I recently had a chat with another player who I constantly kept butting heads with during games. He was saying that he didn't like it that I kept my character sheet hidden from other players (mainly him). Because he DM's he also think he knows best and constantly kept getting spells and abilities wrong.
I pointed out that my character sheet and backstory was run past the DM during session zero. I also reviled my race and class to other players during the game (I left out about how he kept getting things wrong).
As an example of how things went wrong. The party was sent to clear out some kobolds who has be kidnapping, murdering and laying siege to a local town. I was playing a LG dwarven cleric of the forge, he was playing a Half elf druid (lycanthrope). We had cleared out most of the kobolds but one of the bosses we had managed to capture. As he was a spellcaster he was bound and gagged which was removed when we questioned him. I wanted to turn him over the the village elders so he could be put on trial however the druid had another idea and walked up and slit his throat.
I said to the player are you sure you want to do this. He said yes and then was shocked when my cleric went ballistic on the druid accusing him of murdering an incapacitated prisoner. (The player was shocked and said there was no pvp in this game) I pointed out that he had committed an evil act in front of LG cleric and as such I could not keep traveling with him and would turn him into the local guards.
He committed an evil act, so you are justified in how your character reacted. Sounds like he wants to be a murder hobo with no consequences to his actions. The fact he is a dm has nothing to do with it, you are allowed to reveal or keep hidden as much of your character as you would like.
You should allow other the DM to see your character sheet. They need to be able to predict how your character will react, and may need alignment & personality traits, etc. to see that. If they want to incorporate elements of your backstory into the campaign, they will need you backstory.
But with players? There is really no right answer, if he wants to see your abilities so he can know what you are gonna do and predict it, then you dont have to show your character sheet.
However, I'de reccomend giving him the basic important info such as alignment.
But honestly, if giving him a copy of your character sheet stops his bad attitude, then it may just be worth giving him one to stop the hassle.
On your actions about the prisoner: You were just playing your character the way they would act, nothing wrong with that.
You are correct in playing your character the way you want, including its reactions to evil acts.
As for your character sheet, it's none of their business if that's what you want you can keep it to yourself (and the DM) revealing only aspect that can be observed by others. Most virtual table also have character sheet private as well so it's not an unusual practice in virtual play.
Hopefully, you clarified the "are you sure you want to do this?" so that he knew that it would lead to PvP conflict. PvP, unless you're up for it, really isn't fun. I don't feel that you should have yielded on how your character would react, but he should have been informed of what was about to happen. It would have been less of a compromise for him to not kill the prisoner than for you to not react to it.
If he was informed that your character would react badly, and was unwilling or unable to find a compromise series of events, then it's on him when he decided to go ahead anyway.
If he wasn't informed, well, this is why.
He shouldn't have access to your sheet though. Only you and the DM has the right to see it. Ifnyou want to share it, you can, but he just needs to communicate with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm not privy to all the intricacies of your relationship with this player, but I tend to think that this situation maybe isn't so much about who is in the right as it is about a conflict of playstyles and disposition. A healthy solution probably involves a constructive conversation. On the other hand though sometimes one player's idea of fun clashes with the rest of the group and either that player works to conform to table standards or moves on.
Or I'm being too psychological and this is about the challenges of roleplaying value conflicts between people who don't really know each other very well. I honestly think strangers trying to play a game together usually need to be mostly on the same page to have a fun time over an ongoing campaign. There just isn't the larger connection to help smooth out RP conflict.
There's a school of thought that has existed for some time, that killing kobolds and other such creatures isn't evil. We don't have to argue over whether it's right, just understand that this player could very well have grown up, so to speak, with this outlook -- or, indeed, their character may have done. Whereas for you and for your character it's extremely obvious that you shouldn't kill a captive kobold, for them your outlook might be naive, or simply something they've never considered.
(What's the tone of the setting? And do you think if the kobolds captured your cleric, they'd show them any mercy?)
