Ya i kind of does matter what Alignment he plays. A Evil character is not going to do good things just like a Good Character is not going to do Evil things. That is the whole point of the Alignment System, Ive been called out for playing a Lawful Good character for not helping a town gaurd in a fight. If he was playing a C/N then he is all out from him self if hes playing a good character then theres a problem. Untill we know what it is i cant really say if its wrong or not.
Nah. A good Player (not to be confused with a Good Aligned Character) should see that other players in his group are upset/aren't having fun, and do one of 2 things.
Stop doing the thing that nobody likes, because you're here to have a good time with other people, and if you want to play alone maybe video games are a better choice.
Have a conversation with the players at the table, and work out a compromise. Maybe this still involves you stopping the thing, maybe you explain to everyone so that they can take in game actions to look our for their best interest, maybe the DM has the town guard catch you stealing and now you're whole crew is on the lam and that's a fun story and adventure because your LG paladin feels beholden to you but also the law and now he has character dilemmas.
"My character is an asshole, <insert terrible thing that ruins group dynamics> is what he would do!" is a bad excuse. I say this as someone who just recently had a table blow up because I withheld information from other characters in game since the character wouldn't have felt the information was worth mentioning (and nobody asked him/tried to get the information themselves). My druid had been in the form of a wolf and was able to find a dead body by smell. It turned out that body was a knight the rest of the party had been looking for for weeks, but my character was unaware of this and just assumed it was another unimportant dead body. He walked away without alerting anyone, and the player who had sworn to find this lost knight lost her shit. I felt justified because she "could have searched the area herself".
Our DM stepped in after the game and had everyone talk about expectations and cooperation. I realized that if I was going to make a choice like this again which would create conflict among players, I would need a strong RP incentive, not just "my character doesn't care about the same things your character does" because that's not the table's expectations. He made it clear nobody was wrong, but that we all need to be on the same page in order for everyone to have fun. Since my character JUST came into the group (2nd session with the group) and the player who had issue with me was not present for session 0, it was understood that there hadn't been a meeting of the minds on all the players' expectations.
Now I understand that I can't just leave major quest plot points untold without good RP reason, and the other player knows that they may need to use metagame knowledge to push for an in game solution to their problems if my RP choice has been properly explained ("hmm, this tomb seems like somewhere great to hide a body, maybe the murderer covered their tracks by putting the knight in one of the coffins").
Let me give you an example. Ever played Monopoly? Most people play a pretty straight game. I usually cheat every chance that presents itself.
1st time: Did you catch me? Did you get upset, mad or just get all happy you caught me...figuring I wouldn't try again. Shame on me, right?
2nd time: Were you more aware that I was prone to cheating? Were you paying more attention? Did I make a mistake? Shame on you?
Usually at this point, the person will stop playing, ignore it or....starting trying to cheat as well.
3rd time: If the game is still going, cheating is now part of the game. Or the person won't feel terrible if they lose....because I cheated. Then you play a game without cheating at all & still win. People you're playing with will then assume I was cheating....because I won.
In this instance, alignments don't have anything to do with this as this guy is an admitted cheater and has consistently disrupted multiple games he has been in. This is a player problem, not an alignment problem, not a metagame problem, not a group problem, and not a DM problem.
I would have blown this guy out of the freakin' airlock a long time ago.
I mostly agree. This seems like a disruptive/problematic player, which then becomes a DM problem because DM's are the de facto group organizers/leaders/conflict resolvers. We could discuss if that's fair to make this the DM's problem to fix, but it's not really the point here. The basic question was "Is this guy being a jerk at the table?" and there we both agree the answer is yes.
That was mostly the point I was trying to make, and bringing in an example from my games about how a similar thing happened and didn't result in me throwing a bitch fit and blaming every other player for not enjoying me being a dick at the table.
I find it pretty astonishing that every time I see a post from RainFaireMan is regarding some problem he has with his party (no offence intended).
I'm so happy you mentioned this. I thought I was losing my mind.
My two cents on the whole thing:
DnD isn't communism. What's mine isn't yours and what's yours isn't mine. When I take it, it's mine but until then, there's a reason we don't have a massive shared inventory.
