Newbie DM here playing a starter campaign with a party that is "mostly" new to the DnD experience as well.
Have a conundrum I was not really expecting at this point: Which is great but also unfamiliar.
One of the party members, a Halfing Ranger, has a whole "outcast child, left for dead - was raised by wolves" background. Another party member is a Tiefling Rogue who has already tried being deceptive and a bit malicious with the group thus far. The party has already become wary and not trusting of this party member.
During last nights session things got tense. The party ran across some wolves as part of the adventure. The Halfing Ranger used Animal Control and calmed the beasts, with some of their background flair involved.
The Tiefling then walked up to one of the wolves, and while giving the halfing a malicious gaze, thrust its rapier into the wolf killing it - and then proceeded to try and skin the beast for it's pelt with the traumatized halfing looking on. They did this knowing the halfings affinity for wolves and the effect it would have.
It was quite obvious that the player behind the halfling was unhappy with this and did not wish the wolf to die. However being new to role-playing my impression was they didnt know exactly how to articulate what they felt and how to behave in this situation. I also think there was some measure of wanting to stop this behavior but being uncomfortable with wanting to "have it out" with the Tiefling.
The other party members were not impressed and talk of the Tiefling being insane and the adventurers being further uncertain of the character.
For my own part I felt as though I SHOULD interject somehow to query the behavior and setup some kind of a check on the Tiefling...but was uncertain as to how exactly. There was also a large part of me which did not want to interfere and leave it up to the Players to roleplay out and coem up with their own resolution and overall interplay over it (which ultimately did not really happen and the situation ahs remained unresolved and festering). The only tangible things I did were to see if the rogue actually succeeded in skinning the beast ( a roll of nat 1 which had further consequences) and had the Halfing roll against Wisdom to see if there was an actual psychological affect for part of the adventure. I made several notes and have secretly penalised future interactions between the Tiefling and the party for any rolls they might make on persuasion, deception etc... but I feel I failed somehow to capitalise on some kind of opportunity.
I guess the advice from other DM's is - How would you have handled this? What types of actions could I as the DM have taken? How would you have facilitated more roleplay and resolution from the Players.... or would you have ?
It sounds like you might have a problem player on your hands. If you haven't yet, check out Matt Coleville's video on problem players in his Running The Game series on YouTube. It was invaluable to me in coaching out son bad behaviour at my table.
It would appear that you may have allowed a character into the group without first checking that the group wanted that character. Did you have a session zero? You also do not appear to have laid out some ground rules for group interaction, e.g. "No PVP", "No evil characters", etc. (nb. that these are up to the group and are not examples of "universal" rules)
Your approach of penalising the Tiefling may backfire as bias. It's much better to simply be out with it. If the character is unacceptable to the group, then the character shouldn't be in the group. Remember, IRL, people hang out with other people they know and trust, and don't willingly hang out with people they don't have to. If this character has no reason to be trusted by the group, then you should allow them the ability to walk away from the character and ask the player to either roll up a new character who will be more acceptable to the group. If this is not acceptable to the player, let them go. Better a happy, smaller group than a group where people legitimately don't like each other which will eventually get smaller because people don't like what's happening.
I'm always at a loss when DMs allow this kind of toxic behaviour. "It was quite obvious that the player behind the halfling was unhappy," you said. Then why did you contribute to his/her unhappiness when it was obvious to you?
I'd retire the Tiefling character, no questions or arguments, and ask the player to make a less psychotic, more party friendly one. If the player kicks off, kick them out. If they repeat offend (and it is offensive in all meanings of the word), kick them out.
Once the Tiefling is gone and player harmony restored forget the whole thing. But never allow this kind of faux pas of your judgement to happen again.
I can only second what the others have already said, and: The player is the problem, no the tiefling character. He is a bully. If the player chooses to trigger his fellow players by being a jerk, he has to leave the gaming table, where people sit down to have fun together. It doesn't matter if he continues to play the tiefling or rolls a new character.
PS: Punishing the halfling player twice, by having him "roll for trauma", was not a wise choice.
First off, you are allowing PVP, by doing opposed checks between PCs, and by the fact that you allow players to have their character act "a bit malicious with the group thus far."
This is fine, but it sounds like not all your players know what the guidelines are so they don't know how to respond to a situation like this.
