PDA

View Full Version : How would you deal with this situation? DMs unite.



Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 09:59 PM
Here's the situation:

Couple weeks ago, a party ran into an event that caused one of the players to lose a magic item via random teleportation. The Item was teleported to a random spot on the island, so retrieving it is possible.

A week later, through some outside help, this person got a clue as to where his item is through a subtle clue. "Your item is in good hands."

It turns out that Person 2, who happens to be a rogue, found Person 1's item, and is instructing his cohorts to 'keep it safe' until Person 2 can deal with it. Intentions were clear that the item was going to be given back to it's rightful owner...with a price, of course.

Person 1, however, decided to take matters into his own hands, not only breaking into the thief's den, but also threatened to kill one of his cohorts, if the item was not returned. That is the situation, here are the statistics:

Person 1 is Chaotic Good. Searching for an item that is rightfully his is well within his boundries. I would argue that breaking into places and threatening people (But possibly not acting upon them) is also within his alignment, as that would be like responding to a blackmail, or a threat...something Chaotic Good does not take lightly to. The means in which he went about finding his item again (Through breaking and entering, dispite the fact that he knew his item was back in 'friendly hands') could be defined as a chaotic solultion. So I see no need to change Person 1s alignment from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral.

However, Person 2 happens to be a rogue. A Rogue would not take kindly to 1) having someone (friend or not) rummaging through his place without his knowing and 2) Threaten to kill one of his cohorts in the process. Person 2 has three options he came up with for next session.

1) Demand compensation for damages done to property and threats to his men. (Around 20,000gps) If that doesn't work, then

2) Reveal to the group mage the location of the item that caused this teleportation event to happen, thus allowing the mage to try to replicate it, to cause more chaotic events. If that doesn't work.

3) Kill Person 1's Animal Companion (Person 1 is a ranger).

The problem: I do not want my PCs to turn in on themselves and go to war with each other. Not only will this cse a mess in the RP world, but it will likely cause infactions out of character. (Two of the players take this game way to seriously.)

How would you take to this? Any self respecting rogue is gonna ant to take revenge on the actions done to him...but I don't want it to go too far...

Anyone?

Vortling
2008-11-27, 10:14 PM
Seems like your rogue has brought trouble on himself making off with other people's items. The ranger was rather rash in going after the item, but if you're the DM I'd sit down with the rogue and ranger's players and see if they can't come up with some more constructive solutions to this problem. The whole idea that the rogue has to take revenge because he's a rogue is silly. If players continue to take it too seriously then I suggest some time off from the game for them.

Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 10:19 PM
Not so much because he is a rogue, but becauase of the invasion of privacy. Rogues, unless you play a type that isn't so much into secrecy and the like, are generally assumed to be seclusive. But that aside, That advise is best, sit them aside and come up with a mutual agreement.

Yukitsu
2008-11-27, 10:20 PM
Don't take player equipment and give it to other players.

Riffington
2008-11-27, 10:22 PM
One option is to have said cohort make off with the item and offer it to a mutual enemy. That way, they can both be mad at someone else instead of at each other.

Doomsy
2008-11-27, 10:25 PM
The rogue got caught in his game. Let him deal with the consequences. What was he expecting to happen if it was found out? He wants damages from the guy he was trying to screw over?

His damages are paid in full by the CG player not beating him down or wiping out his cohorts entirely. He went easy on them. They're even.

Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 10:25 PM
Don't take player equipment and give it to other players.

I didn't give it to another player. The Rogue used clever deducting and a bit of chance to find it before the Ranger did. I can't exactly change how smart he figured it out first.

Vortling
2008-11-27, 10:28 PM
Not so much because he is a rogue, but becauase of the invasion of privacy. Rogues, unless you play a type that isn't so much into secrecy and the like, are generally assumed to be seclusive. But that aside, That advise is best, sit them aside and come up with a mutual agreement.

I do disagree that rogues are generally assumed to be seclusive. After all they mess around in all sorts of crowded areas. Mostly I object to roleplaying generalizations about classes when you can really put many different sets of fluff onto one singular class.

