PDA

View Full Version : My CN rogue is ticked at the party... (help wanted)



Fiery Diamond
2008-03-02, 07:23 PM
I am the DM. Usually, the group dynamics of my gaming group are awesome, and roleplay is sweet. However, (in a party of all Good/Neutral characters, in a Good campaign) there is a CN rogue who is borderline evil. He plays his character consistently, and does a good job roleplaying. The issue is that last session, multiple characters (not players, though some were a little bit annoyed) lost their tempers. And Bad Things may happen.

Party:
LG Monk (focuses on inner order, not restraining the party)
NG Warblade/Swordsage
CG Cleric/Fighter/Itinerant Healer(PrC I invented)
CG Rogue (NPC)
CN Bard
CN Sorcerer
CN Rogue
TN Fighter (Kobold cohort to the Cleric)

When discussing distribution of treasure, CN Rogue says kobold shouldn't get fair share. Reply - NPC rogue gets a share, why not kobold? CN Rogue says, "But she's a person."
Silence.
NPC rogue gets sorcerer to turn her invisible. Cleric tells kobold what was said. Kobold is angry. Party deliberately makes noise so CN rogue can't tell where NPC rogue is. He loses it and puts a knife to the Bard to make them back off. NPC loses it. Sneak attack punch, dealing 11 damage (low rolls). Bard uses gaseous form to get away. CN rogue draws rapier. Kobold throws down an item that blinds and deafens over half the party. CN rogue is tied up. Rest of party is of one mind to leave him tied for the night. Kobold applies drow poison to his wound to knock him unconscious because he's screaming profanities (actual profanities not uttered IRL, though - we have good taste). Everyone goes to sleep.

Problem- the player has told me that his character is going to plot revenge: probably non-violent toward the party, more in line of trying to obtain vast amounts of wealth and not share and/or hamper the party in any of their attempts.
Question- what, as DM, do you think I should do? In Character, the relationship with the rest of the party of this CN rogue is rather strained, and we want to avoid a complete falling-out.

-Fiery Diamond

Eran of Arcadia
2008-03-02, 07:35 PM
Is the problem purely IC? Then you should make a bunch of rocks fall and kill them all.

BRC
2008-03-02, 07:40 PM
Let him roll with it, then reel him in if it gets out of hand.

That said, Cohorts don't get shares of the treasure, but thats a purely OOC thing.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-03-02, 07:53 PM
So, the party reacted badly beause the CN Rogue said something that was racist (or speciesist, since "race" isn't really the issue.) In my opinion, it was the rest of the party that overreacted. They could have argue the point with him without, essentially, conspiring to distract him while the other rogue snuck up on him for whatever reason. At worst the player of the CN rogue shouldn't have acted on metagame knowledge that his party members were planning to do something dirty to him for what he said. If he had any reason to believe that his party was going to do something to him he had very good reason to lash out and threaten the bard. It's not "good" by any stretch, but then neither is conspiring against someone for an off-hand comment, no matter how unpleasant an attitude it reveals.

That said, I'd talk with the whole group. Maybe consider rewinding the session after tempers have cooled and having them play it out in a rational manner like mostly good aligned adults. It doesn't sound like anything that was done was really in character for any of these folks, save the CN rogue. I've always been an advocate, that if someone realizes after the fact that they did something in-game in a moment of foolishness that their character wouldn't have done, that they can retroactively not do that at all, especially if it makes the interaction between members of the group less tense. Tying up a party member, attacking a party member, and threatening a party member are all way to kill a game.

-Blue

BRC
2008-03-02, 08:01 PM
So, the party reacted badly beause the CN Rogue said something that was racist (or speciesist, since "race" isn't really the issue.) In my opinion, it was the rest of the party that overreacted. They could have argue the point with him without, essentially, conspiring to distract him while the other rogue snuck up on him for whatever reason. At worst the player of the CN rogue shouldn't have acted on metagame knowledge that his party members were planning to do something dirty to him for what he said. If he had any reason to believe that his party was going to do something to him he had very good reason to lash out and threaten the bard. It's not "good" by any stretch, but then neither is conspiring against someone for an off-hand comment, no matter how unpleasant an attitude it reveals.

