PDA

View Full Version : Player Help I don't know how my character should react to what he sees as betrayal, help.



TheShatteredHow
2018-07-28, 08:50 PM
Sorry for the story, but I think it is fairly important to get an adequately informed opinion.

In my most recent session this morning, I was playing the half-drow older brother of my sister, who I raised nearly from birth (nearly 24 years). With how half-drow mature, she has the personality of an extremely optimistic 12-year-old. We spent the session fighting a massive raiding party of Thri-Kreen, during which nearly every party member was either dropped or nearly so. The thing is, at the beginning of the combat, the sister used a weapon on this sand-ship thing that blinded most of the group, with one at the end getting a nat 1 on the save, leaving him blinded literally the entire fight. Seeing how he didn't participate in the attack, the sister rolled a really high persuasion roll to befriend the guy. She then was allowed to roll a persuasion check on the party, rolling a 17, which led to literally everybody except my character being persuaded into keeping the dude along. My character, who had just seen a Psionic-powered Thri-Kreen nearly one-shot the sister earlier in combat pushed past her and executed the thing with a single blow. This left her crying, while the Druid grappled me in ape form, carried me to the sandship we were using, and tied me to the mast. This is where I was left off, and my character has an escape plan.

The issue is, I don't know how to react in character. See, I have the Personality Trait "If you do me an injury, I will crush you, ruin your name, and salt your fields." I'm not fully playing this out, at least I haven't had the need to respond to enough of an injury for my character to really do everything in his power to destroy somebody. At least, maybe not until now... The game has just begun, and my character isn't super trusting, leading me to think he may retaliate against him. I think it might be over the top to actually kill him, and I don't know even if my character would do that despite the trait (not even beginning on the fact that killing a party member is a **** move). I can't very well do that to my sister, ofc, and he feels extremely betrayed, angry, and hurt, but won't do anything to her. I just can't seem to determine a good response for when I escape. Any advice? My character is neutral, so not blood-craven nor is he entirely forgiving, if you couldn't tell... So yeah.

TL;DR

My character feels betrayed by his sister who, for protecting her against a creature he believed would try to kill them all in their sleep, let the Druid tie him up to the mast of this ship we're on. I can escape, but I don't know what sort of justified response there is that would be both in character and not violent, as that's both a **** move as well as in character likely something he could see as over the top (though I'm not positive). Also, he definitely won't just forgive and forget, but won't do anything at all to his sister besides verbal rebukes. Help?

(Posted this to Reddit, but no response... hopefully y'all can help?)

Koo Rehtorb
2018-07-28, 09:22 PM
You have to ask yourself what sort of game you want this to be. Anything that has enough teeth to be meaningful is going to be enough to tempt people into starting a war of retaliation that may destroy the party dynamic beyond repair. Personally, I wouldn't care at all. I will happily burn a group to the ground as many times as is needed until we get characters that can function together, and he's just as much to blame for this situation as you are. You need to keep in mind that this may come down to either letting this go, or both PCs not being able to work together any more, which may either lead to one of you leaving the party, or one of you dying. I'd do it, but that's just how I roll.

With all that said, cutting off someone's finger is a nice strong rebuke without being overly harmful to their ability to function in the future.

Kish
2018-07-28, 09:30 PM
Someone wrote an article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) that seems extremely applicable here.

Hooligan
2018-07-28, 09:34 PM
Couple questions:
1. After you knifed the bug-man, was there any conversation amongst the party, either IC or OOC? If so, what was said?

2. Why did the Druid feel the need to subdue & restrain you *after* you executed the bug?

3. Why had the bugs attacked the party? Does your group have a history with these creatures?

TheStranger
2018-07-28, 09:59 PM
Someone wrote an article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) that seems extremely applicable here.

Seconded. Read that article, and then reflect on the fact that in addition to pretending to be a paranoid and vengeful half-drow, you are, with no pretending, trying to play a game with your friends in which everybody has fun. Act accordingly.

RazorChain
2018-07-28, 10:47 PM
Stop being a murder hobo. Murder hoboism is a choice.

You just murdered a PoW in cold blood to the horror of your sister and your allies.

Now you are tied up as a war criminal and are contemplating murdering your allies

Clearly your character is a danger to society

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 12:10 AM
You have to ask yourself what sort of game you want this to be. Anything that has enough teeth to be meaningful is going to be enough to tempt people into starting a war of retaliation that may destroy the party dynamic beyond repair. Personally, I wouldn't care at all. I will happily burn a group to the ground as many times as is needed until we get characters that can function together, and he's just as much to blame for this situation as you are. You need to keep in mind that this may come down to either letting this go, or both PCs not being able to work together any more, which may either lead to one of you leaving the party, or one of you dying. I'd do it, but that's just how I roll.

With all that said, cutting off someone's finger is a nice strong rebuke without being overly harmful to their ability to function in the future.

Haha I'll keep the finger thing in mind, but I don't know how just burning the party to the ground would go with the story... may screw up the GM's stuff, but then again he is already inclined on ending the druid for minmaxing, so idk.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 12:13 AM
Someone wrote an article that seems extremely applicable here.


Seconded. Read that article, and then reflect on the fact that in addition to pretending to be a paranoid and vengeful half-drow, you are, with no pretending, trying to play a game with your friends in which everybody has fun. Act accordingly.

I'll check it out, thanks. To be fair, I'm not that good of friends with the druid's player (no that's not fueling anything in character, before you ask)
Plus, his character is heavily similar in the fact that he doesn't like being insulted, (and not similar in the fact that he picks fights for the sake of it... already expecting in party combat in the future tbh)
I'm not necessarily paranoid to be fair, but I guess vengeful probably works

EDIT: Just read
So what I'm wondering is, as I clarified in the reply to the other guys, exactly what to do. I didn't explain well, but I don't want to find an excuse to kill the other player, or say I have no choice. I'm just thinking it could be in character to do something that could be violent, but that'd likely spark to the death stuff with the druid, and may also be wayyy to far for my character. I'm considering maybe him just not thinking of the solution to break free until the last day? Or maybe just try to hide or something... If only we weren't stuck on this ship in the mid of the desert, cus literally there's nowhere for him to go or anything besides being in direct contact and presence of the party.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 12:40 AM
Couple questions:
1. After you knifed the bug-man, was there any conversation amongst the party, either IC or OOC? If so, what was said?

2. Why did the Druid feel the need to subdue & restrain you *after* you executed the bug?

3. Why had the bugs attacked the party? Does your group have a history with these creatures?
1. I didn't knife him, I slammed him with a warhammer and touch of death'd him into nothingness. Druid left immediately when game ended, which was immediately when I failed the grapple to not get taken by him to the mast. Therefore, IC, nothing. OOC, I spoke with the DM and the sister. DM was jokingly justifying it, but completely agreed with what i had to say. The sister's player was annoyed (though I don't know if she was joking or not, never really can tell if she's sarcastic or not) because she had rolled crap the entire game and I ruined her fantastic roll of the day by killing the dude. Other than that, not much I guess? Gonna ask what DM thinks of my plans or whatever when possible...

2. He couldn't do it before, as he was healing the Tortle monk who was downed. I don't really know if it's to restrain me after I did something bad as punishment, or to make sure I don't cause further harm, or what. As I said, he left immediately after, so :/

3. The bugs attacked because, from how the DM played / explained them, they just attacked people to eat them or take their stuff if I am correct. We have no history with them whatsoever.


Stop being a murder hobo. Murder hoboism is a choice.

You just murdered a PoW in cold blood to the horror of your sister and your allies.

Now you are tied up as a war criminal and are contemplating murdering your allies

Clearly your character is a danger to society


1 - I'm not being a murder hobo. Imagine this (we came up with an equivalent scenario after the game to compare kek)- A group of friends and one of their kid are walking when all the sudden these cars drive by with bloody and fiery skull insignias across their cars. These cars all turn to ram into us, succeeding in nearly killing us all, even hitting one of the friends and doing the equivalent of hospitalizing them. The group then somehow stops each one except for one, which the kid just told to stop. The kid is now about to run in front of the car, and the parent grabs the kid, trying to prevent them from getting hit. The kid then throws a hissy fit, and the friends all grab the parent and tie him to a tree.

The bugs were trying to eat us and attack us mercilessly, and so killing him before he could kill us all in our sleep made sense. He had no real reason to not turn on us given the chance, and these things had almost killed a close friend and his sister.

I am tied up cus my sister whom I raised from nearly birth betrayed me (in my character's eyes, though I almost agree ooc) and he is not contemplating killing them. That's 100% me out of character deciding my character's reaction. He wouldn't kill them, at least I don't think so, but I have no clue what he would do when he manages to get out in the middle of the night (I have a plan that should work well). That's why I need advice. Would he just wait for the morning to get attacked again? I just have no clue. The issue is, if any violence or insult is made against the druid, there's a danger that we get in a fight, and likely that's gonna cause a death. I'm so lost as to where to go next.

Hooligan
2018-07-29, 01:38 AM
He wouldn't kill them, at least I don't think so, but I have no clue what he would do when he manages to get out in the middle of the night (I have a plan that should work well). The issue is, if any violence or insult is made against the druid, there's a danger that we get in a fight, and likely that's gonna cause a death. I'm so lost as to where to go next.

Given what we know I don't think you are behaving like a murder hobo either. I can understand killing the bug as they had been trying to murder you and your companions just moments before - and who can say what sort of mischief it might work if you bring it along? There is no Geneva Convention in the stock D&D world; enemies are deadly and many will kill you if the can, and from what you tell us you had every reason to believe they were behaving in just such a fashion. I think the druid player's actions were uncalled for and hamfistedly spoiled what could have been an interesting RP moment for the party. I also think the bolded section of the quote could represent a mindset that can lead to very unpleasant and avoidable gaming moments, all justified by "playing the character".

What is this plan you think will work well? Did the Druid's player leave immediately because he was upset?

Honestly it is difficult to provide any advice as I feel your account of things might be missing some key info. Also I'm not sure how well the players know one another, how long you've played together, how comfortable people are with character conflict, etc as this can dictate what sorts of solutions they can tolerate/consider fun.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-07-29, 01:58 AM
The issue is, if any violence or insult is made against the druid, there's a danger that we get in a fight, and likely that's gonna cause a death.

