Getting kicked out of the party

[Nikolaz72]

First off, thanks for coming onto the thread and posting your side of things - once people start picking up steam like this, that can be hard to do.

With that in mind... I'm sorry, but you are the one in the wrong.

You can't solve problems by laying down temporary bans and then walking away. If you had a problem with the players' actions, you should have waited until after the game, contacted them both, and had a long discussion with them about why you felt that they were being actively disruptive to the game, with examples of what those problems were. From there, you could have had a constructive discussion, possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move.

Handing out a time-out, on the other hand, is the most patronizing thing you could have done. It tells the players that you think that they are children who need to sit in the corner, rather than equals and peers, and it can have no possible outcome but escalation.

On top of that, the OP's question on the forum was a totally innocent, very restrained one, and the fact that you take it as a personal attack suggests to me that you're not actually going to read anything I type, and why am I bothering anyway. Mostly I am bothering because I'm hoping that I am wrong, and that you might consider this.

Thing is in this whole event they really seem to avoid talking to me entirely. They talk to eachother, and they go onto a forum but they dont confront me until all this is done. I guess I am a bit intimidated by the welcome on this forum. Im a bit happy to see not everyone is on the attack.

"possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move. "

I only intended to use him for that one session, making a new character to suit such a small-time NPC seems a bit like a waste to me. Since the game was delayed I have to have him in the party next session aswell, I just dont want it to end too badly so I thought it would be better if they took a caravan instead of travelling with the paladins.

[Alejandro]

but I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

We aren't talking about their PCs. We're talking about the players. PCs should suffer consequences of their choices, that's what a role playing game is. But punishing the players themselves is immature and uncalled for.

[Alejandro]

Double post, sorry.

[JonRG]

It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

All right. What kind of snare are we talking about? That determines what options the bard/rogue have available to them. I also wonder if the two players were entirely serious in their remarks, or if they were part of a bargaining/delaying tactic. What was keeping the other bystander from acting?

[Sipex]

So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

[DarkEricDraven]

You did say the things you said though, Nik, and you could have just told me the NPC wouldn't be leading us in the first place instead of "however long I want"(in so many words). It was, at worst, a miscommunication. So don't worry about it.

So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

My thoughts exactly, Sipex.

[Nikolaz72]

All right. What kind of snare are we talking about? That determines what options the bard/rogue have available to them. I also wonder if the two players were entirely serious in their remarks, or if they were part of a bargaining/delaying tactic. What was keeping the other bystander from acting?

Lets see, the wall of thorns is a costum spell. Which was preventing them from actually making any contact with the centaur unless they broke through. So most attempts at diplomacy would either have to be made after they broke through, or from the inside. The Sorcerer on the inside seems to be socially awkward as all he could conjure up was ehm and uhh. The Paladin I had captured has a soddy charisma and an intelligence of a smart chicken. And the Cleric, well... Was gone for the day, but I had it roleplayed that he was getting strangled so that it made sense he wasnt talking. It was, I guess. A summon-spell? Summoning a living plant that grapples people and holds them, the Centaur in question was a Cleric/Druid multiclass. We have been quite liberal about the game and have costum feats-skills-races-classes-spells (And all that stuff if approved by me) And I do change the abilities of some creatures as I see fit if it improves player-experience. I was in the wrong here, I do admit... But I guess I was angry at their OOC and IC actions and gave them a punishment I found fitting, but according to people on theese forums are quite harsh for such a thing. I apologize for having done something that have brought one of my players in such a mood as to come here and post. And I hope it will not be needed in the future.

[JonRG]

So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

Thirded.

[The Glyphstone]

But I guess I was angry at their OOC and IC actions and gave them a punishment I found fitting, but according to people on theese forums are quite harsh for such a thing.

As seen here, we're harsh when the line between OOC and IC gets blurred or forgotten, which is what happened as far as anyone can or could tell. Now that you're here, we can just as happily mediate a fair and equitable solution for everyone.

A good start point is the idea that 'you control the group'. Nonsense. The DM arbitrates and facilitates the story, but the instant you become convinced you're better than the players or that your will somehow automatically overrides theirs for no reason other than being the DM, that's the first step on the road to being a DM without players.

[Tyndmyr]

*Sigh* I guess I choose my words poorly. No, I am not worried, I can explain the remaining characters.

Aasimar - Trying to convince them to attack, not really working.
Tiefling - Not interrested in the others safety, but will follow the Paladin if manages to convince the rest to attack.
Sorcerer - The third human captured. The one about to get his throat cut.

