Genius is Inspiration in Action

[Arameus]

I don't play D&D, but know a good bit about it from friends who do. I recently sat in on a session that has really made me consider joining.

Apparently, two of the characters had recently gotten into something of a tiff. More accurately, they were ready to do anything short of killing each other. One character's attempt at revenge turned into some of the best roleplaying I've ever heard of or seen.

So, as they're sitting around a campfire, Jem, a Lawful Stupid Paladin (Not a generic insult. She is hated and terrible.) sits beside Gab, a Chaotic Neutral Bard. They're ready to snap, and the other players are keeping them from mauling each other. I'm not really sure what they were so angry about, but I think it all had to do with Jem (as she insists on being called at the table, rather than her real name) has been really pushing the limits of stupidity both in battle and how she's treating the other characters, and Gab called her on it, all of it in character. They're big roleplayers.

So, as the other three party members make small talk and prepare to rest for the night, Gab hands a slip of paper to the DM, which he has apparently been writing under the table for some time. He reads it, at length, and just stares at the center of the table. He just had this blank look. I guess he really understood the brilliance of what was coming.

Now, in the middle of the in-character conversation, Gab starts rolling a whole bunch of dice. I'm still not exactly sure, but he had four colors, all d20, I think, and each color was assigned to a specific roll he was wanting, all rolled at once. There were seven d20s in all, one blue, one green, one purple, and the rest red.

The other players just stop and stare. No one knows what's going on. I thought about asking, but just kept watching.

The DM looks at one. "Pass."

Gab's player reacts really positively.

Looks at another one: Pass."

Gab's upset at the second pass, which surprised me. In my limited understanding of 3.5, passing is good, isn' it? They didn't mention the other ones; I didn't really get why.

He rerolls like that, three times, with the other players obviously in the dark and freaking out to no small extent. See, there's absolutely no indication of what exactly is happening, and, beyond that, Gab's character is Chaotic Neutral and quite capable of trying anything and everything that he thought up, pretty much.

Each time it goes the same way, with two 'passes,' and a positive and negative reaction each from Gab, in that order. Until the last time.

Roll. DM checks them: Pass...... Fail.

Without even the slightest delay, he rolls a black die. Not sure what; I really lost track at this point. The DM requests a reflex save throw from, naturally, Jem. Flatfooted. And I think at a another penalty, maybe, sorry I'm not an aficionado.

She demands to know why. The members are panicking, especially Jem. They think Gab's snapped and is killing her. But no action taken, yet, because technically nothing has happened in game. Gab is lauging hysterically.

She rolls her save. The DM stares at it. "Fail." He locks eyes with Gab's player and gives one nod. Without any further action, Gab stands up and vomits all over Jem.

See, afterwards I caught up with just what was going on. Gab was rolling a pretty tough check against his own fortitude save, using his Will/Wisdom to make himself vomit (Or would he be using Charisma? I don't really know...). He kept making his fortitude save, but as he kept trying he had a better and better chance of overcoming it, and gains a cumulative penalty on his steadily-weaking Fortitude save. Inevitable result, pretty much. The other rolls were Bluff checks to completely hide his intentions or any sign he was even doing anything besides staring into the campfire. Being a high-charisma bard with ranks in Bluff, he pulled it all off. And barfed all over Jem.

The table just exploded. Everyone except Jem thought it was the funniest thing they ever saw, and I pretty much agreed with them. For Jem, though, her character pretty much is her (which might explain why no one likes her character), so she took this really, really hard, not only being vomited on by someone she hates, but also the fact that not only was no one coming to her side, they all seemed to think she had it coming. I'm pretty sure she cried. She may or may not have torn up her character sheet afterwards.

What's more impressive is that every single character justified simply ignoring it and letting him off with a 'warning' consisting of nothing. And an enormous amount of roleplaying XP. Win-Win-Win.

