The Worst player you've ever had/seen/been/heard of

[Sholos]

Well, reading through this thread makes me feel pretty decent about my current group's problem player. She's playing a paladin and seems to be playing her more Lawful Stupid than anything else. Immediately attacking anyone who pings as evil, complete and utter distrust of any of the Chaotic members, etc. That's not even the biggest problem, though (though it is annoying). We started this campaign at level 8. So, 27,000 gp to spend on gear. Guess who has not only non-magical, but not even masterwork equipment? Also, she constantly complains about being useless (she's focused on rapiers of all things...) but doesn't even attempt to get better gear or even use her class abilities. Then she claims a 4th-level warlock and a blasting druid (neither is even half-way optimized) are "OP" because we're halfway useful.

[SowZ]

Well, reading through this thread makes me feel pretty decent about my current group's problem player. She's playing a paladin and seems to be playing her more Lawful Stupid than anything else. Immediately attacking anyone who pings as evil, complete and utter distrust of any of the Chaotic members, etc. That's not even the biggest problem, though (though it is annoying). We started this campaign at level 8. So, 27,000 gp to spend on gear. Guess who has not only non-magical, but not even masterwork equipment? Also, she constantly complains about being useless (she's focused on rapiers of all things...) but doesn't even attempt to get better gear or even use her class abilities. Then she claims a 4th-level warlock and a blasting druid (neither is even half-way optimized) are "OP" because we're halfway useful.

By the rules, this sort of behavior should make her fall almost immediately.

[Inevitability]

By the rules, this sort of behavior should make her fall almost immediately.

I don't see why (sadly). Attacking Evil beings may be Neutral, or Chaotic, but it surely isn't Evil. Otherwise, I'd say most adventuring parties are CN at best.

And distrust may be annoying, but distrusting someone isn't Evil either.

[ghendrickson]

I've probably been the worst player in a friend's campaign. I made a dwarf barbarian that pissed on everything for a very small amount of acid damage. I think I made him do that because I was bored, but it was still very rude.

[Prince Raven]

I don't see why (sadly). Attacking Evil beings may be Neutral, or Chaotic, but it surely isn't Evil. Otherwise, I'd say most adventuring parties are CN at best.

Attempted murder of a being who you have no evidence of doing anything deserving of death is definitely an evil act, regardless of their alignment. Most adventuring parties have some sort of justification for the things they kill, such as "they tried to kill us first".

[Gnomes2169]

Attempted murder of a being who you have no evidence of doing anything deserving of death is definitely an evil act, regardless of their alignment. Most adventuring parties have some sort of justification for the things they kill, such as "they tried to kill us first".

Or even, "I really wanted his hat."

[Milodiah]

We started this campaign at level 8. So, 27,000 gp to spend on gear. Guess who has not only non-magical, but not even masterwork equipment? Also, she constantly complains about being useless (she's focused on rapiers of all things...) but doesn't even attempt to get better gear or even use her class abilities.

Just out of curiosity, what did she use that money for? I mean, when you outfit a character from those three or four pages in the PHB and have 26,000 of 27,000 gold left, that'd kinda send up a few red flags for me.

Did she buy a bed & breakfast or something?

[SowZ]

I don't see why (sadly). Attacking Evil beings may be Neutral, or Chaotic, but it surely isn't Evil. Otherwise, I'd say most adventuring parties are CN at best.

And distrust may be annoying, but distrusting someone isn't Evil either.

The Book of Exalted deeds makes killing an Evil aligned character who hasn't done a crime worthy of death a very evil act. No less evil than just murdering a neutral character for being Chaotic. Not sharing your alignment is not a death sentence, even from a Paladin.

[Marlowe]

Just out of curiosity, what did she use that money for? I mean, when you outfit a character from those three or four pages in the PHB and have 26,000 of 27,000 gold left, that'd kinda send up a few red flags for me.

Did she buy a bed & breakfast or something?

Our G, in an Epic-level campaign, managed to spend all his WBL on a castle in the middle of the desert and a diamond mine.

His staff wages bill per month wiped out any profits aforesaid mine generated.

[Synar]

The Book of Exalted deeds makes killing an Evil aligned character who hasn't done a crime worthy of death a very evil act. No less evil than just murdering a neutral character for being Chaotic. Not sharing your alignment is not a death sentence, even from a Paladin.