It sounds like the first question you need to ask yourself is how much you care about this happening.

Calthropstu
2018-07-29, 02:07 AM
Obviously it's time to cast Tenser's Neutron Bomb.

paddyfool
2018-07-29, 02:09 AM
*"If you do me an injury, I will crush you, ruin your name, and salt your fields."

Nobody has actually done you an injury yet. Your sister has acted like a misguided child, and may need some lessons in the hard realities of the world; the druid has restrained you without listening to your point of view, but so far done you no actual harm. Both will need a stern talking to at the very least, and the druid had better untie you, but this needn't be party-wrecking.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 09:30 AM
Given what we know I don't think you are behaving like a murder hobo either. I can understand killing the bug as they had been trying to murder you and your companions just moments before - and who can say what sort of mischief it might work if you bring it along? There is no Geneva Convention in the stock D&D world; enemies are deadly and many will kill you if the can, and from what you tell us you had every reason to believe they were behaving in just such a fashion. I think the druid player's actions were uncalled for and hamfistedly spoiled what could have been an interesting RP moment for the party. I also think the bolded section of the quote could represent a mindset that can lead to very unpleasant and avoidable gaming moments, all justified by "playing the character".

What is this plan you think will work well? Did the Druid's player leave immediately because he was upset?

Honestly it is difficult to provide any advice as I feel your account of things might be missing some key info. Also I'm not sure how well the players know one another, how long you've played together, how comfortable people are with character conflict, etc as this can dictate what sorts of solutions they can tolerate/consider fun.
Sorry for the lack of info... Part of this is down to the fact that this was done at the very end of the session before people had to go, so we didn't have much time to flesh it out.

What I meant by the bold section wasn't to justify doing something terrible, just that I need to find something in character to do, especially since this was our second session. Everything, the party (only just met the druid in game), and playing my character (so I'm trying to think what would fit whilst also not being something ridiculous).
My plans are this - 1, because of backstory reasons and being a death cleric, my Noble Variant Knight Retainers feature thing are shades. I'm planning on calling one to cut me free with a knife from our equipment. 2, I may try spiritual weapon if the first doesn't work. 3, I may have a friend (the monk that was unconscious during the end of the encounter and therefore the persuasion roll that was failed by the druid and the captain of the ship) who could possibly untie me, depending on how his character would react.
I know the other players pretty well, but haven't played dnd with any except the monk before. I think the other dude is comfortable about it, as he's acting really cocky about how his character would go in a PvP situation and has also made his character ridiculously aggressive for whatever reason (either combat or argument wouldn't really matter which one I think he'd be fine with the conflict. I'm pretty sure the other players wouldn't care either. I just personally don't want a pvp situation that could lead to either of us dead, as that would be frustrating for me if I had to reroll after all the work I put in, and he'd probably be angry too (though he has already said he really likes another combo he wants to try and kinda wished he had done that but oh well he made this character, so... maybe?)

It sounds like the first question you need to ask yourself is how much you care about this happening.
Read the last part of above. Rather just not risk it, I think


Obviously it's time to cast Tenser's Neutron Bomb.
Sadly I don't get that at level 5... maybe come level 7?


Nobody has actually done you an injury yet. Your sister has acted like a misguided child, and may need some lessons in the hard realities of the world; the druid has restrained you without listening to your point of view, but so far done you no actual harm. Both will need a stern talking to at the very least, and the druid had better untie you, but this needn't be party-wrecking.

Well think about it as biting the hand that feeds you.
And has cared for you your entire life, and is the only reason you're alive
and also that you're biting the hand after they just saved you.
I would say that's a pretty intense kind of betrayal (as she is fine with and I would say possibly supporting me being tied up, though we didn't have the chance to actually roleplay the thing). I know I'm not actually going to cause her harm, especially as my character to never bring himself to do that in any way, though there's some part of me that thinks that if I don't do something in regards to how the druid grabbed me, struggling, to the ship, even if it's not necessarily in response to a huge injury, that I'm not really reacting how a character with that trait would act. I don't want to justify violence, just figure out a realistic response on what to do. Also, there's the real danger of how the Thri-Kreen's psionic buddy had a link to the tribe which is likely going to attack. Leaving me tied up I would say leaves me in quite a bit of actual harm. I don't think that a stern talking to matters to either the druid or his player. Firstly, he's playing his character without listening to my view because he rolled a 3 against an 18 persuasion roll to keep the thing alive (because hallelujah for dice rolls for persuading PC's, though it seems that we mostly did it because we had no time) and so is acting essentially like the thing was our best friend and what I did was horrid or whatever, despite the fact that in reality his character would have likely done the same. Secondly, the player doesn't really mind, and both he and his character are kinda d-bags that don't give too much of a crap about the other players. I doubt he'll care about a stern talking to, and I know that he, and have received confirmation from the sister's player, that they're not planning on letting me out any time soon, probably the rest of the journey.

Gnarbrag
2018-07-29, 09:31 AM
First of all, charisma is my dump stat and I have no ranks in diplomacy so pardon my bluntness.

To start off with the answer to your question: No, you're not being betrayed. In fact, you're the one betraying the group.

There's more to it than that because there's just so much wrong with what you typed here.
Let's start from the beginning:
The Drow girl disables and then befriends an enemy. I could see a chaotic neutral character do something like that.
The Drow girl rolls dice to convince the rest of party to go along with it. Really bad! Players should always be allowed to decide how their characters respond to role playing situations barring (magical) compulsion.
The entire group except 1 player accepts this. Bad situation. This should have been resolved in-game right away. Otherwise you risk conflict later on.
That one player decides to defy the rest of the group and murder an NPC. This is an act of evil and no DM should allow this unless you're running a campaign with an evil party. The DM should have informed you that you could not have your character do this. The fact that you went against the wishes of the rest of the party was an incredibly stupid move as not only caused it conflict in-game but probably also in real life. You put your own interests ahead of those of the group and the game suffers for it.
Another player character intervenes and restrains you and ties you to a mast. Given the extremely bad situation, this is a quite reasonable response. He prevented you from causing further harm and dissension without hurting you (other than your ego).
That player then leaves before further resolving this situation. Far from ideal but I sense a high level of disapproval which may have been building for many sessions.
You want to know how you get revenge on that player. Seriously??? Your character is a murderous psycho.

Also you have a very problematic trait which is basically a blank check to be selfish and unreasonable.


So what's the solution?
First you have to ask yourself if you still wish to play with this group.
If you do, you'll have to find a way to ruffle less feathers.
For starters, I recommend talking with your DM about trading in that trait for something less (potentially) disruptive
Another good option would be to rewind the situation and choose better responses. (you could rewind to a point before the battle, before the girl convinced the party or before you murdered the NPC)
Or you could retire your current character and introduce a new character who's a better team player

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 09:56 AM
First of all, charisma is my dump stat and I have no ranks in diplomacy so pardon my bluntness.

To start off with the answer to your question: No, you're not being betrayed. In fact, you're the one betraying the group.

There's more to it than that because there's just so much wrong with what you typed here.
Let's start from the beginning:
The Drow girl disables and then befriends an enemy. I could see a chaotic neutral character do something like that.
The Drow girl rolls dice to convince the rest of party to go along with it. Really bad! Players should always be allowed you decide how their characters respond to role playing situations barring (magical) compulsion.
The entire group except 1 player accepts this. Bad situation. This should have been resolved in-game right away. Otherwise you risk conflict later on.
That one player decides to defy the rest of the group and murder an NPC. This is an act of evil and no DM should allow this unless you're running a campaign with an evil party. The DM should have informed you that you could not have your character do this. The fact that you went against the wishes of the rest of the party was an incredibly stupid move as not only caused it conflict in-game but probably also in real life. You put your own interests ahead of those of the group and the game suffers from it.
Another player character intervenes and restrains you and ties you to a mast. Given the extremely bad situation, this a quite reasonable response. He prevented you from causing further harm and dissension without hurting you (other than your ego).
That player then leaves before further resolving this situation. Far from ideal but I sense a high level of disapproval which may have been building for many sessions.
You want to know how you get revenge on that player. Seriously??? Your character is a murderous psycho.

Also you have a very problematic trait which is basically a blank check to be selfish and unreasonable.


So what's the solution?
First you have to ask yourself if you still wish to play with this group.
If you do, you'll have to find a way to ruffle less feathers.
For starters, I recommend talking with your DM about trading in that trait for something less (potentially) disruptive
Another good option would be to rewind the situation and choose better responses. (you could rewind to a point before the battle, before the girl convinced the party or before you murdered the NPC)
Or you could retire your current character and introduce a new character who's a better team player


Ok, so you're saying that because the druid and the captain were somehow convinced to do something ridiculous that my character shouldn't murder a monster that was apart of the raiding party trying to eat us? And that the DM should say "yo how dare you disrespect the party by killing a monster with no reason to not betray you when nobody is looking! I FORBID YOU FROM DOING SO *lightning crackles, voice reverberates throughout the heavens* AS KILLING MONSTERS BECOMES AN EVIL ACT WHEN THE PARTY DOESN'T WANT YOU TOOOOOOOOOO! The sister's player doesn't really care a ton, more just that I ruined a good roll for convincing the thing to be her friend (though the DM specified this didn't translate to anybody else). I would've called the DM a bad one had he barred me from attacking it because 2 players in the party wanted it alive (b/c who cares about the unconscious monk who wouldn't or my character, making half the party). The other players are enjoying the situation, as am I besides the fact that we had to roll for persuasion instead of just doing it in game. Having the party come to blows about an issue doesn't seem like some horrible thing, especially as nobody else cares and likely would have done the same thing in my situation if they weren't persuaded or if they played a character other than an insanely optimistic 12-year-old. Nobody is angry about my actions, you are jumping to conclusions.