Gab is pretty brilliant. Sick, yeah, but he totally pegged it. The DM knew it when he first read and set up the plan, and everyone else knew it afterwards. Note that this may or may not have been done within the rules. I don't get enough about it to really say, but it seemed to me like it was either legit, regardless of my ability to transcribe the exact mechanics, or the DM was just letting Gab's player get his way to punish Jem for being a total bitch.

I realized afterwards that I really need to be part of something like this. And they've probably got a melee slot waiting to be filled...

[Cute_Riolu]

Give Gab a free internet token, express from the forums.

[Faithless]

Sick. Literally.

[Chronicled]

I wouldn't have allowed that as your DM. Driving another player to tears, let alone to quit playing, is as much against the spirit of the game as anything I can think of. Where's the fun in making someone cry? Why is it brilliant to make someone quit liking their character, especially if it's modelled after themselves?

If the character is that disliked by the group, then your DM should have talked to Jem about it between sessions. I can't find anything in your post to compliment other than proper spelling and grammar.

[Colmarr]

Gab is pretty brilliant. Sick, yeah, but he totally pegged it. The DM knew it when he first read and set up the plan, and everyone else knew it afterwards. Note that this may or may not have been done within the rules. I don't get enough about it to really say, but it seemed to me like it was either legit, regardless of my ability to transcribe the exact mechanics, or the DM was just letting Gab's player get his way to punish Jem for being a total bitch.

I realized afterwards that I really need to be part of something like this. And they've probably got a melee slot waiting to be filled...

With all due respect, I think at least 3 people in this anecdote have forgotten that D&D is a co-operative roleplaying game.

Whilst I would applaud this sort of inventiveness when used against a villain, to turn it on a fellow player strikes me as way out of line. It's schoolyard bullying, plain and simple.

[Draz74]

I can't find anything in your post to compliment other than proper spelling and grammar.

Now, that's a bit harsh. At least the idea -- whether worthwhile or not -- was creative.

Actually, it sounds to me like the biggest need was that Jem seriously needs to work on separating real self from pretend self. Roleplaying -- like theatrical performing -- is an awesome hobby ... in moderation. We don't want Jem's player to pull-a-Heath-Ledger-and-get-insomnia-leading-to-drug-overdose because of something (worse even than getting barfed on) that happens to one of her roleplaying characters.

Whether being insulted, in-character, by another member of the party, and quitting this particular D&D group, will help her make that change or not, I have no idea. If it does, I applaud it wholeheartedly. If it doesn't, then yeah, it was kinda mean in this particular instance.

[Chronicled]

Now, that's a bit harsh. At least the idea -- whether worthwhile or not -- was creative.

Actually, it sounds to me like the biggest need was that Jem seriously needs to work on separating real self from pretend self. Roleplaying -- like theatrical performing -- is an awesome hobby ... in moderation. We don't want Jem's player to pull-a-Heath-Ledger-and-get-insomnia-leading-to-drug-overdose because of something (worse even than getting barfed on) that happens to one of her roleplaying characters.

Whether being insulted, in-character, by another member of the party, and quitting this particular D&D group, will help her make that change or not, I have no idea. If it does, I applaud it wholeheartedly. If it doesn't, then yeah, it was kinda mean in this particular instance.

One could find terrible examples of creative ideas with a simple use of Godwin's Law.

Jem might need to work on player/character seperation, but it might also be an example of someone who's trying to get her group more into the game. I know that I'd like a game once in a while where everyone wasn't referred to solely by their actual name.

Furthermore, this isn't just an example of someone getting upset because their character was treated badly. This is an example of someone upset because they were treated badly. If someone wrote my name on a doll/model/etc and then beat it with a stick while everyone laughed, you can bet I'd take it personally, and you can bet I'd be upset. Jem's character was (allegedly) based heavily off her own personality. When the group rejoices at her character's debasement, that's a pretty clear indicator that her personality is despised.

And even if she's earned this dislike for her personality, letting her know the way this group did is needlessly cruel and humiliating.

[Arameus]

I talked to the DM about this recently. He's a nice guy, and you're right, it does seem incredibly mean.

