Killed a party member - got punished by my DM

[Entessa]

I will start from beginning. In my campaign, I've entered a pocket plane inhabited by a lot of different races and I was saved, after being catched by Yuan-ti (to be eaten), by dwarves. I didn't gain hospitality for free, I had to work for them and do a few "quests" just to gain the trust they had towards me.

Meanwhile my "party" was moving through borders between "provinces" and got catched by Dwarves - they thought they were spy, but my "character" guaranteed for them to know them better - hard to find non-dwarves and yuan-ti here. Anyway, one of my companions, even after saving their life (they were going to be hanged because they had no real way to justify themselves on why they were there) was particularly unsuferrable towards me. And it was not done in a way that I found particularly enjoyable, nor as player nor as character.

The fact is, I asked him for an important dagger in a pretty rude way (rude because I told him that one of my word with dwarves would have meant his death if he begged to differ from my will), but after this I kinda I stopped any kind of threat or anything else - I just reminded him sometimes that I wanted the dagger.

Fact is, the companion kept taunting me a lot. And he did that not only when we were alone as party, he did that even after important fights (by telling a whole host of dwarves that I fled or I didn't help), by telling the dwarves that I was a spy and so on.

In the end, the campaign kinda went to ruin. The dwarves were killed en masse by the yuan ti and while trying to flee from the pocket plane the (hostile - to me) character acted a bit further - and he accused me in front of the party that I was the one that killed the king (after gaining the title of royal guard for this "little" reign). This was during a ritual to flee the pocket plane being executed by a npc owned by the DM.

I am (was) a paladin and my character couldn't hold it any further - I killed him, only to gain a reprimand from my DM that I shouldn't have done so. The Npc chose not to bring me and the other companion - I lost my character and now I'm kinda thoughtful about how I should act.

On one hand, I understand the positioning of my DM - he is acting in the way he thinks it's the optimal one. D&D is a cooperative game.

On the other part, I kinda lost my will to continue as a player. D&D means roleplaying and if my character had a) sense of honor b) felt betrayed by another character I truly don't understand why I should have acted otherwise and why I should be punished that way by the DM.

I'm frankly at a loss - I should be doing another character for the next times, but I'm not sure I will. If I roleplay and my acts are justified, I shouldn't be punished.

If I do player killing just for the sake of it, I would understand why he would act this way.

[Keltest]

The group's stance on PvP is absolutely something that should be established in Session 0. If not all parties involved are on board with it, then it shouldnt happen IMO, no matter how justified it would be in character. This is absolutely one of those situations where the story beats need to take a back seat to it being a game among people who are friends and want to remain friends, or at least who can sit at the same table courteously.

If you felt that your character's story was taking him in a direction that is antagonistic to the rest of the party, talk with the DM about it, prepare a backup character, and get ready to maybe encounter your former character as an NPC later on. You should also probably talk to the player of the taunting character, check to see if theyre ok with repriasal in-character, and if they arent then ask them to stop trying to pick a fight.


I would also suggest that if you were playing a "classic" paladin (Oath of Devotion in 5e terms), your character's personal pride is not worth killing somebody over outside of a formal setting like a duel. By all means challenge them to a fight, but if its about your honor, do it honorably.

[Rynjin]

A.) Unsanctioned PvP is a big no-no, period.

B.) That act is 100% worthy of triggering a fall and putting your "Paladin" (now former) on the fast track to Antipaladin-dom. Murdering someone in cold blood is, shockingly, evil. Yes, even if they said mean things to you and hurt your fee-fees.

[LibraryOgre]

Ironically, this was somewhat addressed in an article that used to be on this site... namely, the excuse of "That's what my character would do."

RPGs are cooperative. If your character gets to a point where he's going to kill another PC, you need to sit down and think if there's any alternative to keep the game going. Something your character would do, other than killing a dude, who gets some special consideration because of the PC Halo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If not all parties involved are on board with it, then it shouldnt happen IMO, no matter how justified it would be in character. This is absolutely one of those situations where the story beats need to take a back seat to it being a game among people who are friends and want to remain friends
Absolutely this.