Also, the only reason the dude didn't hurt me was because we had to leave and so we didn't have time to do anything except me fail my grapple check, which we all just agreed would leave me tied to the mast. He literally said out of character that his dude would attack me if I tried to struggle out at all. Also, I wouldn't say attacking a monster is something that justifies tying me up. Literally the entire party had just done it with no mercy, and in the case of the druid, glee. Also no, there's no sense of disapproval from many sessions. This is literally the second, and this dude is infinitely more violent, attacking a woman because she cast some magic on some people (he didn't care about that), then when he told her to stop and tried to be in her way cus we told him to stop her (she had just threatened to do violent crap, but the druid gnome didn't know, so we just told him to get in the way of the door so she couldn't leave), she mockingly patted his head and called him short and weak. Literally she called him short and he responded by turning into an ape and starting the beat the crap out of her. There's no disapproval for my behavior over "many sessions," as this is the second, and we had reached our end time, which is why he leaved, not because some disgust for my RPing. You can sense what you want, but your assessment is grossly flawed. And no, I don't see how going "hm, how would my character react in this situation. He sees this as betrayal. It doesn't matter if you do, but he does. I don't think he'd go violent, nor would I really want him to, but what kind of response would he have? Would it be violent naturally? If so, then I better find a suitable alternative that would be less destructive. But hey, sitting around doing nothing while he waits to be discovered to have broken free doesn't seem to be something he'd or would make sense, especially since if I put this personality trait where it never manifests is like not having a consistent character, or much of one at all. He's just somebody doing something until the moment that I don't feel like playing him, even to a small degree." And dude, I'm being neither selfish nor unreasonable. How would you react if you had just been turned on after saving members of your party by your own sister and some random dude who grabbed you and forcibly tied you up. Would you just not care? It's not some blank check to get what I want. That's why I'm asking, or else I'd just break out and mess people up without giving two craps about a solution that doesn't mess with the in-game party. And seriously dude, don't talk about my character not being the team player. Literally OOC the druid has said he would react violently if we challenged him in any way shape or form. My character is super supportive of the rest of the party, and has aided the druid on multiple occasions despite us only playing for two sessions. I'm sorry, but what you seem to think is happening in the party is grossly incorrect and isn't really representative of any of the interactions between our characters.

EDIT: Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the druid's personality trait is "takes too long to choose **** it he likes fighting" and his ideals include "honour through bloodshed"

TheStranger
2018-07-29, 10:08 AM
EDIT: Just read
So what I'm wondering is, as I clarified in the reply to the other guys, exactly what to do. I didn't explain well, but I don't want to find an excuse to kill the other player, or say I have no choice. I'm just thinking it could be in character to do something that could be violent, but that'd likely spark to the death stuff with the druid, and may also be wayyy to far for my character. I'm considering maybe him just not thinking of the solution to break free until the last day? Or maybe just try to hide or something... If only we weren't stuck on this ship in the mid of the desert, cus literally there's nowhere for him to go or anything besides being in direct contact and presence of the party.
I think you missed the point of that article, which was that you, the player, control the character. If you, the player, want to avoid burning the party down, your character acts accordingly. Whatever you do then becomes part of your character. There's no such thing as what your character "would" or "should" do, just what you decide he does.

Some groups are fine with inter-party conflict. If you're in one of those groups, go nuts. But in most groups, stabbing the druid in his sleep would be considered inappropriate. So don't do that. One option is to just... back down. Acknowledge that you're part of the group, and that it's probably rude to kill people when the group wants them alive. You don't need to change your opinion that taking the prisoner was suicidally dumb, just recognize that the decision wasn't solely yours to make and choose to act as part of the group. Call it the Belkar Bitterleaf theory of character development - you don't need to change, but you do need to be civil enough that the party keeps you around.

That may not be 100% the most likely thing your character would do based on his established traits, but that's fine. Roleplaying in a group isn't an exercise in "how would my character act," it's "how do I want my character to act." Whatever you do becomes part of your character's evolving personality - your character is not defined forever by what you wrote before the campaign started, he's the sum of all the decisions you make during play as well.

And if you really feel like you've created a character that is completely incapably of being part of a group in a productive way, I seriously suggest abandoning that character. He escapes overboard at night by fiat, and your new character shows up when the party gets to town. If you want, offer the character sheet to your GM for use as a minor villain when he inevitably comes for revenge.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 10:25 AM
I think you missed the point of that article, which was that you, the player, control the character. If you, the player, want to avoid burning the party down, your character acts accordingly. Whatever you do then becomes part of your character. There's no such thing as what your character "would" or "should" do, just what you decide he does.

Some groups are fine with inter-party conflict. If you're in one of those groups, go nuts. But in most groups, stabbing the druid in his sleep would be considered inappropriate. So don't do that. One option is to just... back down. Acknowledge that you're part of the group, and that it's probably rude to kill people when the group wants them alive. You don't need to change your opinion that taking the prisoner was suicidally dumb, just recognize that the decision wasn't solely yours to make and choose to act as part of the group. Call it the Belkar Bitterleaf theory of character development - you don't need to change, but you do need to be civil enough that the party keeps you around.

That may not be 100% the most likely thing your character would do based on his established traits, but that's fine. Roleplaying in a group isn't an exercise in "how would my character act," it's "how do I want my character to act." Whatever you do becomes part of your character's evolving personality - your character is not defined forever by what you wrote before the campaign started, he's the sum of all the decisions you make during play as well.

And if you really feel like you've created a character that is completely incapably of being part of a group in a productive way, I seriously suggest abandoning that character. He escapes overboard at night by fiat, and your new character shows up when the party gets to town. If you want, offer the character sheet to your GM for use as a minor villain when he inevitably comes for revenge.

I really think my main post was taken incorrectly or I didn't explain myself well.

i don't think that he would be violent. I'm not sure, and I wanted some advice as to what to do. Not why I shouldn't attack the druid in his sleep. No dip. I never said I would. I want to know what an alternative would be. I don't really need a lecture on why my character shouldn't kill my party members. I understand how I control my character, and that he's not independent 100%. I just need to know what alternatives there are. I just would've liked more responses like the last paragraph for alternatives to the situation. That's all I was really looking for.

I can't escape overboard at night; I'd be left stranded in the desert with more bug people that the ship avoids by being faster than them
I don't want him to be a villain. Hell, I'm getting really tired of explaining he's not just trying to turn on and slaughter the party. I get I'm not explaining it well, but jeez guys. I don't want some violent vengeance. But I can't think of something else. I'm expecting him to escape, but what about afterwards? Is he to just sit on his ass, likely to be attacked in the morning by his party? He can't talk to the druid, he'd just wake everybody up and probs attack me, and any sort of argument with his character would likely lead to combat because of how he set his thing up. That's my main point of fear when it comes to violence here. It's not as much I'm afraid my character would shank somebody, but even just a bit of an argument with the druid could cause combat. All I wanted was help determining a good reaction and one that wouldn't lead to combat, as I think I stated or tried to state in the opening paragraph. My post title was "I don't know how my character should react" not "I need a way to justify killing my companions in their sleep." I offered my worry that maybe violence could be something he would resort to, but I doubt it, but what other alternative is there, especially one that wouldn't lead to the druid attacking me if he sees me awake. Please, stop lecturing me on how bad a player I am or how I don't understand how I'm in control of the character, not vice versa. I know I am, and I don't think my character is inherently impossible to work with. For literally everybody else in the party he has no chance of doing anything at all to, just the druid who just forcibly grabbed him and tied him up for helping defend the party in his eyes. And he's not even immediately trying to attack him, unlike the ****ing druid who did threaten to attack him if he tried to struggle. I'm not some psychopath trying to justify attacking the party. Stop acting like I am, please.

comk59
2018-07-29, 10:31 AM
Yeah, I have to side with your party on this one. Capturing monsters that have tried to kill you is a fairly common D&D trope, and killing the monster without the rest of the party being okay with it was sort of a **** move. You could've insisted that the monster was kept under watch, or tied up at night, or both! There were many solutions to this situation, and you chose the one that caused conflict both in and out of game. Your character might be selfish and shortsighted, but you should probably know better.

TheStranger
2018-07-29, 10:56 AM
I really think my main post was taken incorrectly or I didn't explain myself well.

i don't think that he would be violent. I'm not sure, and I wanted some advice as to what to do. Not why I shouldn't attack the druid in his sleep. No dip. I never said I would. I want to know what an alternative would be. I don't really need a lecture on why my character shouldn't kill my party members. I understand how I control my character, and that he's not independent 100%. I just need to know what alternatives there are. I just would've liked more responses like the last paragraph for alternatives to the situation. That's all I was really looking for.

I can't escape overboard at night; I'd be left stranded in the desert with more bug people that the ship avoids by being faster than them
I don't want him to be a villain. Hell, I'm getting really tired of explaining he's not just trying to turn on and slaughter the party. I get I'm not explaining it well, but jeez guys. I don't want some violent vengeance. But I can't think of something else. I'm expecting him to escape, but what about afterwards? Is he to just sit on his ass, likely to be attacked in the morning by his party? He can't talk to the druid, he'd just wake everybody up and probs attack me, and any sort of argument with his character would likely lead to combat because of how he set his thing up. That's my main point of fear when it comes to violence here. It's not as much I'm afraid my character would shank somebody, but even just a bit of an argument with the druid could cause combat. All I wanted was help determining a good reaction and one that wouldn't lead to combat, as I think I stated or tried to state in the opening paragraph. My post title was "I don't know how my character should react" not "I need a way to justify killing my companions in their sleep." I offered my worry that maybe violence could be something he would resort to, but I doubt it, but what other alternative is there, especially one that wouldn't lead to the druid attacking me if he sees me awake. Please, stop lecturing me on how bad a player I am or how I don't understand how I'm in control of the character, not vice versa. I know I am, and I don't think my character is inherently impossible to work with. For literally everybody else in the party he has no chance of doing anything at all to, just the druid who just forcibly grabbed him and tied him up for helping defend the party in his eyes. And he's not even immediately trying to attack him, unlike the ****ing druid who did threaten to attack him if he tried to struggle. I'm not some psychopath trying to justify attacking the party. Stop acting like I am, please.

Fair enough. But I think the reason you're getting the type of response you're getting is comments like "I'm expecting him to escape." If you don't want him to escape, don't escape. Likewise with confronting the druid - if you don't want to pick a fight with the druid, your character doesn't do that. You seem to have established a very small universe of "things my character would do," and you're asking for solutions that fall within the parameters you've already decided on. I'm encouraging you to let go of that and decide that what your character "would" do just happens to include whatever solution you choose.