That said, I'd talk with the whole group. Maybe consider rewinding the session after tempers have cooled and having them play it out in a rational manner like mostly good aligned adults. It doesn't sound like anything that was done was really in character for any of these folks, save the CN rogue. I've always been an advocate, that if someone realizes after the fact that they did something in-game in a moment of foolishness that their character wouldn't have done, that they can retroactively not do that at all, especially if it makes the interaction between members of the group less tense. Tying up a party member, attacking a party member, and threatening a party member are all way to kill a game.

-Christy

I wouldn't really say the party overreacted. They have risked their lives alongside this kobold. They have trusted and worked with each other in the most dangerous situations imaginable, they are a band of brothers! and sisters, there are sisters in the band, I think they play drums.

But anyway, at this point each one is fully aware they are alive because of the others. Then this guy says one of the members of this group shouldn't get their share of the goods and calls them "not a person". Depending on the group, their response could be completally rational.

Riffington
2008-03-02, 08:06 PM
You can call it speciesist if you want, but it's true... he's a kobold.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-02, 08:07 PM
Screw you guys... I'm going home!

Seriously, you can't fix that problem. Once blood has been spilled, that's it. And CN rogue got poisoned to boot. The party wasn't even willing to discuss the division of treasure and went straight to plotting against one of the party members that was presumably one of the original partners in the organization. You think that NPC share system applies only OOC? Go to ANY partnership corporation with associates and see how much the associates make in comparison to the partners. The CN rogue needs to get up in the morning and demand to have his/her shares bought out by the rest of the founding partners and then leave.

Talya
2008-03-02, 08:14 PM
There was once a NG Wizardess, CG Cleric, LN Fighter, and CN-to-CE Rogue roaming Faerun while the gods were thrown from their realms.

They still don't get along all that well...although three of them became gods, and the cleric shifted to worship one of the three. Of course, now two of them are dead at the hands of the rogue...although I'm not convinced the Wizardess isn't going to come back after a short time.

Overlard
2008-03-02, 08:16 PM
From reading the title, I thought this was gonna be about the game I'm in. Last session all the PCs were arguing with each other about what to do with the NPC we're escorting, after discovering some unpleasant facts about him. Swords were drawn, trips and grapple were made - and all between the good characters.

My CN rogue was standing at the sidelines, just letting them get on with it. Why bother arguing about it, when she can just slit the NPC's throat during the night, and then plant the knife on someone else?

Fiery Diamond
2008-03-02, 08:21 PM
You think that NPC share system applies only OOC? Go to ANY partnership corporation with associates and see how much the associates make in comparison to the partners. The CN rogue needs to get up in the morning and demand to have his/her shares bought out by the rest of the founding partners and then leave.

The situation with the cohort is a little complicated, as it wasn't established in the most traditional way. The cohort was originally taken as a prisoner way back when and ... other complicated stuff. Suffice to say, they never worked out a specific deal on how much treasure he would receive.
Also, in case you didn't read it, I want to avoid the CN rogue permanently leaving the party.


I wouldn't really say the party overreacted. They have risked their lives alongside this kobold. They have trusted and worked with each other in the most dangerous situations imaginable, they are a band of brothers! and sisters, there are sisters in the band, I think they play drums.

But anyway, at this point each one is fully aware they are alive because of the others. Then this guy says one of the members of this group shouldn't get their share of the goods and calls them "not a person". Depending on the group, their response could be completally rational.

My view.


Tying up a party member, attacking a party member, and threatening a party member are all way to kill a game.

Potentially, but not necessarily. As I said, my group is very good at roleplaying. Way back, when they first met him, this same rogue attempted to rob them of the most valuable items they possessed. He was tied up then, too, and there was no problem with the game. Slapstick humor occurs as well, when the NG gets annoyed at the CN rogue and backhands him. Threatening a party member, however, was something that might have gone a little too far, I'll agree. It was that act that escalated the situation.

-Fiery Diamond

Animefunkmaster
2008-03-02, 08:24 PM
wait... rogue is having trouble with loot distribution?!?!?!

Slight of hand... while sleep... bag of holding, and sell the item quickly.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-03-02, 08:25 PM
I wouldn't really say the party overreacted. They have risked their lives alongside this kobold. They have trusted and worked with each other in the most dangerous situations imaginable, they are a band of brothers! and sisters, there are sisters in the band, I think they play drums.

