Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Cluedrew]

Idea: Let the dragon breath fire. The fact that it is sick doesn't mean what ever anatomy it uses to spew flames is still there. And I doubt there is some cosmic law that each dragon only has one breath weapon. OK its a strong convention. But have it spew some weak flames and then cough and vomit. Don't signal "no fire" quite as much if you do this but this way the party still get resistance to some of its attacks.

Although yeah the chances are someone will be unhappy either way.

[Pelle]

As for Bob specifically, well, he isn't the only one in the group, there are three (sometimes four) other players and myself, and I really want to try and come to a consensus, or atleast figure out where everyone stands, before I drastically change my gaming style.

Exactly. I'm not saying you should cater to Bob. I think you should make it clear to him what kind of game the rest of the group (including you) want to play^*, and say to him that you will not run his kind of game. But you need to make it clear that the reason for that is not because what you run is generally considered better by most people (on the internet) and therefore he should like that as well. Rather tell him that what he likes is ok and acceptable, but but since running that kind of game will make it less enjoyable for the rest of the group, you aren't going to. And tell him that you hope he is aware of what the rest of you like (make sure he does) and that you trust him not to make it less fun for you all. Remind him if he does. The argument always need to be that the rest of you has less fun, never that your gaming philosophy is better (it's not to him).

_{*figure that out and agree upon it with the rest first}

[Talakeal]

So, we played again.

It went OK, except for one little thing, which I think is a bit of a funny story:

We lost the party rogue OOC about a year ago due to player issues, and his character was captured. The rogue in question was a master of blind fighting and nighttime tactics.

Last night I wanted to resolve that storyline, so while the party was exploring a dungeon, said rogue pickpocketed the party's lantern and blew it out.

I had planned to then have an RP seen in the dark, where they could possibly convince the rogue to help them in the final conflict, or at least explain to them what was going on.

The party's response was to immediately attack him in the dark, without even letting him say a single word. They killed him, but suffered some serious wounds in the process, and were down a potential ally, so they barely scraped by the final battle.

As usual, they bitched at me for making the encounter too hard, to which I explained that it was appropriately balanced, they just came into it in a bad spot because they chose to attack a potential ally when they were in a bad spot tactically. To which I got this argument from my players:

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.


In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

And as for B, that just kind of blows my mind.


It ended up OK, but I was kind of disappointed that by killing the rogue before he had a chance to speak they missed out on a lot of storyline and made that entire plot thread that I had building to kind of pointless, but mostly I find it funny. You see, the rogue's player was the one who had the "No monologuing!" rule that I discussed in a previous thread (essentially he attacks any enemy who tries to talk to the party on principle), and so I suppose that it is highly ironic that he died as he lived!

[zinycor]

Wow... I would never use the PC of one of my players, even if he had left. Nor would I allow the other players to kill the PC belonging to someone not present. Is this situation common at your table? Did the not present player consent to having his character being controlled by you given their abscense?

This situation is quite surprising...

[Talakeal]

Wow... I would never use the PC of one of my players, even if he had left. Nor would I allow the other players to kill the PC belonging to someone not present. Is this situation common at your table? Did the not present player consent to having his character being controlled by you given their abscense?

This situation is quite surprising...

Yes, he gave consent when he left the game.

[zinycor]

Yes, he gave consent when he left the game.

Oh! If so, then is ok.

Regarding the situation, maybe the Rogue could have a convenient notebook that could be looted from him in order to give whatever exposition you feel needs to be given to the players.

[Excession]

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.

I agree with your players on both these points. Removing someone's only light source in a dark, dangerous, area is an attack, and the players were fully justified by responding in kind. Do not provoke people who's job is violence. Plus I do think they should have gotten to roll perception and initiative. Perhaps perception could be a hidden roll if you do that normally. The rogue would get a surprise round only if he beat their perception, and even then might not have the actions to move in, pick-pocket, and extinguish a light source all at once. Some PCs will also have abilities that trigger in surprise rounds, right up to "can't be surprised" and they should get to use those.

In a crowded marketplace you can almost get away with pick-pocketing something from a PC, but it's still mostly the domain of bad GMing, especially if they don't get to react at all.

If you want your players to talk to an NPC, don't open with the NPC attacking them. Open with the NPC talking to them from behind something or whatever. You could also have the NPC immediately surrender when attacked; the rogue was surely perfectly aware that he couldn't win that fight. Note that an NPC pulling "Just a prank bro!" is still going to get killed by some groups, just on general principle.

[NichG]

This behavior makes complete sense, and honestly you should know enough by now to expect it.

