Ultimately it's the DM call, but you should talk to the other player and the DM and point out that the character's behaviour is a detriment to the game and some changes need to be made.
How many other players are there and what do they think? Some games the players actually enjoy the infighting, the backstabbing, the drama llamas, and so on. Others, it's about the cooperation and fun of meeting a challenge together.
In both the old game and the new, the DMs said while they don't encourage it, they will accept player-killing. However, even if you do convince the DM to let it be resolved this way, you have to be willing to take a loss in return, because if he's twinked in some way or you just have a really bad day on the dice rolls, *you* might be the one tearing up your character sheet.
see my comment to zesty_pinto for what I've said out-of-game to the DM and the player.
There are 6 other players, one of which came into this campaign along with the new player. The NPCish high-level character doesn't want him killed, but he has some in-game info that we don't.
We're in the middle on drama vs. cooperation. We're okay with a little bit of drama, but cooperation is more important. He's not cooperating though. At all.
Yeah, that's my thought. I don't encourage player-killing, but I'll accept it. As long as it's for coherent, multiple reasons and not just "I don't like you. Die."
Whoever said it would be a fair fight? :) I know she has at least two other characters on her side, probably more, due to her being a decent leader, the party cleric, and the drow matriarchy. Of course, the NPCish high-level character would probably kill/injure us all if we started anything.
The thing about killing another player is that even if such is done, the player may just make another character anyway, especially if the DM is sympathetic towards the game structure. I'm more of a DM than a gamer, and it really feels more like a huge red tape dilemma than anything else; will the player be all right with it, how will the new character be introduced, etc. I'd have to agree with the DM on this though; unless s/he applies some deus ex machina that forces the others to be unable to do something in reaction, I think killing a PC in such a situation probably would be like nothing short of assassinating Franz Ferdinand in 1914 Sarajevo.
From what you're detailing, I would think that the priestess might want to just use their magic to possess them or something just to move them around, or attempt to force a "gimp" status onto them. But, of course, this is all just my own opinion.
She sees him as a waste of party resources at the moment; using spells on him would waste more party resources... Plus we're all second-level, so her 1st-level spells won't do anything serious.
She could weaken the character pretty easily, but that would make him less likely to do anything useful. It would either be a condition that would prevent them from fighting well, or a HP loss that would waste more party resources.
Exactly... *evil grin* He's now going to be permanant point following our two main scouts. And if he doesn't get involved in the next battle, we're going to have a long chat in and out of character. She can't use him as fodder without any regard, but she can and will use him as fodder without very little regard. She would stick him as main point, but the real scouts are better at that, so him as point would endanger the rest of the party.
We already talked some. He basically doesn't understand why my character is so angry at him for not fighting. He says that he wouldn't create a revenge character, but he and I are both worried about this starting a massive in-party fight. He just wants to keep the same character for at least a couple sessions, which makes complete sense to me.
I don't understand why he's unwilling to fight. He's a new member of a group; to stay in their good wishes, he needs to help out. Otherwise, he can go wander off into the vast cavern wilderness by himself and get killed.
I tend to classify all "good" malevolents as Thanos types. The character is a usurper who has secret designs and doesn't mind playing along with a group until that character's personal goals are met (then everyone in the group who is still alive, stays alive) or are threatened (the other characters are coerced or killed to restore the Thanos character's fortunes.
I like the character type myself. But in a strict RPG with a DM, the DM is already a Thanos character and if he/she is any good as a DM, will kill off any and all rivals.
As a player, I don't have issues with a rebellious character. I just don't understand -- at all -- why he chose this particular method. He's a fighter. Fighters fight, that's what they do.
Now if it was a more challenging fight, or if my orders were dangerous/suicidal, that makes sense as rebellion.
As for your usurper idea, he won't get anywhere with it if the other players don't think he's powerful/effective. If he had gone into battle swinging and knocked everything down, then I would have to worry about a real power struggle. This is a struggle over his insubordination/uselessness, not his insubordination/effectiveness.