As far as the player smarts thing goes you don't need to change anything, you just need to make it clear to the rogue that he's better off having the ranger owe him one for helping him find his magic item than trying to extract monetary gain from the situation directly.

Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 10:33 PM
I do disagree that rogues are generally assumed to be seclusive. After all they mess around in all sorts of crowded areas. Mostly I object to roleplaying generalizations about classes when you can really put many different sets of fluff onto one singular class.

Alright, I made a generalization. The fact of he matter is the rogue wants to retaliate (whether justified or not) on damages he believes he was done to him. It's not a matter of class, it's a matter of personality.

I did not 'give' one item from one PC to another PC, it was taken away from a third party source, and the rogue happened to find it first. The Ranger cought on, and took it back.

The Item is not the issue, the method the ranger took is. I realize equating real life to a game isn't always the best choice, but would you forgive a friend for busting into your house, and turning it upside down in order to find the CD you lost?

Yukitsu
2008-11-27, 10:34 PM
I didn't give it to another player. The Rogue used clever deducting and a bit of chance to find it before the Ranger did. I can't exactly change how smart he figured it out first.

It shouldn't be possible however, simply because it creates situations like this. Just make it impossible, or if you have problems like this, teleport everyone's equipment equally. Taking one players equipment and making it available, for free, for another player will always result in this situation.

If the rogue really wants to talk reparations, the proper reparation for a thief is his hand.

Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 10:39 PM
It shouldn't be possible however, simply because it creates situations like this. Just make it impossible, or if you have problems like this, teleport everyone's equipment equally. Taking one players equipment and making it available, for free, for another player will always result in this situation.

If the rogue really wants to talk reparations, the proper reparation for a thief is his hand.

The game isn't equal though. Mages and Melees are proof of that. if someone get's hit with a curse, and lose 6 ability points, I'm not gonna say everyone is gonna get it. Crap is gonna happen.

Regardless of if the move was ethical, or not, the deed was done, and an acceptable answer given. Thanks

Doomsy
2008-11-27, 10:42 PM
Yeah. See. The key word is friend.

The rogue found it and he was not going to give it back.

He was going to sell it back, apparently.

That makes him not a friend.

That makes the rogue thankful that the chaotic good ranger only broke into his house, roughed up his friends, and just took his stuff back instead of killing them, burning the place down, or taking his stuff as reparations for having stolen it.

What the rogue did is actually theft. He was smart enough to figure it out and get the object before the ranger. The ranger was smart enough to figure out the rogue was trying to f-him.

Now, the rogue can just gracefully back off and understand he just became the expendable, never trusted idiot of the party. Or he can get in the rangers face and nature will take its course.

Ixahinon
2008-11-27, 10:49 PM
Yeah. See. The key word is friend.

The rogue found it and he was not going to give it back.

He was going to sell it back, apparently.

That makes him not a friend.

That makes the rogue thankful that the chaotic good ranger only broke into his house, roughed up his friends, and just took his stuff back instead of killing them, burning the place down, or taking his stuff as reparations for having stolen it.

What the rogue did is actually theft. He was smart enough to figure it out and get the object before the ranger. The ranger was smart enough to figure out the rogue was trying to f-him.

Now, the rogue can just gracefully back off and understand he just became the expendable, never trusted idiot of the party. Or he can get in the rangers face and nature will take its course.

Alright, sounds good.

Jalil
2008-11-27, 11:16 PM
Why is the rogue trying to play hardball? P1's already threated blood, so unless P2 is willing to respond with force, he should acquiesce, and then play from there. He could try to steal it back, after changing his base, try to get P1 arrested later, kill P1, etc. Benefits a high int character to use outside help.

elliott20
2008-11-27, 11:22 PM
meh, I personally while think that the rogue should not have tried to extract payment from his own friend for returning what is rightfully his (seeing it's kind of **** move), the ranger should not have barged into the rogue's den and caused this much ruckus.

while it's just D&D, think about it in real life terms makes this clear.