You might see about doing a rewind. Maybe to the moment when you were discussing what to do with the captive.
As a general rule, any time someone proposes to act quickly or secretly in order to defy the will of other party members, the DM should probably pause and figure out whether this is okay with everyone. Sometimes, the important thing isn't what actually occurs in the story (i.e. the druid player doesn't really need the kobold to die), but what it says about the character (i e. he wants everyone to see how ruthless his druid can be). Those can be sorted out so everyone wins. Other times, the player really does just think the kobold should die, but if the group disagrees, then they have to deal with it.
That's my take, anyway. I know some folks prefer any sort of forward action over deliberation, and will generally favor whoever steps up with a "I do something." I can see the appeal. But it's not how I like to play.
My opinion, you made an incharacter choice to react how the character would react...that being said "its what my character would do" is kind of the classic copout for bad behavior.
On the character sheet side of things, i believe that the character sheet is private. The DM is entitled to know general choices like race/class/feats, and giving them your characters backstory is a must. But, beyond that the dm is not entitled to any notes you take,
Without greater context—and context which you might not be able to give objectively—one cannot really say who was wrong with the Kobold incident. It very well could be that you played “in character” but you have build a character incomparable with your party. Lawful good, if playing in a manner where you strictly follow alignment (which one really should never do - alignment is only a guideline, not an absolute), has a propensity to be the most inflexible and thus most frustrating alignment in the party.
If your party is mostly “we are always good all the time and never make mistakes or do something Evil (tm)” people, then a strict lawful good character might work, and it’s possible the other character is the one that does not mesh with the party. But if your group contains more antiheroes, then it very easily could be that you are the one playing against the party, and thus are the problematic element.
None of that, of course, is to say you are the problem—as aforestated, that evaluation cannot be done by those of us who lack the full context. But it is worth considering that problems are rarely one-sided, and you are playing an archetype which can very easily be the most frustrating in the party.
Both of you acted in character, which, as pointed out, isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. However, if there was an agreement of no PvP then you were the one who broke that agreement.
As long as the DM who runs the game have apporved of your charatcer and character sheet, other players aren't entitled to seeing your character sheet. The question though is why you feel a need to hide it?
It's important to note that the PvP started before the OP reacted. When the other player unilaterally decided that the Kobold was to die, the PvP started. The OP's acts may have been more direct, but communication should have started before committing such a morality-challenging act as killing a character. The other players just abusing the "no-PvP" rule to unilaterally decide what to do, taking the collaboration out of a collaborative game.
That said, rereading it, this is just an example of what's generally going on. It sounds like the two have descended into bickering. I'd any there are only two options to move forward - realise that both parties are bickering, both apologise and make up. The alternative is to stop playing together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, from a DM perspective, there was a few things that should have been afforded. Assuming the LG Cleric was near said kobold, he should have been allowed to contest a throat slit, or the druid should have had to do something to prevent said contest (sneaking, etc). I have direct issue whenever a player tries to do something counter another player without allowing that player to respond. I also would have asked why each player is doing what they are doing, "Why would you slit the throat of the thing when the party clearly went through the effort to restrain him?" that sort of thing.
I don't have enough information on the druid to make a judgement call on how he should have acted, my only question is why does he have a curse of a CE creature still on them? I would have thought that you would take more of an issue that your party member is being consumed by a disease that turns him into a ravenous beast. Also take into consideration that if you went to said village and told them he slit the throat of the kobold, would they care?
Alignment isn't as black/white as people tend to make it out to be, Lawful doesn't always mean the law of the land, it could be a warriors code, or the tenants of your faith. And a player race that is evil doesn't necessarily mean they are the same kind of evil as a outerplanar creature who is an embodiment of evil. Its really a watered down version of that. When you think of paladins, you think of a holy warrior who has to fight the temptations of evil to maintain his faith with his god, not oh, he is LG that means he is basically an angel. Its the same with evil characters. Take Lord Sesshomaru from Inuyasha, very much LE, but to those who earn their place near him he does show some fondness for, esp the kid. He has goals and is willing to kill his own half brother to reach them.