But in their defense, she had been asked to leave already. Twice. And refused to. The DM hated what she was doing to the game, but wasn't going to act on anything unless the other players felt the same way and to the same extent. They did, he found out when they unanimously approached him to gibber da boot. They tried completely hedgehogging and pretending she wasn't even there, but that oddly had no effect on someone who it seemed was only there to get attention. It seems that she had always felt that the other characters were essentially NPCs, important to the game but essentially just acting around, not with, her character (which she had sometimes referred to as the campaign's 'hero,' which was poppycock.) After coming to the last-resort 'her-or-us' conclusion, the DM and players mutually agreed that positive reinforcement within the context of the game itself might help. Apparently, though, no one had tried or said anything at all in-game before that incident, not counting the argument which lead up to it, so it came as a complete shock to everyone (though not an unpleasant one on anyone else's part but hers) when he hauled off and pulled a parastaltic reversal all over her.

Apparently, she's actually been gaming a lot longer than any of the other players, DM included, so she felt it was everyone else that was wrong if they had a problem with her actions. She's not even very well-liked outside of gaming, either. The other players do have a lot of good RP experience, though, and I'm told that this is the first time that any of them, Gab's player included, hadn't gotten along just swimmingly with their gaming groups. (And they do get along with each other very well; just not Jem.)

Having known already what kind of an obdurate game-ruiner she had been, I didn't really realize that this anecdote would seem so one-sided and cruel. Truly, it is both of these, but punishment equal to and far exceeding one's crimes is an ideal that her bitchy self-insert Paladin can certainly get behind.

Edit: Oh yeah, would this make Jem truly, truly, TRULY OUTRAGEOUS?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, I'm going to Hell for that one.

[Draz74]

One could find terrible examples of creative ideas with a simple use of Godwin's Law.

Very true. Creativity is a good thing, but it can certainly be twisted to evil ends. My comment was supposed to be sort of tongue-in-cheek.

Jem might need to work on player/character seperation, but it might also be an example of someone who's trying to get her group more into the game. I know that I'd like a game once in a while where everyone wasn't referred to solely by their actual name.

Owch. My group isn't the most serious, but at least we're pretty good at using characters' names. I'd forgotten that some groups had trouble with even that level of immersion ...

Again, without knowing Jem IRL, or having her side of the story, or having seen the manner in which the debate took place, I can't draw a conclusion about whether the "punishment" was appropriate or not. It was certainly cruel, but maybe a bit of cruelty is what the player needed to come to her senses and learn some perspective.

... probably not, though. You're probably right.

Furthermore, this isn't just an example of someone getting upset because their character was treated badly. This is an example of someone upset because they were treated badly. If someone wrote my name on a doll/model/etc and then beat it with a stick while everyone laughed, you can bet I'd take it personally, and you can bet I'd be upset.

I can see that ... but I can also see a situation where someone would think it was funny if their character was getting barfed on by a swashbuckling Bard, even if they really cared about that character. It depends on the ambient mood, the relationship between the players, and the overall maturity of the players. Which are more factors that I just don't know about this particular situation.

She's not even very well-liked outside of gaming, either.

Yeah ... now we've found the real issue. I could have guessed this. Her inability to separate "barfing on my character" from "barfing on me" is probably because she isn't very happy about her real life, and uses RPGs as a crutch to escape. What she really needs is more friends (very patient ones) in real life. That would be a much better (but much slower) solution to the in-game problem.

[Colmarr]

Having known already what kind of an obdurate game-ruiner she had been, I didn't really realize that this anecdote would seem so one-sided and cruel. Truly, it is both of these, but punishment equal to and far exceeding one's crimes is an ideal that her bitchy self-insert Paladin can certainly get behind.

It doesn't matter HOW "bitchy" Jem or Jem's player was. All that does is make it clear that this situation is "eye for an eye".

The problem here is that the players chose to deal with an out-of-character problem in an out-of-character way but pretended to deal with it in character.