I've made my suggestion - just back down and admit that you were wrong to make a unilateral decision to kill the prisoner in defiance of the party, even though you still think it was the right decision. I'm saying that in large part because it's my actual opinion on the situation, and it's easy enough to roleplay your character coming to that conclusion once he calms down.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 11:05 AM
Yeah, I have to side with your party on this one. Capturing monsters that have tried to kill you is a fairly common D&D trope, and killing the monster without the rest of the party being okay with it was sort of a **** move. You could've insisted that the monster was kept under watch, or tied up at night, or both! There were many solutions to this situation, and you chose the one that caused conflict both in and out of game. Your character might be selfish and shortsighted, but you should probably know better.

She was neither going to tie it up nor could we make sure it wouldn't betray us during a fight. The monster wasn't able to speak with us or to help us in any way, and as I said they almost killed me, a close friend, and my sister. Only two of my three companions didn't want me to, and one of the two because of an extremely out of character moment due to a successful persuasion check. So half the party, and you could argue 3/4 had the dice roll not been enforced wanted the creature dead. The DM agreed that my choice was the most logical, and that there was no real way that the creature wouldn't help psionic monsters of the tribe to help track us down, or for him to turn on us whenever given the chance. The party wasn't unanimous or even in the majority. So I wasn't acting against the party. In fact if the persuasion roll wasn't enforced regardless of characters, the sister would be acting against the party. None of the players think I acted irrationally or is angry. We all think it's an interesting RP opportunity. We all are still having fun, and it might be a **** move to you, but for the players (not the characters, the players) don't think it was anything bad.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 11:26 AM
Fair enough. But I think the reason you're getting the type of response you're getting is comments like "I'm expecting him to escape." If you don't want him to escape, don't escape. Likewise with confronting the druid - if you don't want to pick a fight with the druid, your character doesn't do that. You seem to have established a very small universe of "things my character would do," and you're asking for solutions that fall within the parameters you've already decided on. I'm encouraging you to let go of that and decide that what your character "would" do just happens to include whatever solution you choose.

I've made my suggestion - just back down and admit that you were wrong to make a unilateral decision to kill the prisoner in defiance of the party, even though you still think it was the right decision. I'm saying that in large part because it's my actual opinion on the situation, and it's easy enough to roleplay your character coming to that conclusion once he calms down.

Ok, thanks. I'll consider this

HMS Invincible
2018-07-29, 11:33 AM
Ok, thanks. I'll consider this

Try this one. Wag your finger at the party, and be the Cassandra. Warn them about how that dude was gonna betray them, and it'll happen if they come across them again. But, you also promise to let the party capture the next one, against your advice.

Then separately with the DM, ask them if you can make any contingency plans when the inevitable betrayal from their befriended bad guy happens. You did something, they know about it, and the party stays together.

TheStranger
2018-07-29, 11:39 AM
...an extremely out of character moment due to a successful persuasion check.
Ugh. This is a little off topic, but persuasion checks against party members are bad juju unless you've all agreed OOC that it's acceptable and you'll roleplay the results. I mean, you wouldn't cast Dominate Person on a party member, right? So why is it okay to use a different mechanical effect to make a party member do what you want?

If you *have* agreed that persuasion checks are okay and that you'll roleplay the results, then whatever a party member convinced you to do isn't out of character at all. You weren't inclined to do it initially, but they made a good argument that convinced you.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 11:53 AM
Ugh. This is a little off topic, but persuasion checks against party members are bad juju unless you've all agreed OOC that it's acceptable and you'll roleplay the results. I mean, you wouldn't cast Dominate Person on a party member, right? So why is it okay to use a different mechanical effect to make a party member do what you want?

If you *have* agreed that persuasion checks are okay and that you'll roleplay the results, then whatever a party member convinced you to do isn't out of character at all. You weren't inclined to do it initially, but they made a good argument that convinced you.

Exactly my thoughts. In fact, if my character is being forced mechanically, Id prefer it be magical so it justifies completely out of character actions within the game itself. I have not agreed OOC, and was extremely surprised when the DM enforced it (luckily, even if you think I did something stupid or jackass at least I succeeded in the roll, so I wasn't mechanically forced to think a certain way). We talked about it after the session, and it sounds like in the world (some weird dimension with something going on that our characters have not figured out yet) it. Could technically be justified for the persuasion check to work, though I don't really know how that would work. either way. the DM agreed to go ahead and RP most of the time, unless we are in a hurry or something

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 12:30 PM
Try this one. Wag your finger at the party, and be the Cassandra. Warn them about how that dude was gonna betray them, and it'll happen if they come across them again. But, you also promise to let the party capture the next one, against your advice.

Then separately with the DM, ask them if you can make any contingency plans when the inevitable betrayal from their befriended bad guy happens. You did something, they know about it, and the party stays together.

Lol that might work. I think I'll see how the PCs act at the beginning of the next session and go from there. This is p good tho

KillianHawkeye
2018-07-29, 01:29 PM
Time for some Parenting 101.

Tell your little sister that if she wants a pet, she can't just go around picking up whatever creatures happen to be around like that. They're wild and probably have diseases. Instead, if she's good, you can get her a nice, friendly halfling the next time you're in town.

Hooligan
2018-07-29, 03:43 PM
First of all, charisma is my dump stat and I have no ranks in diplomacy so pardon my bluntness.

To start off with the answer to your question: No, you're not being betrayed. In fact, you're the one betraying the group.

There's more to it than that because there's just so much wrong with what you typed here.
Let's start from the beginning:
The Drow girl disables and then befriends an enemy. I could see a chaotic neutral character do something like that.
The Drow girl rolls dice to convince the rest of party to go along with it. Really bad! Players should always be allowed to decide how their characters respond to role playing situations barring (magical) compulsion.
The entire group except 1 player accepts this. Bad situation. This should have been resolved in-game right away. Otherwise you risk conflict later on.
That one player decides to defy the rest of the group and murder an NPC. This is an act of evil and no DM should allow this unless you're running a campaign with an evil party. The DM should have informed you that you could not have your character do this. The fact that you went against the wishes of the rest of the party was an incredibly stupid move as not only caused it conflict in-game but probably also in real life. You put your own interests ahead of those of the group and the game suffers for it.
Another player character intervenes and restrains you and ties you to a mast. Given the extremely bad situation, this is a quite reasonable response. He prevented you from causing further harm and dissension without hurting you (other than your ego).
That player then leaves before further resolving this situation. Far from ideal but I sense a high level of disapproval which may have been building for many sessions.
You want to know how you get revenge on that player. Seriously??? Your character is a murderous psycho.

Also you have a very problematic trait which is basically a blank check to be selfish and unreasonable.

This is bull****. Rigid, judgmental nonsense. I do not pardon you. Charisma dumped or no, you come across as sanctimonious and clumsy with this post.

If the OP's account is accurate this situation was FUBAR for a number of reasons:
1. IF anyone can be called selfish, it is the sister character, whose foolhardy and naive decision to attempt to befriend a deadly enemy of unknown motive and character put the party in this position.

2. The DM's handling of the sister's actions, namely calling for persuasion vs pcs. Unless there has been prior agreement, this is a sloppy, antagonistic way to play and no player should feel obligated to go along with those dice rolls. So sloppy.

3. The druid using force against another party member after the bug was killed. Unless something crucial happened that we haven't been told about, this action makes no sense! The bug is already dead! Who does the druid imagine he is protecting? And if he thinks he is carrying out some sort of justice, what possibly gives him the authority to do such a thing? I think this is far more inflammatory behavior than any responses the OP has proposed

hamishspence
2018-07-29, 03:58 PM
If someone has "amazingly powerful befriending power" - it makes sense for them to use these powers on their enemies.

And slaughtering an enemy who has "been befriended" instantly afterwards, is, even from a pragmatic point of view, a bad call - they could have been made use of first, questioned (via magic, via improvised sign language, etc), and so forth.

Using violence against the rest of the group's wishes - is bound to provoke a reaction.

TheStranger
2018-07-29, 06:05 PM
Using violence against the rest of the group's wishes - is bound to provoke a reaction.

This, IMO, is the only part that particularly matters. It doesn't matter whether killing the befriended bug man was wise, foolish, good, evil, or anywhere in between. The problem was going against the decision made by the group. Stripping away some of the details, here's the sequence of events as I see it:

1) The party defeats a group of enemies, killing all of them except for one who surrenders.
2) The characters debate what to do with their prisoner.
3) In the course of that debate, one PC uses game mechanics to influence the other PCs.
4) The group apparently hasn't agreed beforehand that this is okay.
5) After another debate, the group apparently decides to roll with it for now.
6) The group then decides to take the prisoner with them without restraining him.
7) OP, being on the losing side of that debate, says "no" and kills the prisoner.
8) The rest of the group says "dude, not cool" and restrains OP.

There are some groups where all of that is 100% fine. IC disagreement happens, everybody roleplays it out, and the campaign goes on. If that's the case here, great. OP's character is a bit of a jerk, and OP kind of roleplayed himself into a corner. Now he has a plan for how he'll roleplay his way out, problem solved. If IC conflict isn't the norm for this group, then it's easy to see why they were upset with OP - he's the one who decided that his judgment trumped theirs.

I'm uncomfortable with the inter-party use of persuasion without a prior discussion, but it sounds like there was an ad hoc decision to keep things moving and then a follow-up discussion, which is all you can ask for. It's understandable for OP to not be thrilled about another player using persuasion on him, and I agree that the player who did that was out of line, but once the group makes a decision on how to resolve that, that's the rule for the time being.

denthor
2018-07-29, 07:27 PM
Betrayal?

Sister charms someone.

Then your party betrays you for your sister?

Your a DROW. Get over it, in drow society be a male means you are a quarter step above an orc slave. She is in charge. You should thank your sister for not having executed your rightful leader and better.

You are slime filth and worthless male. Beg your sister forgiveness for your traitorous ways.


Seriously dude role play being a drow. Women rule you expect them to betray you at all time except and protect her.

icefractal
2018-07-29, 07:58 PM
I don't think tying up someone who just unilaterally decided to slay someone the group considers a non-enemy is at all out of line. Frankly, a lot of groups would kick someone out (at sword-point) or treat them as an enemy for that, and if they didn't it would only be because of the meta-game factor of the offending party being a PC.