I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story which the session after the one he was complaining about would serve as character developement of two of the characters in the party. I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.

I've never actually run a game that was nothing but char development for only two chars of a six char group. That seems...really rough on the other players. Not to mention strangely episodic. I prefer my char development spread throughout the campaign.

Also, punishing them for not using your preferred solution is the very definition of railroading. Additionally, anything powerful enough to capture half the party can reasonably be considered a bit of a problem for the other half, no? Jumping into stabbity mode at that point would be something I'd consider risky at best. Diplomacy first is a very good policy wherever situations allow.

Also, you had a centaur with a Wall of Thorns? That's what, fifth level? Yeah, I'd assume he could utterly crush me. Centaur Cleric/Druid multiclass casting fifth level spells is a fairly high level encounter, especially if he's already made preparations. I would suggest reading the rules a lot closer and following them more to mitigate some of these railroading problems. As it stands, my advice to the OP is still to avoid the game.

[Nikolaz72]

I've never actually run a game that was nothing but char development for only two chars of a six char group. That seems...really rough on the other players. Not to mention strangely episodic. I prefer my char development spread throughout the campaign.

Also, punishing them for not using your preferred solution is the very definition of railroading. Additionally, anything powerful enough to capture half the party can reasonably be considered a bit of a problem for the other half, no? Jumping into stabbity mode at that point would be something I'd consider risky at best. Diplomacy first is a very good policy wherever situations allow.

Also, you had a centaur with a Wall of Thorns? That's what, fifth level? Yeah, I'd assume he could utterly crush me. Centaur Cleric/Druid multiclass casting fifth level spells is a fairly high level encounter, especially if he's already made preparations. I would suggest reading the rules a lot closer and following them more to mitigate some of these railroading problems. As it stands, my advice to the OP is still to avoid the game.

We have sessions once a week so dedicating one session for character developement for two characters and setting up a main villian seems time well spent to me. I said I was Liberal with spells its not the actual spell Wall of Thorns. It was just 'a' Wall of Thorns. It was a wall build of thorns, not much different from a barbed wire fence. Anyway, the issue has been resolved.

They are 6x level 3 1x level 4 and I had them meet a Level 1 Druid/5 Cleric with some custom spells.

As seen here, we're harsh when the line between OOC and IC gets blurred or forgotten, which is what happened as far as anyone can or could tell. Now that you're here, we can just as happily mediate a fair and equitable solution for everyone.

A good start point is the idea that 'you control the group'. Nonsense. The DM arbitrates and facilitates the story, but the instant you become convinced you're better than the players or that your will somehow automatically overrides theirs for no reason other than being the DM, that's the first step on the road to being a DM without players.

I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group. The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

[Tyndmyr]

We have sessions once a week so dedicating one session for character developement for two characters and setting up a main villian seems time well spent to me. I said I was Liberal with spells its not the actual spell Wall of Thorns. It was just 'a' Wall of Thorns. It was a wall build of thorns, not much different from a barbed wire fence. Anyway, the issue has been resolved.

They are 6x level 3 1x level 4 and I had them meet a Level 1 Druid/5 Cleric with some custom spells.

I see no particular reason why diplomacy could not happen through the equivalent of a barbed wire fence.

Additionally, excluding players from a session in which you intend to set up a main villain seems counterproductive.

[raxies94]

Kind of getting in on the tail-end of discussion, but feel like I should throw in my two cents.

@Nikolaz: As another very inexperienced DM, I can understand where you are coming from. You don't want the players to just go crazy and start stabbing people and such, so you feel like you need consequences. But consequences than extend outside the game table are wrong. In-character consequences are just fine. Once, one of my players shot a messenger in the knee (Skyrim lol) and the guards threw him in jail for a week. He doesn't know it yet, but he's also being sued in the future. Things like that are what you want to do, not a "time out" for the actual player.

Also, this focusing on character development for a whole session seems like a bit much. Why not break it up a bit, so you have some development, some action each session?

Also, on control: From my experience, there really doesn't seem an easy way to accomplish this. Railroading is bad, and if you do it, your players feel like they have no choices in-game, which they enjoy having. But railroading also pretty much allows you to plan everything out ahead of time. You won't be hit by curveballs. On the other hand, if you allow them freedom, some players will just go crazy and shoot people in the knee. And you can't really plan anything out, as you don't really know what will happen. A medium is probably the best solution; one in which you plan out more than one path, but allow the players to decide which one to pursue. Of course, you'll probably still have to improvise no matter what.