That said, I don't think things were going particularly healthily before the PvP either. If I'm reading your story correctly, the GM set the whole campaign up with your character kind of standing in opposition to the rest of the party, who then proceeded to respond antagonistically. It sounds like there were multiple violations of the "players are all on the same team" social contract from all sides.

Forget in-character roleplaying here - - what are the other players' personal takes on events? How are they feeling as people?

[JustIgnoreMe]

Ironically, this was somewhat addressed in an article that used to be on this site... namely, the excuse of "That's what my character would do."
Oh, I had no idea those articles had gone, what a shame.

[elros]

7th edition CoC addresses this issue directly, and I think their advice applies here.
You can explain your character’s motivation and intention to the GM, and then try to work out a way to okay it out. Maybe have the GM arrange an honor duel where the loser had the serve the winner, similar to the effect of a geas spell. Or have a way for the other character to get banished but you are needed to bring the character back, so the rest of the party has to work with you on a side quest to rescue him.
It sounds like the GM set up a bad situation, and then didn’t try to figure out a way to make it work.

[King of Nowhere]

pvp started the moment the other guy taunted you out of your comfort zone. the game should have stopped there, and everyone should have had some big talk to avoid ending up in this kind of situation.
you are still guilty of unsanctioned pvp. just saying the other guy isn't innocent either.
if i was the dm, i'd offer to just pretend the previous session never happened, and task both of you to find a way to keep playing that's enjoyable for both.

[Telonius]

Ironically, this was somewhat addressed in an article that used to be on this site... namely, the excuse of "That's what my character would do."

RPGs are cooperative. If your character gets to a point where he's going to kill another PC, you need to sit down and think if there's any alternative to keep the game going. Something your character would do, other than killing a dude, who gets some special consideration because of the PC Halo.

I think I managed to find it via Wayback. (The "Making Tough Decisions" one in "Play Theory"). Would it be okay if I quoted it here?

I know there's an "articles previously appearing" thread in Homebrew, but it does seem to be missing a bunch.

[Saintheart]

IAnyway, one of my companions, even after saving their life (they were going to be hanged because they had no real way to justify themselves on why they were there) was particularly unsuferrable towards me. And it was not done in a way that I found particularly enjoyable, nor as player nor as character.

The fact is, I asked him for an important dagger in a pretty rude way (rude because I told him that one of my word with dwarves would have meant his death if he begged to differ from my will), but after this I kinda I stopped any kind of threat or anything else - I just reminded him sometimes that I wanted the dagger.

Fact is, the companion kept taunting me a lot. And he did that not only when we were alone as party, he did that even after important fights (by telling a whole host of dwarves that I fled or I didn't help), by telling the dwarves that I was a spy and so on.

In the end, the campaign kinda went to ruin. The dwarves were killed en masse by the yuan ti and while trying to flee from the pocket plane the (hostile - to me) character acted a bit further - and he accused me in front of the party that I was the one that killed the king (after gaining the title of royal guard for this "little" reign). This was during a ritual to flee the pocket plane being executed by a npc owned by the DM.

I am (was) a paladin and my character couldn't hold it any further - I killed him, only to gain a reprimand from my DM that I shouldn't have done so. The Npc chose not to bring me and the other companion - I lost my character and now I'm kinda thoughtful about how I should act.

On one hand, I understand the positioning of my DM - he is acting in the way he thinks it's the optimal one. D&D is a cooperative game.

On the other part, I kinda lost my will to continue as a player. D&D means roleplaying and if my character had a) sense of honor b) felt betrayed by another character I truly don't understand why I should have acted otherwise and why I should be punished that way by the DM.

I'm frankly at a loss - I should be doing another character for the next times, but I'm not sure I will. If I roleplay and my acts are justified, I shouldn't be punished.

If I do player killing just for the sake of it, I would understand why he would act this way.