A combat generally lasts about 3 rounds in a tabletop game, and is more or less structured as a race to amass tactical advantage (by removing sources of damage on the other side via death, battlefield control, etc). So you're in a dungeon (hostile territory) and someone initiates a hostile action against you (applies battlefield control to your group). They're already 33% ahead of you in that race to death. If you stop and talk, especially if the DM is running the game in a way that you don't have mechanical boundaries between talking and action (which you telegraphed by not making use of something like an initiative check or spot check) then you're risking that the DM is going to say 'you spend the round talking, its a new round, Joe gets a knife in the back' or 'the rogue takes a second surprise round!'. If they didn't have an initiative check before the first hostile act, why should they assume they would get the protection of an initiative check before the second hostile act? Furthermore, if they just attack outright, they can effectively automatically win that initiative check - so why put themselves at the risk of rolling and losing it?

In the situation you set up, not attacking is equivalent to being in a life or death race and giving the other side a handicap of the first 2/3rds of the racetrack.

In principle, the party having good information could at least allow this to be risked as an educated guess, but the first thing the mysterious hostile did was to remove the party's ability to evaluate them as a threat by removing their passive source of information (e.g. sight). So there's not even a way to say 'ok, if we parley we die if they just want to kill us, but its highly unlikely they just want to kill us' in this situation. Without the 'pickpocket' clue (which only the lantern holder should have), instead of a rogue it could just as well have been a Vasuthant and now the group is dead.

[zinycor]

I agree with your players on both these points. Removing someone's only light source in a dark, dangerous, area is an attack, and the players were fully justified by responding in kind. Do not provoke people who's job is violence. Plus I do think they should have gotten to roll perception and initiative. Perhaps perception could be a hidden roll if you do that normally. The rogue would get a surprise round only if he beat their perception, and even then might not have the actions to move in, pick-pocket, and extinguish a light source all at once.

If you want your players to talk to an NPC, don't open with the NPC attacking them. You could also have the NPC immediately surrender rather when that attack; the rogue was surely perfectly aware that he couldn't win that fight.

Yeah, I also thought it was weird to have a NPC, supposed to be an ally, pickpocket the party....

I would also instantly kill that NPC.

[Excession]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

[Ignimortis]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

Depends on the system and the power level. But 5e probably can't pull this off well, yes.

[Talakeal]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

Actually doing it stealthily and without being noticed is pretty silly (although I am not sure if I would say impossible, skilled magicians can do similar things IRL).

In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

[zinycor]

Actually doing it stealthily and without being noticed is pretty silly (although I am not sure if I would say impossible, skilled magicians can do similar things IRL).

In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

So, when you planned for this to happen, Did you not foresee that the party would be hostile towards the rogue? And why did the rogue do this?

[Talakeal]

So, when you planned for this to happen, Did you not foresee that the party would be hostile towards the rogue? And why did the rogue do this?

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

[zinycor]

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

I mean... if you threaten someone... you are not dissuading them from hostility, quite the opposite. I stand with your party on this, in fact, is the heroic thing to do, which as you have stated before, is what you would want them to be.

[NichG]

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

Because not attacking in that case makes the situation even more tactically disadvantageous. Option 1: you are in a fight where you have neither sight nor the initiative. Option 2: you are in a fight where you have no sight, but at least you have the initiative. There was no reason given to make the players believe that this wasn't already a fight once hostile action was taken, and imposing a tactical disadvantage by force is definitely hostile action.

Tabletop games aren't movies, and in most tabletop games the strategically best answer to the mook with a gun sneaking up behind the group during a pre-conflict conversation with the villain is to just accept that one party member is going to be shot and have everyone in the group immediately go hostile and alpha-strike the villain. Otherwise, you're basically giving the other side a free attack - at least this way, you can reclaim the portion of the round you'd lose to that.

[Talakeal]

I mean... if you threaten someone... you are not dissuading them from hostility, quite the opposite. I stand with your party on this, in fact, is the heroic thing to do, which as you have stated before, is what you would want them to be.

How is turning off the lights threatening someone? Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

[zinycor]

How is turning off the lights threatening someone?

Cause

He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

Heroic.

noun
1.
behaviour or talk that is bold or dramatic.

For me Attacking an enemy, even though you are at disadvantage, is bold and dramatic.

[Talakeal]

Because not attacking in that case makes the situation even more tactically disadvantageous. Option 1: you are in a fight where you have neither sight nor the initiative. Option 2: you are in a fight where you have no sight, but at least you have the initiative. There was no reason given to make the players believe that this wasn't already a fight once hostile action was taken, and imposing a tactical disadvantage by force is definitely hostile action.