Jon loses his wallet. Jon's friend (or heck, let's not say friend, let's say classmate whose called Ben) finds it. Ben asks Jon to pay money to get his wallet back. Jerk thing to do right? (and yeah, while Ben did not steal it in the first place, to Jon and the court of law, he pretty much did)

Now Jon's response. He break into Ben's house, beat up his dog, his little brother, and wreck his entire house while getting his wallet back. It's not exactly fully justified here, don't you think?

granted, this assume a social context here that we might be able to assume in game. Namely, in real life, we can always go to the cops about this. In game, such authorities might not exist. So in this case, Jon might have had to take matters into his own hands. But his reaction? still over the top. and you know what? it's still a friendship breaker. (Granted, the friendship was questionable in the first place)

meh, I just wanted to provide another perspective.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-11-27, 11:35 PM
I was in a similar situation once. Only, this was my situation:

Six of us had just randomly met when the city was attacked by necromancers and undead. My character, a barbarian, was leading the group the F-O. As we were walking the group's mage decided he wanted to "save" (whether he wanted to save her or not I never learned) a prisoner. So, he allegedly charmed the necromancer, and began chatting very friendly with the necromancer. He even began to follow the necromancer around. (This mage was lawful good apparently)
By the time we noticed he was gone he was already walking down the street TOWARDS us, once again, being on pretty buddy buddy terms with the necromancer.
So, I charged, and killed them both.
This pissed the player off, saying a good character would not do that. I responded as such, "My character did not know your characters intentions, nor his alignment. We met you, necromancers attacked, and now here you are being all buddy buddy with a necromancer. You are the enemy, your death was your own fault for formulating a plan and not letting the group in on it. You have worked against me, and now you have payed the price."

And that is what the rogue has done. He/she has made a move against the ranger. That player is currently acting against the ranger. The ranger is fully justified in his/her actions. What the rogue needs to do, is thank GOD the ranger wasn't a paladin or a barbarian, give the item back, apologize, and prove to the group he/she won't be working against them any time soon.
If the rogue cannot accept that, the player needs a new character or to leave.

valadil
2008-11-27, 11:50 PM
Instead of demanding 20k GP, the rogue could give the ranger a task, treating the debt as repaid if the ranger succeeds. Now you have an excuse to throw an extra quest in the game.

Doomsy
2008-11-27, 11:53 PM
meh, I personally while think that the rogue should not have tried to extract payment from his own friend for returning what is rightfully his (seeing it's kind of **** move), the ranger should not have barged into the rogue's den and caused this much ruckus.

while it's just D&D, think about it in real life terms makes this clear.

Jon loses his wallet. Jon's friend (or heck, let's not say friend, let's say classmate whose called Ben) finds it. Ben asks Jon to pay money to get his wallet back. Jerk thing to do right? (and yeah, while Ben did not steal it in the first place, to Jon and the court of law, he pretty much did)

Now Jon's response. He break into Ben's house, beat up his dog, his little brother, and wreck his entire house while getting his wallet back. It's not exactly fully justified here, don't you think?

granted, this assume a social context here that we might be able to assume in game. Namely, in real life, we can always go to the cops about this. In game, such authorities might not exist. So in this case, Jon might have had to take matters into his own hands. But his reaction? still over the top. and you know what? it's still a friendship breaker. (Granted, the friendship was questionable in the first place)

meh, I just wanted to provide another perspective.

Edit: Yeah, pretty much cops are useless in D&D. An adventuring party is pretty much more than equal to every cop in the kingdom and probably most of the army. Think of them more as bipedal Godzillas more than normal citizens. Some of them want to help, some want to harm, they always end up with a huge amount of property damage.

Given the ranger is chaotic good, he would have settled for personal justice over governmental anyway.

I still think the rogue needs a reality check and there is a good chance of this exploding in his face if the ranger just tells the rest of the party and asks him what he's going to do about it.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-28, 12:03 AM
Don't take player equipment and give it to other players.