I mean, imagine this scenario:
* Instead of the party fighting the Thri-Kreen, they meet a peaceful group and one comes along as a guide, for a share of the profits. Effectively a party member.
* Later, the party meets an elf. Most of the members want to join forces, but the Thri-Kreen kills and eats the elf instead.
* Does the party say "Oh well, too late to stop it, so I guess that's fine," or do they take action against the Thri-Kreen?

That doesn't mean you have to go along with whatever the party says. Raising your concerns about the Thri-Kreen, demanding that precautions be taken, even refusing to travel along with it (although that could potentially result in your character leaving the group) are all reasonable courses of action. Unilaterally killing it isn't; it's saying that "I know better than anyone else, so what the rest of you think means nothing."

Also, regarding the dynamic with your sister -
You're siblings, not parent and child. I know that sometimes older/younger siblings can have that kind of dynamic, and that's fine if both players are on board with it, but you should make sure - is the other player actually ok with having the reduced autonomy of a child? Does she see the relationship the same way, or did she expect to be treated as capable of making her own decisions?

RazorChain
2018-07-29, 09:40 PM
I don't think tying up someone who just unilaterally decided to slay someone the group considers a non-enemy is at all out of line. Frankly, a lot of groups would kick someone out (at sword-point) or treat them as an enemy for that, and if they didn't it would only be because of the meta-game factor of the offending party being a PC.

I mean, imagine this scenario:
* Instead of the party fighting the Thri-Kreen, they meet a peaceful group and one comes along as a guide, for a share of the profits. Effectively a party member.
* Later, the party meets an elf. Most of the members want to join forces, but the Thri-Kreen kills and eats the elf instead.
* Does the party say "Oh well, too late to stop it, so I guess that's fine," or do they take action against the Thri-Kreen?

That doesn't mean you have to go along with whatever the party says. Raising your concerns about the Thri-Kreen, demanding that precautions be taken, even refusing to travel along with it (although that could potentially result in your character leaving the group) are all reasonable courses of action. Unilaterally killing it isn't; it's saying that "I know better than anyone else, so what the rest of you think means nothing."

Also, regarding the dynamic with your sister -
You're siblings, not parent and child. I know that sometimes older/younger siblings can have that kind of dynamic, and that's fine if both players are on board with it, but you should make sure - is the other player actually ok with having the reduced autonomy of a child? Does she see the relationship the same way, or did she expect to be treated as capable of making her own decisions?


Good post, then there is also the emotional aspect of this all. The sister was thrilled, according to the OP, to persuade the Thri-Kreen and he decided to take a dump on her fun that left her almost in tears.

Sure, the pragmatic way of gaming is killing all your enemies and take their stuff and add to your own. Then you kill their kin so they can't take revenge. Kill those who might betray you, just to be on the safe side. Then you kill everybody that has better stuff than you if you can easily avoid the repercussions. If the bad guy surrenders, then kill him because else he'll come back in later adventures.

Maybe the rest of the party doesn't want to play that game? Maybe they want to play the game how they befriended an enemy who came a valuable ally?

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 09:54 PM
Time for some Parenting 101.

Tell your little sister that if she wants a pet, she can't just go around picking up whatever creatures happen to be around like that. They're wild and probably have diseases. Instead, if she's good, you can get her a nice, friendly halfling the next time you're in town.

Hahaha, yes. Just get the halfling and she'll be like "I'm naming you Jeffrey!" And then Jeffrey would be so confused


This is bull****. Rigid, judgmental nonsense. I do not pardon you. Charisma dumped or no, you come across as sanctimonious and clumsy with this post.

If the OP's account is accurate this situation was FUBAR for a number of reasons:
1. IF anyone can be called selfish, it is the sister character, whose foolhardy and naive decision to attempt to befriend a deadly enemy of unknown motive and character put the party in this position.

2. The DM's handling of the sister's actions, namely calling for persuasion vs pcs. Unless there has been prior agreement, this is a sloppy, antagonistic way to play and no player should feel obligated to go along with those dice rolls. So sloppy.

3. The druid using force against another party member after the bug was killed. Unless something crucial happened that we haven't been told about, this action makes no sense! The bug is already dead! Who does the druid imagine he is protecting? And if he thinks he is carrying out some sort of justice, what possibly gives him the authority to do such a thing? I think this is far more inflammatory behavior than any responses the OP has proposed
I honestly agree with this post (although I'm biased ofc), this is most how I see the situation from my point of view.

If someone has "amazingly powerful befriending power" - it makes sense for them to use these powers on their enemies.

And slaughtering an enemy who has "been befriended" instantly afterwards, is, even from a pragmatic point of view, a bad call - they could have been made use of first, questioned (via magic, via improvised sign language, etc), and so forth.

Using violence against the rest of the group's wishes - is bound to provoke a reaction.

Fairly certain she just lucky rolled a nat20, not because she has some special ability. We have no way to guarantee that it won't turn later on the rest of the party, in fact the dm specified it was only in regards to the sister. There was no way to communicate, as we didn't share languages, and I don't think I have comprehend languages. Plus, I don't need to know why my party turned on me, but either way my character sees this as betrayal, one against justified action.


This, IMO, is the only part that particularly matters. It doesn't matter whether killing the befriended bug man was wise, foolish, good, evil, or anywhere in between. The problem was going against the decision made by the group. Stripping away some of the details, here's the sequence of events as I see it:

1) The party defeats a group of enemies, killing all of them except for one who surrenders.
2) The characters debate what to do with their prisoner.
3) In the course of that debate, one PC uses game mechanics to influence the other PCs.
4) The group apparently hasn't agreed beforehand that this is okay.
5) After another debate, the group apparently decides to roll with it for now.
6) The group then decides to take the prisoner with them without restraining him.
7) OP, being on the losing side of that debate, says "no" and kills the prisoner.
8) The rest of the group says "dude, not cool" and restrains OP.

There are some groups where all of that is 100% fine. IC disagreement happens, everybody roleplays it out, and the campaign goes on. If that's the case here, great. OP's character is a bit of a jerk, and OP kind of roleplayed himself into a corner. Now he has a plan for how he'll roleplay his way out, problem solved. If IC conflict isn't the norm for this group, then it's easy to see why they were upset with OP - he's the one who decided that his judgment trumped theirs.

I'm uncomfortable with the inter-party use of persuasion without a prior discussion, but it sounds like there was an ad hoc decision to keep things moving and then a follow-up discussion, which is all you can ask for. It's understandable for OP to not be thrilled about another player using persuasion on him, and I agree that the player who did that was out of line, but once the group makes a decision on how to resolve that, that's the rule for the time being.
I appreciate that it was the choice of the time, but honestly it's what the unconscious player who wasn't persuaded with the roll would've wanted, making it a half and half thing. And yes, it was ic only (besides the roll which we worked out.)


Betrayal?

Sister charms someone.

Then your party betrays you for your sister?

Your a DROW. Get over it, in drow society be a male means you are a quarter step above an orc slave. She is in charge. You should thank your sister for not having executed your rightful leader and better.

You are slime filth and worthless male. Beg your sister forgiveness for your traitorous ways.


Seriously dude role play being a drow. Women rule you expect them to betray you at all time except and protect her.
You don't really understand the situation TBH. I have raised this one for 23 years or so, longer than she has had sentience, the entire time away from drow society. Nobody else in the party is a drow, and we haven't been in the Underdark or anywhere near another drow for nearly two and a half decades. While I'd agree if everybody cared or if anybody in the party even knew besides me, that's not the case. Don't criticize me playing my character with no understanding of the backstory of anything that has happened (much of which justifies this relationship in this way).


I don't think tying up someone who just unilaterally decided to slay someone the group considers a non-enemy is at all out of line. Frankly, a lot of groups would kick someone out (at sword-point) or treat them as an enemy for that, and if they didn't it would only be because of the meta-game factor of the offending party being a PC.

I mean, imagine this scenario:
* Instead of the party fighting the Thri-Kreen, they meet a peaceful group and one comes along as a guide, for a share of the profits. Effectively a party member.
* Later, the party meets an elf. Most of the members want to join forces, but the Thri-Kreen kills and eats the elf instead.
* Does the party say "Oh well, too late to stop it, so I guess that's fine," or do they take action against the Thri-Kreen?

That doesn't mean you have to go along with whatever the party says. Raising your concerns about the Thri-Kreen, demanding that precautions be taken, even refusing to travel along with it (although that could potentially result in your character leaving the group) are all reasonable courses of action. Unilaterally killing it isn't; it's saying that "I know better than anyone else, so what the rest of you think means nothing."

Also, regarding the dynamic with your sister -
You're siblings, not parent and child. I know that sometimes older/younger siblings can have that kind of dynamic, and that's fine if both players are on board with it, but you should make sure - is the other player actually ok with having the reduced autonomy of a child? Does she see the relationship the same way, or did she expect to be treated as capable of making her own decisions?
Regarding the relationship first, it's a very mixed situation. I've literally raised her from nearly birth, with her being the equivalent of a 12 year old. There's a mix of a brotherly and nearly father like relationship happening, which both of us have agreed on. Not to mention, my character is the oldest member of the group, as in the one who started the party essentially. Your analogy makes very little sense. If anything the thrikreen is the Druid, and inner party dynamics are ridiculously simplified here. It's more like the Thri kreen jumped on (the druids literally here as a guide) and then we are suddenly attacked by a party of bloodthirsty, unprovoked, cannibalistic elves who cannot speak. One of them is knocked unconscious at the beginning of the fight, and the young child of the group wants to keep it as a pet with no restraints and no reason to expect it not to turn on us at any moment. It can't offer any information, nor can it communicate sufficiently to help us in any substantial way. Because the thrikreen thinks the kid is cute, they go along with it, despite the thrikreen normally being extremely violent (cus dice). The other person, a trained and educated monk, knocked unconscious (because oh yeah this band of elves nearly killed us and there is a larger kingdom likely to be able to communicate with this one who as I said is nearly guaranteed to turn on us) has no say, but as the fourth character, the effective founder of the group, has known the unconscious monk for years and years, and knows what he would agree on. So he, pushing past the irrational and naive child, kills the murderous elf who poses direct danger to our party, and is attacked by the thrikreen, some random guy they met mere days ago. Why should this random guy and this small naive kid outweigh the opinion of the educated monk and the founder of the party when they know the elf to be an imminent threat both in the short and long term. Simplified analogies just don't fit the situation very well. You could say the character acted brashly, even selfishly, but it wasn't like he didn't have a damn good reason as well as more party clout when it comes to authority (being the older sibling of the child and having brought the party together, vs some new dude who they just met and said child), and equal clout in terms of number (monk and me vs kid and Druid)

Everybody is saying "oh he acted against the party" when he was acting for half the party. That's not the same. This wasn't unanimous vs one, it was half on half, with one half including a kid and a rando.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 10:05 PM
Good post, then there is also the emotional aspect of this all. The sister was thrilled, according to the OP, to persuade the Thri-Kreen and he decided to take a dump on her fun that left her almost in tears.