As far as showing someone your sheet, or w/e. I have all my players use the public setting in my games in DnD beyond. Your playing together, not against each other. However thats me as a DM requiring that. The only person you have to share your character with is really just the DM.
All in all, it feels like both players have issues trusting each other, and need to take a step back for a second and really look at why your playing DnD. Its a game that can be fun, just got to keep the point of it in focus.
Both of you acted in character, which, as pointed out, isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. However, if there was an agreement of no PvP then you were the one who broke that agreement.
As long as the DM who runs the game have apporved of your charatcer and character sheet, other players aren't entitled to seeing your character sheet. The question though is why you feel a need to hide it?
The problem with 'no PvP' is that there is passive PvP, i.e. messing up the party indirectly.
Sure, but that's a session zero discussion to have on how you define PvP. From OP's description it is obvious that they were the one who went "full Pvp", though. Killing an NPC literally isn't PvP even though it can affect other PCs and that it sure reeks of murder hoboing. How much murder hoboing that is accepted is up to the group. I'm curious as to what the DM and other players thought.
I wanted to turn him over the the village elders so he could be put on trial however the druid had another idea and walked up and slit his throat.
I said to the player are you sure you want to do this. He said yes and then was shocked when my cleric went ballistic on the druid accusing him of murdering an incapacitated prisoner. (The player was shocked and said there was no pvp in this game) I pointed out that he had committed an evil act in front of LG cleric and as such I could not keep traveling with him and would turn him into the local guards.
On the one hand, "are you sure you want to do this" doesn't actually communicate much; it would have been clearer to say something like "out-of-character, I want to warn you that doing this will make my cleric turn on you - if he sat by and watched this happen it would be a violation of who he is."
On the other, this crap has nothing to do with character sheets. Alignment in 5e is a guideline more than a gameplay mechanic. The other guy complaining he couldn't have known because he "hadn't seen your character sheet" is bull, because there is no rule stating that a Lawful Good character has to attack someone who kills captives. (That goes both ways, too - you can't just say "my character is lawful good, it's not MY fault he wants to ruin your game!")
This whole situation speaks to me of a fundamental lack of communication... but also, another player getting upset because they can't see everyone's character sheets sounds like a control freak thing, and that's its own issue that has to be addressed.
DM: "The druid approaches the kobold with the intent to slit it's throat. Does anyone move to stop him?"
That's what you do as a DM when a player tries to do something controversial. This should be solved with in-character conversation, not PvP.
I don't see what OP had to gain by being coy and saying "are you sure?" It sounds like they preferred some kind of gotcha PvP moment over just coming out and saying "my character won't allow that to happen." A truly LG cleric would intervene before the murder, not use it as bait to justify another murder.
In that case if literally no one else knows that your character would have a problem with it, speaking up and being clear instead of coy and mysterious is even more important.
Both of you acted in character, which, as pointed out, isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. However, if there was an agreement of no PvP then you were the one who broke that agreement.
As long as the DM who runs the game have apporved of your charatcer and character sheet, other players aren't entitled to seeing your character sheet. The question though is why you feel a need to hide it?
The problem with 'no PvP' is that there is passive PvP, i.e. messing up the party indirectly.
Sure, but that's a session zero discussion to have on how you define PvP. From OP's description it is obvious that they were the one who went "full Pvp", though. Killing an NPC literally isn't PvP even though it can affect other PCs and that it sure reeks of murder hoboing. How much murder hoboing that is accepted is up to the group. I'm curious as to what the DM and other players thought.
But there wasn't necessarily even a no PvP agreement. The OP said the other player made that statement, not that the DM did.
Again, session zero. :)
And the OP's cleric did not actually attack said Druid regardless, but rather berated them and threatened to to stop travelling with them and possibly to turn them into the guards. Where is the line, exactly?
I guess that depends on how you define that "passive PvP" that you were talking about?
