How should I approach this? ( warning slight wrath of the rightous spoilers)

[Calthropstu]

I want to get some opinions.
I have been with this group for a few years now. We are about half way through the ap. We are playing it without mythic.
So, I am playing a true neutral sorcerer focusing on summoning spells. The ENTIRE REST OF THE PARTY went LG. Not a problem. Until recently.

We have liberated the keep and are attempting to build itup and eliminate threats in the area. As we do so, weare coming up against large numbersof opponents... with a good bit of gear. We defeated the rift dragon (in a single round no less) and got its treasure trove. Pretty cool. We also eliminated an evil temple brimming with antipaladins. All wearing +1 full plate... a decent chunk of change.


non spoiler: Group got several treasure troves with a good amount of gold worth of items.

Our group has always worked on a system of "if we find something someone will benefit from, it goes to that person with no hard feelings." Which is fine. Group consensus is required before something is handed out. And it generally ends well.

But now, thanks to one player wanting to role play "ultra altruism" they are literally throwing tens of thousands of gold worth of items to "army commanders." 14 suits of +1 plate armor as well as a +4 breastplate and other not insignificant items.

Both role-play and player wise I am strongly against this. My character can only view this as blatant theft by what should be trustworthy companions. I see it as blatantly wasteful.

I have voiced this, and was pretty much ignored. In fact, the player responsible stated (in character i hope) "if you don't like it, then leave the group."

I feel pretty strongly on this matter, and his statement really pissed me off. I know I will not just "let it go." But I would really rather not end my table presense.

I am considering both in character and out of character solutions, and could use some suggestions.

[Rynjin]

Is this the same group you post a thread about every few months or so where they're always just like "lump it or leave it"?

Just leave it, they clearly don't want you around, or only want you around as a whipping boy.

[blackwindbears]

1) Talk to your GM and see what they think.
2) Respect the metagame. If this is only a problem for you, retire the character and build a new character that's aligned well with the rest of the party.
3) I don't know the context. If they're being *******s don't game with *******s. If they're just playing with different goals than you wish they would: change your view or leave.
4) Ultimately this isn't a gaming question this is more like, "how do I get along with my co-workers". It's an important life skill, but always remember that you're allowed to just peace out. You don't have control of other folks, you do have control of yourself.

[MR_Anderson]

Absolutely talk to the GM/DM.

I like when my players play good characters, but Good Characters don’t shaft party members that earned something, and for that they should be penalized. I can understand a one time thing or every so often, but later loot is used to repay.

I would say a Neutral Sorcerer that is screwed over by LG people would be likely to turn towards the dark side for retribution or restoring the balance of power, as well as earning back some lost payments.

If you decide to retire the character, turn it over to the GM/DM to use as a nemesis.

If you intend to leave the group or just really want to make a point...take payment from evil sources to cause the party to wipe or partially wipe, and then turn corpses over to evil forces for evil purposes.

Even if the GM screws you over, you screwed the party, and when the players get pissed, remind them that LG doesn’t steal, and at the point that they decided to not pay equally is the moment that a neutral person will try to reign in the out of control groups and establish balance again.

Good luck, but playing in a group where you’re being shafted isn’t fun. I’ve actually sat a session out, while being at the game night just having my character on his own.

[Kol Korran]

Knowing Wrath of The Righteous (I DMed it for about 2/3rds, made a log on this site) I have to say that the OP's post makes me wonder:
WoTR, is the one AP that was designed in mind of "the shining knight" kind of play, and highly encourages being Good with the capital G. It is for goody-two-shoes do gooders of good, who battle nasty evil demons. And the point of the campaign you are refering to is after leading an army to conquer an enemy fort, then rebuilding it, and the enemies making threats to counter attack and retake the fort. Equipping your aemy commandera sounda reaonable.

And your group seemed to have embraced the concept. Well, except for you... Which confuses me. The entire group decided to play goody-righty champions, in a campaigns that is designed and supports this, and you went out of your way to play something else, the far end without playing CN or outright evil, and now you are complaining? You seem to have set this conflict to happen.

But a few suggestions for possible solutions:
1- Let it go, and play the campaign with the mindset it was planned for, and which your group gladly accepted and embtaced.
2- Treasure distribution: You divide the treasure more or or less equally. They do with their parta what they want, and you do with yours what you want.
3- Make a new character more fitting the game.
4- Leave.

I truly don't think it's the group fault here. The game is a social game, and people need to make compromises to enable the group playing the game they DECIDED to play. Were the campaign different, were thr grouo different, I would agree you had a point. But both the campaign and the group are set for a play style so HEAVILY different than yours, that I can't blame them.

[Batcathat]

I truly don't think it's the group fault here. The game is a social game, and people need to make compromises to enable the group playing the game they DECIDED to play. Were the campaign different, were thr grouo different, I would agree you had a point. But both the campaign and the group are set for a play style so HEAVILY different than yours, that I can't blame them.