Understood. Then a question deserves to be answered: Is it a goal of the group to enhance and strengthen its members (for the sake of each member and ultimately the group)? Or, does the group exist in part to not only exercise each individual strength, but to be a strength for each other's weaknesses? Filling in the gaps, or watching each other's backs, as it were...
If not, then by all means, kill the weakest link. If so, then any talk about offing the useless one should, in my less than humble opinion, stop.
I would say both: •the goal of a group is strengthen each member and the group as a whole. •the goal of a group is to cover eachother's weaknesses and watch eachother's backs.
So far, he has not displayed any strength, and is only a weakness. Thus, he does not benefit the group under either explanation (keep everyone strong, cover weaknesses)
If he had displayed some strength and some weakness, then he would be kept around as useful. It's also that we have such a large group (8 people) that she doesn't perceive more people as necessary. If the group were smaller... then things would change.
Comments 10
How many other players are there and what do they think? Some games the players actually enjoy the infighting, the backstabbing, the drama llamas, and so on. Others, it's about the cooperation and fun of meeting a challenge together.
In both the old game and the new, the DMs said while they don't encourage it, they will accept player-killing. However, even if you do convince the DM to let it be resolved this way, you have to be willing to take a loss in return, because if he's twinked in some way or you just have a really bad day on the dice rolls, *you* might be the one tearing up your character sheet.
Reply
There are 6 other players, one of which came into this campaign along with the new player.
The NPCish high-level character doesn't want him killed, but he has some in-game info that we don't.
We're in the middle on drama vs. cooperation. We're okay with a little bit of drama, but cooperation is more important. He's not cooperating though. At all.
Yeah, that's my thought. I don't encourage player-killing, but I'll accept it. As long as it's for coherent, multiple reasons and not just "I don't like you. Die."
Whoever said it would be a fair fight? :) I know she has at least two other characters on her side, probably more, due to her being a decent leader, the party cleric, and the drow matriarchy. Of course, the NPCish high-level character would probably kill/injure us all if we started anything.
Reply
From what you're detailing, I would think that the priestess might want to just use their magic to possess them or something just to move them around, or attempt to force a "gimp" status onto them. But, of course, this is all just my own opinion.
Reply
She could weaken the character pretty easily, but that would make him less likely to do anything useful. It would either be a condition that would prevent them from fighting well, or a HP loss that would waste more party resources.
Reply
Reply
We already talked some. He basically doesn't understand why my character is so angry at him for not fighting. He says that he wouldn't create a revenge character, but he and I are both worried about this starting a massive in-party fight. He just wants to keep the same character for at least a couple sessions, which makes complete sense to me.
I don't understand why he's unwilling to fight. He's a new member of a group; to stay in their good wishes, he needs to help out. Otherwise, he can go wander off into the vast cavern wilderness by himself and get killed.
Reply
I like the character type myself. But in a strict RPG with a DM, the DM is already a Thanos character and if he/she is any good as a DM, will kill off any and all rivals.
Reply
Now if it was a more challenging fight, or if my orders were dangerous/suicidal, that makes sense as rebellion.
As for your usurper idea, he won't get anywhere with it if the other players don't think he's powerful/effective. If he had gone into battle swinging and knocked everything down, then I would have to worry about a real power struggle. This is a struggle over his insubordination/uselessness, not his insubordination/effectiveness.
Reply
If not, then by all means, kill the weakest link. If so, then any talk about offing the useless one should, in my less than humble opinion, stop.
Reply
•the goal of a group is strengthen each member and the group as a whole.
•the goal of a group is to cover eachother's weaknesses and watch eachother's backs.
So far, he has not displayed any strength, and is only a weakness.
Thus, he does not benefit the group under either explanation (keep everyone strong, cover weaknesses)
If he had displayed some strength and some weakness, then he would be kept around as useful.
It's also that we have such a large group (8 people) that she doesn't perceive more people as necessary. If the group were smaller... then things would change.
Reply
Leave a comment