But anyway, at this point each one is fully aware they are alive because of the others. Then this guy says one of the members of this group shouldn't get their share of the goods and calls them "not a person". Depending on the group, their response could be completally rational.

Plotting against a fellow party member for a single comment can't be rational in my book. I can see getting angry at him, maybe having an angry shouting match, but let's look at the facts. The rogue A says something that get tempers up, so the sorcerer casts invisibility on Rogue B and the rest of the party makes noise so that Rogue A can't hear Rogue B sneaking up on him. Even if the player was acting on out-of-game knowledge, since he couldn't hear Rogue B creeping on him, it's still perfectly reasonable to assume that he could tell that his party members were acting weird. Rogue A makes an error in judgement and threateds the party bard, and Rogue B punches him. The whole group them jumps him, ties him up, and the kobold poisons him when he starts to throw a fit about it. Poisons him. That's a bit much, even if his words were offensive, and it's not the behavior of a seasoned group of good-aligned adventurers, in my opinion, but the actions of a group of young adults who got their dander up and irrationally overreacted in character. Nevermind that Rogue A has probably saved their lives before too.

Rational would be saying "Geez, Rogue A, Kobold Fighter's saved my life. He's our friend and our ally, and it disturbs me that after all this time you would say something like that. If that's really how you feel maybe you should cash out your share of the loot and go find some other group to adventure with."

-Blue

Fiery Diamond
2008-03-02, 09:43 PM
@Blue:

Rational... well, it depends on how you're defining rational. If you mean rational in the purely traditional sense (objectively logical) then it isn't. But it certainly is realistic, and not even at the fringe of realistic. Apparently you don't have issues with temper, like, ever. Many people, however, do. Even if they don't normally lose their temper, when they do lose it (as I stated the characters did) many people do violent things. If you've ever witnessed siblings hitting each other you know this to be true. A general assumption is that as one grows older one learns not to do this. The fact of the matter, though, is that one learns to prevent oneself from doing this (i.e., gains an inhibition). When tempers flare, inhibitions often go - and quickly. "Shouting match"... if you've lost your temper to the point of shouting, and you routinely fight monsters all the time, and you don't really like the person you're angry at... it's unrealistic to expect it not to go further than a shouting match.

-Fiery Diamond

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-02, 09:46 PM
To be honest, if the rogue is going to plot non-harmful revenge against the others (and the sort he's planning seems a bit random; how is that really revenge?) that isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't necessarily a bad way to resolve it, truth be told; yeah, everyone may get a little annoyed but the point is it won't kill or severely hamper anyone, so I'm not sure how much it matters. Just make sure that the revenge he intends won't spark another such incident and it will be good.

I have to disagree with all the people who said this can't be worked out; it seems perfectly workable to me. There's nothing all that wrong with it; it depends entirely on the personalities of the players and their characters.

BRC
2008-03-02, 09:47 PM
Plotting against a fellow party member for a single comment can't be rational in my book. I can see getting angry at him, maybe having an angry shouting match, but let's look at the facts. The rogue A says something that get tempers up, so the sorcerer casts invisibility on Rogue B and the rest of the party makes noise so that Rogue A can't hear Rogue B sneaking up on him. Even if the player was acting on out-of-game knowledge, since he couldn't hear Rogue B creeping on him, it's still perfectly reasonable to assume that he could tell that his party members were acting weird. Rogue A makes an error in judgement and threateds the party bard, and Rogue B punches him. The whole group them jumps him, ties him up, and the kobold poisons him when he starts to throw a fit about it. Poisons him. That's a bit much, even if his words were offensive, and it's not the behavior of a seasoned group of good-aligned adventurers, in my opinion, but the actions of a group of young adults who got their dander up and irrationally overreacted in character. Nevermind that Rogue A has probably saved their lives before too.

Rational would be saying "Geez, Rogue A, Kobold Fighter's saved my life. He's our friend and our ally, and it disturbs me that after all this time you would say something like that. If that's really how you feel maybe you should cash out your share of the loot and go find some other group to adventure with."

-Blue
They poison him with Knockout poision, nothing deadly. They want to get him out of it for awhile, not cause him serious harm. He however, was waving around deadly weapons.

Collin152
2008-03-02, 10:13 PM
He however, was waving around deadly weapons.