If I palmed some crap off of someone else, I earned it. It should be mine. I took the risk, I reaped the reward. If I offer to loan it to you or give it to you, it is through my generosity and interest in the group that I do so, not because YOU feel that the group loot should be round robin. My group understands my mentality on this (Except when it comes to the deck of many things, holy CRAP was that a nightmare in our group.)
When something is stolen or taken within our group, it belongs to the person who is carrying it and we haggle with one another just as you do in real life. It isn't MEANT to be a "I have to do this for the good of all" group thing. That's FORCING someone's alignment and I put that on par with god modding or meta gaming. YOU do not tell me how MY character should behave. Period.
So with that said, here's the fact of the matter. If they meta game because they dislike what you are doing, it is because there is a communication break down at the player level on what your character is and what is to be expected. And from the given situation, I'm going to say that they believe that whatever is happening, should only happen if it involves an improvement to the group, even through self sacrifice. If your character falls out of this manifesto, then you are ostracized, through meta gaming. You played your character as a thief, as intended, within the rules of RP, provided we are getting the whole story. They are meeting this RP with meta gaming nonsense. That is unacceptable and as a DM, I'd squash that.
Now, that being said, in my experience, if the party is behaving like this, it isn't an isolated incident. It is through persisting annoyance with your actions and that the group doesn't like you in general. We had this situation before in my group with someone whom I replaced. He played an obnoxious orc that constantly tried to do things like punch a prince because he thought it was funny. When the group expectation is that he SHOULDN'T be punched and all you are ever doing is interfering with that expectation without any perceived benefits, the players themselves grow wary of that person in general and the meta gaming comes a flowing. They attacked and killed his character, reaped the loot and kicked him out. (There was also that matter that this guy was my wife's ex and he cheated on her so they were kicking him out anyway. Sooooo...yeah. Lol) I had several moments when I played a character in a similar manner. Jae was made a year ago or so as an immortal mystic brawler hot head who thought he was invincible because...well, he was. He was incredibly hard to kill and part of who he was was due to that fact. "I can do what I want because I can deal with the consequences."
But during the entire time I played him, I know for a fact that one of our players was CONSTANTLY enraged by my behavior because it was so far outside of the norm for her and Jae represented a personality type she loathed. Overtime, I humbled him up by going out of my way to try and get him killed and make him realize that he couldn't just do that all the time and he evolved into a hardy defender for the other characters. This was lost on that particular party member....actually almost none of them saw the change, except my DM I think, because well after I changed to a different character, a polar opposite, social elite guild trader with high end connections, they FREQUENTLY stopped a warlock with 20 charisma from bartering on their behalf.....Like....Cmon now. It wasn't until later that the distrust that I had originally bred into the group was broken. Now, I'm retiring that character for an assassin. A lawful evil assassin. In a relatively good party. So it's going to be a whole thing.
This turned into a rant.
TL:DR: Meta gaming is bad if it is because you are RPing your character as intended and that should be shut down at DM level. But it's understandable if you are frequently hindering the group with your character and your best bet at salvaging that is to evolve your character, to have him grow from an RP experience to be more compatible. But meta gaming is not the way to go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
List of Good characters/people that did bad things:
Clarke in The 100
Jesus (allegedly ransacked a market due to an anger fit)
Every Allied Soldiers in WW2 (Killing is bad, be it for a good reason or not)
That normally super nice guy that took his car while drunk
List of Evil characters/people that did good things:
Stalin in WW2 (he kinda defeated Hitler)
John Murphy in The 100
And many more
So here, you see, all is not black and white in the duality of good/evil... When you play DnD, you play a role, yes sometimes some character's personnality might hinder the group. The group is not the character, the characters make the group. I see much rant about "yeah but our fun is affected blah blah blah". But really, this is what the game is and if you aim at having a smooth, conflict free game, there is Baldur's Gate EE 1,2 and expansions. Let the adults play and navigate the sometimes rough, sometime smooth waves of social interactions. Your fun is not more important than your friend's fun.
Your friend's character ( and by the way, his money investment in the game) is none of your business. The DM has the job of guiding the players through character creation and make sure the party fits together.