All of this being said, I feel pretty confident in proposing that we aren't really getting the full story from either side, so we might never know who's truly in the right. However, I do know that Eric has been very polite, and I don't think it was rude of him to ask around on the forums when he ran into some trouble.

[Soylent Dave]

I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story

This is part of the problem:

Your players are the story. If you feel like your players - any of your players - are getting in the way of your story, then you're Doing It Wrong.

The DM might have the original ideas about what is going to happen, but the players must be allowed to affect it (which may well include 'hindering') - that's what roleplaying is; your characters get to do stuff.

You, as the DM, get to decide and adjudicate those effects.

Often the hardest thing to do as a novice (or not-so-novice) DM is say 'yes' to a player, especially when they've come up with an idea that you didn't consider when you were planning the adventure.

But it's usually a lot more fun to figure out a way to say "Yes", and at least let them TRY to do it. Because they can't break, or hinder the game - whatever they're doing IS the game (it just might not turn out the way you expected when you started out - but that makes it more interesting for you)

I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

It's fitting that their characters suffer the consequences of their IC actions - as I said up there, that's basically 'roleplaying'; your characters do stuff and then the DM adjudicates what happens next.

Punishing the character for something the player does doesn't make any sense, and punishing the player for something the character does (which is actually what you did here - the players miss a game) is, well... it's bizarre.

I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

Which makes some sense - but at least one player (two?) came to you with a problem about your game.

If something bothers a player enough for him to come and talk to you about it, outside the game (and for him to start a thread on a forum about it), then dismissing it probably isn't the best solution.

You don't have to jump to your players' every demand, but you do want the game to be fun for everyone, and if something is making the game Not Fun for some of your players, it's usually pretty trivial to change it, or help the player find a compromise.

[Jornophelanthas]

@Nikolaz72:
I apologize for my failed attempts to interpret your position from incomplete information. Apparently, your position is a lot closer to how Sipex guessed it to be than my own guesses.

Having said that, I can only second what has already been said by several posters before me:
Taking OOC measures for IC issues does not work.
Sending away two players from your game for the way they play their characters is not a good way to go, as this creates resentment with the players. ("Are you punishing me because my character made a bad decision? But he has low Wisdom!")
Taking IC measures for OOC issues also does not work.
Giving characters less XP or story opportunities because of OOC issues with the players (which you do not elaborate on, but which you hinted at as being present) is also not a good way to go, since this gives of an impression of unfairness. ("My character worked just as hard as the other party members, but I get less rewards. I bet the DM doesn't like me.")
Communication is key.
If you have IC issues and OOC issues that you both feel need to be addressed, you should do so separately, and make extra sure that the relevant players know that these are two separate issues.
E.g. "Because if IC issue X, your character is getting less XP. Because of OOC issue Y, I would like to have a serious talk with you. But please understand that I'm only giving less XP because of X. That has nothing to do with Y."
Even if you meant to do it this way, you have (apparently) not communicated this to the players clearly enough, since DarkEricDraven clearly presented it as a single issue on this forum.

Having said that, expelling a player from a session for misbehaviour seems an excessively harsh and seemingly condescending action, which I would personally only reserve for grossly inappropriate behaviour towards other players or yourself, such as an explosive argument. I'm not saying it can't be justified, but rather that it NEEDS to be justified to not just the expelled player, but to all players. And perhaps most importantly, this justification needs to be done in advance, since the measure should be supported by (nearly) everyone in the game.

[RedWarlock]

But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

And this right here is where I have a BIG problem with this. I've played in a game like this, where the NPCs wind up being more important than the actual players. The players are the ones who need to enjoy the game, if an NPC is making their game less enjoyable, and they address the DM OOC about the situation, then that is a sign to the DM that this NPC needs to change or go. The PC might need to address the NPC in-character, but the player may not know how to effect that kind of change, and this kind of OOC conversation is your chance to offer advice for the player to help achieve what they need to do.

[ZakRenning]

I don't think being spiteful will achieve anything other than make him seem immature. It's a real sign of maturity to be able to confront someone like the DM without raising a fuss, and leaving with your head held high, rather than a childish parting blow that may come across as a tantrum, rather than any kind of tangible revenge. If revenge is what the OP is really after, then his course of action still shouldn't change: Whether or not he plans it, talking to the other players many permanently remove said players from the group, both saving them from a rotten DM, and ensuring that said DM realises that being an over controlling rail-roader won't fly. If you consider teaching him that lesson revenge, then whatever floats your boat.