That's why, ironically, Drunken Masters are least likely to be found in a tavern.

Kazuel
2008-03-02, 10:20 PM
This is for the rogue wanting revenge. Buy some poison that deals CON damage and have it put in bottles labeled "Healing Potion". The while the party sleeps, swap out bottles of poison for real healing potions. Even if they figure it out, you have a bunch of healing potions to keep you up while you help take them down.

Or,

If your party has at least 2 bags of holding, you can rig them so that one is suspeneded above the other by rope that has a candle under it. Sneak away and after the rope burns through, one bag falls into the other and hillarity ensues.


Enjoy!

Citizen Joe
2008-03-02, 10:32 PM
OK then, solution: In the morning admit that you've come to your senses and the kobold can have a fair share. At some point when you're alone at night, kill the kobold in his sleep and take all of his 'share' then stab yourself with the same drow sleep poison and frame some imaginary drow for the assassination.

EvilElitest
2008-03-02, 10:38 PM
seems like a testy group eh? Couldn't they just yell at him for being racist?
from
EE

Magnor Criol
2008-03-02, 10:46 PM
Is the player of the CN rogue dedicated to his character? Another potential way to deal with this situation is for the party to go ahead and leave the CN rogue behind, and that player to roll a new character who then joins the party at the first acceptable place.

Maybe not the absolute best solution - but it'd solve the problem, and prevent any further alignment issues. (Well - depending on the new character's alignment, that is.)

valadil
2008-03-03, 12:03 AM
You need to sit down with your group and see how they feel about in party infighting. Some groups are okay with it and some aren't, but you absolutely need to make sure the everyone in the group is on the same page. Trust me, I know how pissed a group can get when one scorned character gets them all killed. I was that scorned character.

That said, if people are okay with this being a game where party conflict can happen, it does make for interesting roleplaying scenarios. You have to make sure everyone involved is okay with that though. I've been in other games where a single player took the infighting personally and ended up bringing down the whole game.

Burley
2008-03-03, 11:47 AM
I think the big point that most of the Repliers of this thread are missing is this: the NPC started the plotting against the PC. Read: The DM went out of his way to conspire with players against another player. Now, I understand that you SAID that everybody was mostly in-character and there isn't much hostility between the players OOC.
But, everybody is ticked at the CN rogue? Nah, dude. The Rogue has the right to be ticked at the DM, IMO. If a DM is going to conspire against one character for ANY REASON, there should be compensation. Cohorts aren't supposed to get equal shares of treasure, if I recall correctly, and their equipment is supposed to come out of the share for the cohort's leader. NPCs don't get equal shares, either, and that's a fact.

To fix the whole thing, you need to go look up the rules for wealth distribution and show all the players OOC that the NPC and the cohort are supposed to get shafted, because they aren't players. For Turvaul's sake, Fiery Diamond, you're the DM! You control all the bloody world! If you want your NPC to have an item, they found it somewhere. If you want the Kobold Cohort to have an item, make something that only Scalykinds can use.
A DM ganging up on a player is asking for trouble, and that player (in my OPINION) deserves an apology. He's got a right to be miffed. He shouldn't have been punished for good role-playing.

Fiery Diamond
2008-03-03, 12:28 PM
@Burley: I'm slightly amused by your adamant "NPC's don't get a share" stance. Yes, there are rules for what treasure a cohort gets in the DMG. These are, like most of the DMG, guidelines - I don't do something non-mechanical "because the book says so." That, in my opinion, is not a fun way of playing D&D, which is a Roleplaying game rather than a roleplaying game as far as my group, including myself, is concerned. But you seem also to be saying that an NPC that isn't a cohort doesn't get any treasure at all. This makes little sense: we play so that only OOC is there ANY distinction between PC and NPC -- everyone's a person. The party views the NPC rogue as a member of the party. So, obviously, she gets a share. Never impose arbitrary restrictions based on things that are only known OOC. Restrictions that have reasons, sure, but not arbitrary ones.

Secondly, you seem to not realize something very important: the rest of the group collaborated with the NPC rogue, entirely in character. I simply played the NPC by the NPC's personality - I'm big on being internally consistent: I can't have the NPC just stand there because that's the way of least conflict, when the party would have had some kind of confrontation anyway (and trust me, they would).