I've got to say, reading this story carefully doesn't seem to indicate a DM problem. This reads like someone freely mixing their own annoyance with their character's purported annoyance.

Missing from the above: any indication that this was brought up OOC between the two players during or after the event.

"Oh, but I totally did, lots of times, during the session, and neither he nor anyone at the table did anything about it." Very unlikely, because that would make the above set of circumstances even less plausible. Although if that's what took place, well, it's likely time to quit that group.

Your character didn't ask for the dagger, your character threatened another character to gain possession of it. With death, it seems; 'one word to the dwarves from me and you're dead; therefore, submit to my will' seems to be what was said. This threat is backed on occasion by further threats/requests for said dagger, seeing as the threats "kind of" stopped.

Apparently, the response of said character to said threat/s was to start taunting yours. I don't find that reaction unreasonable in the sense of being unlikely or insane.

And on being falsely accused of being a murderer, your character ironically proved the material parts of the accusation ... by dropping into a murderous rage and butchering the other character right there. After he'd apparently gone to a lot of trouble to save his life earlier in the piece.

I'm not sure what kind of paladin you're playing, but he sounds like a right $#!+ to me.

As for the DM? Did nothing wrong. In fact, carried out his job because he gave your character consequences for actions. And by consequences, I don't mean consequences in the sense of punishment, I mean a set of reactions from the world in response to your actions. I would imagine that a reasonable NPC, confronted with a literal murder carried out right in front of him, by someone with clear anger management issues, might not be keen to exactly be said someone's planar bus driver.

The NPC leaving you behind was the NPC's reaction to your character's actions. The reprimand from the DM was for you. PvP combat and killing is just the worst.

[icefractal]

Eh, I feel like there was escalating PvP on both sides. We can quibble about whether mere antagonism counts, but at this point, it's definitely PvP:
Fact is, the companion kept taunting me a lot. And he did that not only when we were alone as party, he did that even after important fights (by telling a whole host of dwarves that I fled or I didn't help), by telling the dwarves that I was a spy and so on.Attacking a character's reputation is PvP, just as stealing their stuff, harming people they care about, intentionally giving them a cursed item, or physically attacking them is.

But the reason I don't say it was primarily on the other player is this:
The fact is, I asked him for an important dagger in a pretty rude way (rude because I told him that one of my word with dwarves would have meant his death if he begged to differ from my will)Threats like that are also PvP. Now I don't know what events lead up to the threat, but it seems like you were both at fault here, if PvP is something you don't want in the campaign.

The last part is critical - there's nothing inherently wrong with PvP. But the group does need to be on board with it. And there's nothing wrong with one or more characters leaving the party if they end up with no plausible reason to remain together.

People sometimes put "the party sticks together" above everything, and also set arbitrary lines like "actively thwarting a PCs goals is fine, harming them indirectly is fine, but the second an attack roll happens THAT'S ILLEGAL!" IMO, both of those are dumb. This isn't a TV show where we can't change cast without changing actors, and if it's possible for a character to die (the case in most campaigns) then it's ok for one to voluntarily leave.

[Mastikator]

TBH seems like your DM set you up to fail, and fail you did. I suspect the bridge is burned, and when and if you make a new character you may expect some taunts from the same player. Do NOT be the first to throw a taunt, threat or anything against any of the other players. And if they do it repeat these words "don't start with crap again", signal loud and clear that you're not going to be in a taunting match with a player, do NOT mess with this signal by performing *soft PVP.

Ask the DM to not set up your character in opposition to the party again, if you want the bridge to be rebuilt then it must be rebuilt from both ends. And if the DM is completely unwilling to take any responsibility for setting you up then I'd consider that game over.

*soft PVP includes taunts, threats, stealing, hoarding, withholding important info, being obstinate when the party has reached a consensus, attempting to dominate other players, budding in/trampling on their story moments, "jokes" at the expense of other PCs (and remember if you don't like to receive, don't dish out, it's OK to not banter)


Also ask yourself how you would feel if when you threatened the PC to get the dagger, they attacked and killed your character in self defense because you threatened to kill them.