If a player is asked to leave a group but doesn't, the group should leave the player. This appears to me to have been an (successful) attempt to punish Jem's player for not complying with the wishes of the group. While the group would have been within its rights to enforce its wishes (by booting Jem's player firmly but nicely), IMO they overstepped the mark here.

I can see that ... but I can also see a situation where someone would think it was funny if their character was getting barfed on by a swashbuckling Bard, even if they really cared about that character. It depends on the ambient mood, the relationship between the players, and the overall maturity of the players. Which are more factors that I just don't know about this particular situation.

While I accept the fundamental ideas behind the point you make (that we don't have all the facts and that various people react to the same things in different ways), I reject as inherently unlikely the idea that an ongoing roleply group would not have some idea about how a specific player would react to an event like this. And even if it were the case that the other players did not know what the reaction would be, then in a co-operative game like D&D, those players should have consulted with Jem's player before taking the actions they did.

[Chronicled]

After reading the last few posts, I'm just sad for Jem's player. Junior high and high school weren't very happy times for me, either.

Yeah ... now we've found the real issue. I could have guessed this. Her inability to separate "barfing on my character" from "barfing on me" is probably because she isn't very happy about her real life, and uses RPGs as a crutch to escape. What she really needs is more friends (very patient ones) in real life. That would be a much better (but much slower) solution to the in-game problem.

I think we're thinking along the same lines at this point; I'm agreeing with everything in your post. Sadly, I doubt that any of her (now-former) group members will be helping with this.

It doesn't matter HOW "bitchy" Jem or Jem's player was. All that does is make it clear that this situation is "eye for an eye".

The problem here is that the players chose to deal with an out-of-character problem in an out-of-character way but pretended to deal with it in character.

If a player is asked to leave a group but doesn't, the group should leave the player. This appears to me to have been an (successful) attempt to punish Jem's player for not complying with the wishes of the group. While the group would have been within its rights to enforce its wishes (by booting Jem's player firmly but nicely), IMO they overstepped the mark here.

Correct.

Having known already what kind of an obdurate game-ruiner she had been, I didn't really realize that this anecdote would seem so one-sided and cruel. Truly, it is both of these, but punishment equal to and far exceeding one's crimes is an ideal that her bitchy self-insert Paladin can certainly get behind.

It is cruel and one-sided. I suggest you mentally extend your statement to its logical conclusion, and see if you still agree with it.

[Cuddly]

You spelled peristaltic wrong, but otherwise, good story.

One could find terrible examples of creative ideas with a simple use of Godwin's Law.

???
Calling someone Hitler to crash threads? I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here....

[Chronicled]

???
Calling someone Hitler to crash threads? I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here....

Bringing Nazism into the discussion would provide ample examples of creativity twisted to evil means.

[Draz74]

I think we're thinking along the same lines at this point; I'm agreeing with everything in your post. Sadly, I doubt that any of her (now-former) group members will be helping with this.

Yeah. Further information has been enough to convince me that your mental picture of the conflict was, unfortunately, far more accurate than the one I hoped had actually happened.

Calling someone Hitler to crash threads? I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here....

He was arguing with my tongue-in-cheek implication that creativity always leads to good results. An easy counterexample of this false principle is Hitler, some of whose ideas (in propoganda and torture, and arguably even in racist and political doctrines) were creative, but bad. But using Hitler as his example would have inevitably drawn a "Godwin's Law!" comment from someone else, so he just skipped that step and went on to the next one. I got what he was thinking.

[SoD]

Wow. That is fairly amusing for me, and at the same time a bit sad.

You've got someone who threw up on the paladin. Funny (and, apparantly RPingly justifiable).
That person was extremely upset in real life. Not very funny.
Said person apparantly hogged each session and saw the PC's as NPC's. Bad. This could be good, if the other players didn't mind, and she didn't mind about their in-character reactions. However...neither of these stood up.
She had been asked twice to leave the gaming group. Sad that it had to come to that bit. Even worse that it happened twice, and she ignored it.