I guess it depends of your interpretation of the alignement system and what you believes Evil means. Is the old greedy, embittered, mean and bickering woman personn Evil, or is she merly neutral? What does she needs to have done to be Evil? Humiliating someone? Creating rumors? Kicking in a milk buckedt? In a puppy? Trying to get someone banned from the place? And is it the intentions or the acts that really count?

[SowZ]

I guess it depends of your interpretation of the alignement system and what you believes Evil means. Is the old greedy, embittered, mean and bickering woman personn Evil, or is she merly neutral? What does she needs to have done to be Evil? Humiliating someone? Creating rumors? Kicking in a milk buckedt? In a puppy? Trying to get someone banned from the place? And is it the intentions or the acts that really count?

By RAW, one's personal interpretation of alignment is irrelevant to whether an action is evil. There is literally no room for debate that the rules of 3.5 make this Paladin fall. The behavior being mentioned is specifically called out as Evil in the official 3.5 guidebook of Goodness. Being Evil is not a death sentence, and killing someone for their alignment is straight up murder. You can house-rule that away, of course. But any Paladin that is allowed to kill Evil beings on sight is following a heavily home-brewed alteration of the Paladin Code.

[Prince Raven]

Well, there are gods that would support a character murdering everyone they can find of a given alignment, like Crotoan.

[Sartharina]

By RAW, one's personal interpretation of alignment is irrelevant to whether an action is evil. There is literally no room for debate that the rules of 3.5 make this Paladin fall. The behavior being mentioned is specifically called out as Evil in the official 3.5 guidebook of Goodness. Being Evil is not a death sentence, and killing someone for their alignment is straight up murder. You can house-rule that away, of course. But any Paladin that is allowed to kill Evil beings on sight is following a heavily home-brewed alteration of the Paladin Code.

Actually - Killing Fiends is always a Good act, not Evil, and Everyone Else has to earn an Evil alignment by committing atrocities worth being removed from the world by swordpoint, at the Witness-Judge-Jury-Executioner's discretion.

The 3.5 rulebook says killing is NOT an Evil Act.

Alignment is not like Nationality or Skin Color. Alignment is a choice. People with an alignment are soldiers for their cosmic force. If you don't want to be killed by (Enemies of Nation X), don't sign up to join the army of (Nation X). If you don't want to join an army for a cosmic force, do not adopt an alignment.

[Sith_Happens]

Actually - Killing Fiends is always a Good act, not Evil, and Everyone Else has to earn an Evil alignment by committing atrocities worth being removed from the world by swordpoint, at the Witness-Judge-Jury-Executioner's discretion.

Serial [insert very-mildly-Evil action here] does not a killing justify.

[Prince Raven]

Actually - Killing Fiends is always a Good act, not Evil, and Everyone Else has to earn an Evil alignment by committing atrocities worth being removed from the world by swordpoint, at the Witness-Judge-Jury-Executioner's discretion.

Killing Evil given flesh is a bit different from killing anyone of a certain alignment, and there are plenty of ways to play an Evil character beyond mustache-twirling, puppy-kicking, genocidal super villain. In all the games I've played and runthere are plenty of characters with evil alignments that haven't done anything worthy of capital punishment.

The 3.5 rulebook says killing is NOT an Evil Act.

Not inherently, no. Unjustified and cold-blooded murder outside of combat on the other hand...

People with an alignment are soldiers for their cosmic force.

"Soldier" implies some sort of unity, I don't see a petty thief assisting a vicious and genocidial tyrant just because they share an Alignment.

[TheJoker116]

I had my share of players with really bad habits but as for the worst player I ever met, well ... gather round, fellow players and let me tell you about Shteve. Yes, Shteve with an "H". Not his real name, of course but I still try to respect this poor excuse for a player's anonymity. We played D&D 3.5, by the way.

Now, Shteve is a player who watches an awful lot of anime. Like, a lot ... and if his character did not revolve around some angel/demon background that more often than not included some unusual ancestry, such as celestial blood, most of the time. Because we all know the base races suck and so does the Assimar. after all, who would play a race that DOES NOT have poison resistance/immunity, damage resistance and insane abilities bonus? Yes, this was the powergaming fool who wanted to be the great hero of a great story ... even though his cahracter was level 1.