[MoiMagnus]

Anyway, one of my companions, even after saving their life (they were going to be hanged because they had no real way to justify themselves on why they were there) was particularly unsuferrable towards me. And it was not done in a way that I found particularly enjoyable, nor as player nor as character.


While I while criticise you latter, I'd like to point that those same criticises apply to that other player annoying you.
"It's what my character would do" is a good reason to annoy another character, as long as no player is annoyed by it. "It's what my character would do" is not a good reason to annoy another player, even through their character. Being unsuferrable is being a jerk IRL.

You escalated the situation latter, but IMO some red lines were crossed earlier and some OOC discussions should have happened earlier



The fact is, I asked him for an important dagger in a pretty rude way (rude because I told him that one of my word with dwarves would have meant his death if he begged to differ from my will), but after this I kinda I stopped any kind of threat or anything else - I just reminded him sometimes that I wanted the dagger.

Fact is, the companion kept taunting me a lot. And he did that not only when we were alone as party, he did that even after important fights (by telling a whole host of dwarves that I fled or I didn't help), by telling the dwarves that I was a spy and so on.


It would be fine if both player enjoyed this interaction, it can be pretty fun to RP characters that hate each others.
From what you said earlier, I'd guess that this was sadly not the case. It's unfortunate that no other player (or GM) intervened to ask the two of you to have a mature discussion about having fun together.




In the end, the campaign kinda went to ruin. The dwarves were killed en masse by the yuan ti and while trying to flee from the pocket plane the (hostile - to me) character acted a bit further - and he accused me in front of the party that I was the one that killed the king (after gaining the title of royal guard for this "little" reign). This was during a ritual to flee the pocket plane being executed by a npc owned by the DM.

I am (was) a paladin and my character couldn't hold it any further - I killed him, only to gain a reprimand from my DM that I shouldn't have done so. The Npc chose not to bring me and the other companion - I lost my character and now I'm kinda thoughtful about how I should act.


So the situation degenerated to PvP. At this point the GM has IMO two somewhat reasonable choices:

Enforce collaboration and prevent your character from killing the other, then make it clear that PvP is not allowed.
Allowing the scene to happen, and letting each character (PC or NPC) determine whether or not they want to execute/exile your character (potentially combined with your fall as a Paladin). You cannot claim "well, I'm a PC so of course I won't be condemned to death without any possibility for me to get out" when you just murdered another PC. You've just given up any plot armour your character had.

But those situations are kind of hard to handle as a GM.



On the other part, I kinda lost my will to continue as a player. D&D means roleplaying and if my character had a) sense of honor b) felt betrayed by another character I truly don't understand why I should have acted otherwise and why I should be punished that way by the DM.


In the end, YOU are the one deciding how your character behave and no one else. If you feel that "it's what my character would do" might push you toward doing things that are inappropriate, either change your character's mindset so that they want, or kindly ask OOC for the players and GM to change the situation. In the worst case, don't do the inappropriate thing and find a posteriori a reason why.

What is "inappropriate" obviously depends on you table. Murdering another PC is considered appropriate as some tables, but not at most tables and it seems that's not the case at yours.

[Entessa]

Thanks to each one of you for answering and for providing me new hindsights. Yesterday I had another idea (that I was on the right and that I should have quit), but today, after reading your posts and sleeping on it I realized that I probably set up myself for failure by playing my character in such an antagonistic way. Next time I will do better.

[Keltest]

Thanks to each one of you for answering and for providing me new hindsights. Yesterday I had another idea (that I was on the right and that I should have quit), but today, after reading your posts and sleeping on it I realized that I probably set up myself for failure by playing my character in such an antagonistic way. Next time I will do better.

The big thing is to talk to the other players at the table about it. Its perfectly valid to play that way if everybody is on board, but full and explicit consent is the key to making it work.

[Batcathat]

The big thing is to talk to the other players at the table about it. Its perfectly valid to play that way if everybody is on board, but full and explicit consent is the key to making it work.