Seriously.

Taking a PC's magic items is literally the number one way to make them hate an NPC, which is why you should only ever have the villain do it. They will loathe a thief who nicked the +1 dagger they kept in their boot more than the wizard who enervated an entire orphanage in front of them, then turned all the dead kids into wights and sent them to attack the PCs.

elliott20
2008-11-28, 12:11 AM
Edit: Yeah, pretty much cops are useless in D&D. An adventuring party is pretty much more than equal to every cop in the kingdom and probably most of the army. Think of them more as bipedal Godzillas more than normal citizens. Some of them want to help, some want to harm, they always end up with a huge amount of property damage.

Given the ranger is chaotic good, he would have settled for personal justice over governmental anyway.

I still think the rogue needs a reality check and there is a good chance of this exploding in his face if the ranger just tells the rest of the party and asks him what he's going to do about it.
oh I'm not saying the player acted out of character. In fact, I think that is the perfect reaction for someone who is CG. (Well, maybe more CN, but that's neither here nor there)

I do think that the rogue character should have had the foresight to realize this is the potential outcome of his actions though, knowing what he knows about the ranger.

Vagnarok
2008-11-28, 12:17 AM
It seems that the consensus of those posting in this thread is that the Rogue was out of line for ransoming the item, and I couldn't agree more. The ranger might not have been justified in acting in such an aggressive way, but that's up to the character's personality.

You should pull the ranger aside and mention to him that he needs to tell the rogue exactly why he broke in and such. If the rogue understands that he was thought of as an enemy (which he was clearly acting as), maybe he'll change the way he reacts.

Also: The ranger thinking that the rogue betrayed him is 100% valid. The guy's a freakin rogue for crying out loud. Make sure the players understand this.

elliott20
2008-11-28, 12:22 AM
Also: The ranger thinking that the rogue betrayed him is 100% valid. The guy's a freakin rogue for crying out loud. Make sure the players understand this.

I think this part needs to be left out though. Using the PC's class as a justification for behavior just smacks of bad character writing.

BobVosh
2008-11-28, 12:28 AM
Seriously.

Taking a PC's magic items is literally the number one way to make them hate an NPC, which is why you should only ever have the villain do it. They will loathe a thief who nicked the +1 dagger they kept in their boot more than the wizard who enervated an entire orphanage in front of them, then turned all the dead kids into wights and sent them to attack the PCs.

That is because PCs hate orphans. Dirty kids should get some parents!

Anyway, a fun solution is that the item is "randomly" teleported again. Rogue tries to get reperations for the damages to...what, a cave? I get the feeling they are on some random deserted island. How much damage could he have done?

Anyway, charging gold for a stolen belonging is evil, hindering the help of good is also evil, or neutral, and thieving, including having a cohort and "den of theifs" is also evil. Usually. Sounds like they aren't going the Robin Hood route on this. What alignment is the rogue, and are you sure about it?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-28, 12:55 AM
Regardless of the rogue's alignment, he clearly has no sense of loyalty or teamwork. In-character, the entire party should be seriously considering just leaving him behind to fend for himself while they go off on their adventures.

The rogue may have tried to ransom back the item because the Ranger was rolling in cash and he felt he'd gotten an unfairly small share of loot, he may just be a greedy munchkin. Regardless of the player's motivations, you should explain to him that he'd played his character as a real jerk and he may end up having to retire him and roll a new one just to be able to continue participating. Tell him his new character would come in one level lower than the current lowest level character, and that if the new character's background included any connection at all with his old character then the new character would have no gear, because you'd assume that he'd try to get items from his old character. You'll be telling him this to make him wake up to the fact that he should try to be more of a team player in-character, because his character getting booted from the party is a very real and very likely possibility. If he's a greedy munchkin then this is probably the only way you could get through to him, but regardless of what type of player he is, something like this should be enough to make him realize that his character's actions have more impact than just changing the numbers on his character sheet.