If a player is allowed to play the character as repeatedly deceptive and malicious to the rest of the group the reasonable response by the group would be to kick that character out, perhaps violently. (Time to roll up a new character, yours is now an npc)
Your players don't seem comfortable with that, which means they don't know their boundaries. The other player is either oblivious, or taking advantage, or who knows what they are thinking, people are weird. But the end result is, they are getting their fun at everyone else's expense.
Let the group know if it's a PVP game, then everyone should expect consequences up to and including loss of character with NO HARD FEELINGS, and if they don't want that kind of game, you all set boundaries together and then stick to them.
I'm going to start by saying that there have been a lot of agreeable points made already in this thread.
My gut instinct on this issue, before the killing of the calm wolf even happened, would be to ask why. You're the DM, you can pause the progression of events. Instead of letting things get out of hand, where you know a player would be upset/betrayed by another player, pause and get a better handle of the situation.
It's the DM's job to make sure everyone is having fun. Sometimes that involves some light interrogation to verify intent, informing the player the repercussions of his in game actions, and knowing what sort of game the players want to play. (ie. if they signed up for possible PvP this would be acceptable. if they signed up for being heroes and not malicious psychopaths, not acceptable behavior.)
Some valid points here. Thank you all for the comments.
I guess for some further clarification.
Everyone at the table is either related or real life friends. So theres some other factors to consider as part of the whole "kick them from the gaming table." For those who commented before - we did have 2 session 0's, essentially, with one character gen session and then we were all around for drinks and dinner one night and discussed more prior to our first actual game session. There were no disagreements, everyone knew everyone elses characters etc. Im kind of thinking the player had an initial concept of what their character should be in their head and the initial concept has been lost while they push things too far. They wanted a shady rogue that was a bit dark - but for whatever reason they are really pushing that over the top and at the moment there has not been a lot of NPC interaction so they have only been able to explore that with their player members.
The first session went off fine, with the exception of the tiefling trying to hide loot found and being deceptive to the party. During that moment I did query the person and said, what is the motivation behind that and other than trying to score a larger share, do you think thats a good move to do with your party? They tried it anyway, failed a deception roll and the group roleplayed that experience out a bit.
I guess at the end of the day we are all new to the experience and I took on the role of DM because A) they all thought id be the best at it B) I was willing to do it and C) I have the most gaming experience and relatable experience so they felt I was the best choice. But, I'm still new at it and am still learning.
As I stated, I felt at various points that I should interject more. At two intervals I did "pause play" and asked the group how they were feeling about the characters actions. However I have also read a lot about forcing players down a path and trying to stay out of their internal politics so that they have a chance to explore their characters and lead the narrative, rather than me dragging them by the nose to a point. Probably my wariness in this regard and inexperience with DMing caught me off guard and I have not curbtailed the poor behavior quick enough. I found the comments about "punishing the Halfing" interesting and in hindsight thats probably correct. If nothing else validating the experience with extra rolls likely reinforced more negative playstyle and I will be wary of that in the future. However, at the same time, the halfling did try to roleplay out some of the conflict and even made queries about various checks etc their character could make...... so again kind of back to the point of the players werent really expressing the full extent of their dislike, unsure if it should be a RP thing or an OOC discussion and I didnt take enough decisive action for us to have the discussion we likely should have had.
At the start of the next session I believe we will discuss the previous adventure and take stock of how some things played out. I thinkt here needs to be some frank discussion that if the Tiefling continued to act int hat manner that no reasonable party would continue to have them around and the player needs to realise they are playing that character out of the group.... and perhaps yes it is too late at this point to even continue with that character. I'd like to gain an understanding fromt he players perspective of why they feel that character needs to or is behaving that way to find out if theres any underlying issues as well because theres definately validity in many of the comments here. We dont want them to feel forced into playing a character or archetype they dont want to play but at the same time they obviosuly cant play in a style that is dysfunctional to the rest of the party.
Did the character roll as chaotic evil? Did the party know this? If they didn't perhaps an alignment shift is needed along with the appropriate reactions by NPCs, the player's diety, the party, some bounty hunters coming to kill him for his evil past...
We dont want them to feel forced into playing a character or archetype they dont want to play but at the same time they obviosuly cant play in a style that is dysfunctional to the rest of the party.
Perhaps try looking at this from the party's perspective in-game: They're all wary of this character and now have reason not to like them. Why would this group continue to adventure with this character? If they were all sitting around the campfire that night, would they be inclined to fall asleep around this individual? Would they be inclined to lay their life on the line battling alongside this individual?