Sure, the pragmatic way of gaming is killing all your enemies and take their stuff and add to your own. Then you kill their kin so they can't take revenge. Kill those who might betray you, just to be on the safe side. Then you kill everybody that has better stuff than you if you can easily avoid the repercussions. If the bad guy surrenders, then kill him because else he'll come back in later adventures.

Maybe the rest of the party doesn't want to play that game? Maybe they want to play the game how they befriended an enemy who came a valuable ally?

Oh, I'm happy to take on the emotional aspect of it. It will be interesting roleplaying, and I think the whole group will (and has so far) found it interesting.

I'm not killing kin or anything to do with that. Holy crap this isn't about some pragmatic gameplay OOC. This isn't me just killing them to be safe, this is me killing an imminent threat to the party because there's no reason to suggest they won't just attack us given the chance. This isn't me killing their kin, just to be safe, it's holy crap these guys just attacked us and we just killed everybody but him and what is this kid doing she's just being naive we have to not let her optimism get her killed. My dude is literally going wtf these guys almost killed my sister and I want to make sure her stupid decision doesn't leave her dead. I'm not after the dude's kin, I'm trying to escape with my own intact. I'm not just killing him cus OOC he'll be back. I doubt he'll be back specifically, and if he would return it could maybe be interesting. I'm not killing everybody with better stuff so I won't be the tough guy in town. If we're talking about emotions and roleplay, my character literally has just as much justification as hers. There's no metagaming or anything going on here about how I want to play it safe, just in case, all the loose ends, murder everything in sight. Jeez, dude.

And the party isn't playing that game. The dude won't be some valuable ally, the sister thought he'd be a cute pet, and the people who are playing all of the characters afaik don't think I'm ruining the game or anything. The sister may be upset, but so is the brother. The players afaik aren't horribly broken over my character doing this. It will be loads of fun roleplaying the situation my character is in and everything. People need to stop assuming I'm pissing off the RP group. The DM doesn't care, the monk doesn't care, the druid's player would've done the same or worse if he hadn't been voodoo charmed from the dice, and the sister's player only cares cus she rolled a nat20 and was happy but is now excited cus she's gonna get revenge on my dude by keeping him tied up. We're all having fun, and joking about the situation.

RazorChain
2018-07-29, 10:11 PM
Hahaha, yes. Just get the halfling and she'll be like "I'm naming you Jeffrey!" And then Jeffrey would be so confused


I honestly agree with this post (although I'm biased ofc), this is most how I see the situation from my point of view.


Fairly certain she just lucky rolled a nat20, not because she has some special ability. We have no way to guarantee that it won't turn later on the rest of the party, in fact the dm specified it was only in regards to the sister. There was no way to communicate, as we didn't share languages, and I don't think I have comprehend languages. Plus, I don't need to know why my party turned on me, but either way my character sees this as betrayal, one against justified action.


I appreciate that it was the choice of the time, but honestly it's what the unconscious player who wasn't persuaded with the roll would've wanted, making it a half and half thing. And yes, it was ic only (besides the roll which we worked out.)


You don't really understand the situation TBH. I have raised this one for 23 years or so, longer than she has had sentience, the entire time away from drow society. Nobody else in the party is a drow, and we haven't been in the Underdark or anywhere near another drow for nearly two and a half decades. While I'd agree if everybody cared or if anybody in the party even knew besides me, that's not the case. Don't criticize me playing my character with no understanding of the backstory of anything that has happened (much of which justifies this relationship in this way).


Regarding the relationship first, it's a very mixed situation. I've literally raised her from nearly birth, with her being the equivalent of a 12 year old. There's a mix of a brotherly and nearly father like relationship happening, which both of us have agreed on. Not to mention, my character is the oldest member of the group, as in the one who started the party essentially. Your analogy makes very little sense. If anything the thrikreen is the Druid, and inner party dynamics are ridiculously sympathized here. It's more like the Thri kreen jumped on (the druids literally here as a guide) and then we are suddenly attacked by a party of bloodthirsty, unprovoked, cannibalistic elves who cannot speak. One of them is knocked unconscious at the beginning of the fight, and the young child of the group wants to keep it as a pet with no restraints and no reason to expect it not to turn on us at any moment. It can't offer any information, nor can it communicate sufficiently to help us in any substantial way. Because the thrikreen thinks the kid is cute, they go along with it, despite the thrikreen normally being extremely violent (cus dice). The other person, a trained and educated monk, knocked unconscious (because oh yeah this band of elves nearly killed us and there is a larger kingdom likely to be able to communicate with this one who as I said is nearly guaranteed to turn on us) has no say, but as the fourth character, the effective founder of the group, has known the unconscious monk for years and years, and knows what he would agree on. So he, pushing past the irrational and naive child, kills the murderous elf who poses direct danger to our party, and is attacked by the thrikreen, some random guy they met mere days ago. Why should this random guy and this small naive kid outweigh the opinion of the educated monk and the founder of the party when they know the elf to be an imminent threat both in the short and long term. Simplified analogies just don't fit the situation very well. You could say the character acted brashly, even selfishly, but it wasn't like he didn't have a damn good reason as well as more party clout when it comes to authority (being the older sibling of the child and having brought the party together, vs some new dude who they just met and said child), and equal clout in terms of number (monk and me vs kid and Druid)

Everybody is saying "oh he acted against the party" when he was acting for half the party. That's not the same. This wasn't unanimous vs one, it was half on half, with one half including a kid and a rando.


You are still doing it. Now you are making decisions for the unconscious monk as well because you "know" he'd agree with you. What put you is this pickle is that you don't confer with the rest of the party. It's not really about what you did, if you would have taken the time to communicate with your fellow party members.

It doesn't matter that you're the founder of the party, or the druid is a recent addition or your sister is younger than you. Your sisters opinion or the Druid's aren't any less valuable than yours. For all you know the druid might think it's a heinous crime to kill a sentinent being that has surrendered but you didn't bother to ask what their take on the matter was.

comk59
2018-07-29, 10:45 PM
You are still doing it. Now you are making decisions for the unconscious monk as well because you "know" he'd agree with you. What put you is this pickle is that you don't confer with the rest of the party. It's not really about what you did, if you would have taken the time to communicate with your fellow party members.

It doesn't matter that you're the founder of the party, or the druid is a recent addition or your sister is younger than you. Your sisters opinion or the Druid's aren't any less valuable than yours. For all you know the druid might think it's a heinous crime to kill a sentinent being that has surrendered but you didn't bother to ask what their take on the matter was.


Yeah, that's really the vibe I'm getting from all of this. Je decides his sister's opinion doesn't matter, he decides that the Thri Kreen is an imminent threat, and when his party disagrees with them he decides it's a betrayal. If this was an entirely IC thing I could see it, but it seems OOC too. OP stated that he hadn't had time to talk about it with some of the players about the situation, but then goes on to say that as far as he knows everyone is okay with it.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 10:50 PM
You are still doing it. Now you are making decisions for the unconscious monk as well because you "know" he'd agree with you. What put you is this pickle is that you don't confer with the rest of the party. It's not really about what you did, if you would have taken the time to communicate with your fellow party members.

It doesn't matter that you're the founder of the party, or the druid is a recent addition or your sister is younger than you. Your sisters opinion or the Druid's aren't any less valuable than yours. For all you know the druid might think it's a heinous crime to kill a sentinent being that has surrendered but you didn't bother to ask what their take on the matter was.

I know both OOC and IC that the character agrees with mine, and he felt it critical to be taken care of immediately before he could turn on a weak party. You have no clue what conversation happened at the table, and as I have said there's no huge fight going on OOC. Repeating it again and again is annoying

Also, It does matter if he's going to make an analogy and try to show how it proves that my character acted retardedly. In game, my dude sees this as completely justified. Party dynamics matter, and in my character's view why would some new guy who's acting as a guide as well as his sister making a decision he sees as for the worse of her and the group essentially because of her naivete matter more than the older sibling of one and the senior in the party for the other. The druid, I know for a fact, finds it to be no such crime, as just last session he was OK with slaughtering someone we got info from and wasn't posing us a direct threat. I argued with them, and I did get their side. My dude just thought their side (and quite literally it was their side) to be "I want a cute bug pet person" when the dude could kill the entire party or get them killed somehow.

For the love of all that is joyful, nobody is mad at me OOC. Nobody. Literally why is everybody else who doesn't even know half of what has happened in the game? I know that in another gaming group I may have made a different decision. But with these characters and these players? I made this decision. Nobody is enraged at me or pissed OOC. Stop mixing up IC with OOC and imposing your group's style on how this group does or how I play. This thread was supposed to give me advice for further RP on how I should proceed, what would make sense, and what would be interesting. It wasn't supposed to be a "I pissed off my gaming group now what do I do." Jeez guys.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 10:53 PM
Yeah, that's really the vibe I'm getting from all of this. Je decides his sister's opinion doesn't matter, he decides that the Thri Kreen is an imminent threat, and when his party disagrees with them he decides it's a betrayal. If this was an entirely IC thing I could see it, but it seems OOC too. OP stated that he hadn't had time to talk about it with some of the players about the situation, but then goes on to say that as far as he knows everyone is okay with it.