Tabletop games aren't movies, and in most tabletop games the strategically best answer to the mook with a gun sneaking up behind the group during a pre-conflict conversation with the villain is to just accept that one party member is going to be shot and have everyone in the group immediately go hostile and alpha-strike the villain. Otherwise, you're basically giving the other side a free attack - at least this way, you can reclaim the portion of the round you'd lose to that.

That logic just seems pants on head crazy to me.

Throwing ethics or intentions aside, the idea that being punished for attacking would make you more likely to attack just makes no sense.

I could come up with lots of political examples, but those are verboten, so let's go with nature. Poisonous creatures are typically very brightly colored as a deterrent to predators because neither side wants to be injured.

Cause.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that putting up defenses is equal to a threatening someone.

For me Attacking an enemy, even though you are at disadvantage, is bold and dramatic.

Most definitions of heroic I can find include an ethical level to it; you would never say "The heroic bank robber chose to have a shootout with the police instead of surrendering," even though fighting is both braver and more dangerous than cooperating.

[Quarian Rex]

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.


In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

And as for B, that just kind of blows my mind.

As has already been mentioned and explained your players seemed to have reacted appropriately to the situation. You put them at a massive disadvantage while handwaving away any defenses that they had (perception checks, initiative, AoOs, etc.) and expected them to waste their round trying to recruit their attacker? That is just nuts.

As for this...

In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

... are you serious? If someone takes action to put you at a tactical disadvantage that is because they plan to exploit that disadvantage. Allowing them to do so is just suicidal. Ideally they would have taken action before their attacker had succeeded in his tactical maneuvering but you explicitly denied them that. The next best option is to act before he has time press his advantage.

Remember, the initiator of a conflict only has an advantage because they can choose the place and manner of that conflict, whether that is ambushing them with twice as many people or leading them into a murder box. In this case you had an attacker choose to attack a paranoid pack of murderers single-handedly, relying only on darkness achieved solely through DM fiat. Just because someone is the attacker doesn't mean that they should get overwhelming mechanical advantage [in this case multiple rounds worth of actions (1/ stealth to the party, pickpocket lantern, 2/ extinguish/destroy lantern, move away) while ignoring any possibility for the players to act]. Being the aggressor does provide a tactical advantage, but that advantage can be squandered. The thief did just that.

In the future, if you want this sort of thing to play out the way you seem to think that it should, you need to make some adjustments to how you handle these encounters. There are ways to achieve your goals that do not rob your players of the ability to act or demand that the players waste what little time they do have to act trying to parley with an obvious attacker.

In this case you could have just had the thief shoot out the lantern as a ranged sunder attack (no need to put the party into a functional Time Stop so the thief can spend multiple rounds messing with them), and then, most importantly, you have the thief talk to them. If you want to put the party at a disadvantage to provide leverage in a negotiation then you need to declare that immediately, or else the party is more than reasonable to assume that this is just a murder-ambush.

The only thing surprising here is your surprise that it didn't go any other way. It is actually legitimately baffling.

[zinycor]

How would the players know that this particular rogue was a potential ally? Let's say that this rogue was an assasin sent to kill them, what would have been the modus operandi there? How could they find the difference between a potential ally rogue, and an ambush by an assasin?

In my opinion, the moment you decided the rogue would approach the party in such a violent way as setting up an ambush, you should have considered the party attacking the rogue as one of the most probable results.

[Talakeal]

As has already been mentioned and explained your players seemed to have reacted appropriately to the situation. You put them at a massive disadvantage while handwaving away any defenses that they had (perception checks, initiative, AoOs, etc.) and expected them to waste their round trying to recruit their attacker? That is just nuts.

As for this...

... are you serious? If someone takes action to put you at a tactical disadvantage that is because they plan to exploit that disadvantage. Allowing them to do so is just suicidal. Ideally they would have taken action before their attacker had succeeded in his tactical maneuvering but you explicitly denied them that. The next best option is to act before he has time press his advantage.

Remember, the initiator of a conflict only has an advantage because they can choose the place and manner of that conflict, whether that is ambushing them with twice as many people or leading them into a murder box. In this case you had an attacker choose to attack a paranoid pack of murderers single-handedly, relying only on darkness achieved solely through DM fiat. Just because someone is the attacker doesn't mean that they should get overwhelming mechanical advantage [in this case multiple rounds worth of actions (1/ stealth to the party, pickpocket lantern, 2/ extinguish/destroy lantern, move away) while ignoring any possibility for the players to act]. Being the aggressor does provide a tactical advantage, but that advantage can be squandered. The thief did just that.

