasnt youre fighter., id break out and do some kinky drow torure lots of it. to those who imprisoned me
insert aroused drow with a hot poker. or dagger or many other tools/whips

[Chaosmancer]

The lizard player is clearly one of those people who should follow their own advice.

However, i keep coming back to the DM trying to force magic experimentation on a character whose player clearly doesn't want it. That's kind of crappyy as well

[Grimjudgment]

Okay, so let's break it down.

The player is a lizardfolk who is mad at the party for fighting to save another party member. If you read anything in Volo's guide about lizardfolk, you'd be able to justify the character letting it happen.

1. Lizardfolk don't feel emotion. They only feel a sense of self preservation, and if a small group of people are strong enough than their entire tribe, then the group has the right to claim the tribe's life, and the character will now know that their group is strong enough to properly save their life of they were ever in danger.

2. Most lizardfolk are evil anyways.
There's almost no cases of good aligned lizardfolk because of the aforementioned lack of emotion and empathy.

Evil people have no qualms killing evil people because it benefits the individual in both social and economical ways.

Good people have no issues killing evil things because it is retribution for the victims.

Neutral people of the Lawful or Chaotic side will understand that with a party, they have agreed to be with this group through thick or thin, so any major threat needs to be removed.


Unless this player is playing an emotionless lizard race that actually somehow has emotions, there's no reason for them to ever pull the "My character wouldn't do that" card.


And hell, everyone does things that their character normally wouldn't do. Do you know how many paladins fall because they saw the BBEG and decide to show them no mercy, drawing out their death and putting them in the worst pain imaginable?

So what have we learned?
Don't be "That guy"

[mgshamster]

Okay, so let's break it down.

The player is a lizardfolk who is mad at the party for fighting to save another party member. If you read anything in Volo's guide about lizardfolk, you'd be able to justify the character letting it happen.

Truncating the rest of your post for space.

It's a good post and a good analysis, but it's missing one key factor. I would agree with everything you say *if* the anger/disagreement came from the PC in character, in game. But it didn't. It all came from the player out of character.

The lizardfolk PC isn't mad at the party. The lizardfolk PC hasn't even met the party yet.

The player is mad at that party, because he believes our actions will make it so when his PC does meet that party, he won't be able to join the party. He doesn't believe he'll be able to justify it in character.

The player's solution for fixing this is to have everyone else act against their own character so he doesn't have to.