Yeah, this is an important point. I feel like I lot of people (not in this thread, just in general) just go "PvP is always bad and should never, ever happen". At some tables, even insulting another PC is extremely frowned upon, at others PCs kill each other every other session. As long as people agree (or, perhaps more realistically, reach a compromise everyone's okay with), any version's fine.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Absolutely this.

That said, I don't think things were going particularly healthily before the PvP either. If I'm reading your story correctly, the GM set the whole campaign up with your character kind of standing in opposition to the rest of the party, who then proceeded to respond antagonistically. It sounds like there were multiple violations of the "players are all on the same team" social contract from all sides.

Forget in-character roleplaying here - - what are the other players' personal takes on events? How are they feeling as people?

And where the hell was the DM? The moment it gets interpersonal between players is the first, last, and only chance the DM has to save the game. Failure and collapse seem to come as others at table are made to feel uncomfortable watching, take sides, or otherwise look for the exit.

[LibraryOgre]

I think I managed to find it via Wayback. (The "Making Tough Decisions" one in "Play Theory"). Would it be okay if I quoted it here?

I know there's an "articles previously appearing" thread in Homebrew, but it does seem to be missing a bunch.

The Mod Ogre: I don't see why not.

[Psyren]

A.) Unsanctioned PvP is a big no-no, period.

B.) That act is 100% worthy of triggering a fall and putting your "Paladin" (now former) on the fast track to Antipaladin-dom. Murdering someone in cold blood is, shockingly, evil. Yes, even if they said mean things to you and hurt your fee-fees.

I agree 100% with #1. For #2, it depends on the edition and the mechanics behind "Paladin" and even the alignment system. For example, 5e paladins can very easily be evil or have no alignment requirement at all; heck you could build a character like Shao Kahn as a paladin.

[Jay R]

You bring up a lot of complicated issues, and there's no single clear answer.

Fortunately, you also asked one very simple, straightforward question that has a simple, straightforward answer:


D&D means roleplaying and if my character had a) sense of honor b) felt betrayed by another character I truly don't understand why I should have acted otherwise and why I should be punished that way by the DM.

Because they way you played made the game less fun for everybody -- including you.
Because it will mean you are likely to get stopped by the DM whether you think it should or not.
Because the results of that kind of action won't be fun for you.
Because it means you will be less interested in making a new character and continuing to play.

That's why you shouldn't play that way. Because in most games (and specifically in this game), it simply won't work. You will not be allowed to make the game less fun for everybody.

There's no point in saying I'm wrong -- my documentation for this is your own post.

And by the way, he isn't "punishing" you; he's protecting his game from somebody who is hurting it. You can play a character that makes the game more fun for everyone with no punishment whatsoever, but he will not allow you to play a character who hurts the game for everybody.

You cannot hurt the game for everybody because that's what your character would do.
You cannot hurt the game for everybody because you felt betrayed by another character.
You cannot hurt the game for everybody for any reason whatsoever.



You can say, "... but that's what my character would do" all you want. Nobody cares. The game is affected by what the [B]player will do. The player decided to have his character kill somebody else's character. That poisons the game.

Play the game so that everybody, including you, has fun.

Note that my argument is not based on morality or fair play or politeness or anything like that. It is purely practical -- if you cause trouble for other players, the game will be less fun for you.

Really. If you don't want to play with that group, I could understand that. But if you decide to build another character and play, then build a character who will get along with the party.

Not "a character who will get along if the others do what I want them to do."
Not "a character who will get along unless my character would do something else."
Build a character who actually will get along with the rest of the party. And be a player who will try to calm awkward situations down, not one who will make them worse.

Or else nobody, even you, will have fun.

[Telonius]

The Mod Ogre: I don't see why not.

Thanks! Just wanted to check in case Rich had deliberately excluded it.