In the future, if you want this sort of thing to play out the way you seem to think that it should, you need to make some adjustments to how you handle these encounters. There are ways to achieve your goals that do not rob your players of the ability to act or demand that the players waste what little time they do have to act trying to parley with an obvious attacker.

In this case you could have just had the thief shoot out the lantern as a ranged sunder attack (no need to put the party into a functional Time Stop so the thief can spend multiple rounds messing with them), and then, most importantly, you have the thief talk to them. If you want to put the party at a disadvantage to provide leverage in a negotiation then you need to declare that immediately, or else the party is more than reasonable to assume that this is just a murder-ambush.

The only thing surprising here is your surprise that it didn't go any other way. It is actually legitimately baffling.

Who said I ignored any of the party's defenses or used DM FIAT? He fully used the normal rules for stealth and pick-pocketing, and the idea that you need to start rolling initiative and drop into combat rounds anytime a stealthed character approaches the party is out and out insane and not supported by the rules of any game I am aware of.

Also, I am not sure how you turn "guy who sneaks up on them and blew out their lantern" into "their attacker."

I (and 3 of my four players) are legitimately baffled by the idea that it is the "appropriate action" to attack someone BECAUSE they put you at a disadvantage.

I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

[Excession]

How is turning off the lights threatening someone? Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

The rogue didn't "turn off the lights", he approached the party without announcing his presence and assaulted one of them. Before you say it wasn't assault, the definition of that here is "any situation where you intentionally apply force against another person’s body". You don't pull something out of someone's hand without applying force to them.

Meetings between heavily armed violent people are always complex and dangerous. Just watch any Western or Gangster movie. You do not open by sneaking up on someone, let alone attacking them, if you want to live.

I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

No. Multiple people have told you that you're wrong, including your own players. It certainly isn't objective.

The players had no way of knowing that you had tuned the next fight assuming they would become buddies with someone that attacked them. How could they?

[Talakeal]

How would the players know that this particular rogue was a potential ally? Let's say that this rogue was an assasin sent to kill them, what would have been the modus operandi there? How could they find the difference between a potential ally rogue, and an ambush by an assassin?

In my opinion, the moment you decided the rogue would approach the party in such a violent way as setting up an ambush, you should have considered the party attacking the rogue as one of the most probable results.

He didn't set up an ambush. If he had set up an ambush, he would have been the one to attack them instead of the other way around.

I am not sure how you can consider pick-pocketing to be "such a violent act".


And, as usual, it wasn't "the party" it was "Bob" initiating combat, almost getting the party killed, and then whining about how hard the encounter was and that was morally and tactically justified in doing so. This is seriously like the fifth time he has done this in the campaign.


Note that even Bob did not consider it an attack, but rather a defensive measure. During the conversation, he even mentioned an example of someone who was nervous about armed PCs storming into his home uninvited and casting a mage armor spell on himself to an example of sufficient provocation for lethal force.

[Excession]

Note that even Bob did not consider it an attack, but rather a defensive measure. During the conversation, he even mentioned an example of someone who was nervous about armed PCs storming into his home uninvited and casting a mage armor spell on himself to an example of sufficient provocation for lethal force.

At the risk of bringing politics into this...

Imagine you're approaching an armed police officer at an active crime scene. Maybe you have some information they need. The general plan is announce yourself before approaching, don't make any sudden movements, and keep your hands where they can be seen. Your rogue did none of those things, and therefore he died.

I don't even think what the party did was evil. If the rogue immediately offered surrender and they still killed him it certainly isn't good though.

[zinycor]

Who said I ignored any of the party's defenses or used DM FIAT? He fully used the normal rules for stealth and pick-pocketing,

So...

In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

Do you have rules for turning your head around?

Also, I am not sure how you turn "guy who sneaks up on them and blew out their lantern" into "their attacker."

Isn't that setting up an ambush? which is like step 1 of a succesful attack

I (and 3 of my four players) are legitimately baffled by the idea that it is the "appropriate action" to attack someone BECAUSE they put you at a disadvantage.

3 people isn't really a good sample.

I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

I also think that the PCs acted appropiately, since they can only act in regards with information they had, which wasIf I was a player there, my vision would be something close to: "A rogue ambushed us, nearly killed us, luckily we were able to best him, but the GM had the weird idea of making this asassin central to the story... somehow".

Personally, Whenever I introduce a friendly NPC, I make the NPC appear friendly towards the PCs. If I make a NPC who is a "Potential Ally" I make some back up plans in case the NPC ends up somehow dead.

It is well known that PCs on DnD (Or DnD like games) are very easy to resort to violence. Seriously, I believe you should have seen the rogue being attacked a mile away.