Seeing as your table are all friends and likely don't want to stir up anything heavy, I could see the rogue ousted from the party by the other characters. This then places the burden of dislike on the character and their actions, rather than on the person playing the character. The character can be abandoned while they slept, they can ride off into the sunset, etc - but the player would have to create a new character at that point. Hopefully, one that meshes better with the party.
First, a general note, as a DM, I don't let players use skills like diplomacy or persuasion on other players. They have to do that by way of interacting with one another, in other words, by roleplaying. I find that, in some groups, abuse will run rampant if I let rolls decide such things. The players have free will, don't try to take that away.
Everyone at the table is either related or real life friends. So theres some other factors to consider as part of the whole "kick them from the gaming table."
This will be very helpful. Having been in this spot as both a player and DM, I can say that if you have strong ties out of the game then this will be something that's easier to work out. As you have said, it could be a matter of inexperience on the player's part. They are still learning what is and isn't fun. That's OK and normal. Learning to balance "an individual's fun" with that of the group is also a normal part of player development. You are all friends and family, use that and open a dialogue.
As I stated, I felt at various points that I should interject more.
With a group of semi-strangers, yes, you would have wanted to express yourself when you felt your personal boundaries were being pushed and take a moment to poll the group for how they felt as well. Outside of that case, you have to call it based on the people you are playing with. I, for example, would let it run its course with some of the groups I've DM'd for. For others, I'd step in. And for me, it came down to how well I knew the people behind the characters and what I knew about how they have fun. I ask myself, "Do I know someone's bad button is being pushed?" If so, I step in.
At the start of the next session I believe we will discuss the previous adventure and take stock of how some things played out. I thinkt here needs to be some frank discussion...
That's a good move. Even if it comes to one or more members of the party swapping out charaters, it's still a good way to go.
Good luck with it and I hope everything goes well.
Fury, it looks like you're handling it well enough. The situation you've explained, brings a lot into focus. It can be worked out, and you're doing fine. If you keep everything you've heard from this thread in mind, you're gonna do great and these won't be recurring incidences anyways.
Your second post shows that you have it together, so I don't think anyone here judges you harshly for the situation.
Always lay ground rules on the table. If you don't like evil in your game don't permit players to play evil alignment. Let players know they are a group of people before they are a group of players. Anyone who violates stuff in the game can create conflict outside of the game, i have seen it for 20 years. You are the DM, you are the one in control. If you don't control the situation then it will get worse. There is a difference from my character would do this, to you are a group of people playing a game.
I have seen rogues take LG weapons from paladins with the only intent to sell the item for money later on. His argument was i am a rogue its what my character would do, no hard feelings. That is when the paladin smited him and killed his character. Players feelings was hurt and didn't want to play the game and everyone felt awkward. All because the DM didn't lay down ground rules from the start of the campaign.
There is no need to kick the player, you just simply state that there is no party conflict. When a player begins to do something that would create conflict that you could see you stop it there. End of story. If fighting over treasure ever happens, you can allow rolling of the d20 to see who gets the item. End of discussion. Just be the boss with the expressed intent of what you are doing and anyone who wants to play accordingly will continue showing up on their own.
One tactic I've seen another DM use (It hasn't had to come up yet in my games) is to have a character roll against one of their own stats before allowing that character to pull off an action that could derail play or upset the balance at the table.
Consider the following:
DM "The corridor turns sharply to the right, and you find yourselves at the top of a stairway leading down into blackness. A light draft breezes up against your face and, you think you might hear some soft shuffling sounds in the blackness below."
Paladin: (This actually happened, for what it's worth) "I have the mage cast light on my shield, and I throw it down there".
DM: ......."Roll an intelligence check"
Paladin: "Two".
DM: *sighs* "Damn right you do".
Now it didn't quite work in this instance but, ideally speaking, anything past a five or more would have allowed the DM to say something like "As you go to throw the shield down the stairs, it occurs to you that it is a monumentally stupid idea to throw away one of your biggest sources of defense, and announce your presence to anything that might be lurking below".
Similarly, your evil-aligned party member might realise that "Hey, this would be a great way to alienate myself from the party, and lose out on a potential source of income for my dastardly plans that will surely occur later on down the line".
1 The wolves became friendly to the ranger, not the rogue. Would a wolf just let a neutral (at best) PC walk up with a rapier and stab it? At the very least, initiative should be rolled. Also a Charisma (Deception) vs Wisdom (Insight) contest.