As bad as it was for her, and even though I feel sorry for her...it's her loss more than the groups, and it's her fault, I feel, more than the groups.

[Cuddly]

That person was extremely upset in real life. Not very funny.

That's actually the funniest part.

[Draz74]

Junior high and high school weren't very happy times for me, either.

My first-ever campaign of D&D was in junior high. The DM literally pulled a "rocks fall, you die" on one of the characters, just to tell that character's player (who was the one who invited me to play) that he didn't like him. It was like the second session of the campaign, and the player (and his character) hadn't done anything particularly noteworthy, let alone offensive.

Sometimes I really wonder how any of us survived being that age.

[SoD]

That's actually the funniest part.

The bit where she got upset enough to rip up her sheet and storm out? I'm personally of the opinion that upseting people in-game is fine, as long as everyone knows it's in-game. When those things leak out to people being upset out-of-game, whether said person is a bitch or not, is not a good thing, nor funny (usually).

[Chronicled]

That's actually the funniest part.

You may want to examine your sense of humor.

Sometimes I really wonder how any of us survived being that age.

Heartily, heartily seconded.

[Cuddly]

Nerd rage is pretty hilarious stuff.

[Arameus]

You spelled peristaltic wrong, but otherwise, good story.



???
Calling someone Hitler to crash threads? I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance here....

I've never actually seen the word written out before. In fact, I only ever heard it once that I can remember. From a music teacher. In elementary school. Dang, I hold on to it that long and blow it. Thanks for pointing out.

And did you know it doesn't count as an invokation of Godwin's Law if the purpose is to crash the thread? Marvels and miracles! Learning! Interchange! Woo!

A lot of you seem really butthurt over something, but I can't really figure out what. It's like you equate this game session with an armed ambush, beating her with PVC pipe as she enters the gaming den bearing Mountain Dew and naive wonderment.

The fact is that it makes no difference what you say or think, this was really funny, for a variety of reasons.

1) It's innately funny. If it had happened between any characters regardless of their standing or motivation, it would have been hilarious in any case.
2) Said acts resulting in the solution of a problem for six people over the course of months corrupting otherwise-enjoyable pastime makes the act fortuitous, enterprising, and even funnier.
3) Said problem's very nature was both the impetus for the act and the basis of her enhanced disgust with it, which is deserved and even funnier than before.
4) There is simply something cathartic about seeing justice exacted. It's certainly inferior to grace on an essential level, but it makes for better movies. Ever take in a story where someone who does terrible, horrible acts just never receives any sort of comeuppance? Did it make you feel bad? What would you rather have happened to the character? A crowbar to the back of the head, that's what! Enough with the blankets and soup, 'Jem' had it coming regardless of whether you think so or not and actually being present at the impromptu sentence's enactment was a rare privilege and, of course, both satisfying and hilarious.

Seriously, I don't know where the sympathy comes from. She's not a defenseless middle-schooler being bullied by a roving band of ne'er-do-wells, she's a grown woman with a selfish, vindictive, and abusive style of treating those around her who was lucky all she got for her months of breeding bad blood was an anecdote that everyone besides her will be able to look back on, rather than merely engineering a total-party kill and laughing on her way out the door for the last time a la her previous campaign.

In short, it's okay for a dog to bite a lady if she was beating it with a plank for her own amusement. And is also pretty satisfying for onlookers.

[Xuincherguixe]

A lot of you seem really butthurt over something, but I can't really figure out what. It's like you equate this game session with an armed ambush, beating her with PVC pipe as she enters the gaming den bearing Mountain Dew and naive.

That's probably a good example. Maybe she was kind of annoying, but what if they beat her with PVC pipe because she was annoying? Would that be funny?

And it might sound odd, but the correct answer is yes. (Well, you might find neither as being funny) Schadenfreude is schadenfreude. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Physical Trauma is the easiest to deal with, but depressingly often the only kind people realize is traumatic.