So, Shteve, being the "awesome" player he was would go for the most ridiculous race/class combo he could think off, because we all know that you can't be an hardcore Bleach/Naruto/[insert anime with crazy powerful guys title here] fan and not try to be the ultimate warrior angel/ celestial Robocop.

Now, some of Shteve's habits would be:

- Playing his character like he'd play a god ... even though he's level 1 ("You can't speak for so long, you're fighting the ranger!" "Speaking's a free action!"
- Mysteriously knowing what's going on everywhere during combat ("Dude .. you're fighting the ranger inside his hideout ... you can't see what the others are doing outside!")
- Trying to be badass without thinking his **** through ("You're the only winged humanoid in the area, the guards will know you attacked the palace!" "I'll just cover myself with a blackcloack and chains to disguise myself!")
- Always asking his cousin, another player and eventually, DM, for the best builds ever, just so he can be the most badass mother****er in the group
- Being a friggin' loudmouth. Seriously, no matter how many times we asked him to lower the volume, it just never worked and I still need new eardrums.
- Being a jerk. I mean, he was annoying, yeah ... but the thing is, we had two noobs at the table, one being 12 years old, with enough patience and maturity to be there every friday and to warn us in advance if he couldn't. Being 12 and all and not having much experience with tabletop RPGs, he would sometimes forget rules and Shteve made sure to make the kid remember how annoying it is ("We keep telling him but it never gets through his goddamn skull!"). Did I mention Shteve has kids? Yes, fellow players, the guy has kids, which he lost custody of, by the way and doesn't even have the slightest amount of patience for a mature kid who's actively trying to enjoy a good game.


Now, let's not forget that poor ****ty player is playing a level 1 half-celestial ... and though the Player's Handbook specifies speaking is a free action, I think anyone would assume it's a free action if you don't say more than about 5 or 6 words ... but as the human rogue tried to tie up my halfling rogue because long story, Shteve's half-celestial actively tried to ask questions about why my character's being tied up ... while his head was turned toward me and the other rogue and while he was fighting a level 4 or 5 ranger with two-weapons fighting. and of course, when I pointed how ridiculous it was, he argued while yelling at me.

So yeah, there's my worst player Shteve. A dumb loudmouth who roleplayed with his cousin for years but could never learn to not be a spotlight-hogging anime-obsessed noob lacking any social skill. If you ever get a Shteve in your group, I offer you my sympathies (and a big purse full of D4's so you can whack him in the back of the head, Garfield-style).

Demonstration by Garfield and Jon:

Spoiler

Show

[Gnoman]

Alignment is a choice. People with an alignment are soldiers for their cosmic force. If you don't want to be killed by (Enemies of Nation X), don't sign up to join the army of (Nation X). If you don't want to join an army for a cosmic force, do not adopt an alignment.

You must be thinking of some non-3.5 edition of D&D, or some other roleplaying system, because in D&D 3.5 there's no such thing as a person, animal, sentient cosmic force, magically sentient item, or any other thinking being without an alignment. If you scrimp and save excessively in order to have money available to support the poor, your alignment is Good. If your main entertainment is kicking nerds in the face and taking their lunch money, you're Evil. That doesn't mean homeless shelter volunteers have the right to execute schoolyard bullies on sight, and doing so would be a very Evil act.

[Milodiah]

You must be thinking of some non-3.5 edition of D&D, or some other roleplaying system, because in D&D 3.5 there's no such thing as a person, animal, sentient cosmic force, magically sentient item, or any other thinking being without an alignment. If you scrimp and save excessively in order to have money available to support the poor, your alignment is Good. If your main entertainment is kicking nerds in the face and taking their lunch money, you're Evil. That doesn't mean homeless shelter volunteers have the right to execute schoolyard bullies on sight, and doing so would be a very Evil act.

Also I somehow think prison authorities would be rather irritated at a Paladin breaking in, subduing all the guards, and pulling a cell-by-cell coup de grace on all the sleeping prisoners just because they ping Evil...

[Feverdream]

I would argue that the worst players I've ever had were all Werewolf: the Apocalypse players.

Before I get the flood of hate, let me continue.

I still have the email from her dated August 21, 2002. Whenever I feel like I'm doing a poor job as a GM or player in a game, I read that email and immediately feel that I could be playing with a far worse group. But it wasn't just her, it was all the Werewolf players in my hometown.