Well for the record my take was sarcastic but this darn text can't portray it... at all... haha

[chadmeister]

Me: Cool. What if we followed from a distance, and helped the main party in ways they wouldn't notice? Or if Leeko[me] and Viana[rogue] dealt with her father[who sent ninjas after us last game] while the others were in the city?

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

It would even be justifiable if he wanted to say that for some reason your characters were going to be unavailable for that session.

But the game is for everyone to have fun, so if you can't play your characters, he should provide SOMETHING for you to do if you still want to attend the session.

You can play these mercenaries Sir Prick hired to help take the place of the missing characters.

You can help run the monsters when there's a fight.

Even, you can play the druid's animal companion for a session.

But, "Don't bother coming" is an unacceptable solution.

[mcv]

It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it

You had this planned in advance? It's rather risky to do, threatening to kill several PCs (were these unexperienced players, early in the campaign?), unless another player comes up with the solution to a seemingly unsolvable situation. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "try an resolve it", but it sounds a bit like "guess what solution the DM had in mind".

rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

Well, me and the rogue(and I think the ranger, I'm not sure) WHERE Neutral. We still weren't cheering it on, though. We did say if they were killed she would have a place with us, but that was after a long series of bad dice rolls in attempting to persuade it to let them go.

I don't quite understand your party dynamics. What were these PCs supposed to have in common? Even if the rest of the group survived, it sounds incredibly unlikely that they would ever trust the traitors who switched sides as soon as the rest of the party was in trouble.

Because that's what this sounds like. Someone captures most of the group, and you say: "After you're done killing them, do you want to work together with us?" That's not the kind of person you're going to trust with your life.

Whichever way I turn this, I don't understand the 1 session suspension. Kicking the players out because their play style clearly conflicts with that of the rest of the group, might be reasonable.
Kicking out their characters would be a given (killing them might seem a bit harsh and personal, though it would be justifiable IC, it seems). Why even have the option of letting the traitors back in?

Best way to handle this, would be to discuss it with the players, and if everybody can agree on whether or not this sort of backstabbery is acceptable, have the two players make new characters and figure out some way to have them join the group as soon as possible.

Some further advice on how to DM: create situations where it's okay if the players don't do what you planned. Allow them to mess up, derail your plot, and then improvise something even cooler out of the wreckage. That sort of thing is generally way more fun than keeping tight control on a railroaded game.

And also: try to get the players to handle the differences between their characters. What did the other characters think of these turncoats? Make the kicking-out a dramatic roleplay scene for everybody. Or discuss with the whole table how best to resolve this, that can be great too, because everybody gets their say, and afterward, everybody understands each other's motivations much better.

And finally: "I'm Neutral so I betray my group" is a stupid argument. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Neutral. Though I admit whether this is valid criticism depends a lot on the details of the situation, and to what extent the DM was able to communicate those details. If it really looks certain that the party is dead, then for the survivors all bets are off. If there is good reason to believe that a deal with the enemy is the only way out, then it's definitely possible that someone will do just that. In other words: make really clear what the situation is. If there seems to be a misunderstanding, clear it up.
But more importantly: as long as DM and players don't really have a good handle on the game and each other, better stay away from these kind of insane gambits.

[chadmeister]

You had this planned in advance? It's rather risky to do, threatening to kill several PCs (were these unexperienced players, early in the campaign?), unless comes up with the solution to a seemingly unsolvable situation. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "try an resolve it", but it sounds a bit like "guess what solution the DM had in mind".

And negotiation, possibly with a bit of deception involved, sounds like an acceptable attempt to resolve it. Maybe not an effective one, maybe not one the paladin would approve of (or the characters who were apparently being abandoned).

Usually you have the opposite problem, where players attack the things you'd rather they try to negotiate with.

[mcv]

I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group.

That's not any better, you know? "The group", that's the PCs. It's the players' prerogative to control their own characters. It might be acceptable to railroad them temporarily at the start of the game because you've got this really neat setup, and please bear with me, and it's only for a session or so, etc. But make that clear. It's not your job to control the group, that's their job. If they have trouble doing that, you can mediate and help solve any problems they're having, but you don't just turn the leading roles into supporting cast. Explain why you're doing it, and confirm if they're okay with it. In a group with a lot of trust, you might not need that, but it doesn't sound like you have that level of trust.