[Grey Paladin]

I wouldn't have allowed that as your DM. Driving another player to tears, let alone to quit playing, is as much against the spirit of the game as anything I can think of. Where's the fun in making someone cry? Why is it brilliant to make someone quit liking their character, especially if it's modelled after themselves?

If the character is that disliked by the group, then your DM should have talked to Jem about it between sessions. I can't find anything in your post to compliment other than proper spelling and grammar.

^
Agreed.

@OP: A "Go away" would have been enough, but instead of dealing with the problem like man they chose to do so like sniveling, cowardly, children who lack the courage to back up their own words and feelings.

If anything, I'd run like hell from such a group.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Hum... just wondering. By the way you describe her, is Jem the one blogger who originated the "I hate fun" thread?

[Draz74]

@Arameus:
My sympathy is more for her in general, for having the kinds of problems that led to the whole situation; not so much for this particular instance.

I'm glad that your problem was solved in a humorous manner. I'm just un-glad that her bigger, more important problems are still around.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Seriously, I don't know where the sympathy comes from. She's not a defenseless middle-schooler being bullied by a roving band of ne'er-do-wells, she's a grown woman with a selfish, vindictive, and abusive style of treating those around her who was lucky all she got for her months of breeding bad blood was an anecdote that everyone besides her will be able to look back on, rather than merely engineering a total-party kill and laughing on her way out the door for the last time a la her previous campaign.

While I don't quite think this act was terribly high on the evil-o-meter (it would have been funnier and less threatening were it an overripe fart), I can see where people's sympathy comes from. Many of us have played for a long time, so we have known (or may have been) that person in one of our games. Sometimes they were our friend, and sometimes not. There are of course, all kinds of questions raised in this situation, which people are bringing to the forefront. For example, I'm not quite sure how this person had been kicked out but continued to keep attending sessions.

I should also state: It is not, and should not be, the job of a DM or gaming group to help someone through emotional troubles (unless they are also friends). So not all of what I'm saying here applies directly to your situation.

But the thing I love most about this hobby over many others is that it is a game where the ultimate purpose is to play and create together. This can mean, for some of us, a special connection with gaming groups, though others may take it far more lightly. I happen to be one who loves the game and who DMs a group that just wants to hang out and eat chips, and that is fine. But I want to think that those players interests will always be important to me (their in game needs for starters). And, sadly, the role of the DM can sometimes become conflict mediator.

And here is where we return to the story. A good anecdote could have come from a discussion later, between the players about what the one player was thinking (I know talking behind someone's back is bad, but I understand it can be cathartic). It's awkward, but for 'justice,' they could have had a player intervention. Something formal where they state what is problematic between their styles (even when someone is certainly wrong, it ends up being a much better to accept they could be right and merely discuss it as a 'difference').

So yeah, this is all coming from a DM who has had to hurt just a little bit inside, while he smiled and figured out the rules for his PCs to something extremely humiliating to one of his NPCs. It may seem extreme, but you can get attached to the little guys. Strangely enough, you'd almost rather have them just die than face some of the tortures PCs can think up. And that may have been the case with this character. If she was really into the whole LG Paladin thing and being the center of attention, tell her you'd like her to leave, but that you can work out a way where she could die heroicly in an important situation first.

If she is really just god-awful, then I'm still a bit confused as to how kicking her from the game did not result in her continued absence?

[Edit for ninja; @Grey_Paladin: It does seem that they appeared to try to handle the situation in other ways before hand, but this was a particularly difficult player. I don't think it's quite fair to question their manhood without knowing all of the specifics.]

[kamikasei]

Seriously, I don't know where the sympathy comes from. She's not a defenseless middle-schooler being bullied by a roving band of ne'er-do-wells, she's a grown woman...

That's interesting; it seems like everyone else in the thread at some point assumed the group were of high school age.