In the moment, I didn't have time to talk about it. After the game, I spoke with the DM and everybody but the Druid's player, who hasn't spoken to me about it but if he was pissed he's somebody I know would. I'm working already on getting ahold of him and seeing if I did piss him off, but I have cleared it up with everybody but him 100%. It was an IC thing

Koo Rehtorb
2018-07-29, 10:58 PM
So he, pushing past the irrational and naive child, kills the murderous elf who poses direct danger to our party, and is attacked by the thrikreen, some random guy they met mere days ago. Why should this random guy and this small naive kid outweigh the opinion of the educated monk and the founder of the party when they know the elf to be an imminent threat both in the short and long term. Simplified analogies just don't fit the situation very well. You could say the character acted brashly, even selfishly, but it wasn't like he didn't have a damn good reason as well as more party clout when it comes to authority (being the older sibling of the child and having brought the party together, vs some new dude who they just met and said child), and equal clout in terms of number (monk and me vs kid and Druid)

Everybody is saying "oh he acted against the party" when he was acting for half the party. That's not the same. This wasn't unanimous vs one, it was half on half, with one half including a kid and a rando.

Take a step back. You going against the wishes of (at least) half the party in a way that's this unilateral and final is a hostile act, and I've killed people's characters for less. It doesn't matter who you are or if you're right or not. Attacking you for it is also a hostile act. You're both more or less equally responsible for this situation, in my opinion.

With that said, that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with having a character with strong enough opinions about things that it leads to verbal or even physical conflict with the party. But, you have to work out where your priorities are. Either you want to play someone who has good harmony with the rest of the party, or you want to play a character with strong opinions that may end up with you getting in conflict with them. You can't have it both ways. Your response to this kind of either has to be submission or escalation. And escalation will almost certainly lead to the party breaking.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-29, 11:11 PM
Take a step back. You going against the wishes of (at least) half the party in a way that's this unilateral and final is a hostile act, and I've killed people's characters for less. It doesn't matter who you are or if you're right or not. Attacking you for it is also a hostile act. You're both more or less equally responsible for this situation, in my opinion.

With that said, that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with having a character with strong enough opinions about things that it leads to verbal or even physical conflict with the party. But, you have to work out where your priorities are. Either you want to play someone who has good harmony with the rest of the party, or you want to play a character with strong opinions that may end up with you getting in conflict with them. You can't have it both ways. Your response to this kind of either has to be submission or escalation. And escalation will almost certainly lead to the party breaking.

I'd have to agree with you on every point. I think the party conflict is really interesting, but tbh I don't think my character would just submit in this situation, but I don't think there's an escalation route that makes sense. If he does break free, what's he gonna do, kill the druid? I don't think he really would. Would he just leave him be, trying to hide the fact that he broke out or smt? Maybe, but that seems like just submission again. He's angry with his sister, and doesn't want to talk with her. What I'm thinking about doing is just seeing how the beginning of the next session goes in character and how interactions go from the moment we left off. I'm not thinking he'd enact violence, not really, but hopefully a place between submission and an encounter that, even if only verbal at first, leads to violence, exists. If I really don't think I can find it, I'll just have the idea to escape that would work not occur to him. Another idea that could work is the monk speaking to me or trying to calm me down. We'll have to see, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for the advice, the stuff you brought up is what I was kinda worried about (breaking the party, for example), but I think I may try to fit into the "strong opinions with conflict from time to time." If that really means submission at this point, and I don't see another alternative when I'm actually playing, I'll stick with the unable to escape until he calms down sort of thing, and I think this will work out. Thanks

RazorChain
2018-07-30, 06:14 AM
I know both OOC and IC that the character agrees with mine, and he felt it critical to be taken care of immediately before he could turn on a weak party. You have no clue what conversation happened at the table, and as I have said there's no huge fight going on OOC. Repeating it again and again is annoying

Also, It does matter if he's going to make an analogy and try to show how it proves that my character acted retardedly. In game, my dude sees this as completely justified. Party dynamics matter, and in my character's view why would some new guy who's acting as a guide as well as his sister making a decision he sees as for the worse of her and the group essentially because of her naivete matter more than the older sibling of one and the senior in the party for the other. The druid, I know for a fact, finds it to be no such crime, as just last session he was OK with slaughtering someone we got info from and wasn't posing us a direct threat. I argued with them, and I did get their side. My dude just thought their side (and quite literally it was their side) to be "I want a cute bug pet person" when the dude could kill the entire party or get them killed somehow.

For the love of all that is joyful, nobody is mad at me OOC. Nobody. Literally why is everybody else who doesn't even know half of what has happened in the game? I know that in another gaming group I may have made a different decision. But with these characters and these players? I made this decision. Nobody is enraged at me or pissed OOC. Stop mixing up IC with OOC and imposing your group's style on how this group does or how I play. This thread was supposed to give me advice for further RP on how I should proceed, what would make sense, and what would be interesting. It wasn't supposed to be a "I pissed off my gaming group now what do I do." Jeez guys.

If everybody is cool with everything OOC then there is no problem.

Then I suggest as your character is a drow and long lived then he has patience. So wait until the opportune moment when the Druid is in a bad shape in combat and sneak behind him and stab him in the back with a knife coated with the most deadly poison you can find. While you stab him with one hand you should use the other to cover his mouth so he can't scream. As you do this you should lean in and whisper in his ear "Suck on this banana, monkey-boy"

Then you should sell your sister into slavery to teach her a lesson about life, preferably as a sex slave so she can understand the resentment of being somebodies pet.

Lvl 2 Expert
2018-07-30, 06:23 AM
So, if I get the vibe of the opening post right, in terms of movie characters you're the overprotective father figure, and she is the slightly naive young woman wanting to have adventures? Those usually reconcile with lots of talking, although the really good movies have an action scene involved as well where the father figure first shows he trusts his daughters judgement and she in return gets to show she can take advice from him. If you talk about this with the other player and maybe get the DM in on it as well you can make that a very fun story arc. Especially with the severity of the situation. You killed her friend! She went behind your back to make friends with your enemies! The drama, the angst!

It's not going to get solved by both of the characters standing their ground and insisting they did nothing wrong.

Lord Torath
2018-07-30, 08:33 AM
I'm going to suggest asking the rest of the players how they'd like to see this play out. I assume you don't want this to devolve into a player vs player gorefest, and probably no one else in the party wants it to either. Tell the other players that you want to come up with an in-charater response that stays somewhat true to your character, but also doesn't drive the party to self-destruction. This has a couple of benefits:

1. It tells the players that you don't take it personal, and you can keep IC conflict from spilling over to real life. Also that you're playing in good faith, and don't want to explode the game or the party.

2. It gives you access to other people's brains, who are more familiar with the situation than we are, and could have better ideas for resolving the conflict.

3. It gives you access to how the other players see the events, and the perspectives of their characters.

4. It greatly increases likely buy-in from the other players when they are part of coming up with a solution.

We frequently say that you should never try to solve Out-of-Character issues with In-Character actions. The reverse is NOT true. Discuss this until you come up with solution you can all accept. Not necessarily something that will make everyone happy, but at least something that leaves no one upset.

SirGraystone
2018-07-30, 10:08 AM
The main problem the Drow character has is not with the druid, it's with his sister naivety. From there I would ignore the druid completly and have a sibling fight with his sister. Tell her how he would protect her from herself no matter the cost to himself, how foolish what she did was, and that you will do it again if its what it take to keep her safe. It go from being murderhobos to becoming a protective big brother.

If the druid, the captain or someone else get into the conversation, just tell them to stay out of your family business. Forget about talk of revenge on the druid, all he did was restraint you. I would also have that talk with your sister while ties to the mast and not try to escape unless you are in danger.

HMS Invincible
2018-07-30, 01:08 PM
I think everyone is confused because you sound like a typical butthurt gamer who insists the only way to play is his way and he'll murder anyone who gets in his way.
But you're saying everyone is cool with it. Do you just want ideas for revenge? Because you seem set on not letting it go. Are you not sure how much to humiliate your party members?

Hooligan
2018-07-30, 01:35 PM
I think everyone is confused because you sound like a typical butthurt gamer who insists the only way to play is his way and he'll murder anyone who gets in his way.
But you're saying everyone is cool with it. Do you just want ideas for revenge? Because you seem set on not letting it go. Are you not sure how much to humiliate your party members?

I thought so at first, but I don't believe that to be the case now. If you read, the OP in fact denies any desire to murder other players.

How willing would you be to trust decisions about your safety & that of your companions to a 12 year old? The insistence that "my way is the only way" could EASILY be said of the sister player or the druid, given their inconsiderate actions, which as far as we know occurred with no discussion.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-30, 01:36 PM
If everybody is cool with everything OOC then there is no problem.

Then I suggest as your character is a drow and long lived then he has patience. So wait until the opportune moment when the Druid is in a bad shape in combat and sneak behind him and stab him in the back with a knife coated with the most deadly poison you can find. While you stab him with one hand you should use the other to cover his mouth so he can't scream. As you do this you should lean in and whisper in his ear "Suck on this banana, monkey-boy"

Then you should sell your sister into slavery to teach her a lesson about life, preferably as a sex slave so she can understand the resentment of being somebodies pet.

Yeah it's only ic 100%. Even checked with the druid and he said "dude I was on your side lol. Remember the persuasion check?"
But yeah, that makes sense regarding patience (tho his upbringing and half-human probably makes him somewhat less so). I probably wouldn't go that violent as I said before, but that is pretty freaking hilarious.
As for my sister
O **** calm yourself you kinky bastard


So, if I get the vibe of the opening post right, in terms of movie characters you're the overprotective father figure, and she is the slightly naive young woman wanting to have adventures? Those usually reconcile with lots of talking, although the really good movies have an action scene involved as well where the father figure first shows he trusts his daughters judgement and she in return gets to show she can take advice from him. If you talk about this with the other player and maybe get the DM in on it as well you can make that a very fun story arc. Especially with the severity of the situation. You killed her friend! She went behind your back to make friends with your enemies! The drama, the angst!

It's not going to get solved by both of the characters standing their ground and insisting they did nothing wrong.