Thirdly, you seem to be missing something - the player of the CN rogue isn't upset at all. The character is the one that's "miffed."

@Valadil: I'm pretty sure I know how they feel, but you have a point: I should probably ask just to be on the safe side. Your comment was useful.

@Titanium Dragon: I thank you. Yours has probably been the most helpful comment.

-Fiery Diamond

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-03, 12:40 PM
More power to you, firey, but you DID make a mistake. You mistakened the alignment of YOUR rogue, because not taking time to talk about this kind of issue is the mark not of good, but Chaotic Jerkass. Then again, that follows the portrayal WoTC gives CG, so maybe it's fine.

The_Werebear
2008-03-03, 01:48 PM
My advice- Let him plot away, especially since it is nonharmful. In this case, the best scenario for his revenge is "Look at this huge pile of cash I have all for myself. I would split it with you guys because you are my friends, but I don't have enough to share if we are including a kobold in the division. This is my treasure, not yours, so it is mine to divide how I want. Confrontational- Yes. Petty- Maybe, but in character. In the end, no one gets hurt (other than having to stand there and be annoyed while the rogue waves around huge sacks of cash) and the rogue gets the satisfaction of pulling some plot off and getting loot.

Burley
2008-03-03, 03:05 PM
@Burley: I'm slightly amused by your adamant "NPC's don't get a share" stance. Yes, there are rules for what treasure a cohort gets in the DMG. These are, like most of the DMG, guidelines - I don't do something non-mechanical "because the book says so." That, in my opinion, is not a fun way of playing D&D, which is a Roleplaying game rather than a roleplaying game as far as my group, including myself, is concerned. But you seem also to be saying that an NPC that isn't a cohort doesn't get any treasure at all. This makes little sense: we play so that only OOC is there ANY distinction between PC and NPC -- everyone's a person. The party views the NPC rogue as a member of the party. So, obviously, she gets a share. Never impose arbitrary restrictions based on things that are only known OOC. Restrictions that have reasons, sure, but not arbitrary ones.

Secondly, you seem to not realize something very important: the rest of the group collaborated with the NPC rogue, entirely in character. I simply played the NPC by the NPC's personality - I'm big on being internally consistent: I can't have the NPC just stand there because that's the way of least conflict, when the party would have had some kind of confrontation anyway (and trust me, they would).

Thirdly, you seem to be missing something - the player of the CN rogue isn't upset at all. The character is the one that's "miffed."

-Fiery Diamond

Well, here's my defense. I'm not arguing, because it's your game and I was stating my opinion.
I never said NPCs don't get a share. I said they don't get an "equal share". An NPC party member that is the same level as the rest of the party can be overpowering. Especially when, no matter how you play IC, the person who plays the NPC is the same person who plays the Monster. To make sure the PCs have the spotlight, instead of the NPC, the PCs should be at a higher level. Which means, being that they are higher leveled and can do more work and take more hits, they get a higher percentage. Now, the NPC (if played like a PC) will get a smaller cut of the treasure, but will get a cut of XP that will allow them to level comparitively faster than the PC.
Now, whether the rest of the players conspired or not, I read in the Original post:

Silence.
NPC rogue gets sorcerer to turn her invisible. Cleric tells kobold what was said. Kobold is angry. Party deliberately makes noise so CN rogue can't tell where NPC rogue is.
Now, I take into account that the first action taken after the slander is that the NPC/DM asked the PC/Player to do something to set another player up for disaster. It went straight from "Slander" to "Action", instead of "Slander" to "Working It Out Peacefully". I made my opinion from what I read, and what I read was that the DM jumped right into the plan making to punish role playing. If that's the personality your characters have, that's fine, and I'm sorry to insult your role-playing style. I must say, however, that for a party of mostly good aligned characters, that was an extremely underhanded tactic of revenge on the rogue, who was also in character.
Kobolds are affected by Hold Person, so, I agree that it was an incorrect statement, but I don't think it was entirely fair to act the way everybody did.

Yet again, I'm sorry if I insulted your style, but I read and inferred and stated my opinion.