Making the Tough Decisions
Since this series was originally conceived as a series for DMs, I was thinking "Texture for Players" would be a one-article subject. But as I got into it, I started to see more and more ways that a little extra thought about your character can improve the game. So I'm going to start here with a few thoughts about making decisions. Really, that's 90% of what a player does in a roleplaying game; he or she makes decisions. But too often, players fall into the mistaken belief that certain decisions are not really theirs to make, or are foregone conclusions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two ways in which you can always choose for your character to act differently, which will add an extra level of realism and fun to your game.

Throw Caution to the Wind: One of the most common problems I see is when a player thinks of "roleplaying" as what you do during a diplomacy scene, completely separated from what you do during combat. Bzzz! Wrong answer. Everything you do, when talking or when swinging your sword, is roleplaying. A well-developed character will have a fighting style that extends beyond his selection of feats, and will have a consistent and believable response to any obstacle they encounter. If you turn off your character's personality just because the dice come out, you are missing out on a whole range of roleplaying possibilities that would add depth to your character.

A good place to start when thinking about your character's combat roleplaying style is to consider what your character thinks of as an "acceptable loss." Does your character balk at the thought of being wounded, running to the cleric whenever he's hit, or does he stand in melee long after he probably should have withdrawn? Is his focus on staying alive at all costs, or defeating the enemy no matter what? This could partly be determined by alignment, but a particularly stubborn character might fight to the bitter end despite being Neutral.

Another choice concerns how willing he is to use renewable (or nonrenewable) resources, such as spells, potions, scrolls, wand charges, rage uses, etc. He may have a cavalier attitude, feeling the party will always be able to rest or restock, or he might never use any resource if he can win a fight without it. A barbarian, for example, might rage as soon as he sees a tough band of foes, or he might wait until he is wounded and could use the extra hit points. The choice reflects his personality: if he saves his rage, he might be a cautious pessimist who knows that things always get worse, but if he rages right away, he may be saying that he is confident that the heroes will win quickly. If he's a spellcaster, does he liberally burn a spell every round, even in an easy battle, or does he miserly save his spells for desperate situations? A sorcerer who revels in his magic and flaunts it at every opportunity probably falls into the former category, while a greedy wizard who covets all magical knowledge might be the latter.

What these issues boil down to is how cautious the character is. Caution is at once very important and entirely overrated. It is important for players to be interested in the imaginary world and be invested in their characters' lives. But at the same time, too often players let caution overwhelm them, spending hours carefully proceeding in a calculated manner that may well belay their characters' stated personalities. The key, then, is to forget about succeeding. Your goal as a player in a roleplaying game is not to succeed; your goal is to have fun. An entertaining defeat is better than a boring victory, so let go of the need to always take the most effective route every time, and try taking the route your character would, even at great cost to that character.

Obviously, that's hard to do. There's a natural desire to do well, and really, your character does want to succeed every time. The key is to separate in your mind what your character thinks from what you think. That's how you add texture, by giving your character views on how to proceed in battle that are different than your views. Your character will take every advantage that he or she perceives, but you, as the player, have the benefit of determining what sort of advantages are within your character's perception.

Some examples might help. I recently finished a year-long campaign playing a samurai. On the very first adventure, the child the samurai was supposed to guard was kidnapped, and as one might expect, Isawa Shojo was willing to sacrifice anything to get him back. Now, the DM had set up this long series of tunnels that were trapped repeatedly. I ran right into the first trap, because we didn't know any better. Once we knew the tunnel was trapped, the prevailing opinion was to slow down and have the party rogue search for traps. At this point, though, I made a decision that would more or less define my character's reaction to danger: I kept running down the hall, knowing that there were more traps. As a player, I knew this was probably a Bad Idea, but I decided that my honorable samurai felt that getting hit with the trap was acceptable when weighed against the need to hurry. He reasoned that even if the traps killed him, he would have sprung the traps and allowed his allies to get to the end safely. By having him react without caution, I was able to show that he was a man who was willing to sacrifice his life for his duty. As the campaign continued, Isawa often ran headfirst into danger, not because he was foolish, but because he was willing to die if it meant success for his team.