Here's a list of their behaviors. It's not comprehensive, but it is common behavior amongst all the players of that game:

• They all had Breed, Auspice, and Tribe tattoos. No joke. They permanently etched tattoos of what they felt they would be in a game. This was during the time I called "the Fractional-American" era. It was the period when very young Americans felt they had to point out their lineage. For example, Her excuse for her anger was that she was "half-Cajun, one quarter-Scottish, one-quarter viking". It was the Viking part that made her feel the need for the Get of Fenris tattoo.
• They'd loiter around game stores in hopes of any World of Darkness game would start up. They'd then ask to be invited, and regardless of the game, they'd immediately whip out the Werewolf core rulebook and make a character. Any protestations would get them slamming their pencils down and screaming (yes, screaming, no joke) how they were, and I quote, "expert role-players". Let that sink in.
• They would complain about making a starting level character, too. As they were such "expert role-players", they felt that starting new was beneath them.
• They would throw dice against a wall if something negative happened to their characters. Being wounded in battle was fine. But if they suffered the consequences of their actions, such as a governmental raid on their holdings in the woods, they'd go ballistic and shout out of character that that would never happen to them.
• They held the game as something holy. They had the fervor of a religious fundamental apologist. Anything negative would be met with hostility. They wanted to take the Darkness out of World of Darkness when it came to Werewolf. They were righteous, they were above reproach, they deserved no criticism.
• If they actually got into a Werewolf game, they would always try to change it to a war party. If a Caern was dedicated to a spirit of Cunning, they would demand the Caern be rededicated to Wolverine. All games had to have Wolverine in it. If you pointed out that the game was more of a social game (with some combat), they'd point out that Wolverine gave out Stamina, not just Rage, and that the stamina would make them more resistance if someone attacked them first! Ergo, not a war totem.
• Should they be permitted to join a non-Werewolf World of Darkness game, they'd metagame the hell out of it, knowing everything about Vampire society, and try to say their character was of importance in said society, such as being the Keeper of Elysium for the local Camarilla group.

I would say that that was back in 2002. But I recently received a phone call where a new ST said she and her entourage has resurfaced, and their behavior has not changed.

[Raine_Sage]

They held the game as something holy. They had the fervor of a religious fundamental apologist. Anything negative would be met with hostility. They wanted to take the Darkness out of World of Darkness when it came to Werewolf. They were righteous, they were above reproach, they deserved no criticism.

The group sounds thoroughly awful but I'm wondering what you mean by this point. Did they play the game in a light hearted and silly manner, did they try and make their werewolves holy crusaders, did they ignore rage mechanics? I'm honestly very curious about they wanted to do WoD without the D.

You have my condolences though. That sounds just awful

[Arbane]

They held the game as something holy. They had the fervor of a religious fundamental apologist. Anything negative would be met with hostility. They wanted to take the Darkness out of World of Darkness when it came to Werewolf. They were righteous, they were above reproach, they deserved no criticism.

The above part sounds rather in-character for Werewolves, IIRC the backstory of WtA, didn't the ancient werewolves genocide some of the other were-critters for not being sufficiently fanatical?

In real life though, wow. Glad you got out of that group in one piece....

[Feverdream]

The group sounds thoroughly awful but I'm wondering what you mean by this point. Did they play the game in a light hearted and silly manner, did they try and make their werewolves holy crusaders, did they ignore rage mechanics? I'm honestly very curious about they wanted to do WoD without the D.

You have my condolences though. That sounds just awful

This was OOC. If you mentioned anything negative (such as the neo-Nazi Get of Fenris), they would say the equivalent of "nuh-uh", cite non-canonical reasons, or just say "the rest of the tribe would kill them!". If they were pushed on the subject, they'd start listing all the negatives of Mage and Vampire.

Edited to add: It's one thing when we were angsty teens. It's another that a decade later, they're still acting that way. Since then, I've given W:tA a go. I like it. Or maybe because my players are all Finns. I've moved to Finland, far away from such bizarre players. See? Maybe I can play the bloodline game!

[Sith_Happens]

I still have the email from her dated August 21, 2002. Whenever I feel like I'm doing a poor job as a GM or player in a game, I read that email and immediately feel that I could be playing with a far worse group.