[Talakeal]

The rogue didn't "turn off the lights", he approached the party without announcing his presence and assaulted one of them. Before you say it wasn't assault, the definition of that here is "any situation where you intentionally apply force against another person’s body". You don't pull something out of someone's hand without applying force to them.

By that definition of "assault" giving someone a high five is an assault, and not really relevant to the discussion.

Meetings between heavily armed violent people are always complex and dangerous. Just watch any Western or Gangster movie. You do not open by sneaking up on someone, let alone attacking them, if you want to live.

I fully agree. What I don't agree with is Bob's statement that acting with murderous force against someone who does something to dissuade you from attacking them is ALWAYS the correct action.

No. Multiple people have told you that you're wrong, including your own players. It certainly isn't objective.

The players had no way of knowing that you had tuned the next fight assuming they would become buddies with someone that attacked them. How could they?

Well, one of my four players. The other three agree that he, once again, dragged them into combat needlessly.


To cut out the pretense, Bob does this over and over again because he doesn't like dialogue in games and likes to feel powerful by killing people, and when that doesn't work to his advantage he then comes up with this big song and dance routine to justify his actions. As the DM, I don't really care what actions he takes, but it annoys me when he takes actions that he knows are disruptive and then blames me when for being "out to get him" when they don't work out in his favor.

[zinycor]

By that definition of "assault" giving someone a high five is an assault, and not really relevant to the discussion.

High fives require consent, Which I assume the Rogue didn't get when he pickpocketed the lamp and turned off.

I fully agree. What I don't agree with is Bob's statement that acting with murderous force against someone who does something to dissuade you from attacking them is ALWAYS the correct action.

I don't think is always the correct option, but it often is in DnD and DNDlike games.

Well, one of my four players. The other three agree that he, once again, dragged them into combat needlessly.


To cut out the pretense, Bob does this over and over again because he doesn't like dialogue in games and likes to feel powerful by killing people, and when that doesn't work to his advantage he then comes up with this big song and dance routine to justify his actions. As the DM, I don't really care what actions he takes, but it annoys me when he takes actions that he knows are disruptive and then blames me when for being "out to get him" when they don't work out in his favor.

So, you finally kicking him out of the group? If not, then stop complaining about him and make a game that he would enjoy playing, otherwise you ar losing your time and the other player's.

[Talakeal]

Do you have rules for turning your head around?

I have rules for successfully stealing an item from someone by beating them in an opposed larceny vs. alertness roll. How exactly it is flavored isn't really relevant.

Isn't that setting up an ambush? which is like step 1 of a successful attack.

Just because someone completed the first step doesn't mean they completed the task, anymore than loading your gun is murder.

3 people isn't really a good sample.

No, it isn't. But then again, the sample size arguing against them isn't a lot larger, and most of those people have a history of playing devil's advocate.

I also think that the PCs acted appropiately, since they can only act in regards with information they had, which wasIf I was a player there, my vision would be something close to: "A rogue ambushed us, nearly killed us, luckily we were able to best him, but the GM had the weird idea of making this asassin central to the story... somehow".

Even if the "assassin" in question was a good aligned pickpocket who had been a member of the party for months on end?

It is well known that PCs on DnD (Or DnD like games) are very easy to resort to violence. Seriously, I believe you should have seen the rogue being attacked a mile away.

Yeah, I guess so.

In my opinion, trying to figure out what is going on and defusing the situation is always tactically advantageous. Heck, in this particular situation, firing blinding into the darkness just wasn't a smart move, even if there had been no consideration beyond winning the fight, the party would have been much better served by lighting a torch and assessing the situation.

But yeah, Bob keeps doing this, and I guess I really should see it coming from no on, its just that every time he has a slightly different justification for what sets him off, and it always surprises me.

[Excession]

The party's response was to immediately attack him in the dark, without even letting him say a single word. They killed him, but suffered some serious wounds in the process, and were down a potential ally, so they barely scraped by the final battle.

And, as usual, it wasn't "the party" it was "Bob" initiating combat, almost getting the party killed, and then whining about how hard the encounter was and that was morally and tactically justified in doing so. This is seriously like the fifth time he has done this in the campaign.

Which was it, the party or Bob? Please stop changing your story, it confuses us.

Did the party try to stop Bob? You would have had a minute or two rolling initiative for people to talk this over right? If the other players didn't try to stop him then I can only assume they agreed with his actions at the time. Sure, they might have agreed with your side later on, but that was in hindsight. Or they just wanted you to stop so they could leave.

High fives require consent, Which I assume the Rogue didn't get when he pickpocketed the lamp and turned off.

Agreed. If you sneak up on someone and slap their hand without consent you have committed an assault.