Vagnarok
2008-11-28, 01:01 AM
I think this part needs to be left out though. Using the PC's class as a justification for behavior just smacks of bad character writing.

I'll agree with you 50%. IMO all classes tend to draw people of certain personality types. Considering that PCs are already rare in the game world, PCs that go against class-personality stereotypes should be rarer still. Paladins acting lawful and Rangers liking nature fits this argument quite well I think.

Yukitsu
2008-11-28, 01:04 AM
I don't know. I took my levels of paladin well after I had gone into rogue, and my character's personality never changed a bit.

Vagnarok
2008-11-28, 01:21 AM
Well like I said, 50%. I think that lawful good rogues should be the exception to the rule.

Lert, A.
2008-11-28, 01:28 AM
First of all, I don't see that you have done anything wrong. The quest to get back X is tried and true.

What some are misinterpreting is the rogue's actions and motives. As I have read, the rogue located the lost item, he did not steal it. Second, he went out of his way to both retrieve the item and to locate the owner. He could have just kept his new bauble for the collection and nothing would change except that player 1 would have no magic item and would rightfully feel screwed over.

Should the rogue have asked for compensation? If someone finds stolen bank money there is usually a reward given to the person who returns it, an incentive to do a good deed in exchange for having the full amount but a heavily weighed conscience. Following a similar line of thought, the rogue, someone who is out to make a profit wants something in return for his efforts instead of the item which is worth more. Nothing wrong here.

Leading to what you asked: what should you do now?

I would suggest that the rogue be a troublemaker behind the scenes. The party enters a new town and find that there have been rumors that a villainous group matching their description has been behind a string of robberies. Now they end up being questioned by the authorities of the town. The ropes to the bridge have been cut, now they have to take a longer route. Etc.

I would not demand reparations, since that would lead to conflict and any good rogue would leave that as a last resort only. Fight dirty with practical jokes and misdirection.

Hope things go well.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-28, 02:23 AM
I think this part needs to be left out though. Using the PC's class as a justification for behavior just smacks of bad character writing.

Praise Kord, yes. "I'm a [class], therefore I ..." is pretty much the lamest excuse for roleplaying you can get.


What some are misinterpreting is the rogue's actions and motives. As I have read, the rogue located the lost item, he did not steal it.

Irrelevant. Players are not omniscient. (Looking at it, I take it the rogue's an NPC?) From the player's POV, his PC's magic item disappeared and showed up in someone else's hands, who proceeded to taunt him about it. Who stole what is irrelevant - someone has his swag, and is being an ass about it. That's functionally identical to having his pocket picked for the item.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2008-11-28, 02:32 AM
Irrelevant. Players are not omniscient. (Looking at it, I take it the rogue's an NPC?) From the player's POV, his PC's magic item disappeared and showed up in someone else's hands, who proceeded to taunt him about it. Who stole what is irrelevant - someone has his swag, and is being an ass about it. That's functionally identical to having his pocket picked for the item.


I didn't give it to another player. The Rogue used clever deducting and a bit of chance to find it before the Ranger did. I can't exactly change how smart he figured it out first.

The Ranger was working on recovering his item, and the Rogue figured it out first so he could go get it. He knew it was the Ranger's item, he knew (in-character) that the Ranger was looking for it and most likely would have found it. By doing this he effectively stole it out from under the other player. He isn't even entitled to a finder's fee because the Ranger could have recovered it on his own. He then tried to ransom it back to the rightful owner, who instead opted to forcibly rescue it. The Rogue was 100% in the wrong and is entitled to nothing but punishment, the Ranger had every right to act as he did even considering his alignment, his actions were justified by the circumstances.

Roderick_BR
2008-11-28, 06:26 AM
One option is to have said cohort make off with the item and offer it to a mutual enemy. That way, they can both be mad at someone else instead of at each other.
Interesting idea. It also will show how both of them were in the wrong with their actions, by making a 3rd part cause trouble to them. I support this one idea.
Just be sure to let them both know that the resulting is mess was caused by them both, and that they both need to work together to clean it up.