You do realize we have to see this email now. Or at the very least hear more about "her" specifically.

[Feverdream]

You do realize we have to see this email now. Or at the very least hear more about "her" specifically.

Here:

Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:06 A

I did not make my character to be a kill VAMPIRES character. No one in our group did. Wolverine also grants stamina not just rage. Garou fight the Wyrm.... thats what they were created for, the Wyrm takes MANY forms not just vampires and well that assumption on anyones part be it player or ST is just bad. Are we also going to have to revert to buying Potence/Fortitude/ and Celerity like we did before the WW books came out since we have to buy lores for everything else when that would normally not be the case? Do I have to buy the "Thats my butt lore" just to know my ass from a hole in the ground. Cut the WW players some slack and quit giving into the paranoia of the kindred players. Most of whom have never seen me play garou, let alone anyone who came in with me. Like a theurge if going to kill a kindred with "mothers touch" oh my....oh please don't heal me..... (see the point)

I know of atleast 4 if not more people who are willing to drop there ww characters just because they are sick of the "rule of the week" crap. Hell I got a long distance phone call about it while I was in Pennsylvania. We needed to form a pack... for protection if nothing else... wanna know what our group is prime pickings for.... BSD's , if our characters are forced to "suck off " the kindred we will get so hammered on renown that we will never see rank 2 and will probably drop back to "cub" status. I'm an experianced garou player and if I wanted to walk around blind/deaf/ dumb and drooling I would have played a cub, I have had that experiance already. I can understand wanting the newbies to learn about things.... but cut a little slack to those of us who have a clue. If the others want to play know nothing cubs let them thats an option at character creation. As it sits right now the garou would not even know what they are because we don't have garou lore. Hell I have played a black fury ahroun who yes did kill kindred when she needed to but was also Sheriff along with being pack alpha... we can work with and around them when we need to without being reduced to drooling masses of blubber.

The game was a political vampire game. I told them ahead of time. The Caern was protected by Cuckoo, who has one of the most powerful blessings in the game: If you aren't drawing attention, no one will believe you don't belong there. Perfect for gathering information to bring the Kindred down.

[Milodiah]

Edited to add: It's one thing when we were angsty teens. It's another that a decade later, they're still acting that way. Since then, I've given W:tA a go. I like it. Or maybe because my players are all Finns. I've moved to Finland, far away from such bizarre players. See? Maybe I can play the bloodline game!

...maybe once you get the tattoos you decide you'd just look silly trying to be a normal person with normal-people sanity?

[Kesnit]

They all had Breed, Auspice, and Tribe tattoos. No joke. They permanently etched tattoos of what they felt they would be in a game.

Personally, I don't think this is too bad. Tattoos are supposed to be personally significant. From the sound of things, this group was really invested in WtA, so it makes sense that they would have WtA tattoos.

They'd loiter around game stores in hopes of any World of Darkness game would start up. They'd then ask to be invited, and regardless of the game, they'd immediately whip out the Werewolf core rulebook and make a character.

In nWoD, this would work since the games are designed to work with each other. In fact, I would find it amusing to include werewolves in the Requiem game I'm running.

However, this isn't nWoD. If they had that much experience with the system, they would know that cross-overs don't work!

They would complain about making a starting level character, too. As they were such "expert role-players", they felt that starting new was beneath them.

"OK, if you don't want to use just starting XP, you can make a character with more. You are a wolf-blooded. Enjoy."

They would throw dice against a wall if something negative happened to their characters. Being wounded in battle was fine. But if they suffered the consequences of their actions, such as a governmental raid on their holdings in the woods, they'd go ballistic and shout out of character that that would never happen to them.

"While you were having a fit, the government agents shot and killed your character. Maybe you should have fought back."

If they actually got into a Werewolf game, they would always try to change it to a war party.

So let them, but run the game you were going to anyway. So they are statted out for combat, but there's no combat. They knew that from the start. Let them sit around and do nothing while the players who paid attention to the theme of the game actually played.

Should they be permitted to join a non-Werewolf World of Darkness game, they'd metagame the hell out of it, knowing everything about Vampire society, and try to say their character was of importance in said society, such as being the Keeper of Elysium for the local Camarilla group.