2 The other wolves tear the rogue apart on their turns.
In my opinion, this player was testing how you and the other players would react to a provocative action. Don’t get upset about it, just play out the natural consequences of the action. In this case, dead rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Newbie DM here playing a starter campaign with a party that is "mostly" new to the DnD experience as well.
Have a conundrum I was not really expecting at this point: Which is great but also unfamiliar.
One of the party members, a Halfing Ranger, has a whole "outcast child, left for dead - was raised by wolves" background. Another party member is a Tiefling Rogue who has already tried being deceptive and a bit malicious with the group thus far. The party has already become wary and not trusting of this party member.
During last nights session things got tense. The party ran across some wolves as part of the adventure. The Halfing Ranger used Animal Control and calmed the beasts, with some of their background flair involved.
The Tiefling then walked up to one of the wolves, and while giving the halfing a malicious gaze, thrust its rapier into the wolf killing it - and then proceeded to try and skin the beast for it's pelt with the traumatized halfing looking on. They did this knowing the halfings affinity for wolves and the effect it would have.
It was quite obvious that the player behind the halfling was unhappy with this and did not wish the wolf to die. However being new to role-playing my impression was they didnt know exactly how to articulate what they felt and how to behave in this situation. I also think there was some measure of wanting to stop this behavior but being uncomfortable with wanting to "have it out" with the Tiefling.
The other party members were not impressed and talk of the Tiefling being insane and the adventurers being further uncertain of the character.
For my own part I felt as though I SHOULD interject somehow to query the behavior and setup some kind of a check on the Tiefling...but was uncertain as to how exactly. There was also a large part of me which did not want to interfere and leave it up to the Players to roleplay out and coem up with their own resolution and overall interplay over it (which ultimately did not really happen and the situation ahs remained unresolved and festering). The only tangible things I did were to see if the rogue actually succeeded in skinning the beast ( a roll of nat 1 which had further consequences) and had the Halfing roll against Wisdom to see if there was an actual psychological affect for part of the adventure. I made several notes and have secretly penalised future interactions between the Tiefling and the party for any rolls they might make on persuasion, deception etc... but I feel I failed somehow to capitalise on some kind of opportunity.
I guess the advice from other DM's is - How would you have handled this? What types of actions could I as the DM have taken? How would you have facilitated more roleplay and resolution from the Players.... or would you have ?
Thoughts?
It sounds like you might have a problem player on your hands. If you haven't yet, check out Matt Coleville's video on problem players in his Running The Game series on YouTube. It was invaluable to me in coaching out son bad behaviour at my table.
It would appear that you may have allowed a character into the group without first checking that the group wanted that character. Did you have a session zero? You also do not appear to have laid out some ground rules for group interaction, e.g. "No PVP", "No evil characters", etc. (nb. that these are up to the group and are not examples of "universal" rules)
Your approach of penalising the Tiefling may backfire as bias. It's much better to simply be out with it. If the character is unacceptable to the group, then the character shouldn't be in the group. Remember, IRL, people hang out with other people they know and trust, and don't willingly hang out with people they don't have to. If this character has no reason to be trusted by the group, then you should allow them the ability to walk away from the character and ask the player to either roll up a new character who will be more acceptable to the group. If this is not acceptable to the player, let them go. Better a happy, smaller group than a group where people legitimately don't like each other which will eventually get smaller because people don't like what's happening.
I'm always at a loss when DMs allow this kind of toxic behaviour. "It was quite obvious that the player behind the halfling was unhappy," you said. Then why did you contribute to his/her unhappiness when it was obvious to you?
I'd retire the Tiefling character, no questions or arguments, and ask the player to make a less psychotic, more party friendly one. If the player kicks off, kick them out. If they repeat offend (and it is offensive in all meanings of the word), kick them out.
Once the Tiefling is gone and player harmony restored forget the whole thing. But never allow this kind of faux pas of your judgement to happen again.
I can only second what the others have already said, and: The player is the problem, no the tiefling character. He is a bully. If the player chooses to trigger his fellow players by being a jerk, he has to leave the gaming table, where people sit down to have fun together. It doesn't matter if he continues to play the tiefling or rolls a new character.
PS: Punishing the halfling player twice, by having him "roll for trauma", was not a wise choice.
