PDA

View Full Version : What would you have done?



Saph
2008-04-19, 08:38 PM
An interesting situation came up in today's game.

Our usual DM was away, so one of the players was running a D&D one-off. He did a good job of it, too, especially since players kept leaving and joining throughout the session (had a total of 9 players over the game, though there were never more than 6 playing at once).

As usual with one-off fill-in games, there wasn't much party cohesion. There was the usual slight fudging to explain why each of our characters was willing to go on a dangerous combat-filled mission with a bunch of total strangers, which everyone went along with. As things turned out, all the party conflicts were good-humoured, and everyone did their best (with varying effectiveness) to help out the group - with one exception.

One of the players was playing a sorcerer. He'd already caused a certain amount of trouble by firing a lightning bolt down a tunnel where the party was fighting a huge earth elemental. The DM helped him out by suggesting that he aim over the heads of his fellow party members, but the player seemed to have difficulty grasping why the rest of us did not appreciate him firing area-effect spells into the middle of a melee.

The final battle of the adventure pitted us against a pair of modified babaus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). Although there were six of us, all level 6, most of the characters weren't tuned for combat, and things quickly got dangerous. After seven rounds, the party monk was on the ground at -6 HP and stable, and everyone else (apart from the sorcerer) was wounded to some degree and engaged in melee around the babaus. The sorcerer's turn came up.

Sorcerer: "I cast lightning bolt."
DM: "You can't cast it from your position without hitting Elwin." (The party duskblade; me.)
Sorcerer: "Okay."
DM: "What?"
Me: "What?"
Sorcerer: "Oh, wait. If I step to here, the babaus are in a line in front of me, right? I cast it from there."
DM: "Okay . . . but now the monk is on the ground in front of you. You'll hit him as well."
Sorcerer: "Yeah, I do it."
DM: ". . . Roll caster level against their SR."

The babaus, being immune to electricity, shrugged it off. The monk died horribly.

We eventually just scraped a win with several more people on negative HP but no further deaths. Once we'd healed up, I had to figure out what to do about the sorcerer. What do you do when one of your supposed allies has killed another party member and doesn't seem to realise that there's anything wrong with it?

We were in an uncharted dungeon in the wilderness miles from anywhere, so we were on our own to make the decision. The options I was considering were:

a) Boot him from the group. Pros: no more threat of him fragging us. Cons: would lose his (minimal) firepower, no way to know what he would do once ejected.
b) Warn him not to do it again. Pros: would maintain party harmony. Cons: felt like a major underreaction for killing a teammate.
c) Kill him. Pros: satisfying retribution for his Darwin-Award-level stupidity, would get to keep his stuff. Cons: possibly slightly evil.

My character's Lawful Neutral and is a professional adventurer/soldier. I went for warning him in the end, telling him that if he hit any of us with his spells again, he'd be dead by the end of the battle. I was severely tempted by c), though.

What would you have done?

- Saph

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-19, 08:49 PM
Helm of Opposite Alignment and ask the DM to remove the Ignore Alignment and Teamwork ACF from that Sorc. Should work out nicely.

Else, Mindrape.

If that fails, get out an Irresistible dance and kick the crap outta him.

This is assuming you want to screw over the player, of course. Else, just be a goody two shoes and speak with 'im.

Krrth
2008-04-19, 08:52 PM
You were LN, you said? Kill'em. He broke the party contract, even if it was an unspoken one.

Zocelot
2008-04-19, 08:52 PM
How about getting the other players, especially the monk to talk to the problem player in real life? Most people I know are willing to change their styles if everybody in the group wants them to.
Screwing over the player, albeit fun, never works out well in the end. If you want to fight other players get an arena match going.

SilverClawShift
2008-04-19, 08:52 PM
I suppose it would depend on wether or not I knew the player.

I can't picture anyone in our gaming group behaving like that, unless we'd known in advance that it was going to be a bit of an oddball game (we all get urges to play characters that are less than perfect team players. Our group likes to occasionally allow ourselves a game that provides a bit of comic releif in between the serious ones).