Fiery Diamond
2008-03-03, 03:36 PM
@Azerian- as I define the "Good" alignment, it means you are an active altruist. It doesn't mean you don't lose your temper. Everyone loses his/her temper sometimes. You like to gloss over the fact that violence, in D&D, is significantly less taboo among adventurers than it is among the common people IRL. If you fight for a living, IRL, when you lose your temper, you're likely to do one of two things - make a huge effort NOT to be violent, or be more violent than the normal person. In D&D, I'd say that being violent is more likely. Besides, as far as her initiating things, nothing says the NPC rogue initially intended to do more than smack him (something a number of characters already do) or shove him into the wall before he threatened another party member. Realism, for me, is more important than "Let's make this all happy and wonderful, we don't want conflicts, because those are bad." As long as the players don't have a problem with it, it is actually better to be realistic than all "wonderful, let's avoid conflict - the DM must be just an arbitrator." Sorry, but (in my games) the DM is a player with additional responsibilities, not just an arbitrator.
Sorry if that sounded harsh, I had to blow off some steam, what with people blaming me for actually roleplaying the NPC instead of standing passively by.

@Warlock: I thank you very sincerely for being polite in your statements. Even though there are things about which I disagree, you acknowledge you are stating your opinion and are respectful. For that, I respect you as well. I apologize if my previous post seemed harsh. As far as things go, yes, this was all in character for the characters, and the player of the CN rogue did not see this as punishment to him of any kind - in fact, he'll probably get bonus roleplaying XP for it. As far as gold for the NPC, she is actually quite underpowered with comparison to the rest of the party, even with getting the same amount of treasure. She is very rarely as useful on the battlefield as the others or with the rogue skills that the CN rogue has. In fact, she's still with the party because the party, in character of course, convinced her to stay after her original intended plot use. The party likes the character. Again, though, thanks very much for being nice about how you responded.

---------------

I thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I think I've gotten some good advice. You can keep posting if you want, but I've gotten all the use out of this thread that I need, so I probably won't respond. Thanks everyone!

-Fiery Diamond

Cuddly
2008-03-03, 03:56 PM
How could the NPC rogue possible be chaotic good when he turned invisible and attacked a fellow party member over loot. That seems like an extremely chaotic evil act. If I was DM, I'd think about having your whole party move a step closer to evil for those shenanigans.

Severus
2008-03-03, 04:05 PM
Everyone's different, but my approach would be to tell the CN rogue's player:

"Your character is not working with the group, and I don't want to GM intra-party conflict. It almost always ends up with unhappy players because it is almost impossible to keep it all in character. You're the odd one out. Either fix your character so you don't have these issues with the party, or roll up a new character. This is your only warning. I like you, but for the sake of the game, I will drop a meteor on your head."

Intra-party conflict, in my experience, ends badly. You can't "reel it in later" when players egos get bruised. I would put my foot down hard, right now.

Premier
2008-03-03, 04:12 PM
To be honest, if the rogue is going to plot non-harmful revenge against the others (and the sort he's planning seems a bit random; how is that really revenge?) that isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't necessarily a bad way to resolve it, truth be told; yeah, everyone may get a little annoyed but the point is it won't kill or severely hamper anyone, so I'm not sure how much it matters. Just make sure that the revenge he intends won't spark another such incident and it will be good.

So you're saying that a resolution that causes several (or most of the) player annoyance in real life is OK, but a resolution that causes an IC character death/injury but no real-life annoyance (possibly excepting the one player with the rogue, but he's asking for it anyway) is not? I'm sorry, but that just seems totally turvy-topsy to me. The goal of the game is for the players to have fun, not for the characters to survive and prosper at any cost, players' annoyance included.

To Fiery Diamond: Ultimate, it all boils down to 2 questions:

One: are you the sort of neutral DM who's fine with the characters going for each others' throat and sorting it out between themselves, or the sort who wants to use some benevolent metagaming to prevent that? If the former, everything's just fine. If the latter, answer question 2:

Two: Is there any player causing any grief or annoyance for other players? If the answer's yes, you need to stop that player from doing so - for instance, by speaking to him in private and asking him to play in a way that's compatible with the group's preferred style. Who's right about what and who is or isn't overreacting in character is irrelevant, since you're addressing the issue of real-life grievances.


And another thought to go by: no player has the right to spoil the enjoyment of other players. This rule supercedes any sort of perceived entitlement to play whatever character personality he wants.