The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

When a player asks you something very specific like that, it's probably because it's ruining his fun. If your answer sounds like "I don't care about your fun", then you're doing it wrong. Discuss it and be honest. It would have been incredibly easy for you to just say: "Don't worry, he'll be gone by the time the group gets back together again." Instead, your answer sounded like: "He might stay forever," and that could have cost you one or two players. Or at the very least, it would have caused the players to create new characters that are more compatible with the Paladin, which you just said you didn't want. Your lack of clear communication is messing up your game.

Communicate, man. Communicate!

[mcv]

Additionally, excluding players from a session in which you intend to set up a main villain seems counterproductive.

Definitely. Do you have any idea what I would give to have all my players present during every exposition? I would give anything to get them involved with anything at all. And I've learned by now that if they get involved in something other than what I had in mind, I should drop everything and run with that.

Nothing in the world beats satisfied and involved players.

[Dimers]

Usually you have the opposite problem, where players attack the things you'd rather they try to negotiate with.

"You'd rather they try ..." That is, I think, a large part of the DM's failing. The DM is allowed to prefer a particular solution, but the gameworld is not. It's domineering to defend your preferred solution to a problem with punishments and nigh-unbeatable situations (like an overleveled enemy in an extremely defensible position using unfamiliar homebrewed abilities) if the players find a different way of interacting with the problem. Therefore, it's a bad idea to put the PCs into nigh-unbeatable situations in the first place. If they do it to themselves, sure -- "You just got breath-weaponed to death because you've been hunting an ancient dragon's hoard for four levels". But creating mega-problems yourself with exactly one 'right' solution that the PCs might not achieve if they happen to roll low? Not a healthy way to game.

[DarkEricDraven]

I don't quite understand your party dynamics. What were these PCs supposed to have in common? Even if the rest of the group survived, it sounds incredibly unlikely that they would ever trust the traitors who switched sides as soon as the rest of the party was in trouble.

Because that's what this sounds like. Someone captures most of the group, and you say: "After you're done killing them, do you want to work together with us?" That's not the kind of person you're going to trust with your life.

Whichever way I turn this, I don't understand the 1 session suspension. Kicking the players out because their play style clearly conflicts with that of the rest of the group, might be reasonable.
Kicking out their characters would be a given (killing them might seem a bit harsh and personal, though it would be justifiable IC, it seems). Why even have the option of letting the traitors back in?

Best way to handle this, would be to discuss it with the players, and if everybody can agree on whether or not this sort of backstabbery is acceptable, have the two players make new characters and figure out some way to have them join the group as soon as possible.

Some further advice on how to DM: create situations where it's okay if the players don't do what you planned. Allow them to mess up, derail your plot, and then improvise something even cooler out of the wreckage. That sort of thing is generally way more fun than keeping tight control on a railroaded game.

And also: try to get the players to handle the differences between their characters. What did the other characters think of these turncoats? Make the kicking-out a dramatic roleplay scene for everybody. Or discuss with the whole table how best to resolve this, that can be great too, because everybody gets their say, and afterward, everybody understands each other's motivations much better.

And finally: "I'm Neutral so I betray my group" is a stupid argument. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Neutral. Though I admit whether this is valid criticism depends a lot on the details of the situation, and to what extent the DM was able to communicate those details. If it really looks certain that the party is dead, then for the survivors all bets are off. If there is good reason to believe that a deal with the enemy is the only way out, then it's definitely possible that someone will do just that. In other words: make really clear what the situation is. If there seems to be a misunderstanding, clear it up.
But more importantly: as long as DM and players don't really have a good handle on the game and each other, better stay away from these kind of insane gambits.

Well, like I said, that was only after we failed to negotiate ourselves. The Maptools dice program is waging a campaign of it's own: Murder all the players in the worst ways possible.

Besides, the DM said she couldn't hear us at that point. I think. Maybe that was afterwards. I don't really remember. Not that it mattered, because the sorcerer was awful at trying to get her to release him. Looking at it from where we were, the sorcerer was dead as a doornail, and considering she hadn't taken a lick of damage through out the whole event, getting her on our side would have been a good alternative to attacking her for killing our teammates.

[Thialfi]

Dude, seriously, get a new DM, join a PBP on the forums, they'll help you learn the ropes, everyone sreally nice here. Your DM is treating the game as his, instead of al of yours, and that just spells no fun.

As a DM, if you have an NPC that you really want around, you really need to be careful with the players.