However, I think from a roleplaying perspective alone, if I were a lawful neutral soldier who kept getting threatened/injured by friendly fire, and who'd just seen a team-mate get electrocuted to death by the one responsible? I'd have beheaded the SOB.

Saph
2008-04-19, 08:52 PM
Helm of Opposite Alignment and ask the DM to remove the Ignore Alignment and Teamwork ACF from that Sorc. Should work out nicely.

Else, Mindrape.

If that fails, get out an Irresistible dance and kick the crap outta him.

This is assuming you want to screw over the player, of course. Else, just be a goody two shoes and speak with 'im.

I think you missed the part where we're level 6. :P

I doubt a Helm would have made any difference, anyway, unless you could find a Helm of Opposite Mental Capacity.


How about getting the other players, especially the monk to talk to the problem player in real life? Most people I know are willing to change their styles if everybody in the group wants them to.

OOC, the problem is just that the sorcerer's player is an idiot who has a very limited ability to grasp the concept of teamwork.

The game is also only a two-parter, after which everyone's going back to their original groups, so long-term relations aren't so much of an issue.

- Saph

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-19, 08:56 PM
I'd have killed him. That would be the in-character decision for 99% of my characters. Good characters usually don't like people who do "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" for no real reason and not regretting it, and evil characters don't like people who will stab them in the back. A couple of mine would want the character tried for murder and imprisoned for life, but even my pacifist would be hard-pressed to argue for their lives.

shadow_archmagi
2008-04-19, 09:01 PM
1. Have the monk roll up a swordsage.
2. Find terrifying monster/godzillaish thing.
3. Say "Wait! Don't get to close, or the sorc'll kill you, just like he did our former monk."
4. Watch as swordsage (who took Setting sun) hurls the sorc right into the fray. For bonus points, have him cast Cloudkill or something first.

Matthew
2008-04-19, 09:03 PM
Explain to the player that his irresponsible spell casting has cost the party the life of a valuable companion (not really, after all, he was only a Monk, but it's the principal of the thing).

As for the character, I think a fitting 'in the field' punishment would be to either chop his hands off or cut his tongue out. either way should prevent him casting any Lightning Bolts in the future.

Alternatively, trick him into entering melee with some beastie or other and start shooting arrows into the melee (might only work in D20 1e).

FinalJustice
2008-04-19, 09:05 PM
At least force him to pay a Raise Dead for the monk.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-19, 09:16 PM
Wait... to all appearances, the monk was dead on the ground. How did you know he was stable and not dead? If you checked, why didn't you drag the monk's body from the field of battle?

If anything, boot him for incompetence, not for team killing. There is no way for you to prove it. The monk looked dead, and after the battle he was dead.

Zocelot
2008-04-19, 09:20 PM
That's nice from a roleplaying concept, but the problem player knew out of game that the monk wasn't actually dead, and still proceded to kill him.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-19, 09:21 PM
Wait... to all appearances, the monk was dead on the ground. How did you know he was stable and not dead? If you checked, why didn't you drag the monk's body from the field of battle?

If anything, boot him for incompetence, not for team killing. There is no way for you to prove it. The monk looked dead, and after the battle he was dead.With 6 players, one is probably either a Druid, Ranger, or Cleric. Someone can make that spot check.

Nohwl
2008-04-19, 09:58 PM
even if my character was NG, i would have killed him.

he sounds like he would hurt me later on, and a reason to kill him before that happened presented itself. it would be pretty easy to justify killing him then as opposed to waiting and then having no reason to kill him.

monks dont wear armor, so i would say i saw the monk breathing (chest rising up and down) and then he was hit with that lightning bolt.thats team killing, and should be punished appropriately.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-19, 10:03 PM
I think you missed the part where we're level 6. :P

I doubt a Helm would have made any difference, anyway, unless you could find a Helm of Opposite Mental Capacity.



OOC, the problem is just that the sorcerer's player is an idiot who has a very limited ability to grasp the concept of teamwork.

The game is also only a two-parter, after which everyone's going back to their original groups, so long-term relations aren't so much of an issue.

- Saph

Revenge is a dish best served cold. :belkar:

But yeah, if he's an idiot, I'd just do this:

"While you're sleeping, I tie you up, inject greenblood oil into your veins, and skin you. And then, I say:

THIS is what happens, SOB, when you screw the team."