First off, you are allowing PVP, by doing opposed checks between PCs, and by the fact that you allow players to have their character act "a bit malicious with the group thus far."
This is fine, but it sounds like not all your players know what the guidelines are so they don't know how to respond to a situation like this.
If a player is allowed to play the character as repeatedly deceptive and malicious to the rest of the group the reasonable response by the group would be to kick that character out, perhaps violently. (Time to roll up a new character, yours is now an npc)
Your players don't seem comfortable with that, which means they don't know their boundaries. The other player is either oblivious, or taking advantage, or who knows what they are thinking, people are weird. But the end result is, they are getting their fun at everyone else's expense.
Let the group know if it's a PVP game, then everyone should expect consequences up to and including loss of character with NO HARD FEELINGS, and if they don't want that kind of game, you all set boundaries together and then stick to them.
I'm going to start by saying that there have been a lot of agreeable points made already in this thread.
My gut instinct on this issue, before the killing of the calm wolf even happened, would be to ask why. You're the DM, you can pause the progression of events. Instead of letting things get out of hand, where you know a player would be upset/betrayed by another player, pause and get a better handle of the situation.
It's the DM's job to make sure everyone is having fun. Sometimes that involves some light interrogation to verify intent, informing the player the repercussions of his in game actions, and knowing what sort of game the players want to play. (ie. if they signed up for possible PvP this would be acceptable. if they signed up for being heroes and not malicious psychopaths, not acceptable behavior.)
Some valid points here. Thank you all for the comments.
I guess for some further clarification.
Everyone at the table is either related or real life friends. So theres some other factors to consider as part of the whole "kick them from the gaming table."
For those who commented before - we did have 2 session 0's, essentially, with one character gen session and then we were all around for drinks and dinner one night and discussed more prior to our first actual game session. There were no disagreements, everyone knew everyone elses characters etc. Im kind of thinking the player had an initial concept of what their character should be in their head and the initial concept has been lost while they push things too far. They wanted a shady rogue that was a bit dark - but for whatever reason they are really pushing that over the top and at the moment there has not been a lot of NPC interaction so they have only been able to explore that with their player members.
The first session went off fine, with the exception of the tiefling trying to hide loot found and being deceptive to the party. During that moment I did query the person and said, what is the motivation behind that and other than trying to score a larger share, do you think thats a good move to do with your party? They tried it anyway, failed a deception roll and the group roleplayed that experience out a bit.
I guess at the end of the day we are all new to the experience and I took on the role of DM because A) they all thought id be the best at it B) I was willing to do it and C) I have the most gaming experience and relatable experience so they felt I was the best choice. But, I'm still new at it and am still learning.
As I stated, I felt at various points that I should interject more. At two intervals I did "pause play" and asked the group how they were feeling about the characters actions. However I have also read a lot about forcing players down a path and trying to stay out of their internal politics so that they have a chance to explore their characters and lead the narrative, rather than me dragging them by the nose to a point. Probably my wariness in this regard and inexperience with DMing caught me off guard and I have not curbtailed the poor behavior quick enough. I found the comments about "punishing the Halfing" interesting and in hindsight thats probably correct. If nothing else validating the experience with extra rolls likely reinforced more negative playstyle and I will be wary of that in the future. However, at the same time, the halfling did try to roleplay out some of the conflict and even made queries about various checks etc their character could make...... so again kind of back to the point of the players werent really expressing the full extent of their dislike, unsure if it should be a RP thing or an OOC discussion and I didnt take enough decisive action for us to have the discussion we likely should have had.
At the start of the next session I believe we will discuss the previous adventure and take stock of how some things played out. I thinkt here needs to be some frank discussion that if the Tiefling continued to act int hat manner that no reasonable party would continue to have them around and the player needs to realise they are playing that character out of the group.... and perhaps yes it is too late at this point to even continue with that character. I'd like to gain an understanding fromt he players perspective of why they feel that character needs to or is behaving that way to find out if theres any underlying issues as well because theres definately validity in many of the comments here. We dont want them to feel forced into playing a character or archetype they dont want to play but at the same time they obviosuly cant play in a style that is dysfunctional to the rest of the party.
Did the character roll as chaotic evil? Did the party know this? If they didn't perhaps an alignment shift is needed along with the appropriate reactions by NPCs, the player's diety, the party, some bounty hunters coming to kill him for his evil past...