Compromises usually involve both sides compromising though. The majority of a group doing what they want and expecting the minority to get in line or get out may be (a rather unpleasant form of) democracy but it's certainly not a compromise.

I'm not familiar with the AP but if you're right about it being so aimed at goody goody behavior, the GM should have pointed that out at character creation, not let people create who they want and then being screwed over by the expected tone of the adventure.

[Kol Korran]

Compromises usually involve both sides compromising though. The majority of a group doing what they want and expecting the minority to get in line or get out may be (a rather unpleasant form of) democracy but it's certainly not a compromise.

I'm not familiar with the AP but if you're right about it being so aimed at goody goody behavior, the GM should have pointed that out at character creation, not let people create who they want and then being screwed over by the expected tone of the adventure.

I agree about the compromises but we got just one side of the story. I was mostly refering to making the choice on the type of game intemded to play. Were this another game premise, I would totally agree. But as I mentioned in my original post- both the campaign and group are heavily into this style/ tone/ themes of play, from the very start. This is what the game IS about. As this was known from the start, why choose to play something quite far away from the agreed upon concept?

I highly doubt that the basic themes/ tones of the AP weren't discussed before hand. The AP is famous for it, most people who choose to play an AP know it's most basic themes, the Player's Guide to the AP discusses this frequently, and the ENTIRE rest of the group chose accordingly. Also, the time point mentioned in the OP is well into the 3rd module, I'd assume level 9+ at least. It's very, very unlikely that the campaign themes weren't emphasized till now.

I may be wrong of course, but it is very odd.

[GrayDeath]

Having played said AP as one of 2 "not Paladin certified Dogooder Characters" in a group of 2 LG Cleircs and a Paladin, I dont see the problem.

Youa re building up your Fortress. For your troops to hold.
Equpping those troops as best you can is simply Common sense.

Now givíng them the +4 breatsplate isnt, but thats due to D&D`?s pricing mechanics, and hence it being much more expensive than actually useful, but the Plates?
If your group ALSO spends time, effort and money to TRAIN said commanders, ands get them troops to command, thats more than "worth thinking about", given they are meant to, you know, be effective pretty soon, would`nt you agree?

Now I am not judging the way your group is handling this,w e only ahve your side and I ahve met my fair share of people who thought having LG on their Character shet means they can do no wreong, so I wills tay out of philosophical/Alignment based debates, but by Adventure Path mood, and logic givenwhere you`re at, Ic ant see anything wrong with the decisiona t hand...unless they are actually stealing your loot (and no, a general "give it to who can use it" debate is not the same as "They are taking the +X manual that only my wizard needs"! ^^).

So my suggestion:

Talk to your fellow players.
Ask them why they are doping what they are doing, explain that you feel as if it is at least partly unfair....and see where it goes.

[Calthropstu]

The problem quite literally disappeared last session. I had gone nearly 15 sessions (literally 3 months) without recieving a single upgrade to my character's inventory. Before last session, I was sitting at 30,000 below wealth by level (11)
After last session, I am now level 12 with over 300,000 worth of equipment, nearly 3x wbl. And the rest of the party exceeds wbl as well.
I am pretty well set for a long time.

[Faily]

Knowing Wrath of The Righteous (I DMed it for about 2/3rds, made a log on this site) I have to say that the OP's post makes me wonder:
WoTR, is the one AP that was designed in mind of "the shining knight" kind of play, and highly encourages being Good with the capital G. It is for goody-two-shoes do gooders of good, who battle nasty evil demons. And the point of the campaign you are refering to is after leading an army to conquer an enemy fort, then rebuilding it, and the enemies making threats to counter attack and retake the fort. Equipping your aemy commandera sounda reaonable.

And your group seemed to have embraced the concept. Well, except for you... Which confuses me. The entire group decided to play goody-righty champions, in a campaigns that is designed and supports this, and you went out of your way to play something else, the far end without playing CN or outright evil, and now you are complaining? You seem to have set this conflict to happen.

But a few suggestions for possible solutions:
1- Let it go, and play the campaign with the mindset it was planned for, and which your group gladly accepted and embtaced.
2- Treasure distribution: You divide the treasure more or or less equally. They do with their parta what they want, and you do with yours what you want.
3- Make a new character more fitting the game.
4- Leave.

I truly don't think it's the group fault here. The game is a social game, and people need to make compromises to enable the group playing the game they DECIDED to play. Were the campaign different, were thr grouo different, I would agree you had a point. But both the campaign and the group are set for a play style so HEAVILY different than yours, that I can't blame them.

Pretty much all of this really. Korran summed up my thoughts.

Once it's also in "it will go to who needs it most" it's also already in a democratic state of mind that the majority decides the outcome. And well, who doesn't need it more than those who don't have magic armor that is going to be fighting against retaliating demons?

*shrug*