Proceed to roll Coup de grace's until he drops. One should do.

And asking the DM to remove the ACF SHOULD work, right?

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-19, 10:12 PM
I'd have kicked him in the shin, then again in character. Well, I'd have held him down for the monk's player anyway.

Saihyol
2008-04-19, 10:16 PM
IC - for almost all alignments I think death is an appropriate punishment for 'collateral' party member deaths.

If you wanted to go a bit easier for the players sake have the other players root though his spell components and remove anything that lets him cast any spells that can effect the group.

Of course your characters may not know what these are so you might need to take everything, in which case he'll need to go melee...

Agamid
2008-04-19, 10:18 PM
That's nice from a roleplaying concept, but the problem player knew out of game that the monk wasn't actually dead, and still proceded to kill him.

yeah, but for a player to use knowledge unknown to his character in a game is meta-game and seriously bad role-playing. my party once fireballed a room with a mind-flayer and its mind slaves in it with the players, but not the characters, knowing full-well that one of the mind slaves was a new character the dm was trying to introduce. It's called 'staying in character' and 'role-playing'.


I'm in two minds about your problem saph, and really i think it would come down to your individual characters' personalities and personal beliefs.
If it had happened in the game with my ranger, he would have taken the sorcerer out into the woods and plugged him pull of arrow (believe me, he did that to the fighter when he punched him in the back of the head).
But then, on the other hand, that's just the kind of thing my sorcerer in another game would do, except instead of lighting he'd use fireball. He's fireballed the party at least 2 twice, probably more, and is often fearing the cleric or random people who annoy him, and yet the party never get upset at him (but maybe that's just because he's sleeping with the big burly barbarian who could and would take down the rest of the party if they hurt my sorcerer).

Ultimately though in your case i don't think it really matters as it was a one-off game, and in my experience people always do stupid things in those games because they don't really care about these one-off character and because by the end of the night the game will be over and thus anything they do can't really have any long-term consequences... and never flesh out their characters enough to decide what's 'in character' for them to do or no. And, maybe it's just my evil dms, but anytime we once-off the dm actively tried to kill us all off nearing the end of the adventure/night.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-19, 10:19 PM
Even my characters who screw over the party on a regular basis still would kill someone else who did it.

Saihyol
2008-04-19, 10:23 PM
Also surely for the Monk to have been stabilized someone had to help him, therefore someone knew he was alive...

Agamid
2008-04-19, 10:26 PM
Also surely for the Monk to have been stabilized someone had to help him, therefore someone knew he was alive...

no, s/he just would have had to roll a successful fort save.

FlyMolo
2008-04-19, 10:28 PM
I'd have killed him. That would be the in-character decision for 99% of my characters. Good characters usually don't like people who do "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" for no real reason and not regretting it, and evil characters don't like people who will stab them in the back. A couple of mine would want the character tried for murder and imprisoned for life, but even my pacifist would be hard-pressed to argue for their lives.

Actually, you can view "acceptable losses" as a very lawful good way of looking at things. Or as the opposite of Lawful good, depending on you definition of Law.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-19, 10:31 PM
Actually, you can view "acceptable losses" as a very lawful good way of looking at things. Or as the opposite of Lawful good, depending on you definition of Law.Yes, but a TK like that with no sign of regret and no real understanding of why others were upset? Both my LG and CG characters would be pretty upset with him, possibly to the point of execution or imprisonment, especially for a tactic that seemed designed to kill the monk without hurting the enemy.

Saihyol
2008-04-19, 10:31 PM
no, s/he just would have had to roll a successful fort save.

Okay - my old DM took us straight to -50 so often I've never seen the bleeding rules in action

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-19, 10:38 PM
Depending on my character, I'd have advocated removing the offender from the party, without a share of any treasure found so far (letting them make their own way back, and cutting the dungeon foray short and returning to town to recuperate, rearm, and reorganize); tying up and gagging the offender and keeping them under guard until they could be delivered to the authorities, with ample testimony regarding the murder / manslaughter (assuming the dungeon was within the sphere of some kind of law and order; a local lord or temple of a deity of justice, for instance); or killing the offender in retribution.