Both of you acted in character, which, as pointed out, isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. However, if there was an agreement of no PvP then you were the one who broke that agreement.
As long as the DM who runs the game have apporved of your charatcer and character sheet, other players aren't entitled to seeing your character sheet. The question though is why you feel a need to hide it?
The problem with 'no PvP' is that there is passive PvP, i.e. messing up the party indirectly.
Sure, but that's a session zero discussion to have on how you define PvP. From OP's description it is obvious that they were the one who went "full Pvp", though. Killing an NPC literally isn't PvP even though it can affect other PCs and that it sure reeks of murder hoboing. How much murder hoboing that is accepted is up to the group. I'm curious as to what the DM and other players thought.
But there wasn't necessarily even a no PvP agreement. The OP said the other player made that statement, not that the DM did.
Again, session zero. :)
And the OP's cleric did not actually attack said Druid regardless, but rather berated them and threatened to to stop travelling with them and possibly to turn them into the guards. Where is the line, exactly?
I guess that depends on how you define that "passive PvP" that you were talking about?
Session 0 is on the DM, not so much on the players. And the DM has been strangely missing from any of the OP's comments.
I mean that the PvP question needs to be dealt with during session zero.
I am not so hardline anti-PvP, but I would say doing something unilaterally that cannot be undone would have been the first 'passive' blow. Any berating or threats would have been 'self defence.'
Okay. Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I recently had a chat with another player who I constantly kept butting heads with during games. He was saying that he didn't like it that I kept my character sheet hidden from other players (mainly him). Because he DM's he also think he knows best and constantly kept getting spells and abilities wrong.
I pointed out that my character sheet and backstory was run past the DM during session zero. I also reviled my race and class to other players during the game (I left out about how he kept getting things wrong).
As an example of how things went wrong. The party was sent to clear out some kobolds who has be kidnapping, murdering and laying siege to a local town. I was playing a LG dwarven cleric of the forge, he was playing a Half elf druid (lycanthrope). We had cleared out most of the kobolds but one of the bosses we had managed to capture. As he was a spellcaster he was bound and gagged which was removed when we questioned him. I wanted to turn him over the the village elders so he could be put on trial however the druid had another idea and walked up and slit his throat.
I said to the player are you sure you want to do this. He said yes and then was shocked when my cleric went ballistic on the druid accusing him of murdering an incapacitated prisoner. (The player was shocked and said there was no pvp in this game) I pointed out that he had committed an evil act in front of LG cleric and as such I could not keep traveling with him and would turn him into the local guards.
He committed an evil act, so you are justified in how your character reacted. Sounds like he wants to be a murder hobo with no consequences to his actions. The fact he is a dm has nothing to do with it, you are allowed to reveal or keep hidden as much of your character as you would like.
You should allow other the DM to see your character sheet. They need to be able to predict how your character will react, and may need alignment & personality traits, etc. to see that. If they want to incorporate elements of your backstory into the campaign, they will need you backstory.
But with players? There is really no right answer, if he wants to see your abilities so he can know what you are gonna do and predict it, then you dont have to show your character sheet.
However, I'de reccomend giving him the basic important info such as alignment.
But honestly, if giving him a copy of your character sheet stops his bad attitude, then it may just be worth giving him one to stop the hassle.
On your actions about the prisoner: You were just playing your character the way they would act, nothing wrong with that.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You are correct in playing your character the way you want, including its reactions to evil acts.
As for your character sheet, it's none of their business if that's what you want you can keep it to yourself (and the DM) revealing only aspect that can be observed by others. Most virtual table also have character sheet private as well so it's not an unusual practice in virtual play.
Hopefully, you clarified the "are you sure you want to do this?" so that he knew that it would lead to PvP conflict. PvP, unless you're up for it, really isn't fun. I don't feel that you should have yielded on how your character would react, but he should have been informed of what was about to happen. It would have been less of a compromise for him to not kill the prisoner than for you to not react to it.