I remember back to when we did the Time of Troubles dungeons for the Forgotten Realms campaign. The DM portrayed Kelemvor as such a collosal douchebag that the party unanimously voted him out of the party. We told him to leave and that if our paths ever crossed again, he would be treated as an enemy. We never saw him again and we had to adjust our campaign to account for the fact that he never achieved his intended divine status.

[Talakeal]

As a DM you have no right to punish other players. If they are acting out in character warn them of the consequences then follow through with the logical IC consequences. If they are acting out out of character simply don't invite them to the game anymore.
You are not an authority figure, and you are meeting other players in a casual social activity. If you are running or hosting the game you do of course have the right to decide who to invite and who not to invite, but no right to punish the players.

On the other hand, as a PC, you need to trust and respect the Game Master, and not flip out over things. I have had numerous players either quit a game or passively lose interest because they felt something the GM was doing was "unfair", usually a snap judgment made before they had all the information. If it is a onetime thing, just chill out and see how it plays out before going on strike.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't think the OP and his friend are using the alignment "neutral" correctly...

On the other hand, making them skip a session AND forcing their characters to obey the orders of someone they don't even like? Yeah, that's not good DMing.

[SilverClawShift]

I gave them warnings before doing so, if you dont feel thats enough. Well, thats your opinion. I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything. I feel it as a small and fitting punishment for prolonging them game for the 3 others present that day.

I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything.

they are not missing out on anything

They're missing out on having fun with their friends and playing the game. Which is literally the only reason you play D&D. Your gold can't buy you anything real, and your XP can't teach you any spells. You play because you want to play.
To suggest that they're not missing out on anything is to completely miss the point. By that logic, they could never play D&D again and continue to not miss out on anything.

Being a DM is not a dictatorship. It's a responsibility you take on to make sure everyone has a good time (yes, that includes your self). It doesn't make you the grand deity of the group, who deserves worship and praise and subservience from the peons underneath you.

I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group.

I'm trying to think of a way to put this delicately, but I can't.

That is just flat out awful.

the fact that an NPC is controlling the group means your players aren't even playing a game. There's really no point for them to be there other than to roll some dice and report to your paladin what the numbers were.
Having an NPC control your group basically turns roleplaying into a job you don't get paid for. You're reporting in to someone who's in charge of what you're doing. And apparently, if you don't report in with what the paladin wants, you'll get 'punished' for it.

If I was playing a game, and the DM told I couldn't attack someone, or that my vote didn't count because his character had a plan for us, or anything similar to what happened in your session, I would flat out walk away and wish the DM luck on the story he was writing, because my input there is obviously superficial. I'd find a new group.

The fact that DarkEricDraven wants to continue playing with you means they're much more patient than I am. And much more patient than they should have to be.

So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides

I strongly disagree.

DarkEric & Co did nothing that could be construed as a mistake. At worst, they made an odd decision. Saying that everyone is wrong here is like a teacher punishing the whole class because one student threw a book out the window. "Well they were all being rowdy!!!"

Doesn't matter. The DM is still the one giving someone over the age of 5 a 'time out' because they didn't do what he wanted.

[DarkEricDraven]

I don't think the OP and his friend are using the alignment "neutral" correctly...

We tried persuading her, we really did. The dice were not with us. It was after using every option we could think of(aside from ZERG RUSH! as demonstrated by Sir Prick) that we tried to get her on our side, because then, we didn't know how she was going down.

[Sipex]

I strongly disagree.

DarkEric & Co did nothing that could be construed as a mistake. At worst, they made an odd decision. Saying that everyone is wrong here is like a teacher punishing the whole class because one student threw a book out the window. "Well they were all being rowdy!!!"

Doesn't matter. The DM is still the one giving someone over the age of 5 a 'time out' because they didn't do what he wanted.

First off, you make good points about the time being the most important part of what the players are missing, just want to make sure that's there.

Now. While we don't see what they did as a mistake (because it's very minor after all) it still is because it's something which is important to the DM. We don't get to make the rules on what is and isn't a good move in an interpersonal relationship, those boundaries are set by the participants. The DM is upset by what they did (and they're upset by what he did) so it's something both parties need to work together if they want to resolve this.

I mean, if I was upset about something and my friends didn't see it as important so they tried to blow it off then I would be completely pissed. Just because something isn't important to them doesn't mean it should automatically be unimportant to me.

If the OP and his friend don't acknowledge this their DM is going to be completely uncooperative (after all, he doesn't see what he did as wrong either so why should he change?)