Lol I love the dramatization of it. I'll talk to her and see how it goes, but this definitely makes sense and would be pretty awesome. I'd say you got the vibe right, in my estimation, at least for the most part. This will be fun.


I'm going to suggest asking the rest of the players how they'd like to see this play out. I assume you don't want this to devolve into a player vs player gorefest, and probably no one else in the party wants it to either. Tell the other players that you want to come up with an in-charater response that stays somewhat true to your character, but also doesn't drive the party to self-destruction. This has a couple of benefits:

1. It tells the players that you don't take it personal, and you can keep IC conflict from spilling over to real life. Also that you're playing in good faith, and don't want to explode the game or the party.

2. It gives you access to other people's brains, who are more familiar with the situation than we are, and could have better ideas for resolving the conflict.

3. It gives you access to how the other players see the events, and the perspectives of their characters.

4. It greatly increases likely buy-in from the other players when they are part of coming up with a solution.

We frequently say that you should never try to solve Out-of-Character issues with In-Character actions. The reverse is NOT true. Discuss this until you come up with solution you can all accept. Not necessarily something that will make everyone happy, but at least something that leaves no one upset.
Honestly the only thing I'll discuss is probably "yo let's not kill eachother ok?" and then after that no holds are barred. It's a pretty chill group overall.

The main problem the Drow character has is not with the druid, it's with his sister naivety. From there I would ignore the druid completly and have a sibling fight with his sister. Tell her how he would protect her from herself no matter the cost to himself, how foolish what she did was, and that you will do it again if its what it take to keep her safe. It go from being murderhobos to becoming a protective big brother.

If the druid, the captain or someone else get into the conversation, just tell them to stay out of your family business. Forget about talk of revenge on the druid, all he did was restraint you. I would also have that talk with your sister while ties to the mast and not try to escape unless you are in danger.
Yeah, that's something I was wondering, regarding my attitude towards the druid. As for the rest of it, yeah, that's what I think I'll go along the lines of. Thing is, I really wanna escape cus the rest of the group doesn't think I can ooc, and it'd be hilarious. I originally thought it would be interesting to escape, but now I'm not so sure.

I think everyone is confused because you sound like a typical butthurt gamer who insists the only way to play is his way and he'll murder anyone who gets in his way.
But you're saying everyone is cool with it. Do you just want ideas for revenge? Because you seem set on not letting it go. Are you not sure how much to humiliate your party members?
Well, I don't know why everybody thought I was butthurt when I was specifying I just wanted help for an ic decision, but ok. I was mostly just asking for help with revenge yeah, or a general plan of action. That's kinda what the title means.

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-30, 01:39 PM
I thought so at first, but I don't believe that to be the case now. If you read, the OP in fact denies any desire to murder other players.

How willing would you be to trust decisions about your safety & that of your companions to a 12 year old? The insistence that "my way is the only way" could EASILY be said of the sister player or the druid, given their inconsiderate actions, which as far as we know occurred with no discussion.

This is mostly my viewpoint, regarding the trusting my safety to a 12 year old that just rolled one hell of a persuasion on the rest of the party. As for the other, yeah, none of this occurred with discussion, but tbh I think we all found it really interesting and sets up a nice scene or conflict, so no talking about it is fine (heck it might even have ruined the moment to have frozen it before it was over).

MagneticKitty
2018-07-30, 01:58 PM
Sounds like a dm issue. Persuasion rolls should not be done against the pcs to force your character to do anything they wouldnt. This is decided by roleplay.

Thanks autocorrect

TheShatteredHow
2018-07-30, 02:23 PM
Sounds like a dm issue. Persuasion rolls should be done against the pcs to force your character to do anything they wouldnt. This is decided by roleplay.

Yeah, just a quick decision as we were low on time. Doesn't seem like the DM is planning to do it in the future unless we really need to

dps
2018-08-02, 04:10 PM
Just to be 100% clear, when you said in the OP that "this left her crying" that was the sister's character, not her player, correct?

Hooligan
2018-08-02, 05:51 PM
Please give us an update after your next session. I'm curious as to how things work out.

mephnick
2018-08-02, 05:59 PM
Sounds like a dm issue. Persuasion rolls should not be done against the pcs to force your character to do anything they wouldnt. This is decided by roleplay.

Unless you're adults about it, set the stakes and agree to work with the results. This is how it works in games like Burning Wheel.

"Ok Jim, I want to free the prisoner because I think she's innocent. You think we should stay out of it. If I win the roll, I convince your character to take her with us begrudgingly. If you win, you convince my character to leave her be, but I'll always wonder what happened to her. Agreed?"

If Jim says "No" the matter is dropped and they must find stakes that can be agreed upon or the matter dropped and resolved by roleplay. If the two players agree, you dice off and live with the results in good faith. But setting the stakes, agreeing to act in good faith and the ability to opt out are musts.

Xuc Xac
2018-08-02, 06:24 PM
Sounds like a dm issue. Persuasion rolls should not be done against the pcs to force your character to do anything they wouldnt. This is decided by roleplay.

Also, social skills aren't mind control.

The party just slaughtered that Thri-Kreen's family. The sister asked it to join the party and it agreed. I don't care what she rolled. That bug is just going along until it gets a chance to kill the whole party and eat the more delicious bits. The rest of the party is being incredibly naive for thinking it's on their side now just because she "convinced" it with a quick chat while standing knee deep in its siblings' entrails. Probably some degree of metagaming too: "She rolled really high so we win! *beatbox the FFIII victory jingle*"

Rogan
2018-08-02, 09:43 PM
Honestly the only thing I'll discuss is probably "yo let's not kill eachother ok?" and then after that no holds are barred. It's a pretty chill group overall.

Yeah, that's something I was wondering, regarding my attitude towards the druid. As for the rest of it, yeah, that's what I think I'll go along the lines of. Thing is, I really wanna escape cus the rest of the group doesn't think I can ooc, and it'd be hilarious. I originally thought it would be interesting to escape, but now I'm not so sure.



If you decide to escape anyway, I would suggest you sneak up on the druid and leave a message for him, something like his own knife embedded in his bed, next to his head.

You show him you could kill him, you prove he should not take you lightly. But on the same time, you let him know you do not wish to hurt him.

I suggest this (if you got good odds of making it happen) to stop the druid from attacking you as soon as he finds out you are free. (Which is what he told he would do, if I understood correctly)

About your sisters char, there are lots of options. But in order to keep things calm, you probably should talk to her and try to make her see you are protecting her - in your eyes.

Saint Jimmy
2018-08-03, 10:38 AM
About your sisters char, there are lots of options. But in order to keep things calm, you probably should talk to her and try to make her see you are protecting her - in your eyes.

This. Upthread I believe you mentioned that if the Druid saw you escape, he would attack. So I suggest finding a time somehow when he’s not watching or sneak past him to talk with your characters sister privately about the issue, and hopefully get that all sorted out IC. Not necessarily bringing both of you to agreement, but to the point where your character understans why hers did what she did and vice versa, and where you can work together again. Making up with what was perceived as the wronged party by the Druid should make it easier to smooth things over with him, IMO.

Side note, as a group I do suggest having an OOC discussion about situations like this, to be honest. If people aren’t on the same page about issues like killing prisoners, going against the party, persuasion rolls on fellow PCs, PVP, etc, there could be a lot more problems then this down the road.

TheShatteredHow
2018-08-04, 07:54 AM
Just to be 100% clear, when you said in the OP that "this left her crying" that was the sister's character, not her player, correct?
Yeah, not the player

Please give us an update after your next session. I'm curious as to how things work out.
Well we never even roleplayed what followed. It was a short session so ig the DM wanted to go straight to the combat and just said they released me after a few days... :/ I'm really disappointed as I wanted to try the knife in the bed someone else mentions below or smt like that but oh well...

Unless you're adults about it, set the stakes and agree to work with the results. This is how it works in games like Burning Wheel.

"Ok Jim, I want to free the prisoner because I think she's innocent. You think we should stay out of it. If I win the roll, I convince your character to take her with us begrudgingly. If you win, you convince my character to leave her be, but I'll always wonder what happened to her. Agreed?"

If Jim says "No" the matter is dropped and they must find stakes that can be agreed upon or the matter dropped and resolved by roleplay. If the two players agree, you dice off and live with the results in good faith. But setting the stakes, agreeing to act in good faith and the ability to opt out are musts.
Yeah I agree, but oh well. Probably not gonna be a problem later, but ye

Also, social skills aren't mind control.

The party just slaughtered that Thri-Kreen's family. The sister asked it to join the party and it agreed. I don't care what she rolled. That bug is just going along until it gets a chance to kill the whole party and eat the more delicious bits. The rest of the party is being incredibly naive for thinking it's on their side now just because she "convinced" it with a quick chat while standing knee deep in its siblings' entrails. Probably some degree of metagaming too: "She rolled really high so we win! *beatbox the FFIII victory jingle*"
Exactly why I really hate the concept of rolling for it

If you decide to escape anyway, I would suggest you sneak up on the druid and leave a message for him, something like his own knife embedded in his bed, next to his head.

You show him you could kill him, you prove he should not take you lightly. But on the same time, you let him know you do not wish to hurt him.

I suggest this (if you got good odds of making it happen) to stop the druid from attacking you as soon as he finds out you are free. (Which is what he told he would do, if I understood correctly)

About your sisters char, there are lots of options. But in order to keep things calm, you probably should talk to her and try to make her see you are protecting her - in your eyes.
I really like this idea, though I wish I had been able to do it.

This. Upthread I believe you mentioned that if the Druid saw you escape, he would attack. So I suggest finding a time somehow when he’s not watching or sneak past him to talk with your characters sister privately about the issue, and hopefully get that all sorted out IC. Not necessarily bringing both of you to agreement, but to the point where your character understans why hers did what she did and vice versa, and where you can work together again. Making up with what was perceived as the wronged party by the Druid should make it easier to smooth things over with him, IMO.

Side note, as a group I do suggest having an OOC discussion about situations like this, to be honest. If people aren’t on the same page about issues like killing prisoners, going against the party, persuasion rolls on fellow PCs, PVP, etc, there could be a lot more problems then this down the road.

Nobody cared about any of the stuff except the persuasion rolls, which we worked out. They're fine with everything else.