EvilElitest
2008-03-03, 11:26 PM
To be honest, if the rogue is going to plot non-harmful revenge against the others (and the sort he's planning seems a bit random; how is that really revenge?) that isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't necessarily a bad way to resolve it, truth be told; yeah, everyone may get a little annoyed but the point is it won't kill or severely hamper anyone, so I'm not sure how much it matters. Just make sure that the revenge he intends won't spark another such incident and it will be good.

I have to disagree with all the people who said this can't be worked out; it seems perfectly workable to me. There's nothing all that wrong with it; it depends entirely on the personalities of the players and their characters.

The party attacks a guy because of one racial slur and he is seeking revenge that could very well hinder the group and you don't think that isn't a bad thing? Odd. Sure it could be worked out, but i doubt it won't be ugly
from
EE

Randalor
2008-03-04, 03:00 AM
If the CN rogue's plan is just "Get more loot, stop other characters from getting said loot before me" I would probably allow it, under the basis of it's a violence-free scheme that sounds like it's about right for the character's mindset. If it's a case of "Get loot, and hamper party members when they're trying to not die" then I would put a stop to it, but by the sounds of it, you have... a rogue, and you're afraid he's going to act like a rogue.

Talic
2008-03-04, 03:12 AM
As a DM, I have one hard and fast rule of character design.

You must be able to function in a group setting, and work as a team.

That's it. Now, if a party is mostly evil, and someone wants to be a paladin, they gotta give me a good reason why this will work. If someone tries to be "anti-team", and says it's what their character would do, I submit to them that, as a player, they've violated my rule above. Consequences start with the opportunity to change the character's outlook to comply. If they do not, I remove the character from the party. About 95% of the time, this is through character death. Player now has another chance to comply, with a new character.

I am very strict in enforcing that everyone be able to have fun. Your rights end where the other player's rights begin. I tend to be lenient on what I allow characters to do (with the addendum to them, anything you can use, I can use. Usually keeps it in reason.), because really, everyone wants to do amazing things. But I am not lenient with people who make the game less fun.

In the above situation, I'd have a sitdown with CN rogue, and let him know that his goals are fine to have, but not to alienate or hinder the party. I'd then create zany hijinks on his goal for a vast score, and make sure everything stayed balanced among PC's (that's my job as DM).

Kompera
2008-03-04, 09:10 PM
[snipped for brevity, and my bolds for emphasis]

Party:
CG Rogue (NPC)

When discussing distribution of treasure, CN Rogue says kobold shouldn't get fair share. Reply - NPC rogue gets a share, why not kobold? CN Rogue says, "But she's a person."
Silence.
NPC rogue gets sorcerer to turn her invisible.

You broke it, you fix it. You, the GM, took things from a point of conversation, no matter how upset anyone might have been, to active actions against the player who had done nothing worse than to suggest that one NPC get a share of treasure while another NPC not get a share. The 'silence' doesn't really show anyone as being terribly upset. Shocked, disappointed, annoyed, considering how to respond, all of those could be their reactions. But you took it from a wide open situation to one in which escalating actions against their fellow player were guaranteed.

You should apologize to the group, and offer a way of this situation which satisfies everyone of your players. And you should stop having NPCs take initiative in situations such as this. They are extras. If you want to play a character, do so in someone elses campaign.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-04, 09:27 PM
I think you just should have explained yout houserule that NPCs get equal shares. I think this is the issue. He assumed RAW for wealth distribution.

ladditude
2008-03-04, 10:54 PM
I would talk to the CN Rogue OOG and see what his plan is. As long as it stays limited to revenge against the Kobold, extra Rogue and potentially the Sorcerer you should be all right.

The party should apologize IG and then the Rogue should be free to hold a Rogue against the aforementioned characters. Stealing loot, good. Taking a course of action that isn't beneficial to the aforementioned character, alright. Killing them, no.

It seems to me that you are a Roleplay emphasizing group, so the inter-party conflict should be all right with them. If it won't be, then I agree that you should take the blame. If the Roleplaying is most important, then you are in the right. If the cohesiveness will be destroyed, then say you stepped out of line. The NPC's acted in line, but the players always come first. If they are cool you are cool.

Additionally, the NPC Rogue should have an alignment shift. Pushing or punching a party member is fine. Going invisible to attack them is evil. It is intentionally trying to cause harm to a party member. At that moment, the CN Rogue goes from an antagonizer to a victim.