A caveat, however: if you decide to play a character who takes risks or acts rashly, you should let yourself get talked out of it from time to time by the more level-headed characters. Isawa, for example, often suggested wildly inappropriate courses of action, which the far more cautious paladin Adhemar would convince me to not enact. Throwing caution to the wind is fun once in a while, but if done during every encounter, it gets annoying to the other players.

Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning.

If the paladin is to blame for the last problem, this one belongs to the druid. Druids have such a specific set of principles that players often mistake them for being a free pass to demand that each adventure revolve around their goals. Raiding a dungeon for gold doesn't appeal to the druid mindset, so what are you to do if you play one and are presented with that goal? You improvise. Maybe the gold will enable you to purchase magic items that will let you protect the wilderness. Maybe the ruins contain unnatural monsters that need to be killed regardless of the treasure. Maybe, just maybe, the other PCs are your friends and you are willing to help them just because. Too often that last part is forgotten; I don't think anyone reading this has never spent the night doing something they'd rather not because a friend asked.

So if you're really paying attention, you may be thinking, "Hey, don't those two points contradict one another? First he says to separate what your character thinks from what you think, but then he says your character doesn't have its own reactions." Well, no. Separate your character's thoughts from your own thoughts, but don't forget who is in control of both personalities. The division between your personality and that of your character only goes so far as it helps the game; once it begins becoming a disruption, a player has a responsibility to alter his or her character's decisions in the interest of the group. In the end, your relationships with the people you are sitting in someone's living room with are more important than your character's internal consistency.

OK, so I originally said this article would be about backgrounds, but it ended up about something else. Next time, I promise.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Thanks to each one of you for answering and for providing me new hindsights. Yesterday I had another idea (that I was on the right and that I should have quit), but today, after reading your posts and sleeping on it I realized that I probably set up myself for failure by playing my character in such an antagonistic way. Next time I will do better.
That's a good way to look at it.

[Jay R]

Thanks to each one of you for answering and for providing me new hindsights. Yesterday I had another idea (that I was on the right and that I should have quit), but today, after reading your posts and sleeping on it I realized that I probably set up myself for failure by playing my character in such an antagonistic way. Next time I will do better.

Great! That's the path to more fun.

The question is never "Do I have the right to get annoyed?"

The question is always, "What do I do next so that I and others will have more fun?"

[icefractal]

That's why you shouldn't play that way. Because in most games (and specifically in this game), it simply won't work. You will not be allowed to make the game less fun for everybody.Assuming PVP makes the game less fun for everyone, yes. But really, if the GM was going to step in to prevent that, they should have stepped in much earlier, since this was just the culmination of escalating PVP that had been happening for a while.

[Jay R]

Assuming PVP makes the game less fun for everyone, yes.

I only need to assume that it made the game less fun for this table, and for the OP. That was documented in the first post.

I agree that different situations call for different advice.


But really, if the GM was going to step in to prevent that, they should have stepped in much earlier, since this was just the culmination of escalating PVP that had been happening for a while.

Agreed. If the DM had written in for advice, I'd have aimed my advice at him. But he didn't. Entessa wrote and asked for advice, so my advice was aimed at Entessa, in this specific game.

[Zanos]

Can you give more context for the dagger incident? If the dagger is important because it has a demon soul or something it's pretty unreasonable for a character to keep it away from a Paladin unless they want to do something obviously nefarious, but a +2 dagger is a different story.

I generally agree that unsanctioned PVP is bad. However, there's a difference between threatening a PC that's playing keep away with plot items and falsely accusing a PC of murder to try to get them killed. And that compounds with the fact that you already showed the character some amount of good will by bailing them out of a bad situation. D&D being a cooperative game goes both ways, and refusing to cooperate with the party should usually mean that you have to roll a new character. I've had DMs that are so averse to confrontation that they will never castigate players for bad behavior until someone rolls an attack, and it kind of makes situations like this inevitable when someone rolls a character that keeps stealing from the party or similar.