Agamid: Not a Fortitude save, just a flat 10% chance per round to stop dying.

Chronos
2008-04-19, 10:39 PM
Simple: You keep on fighting until all the enemies are neutralized. How do you know who's the enemy? Also simple: They're the ones shooting at your teammates. The only reason to leave the sorcerer alive is metagaming that you know that he's another PC. In character, the only logical conclusion for one of the party members to come to is that he's working for the other side and has betrayed the party.

If you wanted to be nice, you could instead knock him unconscious, take away his spell component pouch, bind him tightly, wake and interrogate him, and then gag him. But if you don't have time for all of that, then yes, killing him is the appropriate response.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-19, 10:46 PM
Simple: You keep on fighting until all the enemies are neutralized. How do you know who's the enemy? Also simple: They're the ones shooting at your teammates. The only reason to leave the sorcerer alive is metagaming that you know that he's another PC. In character, the only logical conclusion for one of the party members to come to is that he's working for the other side and has betrayed the party.

"Friendly fire" isn't actually an oxymoron.

FlyMolo
2008-04-19, 10:49 PM
Yes, but a TK like that with no sign of regret and no real understanding of why others were upset? Both my LG and CG characters would be pretty upset with him, possibly to the point of execution or imprisonment, especially for a tactic that seemed designed to kill the monk without hurting the enemy.

Oh yeah, I was just commenting on the ambiguity of the alignment rules. I would have stabbed the bastard like a shot.

hylian chozo
2008-04-19, 11:33 PM
Break his glass rod (focus for lightning bolt). No spellcraft check needed to know that the thing he waves around every time he casts it is somehow involved with the spell; And because it's a focus, eschew materials doesn't help.

Overlord
2008-04-19, 11:55 PM
Well, personally, I don't think that it would be a Good action to just kill the Sorcerer. He didn't murder the monk, he just recklessly took him out in the middle of a fight. That's manslaughter. You don't usually execute people for the crime of manslaughter; you imprison them. Of course, your characters are in the middle of the wilderness; you've got to do some "rough justice."

For a Good party, I think that would entail kicking him out of the group. Along with the strong possibility of the additional punishment of beating the snot out of him, and leaving him in the middle of nowhere.

Of course, you're LN. If the rest of the party is roughly the same alignment, you can just kill him. Or at least kick him out, with the definite additional punishment of beating the snot out of him, then leaving him tied to a tree in the forest.

But I think you need to keep in mind that the only reason you know that the sorcerer deliberately killed the Monk is because of the OOC discussion you had. IC, the Sorcerer could easily claim that he didn't realize the spell would hit the monk, that it was an accident, that the spell was a mishap, etc. The party may or may not accept his excuse, but there should at least be bluff checks involved. Unless the Sorcerer just admits IC that he did it on purpose, in which case you should proceed with the punishments outlined above.

Gensuru
2008-04-20, 05:10 AM
Well as far as i got your information the player himself was not the type to even know what teamwork is so the chances of him doing crap like that again are rather high. And seeing that you said long term relationship is not an issue my suggestion would be: get rid of him. You can give several reasons from high morals to just plain logic. "You donŽt just travel with someone who has no problem with killing each of us at a whim." Not unless you absolutely have to that is. As far as i got you his action only damaged the monk seeing that the monster was immune to lightning. In this case your Sorcerer is not only dangerous for your group but also kinda useless. The sacrifice alone might have been justified by "well i had to kill that thing fast even at the cost of his life" but seeing that he did not even damage the thing and just got his teammate killed any party who keeps that idiot around is just as stupid. Be i good, evil or neutral i do not want to travel with a trigger happy idiot standing behind me. if i want tem mission done i have no use for someone who harms the party instead of helping it. And since the guy obviously isnŽt one whoŽd understand by talking to him you have to take action...or bear with the fact that he might kill more of you. IŽd say if my group leader would let this guy get away unpunished iŽd either arragne some "accident", kill him openly or leave the party.