"Camarilla? This is a Sabat city!"
"Uh, we're all Anarchs."
"There's already a Keeper of Elysium. And a Sheriff, Prince, Harpy, and every other position. You are, of course, welcome to stay, so long as you stay on the Prince's good side..."

Or let them try to metagame, but change the rules of the city. The Prince is a figurehead, with the real power in someone else. The Camarilla, Anarchs, and Sabat are in a three-way fight for the city, with no one really in control (though each claims they are). I'm sure there are a lot more options, but I'm more familiar with nWoD than oWoD.

[Feverdream]

In nWoD, this would work since the games are designed to work with each other. In fact, I would find it amusing to include werewolves in the Requiem game I'm running.

I really like the emphasis on the "supernatural monster" part. I also like that they distilled everything into 5 "ideals", then had lodges to return to the more regional cultural way. No Get or Black Furies? Well, there's the Valkyria Mot!

And so on. nMage is the only one I pretend that doesn't exist. I can be just as stubborn when it comes to the Technocracy. I love me some Technocracy.

However, this isn't nWoD. If they had that much experience with the system, they would know that cross-overs don't work!

"OK, if you don't want to use just starting XP, you can make a character with more. You are a wolf-blooded. Enjoy."

"While you were having a fit, the government agents shot and killed your character. Maybe you should have fought back."

So let them, but run the game you were going to anyway. So they are statted out for combat, but there's no combat. They knew that from the start. Let them sit around and do nothing while the players who paid attention to the theme of the game actually played.

"Camarilla? This is a Sabat city!"
"Uh, we're all Anarchs."
"There's already a Keeper of Elysium. And a Sheriff, Prince, Harpy, and every other position. You are, of course, welcome to stay, so long as you stay on the Prince's good side..."

Or let them try to metagame, but change the rules of the city. The Prince is a figurehead, with the real power in someone else. The Camarilla, Anarchs, and Sabat are in a three-way fight for the city, with no one really in control (though each claims they are). I'm sure there are a lot more options, but I'm more familiar with nWoD than oWoD.

This would've been fantastic advice over 10 years ago when I was a fairly green ST. Nowadays, if we play oWoD, I've learned to say "No." or "Non." or "Nein." or "Ei." or "Nej." or "Hapana."

[Sith_Happens]

Here:

So if I'm reading this right, and I'm not sure I am, she's pissed about not being able to turn the chronicle into "aw3s0m3 werewlf pack kills da vamps," and also wanted free power dots and/or more starting XP?

[SowZ]

Actually - Killing Fiends is always a Good act, not Evil, and Everyone Else has to earn an Evil alignment by committing atrocities worth being removed from the world by swordpoint, at the Witness-Judge-Jury-Executioner's discretion.

The 3.5 rulebook says killing is NOT an Evil Act.

Alignment is not like Nationality or Skin Color. Alignment is a choice. People with an alignment are soldiers for their cosmic force. If you don't want to be killed by (Enemies of Nation X), don't sign up to join the army of (Nation X). If you don't want to join an army for a cosmic force, do not adopt an alignment.

Yes, inherently Evil beings is an exception. That doesn't change that the rules explicitly state that killing someone without a specific justified reason is murder, and by RAW someone's alignment is not a justified reason. Saying being Evil means someone has done something worthy of being murdered is something people made up. I behoove you to find that in the rules. Even if you found it, that doesn't change the fact that what you are advocating is murder according to the Book of Exalted Deeds. RAW is pretty clear that you can't just go around wiping out people of the Evil alignment and remain Good. Maybe you could make a case that such a character could be neutral, but beyond that this is pretty unambiguous.

[Tengu_temp]

Actually - Killing Fiends is always a Good act, not Evil, and Everyone Else has to earn an Evil alignment by committing atrocities worth being removed from the world by swordpoint, at the Witness-Judge-Jury-Executioner's discretion.

The 3.5 rulebook says killing is NOT an Evil Act.

Killing someone just because they ping on your evildar is not enough justification. It's an official rule, and it makes sense - a professional thief who never does anything good and only cares about himself is most likely evil, but just stealing is not enough to warrant killing.

Being good or evil does not mean consciously siding with the universal cosmic forces of good or evil. It just means you're doing enough good/evil deeds in your life and not enough of the opposite that you no longer count as neutral.