If he was informed that your character would react badly, and was unwilling or unable to find a compromise series of events, then it's on him when he decided to go ahead anyway.
If he wasn't informed, well, this is why.
He shouldn't have access to your sheet though. Only you and the DM has the right to see it. Ifnyou want to share it, you can, but he just needs to communicate with you.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm not privy to all the intricacies of your relationship with this player, but I tend to think that this situation maybe isn't so much about who is in the right as it is about a conflict of playstyles and disposition. A healthy solution probably involves a constructive conversation. On the other hand though sometimes one player's idea of fun clashes with the rest of the group and either that player works to conform to table standards or moves on.
Or I'm being too psychological and this is about the challenges of roleplaying value conflicts between people who don't really know each other very well. I honestly think strangers trying to play a game together usually need to be mostly on the same page to have a fun time over an ongoing campaign. There just isn't the larger connection to help smooth out RP conflict.
There's a school of thought that has existed for some time, that killing kobolds and other such creatures isn't evil. We don't have to argue over whether it's right, just understand that this player could very well have grown up, so to speak, with this outlook -- or, indeed, their character may have done. Whereas for you and for your character it's extremely obvious that you shouldn't kill a captive kobold, for them your outlook might be naive, or simply something they've never considered.
(What's the tone of the setting? And do you think if the kobolds captured your cleric, they'd show them any mercy?)
You might see about doing a rewind. Maybe to the moment when you were discussing what to do with the captive.
As a general rule, any time someone proposes to act quickly or secretly in order to defy the will of other party members, the DM should probably pause and figure out whether this is okay with everyone. Sometimes, the important thing isn't what actually occurs in the story (i.e. the druid player doesn't really need the kobold to die), but what it says about the character (i e. he wants everyone to see how ruthless his druid can be). Those can be sorted out so everyone wins. Other times, the player really does just think the kobold should die, but if the group disagrees, then they have to deal with it.
That's my take, anyway. I know some folks prefer any sort of forward action over deliberation, and will generally favor whoever steps up with a "I do something." I can see the appeal. But it's not how I like to play.
My opinion, you made an incharacter choice to react how the character would react...that being said "its what my character would do" is kind of the classic copout for bad behavior.
On the character sheet side of things, i believe that the character sheet is private. The DM is entitled to know general choices like race/class/feats, and giving them your characters backstory is a must. But, beyond that the dm is not entitled to any notes you take,
Without greater context—and context which you might not be able to give objectively—one cannot really say who was wrong with the Kobold incident. It very well could be that you played “in character” but you have build a character incomparable with your party. Lawful good, if playing in a manner where you strictly follow alignment (which one really should never do - alignment is only a guideline, not an absolute), has a propensity to be the most inflexible and thus most frustrating alignment in the party.
If your party is mostly “we are always good all the time and never make mistakes or do something Evil (tm)” people, then a strict lawful good character might work, and it’s possible the other character is the one that does not mesh with the party. But if your group contains more antiheroes, then it very easily could be that you are the one playing against the party, and thus are the problematic element.
None of that, of course, is to say you are the problem—as aforestated, that evaluation cannot be done by those of us who lack the full context. But it is worth considering that problems are rarely one-sided, and you are playing an archetype which can very easily be the most frustrating in the party.
Both of you acted in character, which, as pointed out, isn't an excuse for bad behaviour. However, if there was an agreement of no PvP then you were the one who broke that agreement.
As long as the DM who runs the game have apporved of your charatcer and character sheet, other players aren't entitled to seeing your character sheet. The question though is why you feel a need to hide it?
It's important to note that the PvP started before the OP reacted. When the other player unilaterally decided that the Kobold was to die, the PvP started. The OP's acts may have been more direct, but communication should have started before committing such a morality-challenging act as killing a character. The other players just abusing the "no-PvP" rule to unilaterally decide what to do, taking the collaboration out of a collaborative game.