Drascin
2008-04-20, 06:10 AM
I'd say that the appropiate IC reaction for characters adventuring with someone so reckless is kick him out instantly. Seriously, adventuring is a dangerous affair where the chance of dying is always high, so you don't really need a reckless idiot shooting through you. And military units for the most part don't put up with people who fire recklessly towards areas where there are comrades stationed. In short, tell the sorcerer to **** off, and also tell him he should be glad you didn't summarily execute him.

Silkenfist
2008-04-20, 06:45 AM
But I think you need to keep in mind that the only reason you know that the sorcerer deliberately killed the Monk is because of the OOC discussion you had. IC, the Sorcerer could easily claim that he didn't realize the spell would hit the monk, that it was an accident, that the spell was a mishap, etc. The party may or may not accept his excuse, but there should at least be bluff checks involved. Unless the Sorcerer just admits IC that he did it on purpose, in which case you should proceed with the punishments outlined above.


When I team up with a 6th-Level Sorcerer, I expect them to know their spells. When a "mishap" like that happens twice without sufficient explanation or excuse, I'd suspect (IC and OOC) that the player is aiming for a situation where most of the party doesn't survive the encounter in order to backstab the rest and loot the former teammates. The appropriate reaction? Killing would be justified for any good alignment but I'd prefer the more elegant solution of knocking him unconscious and removing his tongue or vocal cords. You don't kill him but you still make sure the Sorcerer won't be a threat anymore.
Of course, to the player it will be the same, since muting the character permanently will make him unplayable. However, the player has been warned more than once and the consequences should have been clear to him. If not, it will be a direly needed experience.

xPANCAKEx
2008-04-20, 07:00 AM
i think you're over reacting a bit - as its only a 2-shot, its not that vital that everyones original character gets right to the end. If it was a long term campaign however, THEN he would be something to worry about. Just have a POLITE word with him before the next session, and see what he says.

still... as suggested - he might be angling to do a cut-and-run with the loot at the end (the "cut" part being more spell based death for the party), so maybe slay him at the end of session 2 just to be on the safe side - although this could lead to bitter resentment from him to those in his normal group

Danzaver
2008-04-20, 07:47 AM
I don't believe for a second that he didn't know full-well what he was doing, and I would expect that it was premeditated, but really, who cares. It was a once-off game. Someone trying to wipe the party in a once-off game and feigning ignorance the whole time is nothing new. It's usually a mix of maliciousness/vindictiveness with fear of repercussions thrown in to boot.


And, maybe it's just my evil dms, but anytime we once-off the dm actively tried to kill us all off nearing the end of the adventure/night.

My ears are burning. :smallbiggrin:

No, seriously, my ears are burning. Did you just fireball me? :smalleek:

Ossian
2008-04-20, 08:00 AM
In-Game, they should have reacted with something memorable. Force the sorcerer player to roleplay his defense, if he has one, and to see if it was just the player being a careless jerk or if his character was behaving as such.

Option 1, ok, dude, say sorry and we'll be over this, but don't do that again. It's already hard to survive the DM without you adding the extra high-voltage burden. We don't want this to become a habit, where we let other players' character die like that. Why? Because it is not nice.

Option 2, well, possibly even a good call, but roleplay it accordingly! No one will try to kill your character, but he might reasonably get expelled from the party, if he does not get his noseridge broken by an armored gauntlet fist.


Anyway, for the next time, in game it is easier to simulate the fog of war. Were I the DM I would have asked the sorcerer to give me a SPOT roll, something around DC 10 or 12, to check if he could notice or not the body lying flat and almost dead who looked like a dead deadman who had just died of death (you never actually know how many HP someone has, unless you use some CW feats). If not, sorry, you just thought you had a line of fire, and chose to open fire on 2 enemies endangering a corpse instead of firing on them and endangering a living party member (who was contributing to the fight). Fog of war, aka "s**t happens".

But that is all, I repeat, BEFORE the sorcerer casts the bolt and all in-game and in-character.

my 2 coppers.

O.

OzymandiasVolt
2008-04-20, 02:36 PM
He made a conscious decision to kill a party member in cold blood so that he could inflict some damage on a couple demons. Definitely C.