Perhaps try looking at this from the party's perspective in-game: They're all wary of this character and now have reason not to like them. Why would this group continue to adventure with this character? If they were all sitting around the campfire that night, would they be inclined to fall asleep around this individual? Would they be inclined to lay their life on the line battling alongside this individual?
Seeing as your table are all friends and likely don't want to stir up anything heavy, I could see the rogue ousted from the party by the other characters. This then places the burden of dislike on the character and their actions, rather than on the person playing the character. The character can be abandoned while they slept, they can ride off into the sunset, etc - but the player would have to create a new character at that point. Hopefully, one that meshes better with the party.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
First, a general note, as a DM, I don't let players use skills like diplomacy or persuasion on other players. They have to do that by way of interacting with one another, in other words, by roleplaying. I find that, in some groups, abuse will run rampant if I let rolls decide such things. The players have free will, don't try to take that away.
This will be very helpful. Having been in this spot as both a player and DM, I can say that if you have strong ties out of the game then this will be something that's easier to work out. As you have said, it could be a matter of inexperience on the player's part. They are still learning what is and isn't fun. That's OK and normal. Learning to balance "an individual's fun" with that of the group is also a normal part of player development. You are all friends and family, use that and open a dialogue.
With a group of semi-strangers, yes, you would have wanted to express yourself when you felt your personal boundaries were being pushed and take a moment to poll the group for how they felt as well. Outside of that case, you have to call it based on the people you are playing with. I, for example, would let it run its course with some of the groups I've DM'd for. For others, I'd step in. And for me, it came down to how well I knew the people behind the characters and what I knew about how they have fun. I ask myself, "Do I know someone's bad button is being pushed?" If so, I step in.
That's a good move. Even if it comes to one or more members of the party swapping out charaters, it's still a good way to go.
Good luck with it and I hope everything goes well.
DM Tip #42: If they split up, giggle insanely!!
Past and Current Homebrew RPG Projects
Fury, it looks like you're handling it well enough. The situation you've explained, brings a lot into focus. It can be worked out, and you're doing fine. If you keep everything you've heard from this thread in mind, you're gonna do great and these won't be recurring incidences anyways.
Your second post shows that you have it together, so I don't think anyone here judges you harshly for the situation.
Good luck, have fun!
Always lay ground rules on the table. If you don't like evil in your game don't permit players to play evil alignment. Let players know they are a group of people before they are a group of players. Anyone who violates stuff in the game can create conflict outside of the game, i have seen it for 20 years. You are the DM, you are the one in control. If you don't control the situation then it will get worse. There is a difference from my character would do this, to you are a group of people playing a game.
I have seen rogues take LG weapons from paladins with the only intent to sell the item for money later on. His argument was i am a rogue its what my character would do, no hard feelings. That is when the paladin smited him and killed his character. Players feelings was hurt and didn't want to play the game and everyone felt awkward. All because the DM didn't lay down ground rules from the start of the campaign.
There is no need to kick the player, you just simply state that there is no party conflict. When a player begins to do something that would create conflict that you could see you stop it there. End of story. If fighting over treasure ever happens, you can allow rolling of the d20 to see who gets the item. End of discussion. Just be the boss with the expressed intent of what you are doing and anyone who wants to play accordingly will continue showing up on their own.
One tactic I've seen another DM use (It hasn't had to come up yet in my games) is to have a character roll against one of their own stats before allowing that character to pull off an action that could derail play or upset the balance at the table.
Consider the following:
Now it didn't quite work in this instance but, ideally speaking, anything past a five or more would have allowed the DM to say something like "As you go to throw the shield down the stairs, it occurs to you that it is a monumentally stupid idea to throw away one of your biggest sources of defense, and announce your presence to anything that might be lurking below".
Similarly, your evil-aligned party member might realise that "Hey, this would be a great way to alienate myself from the party, and lose out on a potential source of income for my dastardly plans that will surely occur later on down the line".
Philosopher. DM. Chronic Pain Adventurer.
My problems with this scenario are:
1 The wolves became friendly to the ranger, not the rogue. Would a wolf just let a neutral (at best) PC walk up with a rapier and stab it? At the very least, initiative should be rolled. Also a Charisma (Deception) vs Wisdom (Insight) contest.
2 The other wolves tear the rogue apart on their turns.
In my opinion, this player was testing how you and the other players would react to a provocative action. Don’t get upset about it, just play out the natural consequences of the action. In this case, dead rogue.