That said, rereading it, this is just an example of what's generally going on. It sounds like the two have descended into bickering. I'd any there are only two options to move forward - realise that both parties are bickering, both apologise and make up. The alternative is to stop playing together.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, from a DM perspective, there was a few things that should have been afforded. Assuming the LG Cleric was near said kobold, he should have been allowed to contest a throat slit, or the druid should have had to do something to prevent said contest (sneaking, etc). I have direct issue whenever a player tries to do something counter another player without allowing that player to respond. I also would have asked why each player is doing what they are doing, "Why would you slit the throat of the thing when the party clearly went through the effort to restrain him?" that sort of thing.
I don't have enough information on the druid to make a judgement call on how he should have acted, my only question is why does he have a curse of a CE creature still on them? I would have thought that you would take more of an issue that your party member is being consumed by a disease that turns him into a ravenous beast. Also take into consideration that if you went to said village and told them he slit the throat of the kobold, would they care?
Alignment isn't as black/white as people tend to make it out to be, Lawful doesn't always mean the law of the land, it could be a warriors code, or the tenants of your faith. And a player race that is evil doesn't necessarily mean they are the same kind of evil as a outerplanar creature who is an embodiment of evil. Its really a watered down version of that. When you think of paladins, you think of a holy warrior who has to fight the temptations of evil to maintain his faith with his god, not oh, he is LG that means he is basically an angel. Its the same with evil characters. Take Lord Sesshomaru from Inuyasha, very much LE, but to those who earn their place near him he does show some fondness for, esp the kid. He has goals and is willing to kill his own half brother to reach them.
As far as showing someone your sheet, or w/e. I have all my players use the public setting in my games in DnD beyond. Your playing together, not against each other. However thats me as a DM requiring that. The only person you have to share your character with is really just the DM.
All in all, it feels like both players have issues trusting each other, and need to take a step back for a second and really look at why your playing DnD. Its a game that can be fun, just got to keep the point of it in focus.
Sure, but that's a session zero discussion to have on how you define PvP. From OP's description it is obvious that they were the one who went "full Pvp", though. Killing an NPC literally isn't PvP even though it can affect other PCs and that it sure reeks of murder hoboing. How much murder hoboing that is accepted is up to the group. I'm curious as to what the DM and other players thought.
On the one hand, "are you sure you want to do this" doesn't actually communicate much; it would have been clearer to say something like "out-of-character, I want to warn you that doing this will make my cleric turn on you - if he sat by and watched this happen it would be a violation of who he is."
On the other, this crap has nothing to do with character sheets. Alignment in 5e is a guideline more than a gameplay mechanic. The other guy complaining he couldn't have known because he "hadn't seen your character sheet" is bull, because there is no rule stating that a Lawful Good character has to attack someone who kills captives. (That goes both ways, too - you can't just say "my character is lawful good, it's not MY fault he wants to ruin your game!")
This whole situation speaks to me of a fundamental lack of communication... but also, another player getting upset because they can't see everyone's character sheets sounds like a control freak thing, and that's its own issue that has to be addressed.
I would have warned him better, but otherwise you did nothing wrong.
Specifically I would have said:
"Are you absolutely sure you want to kill a prisoner in front of a Priest of Life."
Player: "I slit its throat"
DM: "The druid approaches the kobold with the intent to slit it's throat. Does anyone move to stop him?"
That's what you do as a DM when a player tries to do something controversial. This should be solved with in-character conversation, not PvP.
I don't see what OP had to gain by being coy and saying "are you sure?" It sounds like they preferred some kind of gotcha PvP moment over just coming out and saying "my character won't allow that to happen." A truly LG cleric would intervene before the murder, not use it as bait to justify another murder.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
In that case if literally no one else knows that your character would have a problem with it, speaking up and being clear instead of coy and mysterious is even more important.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Again, session zero. :)
I guess that depends on how you define that "passive PvP" that you were talking about?
I mean that the PvP question needs to be dealt with during session zero.
Okay. Thanks.