And I think the reason for that assumption is understandable enough - because if everyone involved is a grown adult, and the rest of the group all don't want to play with this woman, why is she still there? What makes her so able to show up at events to which she's been disinvited and get in? What stopped everyone else involved from acting like an adult, in short?

[Arameus]

Hmm... Since when do adults act like adults?

That's actually a good point though; once you get nearer to thirty than twenty, you really should be accountable for your behavior. Which, perhaps, is why they were so miffed at her in the first place.

I think Gab had every right. You know I think that, I've already said it. But the frequent counterargument is that it was too much, too soon. But really, she was given every opportunity, wasn't she? She forces her way into their game, makes every attempt to derail any positive party dynamic they had going, and spends the next few months using the other players as props in her self-starring fantasy novella. If she gets told to leave and doesn't, with no explanation, no apology, nothing, that's essentially a challenge to the five people sitting around that table. Kick me out? Oh, you silly nubz, I'll show you the meaning of epic endurance.

I don't know how a situation like this is 'supposed' to be handled, which may be why it seems so foreign to you other players and not to me. But fair is fair, and if you earnestly challenge five other people so openly about something they take so seriously, it shouldn't come as a surprise when they call you on it. Shouldn't, but in her case it did.

Seriously, though, I know that for a lot of you, 'tearing up you character sheet' would be an act akin to suicide, but she has a nasty habit of killing off her characters for little to no reason, so it isn't quite the same. I think you, OneFamiliarFace, are actually treating this with much more fairness that anyone else, including myself, probably. But in the end I think you just give her too much credit due to not having felt her desiccating aura.

That 'player intervention' happened. It happened a few times. And 'dying heroically' is a sport for her, so it can't really function as a good finale; as I said, she has a tendency of throwing herself onto every sword that's available in the name of having a protracted death scene, complete with forced-at-gunpoint eulogies barely masking their frustration at having to wait on her to roll up yet another inevitable martyr. It doesn't really matter if there's danger or not; it is, in her mind, an opportunity for drama that centers around her character being praised for an act she considers the other players incapable of.

The other players are college age, so when I said 'adult,' I meant she was; I guess they are too, but not 401k-watching, mortgage-taking-out, 'well I'd buy one but have you seen the rates' type adults, so don't confuse that mindset with whatever I might have implied by accident.

Strangely enough, you'd almost rather have them just die than face some of the tortures PCs can think up.

I thought this exact same thing when I read some of these replies. My exact thought was, 'You think they wouldn't have cared if they just killed her outright rather than that.' Which, to me, is pretty warped, regardless of the statement's perhaps holding a bit of truth.

But really, can you imagine that reaction?

"Gab, what the hell, man?! couldn't you just have flipped out and stabbed her to death or something? You're a bard, man, 'suggest' she throw herself into the campfire! Use that lute string as a garrote! But that's just wrong, man, honestly!"

"*sigh* Alright, alright. I promise to kill you next time we disagree."

"That's better. Wait... What?"

I know there's that feeling of wanting to do what is right and appropriate for everyone, especially for the DM. But on the other hand there's just playing the cards the stacked deck dealt you. And if you've got to do it, do it for the lulz.

You seem like a pretty fair DM, and, thus, probably a pretty good one at that.

But as for those of you just insulting people you do not know and passing such harsh judgment of a situation of which you have not even the slightest kernel of understanding, some glass chewing might be in order for you. As you chew the glass, really, really letting it work into your gums and throat, just ask yourself the question, 'what would i do to end this nightmare?' and then you'll probably have a closer understanding. Would you pretend to puke on a fictional character? You bet your bag of holding. Either that or your just a masochist, in which case, there are other websites for that kind of thing. Not that, uh, not that I would know about them.

[Grey Paladin]

I'd act like an adult and tell her off, if she insists on staying I'd call the police.

I'd not 'solve' this like an immature third-grader.

[kamikasei]

I really am curious now: if this woman was unwelcome, and had been told she was unwelcome and told not to come to sessions, how was she getting in to them? How is it she could force her way in?